I Like It!

Sound thoughts that are right up my alley :)

by Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments) on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 11:33:05 AM
 

See what I mean?

UPDATE:

Today, when I returned from the Dr.’s Office, I found this on BUZZFLASH. Like I said, we can expect a right-wing Supreme Court to impose their morality on the general population:

Court Leaves Ala. Sex Toy Ban Intact

Oct 1, 3:57 PM (ET)

By PHILLIP RAWLS

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a challenge to Alabama’s ban on the sale of sex toys, ending a nine-year legal battle and sending a warning to store owners to clean off their shelves.

An adult-store owner had asked the justices to throw out the law as an unconstitutional intrusion into the privacy of the bedroom. But the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, leaving intact a lower court ruling that upheld the law.

Sherri Williams, owner of Pleasures stores in Huntsville and Decatur, said she was disappointed, but plans to sue again on First Amendment free speech grounds. LINK

Why does the State of Alabama or the Supreme Court have to dictate their morality on a population that is used to freedom? Aren’t they aware we withstand much of their waste and mis-management because its become part of our free society, but take away the freedom, and what’s left?

JAC

by William Cormier (117 articles, 5 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 292 comments) on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 1:10:51 PM
 

I LIKE ITTOO BUT HOW DO WE MAKE IT HAPPEN ?

I like it too, but can we make it happen without bloodshed ? That's the question. I see more than three republics emerging:1.Pacific Coast; Alaska, California, Washington, Oregon; 2. Mountain; Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado,Arizona, Nevada;3.Plains; N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas,Iowa, Texas 4;Prairie; Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana 5. South; Kentucky, Tennesee, Missisippi, Alabama, Georgia 6 .South Coast;Maryland, Virginia, W. Virginia, N. Carolina, S.Carolina Florida 7. Mid Atlantic; Delaware, New Jersey, Pensylvania, New York 8. North East; Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Connetictcut

by Kenneth Briggs (119 articles, 88 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 105 comments) on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 1:12:31 PM
 

I love clam chowder and Lobster

I would move there, Dennis Kucinch would be a great President of the new republic of New England!

by DinahMason (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 7 comments) on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 2:07:39 PM
 

Disunited as ever

If you haven’t read Joel Garreau’s book, “The Nine Nations of North America,” I strongly recommend you do.  What we call united states are united in physical proximity and in most instances individual states may belong to at least 2, 3 or even 4 dissociated groups or nations.  I’m not advocating succession, but understanding this phenomena might make it easier to understand why this so called united nation of ours can behave so screwey.

http://www.garreau.com/main.cfm?action=book&id=3

by Dave Kisor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 128 comments) on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 2:22:28 PM
 

I hope congress grows some B@LL$

If congress had the B@LL$ to stand down this neo-convict Bush and his cabal of cretins we wouldn’t need to secede from the union. 

We are supposed to be in a constitutional democracy a land of laws that protect the minority from the majority when they are wrong.   

Bush though is ignoring the laws on the books and some of the courts are calling him on it.  I only hope the congress will grow a spine and stand up to defend our constitution.

by Michael Chavers (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 173 comments) on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 2:45:09 PM
 

You can't secede from something that does not exist.

Secession is cowardice in this context. Secession at the time of the Civil War was not. Half the country divided from the other, not single states that want to "govern themselves."

You can't secede from an empire, so the mere mention of it is fantasy.

The breakdown of the machine is as a whole, not in part. To prove my point I direct your attn. to the Black Panther Party carrying their guns into a public forum, which was a right. If you tried that now Blackwater would put you in a hole in Iraq at the behest of any member of government they have protected.

Now I'm not saying anyone with a gun should be allowed in public forums, I'm merely showing that "rights" have been disappearing long before now.

Secession is not going to do anything but single your state out for destruction first! This disadministration makes people disappear one way or another if you oppose them.

Talking secession now in my book is simply cowardice. It's like starting your own game because your losing, instead of figuring out a strategy to win the game you decided to play in the first place.

Instead of this trivial concept of secession maybe people ought to start insourcing their money away from the government by not paying their income taxes (which is voluntary to begin with, for those who don't believe that statement, look it up!) and let them fall flat on their collective faces.

This is just a suggestion of one possible way to "let them know" what they already know and don't care about, obviously. I'm not saying it would work but it would be a start!

So instead of fantasy talk about "secession from an empire" they should come up with tangible ways to be a thorn in this disadministrations side that might make a small difference in a big way.

Good piece, thanks for bringing the rampant stupidity of some American states to light, it sure explains more to me about how we ended up in this mess in the first place!

JR

by (8 articles, 4 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 143 comments) on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 7:37:35 PM
 

Yes states can secede legally

In comment to our esteemed gentleman's post here; note that the 14th amendment was passed in 1868. I have checked the dates of reconstruction

which did not end from 1877 until 1900. The 14th amendment 3 and 4 gives

information about 'insurrection' however it also made everyone US citizens.

Admiral Raphael Semmes in his memoires stated he was a Citzen of Alabama, something unheard of today. Another thing is that when King

George ruled during the period of the Revolution, which my ancestors fought in, he granted individual republics their independence. The USA came later,

of course fully settled in 1868. However the manner in which the amendemnt passed was all wrong. First the Govt. of the North let the states vote on

the 14th amendment. When they could not muster enough votes, they kicked the south out and said their were 'conquered territories' and then

voted and achieved the result, then forced them back into the Union again

(which they didn't want anyway) and set up their own puppet government,

much like the puppet govt. in Afghanistan at present. The same manner

was followed. At the time of the war, slaves were considered property

unfortunately, and Lincoln tried to get the Corwin amendendment passed

in order to allow slavery to continue and keep the South in the Union.

Confederate ambassadors went north to sue for peace but were ignored

while Lincoln prepared his Navy to Charleston Harbor where 70% taxes

were collected on imports. "Let the South go, where shall we get our revenues?" he said. In 1863 he told the south if they did not lay down

their arms, all bets were off and Emancipation would be enforced. Furthermore he tried to send African americans to Belize and Liberia (which did not by in large, succeed). Was this a man of sincerity? No! He wanted to keep Queen Victoria from sending her troops south from Canada and crushing the North. Lincoln hired foreign mercinaries to do his dirty work.

All the south wanted was compensation for the slaves for what they invested and all would have been well. But instead he pursued an unpopular war that cost many lives (sounds familiar today with Bush).

The war cost double on the Federal budget, as to what it would have cost to compensate the small percentage of plantations that had slaves.

Hence we have the dying Federal empire and states are quite frankly,

fed up. We talk today about Red and Blue states, so are we truely United?
It doesn't appear we are. All it takes is some Patriotism for us to be

a govt. of the People, for the People and by the People. Not 'buy' the people

and etc.

If we were able to shake off a British Monarch called King George,

then why should we keep another King George today? If we cannot

legally decide which form of govt. we want, then the Revolutionary war

was in vain and our ancestors who gave us our freedom, died in vain.

Thanks for Reading.

by Gary Price (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 17 comments) on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 9:52:19 PM
 

Not saying it's illegal....

I was just saying it would not be honored or accepted by the administration we have now. Since Bush is not in favor of it in Iraq for reasons of more violence, what do you think he would do here?

Thanks for the history though.

by (8 articles, 4 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 143 comments) on Friday, October 5, 2007 at 12:22:59 PM
 

Very interesting

You wrote:

"If we cannot legally decide which form of govt. we want, then the Revolutionary war was in vain and our ancestors who gave us our freedom, died in vain."

True words.

by Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 80 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 416 comments) on Friday, October 5, 2007 at 8:00:10 PM
 

Retraction:

Retraction: One thing I’m dead set against is disinformation, whether it be from the Rethuglicans, who usually spin the truth and lie when it serves their purpose, and especially us that are attempting to bring-back accountability to government. I erroneously stated that Bush was in support of Partitioning Iraq; evidently I erred on that remark, which was pointed-out by Jr. On CampusProgress.net. (Post on that forum and you better have your facts correct! ) For now, it’s Democrats as well as Republicans who are making mistakes in regard Iraq policy, and President Bush has done enough on his own without having me falsely, albeit accidentally, stating that he was in favor of partitioning Iraq. I will edit the original article in the AM.

JAC

by William Cormier (117 articles, 5 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 292 comments) on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 9:16:20 PM
 

Bush's statement....

Bush, in an interview on the Fox News Channel, said Maliki agrees that creating semi-autonomous states for Kurds and Shiite and Sunni Muslims would worsen divisions in Iraq, which has been suffering a surge of sectarian violence. The president also said the U.S. wouldn't impose any deadlines on Maliki.

 

''I don't think that's the right way to go,'' Bush said on Fox. Setting up ''three autonomous regions will create a situation where'' more fighting would occur.

Bush is coming under increasing pressure to change the U.S. strategy in Iraq. An independent commission set up by Congress and led by former Secretary of State James Baker is reviewing U.S. policy. It is set to make its recommendations before the end of the year. Baker, who served under Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, has said creating three Iraqi states in a loose federation is one of the ideas that the panel is reviewing.-from the Daily Kos

Just some help with the retraction.

 

by (8 articles, 4 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 143 comments) on Friday, October 5, 2007 at 12:16:56 PM
 

Anger over Iraq and Bush prompts calls for Vermont secession

FYI, article above is highlighted on 

 http://www.spiderednews.com/BushAdministration.htm

See related article :

"Anger over Iraq and Bush prompts calls for secession from the US for Vermont"

click here

by editorial spiderednews.com (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, October 5, 2007 at 6:22:03 AM
 

Texas VS White 1868

I realize that Texas Vs White in 1868 declared secession unlawful.

If tried today I believe it could succeed though I wonder why the

Gov. of Vermont supports a 'Real ID act' in reference to driver's licenses.

Might as well stand in line for that microchip implant if people aren't going to

wake up. That's what it is coming to. We will be brainwashed like the

Chinese, calling it the 'motherland' or 'homeland' Hitler did the same with

the enabling act (vs Patriot act) and called it the 'Fatherland.'

Facism and Communism are two sides of the same coin. 

by Gary Price (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 17 comments) on Friday, October 5, 2007 at 6:50:10 AM
 

Call it like you see it

Greetings, Bill

Surprisingly, it has taken a very long time to recognize the dis-united states of amerika and do something about it.

Those interested in a movement to abolish this irreparably sick dis-union should seek the methods (and reasons) by which the soviet union was dissolved. It worked for them so why not employ the same methods?

Our three sections of government are so corrupt, we have no hope of retrieving what our forefathers envisioned when they wrote the Constitution and the Declaration.

The Executive Department is not only out of control, the President refers to the Constitution as "just another goddamn piece of paper" which violates HIS oath of office. The continuing threats to preemptively attack another sovereign nation with nuclear weapons has destabilized the entire world which puts us in a position to be nuked ourselves. Enough!

As a combat veteran I swore to uphold that same oath for defending the Constitution of the US. No one has relieved me of that oath.

The Declaration of Independence provides us with the means by which we can remove a president from office who violates his oath of office. Failing that, our only recourse is to dis-unionize.

The Judiciary is stacked with right wing yes men who are serving at the pleasure of the President who appointed (annoited) him in 2000. The last two Attorney Generals of the USA have committed crimes against the nation and should face criminal court. AG Ashcroft and Senators Kyl and Shelby were notified of acts of treason and failed to notify a Federal Judge or the President which is Misprision of Felony. We citizens have no recourse.

The Congress has passed the Patriot Act One and Two (nearly verbatim of the German Enabling Act of 1933 after the Reichstag Fire) which has neutered the Bill of Rights re habeas corpus, and none of the signatories read the act before signing. No one had the foresight to see the day when any citizen could be locked up without charges or legal representation!

And all of this came about AFTER 911. None of the alleged 'terrorists' names appeared on the manifest of any aircraft hijacked on 911. The FBI Chief of Counter Terror recently was asked by a reporter why poster's of the ten most wanted which carried Osama bin Laden's name and photo did not carry wanted information for the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon on 911. The response from the FBI Agent was that there is no direct evidence linking Osama to any event on 911. This begs the question: Why are we in Afghanistan?! In 2003 the Japanese International War Crimes Tribunal in Tokyo indicted George Bush for War Crimes for dropping over 250 tons of Depleted Uranium (DU) on Afghanistan.

The DoD has followed orders from the POTUS in violation of the Nuremberg Findings, which the USA signed in 1950, by preemptively attacking two sovereign nations that did not attack us which makes every participating member of the Armed Forces a WAR CRIMINAL as expressed at the International War Crimes Trial in Nuremberg in 1946.

President Truman appointed Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson as the US Representative to the Nuremberg International War Crimes Tribunal who's opening remarks to the jury included: "The standards by which we judge these defendant's today are the standards by which we shall be judged tomorrow." Then we hanged them.

Tomorrow is today!

by john mccarthy (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Friday, October 5, 2007 at 10:50:01 AM
 

We all can't get along

It appears that many of you on this site have a misunderstanding of what conservatives stand for. Also, it appears that you relate religion with conservatism. While it may be true that most christians do vote conservatively, it is incorrect to assume that all conservatives agree with ALL christian views.  True conservatives believe in limited government and believe in the right of citizens to choose what is right for them. I have to admit that there are several key conservative issues that are linked to religious beliefs. These issues being marriage and abortion. And while many conservatives do not approve of same sex marriages or abortion, they do believe in an individual's right to choose. Most conservatives would choose personal freedom over government regulation any day. It has been my experience that liberals are the ones who, in fact, call on government regulation. It seems as though whenever one of them is offended by something, they scream bloody murder until the government steps in. You can thank groups such as the ACLU, Media Matters and MOVEON.org for coaxing the government to intervene. Most conservatives are guilty of nothing more than protecting their God given rights and personal freedoms, NOT infringing on the rights of others.

Anyway, I believe secession might well be a viable option. It is obvious that we have two groups who have extremely different views on how the country should be run. I love my country, but I love my personal freedoms more. Our government has become arrogant and burdensome, and contrary to what many of you believe, it did NOT happen overnight.

by Andrea Bartholomew (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, October 5, 2007 at 11:06:07 AM
 

State devision

I live in southern Illinois and would like to get rid of Chicago. They run the state and we southerners dont have a say in it because we are outnumbered. Is there a way to do this legaly. I know that there is Virginia and West Virginia. When did they split up?

by chessmaster (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Friday, October 5, 2007 at 10:02:39 PM
 

E Pluribus Unum

John my fellow combat veteran,

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, buddy. Happy, happy, joy, joy. Oh, Alex Jones is a demi-god too!

As to the question of your oath of enlistment or oath of office for the military, though... I'll presume we're talking the United States (I'm sorry but I don't recall any country entitled the dis-united states of amerika). The short answer is that your commitment under the oath ends once your service obligation is completed (enlisted or cadet) or you resign your commission (warrant officer and officer). Retirement is a gray area in that you may still be subject to recall if you never resign your commission, but these instances are very specific and are reviewed in detail at the time of retirement.

So, sleep sound tonight! On the presumption you've met your obligation and are out of the military or you've resigned your commission, you no longer have a requirement to fulfill your oath. It's for this same reason that when enlisted personnel re-enlist, they once again swear the oath of enlistment. Where there is no contractual obligation for those personnel that retain a military commission from Congress, there is no need to swear any additional oath of officer.

Each military branch of service has their own set of regulations that governs obligation and re-enlistment requirements. Where I was both enlisted and officer in the USAR, I'm familiar with the Army Regulations that pertain to these activities -
http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r135_91.pdf and http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r140_111.pdf.

As to the secession issue, yeah...right. The South tried that and it didn't work out so good for them. I'm glad, though, that we as a united people still have a sense of unity about us - "United we stand; divided we fall" or "E Pluribus Unum" – from many, (comes) one. Did I say "one"? That means we (the many) work together and compromise so that we are one. Crazy concept...

Regards,

Tom

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1551 comments) on Friday, October 5, 2007 at 10:05:45 PM