Nullification Victories!

 @StephenSmith1  @West Texan You are right on target - the answer isn't Republicans OR Democrats.  The answer is finding good candidates (whatever letter they have after their name) and electing them to office. How do you determine who is a good candidate?  Research how they voted when nobody was watching, and see if it lines up with their rhetoric.  If what they say and what they actually did doesn't match (like Romney) then you know you can't trust them - they are immediately taken out of consideration.  That's why Romney, Santorum and Gingrich were all non-starters as far as I'm concerned.

Then once you've taken the liars out, look for someone who agrees with your political philosophies.  This isn't necessarily simple - for example there were votes that Congressman Ron Paul took during his 30+ years in office that I thought I didn't agree with initially, but once I read the actual content of the bills he was voting on, in every instance I understood why he voted the way he did, and most of the time, once I understood what was at stake, I agreed with him.  That's what made Ron Paul the best candidate for me, and I'm doubly disappointed for him being cheated out of the nomination by the Romney campaign, as well as the fact that he's retiring from Congress this year.  But it's our responsibility as Americans to find more good candidates and vote them into office!

 @West Texan I'm not ready for it myself... NOW.  Several things need to be put into place beforehand.  One of these needs to be (in my opinion) the creation of state-owned banks, such as the Bank of North Dakota.  North Dakota is the ONLY state in the nation that is running a budget surplus, and it is all due to the fact that they aren't paying gargantuan amounts of interest to Wall Street banks.  So state-owned banks are an absolute must, because once any state secedes, it will be outside of the Federal Reserve System, and FRN's will be useless.

Number two: We need to be applying pressure on state legislatures to at least PREPARE articles of secession, and define precisely what conditions or actions by the federal government would trigger their enactment.  We should have been working on this years ago, in fact.  Waiting until martial law is declared and UN troops are on our street corners will be too late.

 @StephenSmith1 Yep, Decepticon prime gave us numerous assaults on our liberties. These are the things that I keep trying to point out to people who think that electing a bunch of  Republicans will solve all our problems.And then we'll all be able to sit around a campfire at camp david, sing kumbaya and the coke song, spot on Stephen!

 @StephenSmith1  @West Texan I agree the prospects are bleak, and honestly, I do share your frustration. But it's been my habit to work with what's available. Secession is not a realistic approach for now. Hopefully, it won't be necessary.   

 @Monorprise  The best federalism is no feds at all, in my view.  The only thing worth keeping out of the Constitution is the Bill of Rights.  To hell with the rest of it.  Let every state secede and let's get back to the Articles of Confederation, until we can figure something better out.  Seriously.

 @StephenSmith1  @Patrick Henry 

It is an opportunity to make a splash and bring forth the conversation. Let us hope that the ideas we submit are ready to sway yet even more minds to the cause of liberty, and perhaps if nessaray Independence.

The fact that we made it this far is a remarkable achievement seeing how much of this would be unthinkable just 5 years ago..

In any event it would be most helpful to hear mister Obama make a statement on the matter, whether that statement is in sympathy or in opposition.  Factually correct or factually erroneous.    The simple statement would be the foundation for many of our future efforts.

I mean that as a sonch supporter of the 10th amendment and less eager on the cause of Independence which i see as only a last resort.   When the mater of our union becomes a question of abuse or disagreement our importunity to  advocate & push for REAL federalism is greatest.

 @StephenSmith1  @Bob_In_Boston I think you're right about Governor Gardisil, he's another NWO stooge. It was a nice thought though. Who knows, if  the state legislatures start getting enough blowback from this. It might at least get the conversation started in a few states. The way I have it figured is, if you're going to dream. Might as well dream BIG!!!

 @StephenSmith1  @Patrick Henry I know it was naive of me, but I was hoping that Texas would throw the TSA agents in jail for sexual assault, the same way you would anyone else who touched your junk without permission.  But alas, like I said, Perry didn't have the 'nads to go through with it once the FAA said they would close down the airspace over Texas if they didn't back down. I would have called their bluff - there is no way the FAA could do that for more than a couple of days without HUGE repercussions from business who just needed to get there - the special interests would actually do some good for once!

 @Bob_In_Boston  @Patrick Henry Rick Perry attended a Bilderberg meeting a few years ago.  Nobody attends Bilderberg meetings without being a globalist One-Worlder first and always.  It should go without saying that globalist One-Worlders would never vote for secession of any state.  That would be totally contrary to the the basic tenet of world government. which is to concentrate power in one central place rather than scattering it in multiple places.

 @KansasBright  @DorotheaTeasley  @StephenSmith1  @mogul264 

"18 USC § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

Interesting...  I suspect if you were to try to bring charges against government officials for their actions against the constitution, they'd charge you with Sedition, and based on the age-old dictum of "whoever has the most guns makes the rules", you'd be on the wrong end of the stick.  Even if a bunch of people fight back (like gun owners after Katrina) it's not likely they'd be successful since the government has been practicing "urban operations" so much lately.  We've been seeing urban operations training in Boston alot more lately - they are getting ready for something, and I suspect when whatever that is comes down, it's going to start with firearms confiscation like after Katrina.

 @Bob_In_Boston  @DorotheaTeasley  @Bob_In_Boston  @StephenSmith1  @mogul264  Actually you are incorrect,  Bob_In_Boston.

Congress is the ONLY government body that has legislative power. It states in Article one, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress...”

Notice the word "All". There is NO room for interpretation. It does not mean most legislation and it does not mean all legislation except what a President may have a whim to pass, it means ALL legislation. Executive legislation (executive orders) is using the presidential office to pass law whichis not now, or ever has it been legal for a president to do so. It is just that we have ignored the illegality of those actions. Remember: The Constitution is our government, not the people elected to occupy temporary positions within in it to carry out the duties as assigned.

The powers of the government are limited by the Constitution. The Constitution is "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently…an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution, is void" (illegal, and legally cannot be enforced). It is the Supreme Law of this Land, and any act of the government must be consistent with it (in pursuance of the US Constitution). Only those acts made "in pursuance of" the Constitution are legal, and legally enforceable. It is higher than the government and its laws, for the Constitution created both, and the states - which were created by the people - created the US Constitution.

"Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution. They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution. Plus they create laws, amendments, bills, etc that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution".

The three branches of our government, the military, all law enforcement, the heads of the States, all federal employees are REQUIRED to take an Oath to support and defend the Constitution and NOT an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity (presidents take an Oath to Preserve, Protect, and Defend it). Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10.

Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10. The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure (political remedy that does not stop civil or criminal actions).

Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration - both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”.

Bound: “Being under legal or moral obligation; To constitute the boundary or limit of; To set a limit to; confine”.

"Under the American Constitution a new structure of government was established on a much higher plane than either the parliamentary system or the confederation of states. It was a people’s constitutional republic, where a certain amount of power was delegated to the states and a certain amount was delegated to the national government. There was a small dimension of power which they shared jointly. All other power was retained by the people. It is the delegation by the people of certain powers to the states and certain powers to the national government which we call ‘dual federalism.’" W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America

Treason: Title 18 US code section 2381: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

18 USC § 2382 - Misprision of treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

18 USC § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Obama, Panetta, Dempsey "giving" authority over the USA to the UN. They "gave" authority over the US Military to the UN = TREASON in front of the Senate, and in a letter to Boehner. UN at OUR elections to 'monitor" them? UN gun laws coming into effect soon here? UN taxing American citizens soon? All Treason.

@DorotheaTeasley @Bob_In_Boston @StephenSmith1 @mogul264 Dorothea, it's you who needs to do a bit more research, because you are buying into party propaganda without understanding how the system actually works. The president can write as many EOs and signing statements as he wants, but the founders were careful to add checks and balances for *everything*. Even when a sitting president files an executive order or creates a new agency in the executive branch, it still needs to be FUNDED, and only the house can do that. While some agencies like the CIA use illegal funding mechanisms like drug or arms sales to fund themselves without house appropriations, they can mostly do that because they operate outside our borders. Most other executive agencies are funded by the house and so they can starve programs they don't like if they want to. They choose not to starve them because despite the lip service, republicans are just as bad as democrats, because they are all really on the same side...

 @Bob_In_Boston  @StephenSmith1  @mogul264 Look, I wasn't born yesterday, for Pete's sake!  I have been well aware of Ben Franklin's "two wolves and a lamb" analogy for years now.  I am only trying to come up with a fix for our hopelessly-broken system of government, that concentrates all power into far too few hands.  I'm not saying my proposal doesn't have flaws in it.  Of course it has flaws.  We've just got to think through those flaws, though.  It doesn't mean they can't be overcome.  As it is now, there is little if anything protecting us from a "tyranny of Congress" right now!  How many of the American people do you think would have voted for the NDAA, for example?  Or the Patriot Act?  Or purchasing 30,000 drones to patrol our skies?  I can't think of ANY would vote for these things, frankly!  But yet Congress does it all the time....

 @Bob_In_Boston  @StephenSmith1  @mogul264  I hope you take a closer look and do more research Bob because with a stroke of a pen and the President can enact an executive order that would wipe all of our rights away. You need to take a closer look throughout history. The majority of the population was not for slavery; however, they chose to remain silent and not do anything till it split the country. We have seen throughout the last 100 plus years the silence of the majority and look where that has lead. A country that is divided in more ways than one. A people that is further apart then just before the Civil War. However, till the American people can unify and remember the spirit of America; then this country will be overrun. It is to our state governments that we must look at for protection.  

 @StephenSmith1  @TomPower1  @mogul264

 We are not the majority any more... We are a republic for multiple reasons. The tyranny of the majority is one reason we do not have a direct democracy. The populous is also emotionally reactive so the founders felt a representative form of government would temper that reaction and be more prudent. But our government is not without fault and the founders new that democracies do not last long. There are two quotes which come to my mind, forgive me if I misquote, "our form of government is only possible with a moral and godly people" and "our democracy is doomed once the people realize they can vote for money" I'm sure I butchered those quotes. LOL... Regarding the first quote for instance there are those that use our freedoms against us, like freedom of speech. There are those that will use freedom of speech to disparage our form of government, yet under the form they want they would not be allowed such freedoms. Another is capitalism, I'm a capitalist, but those that lie, cheat, and steal cause people to call for restrictions and regulations where  a moral people would not need such regulations. Lastly when people vote for other peoples money, well its runs out eventually.

@StephenSmith1@TomPower1@mogul264

 StephenSmith1.  TomPower1.  mogul264. 

First of all, the valid statistical polls are not just self-selected, which this group would be...  

and second of all, we still have a racial problem in this country, unless you subscribe to the idea that 93% of women voters would vote for a woman candidate over a male one....  they don't...    but we still see these race-baiting games being effective when 93% of black voters swing to a black candidate over another race.  Similarly, we saw excessively high percents of 'color' voters in the 'color' candidate's column...  

even in government union battles at the expense of taxpayers...  perhaps you can envision what happened in Ohio, under the contest with the unions, those teachers and government workers had favorable access to the ballot box with the afternoon off to go vote, and they and their self-serving relatives swamped the balloting after thoroughly threatening working parents with loss of their children's safety in the classroom and loss of the working parents' access to schoolage-daycare-services while they worked...

just like the school levy promoters characteristically used to threaten the catholics with loss of their 'free' bussing services if the public school levy didn't pass...  resulting in those catholic and private schools then blocking the ballot-control that public school parents should have had when they were dissatisfied with school performance.

And who would control what bills were proffered, the number of bills could be out of control..  the whole committee structure would seem to have a purpose that does not get served in the free-for-all idea..  much as it is tempting when we see the current mess...  ttyl

 @mogul264  @TomPower1 Yeah, well the solution to this mess is to abolish 'representative' democracy altogether, and let the people vote directly on each issue.  This would in the process eliminate the need for political parties also, which have been the main cause of the problems you describe, by promising a whole bunch but never delivering.

 @MJRaichyk  @TomPower1  @mogul264 I don't see how only 5% voting on an issue could be worse that the 0.0005% that we have voting on issues now.  Talk about tyranny by a minority, that's what we have now.

Also, I fail to understand how 5% of the population would be over-represented by welfare bums.  Don't you think others who work and pay taxes would have a vested interest in keeping those taxes down, and thus not just sit back and let the welfare bums decide everything?  Working people are far more likely to vote than people on welfare.

Public opinion polls are based on randomly sampling generally less than 1,000 people, to arrive at a statistical accuracy of 98% or more of reflecting the opinions of the general population.  How can increasing the "N" to 5 or 10 million possibly "skew" things in any certain direction?  Particularly if the people who actually vote on individual issues tend to be much more knowledgeable than the average man on the street?  If anything, I would think such a system would favor the middle-class above either the rich or the poor.

 @StephenSmith1  @TomPower1 Actually, I believe the once a majority WASP is now a MINORITY! All we are now good for is to provide funds, and LOTS of them, apparently! And, many of the once 'oppressed' minorities have clumped together under the Democrat umbrella, whether or not any true progress is made toward solving minority problems. The Democrats, however, do NOTHING to resolve difficulties minorities meet in daily life, but, instead, aggravate and MAGNIFY them to cause further friction and strife, thus ENSURING they stay agitated, and stay WITHIN the fold!

For instance, blacks, kept in slavery by Democrats, were freed by a Republican President! They were denied their rights and were discriminated against by Democrats! They were then given the vote and equal rights and equal education by Republicans, yet the Democrats now claim to be their 'protector'! So they VOTE Democrat!

So, if you scream a lie loudly enough, repeat it often enough, and say it long enough, many accept it as the 'truth' !

 @StephenSmith1  @TomPower1  @mogul264 The tyranny of the 'majority' would devolve into multiple tyrannies of minorities, under the description of your own vision of barely 5% at any one time being interested in the issue they have proffered.  Total chaotic back and forth as the next issue compounds the flaws in the previous.  Becoming more like a brawl.  ttyl

 @TomPower1  @mogul264 How is tyranny of a minority any better?  That's what we have now.

 @StephenSmith1 Unfortunately, those who DON'T vote due to apathy, ignorance, or whatever, are exceeded GREATLY by those who feel they have something to gain at the expense of others! Specifically, 'pet' projects, pork, or welfare recipients who ensure their elected representatives are returned term after term, and who, in turn, reward the lethargic AND the greedy with largesse! This becomes the tyranny of the majority when these recipients exceed productive, working voters!

@StephenSmith1 @mogul264 because election fraud has nothing to do with anything that has happened in the last, and about 6 previous elections (sarcasm).

The only thing we need to do is to hold our representatives to their *legally binding Oaths.  That alone would make all this "stuff" 'null and void' and make them (most) arrestable and prosecutable. Why do you think they try to make everyone believe the "oath" is just words?

The Constitution is the Supreme law of this land, not those temps we put into office - though they like to make us think they are.

* The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10.

The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure (political remedy for political offense which does not make them immune to civil or criminal prosecutions).

Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration - both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”.

Bound: “Being under legal or moral obligation; To constitute the boundary or limit of; To set a limit to; confine”.

These makes it a civil offense, and depending on what their actions was to break the Oath, may also be a criminal offense.

If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath REQUIRE it of those who take the Oaths? 

If the US Constitution is not our government anymore then we are under attack from within by domestic enemies and it is way past time to support and defend our legitimate government.

 @mogul264 But this is precisely what we HAVE right now!  Millions of apathetic, unconcerned people who have "passed the buck" on to their "representatives" who then proceed to shaft all of us! Under my plan, those people will continue to be apathetic and simply NOT VOTE on any proposed legislation!  That would leave only the people who are truly engaged and committed that would determine the outcome of any bill.  I wouldn't be surprised if this amounted to only 5 to 10 percent of the current electorate, but that would still amount to millions of people, as opposed to only a few hundred like we have now who could easily be compromised.  The alternative is to keep on doing what we have been for the past 200+ years - keep on voting for "representatives" who show no real interest in representing the people.  Also, my idea would encourage people to get much more involved politically and pay attention to what is going on.  I strongly suspect that the main reason so many are apathetic is that they have (rightly) concluded that their vote simply doesn't matter anymore, because all they are voting for is someone who will ignore their desires.

The one caveat I can think of to my plan is seeing millions of people vote for entitlement programs that we simply cannot afford.  But this could be prevented by passing a balanced budget amendment that would require us to live within our means.

 @StephenSmith1 I don't believe there are a LOT of stupid people out there, but I DO believe there are a lot of UNCONCERNED, or ILL-ADVISED, or IGNORANT people! Many are unwilling to devote ANY time to attempt understanding the ramifications of what some bills entail! They are totally tied up in their own personal lives, have a short attention span,  or are playing video games, or whatever,  and are willing to just 'let George do it', make decisions FOR them! These deserve what they get, however this IS NOT what is best for the rest of us!

 @mogul264 Most legislation that I've seen anyway requires very little in the way of factual knowledge, but more simply sound moral judgement, along with knowledge of the Constitution.  There should be a limit to the length of any bill, say no more than 10 pages.  Some bills, such as Cap n Trade, DO require scientific knowledge.  Proponents of such a bill can provide their side of the story, while opponents can provide their side.  Anybody with a high school diploma should be able understand the arguments and reach a decision, based on the information that everyone will have access to.

Admittedly there are a lot of stupid people out there, but it's my belief that these people don't represent nearly as much of a threat to basic liberty as do corrupt officials, who are supposedly 'representing' us, but who can be very easily bribed or blackmailed into voting against their constituents' best interests, simply because they are easily accessible in one location (the Capitol building) and are few in number compared to millions of people voting on various bills.  And just having millions of voters on bills pretty well insures the outcome will be for the "common good", rather than for any individual's personal or political gain.

 @StephenSmith1  @mogul264 The Judge who said the NDAA is unconstitutional Judge Katherine Forrest, a recent Obama appointee to the federal bench - who I am sure Obama regrets that appointment ... lol