This is a very good video by talk show host Alex Jones that explains the REAL motive behind the secession movement. It's about taking our country back.
Please watch and then sign the petition for Missouri. Give us Liberty or let us Leave!
A whitehouse petition to petition the whitehouse?
Whitehouse.gov has a system in which a citizen can start a petition, if it garners 25000 signatures they have to review it. Missouri is approaching the 20,000 signature mark and should have the 25,000 by the December 10 deadline. What this does is let the Whitehouse know that Americans are not happy with the trampling of the Constitution, the Socialism, the Obamacare etc. In addition it helps educate the people on the concept of secession and has brought the subject to the forefront of the mainstream media. This is just the first step, one of many in the process of taking our country back. Now is the time to stand and sign , and show no fear. Our actions today will help ensure the freedom of future generations tomorrow. It is up to us. As they say, Freedom isn't free.
I see that Catalonia is considering secedeing from Spain, as well. It seems the secessionist movement is not limited to the United States, and has its roots in the same thing - a people tired of having their pockets picked to support those who aren't carrying their weight.
It'll be curious to see how things turn out over there.
I had done a fair amount of reading about the option of a "constitutional convention" convened by the states. As I understood it then (if memory serves me correctly) it is the states version of direct modifications to the constitution. I believe they were just a few states short of calling for a convention which is clearly outlined in the constitution.
The concerns were you'd have to be careful what you ask for. Such a thing has never been done and the 40% of states run by democrats might try and change the constitution to be more liberal. Another way to deal with the federal government but it has never been done. Some info on it:
There are tons of other sources on this.
"The concerns were you'd have to be careful what you ask for. Such a thing has never been done and the 40% of states run by democrats might try and change the constitution to be more liberal."
This has long been a concern of conservatives. For example, the left might want to 'clarify' the langauge of the Second Amendment.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 26, 2012, at 12:27 PM
Since such a process has never been used to amend the constitution there are no rules written on how it would be set up or managed. Some thought that they could petition each state to agree to a convention on specific items only and that, once convened, no changes may be made to the agenda. Others say that isn't correct. Again, there is nearly nothing written or spoke of in the courts or congress on the matter.
I say convene one and find out.
I remember discussing this in I suppose a civics class in high school and the same concerns were voiced.
Personally at this time in history at least, I think it is a bad idea. We have enough liberal nut case Republicans out there that I definitely would not want to see voting on things such as the 2nd ammendment.
Was the ink even dry on the constitution when you were in high school?
-- Posted by left turn on Mon, Nov 26, 2012, at 1:13 PM
No lefty.... I helped write it, that is why I know what America was like before you liberal dingbats showed up.
"Since such a process has never been used to amend the constitution there are no rules written on how it would be set up or managed."
Amendments are used to amend the Constitution. A convention would be used to rewrite it. That is why the idea of a convention has been treaded upon so lightly for over 200 years.
What makes you think I'm a liberal? Because I poked a jab at you?
A jab... I believe that is number two and I already forgot what the first one was about.
I think I called it correctly.
In the liberal mind the Constitution is a "living, breathing document". As such, it is not written in ink but in blood, sweat, and tears. If those dry, the Constitution will be dead.
I've never subscribed to the 'living, breathing' idea. It is a law, and laws should not be 'living and breathing. They should be written in ink, not in pencil or chalk, so that they cannot be easily altered. As Walter Williams says, he would never play poker in a game with 'living, breathing' rules, subject to the immediate reinterpretation of the dealer. 'Living, breathing' laws are not laws at all, they are more like Guidelines, as the movie pirates say...
Bye bye yall, wave as you pass the Statue of Liberty.
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Tue, Nov 27, 2012, at 6:35 AM
Dexterite1 someone must have stolen your ID!!! You normally would say:
"Bye bye yall, wave as you pass the Statue of Liberty. It's Bush's fault".
Call the SEMissourian web folks so you can get your password reset. You've obviously been hacked.
What would Dexter and his liberal group of takers do if the providers did leave I wonder. Revert to cannibalism when they ran out of resources maybe?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Nov 27, 2012, at 10:13 AM
They would turn to Obama and say "where's mine?". Where's my cell phone (Obamaphones)? Where's my food (stamps)? Where's my house (sec 8 housing)? Where's my transportation (taxpayer subsidized public bus system)? Where's my spending money (welfare)? Where's my doctor (Obamacare)?
Same thing, different day.
They would act like those who profit off the military industrial complex and their wars. -- Posted by BCStoned on Tue, Nov 27, 2012, at 10:35 AM
Do you really believe that the "military industrial complex" provides zero return to the taxpayer money provided to them? Note the word zero. Of course there is waste and much to be cut. But zero productivity or return?
The very internet we are on wasn't invented by Al Gore. It started as the ARPA net or DARPA net - take your pick - the "Advanced Research Projects Agency" back in the late 60's?
If you are a constitutional libertarian did the Declaration of Independence include a statement about "provide for a common defence"?
Just curious what you think about that...
"...did the Declaration of Independence include a statement about "provide for a common defence"?"
Clearly the answer is no. Why is that not surprising?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Nov 27, 2012, at 11:48 AM
Do you mean "no" - that clause is not in the dec of ind? or
"no" BC doesn't believe in that clause?
"... that clause is not in the dec of ind?"
You are trying to pick fly shat out of the pepper again.
The Declaration of Independence speaks of out defense here:
"That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
The Constitution reiterates with the exact clause about providing for a common defense.
So much for your Gotcha!
Thanks Wheels. I knew it was in both, just mixed the reference!
"Dug, There is no more benefit to the economy from military spending than by common welfare. In each case the money is taken from the producers who could put the money to better use."
It's not a question of whether or not the defense spending is good for the economy, it's a question of whether or not it needs to be spent for defense.
The Constitution empowers the government to fight wars. It charges the government with the necessity to provide for defense, to arm the militia and to maintain a Navy, as well as to raise armies as needed to fight the wars it is empowered to wage.
Yes, it is government spending and as such, its impact upon the economy is usually a negative rather than a positive overall (local economies see it as a boon, but that is at a cost to economies of those from whom the taxes are taken).
Then, again, the benefit of having a secure nation with no war raging in its boundaries, due to the presence and readiness of a fighting force is an immeasurable positive to the economy.
But, as I say, it is a power authorized by the constitution, as opposed to those powers the government has assumed for itself. Fighting wars is a governmental obligation. Paying Granny's medical bills is not.
I know you are referring to the "military industrial complex" as a common term I believe coined by Dwight Eisenhower. The government doesn't "produce" much if anything in the creation of weapons, correct?
Boeing? Northrup? General Dynamics? et al are "private" companies, right? Don't they (and 100's of others) compete for contracts?
All of this assumes that defense of the country is a constitutionally granted power.
Posting a comment requires free registration: