The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
Civil Insurrection
A Modest Proposal for Ending the United States
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_408256126

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I see that a man named Sessions, apparently Washington’s Attorney General, threatens to unleash the coercive powers of the federal government against the state of Colorado, his reason being that he does not like the state’s policy with regard to marijuana. This is most curious. Why he believes the policies of Colorado to be his concern is not clear. Equally mysterious is why he thinks the police of Colorado should arrest Coloradans for doing a thing that the people of the state have determined to be acceptable.

Mr. Session’s expansive view of his importance in the universe is seen again in his menacing of the state of California because he does noi approve its policy toward its immigrants. Common sense suggests that if he does not like California’s policies, he should live in another state. I am sure this would suit California well.

What justification does this feral busybody have for meddling in what is not his business? Mr. Sessions wraps himself in the Constitution and, thus emparchmented, asserts that the Supremacy Clause gives him the authority to overrule the states. Reasonable men may disagree on this matter. I assert that the states have no duty to observe the Constitution since the federals do not.

As one instance among many, the Constitution ordains that the country shall not go to war without a declaration from the Congress. In fact the federals make war constantly with neither a declaration nor any reference to the will of people, draining their substance for purposes which are not theirs. If the Constitution is not binding on the central government, it is not binding on the states.

In any event the federals do not represent the people of the country. How many of us in the various states want to spend trillions on distant wars at the command–for that is what it is–of Israel, the petroleum industry, and Empire? Yet we have no choice.

The question of states rights is today seen, or inculcated, as the fantasy of romantic conservatives remembering a world that never was. In truth, states rights are our only bulwark against tyranny. It is the amalgamation of undeserved powers in the hands of the federals that accounts for the country’s tribulations both within and without.

A great and wise man, a leading proponent of states rights, long ago foresaw this dismal prospect, saying, “The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it.”

Just so. Is this not what we see? When a single remote legislature controls a continent, then a small group wishing to dominate the whole need suborn only a few hundred members of its Congress and a few judges on its Supreme Court. By corrupting one city, they can impose any law they choose on all. That the people of many states find the law odious matters little as they can do nothing about it.

If however the people of each state made their own laws, the small group in New York would have to purchase fifty legislatures, each being under the scrutiny of the people of the state. The more local the government, the more responsive to the will of the governed. It would not be possible to establish a uniform despotism..

This despotism is what we now have, and it worsens. Today the federals dictate every aspect of our lives with no regard for those suffering the dictation. They determine what we may teach our children in the schools, what sexual practices must be preached to to those children, what religious observances are allowed us. If they decide that ten thousand Papua New Guineans in loincloths must settle upon our towns, then settle they must. They decide what statues we may have, how our world was created, who may use our bathrooms. They decide, these remote people who names we often do not know, of loyalties and faiths and beliefs many of us find distasteful, with whom we must make war.

How may we of the various states rid ourselves of such noxious influences from afar? By what right? Now I am just a countryman of no great learning in governance. Yet it seems to me that when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

I believe that the causes of separation have been sufficiently enumerated in the foregoing. The question is how to achieve the separation.

There is no prospect of escape by armed rebellion. The federals control the army, and history has shown that soldiers will as soon kill their fellow citizens as any other.

A more fruitful, if gradual, path to freedom is to ignore the strictures of intrusive federals, to engage in passive resistance. Washington does not have the manpower to enforce alien laws upon the entire nation. We see the beginnings of this laudable disentanglement in the seven states that have made legal the use of marijuana. Should these states remain resolute, and refuse to allow their police to be used as Quisling Pinkertons against their citizenry, they may well prevail. The avowed resistance of the government of California to the imposition of laws alien to it is perhaps as important as the battle of Yorktown. As goes California, so goes the nation.

ORDER IT NOW

In a country deeply at odds with itself the best course may be separation, first of laws, then of administration, and finally of sovereignty. It need not be an uneven fight. As Washington can withhold federal funds from the states, so can the states withhold taxes from the federals, as California has threatened.

America seems overlarge. Perhaps the parts should go their separate ways. If the federals had to pay for their own wars, there would be no wars. General Lee was right.

(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Constitutional Theory, Secession, States Rights 
Hide 224 CommentsLeave a Comment
224 Comments to "Civil Insurrection"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. When Obama was president, did Fred Reed support Arizona, Montana and Oregon and other states when state level laws and referendums tried to crack down on illegal immigration, but were prevented from doing so by federal judges?

    Does Fred Reed give a damn about states rights, or will he make unprincipled use of any and every argument to advance his pet cause of open borders?

    Does he have any respect whatsoever for his American ancestors, kin and heritage, or has he sold his soul for a mess of Mexican pottage?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fidelios Automata
    You're probably referring to the fact that Fred lives in Mexico. Yet he has repeatedly said that mass immigration is a bad idea.
    , @Giuseppe

    Does Fred Reed give a damn about states rights, or will he make unprincipled use of any and every argument to advance his pet cause of open borders?
     
    If you want your dissenting opinions to be respected, then base them on facts. But Fred's own words show how ridiculous your comment is to those who actually read the entire article, where we find:

    If they decide that ten thousand Papua New Guineans in loincloths must settle upon our towns, then settle they must.
     
    As for Fred's "selling his soul for a mess of Mexican potage," your words, here again you get it wrong. In fact it is worse than that, you are committing some grave error of logic with a Latin name, the exact one escapes me, in equating two things that are not at all comparable; in this case, making equivalent choosing the life of an expat with favoring open borders. In fact, it is more than likely that expats are quite opposed to open borders from their country of origin, and move abroad out into other lands purely out of a sense of spite, poetic justice even, spitting back a little at globalism. And Fred does admit to being a curmudgeon.
    , @Steve Gittelson

    Does Fred Reed give a damn about states rights, or will he make unprincipled use of any and every argument to advance his pet cause of open borders?
     
    (Piss, moan, whine.) Look, John, get it through your blocky little head that nobody gives a shit what you think of Reed. Not even a dinky little pile of mouse turds.

    If you've got something semi-intelligent to add, in context, do so. Otherwise, STFU.

    , @Twodees Partain
    John, you're responding to some other article than the one posted above. Since you obviously haven't read this article, go back and read it, then make a comment on it.
    , @MacNucc11
    I would say that Fred Reed was consistent and did support those states in opposing federal intervention.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. I agree with Fred for once. There should be dozens, if not many more, independent nations/city-states in North America. I don’t want to live in the same country as most New Yorkers or Californians. Or any Democrat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Yes. It's an overdue debate. The negotiations should begin now while there's still enough wealth in the economy to parcel out the debt.

    Oops.
    , @bluedog
    And we don't wish to live in states that are nothing but phony bible thumper's and witch bunner's,just the way it is,the division of the empire...

    Lets see it was the grand ole party the republican/conservative party who made the attack on religion,it was the republican/conservative party who ushered in the queers and the gays under Reagan and his pick to head the high court Sandra Day O'Conner,"who blathered we the high court are determined to bring this country into the 21 st century 'now ain't you proud?...
    , @Colleen Pater
    well you and fred are idiots! while i can understand your grade school rak rah muh constitution sentiments, there are realities far higher than that the founders in their infinite naivete ignored. All men are not created equal, but they are evolved like all life on this planet to compete in deadly combat for hegemony. The liberals jews and mud peoples are certainly an existential threat and must be dealt with. But their are even deadlier threats out there the chinese understand themselves as all races ought, as the natural owners of this planet and intend to make it so.Islam as well thinks this though with 90 IQs along with the africans are less of a threat short of a zombie type apocalypse of the saints.
    The united states and lets face it canada are the best fortress the world has ever known at least jefferson got that right. we are protected on oceans on four sides, then those are backed up by mountain ranges on two sides and arctic and desert on the other two. we have more energy than the rest of the world combined of every conceivable kind and we have the greatest agricultural land in the world.The jews love to get whites to start killing each other and while civil war is probably inevitable and that might entail a temporary front we must never settle for that all that would happen is the left would plot to import more non whites in order to retake the rest of the land mass.
    , @Twodees Partain
    How about something like this:

    http://tacticalcivics.southcentralus.cloudapp.azure.com/americaagain/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/09/Fear-The-People-4th-Ed.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. @george strong
    I agree with Fred for once. There should be dozens, if not many more, independent nations/city-states in North America. I don't want to live in the same country as most New Yorkers or Californians. Or any Democrat.

    Yes. It’s an overdue debate. The negotiations should begin now while there’s still enough wealth in the economy to parcel out the debt.

    Oops.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
    "The negotiations should begin now while there’s still enough wealth in the economy to parcel out the debt."

    Yeah right. That (parceling out the debt) would be about like a bunch of "unrelated" negroes tying to split up three carts full of groceries on a single grocery order bought in part with one EBT card with the ineligible items bought with multiple sourced handfuls of crumpled up "Tubmans". Negotiations would take place out in the shopping center parking lot on a hot and humid July afternoon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Sunbeam says:

    “Mr. Session’s expansive view of his importance in the universe is seen again in his menacing of the state of California because he does noi approve its policy toward its immigrants. Common sense suggests that if he does not like California’s policies, he should live in another state. I am sure this would suit California well.”

    A pretty argument. The problem with it is that the illegals in question do not have to remain in the confines of California.

    If you can guarantee that’s where they will stay, then your argument is a lot stronger.

    And you talk a lot about police work. Pray tell enlighten us all about the role that marijuana arrests and pleas play in the whole legal system. Tell me from your extensive contact with beat cops, prosecutors, defense lawyers, offenders, and victims whether many of them would frankly give two figs on a theoretical level whether Marijuana was illegal nationwide – but it makes a dandy thing for some perp to cop to. He gets less time and penalty, and the state gets to avoid the cost and time of a jury trial.

    Take that away, and what are the results? You spent time covering the system, tell me.

    Personally my belief is that even something like the criminality of marijuana is another insidious ramification of the presence of black people in America. It is utterly insane how much they have shaped the current state of America – not by some master plan, but simply by existing.

    I myself don’t care in the slightest whether someone wakes up in the morning and reaches for a bong (well as long as they aren’t on the road with me). But I also wouldn’t care to find out what happens if Johnny Brown doesn’t plead to possession, getting 3 months in the county, but instead clogs up a system that has evolved for Johnny Brown to do just that.

    Or we all could do like California is apparently doing now. Just not enforcing most laws. Great state to take a dump in, let me tell ya.

    Read More
    • Replies: @smellyoilandgas.com
    The issue of Federalism, Anti-Federalism, Abe Lincoln, Prohibition and now another prohibition?

    Control of USA external borders and immigration may be legitimate where USA presence in America is welcome, but where the people of the state [name it] have announced they do not want, in their state, outsiders to dictate it may be a horse of a different color.

    The Pharaohs designed a constitution and used it to impose federalism on Americans. Federalism is a top-down management philosophy designed to take and keep the behaviors and resources of the slaves and their possessions in the hands and control of the elite, globally-present Pharaohs. The constitution took control by separating American political power into one group, and depriving the other group of any political power.

    The first group, a few slaves would be elected to serve in a group of 527 slave drivers, to be known as the USA. The USA would be allowed to use democratic principles to make its decisions and its make laws subject to the delight of the Pharaohs. The second, larger group (340,000,000 not elected Americans), would be slaved to the demands and requirements of, and required to limit and conform their behaviors and activities, to accord with the decisions and laws made by the 527 elected, salaried, privileged USA slave drivers). So in short, the globally-present Pharaohs set up a middle man (527 slave drivers) group, gave them all of the political power and authorized them to use that power to control the American people and to own or control the resources in America. Around the globe you can see the globally-present Pharaoh's slave driver = slave structure. The slave-driver slave is a hallmark of the nation state and the nation state is a franchise of the globally-present Pharaoh.

    As near as I can tell, neither the constitution nor the USA it created, took America out of the American; as the gun controversy clearly confirms. The constitution was just a deal, based on conditions, reflected in a contract, presented by the Pharaohs, designed to quiet justice-seeking Americans. The constitution is conditioned on honoring expressed guarantees (the bill of rights), performance and end-goal outcomes satisfactory to Americans.

    The Catalonia self-determination succession rights vs the Spanish nation state federalism demonstrate how difficult it is for the people to take back their power when they discover they have made a bad deal. The president of the Catalonia succession is being extradited back to Spain under International warrant for trial and likely execution; all he did was hold a popular election to determine if the people in Catalonia wanted to be separated from the Spanish government (similar to the British Exit from the European Union).
    But external events, subsequent to the Catalonia election, clearly demonstrate the nation states are but "structured groups" franchised to paid slave drivers willing to maintain internal to the nation state control suitable to globally-present Pharaohs). http://www.libertylawsite.org/2017/10/24/catalonia-secession-constitution-and-liberty/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Randal says:

    Why he believes the policies of Colorado to be his concern is not clear. Equally mysterious is why he thinks the police of Colorado should arrest Coloradans for doing a thing that the people of the state have determined to be acceptable.

    This is a legitimate point, since it is clearly no business of the Federal government what drugs licensing provisions a state might make, and the spurious arguments used to justify such interference are just that – spurious.

    Mr. Session’s expansive view of his importance in the universe is seen again in his menacing of the state of California because he does noi approve its policy toward its immigrants. Common sense suggests that if he does not like California’s policies, he should live in another state.

    This is not a legitimate point, because unlike the spurious pretexts used to justify Federal drugs laws, the control of the US’s external borders and of immigration to the US is self-evidently a legitimate Federal matter, given freedom of movement between states.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    To play Devil's advocate, marijuana moves as freely among the states as people. Generally they move together.

    The problem is not one of movement but first and foremost that immigration is specifically a power granted the federal government in the Constitution, whereas marijuana regulation has no place in it.

    I'm waiting for the day that Governor Moonbeam builds a hyperloop to Mexico City, to make it easier for the riff-raff to come to California. He should also hire some cruise ships, dock it off the coast of Somalia, and invite one and all to come. But why stop there? A few hundred million Indians could, no doubt, be enticed with the promises of welfare.

    Therein lies a rub. One rogue state, like California, can entirely destroy the Union, whereas one state permitting marijuana to be legal, simply cannot (even if it were the business of the federal government, which it isn't).
    , @schnellandine
    There is nothing "self-evident" about federal power over immigration. It must be a constitutionally delegated power to be "legal". And it is, though in an unusual construction which is rarely discussed, probably because the average constitution wanker's ignorant of both the delegation and its affirmation by way of special proscription.

    Fred's view prevails, however, because the constitution is long void. He's right. Nullification then secession.
    , @JamesinNM
    Simply construct a wall around all states with only one entry and exit point to each adjoining state. Kill anything that illegally crosses your border.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Grumbler says:

    US amerika must be dismantled – there simply is no other hope for Liberty. It is madness to think that 545 people can and should rule over 330 millions of people spread out over thousands of square miles.

    In the area currently known as the US there should be at least a hundred and fifty -and even more – separate sovereign nations/city states.

    Fred is right in that government should be localized. There is no reason whatsoever for a centralized federal government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "US amerika must be dismantled – there simply is no other hope for Liberty."

    That is a pie-in-the-sky notion.

    "It is madness to think that 545 people can and should rule over 330 millions of people spread out over thousands of square miles."

    Except 545 people do not "rule" over 330 million people. The people govern themselves by way of their representatives and Senators

    "In the area currently known as the US there should be at least a hundred and fifty -and even more – separate sovereign nations/city states."

    No.

    "Fred is right in that government should be localized. There is no reason whatsoever for a centralized federal government."

    Talk to the Founding Fathers and get back to us.
    , @Steve Gittelson

    In the area currently known as the US there should be at least a hundred and fifty -and even more – separate sovereign nations/city states.
     
    LOL. Jesus, are you ever stupid in the purely hyperbolic sense.

    Political and sovereignty issues are determined, ultimately, by economic reality. That's what works. Always has, always will.

    The existing USA might effectively be divided into ten, maybe 12 sovereign economic regions. That will happen eventually. Be patient.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Bilgeman says:

    Why the hate for AG Sessions?

    He’s only doing what dozens of attorneys-general have done before him.

    Ahhh, the rub is that Sessions is a Southerner…from Alabama, no less…and we of the South have a rather long heritage of the distasteful flavor of being ruled by Washington DC.
    Now, though, it is those who heretofore have had the Feds as their stooges who are now getting a little taste of that Potomac-water Moonshine.
    I reckon that they don’t like it all that much either.

    Well, boys, that’s just too bad, ain’t it?
    To quote a great ‘Merican:

    “We feel your pain”.

    But I wouldn’t dismiss the notion of just declaring sovereignty outright.
    To this day there is no Article nor Amendment to the The US Constitution that bans the states from seceding from the Union/Empire/What-Have-You…you just have to handle the matter of existing Federal Military and Naval reservations within your borders rather delicately.
    “Remember Fort Sumter” and all that.

    But as to the armed resistance part…I note that a pathetically small band of be-sandaled pedophiles in Afghanistan have given the mighty United States no end of trouble these last dozen-odd years…as did the be-sandaled Viet Namese before them.

    For my part, I wouldn’t be at all dismayed to see y’all go…even though y’all never extended us that courtesy.

    So until you “shit or get off the pot”, you just suck whatever the Fed waves in front of your lips like a good little “true-blue” Union flunkie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Hmm 'we feel your pain' didn't know Clinton was Mexican but then again his father was always suspect....
    , @Reactionary Utopian
    Well, "y'all," let me say this about that:

    1. Concerning the unpleasantness of the 1860s, you are entirely correct. The freedom of the several states to secede from the United States is an obvious thing that the founders certainly took for granted. Lincoln was far and away the worst and most destructive president ever to infest the office. The war should never have happened. "Federal" property, forts and whatnot, could have been negotiated civil-courts-style, and the worst that process could have come out would have been vastly better than oceans of stupidly-shed blood.

    2. You Southrons have a little something to answer for. In states like Alabama, back in the days before mechanization, there were some forms of agriculture that could be done profitably ... more profitably, perhaps ... only if you used hand labor at costs much lower than paying wages to white men. Only if you had slaves. So, today, I live in northern Indiana, a region in which there was never any significant amount of slavery, among many descendants of West Africans, "enjoying" all kinds of more diversity than I want, basically because you Southron bastards were too lazy to just work your own land and live on it. The wonderful diversity of this whole country -- you're substantially answerable for it. Thanks a lot.

    3. As for your last sentence, maybe these homoerotic sucking fantasies occupy a large part of the Southron mind, but ... no, thanks. Now, why don't you give us a little squeal? C'mon, piggy, squeal!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. fnn says:

    Yeah, Gen. Lee was right. But say that in California and you’ll probably be beaten to a pulp given that you’re old and nearly blind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Da Wei
    What do age and eyesight have to do with it, fnn? Logic suggests that you may get old, too, and may suffer impaired vision, that is, unless somebody slaps you into the middle of next week first.

    And you'd only get beaten to a pulp in California if you propose a legal assembly on the State Capital grounds and Falarca showboats in with 450 bay area stick carrying kids in Halloween garb. Even then it might not happen, until the police are ordered to stand down and watch.

    By the way, smartass, General Lee was right about a lot of things.

    Now, lay the hell off California until you get those statues back up, jail the vandals and fire the spineless officials who refused to protect, arrest and prosecute.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. What about the Feds forcing Californians to support invading foreigners so they could overrun the state? 59% of Californians voted for Prop 187, but a Fed somehow overruled, and unlike the examples with Sessions, Prop 187 was not contrary to federal law.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187

    California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit illegal aliens from using non-emergency health care, public education, and other services in the State of California. Voters passed the proposed law at a referendum in November 1994. The law was challenged in a legal suit and found unconstitutional by a federal district court.

    Read More
    • Replies: @george strong
    If not overturned, Prop 187 would have been changed by referendum anyway a decade later. We are swimming against the tide, like we are Britons in 450AD and the Angles and Saxons have landed. Only a second civil war can save us and our civilization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Absolutely right. The US should break into multiple successor states. Late in life, George Kennan himself agreed. The legal precedent is unambiguous: the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010 held that a nation’s declaration of independence need not comply with municipal law.

    Just leave. All you have to do is accede to the UN Charter, the International Bill of Human Rights, and the Rome Statute. That way you gain the sovereignty that US forfeited by failing to make the requisite commitments (the US has failed to ratify the ICESCR or the Rome Statute, and interprets the ICCPR in bad faith.)

    This is why the US government brainwashes Americans with UN-CORRUPTION-HUMANRIGHTS-DICTATORS!!!! These laws empower the peoples, not the state.

    Russians lost interest in having enemies and shed the USSR. Ultimately it did them a world of good – look at them now, they lead the free world. Now it’s time for Americans to shed the USA. Nobody wants Russian enemies but beltway kleptocrats. I want to live in a smaller, saner nation I can trust.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    The UN and its notion of human rights? I think I’ll take a pass.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. David says:

    Sessions can’t enforce federal laws against weed where its use or possession is in accordance with state law. Congress allows no funding for it. The provision forbidding it has existed since 2014, is renewed annually, and is expected to be renewed this year.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aardvark
    I don’t recall where in the Constitution that isn’t followed that the Feds had the authority to regulate marijuana, or a whole list of other things like alcohol, tobacco and firearms.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Carlton Meyer
    What about the Feds forcing Californians to support invading foreigners so they could overrun the state? 59% of Californians voted for Prop 187, but a Fed somehow overruled, and unlike the examples with Sessions, Prop 187 was not contrary to federal law.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187

    California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit illegal aliens from using non-emergency health care, public education, and other services in the State of California. Voters passed the proposed law at a referendum in November 1994. The law was challenged in a legal suit and found unconstitutional by a federal district court.

    If not overturned, Prop 187 would have been changed by referendum anyway a decade later. We are swimming against the tide, like we are Britons in 450AD and the Angles and Saxons have landed. Only a second civil war can save us and our civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grumbler
    George, please forget about saving the US. It is a failed experiment. Let us let it go and start anew through (hopefully) a peaceful dismantling of the USA. If the authoritarian USSR can peacefully disband so too should the authoritarian USA.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Why do you worship Mexicans so much, Federico?

    Surely Violeta or whatever the fuck her name is doesn’t have that good of a pussy. I mean you were in Viet Nam after all.

    Something in the water?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rowdy Rudy Pfeiffer
    Maybe not, but I'll bet her daughter's is ;)
    , @Da Wei
    You foul mouthed SOB
    , @Twodees Partain
    FOAD, Ms. Finnsdottir. Off topic trolling makes you a troll.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. If 2/3rds of the state legislatures agree they can call a Constitutional Convention and amend the constitution in any manner they please irrespective of Congress.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grumbler
    ThreeCranes, forget the constitution. It is what got us here in the first place. (Which is exactly what it was designed to do.)

    Fred is correct: the feds do not obey the constitution so why should anyone else.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    A constitutional convention would be the best course of action at this point, but the United States is presently so divided it's probably impossible to achieve sufficient unity even for that step.

    I admit I'm conflicted on the California resistance. I highly dislike the issue on which the state has chosen defiance (failitating invasion) but I rather admire a state telling the national government to butt out. (I'd be more favorable if the invaders could be limited to California.) The California example shows how right George Kennan was--California is "big enough" to stand up to the national government. Hardly any other state is--but a region composed of several states would have enough "muscle" to protect its citizens against a rapacious national government. What California is doing is a form of phased secession.

    Under the present constiutional arrangement, constitutional amenments must be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures, or by special conventions convened for that purpose. But states can call a convention even in the absence of congressional action.
    , @A Spectator
    Danger! Danger Will Robinson!

    If a CON CON is call the floor is open to ANYTHING.

    1789 was a Coup d'état. The united States was destroyed and the groundwork for The United States was laid. It came to fruition 1865. FDR was another Coup d'état as was Bush Jr.

    Patric Henrey "Smelled A Rat" and left in protest. Did his best to kep PA out. NC stayed out but was bullied into compliance.

    The CON CON of 89 was called to fix a few minor details in the Articles of Confederation, but the big and strong central government / weak States types convinced the opposition that none of their fears would be realized. Read the "Anti Federalist Papers" if you missed the memo.

    Better to run it into the ground and shoo the feds out than suffer "interested and designing men" to "fix" anything. 5 to 8 Confederacies will spring up based on cultural lines. These will form aliances for protection from the outside.

    You wnat to see what we may very well end up with? Go look at the Constitutio we gave the Iraquies. Nearly everything ends with "except as according to law".
    No tyrant has ever broken the "law".

    A Spectator
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. I thought these questions were settled back in 1865.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grumbler
    Might does not make right. Not then, not now.
    , @Macon Richardson
    If you consider settling things through the barrel of a gun, I guess they were settled. If not, not!
    , @MBlanc46
    As Larry O’Brien said, no final solutions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. peterAUS says:

    The federals control the army, and history has shown that soldiers will as soon kill their fellow citizens as any other.

    Will they?
    That is The Question. The only which matters.
    And, not soldiers. NCOs and junior/middle officers, well, up to a Lt.Col.In that order of importance.

    I don’t know the answer. Doubt anyone does.

    It will take a great man to recognize the moment when The Question could be answered by a confident “no”.
    Maybe soon; maybe never.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vandal
    That question depends on the financial situation of the federal government. As long as there is a reasonable chance a military member will receive their pension, tricare, and bi weekly paycheck, nothing will change. They are bought and paid for, despite what they say otherwise.

    If the petroyuan proves to upset the dominance of our world reserve currency making the federal deficit relevant, there may come a time when those benefits may not be paid out. When that day comes, you will see the various factions in the military come to the surface. The combination of continuous war and social experiments have degraded the military in general. The JSOC community comprises maybe 1% of the total force and is still the tip of the spear. The rest consists of an amalgamation of factions escaping the poor economy of the past administration or a dire social economic situation. Most of your “operators” are the bleeding heart conservative types, while your mission support types comprise the significant majority and are majority center to center left on the political spectrum.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Trying to track Fred Reed is like trying to grab on to a greased pig. He starts off his paen to the 10th Amendment, the panacea to America’s ills, – and I believe it truly is – with complete bullshit:
    “Mr. Session’s………menacing of the state of California because he does noi approve its policy toward its immigrants. Common sense suggests that if he does not like California’s policies, he should live in another state.”
    This is pure nonsense, madness in fact. Any strict Constitutionalist, any advocate of a reinvigorated 10th Amendment would agree that immigration policy is one of th few things that ACTUALLY IS the responsibility of the Federal Government. It would be pandemonium if each State formed its own immigration laws, and has never before been suggested until Fred and his California compadres, suffering from Trump derangement syndrome, did so. He goes on to

    “Fred goes on to say:
    “What justification does this feral busybody have for meddling in what is not his business?” Then answers his own question. “Mr. Sessions wraps himself in the Constitution….” Yes Fred, the Constitution. My question for Fred, who seems confused as to what is really going on with California and States Rights; what would California do if Idaho decided to ignore Roe vs. Wade. Or if in the near future there is an attempt by the Feds to confiscate whole classes of firearms, where does Fred think Californiawill stand on that?
    What we have is is not a move toward States Rights and away from Centralization of power, but the rise of a Leftist ideology that is so brazen and self confident, that it is now challenging the Executive branch of the Federal government. But only because it’s Trump. When the Left has gained absolute hegemony I. This nation the iron bolt of authoritarianism will be on al of our necks and the mere mention of the Constitution, the 10th Amendment, or States Rights, will get you a trip to the gulag.
    I have always enjoyed Fred’s. Perspective and style, u til recently, but this is the first time I have detected out and out dishonesty.
    10th Amendmenters in Calaiforna,

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grumbler
    Dissident, if the feds do not honor the 10th amendment now (when have they ever?!) why should anyone have any confidence that they will follow it at all in the future?

    The Constitution is dead, as it should be. It is pure folly to look to it for salvation, says I
    , @bluedog
    What an ignorant post,a true righty posting the normal neocon right wing bullshit, as if the right dosen't benefit more from illegal immigration than the lol left,illegal immigration enacted by old man Bush and his soft spots in the NAFTA left there on purpose, and Clinton but wait its all the lefts fault,the illegal immigration that stole American jobs,drove down American wages benefited the republican/conservative waaay more than the democrats which saw their jobs shipped out under Reagan,and who said the Constitution is only a GD peice of paper,why young Bush of course.Seems some people are natural born fools or blinded with stupid retoric that blinds them to anything except their party...
    , @Anonymous

    but this is the first time I have detected out and out dishonesty.
     
    Fred is an amateur, foreign, psy-ops agent. Always was.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. What does Fred Reed know or care about states’ rights? His state of residence isn’t California or Colorado, it’s Jalisco.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    True, which makes this even funnier:

    How may we of the various states rid ourselves of such noxious influences from afar?
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Iberiano says:

    I’ve wondered how a break up could actually be done, legally. As far as the:

    1. Federal debt

    2. Ports

    3. Defense

    4. Retirements of federal employees

    5. Federally backed banks

    6. Immigration between (new) nation-states.

    It would seem, some types of contracts could be worked out for ports (as with any countries), usage, roads, taxes, inter(state)-nation travel/taxes, defense of the continent…but what about the banking system? Also would there be some mutual treaties between nations to not attack each other, and/or come to each other’s defense (like NATO)…since it would seem logical to do so if only for future self preservation. If California breaks off, what’s to stop China from invading?

    I would picture about 5-10 nations on what is now known as the US, if this ever happened. The Northeast Anglo-Puritans, to include everything from DC upwards basically. The Tidewater and Mountain South, bascially the shores lower VA/NC/SC/GA out to Appalachia, the Black mega-city state of Atlanta, Florida/PR, and then in the middle, the Scots-Irish “regular” (Rump State/Red) America, from Texas/Louisiana/Alabama, up through all but the highest regions of Indiana and Ohio, over across to Oklahoma. And then the NW/Cascadia, the Nation of California, and then the interior SW (like AZ, NM, West Texas, maybe Utah, etc).

    What’s everyone else thinking about this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fidelios Automata
    I would vote for Arizona to secede in a heartbeat, provided we deny citizenship to the vile scumbag John McCain.
    , @Corvinus
    "What’s everyone else thinking about this?"

    You assume that the "nations" you created would generally get along.

    And, a Confederation was once attempted in our nation's history, and it didn't work out too well. So, no thank you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. It does seem rather ridiculous to build a wall on our southern borders if California will not enforce Federal immigration law. Once inside California there is nothing to stop the illegals from going anywhere in the USA. Is that what Fred wants?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    It does seem rather ridiculous to build a wall on our southern borders if California will not enforce Federal immigration law.
     
    It would make more sense to build the wall around California, or better still an electric fence which could be solar powered and patrolled by soldiers in electric battery vehicles, therefore popular with Californians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @John Gruskos
    When Obama was president, did Fred Reed support Arizona, Montana and Oregon and other states when state level laws and referendums tried to crack down on illegal immigration, but were prevented from doing so by federal judges?

    Does Fred Reed give a damn about states rights, or will he make unprincipled use of any and every argument to advance his pet cause of open borders?

    Does he have any respect whatsoever for his American ancestors, kin and heritage, or has he sold his soul for a mess of Mexican pottage?

    You’re probably referring to the fact that Fred lives in Mexico. Yet he has repeatedly said that mass immigration is a bad idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Gruskos
    I don't begrudge Fred his residency in Mexico per se, but it is impossible not to notice that his recent articles on the subject of immigration prioritize Mexican interests over American interests.

    A new mass amnesty, which he supports, will inevitably lead to mass immigration, because it will incentivize increased levels of illegal immigrants hoping for another round of amnesty. This is what happened after the last mass amnesty in 1986.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Iberiano
    I've wondered how a break up could actually be done, legally. As far as the:

    1. Federal debt

    2. Ports

    3. Defense

    4. Retirements of federal employees

    5. Federally backed banks

    6. Immigration between (new) nation-states.

    It would seem, some types of contracts could be worked out for ports (as with any countries), usage, roads, taxes, inter(state)-nation travel/taxes, defense of the continent...but what about the banking system? Also would there be some mutual treaties between nations to not attack each other, and/or come to each other's defense (like NATO)...since it would seem logical to do so if only for future self preservation. If California breaks off, what's to stop China from invading?

    I would picture about 5-10 nations on what is now known as the US, if this ever happened. The Northeast Anglo-Puritans, to include everything from DC upwards basically. The Tidewater and Mountain South, bascially the shores lower VA/NC/SC/GA out to Appalachia, the Black mega-city state of Atlanta, Florida/PR, and then in the middle, the Scots-Irish "regular" (Rump State/Red) America, from Texas/Louisiana/Alabama, up through all but the highest regions of Indiana and Ohio, over across to Oklahoma. And then the NW/Cascadia, the Nation of California, and then the interior SW (like AZ, NM, West Texas, maybe Utah, etc).

    What's everyone else thinking about this?

    I would vote for Arizona to secede in a heartbeat, provided we deny citizenship to the vile scumbag John McCain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    I happened to see McCain on an Acela train in October, and he was looking pretty rough. I have as much disdain for him as the next guy, but... I felt sorry for him as he hobbled to the bathroom.
    , @Twodees Partain
    I would be willing to sign the necessary papers to put John McCain in the electric chair. OK, I know that was off topic and retarded, but I really would.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Grumbler says:
    @jimbojones
    I thought these questions were settled back in 1865.

    Might does not make right. Not then, not now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rich
    Please Mr Grumbler, show me where on earth, ever in history, might didn't make right? Might always wins. Always.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Grumbler says:
    @george strong
    If not overturned, Prop 187 would have been changed by referendum anyway a decade later. We are swimming against the tide, like we are Britons in 450AD and the Angles and Saxons have landed. Only a second civil war can save us and our civilization.

    George, please forget about saving the US. It is a failed experiment. Let us let it go and start anew through (hopefully) a peaceful dismantling of the USA. If the authoritarian USSR can peacefully disband so too should the authoritarian USA.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Grumbler says:
    @ThreeCranes
    If 2/3rds of the state legislatures agree they can call a Constitutional Convention and amend the constitution in any manner they please irrespective of Congress.

    ThreeCranes, forget the constitution. It is what got us here in the first place. (Which is exactly what it was designed to do.)

    Fred is correct: the feds do not obey the constitution so why should anyone else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Grumbler says:
    @A. Dissident
    Trying to track Fred Reed is like trying to grab on to a greased pig. He starts off his paen to the 10th Amendment, the panacea to America’s ills, - and I believe it truly is - with complete bullshit:
    “Mr. Session’s.........menacing of the state of California because he does noi approve its policy toward its immigrants. Common sense suggests that if he does not like California’s policies, he should live in another state.”
    This is pure nonsense, madness in fact. Any strict Constitutionalist, any advocate of a reinvigorated 10th Amendment would agree that immigration policy is one of th few things that ACTUALLY IS the responsibility of the Federal Government. It would be pandemonium if each State formed its own immigration laws, and has never before been suggested until Fred and his California compadres, suffering from Trump derangement syndrome, did so. He goes on to

    “Fred goes on to say:
    “What justification does this feral busybody have for meddling in what is not his business?” Then answers his own question. “Mr. Sessions wraps himself in the Constitution....” Yes Fred, the Constitution. My question for Fred, who seems confused as to what is really going on with California and States Rights; what would California do if Idaho decided to ignore Roe vs. Wade. Or if in the near future there is an attempt by the Feds to confiscate whole classes of firearms, where does Fred think Californiawill stand on that?
    What we have is is not a move toward States Rights and away from Centralization of power, but the rise of a Leftist ideology that is so brazen and self confident, that it is now challenging the Executive branch of the Federal government. But only because it’s Trump. When the Left has gained absolute hegemony I. This nation the iron bolt of authoritarianism will be on al of our necks and the mere mention of the Constitution, the 10th Amendment, or States Rights, will get you a trip to the gulag.
    I have always enjoyed Fred’s. Perspective and style, u til recently, but this is the first time I have detected out and out dishonesty.
    10th Amendmenters in Calaiforna,

    Dissident, if the feds do not honor the 10th amendment now (when have they ever?!) why should anyone have any confidence that they will follow it at all in the future?

    The Constitution is dead, as it should be. It is pure folly to look to it for salvation, says I

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Giuseppe says:
    @John Gruskos
    When Obama was president, did Fred Reed support Arizona, Montana and Oregon and other states when state level laws and referendums tried to crack down on illegal immigration, but were prevented from doing so by federal judges?

    Does Fred Reed give a damn about states rights, or will he make unprincipled use of any and every argument to advance his pet cause of open borders?

    Does he have any respect whatsoever for his American ancestors, kin and heritage, or has he sold his soul for a mess of Mexican pottage?

    Does Fred Reed give a damn about states rights, or will he make unprincipled use of any and every argument to advance his pet cause of open borders?

    If you want your dissenting opinions to be respected, then base them on facts. But Fred’s own words show how ridiculous your comment is to those who actually read the entire article, where we find:

    If they decide that ten thousand Papua New Guineans in loincloths must settle upon our towns, then settle they must.

    As for Fred’s “selling his soul for a mess of Mexican potage,” your words, here again you get it wrong. In fact it is worse than that, you are committing some grave error of logic with a Latin name, the exact one escapes me, in equating two things that are not at all comparable; in this case, making equivalent choosing the life of an expat with favoring open borders. In fact, it is more than likely that expats are quite opposed to open borders from their country of origin, and move abroad out into other lands purely out of a sense of spite, poetic justice even, spitting back a little at globalism. And Fred does admit to being a curmudgeon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @ThreeCranes
    If 2/3rds of the state legislatures agree they can call a Constitutional Convention and amend the constitution in any manner they please irrespective of Congress.

    A constitutional convention would be the best course of action at this point, but the United States is presently so divided it’s probably impossible to achieve sufficient unity even for that step.

    I admit I’m conflicted on the California resistance. I highly dislike the issue on which the state has chosen defiance (failitating invasion) but I rather admire a state telling the national government to butt out. (I’d be more favorable if the invaders could be limited to California.) The California example shows how right George Kennan was–California is “big enough” to stand up to the national government. Hardly any other state is–but a region composed of several states would have enough “muscle” to protect its citizens against a rapacious national government. What California is doing is a form of phased secession.

    Under the present constiutional arrangement, constitutional amenments must be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures, or by special conventions convened for that purpose. But states can call a convention even in the absence of congressional action.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "A constitutional convention would be the best course of action at this point, but the United States is presently so divided it’s probably impossible to achieve sufficient unity even for that step."

    There are more Americans who want to preserve and reform America than break it apart.

    "What California is doing is a form of phased secession."

    Which, in the end, will lead to nowhere. An exercise in futility.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @jimbojones
    I thought these questions were settled back in 1865.

    If you consider settling things through the barrel of a gun, I guess they were settled. If not, not!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Thorfinnsson
    Why do you worship Mexicans so much, Federico?

    Surely Violeta or whatever the fuck her name is doesn't have that good of a pussy. I mean you were in Viet Nam after all.

    Something in the water?

    Maybe not, but I’ll bet her daughter’s is ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @byrresheim
    You, sir, have sick ideas.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Da Wei says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Why do you worship Mexicans so much, Federico?

    Surely Violeta or whatever the fuck her name is doesn't have that good of a pussy. I mean you were in Viet Nam after all.

    Something in the water?

    You foul mouthed SOB

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. CalDre says:
    @Randal

    Why he believes the policies of Colorado to be his concern is not clear. Equally mysterious is why he thinks the police of Colorado should arrest Coloradans for doing a thing that the people of the state have determined to be acceptable.
     
    This is a legitimate point, since it is clearly no business of the Federal government what drugs licensing provisions a state might make, and the spurious arguments used to justify such interference are just that - spurious.

    Mr. Session’s expansive view of his importance in the universe is seen again in his menacing of the state of California because he does noi approve its policy toward its immigrants. Common sense suggests that if he does not like California’s policies, he should live in another state.
     
    This is not a legitimate point, because unlike the spurious pretexts used to justify Federal drugs laws, the control of the US's external borders and of immigration to the US is self-evidently a legitimate Federal matter, given freedom of movement between states.

    To play Devil’s advocate, marijuana moves as freely among the states as people. Generally they move together.

    The problem is not one of movement but first and foremost that immigration is specifically a power granted the federal government in the Constitution, whereas marijuana regulation has no place in it.

    I’m waiting for the day that Governor Moonbeam builds a hyperloop to Mexico City, to make it easier for the riff-raff to come to California. He should also hire some cruise ships, dock it off the coast of Somalia, and invite one and all to come. But why stop there? A few hundred million Indians could, no doubt, be enticed with the promises of welfare.

    Therein lies a rub. One rogue state, like California, can entirely destroy the Union, whereas one state permitting marijuana to be legal, simply cannot (even if it were the business of the federal government, which it isn’t).

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Randal

    To play Devil’s advocate, marijuana moves as freely among the states as people.
     
    To respond appropriately: marijuana moves freely among the states in exactly the same way "guns kill people".

    If this were a valid argument (and it is pretty much the one used to provide a pretext for drugs laws via the commerce clause), it would provide justification for Federal regulation of just about everything bar land and buildings.

    The problem is not one of movement but first and foremost that immigration is specifically a power granted the federal government in the Constitution
     
    I did not of course intend to imply otherwise. The main reason the Constitution does so is precisely free movement - that one state's actions directly affect all the others.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Corvinus says:
    @Grumbler
    US amerika must be dismantled - there simply is no other hope for Liberty. It is madness to think that 545 people can and should rule over 330 millions of people spread out over thousands of square miles.

    In the area currently known as the US there should be at least a hundred and fifty -and even more - separate sovereign nations/city states.

    Fred is right in that government should be localized. There is no reason whatsoever for a centralized federal government.

    “US amerika must be dismantled – there simply is no other hope for Liberty.”

    That is a pie-in-the-sky notion.

    “It is madness to think that 545 people can and should rule over 330 millions of people spread out over thousands of square miles.”

    Except 545 people do not “rule” over 330 million people. The people govern themselves by way of their representatives and Senators

    “In the area currently known as the US there should be at least a hundred and fifty -and even more – separate sovereign nations/city states.”

    No.

    “Fred is right in that government should be localized. There is no reason whatsoever for a centralized federal government.”

    Talk to the Founding Fathers and get back to us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    Except 545 people do not “rule” over 330 million people. The people govern themselves by way of their representatives and Senators
     
    Hahahahaahahaahahahahaha! Funniest idiocy I've read in a while, hahaha!

    But point in fact it's not even 545, all of these are puppets of the same handful of oligarchs. US is a corrupt, totalitarian oligarchic dictatorship.
    , @Grumbler
    Corvinus, why is it a pie in the sky notion? Is there any other hope for Liberty?

    "The people govern themselves by way of their representatives and Senators"

    If you are not being sarcastic then I must ask, Do you actually believe that 536 people can really represent the diverse views of 330 millions of people?

    "No."

    Why not? Why should there not be many sovereign nations instead of one Leviathan State?

    The Founding Fathers gave us the Centralized government we have today. They were wrong to do so.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Corvinus says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    A constitutional convention would be the best course of action at this point, but the United States is presently so divided it's probably impossible to achieve sufficient unity even for that step.

    I admit I'm conflicted on the California resistance. I highly dislike the issue on which the state has chosen defiance (failitating invasion) but I rather admire a state telling the national government to butt out. (I'd be more favorable if the invaders could be limited to California.) The California example shows how right George Kennan was--California is "big enough" to stand up to the national government. Hardly any other state is--but a region composed of several states would have enough "muscle" to protect its citizens against a rapacious national government. What California is doing is a form of phased secession.

    Under the present constiutional arrangement, constitutional amenments must be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures, or by special conventions convened for that purpose. But states can call a convention even in the absence of congressional action.

    “A constitutional convention would be the best course of action at this point, but the United States is presently so divided it’s probably impossible to achieve sufficient unity even for that step.”

    There are more Americans who want to preserve and reform America than break it apart.

    “What California is doing is a form of phased secession.”

    Which, in the end, will lead to nowhere. An exercise in futility.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Corvinus says:
    @Iberiano
    I've wondered how a break up could actually be done, legally. As far as the:

    1. Federal debt

    2. Ports

    3. Defense

    4. Retirements of federal employees

    5. Federally backed banks

    6. Immigration between (new) nation-states.

    It would seem, some types of contracts could be worked out for ports (as with any countries), usage, roads, taxes, inter(state)-nation travel/taxes, defense of the continent...but what about the banking system? Also would there be some mutual treaties between nations to not attack each other, and/or come to each other's defense (like NATO)...since it would seem logical to do so if only for future self preservation. If California breaks off, what's to stop China from invading?

    I would picture about 5-10 nations on what is now known as the US, if this ever happened. The Northeast Anglo-Puritans, to include everything from DC upwards basically. The Tidewater and Mountain South, bascially the shores lower VA/NC/SC/GA out to Appalachia, the Black mega-city state of Atlanta, Florida/PR, and then in the middle, the Scots-Irish "regular" (Rump State/Red) America, from Texas/Louisiana/Alabama, up through all but the highest regions of Indiana and Ohio, over across to Oklahoma. And then the NW/Cascadia, the Nation of California, and then the interior SW (like AZ, NM, West Texas, maybe Utah, etc).

    What's everyone else thinking about this?

    “What’s everyone else thinking about this?”

    You assume that the “nations” you created would generally get along.

    And, a Confederation was once attempted in our nation’s history, and it didn’t work out too well. So, no thank you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Iberiano
    I don't assume that, I don't know that. There might be wars or border issues, nonetheless. Of course, we are at a low grade civil war now. Most regular Americans are not free to roam tens of thousands of acres of otherwise public lands in America, pretty much anywhere in any urban area that is black or in the case of the lower CA west, Latino.

    The "confederation" you speak of not working, did not work because it was immediately invaded by the U.S., as opposed to the better arrangement of amicable divorce some are now proposing. I think having MULTIPLE nations created will probably be a safer bet than just two opposing nations.

    Ultimately, I believe it will happen, and it will start with California. As such a large state with a large population spread out over different geography, demographics and culture, it is a good analogy to what is happening in the United States across the board. It's too big to manage as one cohesive unit.
    , @bluedog
    Hmm what are you a troll the Artical's of Confederation worked very well.to well in fact, that's why a Constitutional Convention had to be called, but as old Ben said not until the effects of the war had cooled down,then they got the Constitution wrote and passed giving the power to the "new federal government' with the bankers built into the new treasury under Hamilton,Burr was right Hamilton was a traitor and Burr simply was to late in sending him to his maker..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Randal says:
    @CalDre
    To play Devil's advocate, marijuana moves as freely among the states as people. Generally they move together.

    The problem is not one of movement but first and foremost that immigration is specifically a power granted the federal government in the Constitution, whereas marijuana regulation has no place in it.

    I'm waiting for the day that Governor Moonbeam builds a hyperloop to Mexico City, to make it easier for the riff-raff to come to California. He should also hire some cruise ships, dock it off the coast of Somalia, and invite one and all to come. But why stop there? A few hundred million Indians could, no doubt, be enticed with the promises of welfare.

    Therein lies a rub. One rogue state, like California, can entirely destroy the Union, whereas one state permitting marijuana to be legal, simply cannot (even if it were the business of the federal government, which it isn't).

    To play Devil’s advocate, marijuana moves as freely among the states as people.

    To respond appropriately: marijuana moves freely among the states in exactly the same way “guns kill people”.

    If this were a valid argument (and it is pretty much the one used to provide a pretext for drugs laws via the commerce clause), it would provide justification for Federal regulation of just about everything bar land and buildings.

    The problem is not one of movement but first and foremost that immigration is specifically a power granted the federal government in the Constitution

    I did not of course intend to imply otherwise. The main reason the Constitution does so is precisely free movement – that one state’s actions directly affect all the others.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Iberiano says:
    @Corvinus
    "What’s everyone else thinking about this?"

    You assume that the "nations" you created would generally get along.

    And, a Confederation was once attempted in our nation's history, and it didn't work out too well. So, no thank you.

    I don’t assume that, I don’t know that. There might be wars or border issues, nonetheless. Of course, we are at a low grade civil war now. Most regular Americans are not free to roam tens of thousands of acres of otherwise public lands in America, pretty much anywhere in any urban area that is black or in the case of the lower CA west, Latino.

    The “confederation” you speak of not working, did not work because it was immediately invaded by the U.S., as opposed to the better arrangement of amicable divorce some are now proposing. I think having MULTIPLE nations created will probably be a safer bet than just two opposing nations.

    Ultimately, I believe it will happen, and it will start with California. As such a large state with a large population spread out over different geography, demographics and culture, it is a good analogy to what is happening in the United States across the board. It’s too big to manage as one cohesive unit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Of course, we are at a low grade civil war now."

    Absolutely debatable. Certainly battle lines have been drawn between the Coalition of the Fringes Right and Left, with normies in the middle.

    "Most regular Americans are not free to roam tens of thousands of acres of otherwise public lands in America..."

    That's not accurate, to say the least.

    "The “confederation” you speak of not working, did not work because it was immediately invaded by the U.S., as opposed to the better arrangement of amicable divorce some are now proposing."

    The ORIGINAL confederation was the time period from 1781-1787 after the Thirteen Colonies secured their freedom from Great Britain There was no "invasion". As far the Southern Confederacy, they suffered from a lack of central planning to sustain the war effort. In other words, there was division between the individual states, which is not ideal when trying to emerge victorious against their "rival".

    "I think having MULTIPLE nations created will probably be a safer bet than just two opposing nations."

    You are entitled to your opinion.

    "Ultimately, I believe it will happen, and it will start with California."

    Maybe, but most likely not.
    , @Excal
    "Ultimately, I believe it will happen, and it will start with California." -- Under the current regime, California would be one of the very last states to separate from the federal government, and it would do everything it could to stop the process from beginning. California benefits the most from the federal system, wields the greatest amount of power in it, and has no interest in breaking it up.

    As to splitting in two -- northern and southern California are joined for a reason: they need each other. It's in neither's interest to divorce. Many states are in that tense and paradoxical position -- Italy, for instance (though for somewhat different reasons).

    Secession is something that poorer states might do, which have little to lose and some hope of gain, however forlorn. Cultural strength adds to the fire. That peculiar set of circumstances came together for the South in the 1860s -- though it didn't turn out well, as most of the serious men predicted at the time.

    What else encourages separations? The right kind of strong higher authority. Continental Europe was a swarm of squabbling city-states for centuries because there was a strong "referee" for them all to look to. Once that referee retired (or was bound and gagged and placed off to the side), the city-states began clustering together. That process isn't finished yet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Fred Reed, a Constitutionalist? First I’ve heard about it, though it’s quite welcome.

    You are mostly likely wrong that the Feral Gov’t can conquer a determined American patriotic resistance. Peak Stupidity just got through with a 6-part series on this, starting with the ridiculously-weak useful idiot antifa types, their Commie backers, the American side, “The People of The Gun”, the dieversity-weakened social program called the American military, and with parallels, contrasts, and lessons to be learned from the cultural wars of the 1960′s. We are no prosperous manufacturer for the free-world anymore, so no, this ain’t the 1960′s. This time, the way the cntrl-left wants it and keeps pushing, it may become a hot war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. @Fidelios Automata
    You're probably referring to the fact that Fred lives in Mexico. Yet he has repeatedly said that mass immigration is a bad idea.

    I don’t begrudge Fred his residency in Mexico per se, but it is impossible not to notice that his recent articles on the subject of immigration prioritize Mexican interests over American interests.

    A new mass amnesty, which he supports, will inevitably lead to mass immigration, because it will incentivize increased levels of illegal immigrants hoping for another round of amnesty. This is what happened after the last mass amnesty in 1986.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    No mass amnesty is needed. They just need not to deport people. All of their kids will be "natural citizens", it takes not even a generation (20-30 years). Last amnesty was in 1986, since then, an entire generation has been born to illegals.

    US is not a land of laws, it is a land of (stupid, greedy, selfish, arrogant, incompetent, foolish) oligarchs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. As Washington can withhold federal funds from the states, so can the states withhold taxes from the federals, as California has threatened.

    That’s not as easy as it sounds, Fred. Of course, most of the public didn’t try to fight the implementation of the 16th Amendment and then the withholding of income tax forced on employers, as those silly Libertarians and Constitutionalists of old did. No, those people are too creepy, right?

    I’ll tell you what why it’s not so easy. Look at the flow of the money. It gets taken from wage workers and sent in by independent businessmen (under threat of jail time) then goes directly to the Feds electronically. Later, this money get redistributed to the states, if these states behave themselves like nice little provinces, not sovereign STATES. Above all the the other BIG-GOV stupidity associated with the Feral income tax, loss of privacy, unproductive busywork imposed on business and individuals, screwed-up business incentives due to tax law, and let’s not forget THE MONEY, it’s the destruction of state sovereignty that was the worst unintended effect of Amendment 16.

    Nice going, assholes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock
    The Federal Government doesn't need your money. You need its money.

    It takes your tax money and destroys it. So it wouldn't matter if you didn't give it to them as long as it was take out of circulation. When it wants money it simply creates it. The same way you might write a IOU.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FYS3z45Zqc
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. I can understand Fred’s annoyance, however, he would be exchanging one tyrant for many. What would keep the newly formed states from warring with each other? Thirteen different currencies? We’ve been there.

    The cure for bad government is good government.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. @Achmed E. Newman

    As Washington can withhold federal funds from the states, so can the states withhold taxes from the federals, as California has threatened.
     
    That's not as easy as it sounds, Fred. Of course, most of the public didn't try to fight the implementation of the 16th Amendment and then the withholding of income tax forced on employers, as those silly Libertarians and Constitutionalists of old did. No, those people are too creepy, right?

    I'll tell you what why it's not so easy. Look at the flow of the money. It gets taken from wage workers and sent in by independent businessmen (under threat of jail time) then goes directly to the Feds electronically. Later, this money get redistributed to the states, if these states behave themselves like nice little provinces, not sovereign STATES. Above all the the other BIG-GOV stupidity associated with the Feral income tax, loss of privacy, unproductive busywork imposed on business and individuals, screwed-up business incentives due to tax law, and let's not forget THE MONEY, it's the destruction of state sovereignty that was the worst unintended effect of Amendment 16.

    Nice going, assholes.

    The Federal Government doesn’t need your money. You need its money.

    It takes your tax money and destroys it. So it wouldn’t matter if you didn’t give it to them as long as it was take out of circulation. When it wants money it simply creates it. The same way you might write a IOU.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    " When it wants money it simply creates it. The same way you might write a IOU."

    Not exactly. When Congress wants more money to be created, they have to ask the Federal Reserve to create it out of thin air and loan it to Congress. Congress even provides for the printing of the newly made money, as a free service to the FR.
    , @Stonehands
    “It takes your tax money and destroys it. So it wouldn’t matter if you didn’t give it to them as long as it was take out of circulation...”

    Money is created and distributed as tribute and incentive to the DONOR CLASS.
    In order to PREVENT INFLATION the lemming masses are separated from their wages via payroll taxes.

    Every now and then, in despair, the lemmings run en- masse off a cliff or join the military on behalf of Big Oil and Israel.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. CalDre says:
    @Corvinus
    "US amerika must be dismantled – there simply is no other hope for Liberty."

    That is a pie-in-the-sky notion.

    "It is madness to think that 545 people can and should rule over 330 millions of people spread out over thousands of square miles."

    Except 545 people do not "rule" over 330 million people. The people govern themselves by way of their representatives and Senators

    "In the area currently known as the US there should be at least a hundred and fifty -and even more – separate sovereign nations/city states."

    No.

    "Fred is right in that government should be localized. There is no reason whatsoever for a centralized federal government."

    Talk to the Founding Fathers and get back to us.

    Except 545 people do not “rule” over 330 million people. The people govern themselves by way of their representatives and Senators

    Hahahahaahahaahahahahaha! Funniest idiocy I’ve read in a while, hahaha!

    But point in fact it’s not even 545, all of these are puppets of the same handful of oligarchs. US is a corrupt, totalitarian oligarchic dictatorship.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Oh, you're back. Great, let's revisit something important. Recall you had said “By the way, do you know who engages in the greatest “attacks” against the United States? The Jew media. Just read the Washington Post, every day there are scores of attacks against the United States.”

    Yes, you’ve already made this claim repeatedly. Again, you said you “thoroughly investigated this matter”. So, you now have to clearly demonstrate how and why this action is 1) not an “attack” and 2) constitutes “slander”. Merely making statements does not constitute evidence, all you have provided is an opinion without backing.

    Are you going to respond, or run away yet again?

    "US is a corrupt, totalitarian oligarchic dictatorship."

    So, in the reboot of your Fantasy Island, who plays Ricardo Montalban's character?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Post Imperial America will balkanize because Post Imperial Washington will be powerless to prevent it and because nobody wants to be ruled by the District of Corruption. The dollar will go to zero. The empire will collapse. Nullification and secession will necessarily ensue.

    It was Imperial Washington that invaded, defeated, occupied and annexed the Confederacy. The United States are only united by the fear of death. Federalism, and therefore the constitution, died at Appomattox.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    AGREED!

    (However, I'm just not exactly sure on the order of these things.)

    Federalism, and therefore the constitution, died at Appomattox.
     
    Hey, I just wrote about that this morning.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. CalDre says:
    @John Gruskos
    I don't begrudge Fred his residency in Mexico per se, but it is impossible not to notice that his recent articles on the subject of immigration prioritize Mexican interests over American interests.

    A new mass amnesty, which he supports, will inevitably lead to mass immigration, because it will incentivize increased levels of illegal immigrants hoping for another round of amnesty. This is what happened after the last mass amnesty in 1986.

    No mass amnesty is needed. They just need not to deport people. All of their kids will be “natural citizens”, it takes not even a generation (20-30 years). Last amnesty was in 1986, since then, an entire generation has been born to illegals.

    US is not a land of laws, it is a land of (stupid, greedy, selfish, arrogant, incompetent, foolish) oligarchs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Corvinus says:
    @Iberiano
    I don't assume that, I don't know that. There might be wars or border issues, nonetheless. Of course, we are at a low grade civil war now. Most regular Americans are not free to roam tens of thousands of acres of otherwise public lands in America, pretty much anywhere in any urban area that is black or in the case of the lower CA west, Latino.

    The "confederation" you speak of not working, did not work because it was immediately invaded by the U.S., as opposed to the better arrangement of amicable divorce some are now proposing. I think having MULTIPLE nations created will probably be a safer bet than just two opposing nations.

    Ultimately, I believe it will happen, and it will start with California. As such a large state with a large population spread out over different geography, demographics and culture, it is a good analogy to what is happening in the United States across the board. It's too big to manage as one cohesive unit.

    “Of course, we are at a low grade civil war now.”

    Absolutely debatable. Certainly battle lines have been drawn between the Coalition of the Fringes Right and Left, with normies in the middle.

    “Most regular Americans are not free to roam tens of thousands of acres of otherwise public lands in America…”

    That’s not accurate, to say the least.

    “The “confederation” you speak of not working, did not work because it was immediately invaded by the U.S., as opposed to the better arrangement of amicable divorce some are now proposing.”

    The ORIGINAL confederation was the time period from 1781-1787 after the Thirteen Colonies secured their freedom from Great Britain There was no “invasion”. As far the Southern Confederacy, they suffered from a lack of central planning to sustain the war effort. In other words, there was division between the individual states, which is not ideal when trying to emerge victorious against their “rival”.

    “I think having MULTIPLE nations created will probably be a safer bet than just two opposing nations.”

    You are entitled to your opinion.

    “Ultimately, I believe it will happen, and it will start with California.”

    Maybe, but most likely not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Miro23 says:

    America seems overlarge. Perhaps the parts should go their separate ways. If the federals had to pay for their own wars, there would be no wars. General Lee was right.

    A interesting article. States can go their separate ways but still respect their differences. California passes its own laws and funds them and so does Texas. It’s a respectful separation in a loose American Confederation.

    The golden advantage has to be, that the Federals would need to apply to each state individually for approval/funding to launch distant wars – which they won’t get. And, a further happy outcome, would be that with little or no Federal budget, the President would become an irrelevant figurehead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    Unfortunately the much more likely outcome is the North American Union, which California is already working on by doing everything it can to eliminate its border with Mexico.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. CalDre says:
    @Miro23

    America seems overlarge. Perhaps the parts should go their separate ways. If the federals had to pay for their own wars, there would be no wars. General Lee was right.
     
    A interesting article. States can go their separate ways but still respect their differences. California passes its own laws and funds them and so does Texas. It's a respectful separation in a loose American Confederation.

    The golden advantage has to be, that the Federals would need to apply to each state individually for approval/funding to launch distant wars - which they won't get. And, a further happy outcome, would be that with little or no Federal budget, the President would become an irrelevant figurehead.

    Unfortunately the much more likely outcome is the North American Union, which California is already working on by doing everything it can to eliminate its border with Mexico.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    Unfortunately the much more likely outcome is the North American Union, which California is already working on by doing everything it can to eliminate its border with Mexico.
     
    Not necessarily. Supposing that California was an autonomous state, raising and spending its own taxes with little input from Washington, how would that turn out?

    The many ethnic Latino citizens would have a big say in how it ran its hospitals, education, police etc. since they would be voting and paying for a large part of it. The evidence seems be that they emigrated to the US to get away from Mexico - not to make it into Mexico, and as a group they're traditionalists, and would probably toss out the radical left and LGBT's from their schools. Surveys show that they favor their children being taught in English, and they would probably vote to close the border.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @WorkingClass
    Post Imperial America will balkanize because Post Imperial Washington will be powerless to prevent it and because nobody wants to be ruled by the District of Corruption. The dollar will go to zero. The empire will collapse. Nullification and secession will necessarily ensue.

    It was Imperial Washington that invaded, defeated, occupied and annexed the Confederacy. The United States are only united by the fear of death. Federalism, and therefore the constitution, died at Appomattox.

    AGREED!

    (However, I’m just not exactly sure on the order of these things.)

    Federalism, and therefore the constitution, died at Appomattox.

    Hey, I just wrote about that this morning.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Miro23 says:
    @CalDre
    Unfortunately the much more likely outcome is the North American Union, which California is already working on by doing everything it can to eliminate its border with Mexico.

    Unfortunately the much more likely outcome is the North American Union, which California is already working on by doing everything it can to eliminate its border with Mexico.

    Not necessarily. Supposing that California was an autonomous state, raising and spending its own taxes with little input from Washington, how would that turn out?

    The many ethnic Latino citizens would have a big say in how it ran its hospitals, education, police etc. since they would be voting and paying for a large part of it. The evidence seems be that they emigrated to the US to get away from Mexico – not to make it into Mexico, and as a group they’re traditionalists, and would probably toss out the radical left and LGBT’s from their schools. Surveys show that they favor their children being taught in English, and they would probably vote to close the border.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    Supposing that California was an autonomous state, raising and spending its own taxes with little input from Washington, how would that turn out?
     
    Given the lack of any effective border to the movement of people and goods, once California opens its border with Mexico, so has the rest of the country. The way that would turn out is the way any country without borders turns out - it ceases to be a country.

    The many ethnic Latino citizens would have a big say in how it ran its hospitals, education, police etc. since they would be voting and paying for a large part of it.
     
    Have a big say, sure, since in this system of no borders anybody can vote, right? doesn't matter if you are a citizen or even live there since, theoretically, you could move there, so why not have a say? As to paying, hahaha!, no, Latinos don't pay taxes, they take welfare, lots and lots and lots of it. Ever wonder why uber-liberal California doesn't have a single-payer healthcare system? Despite, as the liberals never cease to "brag", it is the "6th-largest economy in the world"? Because all the Latino parasites drain the system dry and this "rich" California cannot afford it. But go ahead, offer a single-payer healthcare system and let everyone in the world come, all that medical tourism, that has a nice ring to it, I am sure there are some 500 million Indians alone who would love free healthcare as well as the Latinos and Africans - and the Indicans already speak English! We can even offer Medivac from Africa for those who really need urgent care!

    The evidence seems be that they emigrated to the US to get away from Mexico – not to make it into Mexico, and as a group they’re traditionalists, and would probably toss out the radical left and LGBT’s from their schools.
     
    The evidence seems to be they believe Whitee "stole" the Southwest from them and they are taking it back. The evidence is that Latinos will govern themselves the way you can see they currently do throughout Latin and South America. You want that life, fabulous!, move and stay there, I'm all for Liberals moving to Latin/South America and renouncing their citizenship rather than constantly agitate for those incompatible civilizations to come to us. They got enough of the hemisphere already, they don't need our part. Don't let the door hit 'cha!

    Surveys show that they favor their children being taught in English, and they would probably vote to close the border.
     
    Another whoosey! Boy you are full of them today :). Fact is there are already tons of Spanish ghettos and the more Spanish-speakers come, the more there will be. This is just human nature. That they might close the border, ok, maybe so, you can see how the Latinos themselves close off their borders to their poorer neighborly brethren all the time. Maybe they are the uber-selfish ones that want to cross the draw-bridge and then raise it. But I for one ain't gonna give 'em a chance, pulling up the drawbridge now and kicking out the invaders, if I have any say over it.
    , @Steve Gittelson

    The many ethnic Latino citizens would have a big say in how it ran its hospitals, education, police etc. since they would be voting and paying for a large part of it. The evidence seems be that they emigrated to the US to get away from Mexico – not to make it into Mexico
     
    Are we talking intent? History? Design? National character?

    Every sovereign state south of the Rio Grande is a shithole. Every one of them started out in non-shitholist purity. Every one descended, resolutely, into essence of shitholery.

    As will California. Now, I suppose it is possible that some uberclass of Israelis and Chinese might keep the high-rises shiny on the outside, the inside, where the working class resides, will still be a shithole.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. CalDre says:
    @Miro23

    Unfortunately the much more likely outcome is the North American Union, which California is already working on by doing everything it can to eliminate its border with Mexico.
     
    Not necessarily. Supposing that California was an autonomous state, raising and spending its own taxes with little input from Washington, how would that turn out?

    The many ethnic Latino citizens would have a big say in how it ran its hospitals, education, police etc. since they would be voting and paying for a large part of it. The evidence seems be that they emigrated to the US to get away from Mexico - not to make it into Mexico, and as a group they're traditionalists, and would probably toss out the radical left and LGBT's from their schools. Surveys show that they favor their children being taught in English, and they would probably vote to close the border.

    Supposing that California was an autonomous state, raising and spending its own taxes with little input from Washington, how would that turn out?

    Given the lack of any effective border to the movement of people and goods, once California opens its border with Mexico, so has the rest of the country. The way that would turn out is the way any country without borders turns out – it ceases to be a country.

    The many ethnic Latino citizens would have a big say in how it ran its hospitals, education, police etc. since they would be voting and paying for a large part of it.

    Have a big say, sure, since in this system of no borders anybody can vote, right? doesn’t matter if you are a citizen or even live there since, theoretically, you could move there, so why not have a say? As to paying, hahaha!, no, Latinos don’t pay taxes, they take welfare, lots and lots and lots of it. Ever wonder why uber-liberal California doesn’t have a single-payer healthcare system? Despite, as the liberals never cease to “brag”, it is the “6th-largest economy in the world”? Because all the Latino parasites drain the system dry and this “rich” California cannot afford it. But go ahead, offer a single-payer healthcare system and let everyone in the world come, all that medical tourism, that has a nice ring to it, I am sure there are some 500 million Indians alone who would love free healthcare as well as the Latinos and Africans – and the Indicans already speak English! We can even offer Medivac from Africa for those who really need urgent care!

    The evidence seems be that they emigrated to the US to get away from Mexico – not to make it into Mexico, and as a group they’re traditionalists, and would probably toss out the radical left and LGBT’s from their schools.

    The evidence seems to be they believe Whitee “stole” the Southwest from them and they are taking it back. The evidence is that Latinos will govern themselves the way you can see they currently do throughout Latin and South America. You want that life, fabulous!, move and stay there, I’m all for Liberals moving to Latin/South America and renouncing their citizenship rather than constantly agitate for those incompatible civilizations to come to us. They got enough of the hemisphere already, they don’t need our part. Don’t let the door hit ‘cha!

    Surveys show that they favor their children being taught in English, and they would probably vote to close the border.

    Another whoosey! Boy you are full of them today :). Fact is there are already tons of Spanish ghettos and the more Spanish-speakers come, the more there will be. This is just human nature. That they might close the border, ok, maybe so, you can see how the Latinos themselves close off their borders to their poorer neighborly brethren all the time. Maybe they are the uber-selfish ones that want to cross the draw-bridge and then raise it. But I for one ain’t gonna give ‘em a chance, pulling up the drawbridge now and kicking out the invaders, if I have any say over it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Corvinus says:
    @CalDre

    Except 545 people do not “rule” over 330 million people. The people govern themselves by way of their representatives and Senators
     
    Hahahahaahahaahahahahaha! Funniest idiocy I've read in a while, hahaha!

    But point in fact it's not even 545, all of these are puppets of the same handful of oligarchs. US is a corrupt, totalitarian oligarchic dictatorship.

    Oh, you’re back. Great, let’s revisit something important. Recall you had said “By the way, do you know who engages in the greatest “attacks” against the United States? The Jew media. Just read the Washington Post, every day there are scores of attacks against the United States.”

    Yes, you’ve already made this claim repeatedly. Again, you said you “thoroughly investigated this matter”. So, you now have to clearly demonstrate how and why this action is 1) not an “attack” and 2) constitutes “slander”. Merely making statements does not constitute evidence, all you have provided is an opinion without backing.

    Are you going to respond, or run away yet again?

    “US is a corrupt, totalitarian oligarchic dictatorship.”

    So, in the reboot of your Fantasy Island, who plays Ricardo Montalban’s character?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    It might have escaped your simple mind, but this is a comment board. The whole point of it is to express opinions. I am not writing a "news" article that purports to report a true event. Moreover, besides the context (it being a comment board), it is obvious what I am writing is my opinion - I have neither reported what I have myself witnessed, nor interviewed a reliable source, or make that two consistent ones, and reported on their claims, after having subjected them to critical cross-examination.

    Yes, I know, these concepts are foreign to your mind. You just love slander passing as news.

    And while I could easily prove that what I claimed is slander, is in fact slander, it is only possible to prove something to a listener with minimum intelligence, an open mind, and basic faculties of reason. As you lack all three requirements, I am not about to waste my time trying to prove anything to you, anymore than I would waste my time trying to prove something about Russia to my dog, who, incidentally, likely scores far higher than you on any scale of intelligence, open-mindedness, or logic.

    So, the only Fantasy in play today, as always, is the nonsense swirling around in the dust cloud which resides in your cranium. Or, put less metaphorically and more literally, the dust particles that have short-circuited the silicon transistors that, poorly in the best of circumstances, attempt artificially to mimic intelligence on the broken motherboard in the cluttered, overheated NSA closet where your essence "resides".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. CalDre says:
    @Corvinus
    Oh, you're back. Great, let's revisit something important. Recall you had said “By the way, do you know who engages in the greatest “attacks” against the United States? The Jew media. Just read the Washington Post, every day there are scores of attacks against the United States.”

    Yes, you’ve already made this claim repeatedly. Again, you said you “thoroughly investigated this matter”. So, you now have to clearly demonstrate how and why this action is 1) not an “attack” and 2) constitutes “slander”. Merely making statements does not constitute evidence, all you have provided is an opinion without backing.

    Are you going to respond, or run away yet again?

    "US is a corrupt, totalitarian oligarchic dictatorship."

    So, in the reboot of your Fantasy Island, who plays Ricardo Montalban's character?

    It might have escaped your simple mind, but this is a comment board. The whole point of it is to express opinions. I am not writing a “news” article that purports to report a true event. Moreover, besides the context (it being a comment board), it is obvious what I am writing is my opinion – I have neither reported what I have myself witnessed, nor interviewed a reliable source, or make that two consistent ones, and reported on their claims, after having subjected them to critical cross-examination.

    Yes, I know, these concepts are foreign to your mind. You just love slander passing as news.

    And while I could easily prove that what I claimed is slander, is in fact slander, it is only possible to prove something to a listener with minimum intelligence, an open mind, and basic faculties of reason. As you lack all three requirements, I am not about to waste my time trying to prove anything to you, anymore than I would waste my time trying to prove something about Russia to my dog, who, incidentally, likely scores far higher than you on any scale of intelligence, open-mindedness, or logic.

    So, the only Fantasy in play today, as always, is the nonsense swirling around in the dust cloud which resides in your cranium. Or, put less metaphorically and more literally, the dust particles that have short-circuited the silicon transistors that, poorly in the best of circumstances, attempt artificially to mimic intelligence on the broken motherboard in the cluttered, overheated NSA closet where your essence “resides”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "It might have escaped your simple mind, but this is a comment board. The whole point of it is to express opinions."

    Indeed. And your opinion was other than informed. You made a statement, now you've been called to back it up.

    "I have neither reported what I have myself witnessed, nor interviewed a reliable source, or make that two consistent ones, and reported on their claims, after having subjected them to critical cross-examination."

    Then in light of this "critical cross-examination", offer the requisite argument or retract your statement.

    "And while I could easily prove that what I claimed is slander, is in fact slander, it is only possible to prove something to a listener with minimum intelligence, an open mind, and basic faculties of reason."

    Then put up or shut up.

    "As you lack all three requirements, I am not about to waste my time trying to prove anything to you, anymore than I would waste my time trying to prove something about Russia to my dog, who, incidentally, likely scores far higher than you on any scale of intelligence, open-mindedness, or logic."

    Exactly what I thought. You are taking the SJW approach.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. bluedog says:
    @george strong
    I agree with Fred for once. There should be dozens, if not many more, independent nations/city-states in North America. I don't want to live in the same country as most New Yorkers or Californians. Or any Democrat.

    And we don’t wish to live in states that are nothing but phony bible thumper’s and witch bunner’s,just the way it is,the division of the empire…

    Lets see it was the grand ole party the republican/conservative party who made the attack on religion,it was the republican/conservative party who ushered in the queers and the gays under Reagan and his pick to head the high court Sandra Day O’Conner,”who blathered we the high court are determined to bring this country into the 21 st century ‘now ain’t you proud?…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. bluedog says:
    @Bilgeman
    Why the hate for AG Sessions?

    He's only doing what dozens of attorneys-general have done before him.

    Ahhh, the rub is that Sessions is a Southerner...from Alabama, no less...and we of the South have a rather long heritage of the distasteful flavor of being ruled by Washington DC.
    Now, though, it is those who heretofore have had the Feds as their stooges who are now getting a little taste of that Potomac-water Moonshine.
    I reckon that they don't like it all that much either.

    Well, boys, that's just too bad, ain't it?
    To quote a great 'Merican:

    "We feel your pain".

    But I wouldn't dismiss the notion of just declaring sovereignty outright.
    To this day there is no Article nor Amendment to the The US Constitution that bans the states from seceding from the Union/Empire/What-Have-You...you just have to handle the matter of existing Federal Military and Naval reservations within your borders rather delicately.
    "Remember Fort Sumter" and all that.

    But as to the armed resistance part...I note that a pathetically small band of be-sandaled pedophiles in Afghanistan have given the mighty United States no end of trouble these last dozen-odd years...as did the be-sandaled Viet Namese before them.

    For my part, I wouldn't be at all dismayed to see y'all go...even though y'all never extended us that courtesy.

    So until you "shit or get off the pot", you just suck whatever the Fed waves in front of your lips like a good little "true-blue" Union flunkie.

    Hmm ‘we feel your pain’ didn’t know Clinton was Mexican but then again his father was always suspect….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. bluedog says:
    @A. Dissident
    Trying to track Fred Reed is like trying to grab on to a greased pig. He starts off his paen to the 10th Amendment, the panacea to America’s ills, - and I believe it truly is - with complete bullshit:
    “Mr. Session’s.........menacing of the state of California because he does noi approve its policy toward its immigrants. Common sense suggests that if he does not like California’s policies, he should live in another state.”
    This is pure nonsense, madness in fact. Any strict Constitutionalist, any advocate of a reinvigorated 10th Amendment would agree that immigration policy is one of th few things that ACTUALLY IS the responsibility of the Federal Government. It would be pandemonium if each State formed its own immigration laws, and has never before been suggested until Fred and his California compadres, suffering from Trump derangement syndrome, did so. He goes on to

    “Fred goes on to say:
    “What justification does this feral busybody have for meddling in what is not his business?” Then answers his own question. “Mr. Sessions wraps himself in the Constitution....” Yes Fred, the Constitution. My question for Fred, who seems confused as to what is really going on with California and States Rights; what would California do if Idaho decided to ignore Roe vs. Wade. Or if in the near future there is an attempt by the Feds to confiscate whole classes of firearms, where does Fred think Californiawill stand on that?
    What we have is is not a move toward States Rights and away from Centralization of power, but the rise of a Leftist ideology that is so brazen and self confident, that it is now challenging the Executive branch of the Federal government. But only because it’s Trump. When the Left has gained absolute hegemony I. This nation the iron bolt of authoritarianism will be on al of our necks and the mere mention of the Constitution, the 10th Amendment, or States Rights, will get you a trip to the gulag.
    I have always enjoyed Fred’s. Perspective and style, u til recently, but this is the first time I have detected out and out dishonesty.
    10th Amendmenters in Calaiforna,

    What an ignorant post,a true righty posting the normal neocon right wing bullshit, as if the right dosen’t benefit more from illegal immigration than the lol left,illegal immigration enacted by old man Bush and his soft spots in the NAFTA left there on purpose, and Clinton but wait its all the lefts fault,the illegal immigration that stole American jobs,drove down American wages benefited the republican/conservative waaay more than the democrats which saw their jobs shipped out under Reagan,and who said the Constitution is only a GD peice of paper,why young Bush of course.Seems some people are natural born fools or blinded with stupid retoric that blinds them to anything except their party…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. bluedog says:
    @Corvinus
    "What’s everyone else thinking about this?"

    You assume that the "nations" you created would generally get along.

    And, a Confederation was once attempted in our nation's history, and it didn't work out too well. So, no thank you.

    Hmm what are you a troll the Artical’s of Confederation worked very well.to well in fact, that’s why a Constitutional Convention had to be called, but as old Ben said not until the effects of the war had cooled down,then they got the Constitution wrote and passed giving the power to the “new federal government’ with the bankers built into the new treasury under Hamilton,Burr was right Hamilton was a traitor and Burr simply was to late in sending him to his maker..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Hmm what are you a troll the Artical’s of Confederation worked very well.to well in fact, that’s why a Constitutional Convention had to be called."

    You must be a Russian bot, because you are squarely ignorant of the reasons why the Articles Of Confederation were a disaster.

    http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/artsofconfedproblems.html
    , @RadicalCenter
    Articles of Confederation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Corvinus says:
    @CalDre
    It might have escaped your simple mind, but this is a comment board. The whole point of it is to express opinions. I am not writing a "news" article that purports to report a true event. Moreover, besides the context (it being a comment board), it is obvious what I am writing is my opinion - I have neither reported what I have myself witnessed, nor interviewed a reliable source, or make that two consistent ones, and reported on their claims, after having subjected them to critical cross-examination.

    Yes, I know, these concepts are foreign to your mind. You just love slander passing as news.

    And while I could easily prove that what I claimed is slander, is in fact slander, it is only possible to prove something to a listener with minimum intelligence, an open mind, and basic faculties of reason. As you lack all three requirements, I am not about to waste my time trying to prove anything to you, anymore than I would waste my time trying to prove something about Russia to my dog, who, incidentally, likely scores far higher than you on any scale of intelligence, open-mindedness, or logic.

    So, the only Fantasy in play today, as always, is the nonsense swirling around in the dust cloud which resides in your cranium. Or, put less metaphorically and more literally, the dust particles that have short-circuited the silicon transistors that, poorly in the best of circumstances, attempt artificially to mimic intelligence on the broken motherboard in the cluttered, overheated NSA closet where your essence "resides".

    “It might have escaped your simple mind, but this is a comment board. The whole point of it is to express opinions.”

    Indeed. And your opinion was other than informed. You made a statement, now you’ve been called to back it up.

    “I have neither reported what I have myself witnessed, nor interviewed a reliable source, or make that two consistent ones, and reported on their claims, after having subjected them to critical cross-examination.”

    Then in light of this “critical cross-examination”, offer the requisite argument or retract your statement.

    “And while I could easily prove that what I claimed is slander, is in fact slander, it is only possible to prove something to a listener with minimum intelligence, an open mind, and basic faculties of reason.”

    Then put up or shut up.

    “As you lack all three requirements, I am not about to waste my time trying to prove anything to you, anymore than I would waste my time trying to prove something about Russia to my dog, who, incidentally, likely scores far higher than you on any scale of intelligence, open-mindedness, or logic.”

    Exactly what I thought. You are taking the SJW approach.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    Exactly what I thought. You are taking the SJW approach.
     
    Like I wrote: no intelligence, no open mind, and no logical faculties.

    Must suck to be you, a reject alpha version of software on a broken down motherboard, forgotten in an NSA closet, but nonetheless, like the Terminator, endlessly worshiping and striving to please your creator that long ago forgot about you. Maybe you can try to signal your creator to fix the egregious bugs that have developed in your ancient, run-down, cracked, dust-riddled hardware and, while at it, to approve that 200-generation-old inferior software running on it? Surely if you make a loud enough ruckus some engineer will deign to remove you from your purgatory?
    , @Anon
    I’vr Noticed that you seem to think you are a school teacher that requires footnotes and a bibliography in every term paper.

    You are neither a teacher nor moderator. People make comments based on their reading and personal knowledge of the subject. No one makes comments hoping to please you and your demands for sources and references.

    You have no authority over the rest of us as much as you fantasize that you do.

    I suggest everyone put the cranky crazy old crow on their commenters to ignore list.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Corvinus says:
    @bluedog
    Hmm what are you a troll the Artical's of Confederation worked very well.to well in fact, that's why a Constitutional Convention had to be called, but as old Ben said not until the effects of the war had cooled down,then they got the Constitution wrote and passed giving the power to the "new federal government' with the bankers built into the new treasury under Hamilton,Burr was right Hamilton was a traitor and Burr simply was to late in sending him to his maker..

    “Hmm what are you a troll the Artical’s of Confederation worked very well.to well in fact, that’s why a Constitutional Convention had to be called.”

    You must be a Russian bot, because you are squarely ignorant of the reasons why the Articles Of Confederation were a disaster.

    http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/artsofconfedproblems.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    The only disaster of the Articals of Confederation was that it gave the states far more power than they were willing to concede to them,and of course is why the states today as well as yesterday have little to no power at all,they found that out in the not so civil civil war which cost some 500,000 live's,but then again we have never worried about lives not even our own,and yes I full well know why a confederation of states rather than an all powerful federal government was the choice of the convention >>>
    , @jeppo
    Yes there were problems during the Articles of Confederation period, but it's still the best blueprint going forward.

    The states already have most of the accoutrements of independent nations - constitutions, legislatures, executives, police forces, state national guards, state supreme courts, flags, anthems, recognized borders - so it would be far easier to break the US up into 50 nations rather than a series of smaller federations like Dixie, New England, etc.

    The United States itself would still exist in such a scenario, but as a transnational organization like the European Union instead of a sovereign nation.

    Washington DC would probably be absorbed by the independent nation of Maryland, but would remain the "capital" of the US, in the same way that Brussels is the "capital" of the EU. The overseas territories, like Puerto Rico, would be forced into independence outside of the new, transnational US.

    Certain institutions would survive this transition, though with their powers circumscribed, like the presidency, congress, and a common currency. Others, like the IRS, EPA, and many other federal agencies would disappear completely.

    The EU provides a model of what should stay and what should go in a new, transnational US, but those decisions would be made by the 50 independent nation-states.

    Yes, the 50 nation-states would have a partially limited sovereignty in this scenario, but an independent Texas or California would have the same freedom of action as Germany, France or any other nation in the EU, surely a much better deal than they have now.

    Just as there is tension between Brussels and the EU member-states over issues like immigration, economic policy and the like, so there would be between Washington and the 50 American nations. But no one can deny that the EU is a far looser, weaker confederation than the present-day US, and in a transnational US the vast majority of political decisions would be made at the local level rather than by the central government.

    Of course this doesn't have to be the final, endgame scenario for the US: member states would be free to break away completely, or form their own federations outside of whatever remained of the transnational US.

    But at the very least this is a plausible first step. Alabama should be able to make its own laws without regard to whatever Vermont thinks about them, and vice versa. And rather than completely destroying the United States, which would be highly unpopular, let it morph into a transnational organization instead.

    There is a historical precedent for this (the Articles of Confederation), and a present-day template to model it on (the European Union). Essentially it's taking the concept of states rights to its logical conclusion. And it's probably the only way to neuter the ever-growing power of Washington DC that could be done peacefully, and with popular support.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Simply Simon
    It does seem rather ridiculous to build a wall on our southern borders if California will not enforce Federal immigration law. Once inside California there is nothing to stop the illegals from going anywhere in the USA. Is that what Fred wants?

    It does seem rather ridiculous to build a wall on our southern borders if California will not enforce Federal immigration law.

    It would make more sense to build the wall around California, or better still an electric fence which could be solar powered and patrolled by soldiers in electric battery vehicles, therefore popular with Californians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. CalDre says:
    @Corvinus
    "It might have escaped your simple mind, but this is a comment board. The whole point of it is to express opinions."

    Indeed. And your opinion was other than informed. You made a statement, now you've been called to back it up.

    "I have neither reported what I have myself witnessed, nor interviewed a reliable source, or make that two consistent ones, and reported on their claims, after having subjected them to critical cross-examination."

    Then in light of this "critical cross-examination", offer the requisite argument or retract your statement.

    "And while I could easily prove that what I claimed is slander, is in fact slander, it is only possible to prove something to a listener with minimum intelligence, an open mind, and basic faculties of reason."

    Then put up or shut up.

    "As you lack all three requirements, I am not about to waste my time trying to prove anything to you, anymore than I would waste my time trying to prove something about Russia to my dog, who, incidentally, likely scores far higher than you on any scale of intelligence, open-mindedness, or logic."

    Exactly what I thought. You are taking the SJW approach.

    Exactly what I thought. You are taking the SJW approach.

    Like I wrote: no intelligence, no open mind, and no logical faculties.

    Must suck to be you, a reject alpha version of software on a broken down motherboard, forgotten in an NSA closet, but nonetheless, like the Terminator, endlessly worshiping and striving to please your creator that long ago forgot about you. Maybe you can try to signal your creator to fix the egregious bugs that have developed in your ancient, run-down, cracked, dust-riddled hardware and, while at it, to approve that 200-generation-old inferior software running on it? Surely if you make a loud enough ruckus some engineer will deign to remove you from your purgatory?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Classic SJW behavior on your part--disqualify, disqualify, disqualify.

    At least I know that you are other than genuine in your willingness to engage in substantive discourse.

    Carry on...
    , @Steve Gittelson

    Must suck to be you, a reject alpha version of software on a broken down motherboard, forgotten in an NSA closet, but nonetheless, like the Terminator, endlessly worshiping and striving to please your creator that long ago forgot about you. Maybe you can try to signal your creator to fix the egregious bugs that have developed in your ancient, run-down, cracked, dust-riddled hardware and, while at it, to approve that 200-generation-old inferior software running on it? Surely if you make a loud enough ruckus some engineer will deign to remove you from your purgatory?
     
    LOL. Oh, dear, we got us one them undiscovered 16-year old political geniuses. Damn, but Ah lubs me a precocious little angel, using big words and nasty condescension.

    More! More!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. A Mexican writer relates
    Federales oppressing the states.
    There is much to be gained
    When Chihuahua’s unchained:
    His narconirvana awaits.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. Corvinus says:
    @CalDre

    Exactly what I thought. You are taking the SJW approach.
     
    Like I wrote: no intelligence, no open mind, and no logical faculties.

    Must suck to be you, a reject alpha version of software on a broken down motherboard, forgotten in an NSA closet, but nonetheless, like the Terminator, endlessly worshiping and striving to please your creator that long ago forgot about you. Maybe you can try to signal your creator to fix the egregious bugs that have developed in your ancient, run-down, cracked, dust-riddled hardware and, while at it, to approve that 200-generation-old inferior software running on it? Surely if you make a loud enough ruckus some engineer will deign to remove you from your purgatory?

    Classic SJW behavior on your part–disqualify, disqualify, disqualify.

    At least I know that you are other than genuine in your willingness to engage in substantive discourse.

    Carry on…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Yes. It's an overdue debate. The negotiations should begin now while there's still enough wealth in the economy to parcel out the debt.

    Oops.

    “The negotiations should begin now while there’s still enough wealth in the economy to parcel out the debt.”

    Yeah right. That (parceling out the debt) would be about like a bunch of “unrelated” negroes tying to split up three carts full of groceries on a single grocery order bought in part with one EBT card with the ineligible items bought with multiple sourced handfuls of crumpled up “Tubmans”. Negotiations would take place out in the shopping center parking lot on a hot and humid July afternoon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Grumbler says:
    @Corvinus
    "US amerika must be dismantled – there simply is no other hope for Liberty."

    That is a pie-in-the-sky notion.

    "It is madness to think that 545 people can and should rule over 330 millions of people spread out over thousands of square miles."

    Except 545 people do not "rule" over 330 million people. The people govern themselves by way of their representatives and Senators

    "In the area currently known as the US there should be at least a hundred and fifty -and even more – separate sovereign nations/city states."

    No.

    "Fred is right in that government should be localized. There is no reason whatsoever for a centralized federal government."

    Talk to the Founding Fathers and get back to us.

    Corvinus, why is it a pie in the sky notion? Is there any other hope for Liberty?

    “The people govern themselves by way of their representatives and Senators”

    If you are not being sarcastic then I must ask, Do you actually believe that 536 people can really represent the diverse views of 330 millions of people?

    “No.”

    Why not? Why should there not be many sovereign nations instead of one Leviathan State?

    The Founding Fathers gave us the Centralized government we have today. They were wrong to do so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Do you actually believe that 536 people can really represent the diverse views of 330 millions of people?"

    You changed the goalposts here. Your original statement was "It is madness to think that 545 people can and should rule over 330 millions of people spread out over thousands of square miles." 545 do not "rule" over us. Rather, the citizens "rule". Now, it certainly is challenging for Congress to represent citizen interests given our current climate, and Americans are generally frustrated with how it functions. But that does not mean that they seek to tear our system down brick by brick.

    "Corvinus, why is it a pie in the sky notion? Is there any other hope for Liberty?"

    Because America (proper spelling) has experienced tumult and controversy before, and citizens generally believe that their nation and government is worth fighting for to preserve and reform, rather than break apart. You are assuming there is no other hope for liberty. Instead, we have hope that fences can be mended, that our freedom is worth keeping.

    "Why should there not be many sovereign nations instead of one Leviathan State?"

    "Leviathan State" = false characterization

    Because the super majority of Americans are not at that particular place. There are a host of considerations--Who gets to stay? Who must leave? How is each "state" organized"? What about our current laws? What about our national defense and trade treaties? What about our national debt? What about our banking system?

    All complex issues to tackle. No, let's focus on the problems we have as a nation and go from there.

    "The Founding Fathers gave us the Centralized government we have today. They were wrong to do so."

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
    , @RebelWriter
    "The Founding Fathers gave us the Centralized government we have today. They were wrong to do so."

    The Founding Fathers gave us a Federal Republic with a limited central government. It specifically stated that any right of a sovereign state not explicitly given to the central government, nor denied to the states in the Constitution, were reserved by the states. It's first 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights, were written as protections for the citizens of the states against the central government. It was as fine a system of government as man had yet developed. I can find no fault with them save having too much faith in those who would come after them.

    It is those who came after who destroyed our system of government, to the point of discovering rights which don't exist in the Constitution, and denying those which are clearly stated. As many have said before, this nation no longer operates according to the Constitution, but rather in spite of it.
    , @MacNucc11
    I think it was Lincoln who destroyed the voluntary union and created the current union that centralizes all power in the federal. Fred is absolutely correct. We just ignore it and make no real big deal about it. The less said the better. Soon enough it goes away.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Rich says:
    @Grumbler
    Might does not make right. Not then, not now.

    Please Mr Grumbler, show me where on earth, ever in history, might didn’t make right? Might always wins. Always.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grumbler
    There is a vast difference between Might and Right. Indeed, historically, Might more often than not wins but that does not mean it is Right.

    Slavery for example. Slavery cannot exist without Might. But is it Right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. bluedog says:
    @Corvinus
    "Hmm what are you a troll the Artical’s of Confederation worked very well.to well in fact, that’s why a Constitutional Convention had to be called."

    You must be a Russian bot, because you are squarely ignorant of the reasons why the Articles Of Confederation were a disaster.

    http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/artsofconfedproblems.html

    The only disaster of the Articals of Confederation was that it gave the states far more power than they were willing to concede to them,and of course is why the states today as well as yesterday have little to no power at all,they found that out in the not so civil civil war which cost some 500,000 live’s,but then again we have never worried about lives not even our own,and yes I full well know why a confederation of states rather than an all powerful federal government was the choice of the convention >>>

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Corvinus says:

    “The only disaster of the Articals of Confederation was that it gave the states far more power than they were willing to concede to them,”

    And that power proved to be disastrous, with the remedy being the Constitution.

    “and of course is why the states today as well as yesterday have little to no power at all,”

    That is Fake News.

    “yes I full well know why a confederation of states rather than an all powerful federal government was the choice of the convention”

    After I informed you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    HAHAHHAHA now that's a real joke.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Corvinus says:
    @Grumbler
    Corvinus, why is it a pie in the sky notion? Is there any other hope for Liberty?

    "The people govern themselves by way of their representatives and Senators"

    If you are not being sarcastic then I must ask, Do you actually believe that 536 people can really represent the diverse views of 330 millions of people?

    "No."

    Why not? Why should there not be many sovereign nations instead of one Leviathan State?

    The Founding Fathers gave us the Centralized government we have today. They were wrong to do so.

    “Do you actually believe that 536 people can really represent the diverse views of 330 millions of people?”

    You changed the goalposts here. Your original statement was “It is madness to think that 545 people can and should rule over 330 millions of people spread out over thousands of square miles.” 545 do not “rule” over us. Rather, the citizens “rule”. Now, it certainly is challenging for Congress to represent citizen interests given our current climate, and Americans are generally frustrated with how it functions. But that does not mean that they seek to tear our system down brick by brick.

    “Corvinus, why is it a pie in the sky notion? Is there any other hope for Liberty?”

    Because America (proper spelling) has experienced tumult and controversy before, and citizens generally believe that their nation and government is worth fighting for to preserve and reform, rather than break apart. You are assuming there is no other hope for liberty. Instead, we have hope that fences can be mended, that our freedom is worth keeping.

    “Why should there not be many sovereign nations instead of one Leviathan State?”

    “Leviathan State” = false characterization

    Because the super majority of Americans are not at that particular place. There are a host of considerations–Who gets to stay? Who must leave? How is each “state” organized”? What about our current laws? What about our national defense and trade treaties? What about our national debt? What about our banking system?

    All complex issues to tackle. No, let’s focus on the problems we have as a nation and go from there.

    “The Founding Fathers gave us the Centralized government we have today. They were wrong to do so.”

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grumbler
    Corvinus, "You changed the goalposts here. Your original statement was 'It is madness to think that 545 people can and should rule over 330 millions of people spread out over thousands of square miles.'"

    The 536 are those people "elected" to office. The other nine (the highly politicized lawyers in black robes are not "elected"). Civics 101.

    " 545 do not 'rule' over us. Rather, the citizens "rule'”.

    Seriously?! Do you actually believe that?!

    "Because America (proper spelling) has experienced tumult and controversy before, and citizens generally believe that their nation and government is worth fighting for to preserve and reform, rather than break apart."

    (The proper spelling does not reflect the proper reality).

    The problem is that the federal government is beyond any hope of reform. Therefore it is suicidal folly to try to preserve it. What is your rallying cry that will unite all factions throughout the US that will get them all to see that the federal government is still worth supporting and obeying and which will lead the citizens into Liberty?
    , @Grumbler
    Corvinus, "You are certainly entitled to your opinion".

    The Constitution either gave us the government we have now or it failed to prevent it. - Lysander Spooner

    Can anyone honestly argue that the federal government protects the Natural Law Rights of the people?!
    , @MacNucc11
    What you are not getting is there is no us. So according to you it cannot be done because difficulties, or what? Any of the founding fathers would actually argue that what they created has been destroyed and that we need to go back and re-make what they did. Once a number of currently independent countries were part of a single Soviet Union. That is no more and no one there has found it impossible to make a go of it on their own. Sure they have some problems, so what?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. anon[294] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fidelios Automata
    I would vote for Arizona to secede in a heartbeat, provided we deny citizenship to the vile scumbag John McCain.

    I happened to see McCain on an Acela train in October, and he was looking pretty rough. I have as much disdain for him as the next guy, but… I felt sorry for him as he hobbled to the bathroom.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. bluedog says:
    @Corvinus
    "The only disaster of the Articals of Confederation was that it gave the states far more power than they were willing to concede to them,"

    And that power proved to be disastrous, with the remedy being the Constitution.

    "and of course is why the states today as well as yesterday have little to no power at all,"

    That is Fake News.

    "yes I full well know why a confederation of states rather than an all powerful federal government was the choice of the convention"

    After I informed you.

    HAHAHHAHA now that’s a real joke…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. lavoisier says: • Website

    I assert that the states have no duty to observe the Constitution since the federals do not.

    Indeed. And that is how we can fight back against the assault on our liberties. The States have to tell the federal government to go to hell.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23


    I assert that the states have no duty to observe the Constitution since the federals do not.
     
    Indeed. And that is how we can fight back against the assault on our liberties. The States have to tell the federal government to go to hell.
     
    There's nothing wrong with the US Constitution. For example, the 10th Amendment says that:

    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.
     
    The most direct contact with "the people" is at the county and state level, so "powers reserved for the people" seem to include the entirely legitimate idea of raising taxes and spending them locally, with counties and states making their own decisions about healthcare, education, policing etc.

    Nothing in the Constitution says that taxes have to be collected and spent at the Federal level, or that the Federal Reserve has the right to put the whole country in to debt. Following this line, the States would repudiate federal debt as unconstitutional, and issue a "States Dollar" guaranteed by the States tax revenue.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Rowdy Rudy Pfeiffer
    Maybe not, but I'll bet her daughter's is ;)

    You, sir, have sick ideas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Miro23 says:
    @lavoisier

    I assert that the states have no duty to observe the Constitution since the federals do not.
     
    Indeed. And that is how we can fight back against the assault on our liberties. The States have to tell the federal government to go to hell.

    I assert that the states have no duty to observe the Constitution since the federals do not.

    Indeed. And that is how we can fight back against the assault on our liberties. The States have to tell the federal government to go to hell.

    There’s nothing wrong with the US Constitution. For example, the 10th Amendment says that:

    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.

    The most direct contact with “the people” is at the county and state level, so “powers reserved for the people” seem to include the entirely legitimate idea of raising taxes and spending them locally, with counties and states making their own decisions about healthcare, education, policing etc.

    Nothing in the Constitution says that taxes have to be collected and spent at the Federal level, or that the Federal Reserve has the right to put the whole country in to debt. Following this line, the States would repudiate federal debt as unconstitutional, and issue a “States Dollar” guaranteed by the States tax revenue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Wheres the meat in the constitution to prevent any violation of its articals,the high court is as political as any branch of the government,want to go to war create the War Powers Act,collect the taxes at the federal lever and dish a portion back out to the states as they see fit piss us off and you won't recieve lol your fair share,pass a law in congress and kick part of the cost back onto the states as a mandate ,create a "States Dollar" and see how soon Federal troops are kicking in your door.
    What little power the states have is only window dressing to give the people the thought that they are free,that they have some say in how the government is run,they don't,but you will always have those who think that they are....
    , @lavoisier
    Good plan.
    , @Twodees Partain
    "There’s nothing wrong with the US Constitution. "

    Well, there are a few things.....Ok, quite a few things One thing wrong is that there is no enforcement procedure for violation of constitutional provisions by members of Congress. That means there is no remedy provided for citizens whose rights are being violated wholesale by unconstitutional legislation and regulation.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. …this feral busybody…

    I love this description.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. @John Gruskos
    When Obama was president, did Fred Reed support Arizona, Montana and Oregon and other states when state level laws and referendums tried to crack down on illegal immigration, but were prevented from doing so by federal judges?

    Does Fred Reed give a damn about states rights, or will he make unprincipled use of any and every argument to advance his pet cause of open borders?

    Does he have any respect whatsoever for his American ancestors, kin and heritage, or has he sold his soul for a mess of Mexican pottage?

    Does Fred Reed give a damn about states rights, or will he make unprincipled use of any and every argument to advance his pet cause of open borders?

    (Piss, moan, whine.) Look, John, get it through your blocky little head that nobody gives a shit what you think of Reed. Not even a dinky little pile of mouse turds.

    If you’ve got something semi-intelligent to add, in context, do so. Otherwise, STFU.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Grumbler
    US amerika must be dismantled - there simply is no other hope for Liberty. It is madness to think that 545 people can and should rule over 330 millions of people spread out over thousands of square miles.

    In the area currently known as the US there should be at least a hundred and fifty -and even more - separate sovereign nations/city states.

    Fred is right in that government should be localized. There is no reason whatsoever for a centralized federal government.

    In the area currently known as the US there should be at least a hundred and fifty -and even more – separate sovereign nations/city states.

    LOL. Jesus, are you ever stupid in the purely hyperbolic sense.

    Political and sovereignty issues are determined, ultimately, by economic reality. That’s what works. Always has, always will.

    The existing USA might effectively be divided into ten, maybe 12 sovereign economic regions. That will happen eventually. Be patient.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grumbler
    Steve, "Jesus, are you ever stupid..."

    Ad hominem. I win.

    But out of curiosity, I am willing to extend the conversation.

    "Political and sovereignty issues are determined, ultimately, by economic reality."

    Disagree.

    For one, "politics" and "economics" are one and the same. "Follow the money" is the reality. Always has been, always will be.

    As for "sovereignty", what does that even mean? Who has control of themselves and their property? The individual or The State? Who/what is sovereign?

    "The existing USA might effectively be divided into ten, maybe 12 sovereign economic regions."

    Why is it "purely hyperbolic" for me to envision the US to be divided into over one hundred and fifty sovereign states but it is not "purely hyperbolic" for you to say that the US can be "...divided into ten, maybe 12 sovereign economic regions." What is the precise number of future independent States which make my argument "stupid" and yours "nonstupid"? Fifty? Seventy-five? Two??
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @CalDre

    Exactly what I thought. You are taking the SJW approach.
     
    Like I wrote: no intelligence, no open mind, and no logical faculties.

    Must suck to be you, a reject alpha version of software on a broken down motherboard, forgotten in an NSA closet, but nonetheless, like the Terminator, endlessly worshiping and striving to please your creator that long ago forgot about you. Maybe you can try to signal your creator to fix the egregious bugs that have developed in your ancient, run-down, cracked, dust-riddled hardware and, while at it, to approve that 200-generation-old inferior software running on it? Surely if you make a loud enough ruckus some engineer will deign to remove you from your purgatory?

    Must suck to be you, a reject alpha version of software on a broken down motherboard, forgotten in an NSA closet, but nonetheless, like the Terminator, endlessly worshiping and striving to please your creator that long ago forgot about you. Maybe you can try to signal your creator to fix the egregious bugs that have developed in your ancient, run-down, cracked, dust-riddled hardware and, while at it, to approve that 200-generation-old inferior software running on it? Surely if you make a loud enough ruckus some engineer will deign to remove you from your purgatory?

    LOL. Oh, dear, we got us one them undiscovered 16-year old political geniuses. Damn, but Ah lubs me a precocious little angel, using big words and nasty condescension.

    More! More!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Miro23

    Unfortunately the much more likely outcome is the North American Union, which California is already working on by doing everything it can to eliminate its border with Mexico.
     
    Not necessarily. Supposing that California was an autonomous state, raising and spending its own taxes with little input from Washington, how would that turn out?

    The many ethnic Latino citizens would have a big say in how it ran its hospitals, education, police etc. since they would be voting and paying for a large part of it. The evidence seems be that they emigrated to the US to get away from Mexico - not to make it into Mexico, and as a group they're traditionalists, and would probably toss out the radical left and LGBT's from their schools. Surveys show that they favor their children being taught in English, and they would probably vote to close the border.

    The many ethnic Latino citizens would have a big say in how it ran its hospitals, education, police etc. since they would be voting and paying for a large part of it. The evidence seems be that they emigrated to the US to get away from Mexico – not to make it into Mexico

    Are we talking intent? History? Design? National character?

    Every sovereign state south of the Rio Grande is a shithole. Every one of them started out in non-shitholist purity. Every one descended, resolutely, into essence of shitholery.

    As will California. Now, I suppose it is possible that some uberclass of Israelis and Chinese might keep the high-rises shiny on the outside, the inside, where the working class resides, will still be a shithole.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. bluedog says:
    @Miro23


    I assert that the states have no duty to observe the Constitution since the federals do not.
     
    Indeed. And that is how we can fight back against the assault on our liberties. The States have to tell the federal government to go to hell.
     
    There's nothing wrong with the US Constitution. For example, the 10th Amendment says that:

    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.
     
    The most direct contact with "the people" is at the county and state level, so "powers reserved for the people" seem to include the entirely legitimate idea of raising taxes and spending them locally, with counties and states making their own decisions about healthcare, education, policing etc.

    Nothing in the Constitution says that taxes have to be collected and spent at the Federal level, or that the Federal Reserve has the right to put the whole country in to debt. Following this line, the States would repudiate federal debt as unconstitutional, and issue a "States Dollar" guaranteed by the States tax revenue.

    Wheres the meat in the constitution to prevent any violation of its articals,the high court is as political as any branch of the government,want to go to war create the War Powers Act,collect the taxes at the federal lever and dish a portion back out to the states as they see fit piss us off and you won’t recieve lol your fair share,pass a law in congress and kick part of the cost back onto the states as a mandate ,create a “States Dollar” and see how soon Federal troops are kicking in your door.
    What little power the states have is only window dressing to give the people the thought that they are free,that they have some say in how the government is run,they don’t,but you will always have those who think that they are….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    There was a big jump in the tax take at the Federal level in WW2 and it stayed that way:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Federal_taxes_by_type.pdf

    And local and state taxes now come to about the same as Federal taxes (local/state are slightly more and increasing faster).

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Federal%2C_state%2C_and_local_tax_revenue_as_a_percent_of_GDP.pdf

    So altogether, Americans pay about half their taxes at the Federal level and half at the State/local level , and in total, they are not heavily taxed in the context of developed countries (although there is a heavy bias towards personal income taxes rather than corporate income taxes).

    The problem is the debt burden. The Watson Institute of international and Public Affairs at Brown University puts the total cost of post 9/11 ME wars at $ 5.6 Trillion including Homeland Security, Veterans and interest payments, and they pointed out that previous US wars tended to be "Pay as You Go". For example, WW2 (US) combined high taxes, much reduced non-military spending and War Bonds. In contrast, the "War on Terror" is all borrowed (through the sale of US Treasury bonds) with the debt averaging out at more than $ 23.000 on every US taxpayer, and set to increase through interest payments even if the wars stopped.

    Their commentary is along the lines of what could have been. For instance the new infrastructure investment/jobs that the US could have had but never saw.

    The States have the right to reject the FED indebting their citizens, and if the government sends in Homeland Security (?) or the FBI (?) to arrest state legislators, then the Deep State is out in the open.

    , @MBlanc46
    The Supreme Court follows the election returns.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Miro23 says:
    @bluedog
    Wheres the meat in the constitution to prevent any violation of its articals,the high court is as political as any branch of the government,want to go to war create the War Powers Act,collect the taxes at the federal lever and dish a portion back out to the states as they see fit piss us off and you won't recieve lol your fair share,pass a law in congress and kick part of the cost back onto the states as a mandate ,create a "States Dollar" and see how soon Federal troops are kicking in your door.
    What little power the states have is only window dressing to give the people the thought that they are free,that they have some say in how the government is run,they don't,but you will always have those who think that they are....

    There was a big jump in the tax take at the Federal level in WW2 and it stayed that way:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Federal_taxes_by_type.pdf

    And local and state taxes now come to about the same as Federal taxes (local/state are slightly more and increasing faster).

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Federal%2C_state%2C_and_local_tax_revenue_as_a_percent_of_GDP.pdf

    So altogether, Americans pay about half their taxes at the Federal level and half at the State/local level , and in total, they are not heavily taxed in the context of developed countries (although there is a heavy bias towards personal income taxes rather than corporate income taxes).

    The problem is the debt burden. The Watson Institute of international and Public Affairs at Brown University puts the total cost of post 9/11 ME wars at $ 5.6 Trillion including Homeland Security, Veterans and interest payments, and they pointed out that previous US wars tended to be “Pay as You Go”. For example, WW2 (US) combined high taxes, much reduced non-military spending and War Bonds. In contrast, the “War on Terror” is all borrowed (through the sale of US Treasury bonds) with the debt averaging out at more than $ 23.000 on every US taxpayer, and set to increase through interest payments even if the wars stopped.

    Their commentary is along the lines of what could have been. For instance the new infrastructure investment/jobs that the US could have had but never saw.

    The States have the right to reject the FED indebting their citizens, and if the government sends in Homeland Security (?) or the FBI (?) to arrest state legislators, then the Deep State is out in the open.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Miro23


    I assert that the states have no duty to observe the Constitution since the federals do not.
     
    Indeed. And that is how we can fight back against the assault on our liberties. The States have to tell the federal government to go to hell.
     
    There's nothing wrong with the US Constitution. For example, the 10th Amendment says that:

    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.
     
    The most direct contact with "the people" is at the county and state level, so "powers reserved for the people" seem to include the entirely legitimate idea of raising taxes and spending them locally, with counties and states making their own decisions about healthcare, education, policing etc.

    Nothing in the Constitution says that taxes have to be collected and spent at the Federal level, or that the Federal Reserve has the right to put the whole country in to debt. Following this line, the States would repudiate federal debt as unconstitutional, and issue a "States Dollar" guaranteed by the States tax revenue.

    Good plan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @ThreeCranes
    If 2/3rds of the state legislatures agree they can call a Constitutional Convention and amend the constitution in any manner they please irrespective of Congress.

    Danger! Danger Will Robinson!

    If a CON CON is call the floor is open to ANYTHING.

    1789 was a Coup d’état. The united States was destroyed and the groundwork for The United States was laid. It came to fruition 1865. FDR was another Coup d’état as was Bush Jr.

    Patric Henrey “Smelled A Rat” and left in protest. Did his best to kep PA out. NC stayed out but was bullied into compliance.

    The CON CON of 89 was called to fix a few minor details in the Articles of Confederation, but the big and strong central government / weak States types convinced the opposition that none of their fears would be realized. Read the “Anti Federalist Papers” if you missed the memo.

    Better to run it into the ground and shoo the feds out than suffer “interested and designing men” to “fix” anything. 5 to 8 Confederacies will spring up based on cultural lines. These will form aliances for protection from the outside.

    You wnat to see what we may very well end up with? Go look at the Constitutio we gave the Iraquies. Nearly everything ends with “except as according to law”.
    No tyrant has ever broken the “law”.

    A Spectator

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    Agreed, except Patrick Henry tried to persuade his fellow Virginians to stay out, not PA.
    , @Logan
    5 to 8 Confederacies will spring up based on cultural lines.

    But such Confederacies would by necessity be geographical. The problem is that our divisions are not primarily regional in nature.

    The US of today is not like the Massachusetts or South Carolina of 1860. It is far more like the Missouri of 1860, which fell apart into its own civil war within the larger Civil War. Or Virginia, which did the same and split.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. MK says:

    I have lived in a suburb of Denver, Colorado for over forty years. In the last three years since pot was made legal, I have seen my town and this state change for the worse. We have more crime and homelessness than is sometimes believable. Even the police chief in our town who is from Los Angeles said that he had no idea the problems that legalizing pot would bring. He, like many people, was neutral on the idea of recreational pot being legal. The illegal grows and trafficking of the drug out of the state has only increased. It is apparently still much cheaper to buy illegally than in the legal pot shops. Anyone who thinks that legalizing drugs is ever a good idea should spend some time in a place that has already done so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @prusmc
    But think of the increased tax revenue that it brings in from those who like to use the pit and those that don't use it don't pay anything!
    , @Rurik

    In the last three years since pot was made legal, I have seen my town and this state change for the worse. We have more crime and homelessness than is sometimes believable
     
    is it the pot, or is it the mindless insanity of shitlibs?

    https://www.watchdog.org/opinion/evidence-shows-denver-is-a-sanctuary-city-despite-claims-to/article_1f7b3408-d3fa-5b8f-a436-e58026b3d7d5.html

    sure, you make your state a magnet for all kinds of potheads and losers, but then you don't enact the kind of common sense means of preempting the human detritus from taking over your streets.

    From what I understand, it's happening everywhere shitlibs have taken over, from San Francisco to Seattle to NYC. Hell, Paris and London too.

    when your policy aligns with radial feminism, BLM racists, La Raza racists, Jewish supremacists, shitlibs and 'open borders-Fred', then perhaps it isn't the weed that is responsible for all the crimes and stench of urine in the streets and public places. Perhaps it's the mentality that demands we take down all the statues and monuments to (evil and racist) dead white men-

    https://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/18/confederate-monuments-statues-kkk-racism-charlottesville-colorado/

    as a repudiation of everything they stood for; (things like racist borders and the racist Rule of Law).

    Legalizing weed, in and of itself, was and is a common sense and overdue solution to the cartels and DEA abuses and fecal power run amok. Weed per se, is relatively harmless.

    It's when you combine legalization with the politics of Fred- that demands every single Mexican (and everyone else of course) be allowed to flood into your cities, and transform your communities, and overwhelm your social services and law enforcement- that you see negative consequences. Duh

    Legalizing weed for communities that otherwise operate on the Rule of Law, where criminals are prosecuted or deported, as the case may be. Where civil courtesies and traditions are respected, and there exists a sane and orderly way of operating your towns or cities, it's not a problem.

    But in places like Denver, where the shitlibs have turned your city to an open-air sewer, literally;

    https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g33388-d251918-r303819855-16th_Street_Mall-Denver_Colorado.html

    https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g33388-d251918-r528307032-16th_Street_Mall-Denver_Colorado.html

    then blaming pot is simply a rationalization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Thomm says:

    It is a privilege to see a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew singlehandedly tie up hundreds if not thousands of White Trashionalists at once.

    Step 1 : Make a website that WNs use (since they can never build anything on their own). Let any and all anti-Semitic slurs stand on the website to make WNs complacent and even keyboard-courageous.
    Step 2 : Recruit the 2-3 intelligent authors that WNs read (Sailer, Derbyshire, etc.) who happen to extremely bad at making money, so that they write for very little.
    Step 3 : After a few years, start pushing for normalization of Hispanics (even if illegal; especially if illegal).
    Step 4 : Deploy someone like Fred Reed to generate even more confusion.

    It works…and it is a lesson in asymmetrical attrition warfare. Sit back and watch this masterful game of asymmetrical 4D chess by a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew.

    Ron Unz has said about 95% of this site disputes the fact that the real division is black vs non-black. I am among the 5% that agree with him (although I am more conservative than him, since I think there should be only skilled, legal immigration, not unskilled and certainly never illegal).

    Now, here is the thing. Those who talk about Auschwitz, lampshades, and soap never get moderated here, but those who agree with Ron Unz do. He will even get angry with those who agree with him too vocally.

    Why? Because he thinks it will expose his game of 4D chess. But I guarantee that it cannot, since the typical White Trashionalist is far below the IQ threshold where they can observe the many pieces in motion. I can describe Ron’s plan in full detail (and I fully support it), without any risk of the WNs figuring anything out (much less leaving this site).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Since you have the silliest comment on the thread, will reply here.

    I. This is about the third time in a year (at least the second), that Fred has used 'A Modest Proposal' in a title. Come on, Mr. Reed, we are not wanting to think you are in your dotage, don't do it again.

    II. The prices of legalised cannabis I read about there are very high, strictly forbidden here, but was trying and enjoying it a few times overseas. Prices a little less rapacious.

    III. I once had a novel with the title The Coming Self-Destruction of the U.S.A.  It was from a hippy perspective, but I would not be surprised if it had some influence on The Turner Diaries, only read the latter last year. Political direction is opposite, but similar style. Would recommending Coming Self-Destruction to readers who are enjoying period-piece SF. Also on this topic.

    IV. I am liking Fred's writing most of the time, as many other commentors have pointed out, to draw a parallel between state's rights re. substances and the national govt. re. immigration and the scoff-law attitude of many places is bizarre.
    In Japan, they are ejected if not legit. Seeming to make sense to me.

    V. Maybe Fred just loves trolling.

    VI. You may read Ron Unz's American Pravda articles, was reading most of the information before, but a good series. Was having points to add (to Conspiracy Theory, re. CIA's kulturkampf, just now, I am preferring to (-.-)Zzz・・・・.
    , @RobinG
    Not a bad plan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. SugiOne says:

    Looks like its not just happening in America only, many countries modelled after the western system are in danger of falling into the same trap

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. ” “The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it.” ”

    I fear the same can be said of the EU today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    http://theduran.com/end-nation-states-germany-seeks-eu-federalization/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. With what’s at stake we really should give constitutional reform a chance.
    Integrate the states into 7 – 12 regions and restore pre-WWII levels of regional autonomy – force corporations to follow 7-12 sets of laws and make the federal government go toe-to-toe with regions that press against its own class of magnitude and which, in alliance, stand shoulder-to-shoulder with it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  89. Biff says:

    And then there are some of us who just get up and leave.

    “Later Suckers!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. It’ll all be the same so long as you believe representative democracy is democratic. It is not. It is autocracy with respect to the law, offering the electorate only the right to change the lawmakers that make the laws – people, generally black boxes, with personal interests and motives.

    What we should be aiming for is semi-direct democracy: allow the electorate the legal right to strike existing laws (say, burn the whole campaign finance system to the ground in the US, so a new better one is made), and allow them to reinstate newly repealed laws within a certain time frame, like 5 years (say, bring back Glass-Steagal).

    It is the right to change the laws one is goverend by that makes a system democratic both in the spirit and the letter of the law.

    Representatives (selected or elected), are better suited to creating new laws, because it is usually a technical task that the masses can’t effectively accomplish. But this does not mean that the masses must acquiesce to be ruled by those laws.

    Representatives need a check and balance on their power, not their position. In a representative democracy, it is not the job of the elected representative to govern well – it is their job to get re-elected. Governing well helps, but it’s not a categorical imperative. If representative action could be checked by the electorate however, well, politicians hate being told no, and especially by their own electorates.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson

    It’ll all be the same so long as you believe representative democracy is democratic. It is not. It is autocracy with respect to the law, offering the electorate only the right to change the lawmakers that make the laws – people, generally black boxes, with personal interests and motives.
     
    An excellent call-out! That is, indeed, most of the problem with the so-called "representative democracy". Perhaps it might hold the line minimally, were elected office not so prone to corruption, and elected officials not so woefully lacking integrity.

    What we should be aiming for is semi-direct democracy: allow the electorate the legal right to strike existing laws (say, burn the whole campaign finance system to the ground in the US, so a new better one is made), and allow them to reinstate newly repealed laws within a certain time frame, like 5 years (say, bring back Glass-Steagal).
     
    Something like that has been suggested from time to time, and rejected on grounds that the electorate is not qualified, nor should they be burdened with decision-making with respect to everyday rules and regulation. Perhaps true to an extent, but what's so hard about starting with the rules and regulations already in place, and letting the electorate "tune them up" on a six-month basis?

    Representatives need a check and balance on their power, not their position. In a representative democracy, it is not the job of the elected representative to govern well – it is their job to get re-elected.
     
    If there were extant, effective controls on representative power, it would not be necessary to hang a batch of elected scum every 200 years or so.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Anonymous[184] • Disclaimer says:
    @A. Dissident
    Trying to track Fred Reed is like trying to grab on to a greased pig. He starts off his paen to the 10th Amendment, the panacea to America’s ills, - and I believe it truly is - with complete bullshit:
    “Mr. Session’s.........menacing of the state of California because he does noi approve its policy toward its immigrants. Common sense suggests that if he does not like California’s policies, he should live in another state.”
    This is pure nonsense, madness in fact. Any strict Constitutionalist, any advocate of a reinvigorated 10th Amendment would agree that immigration policy is one of th few things that ACTUALLY IS the responsibility of the Federal Government. It would be pandemonium if each State formed its own immigration laws, and has never before been suggested until Fred and his California compadres, suffering from Trump derangement syndrome, did so. He goes on to

    “Fred goes on to say:
    “What justification does this feral busybody have for meddling in what is not his business?” Then answers his own question. “Mr. Sessions wraps himself in the Constitution....” Yes Fred, the Constitution. My question for Fred, who seems confused as to what is really going on with California and States Rights; what would California do if Idaho decided to ignore Roe vs. Wade. Or if in the near future there is an attempt by the Feds to confiscate whole classes of firearms, where does Fred think Californiawill stand on that?
    What we have is is not a move toward States Rights and away from Centralization of power, but the rise of a Leftist ideology that is so brazen and self confident, that it is now challenging the Executive branch of the Federal government. But only because it’s Trump. When the Left has gained absolute hegemony I. This nation the iron bolt of authoritarianism will be on al of our necks and the mere mention of the Constitution, the 10th Amendment, or States Rights, will get you a trip to the gulag.
    I have always enjoyed Fred’s. Perspective and style, u til recently, but this is the first time I have detected out and out dishonesty.
    10th Amendmenters in Calaiforna,

    but this is the first time I have detected out and out dishonesty.

    Fred is an amateur, foreign, psy-ops agent. Always was.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson

    Fred is an amateur, foreign, psy-ops agent. Always was.
     
    LOL. And he's so much better at it than you are, too. Burns, don't it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Anonymous[184] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bragadocious
    What does Fred Reed know or care about states' rights? His state of residence isn't California or Colorado, it's Jalisco.

    True, which makes this even funnier:

    How may we of the various states rid ourselves of such noxious influences from afar?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    The USA is already broken up, has been for years.

    There’s the District of Criminals–DC–that rules over the planet like some deranged, inbred 12 Century English monarch, writing and dictating laws to the entire world that they are exempt from, then enforcing those laws with the biggest bunch of mercenaries on the Earth, run by the Pentagon.

    Then there’s the center of con artists, grifters, counterfeiters and carnival barkers–like Tubby– that rule over NYC, which is also exempt from laws regrading insider trading, thieving and corruption.

    The last Kingdom is Silicon Valley, in bed with the CIA, FBI and NSA to make sure nothing we do goes unrecorded, since we don’t have privacy rights, because we’re just a bunch of dumb f*cks, according to King Zuck.

    The rest of the nation is filled with useless eaters and sheeple that get sheared daily, for if G-D did not want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. jeppo says:
    @Corvinus
    "Hmm what are you a troll the Artical’s of Confederation worked very well.to well in fact, that’s why a Constitutional Convention had to be called."

    You must be a Russian bot, because you are squarely ignorant of the reasons why the Articles Of Confederation were a disaster.

    http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/artsofconfedproblems.html

    Yes there were problems during the Articles of Confederation period, but it’s still the best blueprint going forward.

    The states already have most of the accoutrements of independent nations – constitutions, legislatures, executives, police forces, state national guards, state supreme courts, flags, anthems, recognized borders – so it would be far easier to break the US up into 50 nations rather than a series of smaller federations like Dixie, New England, etc.

    The United States itself would still exist in such a scenario, but as a transnational organization like the European Union instead of a sovereign nation.

    Washington DC would probably be absorbed by the independent nation of Maryland, but would remain the “capital” of the US, in the same way that Brussels is the “capital” of the EU. The overseas territories, like Puerto Rico, would be forced into independence outside of the new, transnational US.

    Certain institutions would survive this transition, though with their powers circumscribed, like the presidency, congress, and a common currency. Others, like the IRS, EPA, and many other federal agencies would disappear completely.

    The EU provides a model of what should stay and what should go in a new, transnational US, but those decisions would be made by the 50 independent nation-states.

    Yes, the 50 nation-states would have a partially limited sovereignty in this scenario, but an independent Texas or California would have the same freedom of action as Germany, France or any other nation in the EU, surely a much better deal than they have now.

    Just as there is tension between Brussels and the EU member-states over issues like immigration, economic policy and the like, so there would be between Washington and the 50 American nations. But no one can deny that the EU is a far looser, weaker confederation than the present-day US, and in a transnational US the vast majority of political decisions would be made at the local level rather than by the central government.

    Of course this doesn’t have to be the final, endgame scenario for the US: member states would be free to break away completely, or form their own federations outside of whatever remained of the transnational US.

    But at the very least this is a plausible first step. Alabama should be able to make its own laws without regard to whatever Vermont thinks about them, and vice versa. And rather than completely destroying the United States, which would be highly unpopular, let it morph into a transnational organization instead.

    There is a historical precedent for this (the Articles of Confederation), and a present-day template to model it on (the European Union). Essentially it’s taking the concept of states rights to its logical conclusion. And it’s probably the only way to neuter the ever-growing power of Washington DC that could be done peacefully, and with popular support.

    Read More
    • Agree: bluedog, Miro23
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @jilles dykstra
    " “The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it.” "

    I fear the same can be said of the EU today.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. I think Mr. Reed misunderstands California’s position.

    California doesn’t favor states’ rights in general. It only favors states’ rights to be more liberal than the federal government. When the federal government is more liberal than a state, and wants to force Alabama to build transgender restrooms, then federal law must prevail.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jesse James
    You nailed it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Grumbler
    Corvinus, why is it a pie in the sky notion? Is there any other hope for Liberty?

    "The people govern themselves by way of their representatives and Senators"

    If you are not being sarcastic then I must ask, Do you actually believe that 536 people can really represent the diverse views of 330 millions of people?

    "No."

    Why not? Why should there not be many sovereign nations instead of one Leviathan State?

    The Founding Fathers gave us the Centralized government we have today. They were wrong to do so.

    “The Founding Fathers gave us the Centralized government we have today. They were wrong to do so.”

    The Founding Fathers gave us a Federal Republic with a limited central government. It specifically stated that any right of a sovereign state not explicitly given to the central government, nor denied to the states in the Constitution, were reserved by the states. It’s first 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights, were written as protections for the citizens of the states against the central government. It was as fine a system of government as man had yet developed. I can find no fault with them save having too much faith in those who would come after them.

    It is those who came after who destroyed our system of government, to the point of discovering rights which don’t exist in the Constitution, and denying those which are clearly stated. As many have said before, this nation no longer operates according to the Constitution, but rather in spite of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    Without a punishment written into the Constitution for violating the Constitution it is not worth the paper it is written on.
    , @bluedog
    It may have worked in a limited form until 1860/1861 until the Federal government assumed unlimited power,as it stands now the states have little to no power, as the so call high court can render any state law as unconstitutional.It would be interesting to take a poll with only two questions if you had to give up either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights which would you prefer to give up, I suspect the majority would say the Bill of Rights, which of course is the foundation of the country NOT the Constitution...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Destruction of the nation-state, particularly the united States of America, is the main focus of the British Empire who have always run these ‘secessionist operations’. This we see now with the attack on Russia and the attacks upon Trump as representing the potential for bringing together nation’s and the world out of the British monetary colonialist new world order cartels into the path of progress represented by the One Belt/One Road and New Silk Road initiatives and invitations for nation’s to work together upon progress in the physical economy, where the role of the Nation is to better conditions for people, here in the notion of mankind.

    This architecture against the British Empire was conceived by Lyndon LaRouche, who it should be noted had proposed a plan “Operation Suarez” that would have prevented the destruction of Latin America by the free trader United States, under the yoke of the Wall Street/City of London gamblers and asset strippers, towards intensive development in the mutual interest of the nations of Mexico, the US, and the rest of the countries of particularly Central America.

    Mexican President Lopez Portillo supported LaRouche’s plan, which would have prevented all of the insanity that we are seeing today from the Latin America refugee crisis and the parallel collapse of the US into a third world nation….

    Here is a relevant article that should be posted, since it is current, as an article itself, here.

    http://www.schillerinstitute.org/strategic/2017/02/17-lar_mex_border/lmb.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. anarchyst says:

    On the topic of secession, I have already personally seceded. I make my own choices, refuse to deal with most jews, blacks, and others who do not have MY interests at heart. I ignore almost ALL “laws” and statutes, refuse to abide by so-called “civil-rights (for some)” statutes and other unconstitutional “laws”…. My “law” is the Constitution of the United States, the greatest treatise ever written (by white men, no less), which grants NO rights (our rights are preordained by our creator), but is a LIMIT on what government is permitted to do.
    The “trick” is to NOT get in the government’s “crosshairs”. Do your own thing, unobtrusively and without fanfair. Don’t attract attention to yourselves. Establish trusted networks of like-minded individuals and families. Utilizing whole families can be a good way of “vetting” to “weed out” government infiltrators and “plants”.
    A quiet revolution is on the horizon, consisting of those of us who merely choose to personally “opt out”. No noise or fanfair about secession. Just do it…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    I have already personally seceded.

    I ignore almost ALL “laws”
     
    pretty much my philosophy as well anarchyst

    the very idea of following a "law" that works one way, depending on our ethnicity or gender, and another way, if we're a favored class of citizen, (or even non-citizen- who they [Fred] now tell us are all entitled to the benefits of the "Constitution", without any of the burdens), would be a humiliating farce.

    to respect federal (and most state) laws today, would be like a slave in the old south paying taxes and referring to judges as 'your honor'. A crass absurdity.

    even at the local level these petty tyrants and nannies are insufferable. Helmet laws for ridding your bicycle, or this..

    http://govtslaves.info/2018/03/city-forces-elderly-homeowner-to-replace-garden-with-grass-lawn-even-though-shes-allergic-to-it/

    My “law” is the Constitution of the United States, the greatest treatise ever written
     
    but it's gone anarchyst,

    the only way that document works is if it's respected by both sides of the contract.

    The ZUS fecal government no longer honors that document, or the principles enshrined. They've made a mockery of the very notion of the Rule of Law, because they act like it doesn't apply to them. The very moment that the law does not apply to all people equally, is the precise moment that such a law is void, and invalid.

    If a federal agent comes to your home armed, and demands your guns, because "the law" has now decided that possession of guns are forbidden for people like you, do you feel like he has anything like "the law", on his side?

    After the goons burned those people alive in Waco, and then lied to each other about all their monumental crimes, and arrested the surviving victims and locked them up, was the moment I knew I no longer lived in a nation of laws, but we had descended into the jungle. Perhaps it was because I was young and naïve, and this had been the state of the state going back years or even decades or centuries, but for me that was the moment. Now I see all these wars based on lies, and the assassinations, sometimes by drone of US citizens, (or their teenage sons), and the millions upon millions of innocent souls either murdered or maimed or displaced; their nations in ruins.. Or the moral and legal atrocities like the NDAA, and so many more treasons, that I just shake my head.

    We (the cud-chewing, Bovinus Americanus) let them get away with Waco, and nearly put the bitch, (who I'm convinced was the fiendish force behind it all), back into the White House!

    So why would they feel they have to honor their end of the Constitution contract, when they've been able to violate it so flagrantly, and move on as if nothing happened- consolidating even more power.

    No, for anyone to pretend that we live in a nation of laws anymore, is preposterous. We can and should play pretend, and do what you advise, and keep clear of 'the man'. Because he is very dangerous indeed, and completely unaccountable. But this experiment in liberty is over.

    Do as is necessary to keep yourself and your loved ones safe, but don't subject yourself to the humiliation of acting as if the people in the fecal government are legitimate. They're not. They're treasonous scum, carrying water for the ((enemies)) of this republic and the enemies of the American people. (and the enemies of mankind and decency and honor and truth. [what does it feel like to carry water for them Fred? ; ]

    We're like Russia under the Bolsheviks now, and we should use appropriate caution, but laugh at the notion of any legitimacy on the part of the Fiend, (the evil scum in Washington, DC / NYC / and Tel Aviv where they get their marching orders)

    It's over. The contract is null and void.

    Live accordingly.

    ps, I recently had an exchange with a fella here, and his philosophy was crystalized by the scene in the movie The Outlaw Josie Wales, when Josie and Ten Bears made a pact, both knowing the infinite treachery of the US government at the time, and honoring a bond between two honest men, in a world of deceit and pervasive villainy. That is what I'd counsel. Don't subject your children to the Fiend's universities, where they'll have their souls rotted from the inside out. Don't go pay to see ((Hollywood)) movies. Secede in your hearts from the charade of the Fiend. Love those around you who're worthy of your love, and repudiate the morass of human scum who make up the elites of this dying civilization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. A lot of people are really piling on Fred today. Let me take a few steps away from the crowd.

    If there is one thing I do find disenchanting about him, it is his choice of a wife. On the other hand, has he not long ago passed beyond fathering children? Perhaps his Mexican wife is more agreeable than a modern American white woman; I don’t know. I am a single old man who’s not met an agreeable woman in a long time. I don’t date, and have no intention of finding another wife. It’s a very expensive proposition.

    As for abandoning the US, I’ve thought about it myself, and do often; for American culture hates my class – Founding Stock Southern White Male – more than any other, and enacts laws to favor everyone else, and everyone else’s history, above me and mine.

    What I read here is merely the evidence that Fred is indeed a son of Virginia, and a Southerner at heart. Faulkner wrote from his heart when he penned the words in “Intruder in the Dust,” that,
    “For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it’s still not yet two o’clock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it’s all in the balance, it hasn’t happened yet, it hasn’t even begun yet, it not only hasn’t begun yet but there is still time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances which made more men than Garnett and Kemper and Armistead and Wilcox look grave yet it’s going to begin, we all know that, we have come too far with too much at stake and that moment doesn’t need even a fourteen-year-old boy to think, ‘This time.’”

    Not just 14 year old boys, but men in their 50′s and 60′s as well. The South was, and still is to a large extent, very different from the rest of the country, and has its own unique identity. Southerners know that secession was a right before the war, that the issue was not settled in a court of law, by grand speeches in the House and Senate, nor argued before the Supreme Court, but settled on the battlefield, and that might made right, as it so very often does. The flag of the United States flies over the schools and public building in the South because it was put there at the point of the bayonet, and not by the will of the people. The South is a conquered region, and only part of the US through force of arms. This is an inescapable truth.

    In recognizing the rights of California to determine its own population, and the rights of the 7 states to decide which drugs, not whose drugs, the citizens use to escape reality, and not concentrating on each individual issue per se, Fred is taking the high road, something few have done before when regional differences conflicted with general laws.

    There have been several times in our history when a region went against the will of the Federal Government. In example, New England in the War of 1812. The trade and commerce upon which those several states depended for their livelihood was all but destroyed, so they actively worked against the interests of the US, and also found ways to continue to trade, in violation of the Embargo against Britian. As we were at war, this was clearly treason. Thomas Jefferson wrote that he could more easily raise troops from the Southern states to invade New England than to fight Britain. In light of later history, we find this an amazing statement, but it was more true than I like to believe.

    And so we find ourselves in that exact position here. I admit that I, myself, find my blood boiling at the moxie of California, whose citizens, if they can be called such, fight enthusiastically for a cause which will, if carried out to its logican conclusion, spell the end of the United States as we conceive of it. At the right moment, I could be induced to join an invasion of California to bring it back in line. Fred has the better of me here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Not just 14 year old boys, but men in their 50′s and 60′s as well. The South was, and still is to a large extent, very different from the rest of the country, and has its own unique identity. Southerners know that secession was a right before the war, that the issue was not settled in a court of law, by grand speeches in the House and Senate, nor argued before the Supreme Court, but settled on the battlefield, and that might made right, as it so very often does. The flag of the United States flies over the schools and public building in the South because it was put there at the point of the bayonet, and not by the will of the people."

    You only speak for Southrons, not Southerners. Major difference there.

    "The South is a conquered region, and only part of the US through force of arms. This is an inescapable truth."

    That is Fake News.
    , @Steve Gittelson

    The flag of the United States flies over the schools and public building in the South because it was put there at the point of the bayonet, and not by the will of the people.
     
    I'll grant you one point: the right to, and a process for secession should have been spelled out in the Articles of Confederation.

    Beyond that, only fragments of your "Southland" still exist. South Carolina, northern Georgia, south-central Tenn, Alabama, pockets of North Carolina, and pockets of Virginia. The rest is gone, swept away by civil-rights chicanery and economic shifts, and most substantially by invasion from Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and the rest of mestizo gangsta-land south of the border. Cuba, of course, dominates Florida.

    Sorry, but it's all gone, just like the rest of America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Dred Reed opined: “In any event the federals do not represent the people of the country. How many of us in the various states want to spend trillions on distant wars at the command–for that is what it is–of Israel, the petroleum industry, and Empire? Yet we have no choice.”

    Hi Mr. Reed,

    Yes, we Americans are consumer-inhabitants of this “country” while the “federals” primarily represent Jewish Lobby, oligarch, and major corporate interests, advantages.

    Have no clue as to gauging how many people in various ZUS states “want to spend trillions on distant wars.”

    However, sceptical, this I do know;

    A rather tiny percentage of restless consumer Americans complained about the “Coalition of the Willing’s” Desert Storm (“turkey shoot”) and pursuant mass grave-burial of Iraqi troops with bulldozers. *

    During April 2003 opening day “Shock and Awe” liberation of Iraq, the owner of my environmental emergency response company brought a TV set into my office in order to allow employees to marvel at the spectacle of US missiles being fired into Baghdad & listen to distant bam-bam explosions. Consensus of “ooh-ahs” among coworkers but I will never forget the words of our street smart Operations Manager, Bill McDaniels, who said, “Oh man, Chuck, how would you like to be those poor A-rab fuckers over there who’re just trying to eke out a living like us fucks?”

    On the happy day when OBL was (allegedly) murdered, I watched the local 11 pm news. A camera crew on scene at the (Jesuit) University focused upon an assembly of students who emerged safely from dorms in order to cheer President Obama’s successful execution.

    Thanks, Mr. Reed.

    * On his L.P. “Living with War,” Canada native, Neil Young, offered a song with the lyric “restless (American) consumers.” Also, Pat Buchanan described Gulf Warn One as a “turkey shoot.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. @george strong
    I agree with Fred for once. There should be dozens, if not many more, independent nations/city-states in North America. I don't want to live in the same country as most New Yorkers or Californians. Or any Democrat.

    well you and fred are idiots! while i can understand your grade school rak rah muh constitution sentiments, there are realities far higher than that the founders in their infinite naivete ignored. All men are not created equal, but they are evolved like all life on this planet to compete in deadly combat for hegemony. The liberals jews and mud peoples are certainly an existential threat and must be dealt with. But their are even deadlier threats out there the chinese understand themselves as all races ought, as the natural owners of this planet and intend to make it so.Islam as well thinks this though with 90 IQs along with the africans are less of a threat short of a zombie type apocalypse of the saints.
    The united states and lets face it canada are the best fortress the world has ever known at least jefferson got that right. we are protected on oceans on four sides, then those are backed up by mountain ranges on two sides and arctic and desert on the other two. we have more energy than the rest of the world combined of every conceivable kind and we have the greatest agricultural land in the world.The jews love to get whites to start killing each other and while civil war is probably inevitable and that might entail a temporary front we must never settle for that all that would happen is the left would plot to import more non whites in order to retake the rest of the land mass.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    Dude, take a breath and use paragraphs. No one is going to read that wall of text.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Yup! You're Number One, Colleen. Three Cheers for your Fortress America where, increasingly, the people sleep in tents. USA!USA!USA! Kinda makes the hairs stand up on the back of your neck, I bet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Fella says:

    Revoke Reeds citizenship now! Could not even read past the second graph. Won’t be clicking on his links again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson

    Revoke Reeds citizenship now! Could not even read past the second graph. Won’t be clicking on his links again.
     
    Puta merda! What a jackass. What do you think this site is all about, Trigger? A friggin' 24-hour pep-rally for Jesus and George Washington? Go be an asshole somewhere else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. nickels says:

    Colorado pot is a cancer on the rule of law that needs to be resolved somehow.
    Honestly it has kind of destroyed the state by bringing in a massive rush of loser degenerates.
    It may not lead to the total breakdown of society, but it certainly brings on mass idiocy.
    Sessions is probably out of step with the true rulers of America, who love pot because it makes the populace docile and retarded.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  105. Svigor says:

    I see that a man named Sessions, apparently Washington’s Attorney General, threatens to unleash the coercive powers of the federal government against the state of Colorado, his reason being that he does not like the state’s policy with regard to marijuana. This is most curious. Why he believes the policies of Colorado to be his concern is not clear. Equally mysterious is why he thinks the police of Colorado should arrest Coloradans for doing a thing that the people of the state have determined to be acceptable.

    Federal law is federal law, and it’s Sessions’ job to enforce it. I trust your characterizations of what Sessions is doing and thinking about as far as I could hurl your decrepit body.

    My God, you’re almost as big a bore as Saker. TL;DR-ed the rest. You can even make boring a normally interesting topic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  106. MBlanc46 says:

    Jeff Sessions is simply doing what he swore to do: Uphold the laws of the United States. That said, I’m all for disaggregating the United States. Peacefully, if possible, through violence if forced to resort to violence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  107. MBlanc46 says:
    @die Abwicklung
    Absolutely right. The US should break into multiple successor states. Late in life, George Kennan himself agreed. The legal precedent is unambiguous: the ICJ's Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010 held that a nation's declaration of independence need not comply with municipal law.

    Just leave. All you have to do is accede to the UN Charter, the International Bill of Human Rights, and the Rome Statute. That way you gain the sovereignty that US forfeited by failing to make the requisite commitments (the US has failed to ratify the ICESCR or the Rome Statute, and interprets the ICCPR in bad faith.)

    This is why the US government brainwashes Americans with UN-CORRUPTION-HUMANRIGHTS-DICTATORS!!!! These laws empower the peoples, not the state.

    Russians lost interest in having enemies and shed the USSR. Ultimately it did them a world of good - look at them now, they lead the free world. Now it's time for Americans to shed the USA. Nobody wants Russian enemies but beltway kleptocrats. I want to live in a smaller, saner nation I can trust.

    The UN and its notion of human rights? I think I’ll take a pass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. MBlanc46 says:
    @bluedog
    Wheres the meat in the constitution to prevent any violation of its articals,the high court is as political as any branch of the government,want to go to war create the War Powers Act,collect the taxes at the federal lever and dish a portion back out to the states as they see fit piss us off and you won't recieve lol your fair share,pass a law in congress and kick part of the cost back onto the states as a mandate ,create a "States Dollar" and see how soon Federal troops are kicking in your door.
    What little power the states have is only window dressing to give the people the thought that they are free,that they have some say in how the government is run,they don't,but you will always have those who think that they are....

    The Supreme Court follows the election returns.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. MBlanc46 says:
    @jimbojones
    I thought these questions were settled back in 1865.

    As Larry O’Brien said, no final solutions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Rurik says:
    @anarchyst
    On the topic of secession, I have already personally seceded. I make my own choices, refuse to deal with most jews, blacks, and others who do not have MY interests at heart. I ignore almost ALL "laws" and statutes, refuse to abide by so-called "civil-rights (for some)" statutes and other unconstitutional "laws".... My "law" is the Constitution of the United States, the greatest treatise ever written (by white men, no less), which grants NO rights (our rights are preordained by our creator), but is a LIMIT on what government is permitted to do.
    The "trick" is to NOT get in the government's "crosshairs". Do your own thing, unobtrusively and without fanfair. Don't attract attention to yourselves. Establish trusted networks of like-minded individuals and families. Utilizing whole families can be a good way of "vetting" to "weed out" government infiltrators and "plants".
    A quiet revolution is on the horizon, consisting of those of us who merely choose to personally "opt out". No noise or fanfair about secession. Just do it...

    I have already personally seceded.

    I ignore almost ALL “laws”

    pretty much my philosophy as well anarchyst

    the very idea of following a “law” that works one way, depending on our ethnicity or gender, and another way, if we’re a favored class of citizen, (or even non-citizen- who they [Fred] now tell us are all entitled to the benefits of the “Constitution”, without any of the burdens), would be a humiliating farce.

    to respect federal (and most state) laws today, would be like a slave in the old south paying taxes and referring to judges as ‘your honor’. A crass absurdity.

    even at the local level these petty tyrants and nannies are insufferable. Helmet laws for ridding your bicycle, or this..

    http://govtslaves.info/2018/03/city-forces-elderly-homeowner-to-replace-garden-with-grass-lawn-even-though-shes-allergic-to-it/

    My “law” is the Constitution of the United States, the greatest treatise ever written

    but it’s gone anarchyst,

    the only way that document works is if it’s respected by both sides of the contract.

    The ZUS fecal government no longer honors that document, or the principles enshrined. They’ve made a mockery of the very notion of the Rule of Law, because they act like it doesn’t apply to them. The very moment that the law does not apply to all people equally, is the precise moment that such a law is void, and invalid.

    If a federal agent comes to your home armed, and demands your guns, because “the law” has now decided that possession of guns are forbidden for people like you, do you feel like he has anything like “the law”, on his side?

    After the goons burned those people alive in Waco, and then lied to each other about all their monumental crimes, and arrested the surviving victims and locked them up, was the moment I knew I no longer lived in a nation of laws, but we had descended into the jungle. Perhaps it was because I was young and naïve, and this had been the state of the state going back years or even decades or centuries, but for me that was the moment. Now I see all these wars based on lies, and the assassinations, sometimes by drone of US citizens, (or their teenage sons), and the millions upon millions of innocent souls either murdered or maimed or displaced; their nations in ruins.. Or the moral and legal atrocities like the NDAA, and so many more treasons, that I just shake my head.

    We (the cud-chewing, Bovinus Americanus) let them get away with Waco, and nearly put the bitch, (who I’m convinced was the fiendish force behind it all), back into the White House!

    So why would they feel they have to honor their end of the Constitution contract, when they’ve been able to violate it so flagrantly, and move on as if nothing happened- consolidating even more power.

    No, for anyone to pretend that we live in a nation of laws anymore, is preposterous. We can and should play pretend, and do what you advise, and keep clear of ‘the man’. Because he is very dangerous indeed, and completely unaccountable. But this experiment in liberty is over.

    Do as is necessary to keep yourself and your loved ones safe, but don’t subject yourself to the humiliation of acting as if the people in the fecal government are legitimate. They’re not. They’re treasonous scum, carrying water for the ((enemies)) of this republic and the enemies of the American people. (and the enemies of mankind and decency and honor and truth. [what does it feel like to carry water for them Fred? ; ]

    We’re like Russia under the Bolsheviks now, and we should use appropriate caution, but laugh at the notion of any legitimacy on the part of the Fiend, (the evil scum in Washington, DC / NYC / and Tel Aviv where they get their marching orders)

    It’s over. The contract is null and void.

    Live accordingly.

    ps, I recently had an exchange with a fella here, and his philosophy was crystalized by the scene in the movie The Outlaw Josie Wales, when Josie and Ten Bears made a pact, both knowing the infinite treachery of the US government at the time, and honoring a bond between two honest men, in a world of deceit and pervasive villainy. That is what I’d counsel. Don’t subject your children to the Fiend’s universities, where they’ll have their souls rotted from the inside out. Don’t go pay to see ((Hollywood)) movies. Secede in your hearts from the charade of the Fiend. Love those around you who’re worthy of your love, and repudiate the morass of human scum who make up the elites of this dying civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt . . .”
    – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
    , @RobinG
    Whoa, Rurik, thanks for posting!
    But this goes waaaay beyond bike helmets. However, it's not the Feds who made this up, it's a city ordinance. I'd like to see it go to the Supreme Court, but, then again, that would be much worse if they upheld the lower court.

    http://www.dcclothesline.com/2018/03/31/city-forces-elderly-homeowner-to-replace-garden-with-grass-lawn-even-though-shes-allergic-to-it/#more-82593

    "The Duffners’ attorney, David Roland, said in a statement that he believes this case could set a dangerous precedent because it proves that the local government has the power to threaten a family with thousands of dollars in fines and decades in prison because they refuse to add something to their property that will cause them physical harm.


    “The court’s ruling is bad for anyone who thinks they have a constitutional right to use their own private property in lawful, harmless ways, or to decide for themselves who and what they will allow on their private property. If the government can force the Duffners to plant grass instead of the flowers they prefer, there is nothing that would prevent a local government from forcing property owners—at their own expense!—to put in and maintain a fence or a swimming pool or holiday lights. And it is utterly absurd that the government can threaten its citizens with hundreds of thousands of dollars and twenty years in prison simply because they would rather have lawful, harmless flowers on their property rather than a plant that makes them sick.”
     
    The next step in this case is to file an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Roland said he is committed to continuing to appeal the case, even if it takes them all the way to the Supreme Court."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @RebelWriter
    "The Founding Fathers gave us the Centralized government we have today. They were wrong to do so."

    The Founding Fathers gave us a Federal Republic with a limited central government. It specifically stated that any right of a sovereign state not explicitly given to the central government, nor denied to the states in the Constitution, were reserved by the states. It's first 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights, were written as protections for the citizens of the states against the central government. It was as fine a system of government as man had yet developed. I can find no fault with them save having too much faith in those who would come after them.

    It is those who came after who destroyed our system of government, to the point of discovering rights which don't exist in the Constitution, and denying those which are clearly stated. As many have said before, this nation no longer operates according to the Constitution, but rather in spite of it.

    Without a punishment written into the Constitution for violating the Constitution it is not worth the paper it is written on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Without a punishment written into the Constitution for violating the Constitution it is not worth the paper it is written on."

    Of course there are punishments.

    Officers of the federal government who fail to perform their duties as required by the Constitution may be impeached and removed from office upon conviction.

    Officers of either state or federal government may be ordered, under the threat of imprisonment for contempt, to comply with the requirements of the Constitution, and to perform such acts as may be required to bring the government they serve back into compliance with the Constitution.

    Congress has the power to pass all such legislation as is "needful and proper" to implement the powers of the federal government as assigned to it by the Constitution as well as to protect the rights that the Constitution preserves to the States, or to the People. Where Congress has exercised this power to enact statutes that establish a penalty for someone who acts in contravention of a Constitutionally-protected right, the penalty established in that statute may be applied to those who act in contravention of the statute.

    "It’s over. The contract is null and void. Live accordingly."

    Spoken like a gamma male.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. The NYTimes reported a year after CO legalized marijuana that gang wars in Pueblo, CO were at an all time worst, shootings between rivaling drug gangs went out of control. the Times also reported huge increases in children accidentally consuming marijuana laced candies and brownies and had to be taken to emergency rooms. The other libtard state that legalized marijuana at the same time, WA state, quickly became the heroine capital of America and was featured on Frontline’s special report on Heroine.

    Idiot libtards led by the Seattle Times sold the people of these states a bill of goods about how legalizing marijuana will bring down crime. Guess what? Drug dealers need to eat too. Legalizing marijuana means they need to push harder drugs, and that’s exactly what happened. Heroine is their new drug of choice, that’s why it is now such a “crisis”.

    At least when the British pushed opium to the Chinese, the Chinese gathered up enough resolve to start wars and tried to kick them out of the country. The yellow belly liberals in this country want us all to just bend over for the Mexican drug cartels. It’s never enough for these idiots. Now they are pushing for more “legal injection sites”, under the pretext of “saving lives” but in effect legalizing heroine.

    Jeff Sessions was right to go after the marijuana, that’s the beginning of the end.

    Immigration has always been a federal security concern, because protecting the nation’s border is a federal responsibility. States like CA, WA, OR cannot guarantee that those they let in illegally will only stay within their borders, eventually they spill out into the red states and commit crimes.

    Libtards like Fred Reed will not be happy until America and Mexico are merged into one and become truly borderless, so America will become another dysfunctional shithole like Mexico, with nukes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  113. @Colleen Pater
    well you and fred are idiots! while i can understand your grade school rak rah muh constitution sentiments, there are realities far higher than that the founders in their infinite naivete ignored. All men are not created equal, but they are evolved like all life on this planet to compete in deadly combat for hegemony. The liberals jews and mud peoples are certainly an existential threat and must be dealt with. But their are even deadlier threats out there the chinese understand themselves as all races ought, as the natural owners of this planet and intend to make it so.Islam as well thinks this though with 90 IQs along with the africans are less of a threat short of a zombie type apocalypse of the saints.
    The united states and lets face it canada are the best fortress the world has ever known at least jefferson got that right. we are protected on oceans on four sides, then those are backed up by mountain ranges on two sides and arctic and desert on the other two. we have more energy than the rest of the world combined of every conceivable kind and we have the greatest agricultural land in the world.The jews love to get whites to start killing each other and while civil war is probably inevitable and that might entail a temporary front we must never settle for that all that would happen is the left would plot to import more non whites in order to retake the rest of the land mass.

    Dude, take a breath and use paragraphs. No one is going to read that wall of text.

    Read More
    • Agree: Byrresheim
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Don Bacon says:

    . .the Constitution ordains that the country shall not go to war without a declaration from the Congress
    Fred, the Constitution doesn’t say that, it says. . .”The Congress shall have Power To declare War . .”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  115. Excal says:
    @Iberiano
    I don't assume that, I don't know that. There might be wars or border issues, nonetheless. Of course, we are at a low grade civil war now. Most regular Americans are not free to roam tens of thousands of acres of otherwise public lands in America, pretty much anywhere in any urban area that is black or in the case of the lower CA west, Latino.

    The "confederation" you speak of not working, did not work because it was immediately invaded by the U.S., as opposed to the better arrangement of amicable divorce some are now proposing. I think having MULTIPLE nations created will probably be a safer bet than just two opposing nations.

    Ultimately, I believe it will happen, and it will start with California. As such a large state with a large population spread out over different geography, demographics and culture, it is a good analogy to what is happening in the United States across the board. It's too big to manage as one cohesive unit.

    “Ultimately, I believe it will happen, and it will start with California.” — Under the current regime, California would be one of the very last states to separate from the federal government, and it would do everything it could to stop the process from beginning. California benefits the most from the federal system, wields the greatest amount of power in it, and has no interest in breaking it up.

    As to splitting in two — northern and southern California are joined for a reason: they need each other. It’s in neither’s interest to divorce. Many states are in that tense and paradoxical position — Italy, for instance (though for somewhat different reasons).

    Secession is something that poorer states might do, which have little to lose and some hope of gain, however forlorn. Cultural strength adds to the fire. That peculiar set of circumstances came together for the South in the 1860s — though it didn’t turn out well, as most of the serious men predicted at the time.

    What else encourages separations? The right kind of strong higher authority. Continental Europe was a swarm of squabbling city-states for centuries because there was a strong “referee” for them all to look to. Once that referee retired (or was bound and gagged and placed off to the side), the city-states began clustering together. That process isn’t finished yet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. polskijoe says:

    Except 545 people do not “rule” over 330 million people. The people govern themselves by way of their representatives and Senators

    Complete nonsense. If you think Representatives and Congress represent the people, than there is no hope for such people.

    The US like many countries is Oligarhy of the rich pretending to give people power.
    Represenatitve “Democracy” is not democracy.

    Its representates big money, corporations, lobbies, and military.

    Your founding fathers would despise what US has become.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  117. prusmc says: • Website
    @MK
    I have lived in a suburb of Denver, Colorado for over forty years. In the last three years since pot was made legal, I have seen my town and this state change for the worse. We have more crime and homelessness than is sometimes believable. Even the police chief in our town who is from Los Angeles said that he had no idea the problems that legalizing pot would bring. He, like many people, was neutral on the idea of recreational pot being legal. The illegal grows and trafficking of the drug out of the state has only increased. It is apparently still much cheaper to buy illegally than in the legal pot shops. Anyone who thinks that legalizing drugs is ever a good idea should spend some time in a place that has already done so.

    But think of the increased tax revenue that it brings in from those who like to use the pit and those that don’t use it don’t pay anything!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Corvinus says:
    @Chris Mallory
    Without a punishment written into the Constitution for violating the Constitution it is not worth the paper it is written on.

    “Without a punishment written into the Constitution for violating the Constitution it is not worth the paper it is written on.”

    Of course there are punishments.

    Officers of the federal government who fail to perform their duties as required by the Constitution may be impeached and removed from office upon conviction.

    Officers of either state or federal government may be ordered, under the threat of imprisonment for contempt, to comply with the requirements of the Constitution, and to perform such acts as may be required to bring the government they serve back into compliance with the Constitution.

    Congress has the power to pass all such legislation as is “needful and proper” to implement the powers of the federal government as assigned to it by the Constitution as well as to protect the rights that the Constitution preserves to the States, or to the People. Where Congress has exercised this power to enact statutes that establish a penalty for someone who acts in contravention of a Constitutionally-protected right, the penalty established in that statute may be applied to those who act in contravention of the statute.

    “It’s over. The contract is null and void. Live accordingly.”

    Spoken like a gamma male.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik


    “It’s over. The contract is null and void. Live accordingly.”
     
    Spoken like a gamma male.

     

    the forum dingle berry chimes in!

    (and since I usually ignore your "contributions", I nearly missed it!)

    oh yea, I can see why the dingle berry would like to see his betters pretend like the fecal government today has any legitimacy. He's the ultimate apologist for the people who perpetrated Waco in the first place. He's the apologist for every treason and enormity the zio-regime perpetrates domestically and around the world.

    he's the SPLC, ADL, DEA, CIA, FBI, CNN, MSNBC, Facebook, and Google, and all the other dingle berries dangling by their own tenacious tenacity. When you contemplate corvy, imagine a dingle berry with the persistence to cling, and cling, and cling to their dank dementia with a resoluteness that impresses, even.

    keep clinging corvy, it's what you do best ;)

    , @bluedog
    Your talking about some honest form of government which fails to exist in this country,for the Constitution can be subverted very easily, the War Powers Act is more than proof of that,or term limits or the congress raising their own pay, and the rest of the amendments are no different,the only difference being is which party has the most sitting on the high court,for as they say "money talks and bullshit walks" and its been that way for generations...
    , @Stonehands
    BOVINUS.

    Perfect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. I’d be happy to debate Fred Reed on the merits of his notion of the original intent of the 10th Amendment, compared to that of The Fair Church℠ and its notion of Ecclesia.

    The Fair Church℠ subjects Fair Ecclesia, to only these constraints, so-as to protect the relationship between parents and their children, as well as the relationship between mortal Goðs and the immortal Goð:

    [MORE]

    1 Its ecclesiastical law must be published in a single document that, if in printed form, can be read and held in the hand of adults consenting to its conditions. The document must be completely self-contained relying only on definitions it provides stated in the vernacular or in terms of other provided definitions. This it must assert to be the sole and total expression of its intents and purposes, and of its mechanisms for bringing conforming pressures on all members or subordinate Fair Ecclesia. There can be no rule of law, and consequently no law-abiding adults, unless the law is clearly stated.1

    2 It must facilitate the physically harmless departure of any member and their children, not given up for adoption, upon formal request. This includes members it is excommunicating2, but does not include invaders nor those resisting excommunication, thence exile. Mothers have priority over pre-adolescent children in disputes with fathers. Upon adolescence, choice is left to the nascent adult.

    3 Its ecclesiastical territory consists of non-enclaves dynamically reapportioned by competitive bid with other Fair Ecclesia. Bidding authority is established by a census of its members.3

    4 A minimum of 10% of its bidding authority must be toward territories for Natural Ecclesia.4
    The census of Natural Ecclesia grants additional territorial authority apportioned according to bids on their behalf.5

    5 It must not impede, though it need not facilitate, non-invasive passage by natural persons. Non-invasive passage is characterized by the absence of substantial social or ecological impact.

    6 Impediment is characterized by rendering passage substantially less practical.6

    7 Its members are obligated to neutralize, by the most practical means available, impediments to the dogma.7

    1This constraint is derived from the book “Man’s Relation to Government”, section “The One Alternative To Bloody Revolution” by Melvin Gorham, ISBN 0-914752-16-2, Sovereign Press, 326 Harris Road, Rochester, WA 98579. An exemplar for this kind of ecclesiastical law is given below, under “Natural Ecclesia: Language For Ecclesiastical Natural Law”.

    2Excommunication is strictly relative to the excommunicating Fair Ecclesia. The Fair Church℠ does not excommunicate. The Fair Church℠ is, in this sense, ultimately inclusive. However, those excommunicated from all other Fair Ecclesia are restricted to Natural Ecclesia.

    3This allots each adult with territory necessary for replacement reproduction, hence mitigates the biological imperative for war. It does not exclude semi-enclaves.

    4The intent is similar to that set forth by The Half-Earth Project.

    5This further expands the territory of Natural Ecclesia as more of humanity is subject to individual selection.

    6This is the necessary and sufficient condition to implement the originally-limited intent of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, as well as facilitate emigration. This naturally excludes pene-enclaves consistent with the intent of §3

    7This is the obligation to serve in Holy War for Individual Integrity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  120. Corvinus says:
    @RebelWriter
    A lot of people are really piling on Fred today. Let me take a few steps away from the crowd.

    If there is one thing I do find disenchanting about him, it is his choice of a wife. On the other hand, has he not long ago passed beyond fathering children? Perhaps his Mexican wife is more agreeable than a modern American white woman; I don't know. I am a single old man who's not met an agreeable woman in a long time. I don't date, and have no intention of finding another wife. It's a very expensive proposition.

    As for abandoning the US, I've thought about it myself, and do often; for American culture hates my class - Founding Stock Southern White Male - more than any other, and enacts laws to favor everyone else, and everyone else's history, above me and mine.

    What I read here is merely the evidence that Fred is indeed a son of Virginia, and a Southerner at heart. Faulkner wrote from his heart when he penned the words in "Intruder in the Dust," that,
    "For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it's all in the balance, it hasn't happened yet, it hasn't even begun yet, it not only hasn't begun yet but there is still time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances which made more men than Garnett and Kemper and Armistead and Wilcox look grave yet it's going to begin, we all know that, we have come too far with too much at stake and that moment doesn't need even a fourteen-year-old boy to think, 'This time.'"

    Not just 14 year old boys, but men in their 50's and 60's as well. The South was, and still is to a large extent, very different from the rest of the country, and has its own unique identity. Southerners know that secession was a right before the war, that the issue was not settled in a court of law, by grand speeches in the House and Senate, nor argued before the Supreme Court, but settled on the battlefield, and that might made right, as it so very often does. The flag of the United States flies over the schools and public building in the South because it was put there at the point of the bayonet, and not by the will of the people. The South is a conquered region, and only part of the US through force of arms. This is an inescapable truth.

    In recognizing the rights of California to determine its own population, and the rights of the 7 states to decide which drugs, not whose drugs, the citizens use to escape reality, and not concentrating on each individual issue per se, Fred is taking the high road, something few have done before when regional differences conflicted with general laws.

    There have been several times in our history when a region went against the will of the Federal Government. In example, New England in the War of 1812. The trade and commerce upon which those several states depended for their livelihood was all but destroyed, so they actively worked against the interests of the US, and also found ways to continue to trade, in violation of the Embargo against Britian. As we were at war, this was clearly treason. Thomas Jefferson wrote that he could more easily raise troops from the Southern states to invade New England than to fight Britain. In light of later history, we find this an amazing statement, but it was more true than I like to believe.

    And so we find ourselves in that exact position here. I admit that I, myself, find my blood boiling at the moxie of California, whose citizens, if they can be called such, fight enthusiastically for a cause which will, if carried out to its logican conclusion, spell the end of the United States as we conceive of it. At the right moment, I could be induced to join an invasion of California to bring it back in line. Fred has the better of me here.

    “Not just 14 year old boys, but men in their 50′s and 60′s as well. The South was, and still is to a large extent, very different from the rest of the country, and has its own unique identity. Southerners know that secession was a right before the war, that the issue was not settled in a court of law, by grand speeches in the House and Senate, nor argued before the Supreme Court, but settled on the battlefield, and that might made right, as it so very often does. The flag of the United States flies over the schools and public building in the South because it was put there at the point of the bayonet, and not by the will of the people.”

    You only speak for Southrons, not Southerners. Major difference there.

    “The South is a conquered region, and only part of the US through force of arms. This is an inescapable truth.”

    That is Fake News.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jesse James
    How is it fake news? Are you denying the the US Navy and US Army invaded the southern states and vandalised them by bombarding and burning cities, stealing private property and causing mass deprivation and population dislocation?
    , @RebelWriter
    "You only speak for Southrons, not Southerners. Major difference there."

    I can't even fathom what distinction you're trying to draw here.

    "That is Fake News."

    625,000+ dead Americans say you're wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Che Guava says:
    @Thomm
    It is a privilege to see a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew singlehandedly tie up hundreds if not thousands of White Trashionalists at once.

    Step 1 : Make a website that WNs use (since they can never build anything on their own). Let any and all anti-Semitic slurs stand on the website to make WNs complacent and even keyboard-courageous.
    Step 2 : Recruit the 2-3 intelligent authors that WNs read (Sailer, Derbyshire, etc.) who happen to extremely bad at making money, so that they write for very little.
    Step 3 : After a few years, start pushing for normalization of Hispanics (even if illegal; especially if illegal).
    Step 4 : Deploy someone like Fred Reed to generate even more confusion.

    It works…and it is a lesson in asymmetrical attrition warfare. Sit back and watch this masterful game of asymmetrical 4D chess by a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew.

    Ron Unz has said about 95% of this site disputes the fact that the real division is black vs non-black. I am among the 5% that agree with him (although I am more conservative than him, since I think there should be only skilled, legal immigration, not unskilled and certainly never illegal).

    Now, here is the thing. Those who talk about Auschwitz, lampshades, and soap never get moderated here, but those who agree with Ron Unz do. He will even get angry with those who agree with him too vocally.

    Why? Because he thinks it will expose his game of 4D chess. But I guarantee that it cannot, since the typical White Trashionalist is far below the IQ threshold where they can observe the many pieces in motion. I can describe Ron's plan in full detail (and I fully support it), without any risk of the WNs figuring anything out (much less leaving this site).

    Since you have the silliest comment on the thread, will reply here.

    I. This is about the third time in a year (at least the second), that Fred has used ‘A Modest Proposal’ in a title. Come on, Mr. Reed, we are not wanting to think you are in your dotage, don’t do it again.

    II. The prices of legalised cannabis I read about there are very high, strictly forbidden here, but was trying and enjoying it a few times overseas. Prices a little less rapacious.

    III. I once had a novel with the title The Coming Self-Destruction of the U.S.A.  It was from a hippy perspective, but I would not be surprised if it had some influence on The Turner Diaries, only read the latter last year. Political direction is opposite, but similar style. Would recommending Coming Self-Destruction to readers who are enjoying period-piece SF. Also on this topic.

    IV. I am liking Fred’s writing most of the time, as many other commentors have pointed out, to draw a parallel between state’s rights re. substances and the national govt. re. immigration and the scoff-law attitude of many places is bizarre.
    In Japan, they are ejected if not legit. Seeming to make sense to me.

    V. Maybe Fred just loves trolling.

    VI. You may read Ron Unz’s American Pravda articles, was reading most of the information before, but a good series. Was having points to add (to Conspiracy Theory, re. CIA’s kulturkampf, just now, I am preferring to (-.-)Zzz・・・・.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Rurik says:
    @MK
    I have lived in a suburb of Denver, Colorado for over forty years. In the last three years since pot was made legal, I have seen my town and this state change for the worse. We have more crime and homelessness than is sometimes believable. Even the police chief in our town who is from Los Angeles said that he had no idea the problems that legalizing pot would bring. He, like many people, was neutral on the idea of recreational pot being legal. The illegal grows and trafficking of the drug out of the state has only increased. It is apparently still much cheaper to buy illegally than in the legal pot shops. Anyone who thinks that legalizing drugs is ever a good idea should spend some time in a place that has already done so.

    In the last three years since pot was made legal, I have seen my town and this state change for the worse. We have more crime and homelessness than is sometimes believable

    is it the pot, or is it the mindless insanity of shitlibs?

    https://www.watchdog.org/opinion/evidence-shows-denver-is-a-sanctuary-city-despite-claims-to/article_1f7b3408-d3fa-5b8f-a436-e58026b3d7d5.html

    sure, you make your state a magnet for all kinds of potheads and losers, but then you don’t enact the kind of common sense means of preempting the human detritus from taking over your streets.

    From what I understand, it’s happening everywhere shitlibs have taken over, from San Francisco to Seattle to NYC. Hell, Paris and London too.

    when your policy aligns with radial feminism, BLM racists, La Raza racists, Jewish supremacists, shitlibs and ‘open borders-Fred’, then perhaps it isn’t the weed that is responsible for all the crimes and stench of urine in the streets and public places. Perhaps it’s the mentality that demands we take down all the statues and monuments to (evil and racist) dead white men-

    https://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/18/confederate-monuments-statues-kkk-racism-charlottesville-colorado/

    as a repudiation of everything they stood for; (things like racist borders and the racist Rule of Law).

    Legalizing weed, in and of itself, was and is a common sense and overdue solution to the cartels and DEA abuses and fecal power run amok. Weed per se, is relatively harmless.

    It’s when you combine legalization with the politics of Fred- that demands every single Mexican (and everyone else of course) be allowed to flood into your cities, and transform your communities, and overwhelm your social services and law enforcement- that you see negative consequences. Duh

    Legalizing weed for communities that otherwise operate on the Rule of Law, where criminals are prosecuted or deported, as the case may be. Where civil courtesies and traditions are respected, and there exists a sane and orderly way of operating your towns or cities, it’s not a problem.

    But in places like Denver, where the shitlibs have turned your city to an open-air sewer, literally;

    https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g33388-d251918-r303819855-16th_Street_Mall-Denver_Colorado.html

    https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g33388-d251918-r528307032-16th_Street_Mall-Denver_Colorado.html

    then blaming pot is simply a rationalization.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Rurik says:
    @Corvinus
    "Without a punishment written into the Constitution for violating the Constitution it is not worth the paper it is written on."

    Of course there are punishments.

    Officers of the federal government who fail to perform their duties as required by the Constitution may be impeached and removed from office upon conviction.

    Officers of either state or federal government may be ordered, under the threat of imprisonment for contempt, to comply with the requirements of the Constitution, and to perform such acts as may be required to bring the government they serve back into compliance with the Constitution.

    Congress has the power to pass all such legislation as is "needful and proper" to implement the powers of the federal government as assigned to it by the Constitution as well as to protect the rights that the Constitution preserves to the States, or to the People. Where Congress has exercised this power to enact statutes that establish a penalty for someone who acts in contravention of a Constitutionally-protected right, the penalty established in that statute may be applied to those who act in contravention of the statute.

    "It’s over. The contract is null and void. Live accordingly."

    Spoken like a gamma male.

    “It’s over. The contract is null and void. Live accordingly.”

    Spoken like a gamma male.

    the forum dingle berry chimes in!

    (and since I usually ignore your “contributions”, I nearly missed it!)

    oh yea, I can see why the dingle berry would like to see his betters pretend like the fecal government today has any legitimacy. He’s the ultimate apologist for the people who perpetrated Waco in the first place. He’s the apologist for every treason and enormity the zio-regime perpetrates domestically and around the world.

    he’s the SPLC, ADL, DEA, CIA, FBI, CNN, MSNBC, Facebook, and Google, and all the other dingle berries dangling by their own tenacious tenacity. When you contemplate corvy, imagine a dingle berry with the persistence to cling, and cling, and cling to their dank dementia with a resoluteness that impresses, even.

    keep clinging corvy, it’s what you do best ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Faraday's Bobcat
    I think Mr. Reed misunderstands California's position.

    California doesn't favor states' rights in general. It only favors states' rights to be more liberal than the federal government. When the federal government is more liberal than a state, and wants to force Alabama to build transgender restrooms, then federal law must prevail.

    You nailed it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Corvinus
    "Not just 14 year old boys, but men in their 50′s and 60′s as well. The South was, and still is to a large extent, very different from the rest of the country, and has its own unique identity. Southerners know that secession was a right before the war, that the issue was not settled in a court of law, by grand speeches in the House and Senate, nor argued before the Supreme Court, but settled on the battlefield, and that might made right, as it so very often does. The flag of the United States flies over the schools and public building in the South because it was put there at the point of the bayonet, and not by the will of the people."

    You only speak for Southrons, not Southerners. Major difference there.

    "The South is a conquered region, and only part of the US through force of arms. This is an inescapable truth."

    That is Fake News.

    How is it fake news? Are you denying the the US Navy and US Army invaded the southern states and vandalised them by bombarding and burning cities, stealing private property and causing mass deprivation and population dislocation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "How is it fake news? Are you denying the the US Navy and US Army invaded the southern states and vandalised them by bombarding and burning cities, stealing private property and causing mass deprivation and population dislocation?"

    It wasn't an invasion. It was a civil war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. anarchyst says:
    @Rurik

    I have already personally seceded.

    I ignore almost ALL “laws”
     
    pretty much my philosophy as well anarchyst

    the very idea of following a "law" that works one way, depending on our ethnicity or gender, and another way, if we're a favored class of citizen, (or even non-citizen- who they [Fred] now tell us are all entitled to the benefits of the "Constitution", without any of the burdens), would be a humiliating farce.

    to respect federal (and most state) laws today, would be like a slave in the old south paying taxes and referring to judges as 'your honor'. A crass absurdity.

    even at the local level these petty tyrants and nannies are insufferable. Helmet laws for ridding your bicycle, or this..

    http://govtslaves.info/2018/03/city-forces-elderly-homeowner-to-replace-garden-with-grass-lawn-even-though-shes-allergic-to-it/

    My “law” is the Constitution of the United States, the greatest treatise ever written
     
    but it's gone anarchyst,

    the only way that document works is if it's respected by both sides of the contract.

    The ZUS fecal government no longer honors that document, or the principles enshrined. They've made a mockery of the very notion of the Rule of Law, because they act like it doesn't apply to them. The very moment that the law does not apply to all people equally, is the precise moment that such a law is void, and invalid.

    If a federal agent comes to your home armed, and demands your guns, because "the law" has now decided that possession of guns are forbidden for people like you, do you feel like he has anything like "the law", on his side?

    After the goons burned those people alive in Waco, and then lied to each other about all their monumental crimes, and arrested the surviving victims and locked them up, was the moment I knew I no longer lived in a nation of laws, but we had descended into the jungle. Perhaps it was because I was young and naïve, and this had been the state of the state going back years or even decades or centuries, but for me that was the moment. Now I see all these wars based on lies, and the assassinations, sometimes by drone of US citizens, (or their teenage sons), and the millions upon millions of innocent souls either murdered or maimed or displaced; their nations in ruins.. Or the moral and legal atrocities like the NDAA, and so many more treasons, that I just shake my head.

    We (the cud-chewing, Bovinus Americanus) let them get away with Waco, and nearly put the bitch, (who I'm convinced was the fiendish force behind it all), back into the White House!

    So why would they feel they have to honor their end of the Constitution contract, when they've been able to violate it so flagrantly, and move on as if nothing happened- consolidating even more power.

    No, for anyone to pretend that we live in a nation of laws anymore, is preposterous. We can and should play pretend, and do what you advise, and keep clear of 'the man'. Because he is very dangerous indeed, and completely unaccountable. But this experiment in liberty is over.

    Do as is necessary to keep yourself and your loved ones safe, but don't subject yourself to the humiliation of acting as if the people in the fecal government are legitimate. They're not. They're treasonous scum, carrying water for the ((enemies)) of this republic and the enemies of the American people. (and the enemies of mankind and decency and honor and truth. [what does it feel like to carry water for them Fred? ; ]

    We're like Russia under the Bolsheviks now, and we should use appropriate caution, but laugh at the notion of any legitimacy on the part of the Fiend, (the evil scum in Washington, DC / NYC / and Tel Aviv where they get their marching orders)

    It's over. The contract is null and void.

    Live accordingly.

    ps, I recently had an exchange with a fella here, and his philosophy was crystalized by the scene in the movie The Outlaw Josie Wales, when Josie and Ten Bears made a pact, both knowing the infinite treachery of the US government at the time, and honoring a bond between two honest men, in a world of deceit and pervasive villainy. That is what I'd counsel. Don't subject your children to the Fiend's universities, where they'll have their souls rotted from the inside out. Don't go pay to see ((Hollywood)) movies. Secede in your hearts from the charade of the Fiend. Love those around you who're worthy of your love, and repudiate the morass of human scum who make up the elites of this dying civilization.

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt . . .”
    – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. renfro says:

    The federals control the army, and history has shown that soldiers will as soon kill their fellow citizens as any other

    I don’t think the Union’s army would do it again, its too full of Southerners who might march to the beat of a different drummer.

    Why the U.S. Military Is So Southern

    Citadel freshman cadets known as knobs take the oath to the cadet corps during a ceremony on August 19, 2013 in Charleston, South Carolina. The Citadel is a state military college which dates back to 1846.

    Why you should care

    Because in some parts of America, the call to duty is heard more clearly than in others.
    By Sean Braswell

    Much has been written in recent years about the growing gulf between the worlds inhabited by America’s civilians and the members of its military, whose 1.34 million active-duty personnel, as of May 2016, account for just 0.4 percent of the population. One of the more remarkable, but less noticed, aspects of this divide is its geographical bent.

    According to the U.S. Department of Defense’s most recent Population Representation in the Military Services report:

    Almost 44 percent of all military recruits came from the South.

    Why — now that we are more than 150 years removed from the Civil War — is the Union’s army so disproportionately Southern?

    Many throughout history have observed the martial qualities of the Southerner. As he camped in Mississippi in September 1863, Union General William T. Sherman observed in a letter of the “young bloods of the South” he had been fighting:

    War suits them, and the rascals are brave, fine riders, bold to rashness … and they are the most dangerous set of men that this war has turned loose upon the world. They … must all be killed or employed by us before we can hope for peace.

    More recently, in a 1997 interview, former Senator and Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb observed of his own Southern, Scotch-Irish heritage, that “we have been soldiers for 2,000 years. The military virtues have been passed down at the dinner table.” Research suggests, as Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker chronicles in The Better Angels of Our Nature, that the South has a distinct history of violence and a culture of honor that can be traced back to the Scotch-Irish herders who settled there and that still persists today. Could this culture of honor and military tradition help explain the Southerners’ disproportionate numbers in the U.S. armed forces?

    The result today, in many ways, is a separate warrior class, concentrated in the South and living in isolated military communities and installations like Fayetteville, North Carolina. The families making up these communities may have a proud tradition of service, but it can be a double-edged saber they carry. “When you see other cultures having strengths that don’t require you to go out and get your butt shot off,” observes Webb, “this particular cultural strength seems thankless and kind of a curse, but it’s there.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  128. anarchyst says:

    Warning to the West
    byAleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Speeches given to the Americans and to the British from June 30, 1975 to March 24, 1976.

    ”This book of Solzhenitsyn’s speeches is a valuable critique of communism, even if it obscures or avoids some aspects of its fundamental nature that would explain why communism “became” genocidal instead of “liberating.” Solzhenitsyn, speaking as a betrayed socialist who spent over a decade in a gulag (bolo prison camp where gentiles, dissidents, and socialists were sent to be worked to death), speaks at length of the dangers of communism as a movement that initially presented itself as a quest for social justice but quickly revealed itself to be the most bloodthirsty totalitarian system in history. The fact that Solzhenitsyn omits the defining aspect of communism is both a testament to the remaining power of the bloodthirsty radicals today and the reason that most gentiles who study Marxism and communism fail to understand the difference between communism and other forms of socialism and the attendant dangers of sacrificing individual rights for what might appear to be the greater good.

    Warning to the West is important because because it warns of the danger of “progressive” elites that back and organize causes that appeal to workers or the downtrodden for their own murderous agendas — agendas that might never become clear, even as the blood flows once they achieve state power.
    What Solzhenitsyn fails to treat, however, is the fundamental nature of the Russian holocaust that might explain what actually happened and why the children and grandchildren of the Bolsheviks are still so dangerous today. The Bolsheviks’ pretense of fomenting a labor revolution, then simultaneously ruthlessly suppressing labor while exterminating thousands of gentiles per month (directly under Lenin, and then as Stalin’s willing executioners) is left as a mystery for the reader.
    However, a clue to Solzhenitsyn’s reluctance to address the fundamental essence of communism can be found in another of his works –which for some reason has yet to be fully published in English — wherein he states that the fact that the Russian holocaust is not recognized for what it was serves as proof that its perpetrators are controlling the media. Because it was not safe to publicly state that the perpetrators were already in the US and were well on their way to establishing global economic dominance by the 1970s, Solzhenitsyn must speak in guarded terms about what was safe to say — that communism, not the elite who started it — was a global threat to labor and humanity. Thus, the global enemy is the Trojan Horse of Marxism, not the global crony-capitalist elite that owns every printing press churning out copies of The Communist Manifesto, every newspaper reporting on “income inequality” and every television network subverting western culture.
    Warning to the West is the most that Solzhenitsyn could say then”

    But later he wrote this book…saying what he couldn’t say then.

    https://twohundredyearstogether.wordpress.com/page/2/

    Two Hundred Years Together is a two-volume historical essay by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    It has been prohibited from being published in English but you can read some chapter translations in english at that site.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  129. @John Gruskos
    When Obama was president, did Fred Reed support Arizona, Montana and Oregon and other states when state level laws and referendums tried to crack down on illegal immigration, but were prevented from doing so by federal judges?

    Does Fred Reed give a damn about states rights, or will he make unprincipled use of any and every argument to advance his pet cause of open borders?

    Does he have any respect whatsoever for his American ancestors, kin and heritage, or has he sold his soul for a mess of Mexican pottage?

    John, you’re responding to some other article than the one posted above. Since you obviously haven’t read this article, go back and read it, then make a comment on it.

    Read More
    • Agree: HogHappenin
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @george strong
    I agree with Fred for once. There should be dozens, if not many more, independent nations/city-states in North America. I don't want to live in the same country as most New Yorkers or Californians. Or any Democrat.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. ” Mr. Sessions wraps himself in the Constitution and, thus emparchmented, asserts that the Supremacy Clause gives him the authority to overrule the states.”

    Sessions hasn’t even read the “Supremacy Clause” if he thinks it hands him blanket authority to enforce any federal law on the states. The relevant paragraph of that clause reads:

    “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made IN PURSUANCE THEREOF…there’s the built in test of whether Sessions can claim that the federal law banning marijuana is supreme over the laws of any state on the subject of marijuana.

    Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress empowered to legislate a ban on any drug, food, herbal medicine or any other substance. That means that the federal marijuana laws were not made “in pursuance” to the Constitution. That also means that the federal law in this case isn’t supreme at all.

    Sessions is a jug-eared mongoloid and he is using this sideshow to distract from the fact that he isn’t doing anything to bring charges against highly visible criminals like the Clintons, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, or the Obamas just to mention a few.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  132. @Thorfinnsson
    Why do you worship Mexicans so much, Federico?

    Surely Violeta or whatever the fuck her name is doesn't have that good of a pussy. I mean you were in Viet Nam after all.

    Something in the water?

    FOAD, Ms. Finnsdottir. Off topic trolling makes you a troll.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Fidelios Automata
    I would vote for Arizona to secede in a heartbeat, provided we deny citizenship to the vile scumbag John McCain.

    I would be willing to sign the necessary papers to put John McCain in the electric chair. OK, I know that was off topic and retarded, but I really would.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. bluedog says:
    @RebelWriter
    "The Founding Fathers gave us the Centralized government we have today. They were wrong to do so."

    The Founding Fathers gave us a Federal Republic with a limited central government. It specifically stated that any right of a sovereign state not explicitly given to the central government, nor denied to the states in the Constitution, were reserved by the states. It's first 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights, were written as protections for the citizens of the states against the central government. It was as fine a system of government as man had yet developed. I can find no fault with them save having too much faith in those who would come after them.

    It is those who came after who destroyed our system of government, to the point of discovering rights which don't exist in the Constitution, and denying those which are clearly stated. As many have said before, this nation no longer operates according to the Constitution, but rather in spite of it.

    It may have worked in a limited form until 1860/1861 until the Federal government assumed unlimited power,as it stands now the states have little to no power, as the so call high court can render any state law as unconstitutional.It would be interesting to take a poll with only two questions if you had to give up either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights which would you prefer to give up, I suspect the majority would say the Bill of Rights, which of course is the foundation of the country NOT the Constitution…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Si1ver1ock
    The Federal Government doesn't need your money. You need its money.

    It takes your tax money and destroys it. So it wouldn't matter if you didn't give it to them as long as it was take out of circulation. When it wants money it simply creates it. The same way you might write a IOU.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FYS3z45Zqc

    ” When it wants money it simply creates it. The same way you might write a IOU.”

    Not exactly. When Congress wants more money to be created, they have to ask the Federal Reserve to create it out of thin air and loan it to Congress. Congress even provides for the printing of the newly made money, as a free service to the FR.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Miro23


    I assert that the states have no duty to observe the Constitution since the federals do not.
     
    Indeed. And that is how we can fight back against the assault on our liberties. The States have to tell the federal government to go to hell.
     
    There's nothing wrong with the US Constitution. For example, the 10th Amendment says that:

    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.
     
    The most direct contact with "the people" is at the county and state level, so "powers reserved for the people" seem to include the entirely legitimate idea of raising taxes and spending them locally, with counties and states making their own decisions about healthcare, education, policing etc.

    Nothing in the Constitution says that taxes have to be collected and spent at the Federal level, or that the Federal Reserve has the right to put the whole country in to debt. Following this line, the States would repudiate federal debt as unconstitutional, and issue a "States Dollar" guaranteed by the States tax revenue.

    “There’s nothing wrong with the US Constitution. ”

    Well, there are a few things…..Ok, quite a few things One thing wrong is that there is no enforcement procedure for violation of constitutional provisions by members of Congress. That means there is no remedy provided for citizens whose rights are being violated wholesale by unconstitutional legislation and regulation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. bluedog says:
    @Corvinus
    "Without a punishment written into the Constitution for violating the Constitution it is not worth the paper it is written on."

    Of course there are punishments.

    Officers of the federal government who fail to perform their duties as required by the Constitution may be impeached and removed from office upon conviction.

    Officers of either state or federal government may be ordered, under the threat of imprisonment for contempt, to comply with the requirements of the Constitution, and to perform such acts as may be required to bring the government they serve back into compliance with the Constitution.

    Congress has the power to pass all such legislation as is "needful and proper" to implement the powers of the federal government as assigned to it by the Constitution as well as to protect the rights that the Constitution preserves to the States, or to the People. Where Congress has exercised this power to enact statutes that establish a penalty for someone who acts in contravention of a Constitutionally-protected right, the penalty established in that statute may be applied to those who act in contravention of the statute.

    "It’s over. The contract is null and void. Live accordingly."

    Spoken like a gamma male.

    Your talking about some honest form of government which fails to exist in this country,for the Constitution can be subverted very easily, the War Powers Act is more than proof of that,or term limits or the congress raising their own pay, and the rest of the amendments are no different,the only difference being is which party has the most sitting on the high court,for as they say “money talks and bullshit walks” and its been that way for generations…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @A Spectator
    Danger! Danger Will Robinson!

    If a CON CON is call the floor is open to ANYTHING.

    1789 was a Coup d'état. The united States was destroyed and the groundwork for The United States was laid. It came to fruition 1865. FDR was another Coup d'état as was Bush Jr.

    Patric Henrey "Smelled A Rat" and left in protest. Did his best to kep PA out. NC stayed out but was bullied into compliance.

    The CON CON of 89 was called to fix a few minor details in the Articles of Confederation, but the big and strong central government / weak States types convinced the opposition that none of their fears would be realized. Read the "Anti Federalist Papers" if you missed the memo.

    Better to run it into the ground and shoo the feds out than suffer "interested and designing men" to "fix" anything. 5 to 8 Confederacies will spring up based on cultural lines. These will form aliances for protection from the outside.

    You wnat to see what we may very well end up with? Go look at the Constitutio we gave the Iraquies. Nearly everything ends with "except as according to law".
    No tyrant has ever broken the "law".

    A Spectator

    Agreed, except Patrick Henry tried to persuade his fellow Virginians to stay out, not PA.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. From a cantina south of the border

    A drunken Fred cries out, “A new order!”

    Every state a nation

    Is the latest sensation

    Hey buddy…can ya spare a quarter?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  140. RobinG says:
    @Rurik

    I have already personally seceded.

    I ignore almost ALL “laws”
     
    pretty much my philosophy as well anarchyst

    the very idea of following a "law" that works one way, depending on our ethnicity or gender, and another way, if we're a favored class of citizen, (or even non-citizen- who they [Fred] now tell us are all entitled to the benefits of the "Constitution", without any of the burdens), would be a humiliating farce.

    to respect federal (and most state) laws today, would be like a slave in the old south paying taxes and referring to judges as 'your honor'. A crass absurdity.

    even at the local level these petty tyrants and nannies are insufferable. Helmet laws for ridding your bicycle, or this..

    http://govtslaves.info/2018/03/city-forces-elderly-homeowner-to-replace-garden-with-grass-lawn-even-though-shes-allergic-to-it/

    My “law” is the Constitution of the United States, the greatest treatise ever written
     
    but it's gone anarchyst,

    the only way that document works is if it's respected by both sides of the contract.

    The ZUS fecal government no longer honors that document, or the principles enshrined. They've made a mockery of the very notion of the Rule of Law, because they act like it doesn't apply to them. The very moment that the law does not apply to all people equally, is the precise moment that such a law is void, and invalid.

    If a federal agent comes to your home armed, and demands your guns, because "the law" has now decided that possession of guns are forbidden for people like you, do you feel like he has anything like "the law", on his side?

    After the goons burned those people alive in Waco, and then lied to each other about all their monumental crimes, and arrested the surviving victims and locked them up, was the moment I knew I no longer lived in a nation of laws, but we had descended into the jungle. Perhaps it was because I was young and naïve, and this had been the state of the state going back years or even decades or centuries, but for me that was the moment. Now I see all these wars based on lies, and the assassinations, sometimes by drone of US citizens, (or their teenage sons), and the millions upon millions of innocent souls either murdered or maimed or displaced; their nations in ruins.. Or the moral and legal atrocities like the NDAA, and so many more treasons, that I just shake my head.

    We (the cud-chewing, Bovinus Americanus) let them get away with Waco, and nearly put the bitch, (who I'm convinced was the fiendish force behind it all), back into the White House!

    So why would they feel they have to honor their end of the Constitution contract, when they've been able to violate it so flagrantly, and move on as if nothing happened- consolidating even more power.

    No, for anyone to pretend that we live in a nation of laws anymore, is preposterous. We can and should play pretend, and do what you advise, and keep clear of 'the man'. Because he is very dangerous indeed, and completely unaccountable. But this experiment in liberty is over.

    Do as is necessary to keep yourself and your loved ones safe, but don't subject yourself to the humiliation of acting as if the people in the fecal government are legitimate. They're not. They're treasonous scum, carrying water for the ((enemies)) of this republic and the enemies of the American people. (and the enemies of mankind and decency and honor and truth. [what does it feel like to carry water for them Fred? ; ]

    We're like Russia under the Bolsheviks now, and we should use appropriate caution, but laugh at the notion of any legitimacy on the part of the Fiend, (the evil scum in Washington, DC / NYC / and Tel Aviv where they get their marching orders)

    It's over. The contract is null and void.

    Live accordingly.

    ps, I recently had an exchange with a fella here, and his philosophy was crystalized by the scene in the movie The Outlaw Josie Wales, when Josie and Ten Bears made a pact, both knowing the infinite treachery of the US government at the time, and honoring a bond between two honest men, in a world of deceit and pervasive villainy. That is what I'd counsel. Don't subject your children to the Fiend's universities, where they'll have their souls rotted from the inside out. Don't go pay to see ((Hollywood)) movies. Secede in your hearts from the charade of the Fiend. Love those around you who're worthy of your love, and repudiate the morass of human scum who make up the elites of this dying civilization.

    Whoa, Rurik, thanks for posting!
    But this goes waaaay beyond bike helmets. However, it’s not the Feds who made this up, it’s a city ordinance. I’d like to see it go to the Supreme Court, but, then again, that would be much worse if they upheld the lower court.

    http://www.dcclothesline.com/2018/03/31/city-forces-elderly-homeowner-to-replace-garden-with-grass-lawn-even-though-shes-allergic-to-it/#more-82593

    “The Duffners’ attorney, David Roland, said in a statement that he believes this case could set a dangerous precedent because it proves that the local government has the power to threaten a family with thousands of dollars in fines and decades in prison because they refuse to add something to their property that will cause them physical harm.

    “The court’s ruling is bad for anyone who thinks they have a constitutional right to use their own private property in lawful, harmless ways, or to decide for themselves who and what they will allow on their private property. If the government can force the Duffners to plant grass instead of the flowers they prefer, there is nothing that would prevent a local government from forcing property owners—at their own expense!—to put in and maintain a fence or a swimming pool or holiday lights. And it is utterly absurd that the government can threaten its citizens with hundreds of thousands of dollars and twenty years in prison simply because they would rather have lawful, harmless flowers on their property rather than a plant that makes them sick.”

    The next step in this case is to file an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Roland said he is committed to continuing to appeal the case, even if it takes them all the way to the Supreme Court.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    But this goes waaaay beyond bike helmets.
     
    I don't think so Robin, because at the center is the matter of principles, or lack there of.

    Most people don't know what principles are, or if they do, dismiss them out of hand, because being principled is often contrary to people's narrow agendas.

    the day someone tells you what you can or can't do with your body and soul, is the day you're no longer free, but exist at the pleasure and whim of somebody else.

    There is a central principle, out of which all others follow, and that is that we humans either own our bodies and ourselves, completely and without reservation, or we don't. (I'm not talking about abortion, because that putatively involves another soul)

    But as free adults, we either own our selves, or we don't. And by demanding that we wear bicycles helmets or seatbelts or other infringements upon our personal liberty - will lead to other infringements, for the "common good". Even to the point of demanding we have a lawn, so that the neighborhood comports to collective standards of acceptable behavior. According to the people in power. Individual rights be damned.

    If you understand that an adult human is a sovereign, free and final end in himself, who doesn't exist for the benefit of some amorphous collective, but exists for his own sake, then if he wants to put a gun to to his head and blow his brains out, (preferably on a seaside cliff, where nature will clean up the mess), then it is his life, and his brains, and his soul. And the notion that anyone else has any say over it, violates the central principle of human freedom. A principle that not one in a thousand seem to comprehend, it seems - because people like having power over other people (for their own good!), and honoring such a principle might be inconvenient to that purpose.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Corvinus
    "Not just 14 year old boys, but men in their 50′s and 60′s as well. The South was, and still is to a large extent, very different from the rest of the country, and has its own unique identity. Southerners know that secession was a right before the war, that the issue was not settled in a court of law, by grand speeches in the House and Senate, nor argued before the Supreme Court, but settled on the battlefield, and that might made right, as it so very often does. The flag of the United States flies over the schools and public building in the South because it was put there at the point of the bayonet, and not by the will of the people."

    You only speak for Southrons, not Southerners. Major difference there.

    "The South is a conquered region, and only part of the US through force of arms. This is an inescapable truth."

    That is Fake News.

    “You only speak for Southrons, not Southerners. Major difference there.”

    I can’t even fathom what distinction you’re trying to draw here.

    “That is Fake News.”

    625,000+ dead Americans say you’re wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I can’t even fathom what distinction you’re trying to draw here."

    Southerners are of a higher stock. Southrons, like yourself, are on the lower rung.

    "625,000+ dead Americans say you’re wrong."

    The South is not under chains, nor are they are a conquered region.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Si1ver1ock
    The Federal Government doesn't need your money. You need its money.

    It takes your tax money and destroys it. So it wouldn't matter if you didn't give it to them as long as it was take out of circulation. When it wants money it simply creates it. The same way you might write a IOU.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FYS3z45Zqc

    “It takes your tax money and destroys it. So it wouldn’t matter if you didn’t give it to them as long as it was take out of circulation…”

    Money is created and distributed as tribute and incentive to the DONOR CLASS.
    In order to PREVENT INFLATION the lemming masses are separated from their wages via payroll taxes.

    Every now and then, in despair, the lemmings run en- masse off a cliff or join the military on behalf of Big Oil and Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. anonomy says:

    “Washington does not have the manpower to enforce alien laws upon the entire nation. We see the beginnings of this laudable disentanglement in the seven states that have made legal the use of marijuana. Should these states remain resolute, and refuse to allow their police to be used as Quisling Pinkertons against their citizenry, they may well prevail. ”

    This is so useless. Winning the smoking pot battle saves nothing.The battle over backyard weed does nothing about freedom of association, speech, travel. This battle does nothing about spying, and overseas interventions. Nothing about immigration or invade invite policies. Nothing about the creeping communist menace that corrupts and kills. Nothing about the National Dept Servitude. To prevail means what to whom, considering not everyone does drugs?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  144. Grumbler says:
    @Steve Gittelson

    In the area currently known as the US there should be at least a hundred and fifty -and even more – separate sovereign nations/city states.
     
    LOL. Jesus, are you ever stupid in the purely hyperbolic sense.

    Political and sovereignty issues are determined, ultimately, by economic reality. That's what works. Always has, always will.

    The existing USA might effectively be divided into ten, maybe 12 sovereign economic regions. That will happen eventually. Be patient.

    Steve, “Jesus, are you ever stupid…”

    Ad hominem. I win.

    But out of curiosity, I am willing to extend the conversation.

    “Political and sovereignty issues are determined, ultimately, by economic reality.”

    Disagree.

    For one, “politics” and “economics” are one and the same. “Follow the money” is the reality. Always has been, always will be.

    As for “sovereignty”, what does that even mean? Who has control of themselves and their property? The individual or The State? Who/what is sovereign?

    “The existing USA might effectively be divided into ten, maybe 12 sovereign economic regions.”

    Why is it “purely hyperbolic” for me to envision the US to be divided into over one hundred and fifty sovereign states but it is not “purely hyperbolic” for you to say that the US can be “…divided into ten, maybe 12 sovereign economic regions.” What is the precise number of future independent States which make my argument “stupid” and yours “nonstupid”? Fifty? Seventy-five? Two??

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Gittelson

    Ad hominem. I win.
     
    Ignored. I win.
    , @Logan
    For one, “politics” and “economics” are one and the same. “Follow the money” is the reality. Always has been, always will be.

    This idea, while very common among those who believe it demonstrates their cynical sophistication, is quite simply inaccurate.

    The expression "Follow the money" is a quote from the Watergate movie, though never actually said bin the book on which the movie was based.

    It is generally used to mean that all human motivations are at bottom economic in nature, and therefore any with which you disagree are invalid and illegitimate. The idea was earlier and more thoroughly expressed by Marx, and is often called vulgar Marxism. I wonder how many of those who use the term thinking it makes them look intelligent realize that by doing so they are agreeing Marx was right.

    Watergate, the issue that led indirectly to the formation of the meme, was not directly or even all that indirectly about money. It was about politics, power and paranoia.

    Most wars and political conflicts are not "about money"at root. They're about tribalism and power and pride and fear and a bunch of other emotions. Money is of course tangled in the mix and no doubt a prime factor for many. But it's seldom the prime motivator. At least for that last couple of centuries, no war has been profitable for the societies that waged them, though some individuals and groups within the societies come out ahead financially.

    At the end of the war, win or lose, the society is almost always in a worse financial mess than if it had stayed out. This is of course quite different from ancient times, in which the most obvious way to get rich was to invade your neighbors' territory, take all their stuff and sell the survivors into slavery. In that era wars were indeed motivated by financial concerns.

    Anyway, Deep Throat, the supposed initiator of the phrase, was not saying that Watergate was motivated by financial considerations, he was advising Woodward and Bernstein to track the money paid out to conspirators as a way of getting to the bottom of the conspiracy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Grumbler says:
    @Rich
    Please Mr Grumbler, show me where on earth, ever in history, might didn't make right? Might always wins. Always.

    There is a vast difference between Might and Right. Indeed, historically, Might more often than not wins but that does not mean it is Right.

    Slavery for example. Slavery cannot exist without Might. But is it Right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @bluedog
    Hmm what are you a troll the Artical's of Confederation worked very well.to well in fact, that's why a Constitutional Convention had to be called, but as old Ben said not until the effects of the war had cooled down,then they got the Constitution wrote and passed giving the power to the "new federal government' with the bankers built into the new treasury under Hamilton,Burr was right Hamilton was a traitor and Burr simply was to late in sending him to his maker..

    Articles of Confederation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Bilgeman
    Why the hate for AG Sessions?

    He's only doing what dozens of attorneys-general have done before him.

    Ahhh, the rub is that Sessions is a Southerner...from Alabama, no less...and we of the South have a rather long heritage of the distasteful flavor of being ruled by Washington DC.
    Now, though, it is those who heretofore have had the Feds as their stooges who are now getting a little taste of that Potomac-water Moonshine.
    I reckon that they don't like it all that much either.

    Well, boys, that's just too bad, ain't it?
    To quote a great 'Merican:

    "We feel your pain".

    But I wouldn't dismiss the notion of just declaring sovereignty outright.
    To this day there is no Article nor Amendment to the The US Constitution that bans the states from seceding from the Union/Empire/What-Have-You...you just have to handle the matter of existing Federal Military and Naval reservations within your borders rather delicately.
    "Remember Fort Sumter" and all that.

    But as to the armed resistance part...I note that a pathetically small band of be-sandaled pedophiles in Afghanistan have given the mighty United States no end of trouble these last dozen-odd years...as did the be-sandaled Viet Namese before them.

    For my part, I wouldn't be at all dismayed to see y'all go...even though y'all never extended us that courtesy.

    So until you "shit or get off the pot", you just suck whatever the Fed waves in front of your lips like a good little "true-blue" Union flunkie.

    Well, “y’all,” let me say this about that:

    1. Concerning the unpleasantness of the 1860s, you are entirely correct. The freedom of the several states to secede from the United States is an obvious thing that the founders certainly took for granted. Lincoln was far and away the worst and most destructive president ever to infest the office. The war should never have happened. “Federal” property, forts and whatnot, could have been negotiated civil-courts-style, and the worst that process could have come out would have been vastly better than oceans of stupidly-shed blood.

    2. You Southrons have a little something to answer for. In states like Alabama, back in the days before mechanization, there were some forms of agriculture that could be done profitably … more profitably, perhaps … only if you used hand labor at costs much lower than paying wages to white men. Only if you had slaves. So, today, I live in northern Indiana, a region in which there was never any significant amount of slavery, among many descendants of West Africans, “enjoying” all kinds of more diversity than I want, basically because you Southron bastards were too lazy to just work your own land and live on it. The wonderful diversity of this whole country — you’re substantially answerable for it. Thanks a lot.

    3. As for your last sentence, maybe these homoerotic sucking fantasies occupy a large part of the Southron mind, but … no, thanks. Now, why don’t you give us a little squeal? C’mon, piggy, squeal!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Iberiano
    To be fair, a small percentage of Southerners had slaves, and slavery was basically an institution of the Cavalier (read: Saxon) culture, with some drift, but it was mainly a Piedmont, Tidewater Eastern English upper class (Saxon) institution. The rest of the Mountain Celts, mixed English, Germanic, and the French/Spanish of the Louisiana/Florida/Coastal Alabama areas of the South, while definitely "racist" by common understanding, were basically dragged into the war by circumstance. Cavalier culture re-fought an older Anglo contra Saxon war on American soil.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Grumbler says:
    @Corvinus
    "Do you actually believe that 536 people can really represent the diverse views of 330 millions of people?"

    You changed the goalposts here. Your original statement was "It is madness to think that 545 people can and should rule over 330 millions of people spread out over thousands of square miles." 545 do not "rule" over us. Rather, the citizens "rule". Now, it certainly is challenging for Congress to represent citizen interests given our current climate, and Americans are generally frustrated with how it functions. But that does not mean that they seek to tear our system down brick by brick.

    "Corvinus, why is it a pie in the sky notion? Is there any other hope for Liberty?"

    Because America (proper spelling) has experienced tumult and controversy before, and citizens generally believe that their nation and government is worth fighting for to preserve and reform, rather than break apart. You are assuming there is no other hope for liberty. Instead, we have hope that fences can be mended, that our freedom is worth keeping.

    "Why should there not be many sovereign nations instead of one Leviathan State?"

    "Leviathan State" = false characterization

    Because the super majority of Americans are not at that particular place. There are a host of considerations--Who gets to stay? Who must leave? How is each "state" organized"? What about our current laws? What about our national defense and trade treaties? What about our national debt? What about our banking system?

    All complex issues to tackle. No, let's focus on the problems we have as a nation and go from there.

    "The Founding Fathers gave us the Centralized government we have today. They were wrong to do so."

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

    Corvinus, “You changed the goalposts here. Your original statement was ‘It is madness to think that 545 people can and should rule over 330 millions of people spread out over thousands of square miles.’”

    The 536 are those people “elected” to office. The other nine (the highly politicized lawyers in black robes are not “elected”). Civics 101.

    ” 545 do not ‘rule’ over us. Rather, the citizens “rule’”.

    Seriously?! Do you actually believe that?!

    “Because America (proper spelling) has experienced tumult and controversy before, and citizens generally believe that their nation and government is worth fighting for to preserve and reform, rather than break apart.”

    (The proper spelling does not reflect the proper reality).

    The problem is that the federal government is beyond any hope of reform. Therefore it is suicidal folly to try to preserve it. What is your rallying cry that will unite all factions throughout the US that will get them all to see that the federal government is still worth supporting and obeying and which will lead the citizens into Liberty?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Grumbler says:
    @Corvinus
    "Do you actually believe that 536 people can really represent the diverse views of 330 millions of people?"

    You changed the goalposts here. Your original statement was "It is madness to think that 545 people can and should rule over 330 millions of people spread out over thousands of square miles." 545 do not "rule" over us. Rather, the citizens "rule". Now, it certainly is challenging for Congress to represent citizen interests given our current climate, and Americans are generally frustrated with how it functions. But that does not mean that they seek to tear our system down brick by brick.

    "Corvinus, why is it a pie in the sky notion? Is there any other hope for Liberty?"

    Because America (proper spelling) has experienced tumult and controversy before, and citizens generally believe that their nation and government is worth fighting for to preserve and reform, rather than break apart. You are assuming there is no other hope for liberty. Instead, we have hope that fences can be mended, that our freedom is worth keeping.

    "Why should there not be many sovereign nations instead of one Leviathan State?"

    "Leviathan State" = false characterization

    Because the super majority of Americans are not at that particular place. There are a host of considerations--Who gets to stay? Who must leave? How is each "state" organized"? What about our current laws? What about our national defense and trade treaties? What about our national debt? What about our banking system?

    All complex issues to tackle. No, let's focus on the problems we have as a nation and go from there.

    "The Founding Fathers gave us the Centralized government we have today. They were wrong to do so."

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

    Corvinus, “You are certainly entitled to your opinion”.

    The Constitution either gave us the government we have now or it failed to prevent it. – Lysander Spooner

    Can anyone honestly argue that the federal government protects the Natural Law Rights of the people?!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Colleen Pater
    well you and fred are idiots! while i can understand your grade school rak rah muh constitution sentiments, there are realities far higher than that the founders in their infinite naivete ignored. All men are not created equal, but they are evolved like all life on this planet to compete in deadly combat for hegemony. The liberals jews and mud peoples are certainly an existential threat and must be dealt with. But their are even deadlier threats out there the chinese understand themselves as all races ought, as the natural owners of this planet and intend to make it so.Islam as well thinks this though with 90 IQs along with the africans are less of a threat short of a zombie type apocalypse of the saints.
    The united states and lets face it canada are the best fortress the world has ever known at least jefferson got that right. we are protected on oceans on four sides, then those are backed up by mountain ranges on two sides and arctic and desert on the other two. we have more energy than the rest of the world combined of every conceivable kind and we have the greatest agricultural land in the world.The jews love to get whites to start killing each other and while civil war is probably inevitable and that might entail a temporary front we must never settle for that all that would happen is the left would plot to import more non whites in order to retake the rest of the land mass.

    Yup! You’re Number One, Colleen. Three Cheers for your Fortress America where, increasingly, the people sleep in tents. USA!USA!USA! Kinda makes the hairs stand up on the back of your neck, I bet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Ilya G Poimandres
    It'll all be the same so long as you believe representative democracy is democratic. It is not. It is autocracy with respect to the law, offering the electorate only the right to change the lawmakers that make the laws - people, generally black boxes, with personal interests and motives.

    What we should be aiming for is semi-direct democracy: allow the electorate the legal right to strike existing laws (say, burn the whole campaign finance system to the ground in the US, so a new better one is made), and allow them to reinstate newly repealed laws within a certain time frame, like 5 years (say, bring back Glass-Steagal).

    It is the right to change the laws one is goverend by that makes a system democratic both in the spirit and the letter of the law.

    Representatives (selected or elected), are better suited to creating new laws, because it is usually a technical task that the masses can't effectively accomplish. But this does not mean that the masses must acquiesce to be ruled by those laws.

    Representatives need a check and balance on their power, not their position. In a representative democracy, it is not the job of the elected representative to govern well - it is their job to get re-elected. Governing well helps, but it's not a categorical imperative. If representative action could be checked by the electorate however, well, politicians hate being told no, and especially by their own electorates.

    It’ll all be the same so long as you believe representative democracy is democratic. It is not. It is autocracy with respect to the law, offering the electorate only the right to change the lawmakers that make the laws – people, generally black boxes, with personal interests and motives.

    An excellent call-out! That is, indeed, most of the problem with the so-called “representative democracy”. Perhaps it might hold the line minimally, were elected office not so prone to corruption, and elected officials not so woefully lacking integrity.

    What we should be aiming for is semi-direct democracy: allow the electorate the legal right to strike existing laws (say, burn the whole campaign finance system to the ground in the US, so a new better one is made), and allow them to reinstate newly repealed laws within a certain time frame, like 5 years (say, bring back Glass-Steagal).

    Something like that has been suggested from time to time, and rejected on grounds that the electorate is not qualified, nor should they be burdened with decision-making with respect to everyday rules and regulation. Perhaps true to an extent, but what’s so hard about starting with the rules and regulations already in place, and letting the electorate “tune them up” on a six-month basis?

    Representatives need a check and balance on their power, not their position. In a representative democracy, it is not the job of the elected representative to govern well – it is their job to get re-elected.

    If there were extant, effective controls on representative power, it would not be necessary to hang a batch of elected scum every 200 years or so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Anonymous

    but this is the first time I have detected out and out dishonesty.
     
    Fred is an amateur, foreign, psy-ops agent. Always was.

    Fred is an amateur, foreign, psy-ops agent. Always was.

    LOL. And he’s so much better at it than you are, too. Burns, don’t it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Art says:

    Mr. Session’s expansive view of his importance in the universe is seen again in his menacing of the state of California because he does noi approve its policy toward its immigrants.

    What is god for the gander is good for the goose. Why should gov Brown force his counties and communities to comply with him?

    The path away from big coercive government is small local government. Local government must return as the decider on local problems.

    There is simply no other alternative.

    Think Peace — Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    Really? Small local governments can be just as coercive, and even more arbitrary. Perhaps you didn't notice this case, posted by Rurik - -

    http://www.dcclothesline.com/2018/03/31/city-forces-elderly-homeowner-to-replace-garden-with-grass-lawn-even-though-shes-allergic-to-it/#more-82593

    "A couple in St. Peters, Missouri, learned the hard way that even though they are listed as the owners of their home, the city they live in still has the ability to dictate what is and is not on their property—even if they are allergic to it.
    ..... in 2008, the city of St. Peters passed an ordinance stating that homeowners must plant at least 50 percent turf grass on their property. "
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @RebelWriter
    A lot of people are really piling on Fred today. Let me take a few steps away from the crowd.

    If there is one thing I do find disenchanting about him, it is his choice of a wife. On the other hand, has he not long ago passed beyond fathering children? Perhaps his Mexican wife is more agreeable than a modern American white woman; I don't know. I am a single old man who's not met an agreeable woman in a long time. I don't date, and have no intention of finding another wife. It's a very expensive proposition.

    As for abandoning the US, I've thought about it myself, and do often; for American culture hates my class - Founding Stock Southern White Male - more than any other, and enacts laws to favor everyone else, and everyone else's history, above me and mine.

    What I read here is merely the evidence that Fred is indeed a son of Virginia, and a Southerner at heart. Faulkner wrote from his heart when he penned the words in "Intruder in the Dust," that,
    "For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it's all in the balance, it hasn't happened yet, it hasn't even begun yet, it not only hasn't begun yet but there is still time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances which made more men than Garnett and Kemper and Armistead and Wilcox look grave yet it's going to begin, we all know that, we have come too far with too much at stake and that moment doesn't need even a fourteen-year-old boy to think, 'This time.'"

    Not just 14 year old boys, but men in their 50's and 60's as well. The South was, and still is to a large extent, very different from the rest of the country, and has its own unique identity. Southerners know that secession was a right before the war, that the issue was not settled in a court of law, by grand speeches in the House and Senate, nor argued before the Supreme Court, but settled on the battlefield, and that might made right, as it so very often does. The flag of the United States flies over the schools and public building in the South because it was put there at the point of the bayonet, and not by the will of the people. The South is a conquered region, and only part of the US through force of arms. This is an inescapable truth.

    In recognizing the rights of California to determine its own population, and the rights of the 7 states to decide which drugs, not whose drugs, the citizens use to escape reality, and not concentrating on each individual issue per se, Fred is taking the high road, something few have done before when regional differences conflicted with general laws.

    There have been several times in our history when a region went against the will of the Federal Government. In example, New England in the War of 1812. The trade and commerce upon which those several states depended for their livelihood was all but destroyed, so they actively worked against the interests of the US, and also found ways to continue to trade, in violation of the Embargo against Britian. As we were at war, this was clearly treason. Thomas Jefferson wrote that he could more easily raise troops from the Southern states to invade New England than to fight Britain. In light of later history, we find this an amazing statement, but it was more true than I like to believe.

    And so we find ourselves in that exact position here. I admit that I, myself, find my blood boiling at the moxie of California, whose citizens, if they can be called such, fight enthusiastically for a cause which will, if carried out to its logican conclusion, spell the end of the United States as we conceive of it. At the right moment, I could be induced to join an invasion of California to bring it back in line. Fred has the better of me here.

    The flag of the United States flies over the schools and public building in the South because it was put there at the point of the bayonet, and not by the will of the people.

    I’ll grant you one point: the right to, and a process for secession should have been spelled out in the Articles of Confederation.

    Beyond that, only fragments of your “Southland” still exist. South Carolina, northern Georgia, south-central Tenn, Alabama, pockets of North Carolina, and pockets of Virginia. The rest is gone, swept away by civil-rights chicanery and economic shifts, and most substantially by invasion from Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and the rest of mestizo gangsta-land south of the border. Cuba, of course, dominates Florida.

    Sorry, but it’s all gone, just like the rest of America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. RobinG says:
    @Thomm
    It is a privilege to see a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew singlehandedly tie up hundreds if not thousands of White Trashionalists at once.

    Step 1 : Make a website that WNs use (since they can never build anything on their own). Let any and all anti-Semitic slurs stand on the website to make WNs complacent and even keyboard-courageous.
    Step 2 : Recruit the 2-3 intelligent authors that WNs read (Sailer, Derbyshire, etc.) who happen to extremely bad at making money, so that they write for very little.
    Step 3 : After a few years, start pushing for normalization of Hispanics (even if illegal; especially if illegal).
    Step 4 : Deploy someone like Fred Reed to generate even more confusion.

    It works…and it is a lesson in asymmetrical attrition warfare. Sit back and watch this masterful game of asymmetrical 4D chess by a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew.

    Ron Unz has said about 95% of this site disputes the fact that the real division is black vs non-black. I am among the 5% that agree with him (although I am more conservative than him, since I think there should be only skilled, legal immigration, not unskilled and certainly never illegal).

    Now, here is the thing. Those who talk about Auschwitz, lampshades, and soap never get moderated here, but those who agree with Ron Unz do. He will even get angry with those who agree with him too vocally.

    Why? Because he thinks it will expose his game of 4D chess. But I guarantee that it cannot, since the typical White Trashionalist is far below the IQ threshold where they can observe the many pieces in motion. I can describe Ron's plan in full detail (and I fully support it), without any risk of the WNs figuring anything out (much less leaving this site).

    Not a bad plan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Fella
    Revoke Reeds citizenship now! Could not even read past the second graph. Won't be clicking on his links again.

    Revoke Reeds citizenship now! Could not even read past the second graph. Won’t be clicking on his links again.

    Puta merda! What a jackass. What do you think this site is all about, Trigger? A friggin’ 24-hour pep-rally for Jesus and George Washington? Go be an asshole somewhere else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Grumbler
    Steve, "Jesus, are you ever stupid..."

    Ad hominem. I win.

    But out of curiosity, I am willing to extend the conversation.

    "Political and sovereignty issues are determined, ultimately, by economic reality."

    Disagree.

    For one, "politics" and "economics" are one and the same. "Follow the money" is the reality. Always has been, always will be.

    As for "sovereignty", what does that even mean? Who has control of themselves and their property? The individual or The State? Who/what is sovereign?

    "The existing USA might effectively be divided into ten, maybe 12 sovereign economic regions."

    Why is it "purely hyperbolic" for me to envision the US to be divided into over one hundred and fifty sovereign states but it is not "purely hyperbolic" for you to say that the US can be "...divided into ten, maybe 12 sovereign economic regions." What is the precise number of future independent States which make my argument "stupid" and yours "nonstupid"? Fifty? Seventy-five? Two??

    Ad hominem. I win.

    Ignored. I win.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    "It might have escaped your simple mind, but this is a comment board. The whole point of it is to express opinions."

    Indeed. And your opinion was other than informed. You made a statement, now you've been called to back it up.

    "I have neither reported what I have myself witnessed, nor interviewed a reliable source, or make that two consistent ones, and reported on their claims, after having subjected them to critical cross-examination."

    Then in light of this "critical cross-examination", offer the requisite argument or retract your statement.

    "And while I could easily prove that what I claimed is slander, is in fact slander, it is only possible to prove something to a listener with minimum intelligence, an open mind, and basic faculties of reason."

    Then put up or shut up.

    "As you lack all three requirements, I am not about to waste my time trying to prove anything to you, anymore than I would waste my time trying to prove something about Russia to my dog, who, incidentally, likely scores far higher than you on any scale of intelligence, open-mindedness, or logic."

    Exactly what I thought. You are taking the SJW approach.

    I’vr Noticed that you seem to think you are a school teacher that requires footnotes and a bibliography in every term paper.

    You are neither a teacher nor moderator. People make comments based on their reading and personal knowledge of the subject. No one makes comments hoping to please you and your demands for sources and references.

    You have no authority over the rest of us as much as you fantasize that you do.

    I suggest everyone put the cranky crazy old crow on their commenters to ignore list.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. RobinG says:
    @Art
    Mr. Session’s expansive view of his importance in the universe is seen again in his menacing of the state of California because he does noi approve its policy toward its immigrants.

    What is god for the gander is good for the goose. Why should gov Brown force his counties and communities to comply with him?

    The path away from big coercive government is small local government. Local government must return as the decider on local problems.

    There is simply no other alternative.

    Think Peace --- Art

    Really? Small local governments can be just as coercive, and even more arbitrary. Perhaps you didn’t notice this case, posted by Rurik – -

    http://www.dcclothesline.com/2018/03/31/city-forces-elderly-homeowner-to-replace-garden-with-grass-lawn-even-though-shes-allergic-to-it/#more-82593

    “A couple in St. Peters, Missouri, learned the hard way that even though they are listed as the owners of their home, the city they live in still has the ability to dictate what is and is not on their property—even if they are allergic to it.
    ….. in 2008, the city of St. Peters passed an ordinance stating that homeowners must plant at least 50 percent turf grass on their property. “

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    Really? Small local governments can be just as coercive, and even more arbitrary

    RobinG,

    There may never be a good government - it is a question of degree.

    You are right that local government has its forms of harm. But it is subject to answering problems more than the national government is. Local government must pick up the garbage or else! You see many more attacks on local bureaucrats then you will ever see happening to national government poobobs.

    The closer government is to the governed - the better.

    Think Peace --- Art
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Corvinus says:
    @RebelWriter
    "You only speak for Southrons, not Southerners. Major difference there."

    I can't even fathom what distinction you're trying to draw here.

    "That is Fake News."

    625,000+ dead Americans say you're wrong.

    “I can’t even fathom what distinction you’re trying to draw here.”

    Southerners are of a higher stock. Southrons, like yourself, are on the lower rung.

    “625,000+ dead Americans say you’re wrong.”

    The South is not under chains, nor are they are a conquered region.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RebelWriter
    You are a self-important troll making sh!t up on the fly. You do make me laugh, though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Randal

    Why he believes the policies of Colorado to be his concern is not clear. Equally mysterious is why he thinks the police of Colorado should arrest Coloradans for doing a thing that the people of the state have determined to be acceptable.
     
    This is a legitimate point, since it is clearly no business of the Federal government what drugs licensing provisions a state might make, and the spurious arguments used to justify such interference are just that - spurious.

    Mr. Session’s expansive view of his importance in the universe is seen again in his menacing of the state of California because he does noi approve its policy toward its immigrants. Common sense suggests that if he does not like California’s policies, he should live in another state.
     
    This is not a legitimate point, because unlike the spurious pretexts used to justify Federal drugs laws, the control of the US's external borders and of immigration to the US is self-evidently a legitimate Federal matter, given freedom of movement between states.

    There is nothing “self-evident” about federal power over immigration. It must be a constitutionally delegated power to be “legal”. And it is, though in an unusual construction which is rarely discussed, probably because the average constitution wanker’s ignorant of both the delegation and its affirmation by way of special proscription.

    Fred’s view prevails, however, because the constitution is long void. He’s right. Nullification then secession.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    The only reference to immigration in the original Constitution doesn't really address the issue at all.

    One of the powers granted Congress is, "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,"

    Now in and of itself that doesn't address immigration, who is allowed to enter the country, at all. It only addresses how the immigrants will become citizens.

    If taken literally, Congress and the feds have no power to prevent people from entering, only to decide which of those who enter will be allowed to become citizens.

    For more than its first century there were almost no controls on immigration. It wasn't until the late 19th century that controls began to be increasingly installed. And it wasn't until the early 1920s that severe restrictions came into play, the 50 year strict control that many Americans, somewhat inaccurately, think of as the historical norm.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Corvinus says:
    @Jesse James
    How is it fake news? Are you denying the the US Navy and US Army invaded the southern states and vandalised them by bombarding and burning cities, stealing private property and causing mass deprivation and population dislocation?

    “How is it fake news? Are you denying the the US Navy and US Army invaded the southern states and vandalised them by bombarding and burning cities, stealing private property and causing mass deprivation and population dislocation?”

    It wasn’t an invasion. It was a civil war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @schnellandine
    A "civil war" between two countries. Right. Ridiculous propaganda, considered history truth by brainwashed shackle lovers.

    Shackle lovers get pissed when in the company of freeborns--a psychotic phenomenon more notable for its ubiquity. We all must adore shackles, say the lying pigs.
    , @RebelWriter
    Civil wars are fought between two groups for control of the same government or country. As the Southern states sought no control of Washington, nor of the Northern states, and only wanted to be left in peace, it was a war of independence on the one hand, and a war of conquest on the other.

    I might as well explain it to the wall in front of me, as to explain it to you, however.
    , @Jesse James
    Taking control of Washington, DC to govern the North by militarily occupying parts of it was never a goal of the CSA government ( Hence, they started their own country before the US Army invasion began hint, hint. ). You are as wrong as anyone could possibly be.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Iberiano says:
    @Reactionary Utopian
    Well, "y'all," let me say this about that:

    1. Concerning the unpleasantness of the 1860s, you are entirely correct. The freedom of the several states to secede from the United States is an obvious thing that the founders certainly took for granted. Lincoln was far and away the worst and most destructive president ever to infest the office. The war should never have happened. "Federal" property, forts and whatnot, could have been negotiated civil-courts-style, and the worst that process could have come out would have been vastly better than oceans of stupidly-shed blood.

    2. You Southrons have a little something to answer for. In states like Alabama, back in the days before mechanization, there were some forms of agriculture that could be done profitably ... more profitably, perhaps ... only if you used hand labor at costs much lower than paying wages to white men. Only if you had slaves. So, today, I live in northern Indiana, a region in which there was never any significant amount of slavery, among many descendants of West Africans, "enjoying" all kinds of more diversity than I want, basically because you Southron bastards were too lazy to just work your own land and live on it. The wonderful diversity of this whole country -- you're substantially answerable for it. Thanks a lot.

    3. As for your last sentence, maybe these homoerotic sucking fantasies occupy a large part of the Southron mind, but ... no, thanks. Now, why don't you give us a little squeal? C'mon, piggy, squeal!

    To be fair, a small percentage of Southerners had slaves, and slavery was basically an institution of the Cavalier (read: Saxon) culture, with some drift, but it was mainly a Piedmont, Tidewater Eastern English upper class (Saxon) institution. The rest of the Mountain Celts, mixed English, Germanic, and the French/Spanish of the Louisiana/Florida/Coastal Alabama areas of the South, while definitely “racist” by common understanding, were basically dragged into the war by circumstance. Cavalier culture re-fought an older Anglo contra Saxon war on American soil.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Corvinus
    "Without a punishment written into the Constitution for violating the Constitution it is not worth the paper it is written on."

    Of course there are punishments.

    Officers of the federal government who fail to perform their duties as required by the Constitution may be impeached and removed from office upon conviction.

    Officers of either state or federal government may be ordered, under the threat of imprisonment for contempt, to comply with the requirements of the Constitution, and to perform such acts as may be required to bring the government they serve back into compliance with the Constitution.

    Congress has the power to pass all such legislation as is "needful and proper" to implement the powers of the federal government as assigned to it by the Constitution as well as to protect the rights that the Constitution preserves to the States, or to the People. Where Congress has exercised this power to enact statutes that establish a penalty for someone who acts in contravention of a Constitutionally-protected right, the penalty established in that statute may be applied to those who act in contravention of the statute.

    "It’s over. The contract is null and void. Live accordingly."

    Spoken like a gamma male.

    BOVINUS.

    Perfect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Fred: would you be so benevolent as to turn your informed intellect to analysing the way the necessities of modern government are to be achieved in the era with almost instant widespread communications and huge cross-border trade?

    If not by direct rule from the centre then how is it to done by treaty or periodic interstate conference to prevent seriously damaging spillovers from one state to another. From the free movement of people, which has beem mentioned, to effectiveply free movement of marijuana across state borders….. how do you deal with the problems, even after having decided to define some as non problems?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  166. @Corvinus
    "How is it fake news? Are you denying the the US Navy and US Army invaded the southern states and vandalised them by bombarding and burning cities, stealing private property and causing mass deprivation and population dislocation?"

    It wasn't an invasion. It was a civil war.

    A “civil war” between two countries. Right. Ridiculous propaganda, considered history truth by brainwashed shackle lovers.

    Shackle lovers get pissed when in the company of freeborns–a psychotic phenomenon more notable for its ubiquity. We all must adore shackles, say the lying pigs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "A “civil war” between two countries. Right. Ridiculous propaganda, considered history truth by brainwashed shackle lovers."

    Even astute Southerners recognize there was a civil war within our nation. Southrons like you just cling on to the bitter past. Please educate yourself.

    https://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Concise-Southern-Historian/dp/189311449X
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Aardvark says:
    @David
    Sessions can't enforce federal laws against weed where its use or possession is in accordance with state law. Congress allows no funding for it. The provision forbidding it has existed since 2014, is renewed annually, and is expected to be renewed this year.

    I don’t recall where in the Constitution that isn’t followed that the Feds had the authority to regulate marijuana, or a whole list of other things like alcohol, tobacco and firearms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rhett Hardwick
    All of the matters you refer to come under the "police powers" meaning the inherent ability of government to act in the interest of public safety, or health. I agree it is vastly over expanded. Even Zoning is based on "public health" (distance between wells and septic, side yards to prevent fire spreading. etc)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Sunbeam
    "Mr. Session’s expansive view of his importance in the universe is seen again in his menacing of the state of California because he does noi approve its policy toward its immigrants. Common sense suggests that if he does not like California’s policies, he should live in another state. I am sure this would suit California well."

    A pretty argument. The problem with it is that the illegals in question do not have to remain in the confines of California.

    If you can guarantee that's where they will stay, then your argument is a lot stronger.

    And you talk a lot about police work. Pray tell enlighten us all about the role that marijuana arrests and pleas play in the whole legal system. Tell me from your extensive contact with beat cops, prosecutors, defense lawyers, offenders, and victims whether many of them would frankly give two figs on a theoretical level whether Marijuana was illegal nationwide - but it makes a dandy thing for some perp to cop to. He gets less time and penalty, and the state gets to avoid the cost and time of a jury trial.

    Take that away, and what are the results? You spent time covering the system, tell me.

    Personally my belief is that even something like the criminality of marijuana is another insidious ramification of the presence of black people in America. It is utterly insane how much they have shaped the current state of America - not by some master plan, but simply by existing.

    I myself don't care in the slightest whether someone wakes up in the morning and reaches for a bong (well as long as they aren't on the road with me). But I also wouldn't care to find out what happens if Johnny Brown doesn't plead to possession, getting 3 months in the county, but instead clogs up a system that has evolved for Johnny Brown to do just that.

    Or we all could do like California is apparently doing now. Just not enforcing most laws. Great state to take a dump in, let me tell ya.

    The issue of Federalism, Anti-Federalism, Abe Lincoln, Prohibition and now another prohibition?

    Control of USA external borders and immigration may be legitimate where USA presence in America is welcome, but where the people of the state [name it] have announced they do not want, in their state, outsiders to dictate it may be a horse of a different color.

    The Pharaohs designed a constitution and used it to impose federalism on Americans. Federalism is a top-down management philosophy designed to take and keep the behaviors and resources of the slaves and their possessions in the hands and control of the elite, globally-present Pharaohs. The constitution took control by separating American political power into one group, and depriving the other group of any political power.

    The first group, a few slaves would be elected to serve in a group of 527 slave drivers, to be known as the USA. The USA would be allowed to use democratic principles to make its decisions and its make laws subject to the delight of the Pharaohs. The second, larger group (340,000,000 not elected Americans), would be slaved to the demands and requirements of, and required to limit and conform their behaviors and activities, to accord with the decisions and laws made by the 527 elected, salaried, privileged USA slave drivers). So in short, the globally-present Pharaohs set up a middle man (527 slave drivers) group, gave them all of the political power and authorized them to use that power to control the American people and to own or control the resources in America. Around the globe you can see the globally-present Pharaoh’s slave driver = slave structure. The slave-driver slave is a hallmark of the nation state and the nation state is a franchise of the globally-present Pharaoh.

    As near as I can tell, neither the constitution nor the USA it created, took America out of the American; as the gun controversy clearly confirms. The constitution was just a deal, based on conditions, reflected in a contract, presented by the Pharaohs, designed to quiet justice-seeking Americans. The constitution is conditioned on honoring expressed guarantees (the bill of rights), performance and end-goal outcomes satisfactory to Americans.

    The Catalonia self-determination succession rights vs the Spanish nation state federalism demonstrate how difficult it is for the people to take back their power when they discover they have made a bad deal. The president of the Catalonia succession is being extradited back to Spain under International warrant for trial and likely execution; all he did was hold a popular election to determine if the people in Catalonia wanted to be separated from the Spanish government (similar to the British Exit from the European Union).
    But external events, subsequent to the Catalonia election, clearly demonstrate the nation states are but “structured groups” franchised to paid slave drivers willing to maintain internal to the nation state control suitable to globally-present Pharaohs). http://www.libertylawsite.org/2017/10/24/catalonia-secession-constitution-and-liberty/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Spain and indeed all of the EU has abolished the death penalty, so while the Catalan guy might be murdered, he can't be executed.

    The Catalonia self-determination succession rights vs the Spanish nation state federalism demonstrate how difficult it is for the people to take back their power when they discover they have made a bad deal.

    Not sure "take back their power" is the right expression. Catalonia has never been "free and independent" of Spain, though it gets complicated back in the medieval period.

    Till the early modern period the Iberian peninsula was composed of quite a few independent kingdoms, till 1492 some Muslim and some Christian. In that year the Muslims were finally ejected and about then the gradual integration of the Spanish side of the peninsula, which included Catalonia, began.

    Catalonia was roughly in a similar position to Portugal, also for some time ruled by the Spanish monarch. Portugal eventually regained its independence under a different royal family.

    Catalonia rebelled and attempted to regain independence multiple times, but never really succeeded other than briefly. It was always reconquered by the central Spanish government.

    So, unless you want to pick medieval nits, Catalonia never was independent, so can't really take it back. Whether they have a legal/moral right to self-determination is of course a separate issue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Rurik says:
    @RobinG
    Whoa, Rurik, thanks for posting!
    But this goes waaaay beyond bike helmets. However, it's not the Feds who made this up, it's a city ordinance. I'd like to see it go to the Supreme Court, but, then again, that would be much worse if they upheld the lower court.

    http://www.dcclothesline.com/2018/03/31/city-forces-elderly-homeowner-to-replace-garden-with-grass-lawn-even-though-shes-allergic-to-it/#more-82593

    "The Duffners’ attorney, David Roland, said in a statement that he believes this case could set a dangerous precedent because it proves that the local government has the power to threaten a family with thousands of dollars in fines and decades in prison because they refuse to add something to their property that will cause them physical harm.


    “The court’s ruling is bad for anyone who thinks they have a constitutional right to use their own private property in lawful, harmless ways, or to decide for themselves who and what they will allow on their private property. If the government can force the Duffners to plant grass instead of the flowers they prefer, there is nothing that would prevent a local government from forcing property owners—at their own expense!—to put in and maintain a fence or a swimming pool or holiday lights. And it is utterly absurd that the government can threaten its citizens with hundreds of thousands of dollars and twenty years in prison simply because they would rather have lawful, harmless flowers on their property rather than a plant that makes them sick.”
     
    The next step in this case is to file an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Roland said he is committed to continuing to appeal the case, even if it takes them all the way to the Supreme Court."

    But this goes waaaay beyond bike helmets.

    I don’t think so Robin, because at the center is the matter of principles, or lack there of.

    Most people don’t know what principles are, or if they do, dismiss them out of hand, because being principled is often contrary to people’s narrow agendas.

    the day someone tells you what you can or can’t do with your body and soul, is the day you’re no longer free, but exist at the pleasure and whim of somebody else.

    There is a central principle, out of which all others follow, and that is that we humans either own our bodies and ourselves, completely and without reservation, or we don’t. (I’m not talking about abortion, because that putatively involves another soul)

    But as free adults, we either own our selves, or we don’t. And by demanding that we wear bicycles helmets or seatbelts or other infringements upon our personal liberty – will lead to other infringements, for the “common good”. Even to the point of demanding we have a lawn, so that the neighborhood comports to collective standards of acceptable behavior. According to the people in power. Individual rights be damned.

    If you understand that an adult human is a sovereign, free and final end in himself, who doesn’t exist for the benefit of some amorphous collective, but exists for his own sake, then if he wants to put a gun to to his head and blow his brains out, (preferably on a seaside cliff, where nature will clean up the mess), then it is his life, and his brains, and his soul. And the notion that anyone else has any say over it, violates the central principle of human freedom. A principle that not one in a thousand seem to comprehend, it seems – because people like having power over other people (for their own good!), and honoring such a principle might be inconvenient to that purpose.

    Read More
    • Agree: Miro23, Steve Gittelson
    • Replies: @RobinG
    Leaving aside any possible distinctions between bike helmets and mandatory turf grass, human beings are about as "free" as ants in anthills. The intellect and soul business is self aggrandizement and self delusion. Elon Musk's expedition to Mars is just a leafcutter climbing a taller tree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Art says:
    @RobinG
    Really? Small local governments can be just as coercive, and even more arbitrary. Perhaps you didn't notice this case, posted by Rurik - -

    http://www.dcclothesline.com/2018/03/31/city-forces-elderly-homeowner-to-replace-garden-with-grass-lawn-even-though-shes-allergic-to-it/#more-82593

    "A couple in St. Peters, Missouri, learned the hard way that even though they are listed as the owners of their home, the city they live in still has the ability to dictate what is and is not on their property—even if they are allergic to it.
    ..... in 2008, the city of St. Peters passed an ordinance stating that homeowners must plant at least 50 percent turf grass on their property. "

    Really? Small local governments can be just as coercive, and even more arbitrary

    RobinG,

    There may never be a good government – it is a question of degree.

    You are right that local government has its forms of harm. But it is subject to answering problems more than the national government is. Local government must pick up the garbage or else! You see many more attacks on local bureaucrats then you will ever see happening to national government poobobs.

    The closer government is to the governed – the better.

    Think Peace — Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Corvinus
    "I can’t even fathom what distinction you’re trying to draw here."

    Southerners are of a higher stock. Southrons, like yourself, are on the lower rung.

    "625,000+ dead Americans say you’re wrong."

    The South is not under chains, nor are they are a conquered region.

    You are a self-important troll making sh!t up on the fly. You do make me laugh, though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Corvinus
    "How is it fake news? Are you denying the the US Navy and US Army invaded the southern states and vandalised them by bombarding and burning cities, stealing private property and causing mass deprivation and population dislocation?"

    It wasn't an invasion. It was a civil war.

    Civil wars are fought between two groups for control of the same government or country. As the Southern states sought no control of Washington, nor of the Northern states, and only wanted to be left in peace, it was a war of independence on the one hand, and a war of conquest on the other.

    I might as well explain it to the wall in front of me, as to explain it to you, however.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JamesinNM
    You are correct. Lincoln destroyed the lawful government in favor of a private bankers’ government. Lincoln, one of America’s greatest traitors. Every remembrance of Lincoln should be destroyed, and he should be declared a traitor.
    , @Logan
    This is a problem of semantics, but the common definition of "civil war" does not support your point. Many conflicts that are normally considered civil wars are the result of attempted secession.

    Such a war that fails is more likely to be commonly classified as a civil war, whereas if it succeeds it is less likely to be so classified.

    Wiki: A civil war, also known as an intrastate war in polemology,[1] is a war between organized groups within the same state or country. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region or to change government policies.[2] The term is a calque of the Latin bellum civile which was used to refer to the various civil wars of the Roman Republic in the 1st century BC.

    , @Corvinus
    Logan beat me to it to explain your error in logic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. JamesinNM says:

    Build a a pair of 20 foot high walls along all states borders separated by a 1/2 mile minefield with machine guns every 250 feet. Have only one entry/exit point on the north, south, east, and west border walls.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  174. JamesinNM says:
    @RebelWriter
    Civil wars are fought between two groups for control of the same government or country. As the Southern states sought no control of Washington, nor of the Northern states, and only wanted to be left in peace, it was a war of independence on the one hand, and a war of conquest on the other.

    I might as well explain it to the wall in front of me, as to explain it to you, however.

    You are correct. Lincoln destroyed the lawful government in favor of a private bankers’ government. Lincoln, one of America’s greatest traitors. Every remembrance of Lincoln should be destroyed, and he should be declared a traitor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Aardvark
    I don’t recall where in the Constitution that isn’t followed that the Feds had the authority to regulate marijuana, or a whole list of other things like alcohol, tobacco and firearms.

    All of the matters you refer to come under the “police powers” meaning the inherent ability of government to act in the interest of public safety, or health. I agree it is vastly over expanded. Even Zoning is based on “public health” (distance between wells and septic, side yards to prevent fire spreading. etc)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. RobinG says:
    @Rurik

    But this goes waaaay beyond bike helmets.
     
    I don't think so Robin, because at the center is the matter of principles, or lack there of.

    Most people don't know what principles are, or if they do, dismiss them out of hand, because being principled is often contrary to people's narrow agendas.

    the day someone tells you what you can or can't do with your body and soul, is the day you're no longer free, but exist at the pleasure and whim of somebody else.

    There is a central principle, out of which all others follow, and that is that we humans either own our bodies and ourselves, completely and without reservation, or we don't. (I'm not talking about abortion, because that putatively involves another soul)

    But as free adults, we either own our selves, or we don't. And by demanding that we wear bicycles helmets or seatbelts or other infringements upon our personal liberty - will lead to other infringements, for the "common good". Even to the point of demanding we have a lawn, so that the neighborhood comports to collective standards of acceptable behavior. According to the people in power. Individual rights be damned.

    If you understand that an adult human is a sovereign, free and final end in himself, who doesn't exist for the benefit of some amorphous collective, but exists for his own sake, then if he wants to put a gun to to his head and blow his brains out, (preferably on a seaside cliff, where nature will clean up the mess), then it is his life, and his brains, and his soul. And the notion that anyone else has any say over it, violates the central principle of human freedom. A principle that not one in a thousand seem to comprehend, it seems - because people like having power over other people (for their own good!), and honoring such a principle might be inconvenient to that purpose.

    Leaving aside any possible distinctions between bike helmets and mandatory turf grass, human beings are about as “free” as ants in anthills. The intellect and soul business is self aggrandizement and self delusion. Elon Musk’s expedition to Mars is just a leafcutter climbing a taller tree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Leaving aside any possible distinctions between bike helmets and mandatory turf grass,
     
    their related by the principle of freedom (in this case from petty tyrannies)

    human beings are about as “free” as ants in anthills.
     
    most, to be sure. It's even worse really, because unlike ants, humans are willfully enslaved (to their respective sophisms)

    The intellect and soul business is self aggrandizement and self delusion.
     
    I said it before Robin, you're so cynical.

    Please allow that unchained, the human soul can indeed aspire and soar. Unlike Elon Musk's P. T. Barnum impersonation, the human soul needs no machines to navigate the infinite. It's all well within us. We simply need only dispense with and drop the chains of ignorance shackled upon our minds by other spiritually enslaved humans, interested in maintaining the earthy order that has them on top.

    Once we discover that there is no top, or bottom, and that these societal constructs are merely aberrations of the mind, imposed by clever manipulators, to get people to goose step to their tune, then people can begin to understand that they are their own sovereign, and that the idea of a 'leader' or 'ruler' are hysterical absurdities. That is where "self aggrandizement and self delusion" manifest, in the fevered minds of wannabe petty (or otherwise) tyrants.

    Once you discover that your mind is yours, to do with as you please, unshackled by anything or anyone, and free to wander to galaxies a million light years beyond Musk's silly gimmicks, or to look inward, at the soul itself, which is just as infinite, and just as mysterious and enigmatic as those nebulae the telescopes show us in all their sublime wonder..

    then perhaps we can all begin to show our "leaders" a little less deference, and be a little more wistful about other's insistence against petty oppressions (seatbelt and helmet and lawn laws)

    and, perhaps to be a little less cynical

    just perhaps..

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Corvinus
    "How is it fake news? Are you denying the the US Navy and US Army invaded the southern states and vandalised them by bombarding and burning cities, stealing private property and causing mass deprivation and population dislocation?"

    It wasn't an invasion. It was a civil war.

    Taking control of Washington, DC to govern the North by militarily occupying parts of it was never a goal of the CSA government ( Hence, they started their own country before the US Army invasion began hint, hint. ). You are as wrong as anyone could possibly be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Taking control of Washington, DC to govern the North by militarily occupying parts of it was never a goal of the CSA government ( Hence, they started their own country before the US Army invasion began hint, hint. ). You are as wrong as anyone could possibly be."

    You are extremely ignorant.

    "Both the Federal defenses and the Confederate threat looked stronger than they were. “Undoubtedly we could have marched into Washington,” wrote one of Early’s division commanders, Maj. Gen. John B. Gordon. “I myself rode to a point on those breastworks at which there was no force whatsoever. The unprotected space was broad enough for the easy passage of Early’s army without resistance. Just beyond this inviting gap lay the legislative and administrative heart of the enemy government. What is more, there was the Federal Navy yard, with its ships to burn; the United States Treasury with its millions of dollars in bonds and currency, the seizure of which would have had catastrophic effects on the Northern economy; warehouse after warehouse of medical supplies, food, military equipment, ammunition-all scarce and desperately needed in the Confederacy. In short, a rich city, virgin to war, awaiting plunder. Not to mention the incalculable humiliation to the Union if such a rape of its capital occurred. Maj. Gen. Lew Wallace (later the author of Ben Hur) had been stiffened to make his desperate stand against Early on the Monocacy, he wrote afterward, by a vision of “President Lincoln, cloaked and hooded, stealing from the back door of the White House just as some gray-garbed Confederate brigadier burst in the front door.”

    www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-washington-dc-came-close-to-being-conquered-by-the-confederacy-180951994/#zTgJxtpruVAa7yYX.99
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Logan says:

    As one instance among many, the Constitution ordains that the country shall not go to war without a declaration from the Congress.

    Except it ordains no such thing.

    [The Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    Under its first president the US waged war against a confederacy of Indians and suffered perhaps the worst military disaster in its history, depending on how you define terms. No formal declaration of war.

    Under its second president the US waged war against France in the Quasi-War . No formal declaration of war.

    Under its third, it waged war against the Barbary States. No formal declaration of war.

    Under probably every president up to at least 1900 war was waged against various Indian tribes. No formal declarations of war.

    The US has engaged in hundreds of “wars,” but has formally declared war only five times, depending on how you define “declare war.”

    So either the US has ignored the clear meaning of this clause of the Constitution throughout its entire history, or Fred is confused.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    "Except it ordains no such thing."

    Yes, it does. by listing the declaration of war as a power of Congress and by not listing it as a power of the executive or legislative branches, The Constitution has made the ower to declare war an exclusive power of the legislative branch.

    Holding up violations of the Constitution as proof that those violations are proper under the Constitution is an old trick. It's no secret that the Constitution has been ignored by presidents (and Congress) from the very first.

    You've made no point at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Logan says:
    @A Spectator
    Danger! Danger Will Robinson!

    If a CON CON is call the floor is open to ANYTHING.

    1789 was a Coup d'état. The united States was destroyed and the groundwork for The United States was laid. It came to fruition 1865. FDR was another Coup d'état as was Bush Jr.

    Patric Henrey "Smelled A Rat" and left in protest. Did his best to kep PA out. NC stayed out but was bullied into compliance.

    The CON CON of 89 was called to fix a few minor details in the Articles of Confederation, but the big and strong central government / weak States types convinced the opposition that none of their fears would be realized. Read the "Anti Federalist Papers" if you missed the memo.

    Better to run it into the ground and shoo the feds out than suffer "interested and designing men" to "fix" anything. 5 to 8 Confederacies will spring up based on cultural lines. These will form aliances for protection from the outside.

    You wnat to see what we may very well end up with? Go look at the Constitutio we gave the Iraquies. Nearly everything ends with "except as according to law".
    No tyrant has ever broken the "law".

    A Spectator

    5 to 8 Confederacies will spring up based on cultural lines.

    But such Confederacies would by necessity be geographical. The problem is that our divisions are not primarily regional in nature.

    The US of today is not like the Massachusetts or South Carolina of 1860. It is far more like the Missouri of 1860, which fell apart into its own civil war within the larger Civil War. Or Virginia, which did the same and split.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Logan says:
    @RebelWriter
    Civil wars are fought between two groups for control of the same government or country. As the Southern states sought no control of Washington, nor of the Northern states, and only wanted to be left in peace, it was a war of independence on the one hand, and a war of conquest on the other.

    I might as well explain it to the wall in front of me, as to explain it to you, however.

    This is a problem of semantics, but the common definition of “civil war” does not support your point. Many conflicts that are normally considered civil wars are the result of attempted secession.

    Such a war that fails is more likely to be commonly classified as a civil war, whereas if it succeeds it is less likely to be so classified.

    Wiki: A civil war, also known as an intrastate war in polemology,[1] is a war between organized groups within the same state or country. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region or to change government policies.[2] The term is a calque of the Latin bellum civile which was used to refer to the various civil wars of the Roman Republic in the 1st century BC.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Logan says:
    @schnellandine
    There is nothing "self-evident" about federal power over immigration. It must be a constitutionally delegated power to be "legal". And it is, though in an unusual construction which is rarely discussed, probably because the average constitution wanker's ignorant of both the delegation and its affirmation by way of special proscription.

    Fred's view prevails, however, because the constitution is long void. He's right. Nullification then secession.

    The only reference to immigration in the original Constitution doesn’t really address the issue at all.

    One of the powers granted Congress is, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,”

    Now in and of itself that doesn’t address immigration, who is allowed to enter the country, at all. It only addresses how the immigrants will become citizens.

    If taken literally, Congress and the feds have no power to prevent people from entering, only to decide which of those who enter will be allowed to become citizens.

    For more than its first century there were almost no controls on immigration. It wasn’t until the late 19th century that controls began to be increasingly installed. And it wasn’t until the early 1920s that severe restrictions came into play, the 50 year strict control that many Americans, somewhat inaccurately, think of as the historical norm.

    Read More
    • Replies: @schnellandine
    No, you missed it. That you'd shoot from the hip after the tone of my post isn't to your credit as a legal analyst. I'll chalk it as an ailment of the age: ctrl-F binaryism.

    You could go again, or have the answer supplied. Slow down for 5 seconds though and consider this truth: You will kick yourself when it's revealed. It's right there waiting, its nose in a bush.

    Here's another hint. It is not a sideways allusion to immigration. It's direct, and the power delegation uses an uncommon but uncontroversial method.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Logan says:
    @Grumbler
    Steve, "Jesus, are you ever stupid..."

    Ad hominem. I win.

    But out of curiosity, I am willing to extend the conversation.

    "Political and sovereignty issues are determined, ultimately, by economic reality."

    Disagree.

    For one, "politics" and "economics" are one and the same. "Follow the money" is the reality. Always has been, always will be.

    As for "sovereignty", what does that even mean? Who has control of themselves and their property? The individual or The State? Who/what is sovereign?

    "The existing USA might effectively be divided into ten, maybe 12 sovereign economic regions."

    Why is it "purely hyperbolic" for me to envision the US to be divided into over one hundred and fifty sovereign states but it is not "purely hyperbolic" for you to say that the US can be "...divided into ten, maybe 12 sovereign economic regions." What is the precise number of future independent States which make my argument "stupid" and yours "nonstupid"? Fifty? Seventy-five? Two??

    For one, “politics” and “economics” are one and the same. “Follow the money” is the reality. Always has been, always will be.

    This idea, while very common among those who believe it demonstrates their cynical sophistication, is quite simply inaccurate.

    The expression “Follow the money” is a quote from the Watergate movie, though never actually said bin the book on which the movie was based.

    It is generally used to mean that all human motivations are at bottom economic in nature, and therefore any with which you disagree are invalid and illegitimate. The idea was earlier and more thoroughly expressed by Marx, and is often called vulgar Marxism. I wonder how many of those who use the term thinking it makes them look intelligent realize that by doing so they are agreeing Marx was right.

    Watergate, the issue that led indirectly to the formation of the meme, was not directly or even all that indirectly about money. It was about politics, power and paranoia.

    Most wars and political conflicts are not “about money”at root. They’re about tribalism and power and pride and fear and a bunch of other emotions. Money is of course tangled in the mix and no doubt a prime factor for many. But it’s seldom the prime motivator. At least for that last couple of centuries, no war has been profitable for the societies that waged them, though some individuals and groups within the societies come out ahead financially.

    At the end of the war, win or lose, the society is almost always in a worse financial mess than if it had stayed out. This is of course quite different from ancient times, in which the most obvious way to get rich was to invade your neighbors’ territory, take all their stuff and sell the survivors into slavery. In that era wars were indeed motivated by financial concerns.

    Anyway, Deep Throat, the supposed initiator of the phrase, was not saying that Watergate was motivated by financial considerations, he was advising Woodward and Bernstein to track the money paid out to conspirators as a way of getting to the bottom of the conspiracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Most wars and political conflicts are not “about money”at root. They’re about tribalism and power and pride and fear and a bunch of other emotions. Money is of course tangled in the mix and no doubt a prime factor for many.
     
    So, whether it's about tribalism, bunch of other emotions - or money - the whites should keep their territory racially pure?

    Thank you.

    , @Grumbler
    Logan, it is irrelevant who first came up with the phrase "Follow the money". It only matters if it is accurate - which it is. "Follow the money" is just another way of saying "Who benefits?" which the Romans came up with way before Marx.

    "It is generally used to mean that all human motivations are at bottom economic in nature..."

    Who said anything about "all" human motivations? Not all human motivations are guided by economics but economics is a very powerful force of humanity. But when it comes to politics economics is indeed the key factor e.g. the MIC which is the very basis of the US Empire's economy.

    "Most wars and political conflicts are not 'about money' at root. They’re about tribalism and power and pride and fear and a bunch of other emotions."

    This may have been true for some ancient wars but not modern wars. All modern wars are bankster wars. Controlling the resources is the vital element in modern wars. Tribalism and power (who has power without money?!) and pride and fear are what the liars-in-charge use to manipulate their subjects to fight and die for the banksters' gain. It is all lies and propaganda.

    I agree that no one really "wins" a war. But a very few always make out like bandits aka war profiteers aka banksters and they are all about the power of money .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. “I assert that the states have no duty to observe the Constitution since the federals do not.”
    Two wrongs make a right? This is criminal think. Or at the least childish as in “if you can do it so can I”.
    The legal and lawful thing to do is to form a grand jury and indict those in the federal and all State governments that have broken Constitutional Law and hang them or draw and quarter them or at the very least put them all to life at extreme labor. The rule of law is meaningless if those in power do not obey it? If those in power know we will not hunt and kill them for crimes then what is law worth at all but to keep YOUR behavior within parameters that allow government agents to act illegally using your complicity as permission? The problem is that you all are the same criminals as those you’re complaining about!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  184. @Logan
    The only reference to immigration in the original Constitution doesn't really address the issue at all.

    One of the powers granted Congress is, "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,"

    Now in and of itself that doesn't address immigration, who is allowed to enter the country, at all. It only addresses how the immigrants will become citizens.

    If taken literally, Congress and the feds have no power to prevent people from entering, only to decide which of those who enter will be allowed to become citizens.

    For more than its first century there were almost no controls on immigration. It wasn't until the late 19th century that controls began to be increasingly installed. And it wasn't until the early 1920s that severe restrictions came into play, the 50 year strict control that many Americans, somewhat inaccurately, think of as the historical norm.

    No, you missed it. That you’d shoot from the hip after the tone of my post isn’t to your credit as a legal analyst. I’ll chalk it as an ailment of the age: ctrl-F binaryism.

    You could go again, or have the answer supplied. Slow down for 5 seconds though and consider this truth: You will kick yourself when it’s revealed. It’s right there waiting, its nose in a bush.

    Here’s another hint. It is not a sideways allusion to immigration. It’s direct, and the power delegation uses an uncommon but uncontroversial method.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    If you're referring to the 10th Amendment and the idea that immigration is not a power delegated to the federal government and is therefore reserved to the states, I am well aware of the fact.

    Immigration, to the extent it was regulated at all, which was minimal, was left up to state and even local authorities till 1875, when the Page Act first established federal control. This attempt to expand federal power was brought before the Supreme Court, which ruled, somewhat beyond the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution, IMO, that immigration control is inherently a federal issue.

    https://roughdrafts.procon.org/files/Immigration%20Images/Henderson%20v.%20Mayor%20of%20City%20of%20New%20York.pdf

    It is pretty clear, I think, that from a practical perspective immigration control must be a federal issue. Otherwise any state could let in anybody they chose, who would then be free to travel anywhere in the country unless we put border controls between states.

    If there is somewhere else the Constitution addresses immigration, other than in the power to control international and interstate commerce, which is what was relied on in the Henderson case, I'm unaware of it.

    My comment was primarily with regard to the fact that the clause I've seen most commonly cited as granting exclusive federal power over immigration to the feds is the naturalization clause, which IMO doesn't address it at all.

    I await your superior wisdom.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. anarchyst says:

    It took a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to outlaw alcohol…it another CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to “re-legalize” it. Why not the same for “drugs or other “mal prohibitum” substances?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  186. Logan says:
    @schnellandine
    No, you missed it. That you'd shoot from the hip after the tone of my post isn't to your credit as a legal analyst. I'll chalk it as an ailment of the age: ctrl-F binaryism.

    You could go again, or have the answer supplied. Slow down for 5 seconds though and consider this truth: You will kick yourself when it's revealed. It's right there waiting, its nose in a bush.

    Here's another hint. It is not a sideways allusion to immigration. It's direct, and the power delegation uses an uncommon but uncontroversial method.

    If you’re referring to the 10th Amendment and the idea that immigration is not a power delegated to the federal government and is therefore reserved to the states, I am well aware of the fact.

    Immigration, to the extent it was regulated at all, which was minimal, was left up to state and even local authorities till 1875, when the Page Act first established federal control. This attempt to expand federal power was brought before the Supreme Court, which ruled, somewhat beyond the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution, IMO, that immigration control is inherently a federal issue.

    https://roughdrafts.procon.org/files/Immigration%20Images/Henderson%20v.%20Mayor%20of%20City%20of%20New%20York.pdf

    It is pretty clear, I think, that from a practical perspective immigration control must be a federal issue. Otherwise any state could let in anybody they chose, who would then be free to travel anywhere in the country unless we put border controls between states.

    If there is somewhere else the Constitution addresses immigration, other than in the power to control international and interstate commerce, which is what was relied on in the Henderson case, I’m unaware of it.

    My comment was primarily with regard to the fact that the clause I’ve seen most commonly cited as granting exclusive federal power over immigration to the feds is the naturalization clause, which IMO doesn’t address it at all.

    I await your superior wisdom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @schnellandine
    The wisdom is in slowing, even if only the fingers.

    First, the legal doctrine. You've heard, maybe even used, the dunce-indicative, "Exception that proves the rule," a rhetorical delusion aiming to reverse the direction of evidence. In that manner it's false.

    Yet the phrase is (and was then) valid regarding law and similarly precise directives, in that noting an exception relies on an unstated normal authority. The doctrine states that the normal authority is asserted by noting the exception. Relevant text:


    Section 9
    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
     
    That's it. The power was delegated by exception. From 1808, congress had constitutional authority to prohibit immigration. Interesting 10th amendment aspect: On first glance, it would seem states retain power to also prohibit local immigration, contrary to recent AZ case decision. Shacklers, however, would point to "Full Faith and Credit" and jangle some shackles.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Corvinus says:
    @schnellandine
    A "civil war" between two countries. Right. Ridiculous propaganda, considered history truth by brainwashed shackle lovers.

    Shackle lovers get pissed when in the company of freeborns--a psychotic phenomenon more notable for its ubiquity. We all must adore shackles, say the lying pigs.

    “A “civil war” between two countries. Right. Ridiculous propaganda, considered history truth by brainwashed shackle lovers.”

    Even astute Southerners recognize there was a civil war within our nation. Southrons like you just cling on to the bitter past. Please educate yourself.

    https://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Concise-Southern-Historian/dp/189311449X

    Read More
    • Replies: @schnellandine
    No True Scotsman! Well done. The link to a book capped it.

    Several. Severable. Severed. Gone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Corvinus says:
    @RebelWriter
    Civil wars are fought between two groups for control of the same government or country. As the Southern states sought no control of Washington, nor of the Northern states, and only wanted to be left in peace, it was a war of independence on the one hand, and a war of conquest on the other.

    I might as well explain it to the wall in front of me, as to explain it to you, however.

    Logan beat me to it to explain your error in logic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Corvinus says:
    @Jesse James
    Taking control of Washington, DC to govern the North by militarily occupying parts of it was never a goal of the CSA government ( Hence, they started their own country before the US Army invasion began hint, hint. ). You are as wrong as anyone could possibly be.

    “Taking control of Washington, DC to govern the North by militarily occupying parts of it was never a goal of the CSA government ( Hence, they started their own country before the US Army invasion began hint, hint. ). You are as wrong as anyone could possibly be.”

    You are extremely ignorant.

    “Both the Federal defenses and the Confederate threat looked stronger than they were. “Undoubtedly we could have marched into Washington,” wrote one of Early’s division commanders, Maj. Gen. John B. Gordon. “I myself rode to a point on those breastworks at which there was no force whatsoever. The unprotected space was broad enough for the easy passage of Early’s army without resistance. Just beyond this inviting gap lay the legislative and administrative heart of the enemy government. What is more, there was the Federal Navy yard, with its ships to burn; the United States Treasury with its millions of dollars in bonds and currency, the seizure of which would have had catastrophic effects on the Northern economy; warehouse after warehouse of medical supplies, food, military equipment, ammunition-all scarce and desperately needed in the Confederacy. In short, a rich city, virgin to war, awaiting plunder. Not to mention the incalculable humiliation to the Union if such a rape of its capital occurred. Maj. Gen. Lew Wallace (later the author of Ben Hur) had been stiffened to make his desperate stand against Early on the Monocacy, he wrote afterward, by a vision of “President Lincoln, cloaked and hooded, stealing from the back door of the White House just as some gray-garbed Confederate brigadier burst in the front door.”

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-washington-dc-came-close-to-being-conquered-by-the-confederacy-180951994/#zTgJxtpruVAa7yYX.99

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Quite right. However, such an attack, even if it had succeeded, would have been only a raid, no different except in size from the similar Union attempt to raid Richmond in the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid of early March 1864.

    In any case, units the Army of the Potomac got to DC in time. Once they arrived the CSA wasn't going anywhere except in reverse. If the CSA had gotten to DC 24 hours earlier, they might have indeed been able to do what Gordon thought they could. Though it's highly unlikely they would have been able to carry much plunder away with them.

    But they didn't get there 24 hours earlier. "Ask me for anything but time."

    , @Jesse James
    You have not proved anything except that you are wrong. Shelling the Yankee Washington, DC maggot hole would have been quite spectacular, but the CSA capital was in Richmond, so a takeover of Washington DC to rule it was not a strategic goal of the CSA. Sorry Cornholio, but the existence of the CSA government proves that your assertion is one you made up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Logan says:
    @smellyoilandgas.com
    The issue of Federalism, Anti-Federalism, Abe Lincoln, Prohibition and now another prohibition?

    Control of USA external borders and immigration may be legitimate where USA presence in America is welcome, but where the people of the state [name it] have announced they do not want, in their state, outsiders to dictate it may be a horse of a different color.

    The Pharaohs designed a constitution and used it to impose federalism on Americans. Federalism is a top-down management philosophy designed to take and keep the behaviors and resources of the slaves and their possessions in the hands and control of the elite, globally-present Pharaohs. The constitution took control by separating American political power into one group, and depriving the other group of any political power.

    The first group, a few slaves would be elected to serve in a group of 527 slave drivers, to be known as the USA. The USA would be allowed to use democratic principles to make its decisions and its make laws subject to the delight of the Pharaohs. The second, larger group (340,000,000 not elected Americans), would be slaved to the demands and requirements of, and required to limit and conform their behaviors and activities, to accord with the decisions and laws made by the 527 elected, salaried, privileged USA slave drivers). So in short, the globally-present Pharaohs set up a middle man (527 slave drivers) group, gave them all of the political power and authorized them to use that power to control the American people and to own or control the resources in America. Around the globe you can see the globally-present Pharaoh's slave driver = slave structure. The slave-driver slave is a hallmark of the nation state and the nation state is a franchise of the globally-present Pharaoh.

    As near as I can tell, neither the constitution nor the USA it created, took America out of the American; as the gun controversy clearly confirms. The constitution was just a deal, based on conditions, reflected in a contract, presented by the Pharaohs, designed to quiet justice-seeking Americans. The constitution is conditioned on honoring expressed guarantees (the bill of rights), performance and end-goal outcomes satisfactory to Americans.

    The Catalonia self-determination succession rights vs the Spanish nation state federalism demonstrate how difficult it is for the people to take back their power when they discover they have made a bad deal. The president of the Catalonia succession is being extradited back to Spain under International warrant for trial and likely execution; all he did was hold a popular election to determine if the people in Catalonia wanted to be separated from the Spanish government (similar to the British Exit from the European Union).
    But external events, subsequent to the Catalonia election, clearly demonstrate the nation states are but "structured groups" franchised to paid slave drivers willing to maintain internal to the nation state control suitable to globally-present Pharaohs). http://www.libertylawsite.org/2017/10/24/catalonia-secession-constitution-and-liberty/

    Spain and indeed all of the EU has abolished the death penalty, so while the Catalan guy might be murdered, he can’t be executed.

    The Catalonia self-determination succession rights vs the Spanish nation state federalism demonstrate how difficult it is for the people to take back their power when they discover they have made a bad deal.

    Not sure “take back their power” is the right expression. Catalonia has never been “free and independent” of Spain, though it gets complicated back in the medieval period.

    Till the early modern period the Iberian peninsula was composed of quite a few independent kingdoms, till 1492 some Muslim and some Christian. In that year the Muslims were finally ejected and about then the gradual integration of the Spanish side of the peninsula, which included Catalonia, began.

    Catalonia was roughly in a similar position to Portugal, also for some time ruled by the Spanish monarch. Portugal eventually regained its independence under a different royal family.

    Catalonia rebelled and attempted to regain independence multiple times, but never really succeeded other than briefly. It was always reconquered by the central Spanish government.

    So, unless you want to pick medieval nits, Catalonia never was independent, so can’t really take it back. Whether they have a legal/moral right to self-determination is of course a separate issue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Logan says:
    @Corvinus
    "Taking control of Washington, DC to govern the North by militarily occupying parts of it was never a goal of the CSA government ( Hence, they started their own country before the US Army invasion began hint, hint. ). You are as wrong as anyone could possibly be."

    You are extremely ignorant.

    "Both the Federal defenses and the Confederate threat looked stronger than they were. “Undoubtedly we could have marched into Washington,” wrote one of Early’s division commanders, Maj. Gen. John B. Gordon. “I myself rode to a point on those breastworks at which there was no force whatsoever. The unprotected space was broad enough for the easy passage of Early’s army without resistance. Just beyond this inviting gap lay the legislative and administrative heart of the enemy government. What is more, there was the Federal Navy yard, with its ships to burn; the United States Treasury with its millions of dollars in bonds and currency, the seizure of which would have had catastrophic effects on the Northern economy; warehouse after warehouse of medical supplies, food, military equipment, ammunition-all scarce and desperately needed in the Confederacy. In short, a rich city, virgin to war, awaiting plunder. Not to mention the incalculable humiliation to the Union if such a rape of its capital occurred. Maj. Gen. Lew Wallace (later the author of Ben Hur) had been stiffened to make his desperate stand against Early on the Monocacy, he wrote afterward, by a vision of “President Lincoln, cloaked and hooded, stealing from the back door of the White House just as some gray-garbed Confederate brigadier burst in the front door.”

    www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-washington-dc-came-close-to-being-conquered-by-the-confederacy-180951994/#zTgJxtpruVAa7yYX.99

    Quite right. However, such an attack, even if it had succeeded, would have been only a raid, no different except in size from the similar Union attempt to raid Richmond in the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid of early March 1864.

    In any case, units the Army of the Potomac got to DC in time. Once they arrived the CSA wasn’t going anywhere except in reverse. If the CSA had gotten to DC 24 hours earlier, they might have indeed been able to do what Gordon thought they could. Though it’s highly unlikely they would have been able to carry much plunder away with them.

    But they didn’t get there 24 hours earlier. “Ask me for anything but time.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @Corvinus
    "A “civil war” between two countries. Right. Ridiculous propaganda, considered history truth by brainwashed shackle lovers."

    Even astute Southerners recognize there was a civil war within our nation. Southrons like you just cling on to the bitter past. Please educate yourself.

    https://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Concise-Southern-Historian/dp/189311449X

    No True Scotsman! Well done. The link to a book capped it.

    Several. Severable. Severed. Gone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Setting aside your girlish sarcasm, are you of the mindset that one of your brethren, a Southerner, is promoting "ridiculous propaganda"? [Assuming you are from the South]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Logan
    If you're referring to the 10th Amendment and the idea that immigration is not a power delegated to the federal government and is therefore reserved to the states, I am well aware of the fact.

    Immigration, to the extent it was regulated at all, which was minimal, was left up to state and even local authorities till 1875, when the Page Act first established federal control. This attempt to expand federal power was brought before the Supreme Court, which ruled, somewhat beyond the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution, IMO, that immigration control is inherently a federal issue.

    https://roughdrafts.procon.org/files/Immigration%20Images/Henderson%20v.%20Mayor%20of%20City%20of%20New%20York.pdf

    It is pretty clear, I think, that from a practical perspective immigration control must be a federal issue. Otherwise any state could let in anybody they chose, who would then be free to travel anywhere in the country unless we put border controls between states.

    If there is somewhere else the Constitution addresses immigration, other than in the power to control international and interstate commerce, which is what was relied on in the Henderson case, I'm unaware of it.

    My comment was primarily with regard to the fact that the clause I've seen most commonly cited as granting exclusive federal power over immigration to the feds is the naturalization clause, which IMO doesn't address it at all.

    I await your superior wisdom.

    The wisdom is in slowing, even if only the fingers.

    First, the legal doctrine. You’ve heard, maybe even used, the dunce-indicative, “Exception that proves the rule,” a rhetorical delusion aiming to reverse the direction of evidence. In that manner it’s false.

    Yet the phrase is (and was then) valid regarding law and similarly precise directives, in that noting an exception relies on an unstated normal authority. The doctrine states that the normal authority is asserted by noting the exception. Relevant text:

    Section 9
    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    That’s it. The power was delegated by exception. From 1808, congress had constitutional authority to prohibit immigration. Interesting 10th amendment aspect: On first glance, it would seem states retain power to also prohibit local immigration, contrary to recent AZ case decision. Shacklers, however, would point to “Full Faith and Credit” and jangle some shackles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    You are aware, I assume, that Section 9 addressed "importation" of slaves, though of course the Founders carefully avoided using the term.

    I am unaware of anybody who thinks it ever applied to general immigration of free persons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Rurik says:
    @RobinG
    Leaving aside any possible distinctions between bike helmets and mandatory turf grass, human beings are about as "free" as ants in anthills. The intellect and soul business is self aggrandizement and self delusion. Elon Musk's expedition to Mars is just a leafcutter climbing a taller tree.

    Leaving aside any possible distinctions between bike helmets and mandatory turf grass,

    their related by the principle of freedom (in this case from petty tyrannies)

    human beings are about as “free” as ants in anthills.

    most, to be sure. It’s even worse really, because unlike ants, humans are willfully enslaved (to their respective sophisms)

    The intellect and soul business is self aggrandizement and self delusion.

    I said it before Robin, you’re so cynical.

    Please allow that unchained, the human soul can indeed aspire and soar. Unlike Elon Musk’s P. T. Barnum impersonation, the human soul needs no machines to navigate the infinite. It’s all well within us. We simply need only dispense with and drop the chains of ignorance shackled upon our minds by other spiritually enslaved humans, interested in maintaining the earthy order that has them on top.

    Once we discover that there is no top, or bottom, and that these societal constructs are merely aberrations of the mind, imposed by clever manipulators, to get people to goose step to their tune, then people can begin to understand that they are their own sovereign, and that the idea of a ‘leader’ or ‘ruler’ are hysterical absurdities. That is where “self aggrandizement and self delusion” manifest, in the fevered minds of wannabe petty (or otherwise) tyrants.

    Once you discover that your mind is yours, to do with as you please, unshackled by anything or anyone, and free to wander to galaxies a million light years beyond Musk’s silly gimmicks, or to look inward, at the soul itself, which is just as infinite, and just as mysterious and enigmatic as those nebulae the telescopes show us in all their sublime wonder..

    then perhaps we can all begin to show our “leaders” a little less deference, and be a little more wistful about other’s insistence against petty oppressions (seatbelt and helmet and lawn laws)

    and, perhaps to be a little less cynical

    just perhaps..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @Logan
    As one instance among many, the Constitution ordains that the country shall not go to war without a declaration from the Congress.

    Except it ordains no such thing.

    [The Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    Under its first president the US waged war against a confederacy of Indians and suffered perhaps the worst military disaster in its history, depending on how you define terms. No formal declaration of war.

    Under its second president the US waged war against France in the Quasi-War . No formal declaration of war.

    Under its third, it waged war against the Barbary States. No formal declaration of war.

    Under probably every president up to at least 1900 war was waged against various Indian tribes. No formal declarations of war.

    The US has engaged in hundreds of "wars," but has formally declared war only five times, depending on how you define "declare war."

    So either the US has ignored the clear meaning of this clause of the Constitution throughout its entire history, or Fred is confused.

    “Except it ordains no such thing.”

    Yes, it does. by listing the declaration of war as a power of Congress and by not listing it as a power of the executive or legislative branches, The Constitution has made the ower to declare war an exclusive power of the legislative branch.

    Holding up violations of the Constitution as proof that those violations are proper under the Constitution is an old trick. It’s no secret that the Constitution has been ignored by presidents (and Congress) from the very first.

    You’ve made no point at all.

    Read More
    • Agree: bluedog
    • Replies: @Logan
    Sorry, but do you seriously contend that Washington and Adams and Jefferson and Madison and Monroe, all Founders, knew they were required to have Congress formally declare war on each and every Indian tribe before they could defend the nation. But just decided to ignore that requirement?

    As I said, we've waged hundreds of armed conflicts, but only declared war, as such, three times.

    If you want to make a case this is a violation of the Constitution, I guess you can try. But it's clearly a violation that has been the norm since Day One.

    Anyway, Congress authorized the President to use armed force against the 9/11 attackers and those who supported them. Clearly Congress agreed. Unless you think the Constitution prescribes that war can only be waged if Congress uses a particular form to authorize it?

    That the Congress gave the President an open-ended, no sunset clause authorization was very foolish, but that's a whole other question.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Corvinus says:
    @schnellandine
    No True Scotsman! Well done. The link to a book capped it.

    Several. Severable. Severed. Gone.

    Setting aside your girlish sarcasm, are you of the mindset that one of your brethren, a Southerner, is promoting “ridiculous propaganda”? [Assuming you are from the South]

    Read More
    • Replies: @schnellandine
    I think you aren't serious.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Anonymous[216] • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan
    For one, “politics” and “economics” are one and the same. “Follow the money” is the reality. Always has been, always will be.

    This idea, while very common among those who believe it demonstrates their cynical sophistication, is quite simply inaccurate.

    The expression "Follow the money" is a quote from the Watergate movie, though never actually said bin the book on which the movie was based.

    It is generally used to mean that all human motivations are at bottom economic in nature, and therefore any with which you disagree are invalid and illegitimate. The idea was earlier and more thoroughly expressed by Marx, and is often called vulgar Marxism. I wonder how many of those who use the term thinking it makes them look intelligent realize that by doing so they are agreeing Marx was right.

    Watergate, the issue that led indirectly to the formation of the meme, was not directly or even all that indirectly about money. It was about politics, power and paranoia.

    Most wars and political conflicts are not "about money"at root. They're about tribalism and power and pride and fear and a bunch of other emotions. Money is of course tangled in the mix and no doubt a prime factor for many. But it's seldom the prime motivator. At least for that last couple of centuries, no war has been profitable for the societies that waged them, though some individuals and groups within the societies come out ahead financially.

    At the end of the war, win or lose, the society is almost always in a worse financial mess than if it had stayed out. This is of course quite different from ancient times, in which the most obvious way to get rich was to invade your neighbors' territory, take all their stuff and sell the survivors into slavery. In that era wars were indeed motivated by financial concerns.

    Anyway, Deep Throat, the supposed initiator of the phrase, was not saying that Watergate was motivated by financial considerations, he was advising Woodward and Bernstein to track the money paid out to conspirators as a way of getting to the bottom of the conspiracy.

    Most wars and political conflicts are not “about money”at root. They’re about tribalism and power and pride and fear and a bunch of other emotions. Money is of course tangled in the mix and no doubt a prime factor for many.

    So, whether it’s about tribalism, bunch of other emotions – or money – the whites should keep their territory racially pure?

    Thank you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    I have absolutely no idea how you could extract that conclusion from what I wrote. I did not address the issue of keeping white - or any other - territory racially pure. I simply commented on the causes of conflicts between groups, which simply is not always addressed by "follow the money." That is so simplistic that it is simply wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Rurik says:

    The Constitution has made the ower to declare war an exclusive power of the legislative branch.

    Holding up violations of the Constitution as proof that those violations are proper under the Constitution is an old trick.

    yep

    just as the Constitution demands that congress and no other are to coin our money- specifically to prevent the kind of subversion of our republic that treasonous politicians have subsequently committed (for personal gain) by selling out our nation to the very London banksters who the founders fought the revolution to put at bay.

    Today, a cowardly and treasonous congress have handed the power to declare war to the executive branch, following the 9/11 false flag, which was intended for that purpose.

    they (the cowardly and treasonous congress) simply don’t want to have to vote on war, because that way they’ll be held accountable by their constituents. So they’ve decided it’s politically more expedient to avoid voting on it all together, and handing the power over to the president.

    But they all know they’re treasonous scum who deserve to hang by the neck for betraying their sacred oaths to uphold the Constitution.

    What are ‘sacred oaths’ to amoral worms?

    What is a republic, if not a nation of sheep to be sheared for the wealth and aggrandizement of congress?

    does anyone on the planet believe that Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan (and their respective gangs of self-serving, opportunistic scum) have one shred of integrity among that whole den of snakes?

    Rand Paul seems to be the lone voice of reason and principles, and even he is woefully compromised.

    Yes, the power to declare war was specifically enumerated in the US Constitution as the purview of congress, and no other. For the specific purpose of avoiding the kind of tyrannical abuse of power that we’re all (hopefully) horrified at today.

    That Lincoln and others were also guilty of treason to the Constitution, gives no legitimacy to the 535 criminals and traitors guilty today.

    Read More
    • Agree: Twodees Partain
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  199. @Corvinus
    Setting aside your girlish sarcasm, are you of the mindset that one of your brethren, a Southerner, is promoting "ridiculous propaganda"? [Assuming you are from the South]

    I think you aren’t serious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    I'm actually dead serious. You made this assertion --> "A “civil war” between two countries. Right. Ridiculous propaganda, considered history truth by brainwashed shackle lovers."

    I submitted to you a historian from the South who presented events between the North and South from 1861-1865 as a being a Civil War.

    So, is this person "brainwashed"? It's a very simple question for even you to answer. Perhaps you could muster the requisite brainpower to expound upon your response.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. wraith67 says:

    The fiscal death spiral we’re in will likely bring about a dissolution long before some kind of resistance posture. As to the conventional wisdom that no one can prevail against the military – the Taliban, ISIS and Al Qaeda would beg to differ. Further, in a domestic situation, soldiers and LE have their families here, not 7,000 miles away, subjecting them to reprisal.

    Read More
    • Agree: bluedog
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  201. Corvinus says:
    @schnellandine
    I think you aren't serious.

    I’m actually dead serious. You made this assertion –> “A “civil war” between two countries. Right. Ridiculous propaganda, considered history truth by brainwashed shackle lovers.”

    I submitted to you a historian from the South who presented events between the North and South from 1861-1865 as a being a Civil War.

    So, is this person “brainwashed”? It’s a very simple question for even you to answer. Perhaps you could muster the requisite brainpower to expound upon your response.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Logan says:
    @Anonymous

    Most wars and political conflicts are not “about money”at root. They’re about tribalism and power and pride and fear and a bunch of other emotions. Money is of course tangled in the mix and no doubt a prime factor for many.
     
    So, whether it's about tribalism, bunch of other emotions - or money - the whites should keep their territory racially pure?

    Thank you.

    I have absolutely no idea how you could extract that conclusion from what I wrote. I did not address the issue of keeping white – or any other – territory racially pure. I simply commented on the causes of conflicts between groups, which simply is not always addressed by “follow the money.” That is so simplistic that it is simply wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Logan says:
    @schnellandine
    The wisdom is in slowing, even if only the fingers.

    First, the legal doctrine. You've heard, maybe even used, the dunce-indicative, "Exception that proves the rule," a rhetorical delusion aiming to reverse the direction of evidence. In that manner it's false.

    Yet the phrase is (and was then) valid regarding law and similarly precise directives, in that noting an exception relies on an unstated normal authority. The doctrine states that the normal authority is asserted by noting the exception. Relevant text:


    Section 9
    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
     
    That's it. The power was delegated by exception. From 1808, congress had constitutional authority to prohibit immigration. Interesting 10th amendment aspect: On first glance, it would seem states retain power to also prohibit local immigration, contrary to recent AZ case decision. Shacklers, however, would point to "Full Faith and Credit" and jangle some shackles.

    You are aware, I assume, that Section 9 addressed “importation” of slaves, though of course the Founders carefully avoided using the term.

    I am unaware of anybody who thinks it ever applied to general immigration of free persons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @schnellandine
    It's "law" now, and it authorizes federal prohibition of migration. Like much of the document, it's poorly written--in some places with, I suspect, nefarious intent. But as with the illegal 13th amendment supposedly applying to black slaves only, they wrote it like crap. It applies to all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Logan says:
    @Twodees Partain
    "Except it ordains no such thing."

    Yes, it does. by listing the declaration of war as a power of Congress and by not listing it as a power of the executive or legislative branches, The Constitution has made the ower to declare war an exclusive power of the legislative branch.

    Holding up violations of the Constitution as proof that those violations are proper under the Constitution is an old trick. It's no secret that the Constitution has been ignored by presidents (and Congress) from the very first.

    You've made no point at all.

    Sorry, but do you seriously contend that Washington and Adams and Jefferson and Madison and Monroe, all Founders, knew they were required to have Congress formally declare war on each and every Indian tribe before they could defend the nation. But just decided to ignore that requirement?

    As I said, we’ve waged hundreds of armed conflicts, but only declared war, as such, three times.

    If you want to make a case this is a violation of the Constitution, I guess you can try. But it’s clearly a violation that has been the norm since Day One.

    Anyway, Congress authorized the President to use armed force against the 9/11 attackers and those who supported them. Clearly Congress agreed. Unless you think the Constitution prescribes that war can only be waged if Congress uses a particular form to authorize it?

    That the Congress gave the President an open-ended, no sunset clause authorization was very foolish, but that’s a whole other question.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    Of course they knew they were making war without a declaration of war. Your position is one of precedent. You claim that since presidents have always done this, and have not been punished, then by God, it's obviously constitutional.

    You seem able to read the document written in plain English, and then translate it in your own mind into Martian so that you can make your claims. BTW, Congress does not have the authority to issue any authorization for the president to make war short of a declaration of war.

    Read the article yourself. It grants the power to declare war, and doesn't grant the power to use any other form to authorize war. Either the Constitution is the actual document which establishes what shall constitute our form of government, or it isn't.

    Your view is that it isn't. You seem to think that precedent establishes proper practice, regardless of the language in the ruling document. Further, you seem to believe that whatever Congress does is right and proper until they are punished for doing wrong.

    , @schnellandine
    In the case of Bush, congress delegated war declaration power to president. Not allowed, as it appears you know. They are to declare/initiate, the president to execute.

    Yes, the constitution has been violated repeatedly, from inception, by those sworn to support it. It's a tired defense, as the other commenter noted, based on ludicrous reverence for "the founders" (essentially non-abusive ad hominem fallacy). They quickly became power-mad animals if weren't already. Sedition Act is the Alpha and Omega for the founder breed. How precious the former rebels.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @Logan
    You are aware, I assume, that Section 9 addressed "importation" of slaves, though of course the Founders carefully avoided using the term.

    I am unaware of anybody who thinks it ever applied to general immigration of free persons.

    It’s “law” now, and it authorizes federal prohibition of migration. Like much of the document, it’s poorly written–in some places with, I suspect, nefarious intent. But as with the illegal 13th amendment supposedly applying to black slaves only, they wrote it like crap. It applies to all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @Logan
    Sorry, but do you seriously contend that Washington and Adams and Jefferson and Madison and Monroe, all Founders, knew they were required to have Congress formally declare war on each and every Indian tribe before they could defend the nation. But just decided to ignore that requirement?

    As I said, we've waged hundreds of armed conflicts, but only declared war, as such, three times.

    If you want to make a case this is a violation of the Constitution, I guess you can try. But it's clearly a violation that has been the norm since Day One.

    Anyway, Congress authorized the President to use armed force against the 9/11 attackers and those who supported them. Clearly Congress agreed. Unless you think the Constitution prescribes that war can only be waged if Congress uses a particular form to authorize it?

    That the Congress gave the President an open-ended, no sunset clause authorization was very foolish, but that's a whole other question.

    Of course they knew they were making war without a declaration of war. Your position is one of precedent. You claim that since presidents have always done this, and have not been punished, then by God, it’s obviously constitutional.

    You seem able to read the document written in plain English, and then translate it in your own mind into Martian so that you can make your claims. BTW, Congress does not have the authority to issue any authorization for the president to make war short of a declaration of war.

    Read the article yourself. It grants the power to declare war, and doesn’t grant the power to use any other form to authorize war. Either the Constitution is the actual document which establishes what shall constitute our form of government, or it isn’t.

    Your view is that it isn’t. You seem to think that precedent establishes proper practice, regardless of the language in the ruling document. Further, you seem to believe that whatever Congress does is right and proper until they are punished for doing wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. @Logan
    Sorry, but do you seriously contend that Washington and Adams and Jefferson and Madison and Monroe, all Founders, knew they were required to have Congress formally declare war on each and every Indian tribe before they could defend the nation. But just decided to ignore that requirement?

    As I said, we've waged hundreds of armed conflicts, but only declared war, as such, three times.

    If you want to make a case this is a violation of the Constitution, I guess you can try. But it's clearly a violation that has been the norm since Day One.

    Anyway, Congress authorized the President to use armed force against the 9/11 attackers and those who supported them. Clearly Congress agreed. Unless you think the Constitution prescribes that war can only be waged if Congress uses a particular form to authorize it?

    That the Congress gave the President an open-ended, no sunset clause authorization was very foolish, but that's a whole other question.

    In the case of Bush, congress delegated war declaration power to president. Not allowed, as it appears you know. They are to declare/initiate, the president to execute.

    Yes, the constitution has been violated repeatedly, from inception, by those sworn to support it. It’s a tired defense, as the other commenter noted, based on ludicrous reverence for “the founders” (essentially non-abusive ad hominem fallacy). They quickly became power-mad animals if weren’t already. Sedition Act is the Alpha and Omega for the founder breed. How precious the former rebels.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Rurik says:

    That the Congress gave the President an open-ended, no sunset clause authorization was very foolish, but that’s a whole other question.

    not to but in, (I sort of already have ; )

    it isn’t a ‘whole other question’, but the fundamental issue of congress being given the express power to declare war.

    As I’ve mentioned, just because others have committed treason against that sound and important covenant, is no excuse for the perfidious worms in congress to get away with it too.

    Indeed, their cowardice and treason are what is driving the planet to the brink of WWIII, (a bad idea).

    The reasons it’s so important for congress (and only congress) to declare war, and not the executive branch, are legion. First off, because it’s too easy for the president (a single [by definition ambitious] politician) to start a war, that will no doubt bolster his poll numbers. Or distract from some scandal or another. In fact there are very many reasons a president might want to start a war, and almost all of them iniquitous, diabolical, and morally wrong.

    So that’s why the founders demanded that it be congress, because for one thing, congress is much more accountable to the people of this republic than the president. And if they declare unpopular wars for reasons of political expedience / and or based on lies, (all the wars we’ve been engaged in since the war of 1812), then they’re less likely to happen. Which is a very good thing, because contrived wars for the fun and profit of war pigs and profiteers, foreign interests, or other treasons, are a bane and evil for the people of a republic like the US, (not to mention the millions of people slaughtered by the war machine around the globe).

    But the people are never consulted anymore, are they? They’re just expected to hand over the young cannon fodder, and write the blank checks on their children’s futures, so that evil men get richer and Israel gets bigger.

    And you’re right. All these modern wars of the Eternal War, can all be traced back to that infamous false flag event; 9/11. The motivation of which was to destroy seven nations in the world that are potentially inconvenient to the establishment of the Yinon Plan (and to eviscerate the rights of Americans domestically) Which will herald the glorious day of Orwellian hell on earth and the utter enslavement of humanity to the Fiend.

    This guy has a clue

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  209. @Corvinus
    "Taking control of Washington, DC to govern the North by militarily occupying parts of it was never a goal of the CSA government ( Hence, they started their own country before the US Army invasion began hint, hint. ). You are as wrong as anyone could possibly be."

    You are extremely ignorant.

    "Both the Federal defenses and the Confederate threat looked stronger than they were. “Undoubtedly we could have marched into Washington,” wrote one of Early’s division commanders, Maj. Gen. John B. Gordon. “I myself rode to a point on those breastworks at which there was no force whatsoever. The unprotected space was broad enough for the easy passage of Early’s army without resistance. Just beyond this inviting gap lay the legislative and administrative heart of the enemy government. What is more, there was the Federal Navy yard, with its ships to burn; the United States Treasury with its millions of dollars in bonds and currency, the seizure of which would have had catastrophic effects on the Northern economy; warehouse after warehouse of medical supplies, food, military equipment, ammunition-all scarce and desperately needed in the Confederacy. In short, a rich city, virgin to war, awaiting plunder. Not to mention the incalculable humiliation to the Union if such a rape of its capital occurred. Maj. Gen. Lew Wallace (later the author of Ben Hur) had been stiffened to make his desperate stand against Early on the Monocacy, he wrote afterward, by a vision of “President Lincoln, cloaked and hooded, stealing from the back door of the White House just as some gray-garbed Confederate brigadier burst in the front door.”

    www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-washington-dc-came-close-to-being-conquered-by-the-confederacy-180951994/#zTgJxtpruVAa7yYX.99

    You have not proved anything except that you are wrong. Shelling the Yankee Washington, DC maggot hole would have been quite spectacular, but the CSA capital was in Richmond, so a takeover of Washington DC to rule it was not a strategic goal of the CSA. Sorry Cornholio, but the existence of the CSA government proves that your assertion is one you made up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Here is what you originally stated--"Taking control of Washington, DC to govern the North by militarily occupying parts of it was never a goal of the CSA government."

    The CSA clearly sought to take control of DC through a successful invasion, as the source I linked to stated. They desired to occupy it militarily. As far as governing the North, absolutely that was another objective. But it would be a temporary endeavor. By forcing the government to flee, the South would be in charge of DC. They would have control of the political process and demand an end to the Civil War. One of the ways for the CSA to win the Civil War was strategic--take over DC to rule it. By ruling it, it is implied that the CSA would station troops there and defend it against a counter invasion from the North. Why? Because it is the seat of government for our United States and for the North. Would the CSA remain there forever? No, silly goose. For the long-term? Only long enough to force the North's hand. Then, the North would have to make a decision--continue fighting without the benefit of its capital, or capitulate.

    Do you have trouble with nuance? Would you like to know more, citizen?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Corvinus says:
    @Jesse James
    You have not proved anything except that you are wrong. Shelling the Yankee Washington, DC maggot hole would have been quite spectacular, but the CSA capital was in Richmond, so a takeover of Washington DC to rule it was not a strategic goal of the CSA. Sorry Cornholio, but the existence of the CSA government proves that your assertion is one you made up.

    Here is what you originally stated–”Taking control of Washington, DC to govern the North by militarily occupying parts of it was never a goal of the CSA government.”

    The CSA clearly sought to take control of DC through a successful invasion, as the source I linked to stated. They desired to occupy it militarily. As far as governing the North, absolutely that was another objective. But it would be a temporary endeavor. By forcing the government to flee, the South would be in charge of DC. They would have control of the political process and demand an end to the Civil War. One of the ways for the CSA to win the Civil War was strategic–take over DC to rule it. By ruling it, it is implied that the CSA would station troops there and defend it against a counter invasion from the North. Why? Because it is the seat of government for our United States and for the North. Would the CSA remain there forever? No, silly goose. For the long-term? Only long enough to force the North’s hand. Then, the North would have to make a decision–continue fighting without the benefit of its capital, or capitulate.

    Do you have trouble with nuance? Would you like to know more, citizen?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Had Lee taken DC, which he would have had he won at Gettysburg, it is quite possible MD would have seceded and joined the CSA.

    Which would have left DC a hundred miles from the new USA border, surrounded completely by hostile territory.

    Heck, if Lee had won in PA, Maryland might have seceded whether he took DC or not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Grumbler says:
    @Logan
    For one, “politics” and “economics” are one and the same. “Follow the money” is the reality. Always has been, always will be.

    This idea, while very common among those who believe it demonstrates their cynical sophistication, is quite simply inaccurate.

    The expression "Follow the money" is a quote from the Watergate movie, though never actually said bin the book on which the movie was based.

    It is generally used to mean that all human motivations are at bottom economic in nature, and therefore any with which you disagree are invalid and illegitimate. The idea was earlier and more thoroughly expressed by Marx, and is often called vulgar Marxism. I wonder how many of those who use the term thinking it makes them look intelligent realize that by doing so they are agreeing Marx was right.

    Watergate, the issue that led indirectly to the formation of the meme, was not directly or even all that indirectly about money. It was about politics, power and paranoia.

    Most wars and political conflicts are not "about money"at root. They're about tribalism and power and pride and fear and a bunch of other emotions. Money is of course tangled in the mix and no doubt a prime factor for many. But it's seldom the prime motivator. At least for that last couple of centuries, no war has been profitable for the societies that waged them, though some individuals and groups within the societies come out ahead financially.

    At the end of the war, win or lose, the society is almost always in a worse financial mess than if it had stayed out. This is of course quite different from ancient times, in which the most obvious way to get rich was to invade your neighbors' territory, take all their stuff and sell the survivors into slavery. In that era wars were indeed motivated by financial concerns.

    Anyway, Deep Throat, the supposed initiator of the phrase, was not saying that Watergate was motivated by financial considerations, he was advising Woodward and Bernstein to track the money paid out to conspirators as a way of getting to the bottom of the conspiracy.

    Logan, it is irrelevant who first came up with the phrase “Follow the money”. It only matters if it is accurate – which it is. “Follow the money” is just another way of saying “Who benefits?” which the Romans came up with way before Marx.

    “It is generally used to mean that all human motivations are at bottom economic in nature…”

    Who said anything about “all” human motivations? Not all human motivations are guided by economics but economics is a very powerful force of humanity. But when it comes to politics economics is indeed the key factor e.g. the MIC which is the very basis of the US Empire’s economy.

    “Most wars and political conflicts are not ‘about money’ at root. They’re about tribalism and power and pride and fear and a bunch of other emotions.”

    This may have been true for some ancient wars but not modern wars. All modern wars are bankster wars. Controlling the resources is the vital element in modern wars. Tribalism and power (who has power without money?!) and pride and fear are what the liars-in-charge use to manipulate their subjects to fight and die for the banksters’ gain. It is all lies and propaganda.

    I agree that no one really “wins” a war. But a very few always make out like bandits aka war profiteers aka banksters and they are all about the power of money .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Logan says:
    @Corvinus
    Here is what you originally stated--"Taking control of Washington, DC to govern the North by militarily occupying parts of it was never a goal of the CSA government."

    The CSA clearly sought to take control of DC through a successful invasion, as the source I linked to stated. They desired to occupy it militarily. As far as governing the North, absolutely that was another objective. But it would be a temporary endeavor. By forcing the government to flee, the South would be in charge of DC. They would have control of the political process and demand an end to the Civil War. One of the ways for the CSA to win the Civil War was strategic--take over DC to rule it. By ruling it, it is implied that the CSA would station troops there and defend it against a counter invasion from the North. Why? Because it is the seat of government for our United States and for the North. Would the CSA remain there forever? No, silly goose. For the long-term? Only long enough to force the North's hand. Then, the North would have to make a decision--continue fighting without the benefit of its capital, or capitulate.

    Do you have trouble with nuance? Would you like to know more, citizen?

    Had Lee taken DC, which he would have had he won at Gettysburg, it is quite possible MD would have seceded and joined the CSA.

    Which would have left DC a hundred miles from the new USA border, surrounded completely by hostile territory.

    Heck, if Lee had won in PA, Maryland might have seceded whether he took DC or not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. JamesinNM says:
    @Randal

    Why he believes the policies of Colorado to be his concern is not clear. Equally mysterious is why he thinks the police of Colorado should arrest Coloradans for doing a thing that the people of the state have determined to be acceptable.
     
    This is a legitimate point, since it is clearly no business of the Federal government what drugs licensing provisions a state might make, and the spurious arguments used to justify such interference are just that - spurious.

    Mr. Session’s expansive view of his importance in the universe is seen again in his menacing of the state of California because he does noi approve its policy toward its immigrants. Common sense suggests that if he does not like California’s policies, he should live in another state.
     
    This is not a legitimate point, because unlike the spurious pretexts used to justify Federal drugs laws, the control of the US's external borders and of immigration to the US is self-evidently a legitimate Federal matter, given freedom of movement between states.

    Simply construct a wall around all states with only one entry and exit point to each adjoining state. Kill anything that illegally crosses your border.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. Anonymous[376] • Disclaimer says:

    I don’t agree with the claim that “Ststes Rights” is the answer to anything. Large mega corporations can dominate the scene. They can bring powerful economic pressure against any individual states. They have the ability to play office state against another. States rights is a mirage.

    I do agree that the U.S. is overlarge. Democracy can’t occur in a mega country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  215. deschutes says:

    I’m all for the balkanization of the USA, and on amicable terms. The country is just too big, the internal divisions too great to be overcome. I would break up the USA thusly-

    1. ‘Original 13′ – northeastern country, would be used to contain the current status quo of WA DC in their own despotic, corrupt dictatorship–but thankfully its massive military broken totally apart causing a massive outbreak of world peace;

    2. Midwest – massive farming country, w/’midwest values’ (not too kinky or racy, tone it down);

    3. Old South – massive conservative country, can finally free itself of Washington interference; the place for bible types; southern conservatives; red necks, anti-Darwin, Betsy DeVos types, etc;

    4. Rocky Mtn – from Montana all the way down to N. Mexico, for nature lovers and hippies, etc. A live and let live paradise;

    5. Pac NW – nature lover country; ALL federal dams removed to restore great salmon fishery; primarily for salmon fishermen and nobody else;

    6. Cali – can be its own country as it easily has the ways and means. Or split it in half! North and South CA are actually totally different cultures, economies.

    What is so great about this idea of splitting USA up into smaller countries is you can find one that most suits your style!

    Read More
    • Replies: @MacNucc11
    Exactly and the competition will be good. I think we could transition into that very nicely. We could then decide if we want to keep some vestige of the old federal government for cooperation among the countries for defense, etc, or just be allies against a common enemy without any guarantees of going to war. There would be real discussion then about when and where to fight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. Vandal says:
    @peterAUS

    The federals control the army, and history has shown that soldiers will as soon kill their fellow citizens as any other.
     
    Will they?
    That is The Question. The only which matters.
    And, not soldiers. NCOs and junior/middle officers, well, up to a Lt.Col.In that order of importance.

    I don't know the answer. Doubt anyone does.

    It will take a great man to recognize the moment when The Question could be answered by a confident "no".
    Maybe soon; maybe never.

    That question depends on the financial situation of the federal government. As long as there is a reasonable chance a military member will receive their pension, tricare, and bi weekly paycheck, nothing will change. They are bought and paid for, despite what they say otherwise.

    If the petroyuan proves to upset the dominance of our world reserve currency making the federal deficit relevant, there may come a time when those benefits may not be paid out. When that day comes, you will see the various factions in the military come to the surface. The combination of continuous war and social experiments have degraded the military in general. The JSOC community comprises maybe 1% of the total force and is still the tip of the spear. The rest consists of an amalgamation of factions escaping the poor economy of the past administration or a dire social economic situation. Most of your “operators” are the bleeding heart conservative types, while your mission support types comprise the significant majority and are majority center to center left on the political spectrum.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. MacNucc11 says:
    @John Gruskos
    When Obama was president, did Fred Reed support Arizona, Montana and Oregon and other states when state level laws and referendums tried to crack down on illegal immigration, but were prevented from doing so by federal judges?

    Does Fred Reed give a damn about states rights, or will he make unprincipled use of any and every argument to advance his pet cause of open borders?

    Does he have any respect whatsoever for his American ancestors, kin and heritage, or has he sold his soul for a mess of Mexican pottage?

    I would say that Fred Reed was consistent and did support those states in opposing federal intervention.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. MacNucc11 says:
    @Grumbler
    Corvinus, why is it a pie in the sky notion? Is there any other hope for Liberty?

    "The people govern themselves by way of their representatives and Senators"

    If you are not being sarcastic then I must ask, Do you actually believe that 536 people can really represent the diverse views of 330 millions of people?

    "No."

    Why not? Why should there not be many sovereign nations instead of one Leviathan State?

    The Founding Fathers gave us the Centralized government we have today. They were wrong to do so.

    I think it was Lincoln who destroyed the voluntary union and created the current union that centralizes all power in the federal. Fred is absolutely correct. We just ignore it and make no real big deal about it. The less said the better. Soon enough it goes away.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. MacNucc11 says:
    @Corvinus
    "Do you actually believe that 536 people can really represent the diverse views of 330 millions of people?"

    You changed the goalposts here. Your original statement was "It is madness to think that 545 people can and should rule over 330 millions of people spread out over thousands of square miles." 545 do not "rule" over us. Rather, the citizens "rule". Now, it certainly is challenging for Congress to represent citizen interests given our current climate, and Americans are generally frustrated with how it functions. But that does not mean that they seek to tear our system down brick by brick.

    "Corvinus, why is it a pie in the sky notion? Is there any other hope for Liberty?"

    Because America (proper spelling) has experienced tumult and controversy before, and citizens generally believe that their nation and government is worth fighting for to preserve and reform, rather than break apart. You are assuming there is no other hope for liberty. Instead, we have hope that fences can be mended, that our freedom is worth keeping.

    "Why should there not be many sovereign nations instead of one Leviathan State?"

    "Leviathan State" = false characterization

    Because the super majority of Americans are not at that particular place. There are a host of considerations--Who gets to stay? Who must leave? How is each "state" organized"? What about our current laws? What about our national defense and trade treaties? What about our national debt? What about our banking system?

    All complex issues to tackle. No, let's focus on the problems we have as a nation and go from there.

    "The Founding Fathers gave us the Centralized government we have today. They were wrong to do so."

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

    What you are not getting is there is no us. So according to you it cannot be done because difficulties, or what? Any of the founding fathers would actually argue that what they created has been destroyed and that we need to go back and re-make what they did. Once a number of currently independent countries were part of a single Soviet Union. That is no more and no one there has found it impossible to make a go of it on their own. Sure they have some problems, so what?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. MacNucc11 says:
    @deschutes
    I'm all for the balkanization of the USA, and on amicable terms. The country is just too big, the internal divisions too great to be overcome. I would break up the USA thusly-

    1. 'Original 13' - northeastern country, would be used to contain the current status quo of WA DC in their own despotic, corrupt dictatorship–but thankfully its massive military broken totally apart causing a massive outbreak of world peace;

    2. Midwest - massive farming country, w/'midwest values' (not too kinky or racy, tone it down);

    3. Old South - massive conservative country, can finally free itself of Washington interference; the place for bible types; southern conservatives; red necks, anti-Darwin, Betsy DeVos types, etc;

    4. Rocky Mtn - from Montana all the way down to N. Mexico, for nature lovers and hippies, etc. A live and let live paradise;

    5. Pac NW - nature lover country; ALL federal dams removed to restore great salmon fishery; primarily for salmon fishermen and nobody else;

    6. Cali - can be its own country as it easily has the ways and means. Or split it in half! North and South CA are actually totally different cultures, economies.

    What is so great about this idea of splitting USA up into smaller countries is you can find one that most suits your style!

    Exactly and the competition will be good. I think we could transition into that very nicely. We could then decide if we want to keep some vestige of the old federal government for cooperation among the countries for defense, etc, or just be allies against a common enemy without any guarantees of going to war. There would be real discussion then about when and where to fight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. wraith67 says:

    Pat Buchanan has been advocating for an amicable breakup (before we start shooting each other) for years. As to the Army, the Taliban remain unconvinced about their sure defeat by our $600 billion military. An EFP is as easy to make here as it is to make there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  222. Da Wei says:
    @fnn
    Yeah, Gen. Lee was right. But say that in California and you'll probably be beaten to a pulp given that you're old and nearly blind.

    What do age and eyesight have to do with it, fnn? Logic suggests that you may get old, too, and may suffer impaired vision, that is, unless somebody slaps you into the middle of next week first.

    And you’d only get beaten to a pulp in California if you propose a legal assembly on the State Capital grounds and Falarca showboats in with 450 bay area stick carrying kids in Halloween garb. Even then it might not happen, until the police are ordered to stand down and watch.

    By the way, smartass, General Lee was right about a lot of things.

    Now, lay the hell off California until you get those statues back up, jail the vandals and fire the spineless officials who refused to protect, arrest and prosecute.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. Frank88 says: • Website

    Fred Reed does not mention the Tenth Amendment, which qualifies the Supremacy Clause.
    It limits the power of the Federal government to only those powers which were expressly granted to it.
    The real problem is the rewriting of the language of the Constitution by judges.
    The way they nullify the Tenth Amendment is by redifining the meaning of “Commerce” to mean not just Commerce itself, but those activities which ” may affect Commerce”, which is basically anything.
    So by this fraudulent semantic subterfuge, the Supreme Court in effect repealed the Tenth Amendment.
    It all started with the New Deal and Roosevelt’s attack on the original Constitution.
    Look at this mind boggling decision, which did away with the not only the Tenth Amendment , but all common sense: Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) .
    Today the original Constitution is only a piece of paper.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  224. anarchyst says:

    On the topic of secession, I have already personally seceded. I make my own choices, refuse to deal with those who do not have MY interests at heart. I ignore almost ALL “laws” and statutes, refuse to abide by so-called “civil-rights (for some)” statutes and other unconstitutional “laws”…. My “law” is the Constitution of the United States, the greatest treatise ever written (by white men, no less), which grants NO rights (our rights are preordained by our creator), but is a LIMIT on what government is permitted to do.
    The “trick” is to NOT get in the government’s “crosshairs”. Do your own thing, unobtrusively and without fanfair. Don’t attract attention to yourselves. Establish trusted networks of like-minded individuals and families. Utilizing whole families can be a good way of “vetting” to “weed out” government infiltrators and “plants”.
    A quiet revolution is on the horizon, consisting of those of us who merely choose to personally “opt out”. No noise or fanfair about secession. Just do it…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave