The United States needs to be broken up...peacefully. If we are honest and objective in our observations of the U.S. in 2008, we can conclude the following.
1. We no longer have a truly representative government. Anyone who thinks we still do simply is not facing reality.
2. In the last 232 years, the U.S. has become so large and diverse that common individuals no longer are represented in DC. Our central government has evolved into an unwieldy, wasteful, bumbling, out-of-touch monster...with an insatiable appetite.
3. Thanks to both the Democrats and Republicans, the central government essentially has merged with super-giant corporations, creating a Federal Establishment of the money, by the money, and for the money.
4. The sheer size of our population (and its diversity) and our land mass virtually necessitate the implementation of a near-Police-State in order to control the People.
5. The American Empire (created by Globalists of both major political parties) no longer does what is best for this country, but rather does what is best for the multi-national corporations.
6. The professional politicians and the bureaucrats in DC have a one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with individual States and regions of the country.
Secession is nowhere prohibited by the U.S Constitution. As a matter of fact, the original nation-States of New York and Virginia would not ratify the Constitution until their delegates were given assurances that withdrawal from the Union was allowed.
The secessionist movement in general in this country has been around for decades. Some of the better known individual movements are: the State of Jefferson (northern California and SW Oregon), the modern-day Republic of Texas, Cascadia, Aztlan, Vermont, California, South Carolina, and the Republic of Lakotah. Vermont has a very active secessionist movement ongoing, with about 66,000 people involved.
Let's keep in mind that being under a government is voluntary; also, our central government does not own the People or the land of this country. If some wish to form their own government, they should be permitted to do so. Did our Founders fight a War of Independence...or a War of Dependence?
Here's an excellent source regarding the philosophy, history, and current state of secession: http://www.middleburyinstitute.org/ .
An excellent commentary on secession:
http://www.goodmagazine.com/section/Features/most_likely_to_secede .
Trailer of the film, A State of Mine:
http://astateofmine.com/trailer.html
The Republic of Lakotah:
http://www.republicoflakotah.com/ .
Smaller, more regional is better.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Why McCain Might Win in November
Some Democrats think that their Party has a lock on the upcoming election.
Not that I want him to, but the Bomb-Bomb-Iran Man has a good chance of winning the Presidency. Here's why---
1. Nader.
2. The Dems talked big prior to last Nov, got elected, and did very little. Plus, they could have stopped the war funding by not proposing ANY funding bill. (There was enough $$$ in the pipeline to bring the troops home safely and quickly.) Many people have not forgotten that. The Dems appear to be big talkers, not big doers. I won't even mention the failure to ________ Bush.
3. Believe it or not, many people think 100-More-Years-in-Iraq McCain is a Moderate. (Yes, unfortunately it's true...that's what they think.)
4. Hillary is despised by a huge number of voters.
5. This is still a racist country...to some degree or another.
6. Some people PREFER a President of one Party and a Congress of the other Party.
7. Illegal immigration is a HUGE issue. McCain isn't much tougher on it than the Dems, but he is a bit.
8. Some Evangelicals are fed up with the GOP, but most would prefer any Repub to any Dem.
9. The Machiavellian use of FEAR is a powerful tool, especially in a country where voters apparently have trouble reasoning.
Prediction: the election will be no cake walk for the Dems.
They should have been promoting Ron Paul behind the scenes. Then they would be guaranteed a victory, given the tastes of 90% of the American electorate.
Not that I want him to, but the Bomb-Bomb-Iran Man has a good chance of winning the Presidency. Here's why---
1. Nader.
2. The Dems talked big prior to last Nov, got elected, and did very little. Plus, they could have stopped the war funding by not proposing ANY funding bill. (There was enough $$$ in the pipeline to bring the troops home safely and quickly.) Many people have not forgotten that. The Dems appear to be big talkers, not big doers. I won't even mention the failure to ________ Bush.
3. Believe it or not, many people think 100-More-Years-in-Iraq McCain is a Moderate. (Yes, unfortunately it's true...that's what they think.)
4. Hillary is despised by a huge number of voters.
5. This is still a racist country...to some degree or another.
6. Some people PREFER a President of one Party and a Congress of the other Party.
7. Illegal immigration is a HUGE issue. McCain isn't much tougher on it than the Dems, but he is a bit.
8. Some Evangelicals are fed up with the GOP, but most would prefer any Repub to any Dem.
9. The Machiavellian use of FEAR is a powerful tool, especially in a country where voters apparently have trouble reasoning.
Prediction: the election will be no cake walk for the Dems.
They should have been promoting Ron Paul behind the scenes. Then they would be guaranteed a victory, given the tastes of 90% of the American electorate.
Monday, February 18, 2008
The Flaws in the Constitution
As much as I defend the Constitution, I don't think we even should have one. Let's not forget that it took well over a year of bitter debate before all of the original States ratified it. The two States at the tail end of that process did so only because they had little economic choice.
1. The Constitution had a very nefarious beginning...the original purpose of the meeting was to AMEND the Articles of Confederation, but some of the attendees launched (in secret) a plan to dump the Articles entirely.
2. It was written only for Caucasian males---no one else was considered a full citizen. It took women over a hundred years to get the right to vote. (Actually, they had it all along, but no one enforced it. It is, after all, an unalienable right to participate in the choosing of who governs you, and is not dependent on any government grant.)
3. It is not anywhere nearly as important a philosophical document as is the Declaration of Independence.
4. It assumed that because Supreme Court judges were appointed for life, they would not be politically influenced. That was a major fatal flaw.
5. It contains several minor flaws, such as not defining "General Welfare", and not placing term limits on members of Congress (it never occurred to the Founders that anyone would want to make a CAREER out of political office), and having no penalty on Congress for failing to call an Article V Convention when enough States request it. And there are others.
6. It failed to make crystal clear the fact that secession is allowed. As I've pointed out before, New York and Virginia would not ratify the Constitution until they were given assurances that withdrawal from the Union was allowed.
I really believe we would be better off with a loose confederation of nation-States under the Articles, a model somewhat similar to what Europe is today. All that was needed were amendments for: a common standard for money; some inter-State commerce rules; and taxes for "national" (Confederation) defense. With the Constitution, they tried hard to make a nation where States' rights were more important than the central government, but they largely failed. So today we have a "one-size-fits-all" approach by the plutocracy in DC, which is imposed on the States whether they like it or not. And of course, it is the States who are the People, NOT DC.
I hate to say it, but I believe that the Founders failed in accomplishing what they set out to do...to establish a free society. I stay here because I love the land, and because I've seen nothing better anywhere else. Nevertheless, I'm convinced that this is not the society that our Founders envisioned when they declared independence.
1. The Constitution had a very nefarious beginning...the original purpose of the meeting was to AMEND the Articles of Confederation, but some of the attendees launched (in secret) a plan to dump the Articles entirely.
2. It was written only for Caucasian males---no one else was considered a full citizen. It took women over a hundred years to get the right to vote. (Actually, they had it all along, but no one enforced it. It is, after all, an unalienable right to participate in the choosing of who governs you, and is not dependent on any government grant.)
3. It is not anywhere nearly as important a philosophical document as is the Declaration of Independence.
4. It assumed that because Supreme Court judges were appointed for life, they would not be politically influenced. That was a major fatal flaw.
5. It contains several minor flaws, such as not defining "General Welfare", and not placing term limits on members of Congress (it never occurred to the Founders that anyone would want to make a CAREER out of political office), and having no penalty on Congress for failing to call an Article V Convention when enough States request it. And there are others.
6. It failed to make crystal clear the fact that secession is allowed. As I've pointed out before, New York and Virginia would not ratify the Constitution until they were given assurances that withdrawal from the Union was allowed.
I really believe we would be better off with a loose confederation of nation-States under the Articles, a model somewhat similar to what Europe is today. All that was needed were amendments for: a common standard for money; some inter-State commerce rules; and taxes for "national" (Confederation) defense. With the Constitution, they tried hard to make a nation where States' rights were more important than the central government, but they largely failed. So today we have a "one-size-fits-all" approach by the plutocracy in DC, which is imposed on the States whether they like it or not. And of course, it is the States who are the People, NOT DC.
I hate to say it, but I believe that the Founders failed in accomplishing what they set out to do...to establish a free society. I stay here because I love the land, and because I've seen nothing better anywhere else. Nevertheless, I'm convinced that this is not the society that our Founders envisioned when they declared independence.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
A Call to All Ron Paul Supporters
You can't win a fixed game. There is no point in rehashing all the ways in which the game is fixed; anyone who is up on things knows them. It is now virtually impossible for Dr. Paul to win the Republican nomination. He has vowed to continue to get the Liberty message out, and that's a very good thing; but it should be obvious to all by now that the nomination is not in the cards.
Months ago, I issued a call (on another forum) to all in the Liberty Movement. This piece is a restatement of that call. We cannot change the corrupt system from within that system; at least, history shows us that has not been done in (at a minimum) the last fifty or so years. Something new is needed. The answer does not seem to be a third party because the two-party dictatorship and Uncle TOM (Tired Old Media) have pretty well seen to it that such an approach does not stand a chance of success.
In my opinion, the first thing we need is a place to meet, organize, discuss, identify and plan for the implementation of action items. A website appears to be the only practical solution. Some person, or some group, needs to step up to the plate and provide this first step. I'd do it myself, but I'm basically dirt poor and a techno-idiot. Free websites will not do because they don't have enough bells and whistles for the task at hand.
Once we have a website, then what? We need to discuss and decide on a plan of action. Personally, I favor boycotts that are planned, coordinated, timed, and implemented on a national scale...and that can be done individually and wherever a person is located. But if someone has a better idea, I'm all ears. The only thing I wouldn't consider is armed revolt. That's a very bad idea that would be doomed to failure and would set this Movement back by decades. We also need to advertise both our website and our goals far and wide. So, again, we need a sponsor with a little money to spend.
At present the Liberty Movement is composed of a variety of subset groups and websites that do not act in a coordinated manner. This has to change if we are to restore our beloved Republic. Again, I stress that such restoration is not going to be accomplished from within the Establishment system. We have to start thinking out of the box; moreover, I believe that we have to start thinking about coordinated, timed civil disobedience.
Something else that could be done along the same lines is to form our own online government, if for no other reason as a visible protest and a visible alternative to the Corporatocracy. Something has to be done. I fear for my son's future, and he's almost thirty-two years old. And so I issue this call, this plea to those who understand and love Liberty---someone, or some group, step up and let's get things rolling.
Comments? Suggestions? Anyone?
Months ago, I issued a call (on another forum) to all in the Liberty Movement. This piece is a restatement of that call. We cannot change the corrupt system from within that system; at least, history shows us that has not been done in (at a minimum) the last fifty or so years. Something new is needed. The answer does not seem to be a third party because the two-party dictatorship and Uncle TOM (Tired Old Media) have pretty well seen to it that such an approach does not stand a chance of success.
In my opinion, the first thing we need is a place to meet, organize, discuss, identify and plan for the implementation of action items. A website appears to be the only practical solution. Some person, or some group, needs to step up to the plate and provide this first step. I'd do it myself, but I'm basically dirt poor and a techno-idiot. Free websites will not do because they don't have enough bells and whistles for the task at hand.
Once we have a website, then what? We need to discuss and decide on a plan of action. Personally, I favor boycotts that are planned, coordinated, timed, and implemented on a national scale...and that can be done individually and wherever a person is located. But if someone has a better idea, I'm all ears. The only thing I wouldn't consider is armed revolt. That's a very bad idea that would be doomed to failure and would set this Movement back by decades. We also need to advertise both our website and our goals far and wide. So, again, we need a sponsor with a little money to spend.
At present the Liberty Movement is composed of a variety of subset groups and websites that do not act in a coordinated manner. This has to change if we are to restore our beloved Republic. Again, I stress that such restoration is not going to be accomplished from within the Establishment system. We have to start thinking out of the box; moreover, I believe that we have to start thinking about coordinated, timed civil disobedience.
Something else that could be done along the same lines is to form our own online government, if for no other reason as a visible protest and a visible alternative to the Corporatocracy. Something has to be done. I fear for my son's future, and he's almost thirty-two years old. And so I issue this call, this plea to those who understand and love Liberty---someone, or some group, step up and let's get things rolling.
Comments? Suggestions? Anyone?
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Chain of Custody in NH Recount
As someone who has taught Chain of Custody procedures [for an Environmental Tech Training Program at a vocational college], I can tell you with absolute certainty that that NH ballots are not being handled properly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHL_YMBolRs
There is no excuse for this travesty---none whatsoever. Elections in this country have become a total joke, what with easily hackable touch-screen voting machines & optical scanners [with viruses that leave no trace & self-destruct] plus the world's shabbiest chain of custody procedures.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzPXer7946E
It's beyond belief.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHL_YMBolRs
There is no excuse for this travesty---none whatsoever. Elections in this country have become a total joke, what with easily hackable touch-screen voting machines & optical scanners [with viruses that leave no trace & self-destruct] plus the world's shabbiest chain of custody procedures.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzPXer7946E
It's beyond belief.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Warlord McCain
"Bomb-Bomb Iran."
"Make it a hundred years...500 years."
"I'm going to bring you more wars, my friends."
This guy is appealing (with crazy talk) to MAYBE 20% of the electorate...and turning off the other 80% or so. What a strategy.
Since many Republicans viewed the Swift Boat attacks against Kerry as legitimate (I'm not saying they were or weren't), maybe they'll also appreciate these---for which I have no opinion as to legitimacy---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBiti-ZbeO0
"Make it a hundred years...500 years."
"I'm going to bring you more wars, my friends."
This guy is appealing (with crazy talk) to MAYBE 20% of the electorate...and turning off the other 80% or so. What a strategy.
Since many Republicans viewed the Swift Boat attacks against Kerry as legitimate (I'm not saying they were or weren't), maybe they'll also appreciate these---for which I have no opinion as to legitimacy---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBiti-ZbeO0
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Uncle TOM Gets It Wrong Again
In a political primary contest, it's the number of delegates that determines the winner; that often corresponds to the popular vote, but not always. Our Uncle, the Tired Old Media, declared Hillary Clinton the winner in Nevada in the Democratic race. Here is the number of delegates won by each of the top two candidates in that race: Obama---13; Clinton---12. Hello, TOM, Hillary lost.
On top of that, did you notice the amount of coverage given to the second place winner in the Republican race in Nevada? Was there any coverage? The marginalizing of Ron Paul continues. In every other race thus far, the second place (and often the third place) winner either has been interviewed or, at least, discussed by the pundits. There hardly was any mention of even Paul's name.
The Corporate Media are busy molding public opinion, convincing people that at this early stage in the Presidential race certain candidates simply are not viable. Keep in mind that some time ago TOM essentially had written off John McCain as being out of the running. Now the Media are busy promoting certain candidates, while at the same time declaring that the Dem and Repub races are "wide open".
On top of that, did you notice the amount of coverage given to the second place winner in the Republican race in Nevada? Was there any coverage? The marginalizing of Ron Paul continues. In every other race thus far, the second place (and often the third place) winner either has been interviewed or, at least, discussed by the pundits. There hardly was any mention of even Paul's name.
The Corporate Media are busy molding public opinion, convincing people that at this early stage in the Presidential race certain candidates simply are not viable. Keep in mind that some time ago TOM essentially had written off John McCain as being out of the running. Now the Media are busy promoting certain candidates, while at the same time declaring that the Dem and Repub races are "wide open".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)