Comments on: Take Action and Support Sovereignty Today!

By: scott owens

scott owens — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:10:00 +0000

What is interesting here is that I tried submitting the above question with
my work account. It did not work so I tried my home email. It did.

Is my work email blocked for postings

By: scott owens

scott owens — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 11:07:25 +0000

I am interested and I am not sniping,

I am interested in the federal govt being smaller – although smaller does not mean better.
What I am not getting is …. specifically why …

If this is such a large problem there should be 5 items immediately shareable on what you want the federal government to stop doing.
I think you really can not do that.

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 01:05:22 +0000

Scott – the real question is not what good or bad things do you want to do. It’s not what programs do some people want to protect and others don’t.

The question is this – do you want to have a government that is required to follow the rules? Or, do you prefer the George Bush style of government that spent 8 years of doing whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted?

Doesn’t seem like you’re interested in answering that fundamental question. But, if you do, I might decide to weigh in on a few things that you’ve been here trying to snipe with.

By: scott owens

scott owens — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:34:10 +0000

Bryce,

Can you give me 5 examples of the problems you see Kansas having issues with the Federal Government ? Using non-specific “limits provided by” and “an end to centralized power” does not really speak to the issue you see.

In 2005 we got back $1.12 per dollar sent in taxes. Where are we going to make up that 12% ?

I think the State is pretty much broke. Any and all money is welcome.
We have 42,000 Federal employees and retires – http://www.eyeonwashington.com/few_map_2008/htm/Kansas.html
Would you want to fire them or stop their income ?

You might want to carefully read this web site which is an analysis of labor data -
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16365468/Kansas-loses-private-sector-jobs-as-government-grows
Kansas has the third highest State Government ratio of employees to residents.

Thank you.

By: Bryce Shonka

Bryce Shonka — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:38:25 +0000

Scott,

This movement is about holding the Federal Government to the limits provided by the US constitution. In short, we want an end to centralized power that goes beyond those limits.

By: scott owens

scott owens — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:09:03 +0000

No,

Really. What do you want the feds to stop doing ?
Insuring people ? regulating banks ? bailing out car companies ?
EPA ? FDA ? Currency ?
And we are not splitting up the country … We would not come out very much ahead.

By: DeNeece Butler

DeNeece Butler — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:42:28 +0000

Thomkind: Should have proof-read more carefully. When I talked about 8 sections, of course, I meant 6. DeNeece

By: DeNeece Butler

DeNeece Butler — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:40:46 +0000

Thank you, Thomkind for your response. While I realize full well that what I propose would be a challenge of gargantuan proportionsn, my initial thinking about it is as follows: This country is just too damned big for central government that tries to govern all aspects of our lives. And, there are too many variables. I see the country in basically 6 sections, each with its own cultural identity. What is good for the Northwest is not necessarily good for the Southeast or any of the other sections.

Seems to me that there is power in numbers. For some fights with the Federal government, wouldn’t we be more effective having 6 sections opposing them rather than 50 states? Wouldn’t the requirement for whatever the US Congress tries to do be ratified by the 6 entities (sections) server our purpose?

Yes, I recognize that this would require a Constitutional Amendment, and should such a direction be chosen, it would take years to establish and iron out how these sections of the country would inter-relate with the federal government. But I’m beginning to think it would be worth it to let the Southeastern 8 states conduct our own affairs when it comes to health, education, and welfare within the parameters of our own culture and people. Yes, we would all still be neighbors, but neighbors with more clout with the Fed.

I envision such a resurgence of pride and motivation in being allowed to control our own Southeastern affairs and free ourselves from the abuses of the Fed.

Do you think my ideas have any merit at all? DeNeece

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:28:21 +0000

Scott Owens – the first step for you would be to understand that the people created the federal government for limited purposes only. Then, read the constitution and see what’s been authorized to them. Once you have those basics, you can see that much of what they do is not authorized – and rather than asking such questions, you can educate others.

Start here.

By: scott owens

scott owens — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:09:38 +0000

Are you looking to drop the drinking age to 18 and ensure that we don’t lose highway funds – not sure what our state would look like without federal highway dollars. How about the airplane company – what would we do without that ? Do away with Federal meat processing standards so the rest of the US would only want to buy Texas or California beef ?

Do you want to ensure that we can go to war against Nebraska over water rights ? Or that the EPA can regulate our air and CO2 emissions ?

What exactly are your concerns ?