Thread: Here's The Plan

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Sapperwes

We lost state's rights with the cival war.I don't think that war was about slavery,it was about states rights.Not that I am agreeing with slavery,it was a bad thing and needed to be stopped,but we lost our state's rights then.

EXACTLY! If the Civil War was about slavery, then why did Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only free the slaves in the Confederacy and not those in the remaining federal territories and mixed states? The fact is that the war was fought over tariffs and the grossly disproportionate taxation of the Southern states that was being used to fund westaward expansion and to support the flagging industrial North. when the states that became the Confederacy exercised the option afforded them by the nation's charter, the Declaration of Independence, and cast off a government that no longer served their People, the North instigated a war. Because the President had no constitutionally delegated power to act against the seceding states and because Congress could not lawfully act so long as the Union declared that the states that seceded were still part of the Union (because there was no quorum), Lincoln sought power from the European monarchical system under the Holy Roman Empire and gained new powers through apotheosis under the governance of the Church of Rome. That is why the Vatican artist, Brumidi, came and commemorated the event by painting the Apotheosis of Washington (using George Washington as the symbol for the office of the Presidency in perpetuity) on the Capitol rotunda in the middle of a raging war. The Vatican claimed its primacy over the new Civil Republic under roman civil law by also placing the statue of Persephone atop the Capitol dome at the same time.

Once the war was over, the federal government assumed dictatorial powers and has never truly relented.

The southern states seceded from the unholy union by a "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession . . . from the Federal Union." because the union had become destruction to the states, their citizens and the economies of the south. Being the minority in the federal union, the states had no other option

In 1860, Senator Jefferson Davis delivered a speech to the Democratic Convention at Jackson, Mississippi where he warned
[quote:1h8v6uyo]"A party [Congress and Mexico] too powerful to be unheeded, and marked, as nations are distinguished, by territorial limits,[citizens and aliens] is now organized for the destruction of the labor system [exporting jobs of the American people, importing guest workers] of the South [states], and seeks to obtain possession of the General government, that its machinery [aliens] may be used in aid of their war upon the sovereign States . . " [a stateless, propertyless, classless society . . . communism is the goal] the political division of a people because of different opinions [immigration v. invasion] upon matters of joint interest; [security of the states] but it is in the nature of foreign war waged for conquest and dominion [ foreign investors, guest worker programs and refusal to secure the borders]. . ."

Thus, he concluded that the great question at stake in the presidential election of 1860 was "whether the federal Government should be a Government of the whole for the benefit of all its equal members, [the states] or (if it should continue to exist at all) a sectional Government for the benefit of a part [illegal aliens and foreign investors]. . . ."

Prior to the secession of the states, The Mississippi Free Trader reported that "Senator Jefferson Davis said he would support the secession of his State only if he believed it to be necessary "to go out of the Union with the Constitution, rather than abandon the Constitution, to remain in an Union." . . " After seceding from the union, he addressed the senate with these words

"Senators, we recur to the principles upon which our Government was founded; and when you deny to us the right to withdraw from a Government which, thus perverted, threatens to be destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence and take the hazard. This is done, not in hostility to others, not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own pecuniary benefit, but from the high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights we inherited, and which it is our duty to transmit unshorn to our children."

The south seceded peacefully from the unholy union because the north wanted the federal government to have increased power over the states and the south wanted to reserve all of the "undefined powers" to the individual states as guaranteed under the Constitution — ‘States Rights.' The states emancipated themselves and their citizens -- they freed themselves from the federal government

The southern states had a right to secede to protect their citizens and economy from high tariffs that protected northern manufacturers – now free trade agreements threaten the economy of the several states by exporting and out-sourcing the jobs of the American people. Unfair tariff's caused the states to declare independence from Great Britain and in their Declaration of Independence they declared that "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of those ends , it is the right of the own people to alter or abolish it" — the south had the right to secede from it's voluntary union. Even though the south had the right of secession under the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, again, the American Patriots had to fight the ‘king' and shed blood in their struggle for independence.

Later, as Confederate President, Jefferson Davis wrote ". . I staked all my property and reputation on the defense of States' rights and constitutional liberty as I understand them . . " – as he was taught at West Point. Confederate President Jefferson Davis was right and history has proven the south was right – the great empire that the Confederates predicted and fought against came to pass. Violating the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and ‘tax farming' all got it's roots during the 'Lincoln Regime' under color of United States Authority.

The federal government has ‘revolutionized' our republican form of government without a shot being fired. Without accountability, these "cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men" were able "to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government" and that "change by usurpation" was the "weapon by which free governments" . . . .

Like the southern states, the economy of all the states and the livelihood of their citizens are suffering because the federal corporation, operating as a business and not the government of the citizens and the states, is protecting manufacturers by exporting the jobs of the American people through free trade agreements – jobs that paid fair wages with benefits, leaving jobs without adequate pay and no benefits. Now the federal corporation wants to implement programs for foreigners to do the jobs the American people won't do.

Alabama Coalition for State's Rights
March 7, 2006

[/quote:1h8v6uyo]

If slavery was the reason for the civil war, all the southern states had to do was ratify the original 13th amendment -- the original 13th amendment was ratified by Illinois prior to the civil war

"No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." --Joint Resolution of Congress, Adopted March 2, 1861"

http://www.geocities.com/ghostamendment/

The Original 13th Amendment

On 2 March 1861, the Lincoln controlled 36th U. S. Congress (minus, of course, the seven seceded states of the Deep South) passed by a two-thirds majority a proposed amendment to the Constitution. Had it been ratified by the requisite number of states before the war intervened and signed by President Lincoln (who looked favourably on it as a way to lure the Southern states back into the Union), the proposed 13th Amendment would have prohibited the U. S. government from ever abolishing or interfering with slavery in any state.

With slavery not being their reason for leaving the Union, the Southern States were not interested in returning and paying unfair tariffs that were being spent almost exclusive on Northern infrastructure.

"If the South had only wanted to protect slavery, all they had to do was go along with the ORIGINAL 13th Amendment, offered in early 1861 after several states had seceded, which would have protected slavery for all time in the states where it then existed. This was not inducement enough
to bring South Carolina or any others back into the fold.

The States of the Confederacy, even today, could block the passage of the 13th Amendment, and certainly could have then. This is exactly why the Slaveholders wanted to stay in the Union.. Their "property" was protected by the Constitution." Charlie Lott
http://www.southernmessenger.org/14th_amendment.htm

Abraham Lincoln decided to make a 'moral issue' out of a Constitutional one to prevent Europe from becoming the allies of the Confederacy.

NOW they -- the President and the Senate -- are trying to make a 'moral issue' out of this illegal invasion by calling it 'immigration' and claiming these foreigners are doing the jobs the American people won't do.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by badthingsman

Originally Posted by Sapperwes

Gotta love armed Americans If you all in Texas could get a Secession
I do think alot of Americans would come there to support you.Bet the goverment would secure that border

We could do it if we were able to unify. However, most Texans prefer to remain under the protection of the federal government. Even if things get really bad and we find we would be better off by ourselves and without the federal government, I doubt we would have much success unifying as an independent nation. I think we lost a bit of our "states rights" strength after the civil war ended. (And yes, I agree, the civil war was not about slavery. The idea of slavery was simply a tool used to motivate people to take a stance against the South on moral grounds, when the real issue should have been states rights and economics.)

Well then, let's change that.

I'm all for it. I would be willing to compromise on several issues in exchange for a functional system with enough arms and manpower to protect and secure the state. How do we even go about beginning something so huge?

I heard an urban ledgen that Texas has so special session right in it's constitution.Is that true?

Originally Posted by Sapperwes

I heard an urban ledgen that Texas has so special session right in it's constitution.Is that true?

“All political power is inherent in the people ... and they have at all times the ...
right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper.”

— Republic of Texas Constitution, 1836

I think that is about as close as it gets.

There is also this website: http://www.texasrepublic.com/

Originally Posted by Sapperwes

I heard an urban ledgen that Texas has so special session right in it's constitution.Is that true?

The issue is that Texas was never properly readmitted to the Union. As late as the 1890s, the Supreme Court was trying to figure out what to do about the "Texas question." Texas was the only state to be a nation prior to becoming a state. The conditions for Texas statehood were plainly set forth for both sides. Texas had two of its conditions, federal payment for lands ceded to the US and protection from Mexican border raids, not fulfilled by the federal government. It therefore had due cause to withdraw from its agreement with the Union and resume nationhood, which is what it did briefly before joining the Confederacy. The Union was able to order the other states back into the Union, but it had no legal footing to order Texas back in. There were grave doubts as to whether the Texas citizenry would vote for readmission of it was put to a vote, so the federal government just pretended that Texas was readmitted and the Reconstruction state government quietly went along with it. The issue was raised legally in several cases and never resolved.

As a consequence, Texas retains the right to secession. Texas, as an equal republic to the United States is the only "state" whose flag may be flown at the same height as the US flag (that is a courtesy reserved for other nations, not subordinate states). During WWII, Texas governor Coke Stevenson again asserted the special status of Texas by "loaning" Texas forces to the federal war effort after making his own separate declaration of war.

Most recently, a Texas group has asserted the independence of Texas as a free republic based upon evidence that the Texas Republic never ceased to be according to the constitutional procedures set forth for the dissolution of the republic. The group has asserted that the de facto state government is illegitimate and has created a parallel republic government that has even succeeded in obtaining treaties with several European nations. The Texas Attorney General attempted to quash the "republic" and filed a series of charges against its officers. The case went to the Texas Supreme Court where the charges were dismissed on the basis that the republic was beyond the jurisdiction of the state courts. Interesting stuff, and still ongoing as far as I am aware.

Originally Posted by greyparrot

Crocketsghost -

Several years ago there was Philly talk radio host, Irv Homer, who literally begged his audience to educate themselves regarding the Federal Reserve "fraud" you speak of a few posts up. I also remember that he would urge familes (extended) to incorporate...and something about loaning it's members money for major purchases (homes) rather than going through banks. Unfortunately, the timing of my job and his program, limited my listening to the last half hour of his 2 hour show. I must admit I never "got" it, which is why I have read your post over and over again.

Let's say that the only "money" available is in the form of interest-carrying IOU's (which is in fact the case), and let's say that those are the only medium of exchange. Now, let's say that I'm the first guy to take out a loan, and I take $100 to build a lemonade stand. Part of the money goes for lumber to John's lumber yard. Part of it is spend for nails from Frank's hardware store. Another part is spent for plastic cups, sugar, and lemons from Julia's market. Now, let's say that my little lemonade stand is so successful that by the end of the year I have had enough business from John, Frank, and Julia that I have retrieved all $100 I spent with them. Time to repay the loan. How much money do I have? How much is the most that I can have? Unless someone else has gone into debt and put some more IOUs in circulation, the most I can possibly have in my pocket is $100 in IOUs, yet I owe %106 because of interest. Because I cannot possibly repay, given that not enough meny exists for me to repay, the issuer of the loan forecloses on my little lemonade stand, which is now the lender's lemonade stand. Ah, but the lender doesn't want to operate a lemonade stand, so he hires me to work the lemonade stand for a fraction of what I would have earned as the owner/operator and he earns all the profits while I scrape by. But at least I have a job, right?

I am having the most trouble understanding this part of your post. To wit, why "you" could not have made the more than the 100.00 "you borrowed".

Also, could you recommend a website, or book, that would help me fully understand this? Though I was young and SO naive when I used to listen to Irv, your post brought back the ugency and conviction in his voice when he spoke on this matter.

Well, it's as simple as this. There is no more real money. That means that all wealth out there is represented by FRNs or the promise of FRNs, since the only way that an FRN is created is that someone goes into debt for that amount. At any time, there is a finite quantity of FRNs, though more are created as soon as new debt is incurred. At any point in time, the total number of FRNs, whether in actual currency or represented as credits in various accounts, can be no more than the total value of outstanding debts (aggregate principal balance). Because the repayment value of those debts is their principal balance PLUS the accruing interest, there is never enough money to repay the principal AND the interest.

Do you get it now?

Originally Posted by badthingsman

Originally Posted by Sapperwes

I heard an urban ledgen that Texas has so special session right in it's constitution.Is that true?

“All political power is inherent in the people ... and they have at all times the ...
right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper.”

— Republic of Texas Constitution, 1836

I think that is about as close as it gets.

There is also this website: http://www.texasrepublic.com/

Um, I don't think that this is the Republic of Texas that was involved in the legal actions.

They met several years ago to rewrite the constitution - I don't think they got it done, did they?

At the time, the failure was blamed on whether TExas would continue to be a right to work' state.

That could have been a smokescreen.

Back then I had some bit of confidence in the Texas legislature to do the right thing and didn't pay that much attention.

Originally Posted by patbrunz

Originally Posted by xanadu

The U.N. plan for world peace will be achieved by stripping all nations of power and making a uniform peasant class. It would appear from documents online that this is scheduled to be completed in 2008 - 2010.

So in four years from now all nations will be stripped of power and we'll all be a uniform peasant class? That seems like some pretty drastic change to accomplish worldwide in only four years. So four years from now (2010) everyone in the U.S. will be a peasant? Perhaps the U.N. is behind schedule? Maybe not though, how do you define, "uniform peasant class?"

Let's say you make cars. You are competing with a person in another land that builds cars. That person lives in a piano box. You live in a 2000 sq. ft. home. Eventually you will both have to live in a 1000 sq. ft. home. Until a guy that lives in a plastic garbage can starts to build cars. Got it?

and China owns most of our debt (and could sink our markets at any time they please). Don't forget too that the American Gov't simply prints more money when it needs it (and then sells the debt) only perpetuating the problem.
As for the "family incorporation" tactic....that has been a secret of the wealthy for decades. That's how they keep the wealth in the family.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by greyparrot

Crocketsghost -

Several years ago there was Philly talk radio host, Irv Homer, who literally begged his audience to educate themselves regarding the Federal Reserve "fraud" you speak of a few posts up. I also remember that he would urge familes (extended) to incorporate...and something about loaning it's members money for major purchases (homes) rather than going through banks. Unfortunately, the timing of my job and his program, limited my listening to the last half hour of his 2 hour show. I must admit I never "got" it, which is why I have read your post over and over again.

Let's say that the only "money" available is in the form of interest-carrying IOU's (which is in fact the case), and let's say that those are the only medium of exchange. Now, let's say that I'm the first guy to take out a loan, and I take $100 to build a lemonade stand. Part of the money goes for lumber to John's lumber yard. Part of it is spend for nails from Frank's hardware store. Another part is spent for plastic cups, sugar, and lemons from Julia's market. Now, let's say that my little lemonade stand is so successful that by the end of the year I have had enough business from John, Frank, and Julia that I have retrieved all $100 I spent with them. Time to repay the loan. How much money do I have? How much is the most that I can have? Unless someone else has gone into debt and put some more IOUs in circulation, the most I can possibly have in my pocket is $100 in IOUs, yet I owe %106 because of interest. Because I cannot possibly repay, given that not enough meny exists for me to repay, the issuer of the loan forecloses on my little lemonade stand, which is now the lender's lemonade stand. Ah, but the lender doesn't want to operate a lemonade stand, so he hires me to work the lemonade stand for a fraction of what I would have earned as the owner/operator and he earns all the profits while I scrape by. But at least I have a job, right?

I am having the most trouble understanding this part of your post. To wit, why "you" could not have made the more than the 100.00 "you borrowed".

Also, could you recommend a website, or book, that would help me fully understand this? Though I was young and SO naive when I used to listen to Irv, your post brought back the ugency and conviction in his voice when he spoke on this matter.

Well, it's as simple as this. There is no more real money. That means that all wealth out there is represented by FRNs or the promise of FRNs, since the only way that an FRN is created is that someone goes into debt for that amount. At any time, there is a finite quantity of FRNs, though more are created as soon as new debt is incurred. At any point in time, the total number of FRNs, whether in actual currency or represented as credits in various accounts, can be no more than the total value of outstanding debts (aggregate principal balance). Because the repayment value of those debts is their principal balance PLUS the accruing interest, there is never enough money to repay the principal AND the interest.

Do you get it now?