Secession madness! Now 40 states join petition fray

Also, Lysander Sponer's No Treason, No. 1, 2, and 6 are good reads about secession and the Constitution:

No Treason: No. 1

No Treason: No. 2 - The Constitution.

No Treason: No. 6 -THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY

david.ross said:

People who sign the petition of secession should be charged with treason.

I signed this petition instead:
Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America.
http://wh.gov/9FAY

Click to expand...

Ah, the tolerance of the intolerant left.

I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

Click to expand...

Thanks for throwing out the "treason card."......R/Big Sis.

david.ross said:

People who sign the petition of secession should be charged with treason.

I signed this petition instead:
Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America.
http://wh.gov/9FAY

Click to expand...

How absurd! Deport an American Citizen ... To where? A government can deport a non-citizen back to their country of origin ... But for an American citizen, the U.S. *is* their country of origin. And to suggest sanctions against an American citizen for exercising his/her Constitutional right of petitioning his/her government for redress bespeaks a woeful disregard or understanding of our Constitutional rights.

The tolerance you seek (based on your avatar) and the tolerance you deny to other's opinions (based on your signature notes and your comments in this thread) say more about you than your opinion on what actions should be taken on petition signers.

davidmcbeth said:

I think that they are not talking about leaving the union using unlawful methods....if one were to use lawful methods, the feds would do nothing.

If I recall, only Texas can break away without a vote in federal jurisdiction. All that Texas needs is the vote of Texans.

All others would need votes from all over the country to leave. Not impossible but highly improbable. But even if one did wish to leave illegally, no civil war would occur. The world is smaller now and relatives are scattered all over ... nobody is going to want to shoot their brother. If the state votes internally to leave, the other states would say "awww, thats too bad".

Click to expand...

Actually, all Texas can do is split up into a few more territories. I think they have 5 now, and can split into 4 more?

WalkingWolf said:

Do you know where federal money comes from? It is not a money tree in DC, and it does not grow out of Obama's ears.

Click to expand...

I heard Ben Bernake has some magic markers and an unlimited supply of toliet paper...

OC for ME said:

Ah, the tolerance of the intolerant left.


Thanks for throwing out the "treason card."......R/Big Sis.

Click to expand...

+1.
What was that quote of Lincoln's about secession again?

I wonder in how many of these 40 states the vote totals were for Obama.

Seems the vote for secession should have occured on election day. Would have been a lot easier just to throw them out.

I wonder if all these folks voted.

Many people talk about revolution but if they can not fight to vote them out. They will not fight when things get bloody.

JamesCanby said:

How absurd! Deport an American Citizen ... To where?

Click to expand...

Abudhabi? I don't care long are they're out. If only they would follow through with their threats and move to Canada/Australia.

david.ross said:

Abudhabi? I don't care long are they're out. If only they would follow through with their threats and move to Canada/Australia.

Click to expand...

One can secede at an individual level without asking any government to do anything.

I've seceded at an individual level and renounced my citizenship from the United States and all other political subdivisions and governments. I haven't done the paperwork though because, other than not meeting the federal requirements to renounce my citizenship, I don't believe the United States even legally exists. That can be proved in Lysander Spooner's "No Treason: No. 6 - The Constitution of No Authority".

I only do what the band of murders and thieves (government) tells me in order for my family and I to not be killed.

Does that make me a traitor?

Have you and your like minded friends had a chance to read over "No Treason" yet?

For the record, these aren't STATES seeking to secede, these are INDIVIDUALS starting petition drives to have their states do so. If it were legit, you'd see state legislatures and governors making the push rather than "Bubba"

Some consequences of secession:
http://newsflavor.com/opinions/if-your-state-secedes/

From the article:
Among all 50 states, Texas is frequently near the top of the list of states most dependent on federal funds; in 2006, 35% of Texas’s total spending came from federal revenue, and in 2005, federal spending in Texas was around $149 billion, while state and local spending, combined, totaled $122 billion. In addition, since the beginning of FEMA’s record-keeping, Texas has received more federal disaster assistance than any other state. Also, Texas receives billions of dollars in federal defense dollars annually, ranking third, in 2005, behind California and Virginia. Also, as of 2007, nearly 125,000 Texans were employed by the federal government. And so, a byproduct of secession would be that these mammoth investments in the Texas defense industry would disappear, along with countless jobs, including the quarter-of-a-million Texans who would lose their employment with the federal government. Further, all federal money for highways, airports, and other forms of infrastructure would be withdrawn, and we would either have to do without these things or pay for them with increased taxes. Finally, Texas owns a share in the national debt. The thought that the state could simply wash its hands of that debt, especially when the lion’s share of it came from Presidents and Congresses for whom Texas voted, is naïve at best.

Money from federal gvt would stop, but money from taxes not paid to federal tax would be change to state tax.
Also what would prevent those states to create another union where they can help each other with a new form of gvt they believe to work better and with the interest of the states as a priority.
I think this is the main message here, a new gvt which priority is the well been of each states.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

beebobby said:

...Texas is frequently near the top of the list of states most dependent on federal funds...

Click to expand...

Your numbers are useless unless you include the amount of money the federal government gets from Texas, as well. The federal government redistributes that which it takes from the states minus its insane administrative overhead.

Also, "dependent" implies they needed it. If the federal government is giving out money, Texas is going to take its share whether they need it or not. Anybody would, especially since they gave into the pot.

MAC702 said:

Your numbers are useless unless you include the amount of money the federal government gets from Texas, as well. The federal government redistributes that which it takes from the states minus its insane administrative overhead.

Also, "dependent" implies they needed it. If the federal government is giving out money, Texas is going to take its share whether they need it or not. Anybody would, especially since they gave into the pot.

Click to expand...

The federal govt also "creates" money lowering the value of the tax base that states have to work with. This IS a form of taxation, when DC wants money the fed prints it, it lowers the value of everybody's money, taking money away from the states.

WalkingWolf said:

The federal govt also "creates" money lowering the value of the tax base that states have to work with. This IS a form of taxation, when DC wants money the fed prints it, it lowers the value of everybody's money, taking money away from the states.

Click to expand...

Not that I think any of this will actually happen, much as I'd like it to (I've been pro-secession since the 1st time Clinton took office ), but if it were to happen in one or two, or even all of the 7 States that currently meet the petition threshold, folks seem to be over-looking some key points:
(in theory, mind you, and not without a lot of hardships for a few years)

1) Given a chance at a completely clean slate, who's to say a State, or Coalition of States, wont choose to work towards creating governments, and economic systems that DONT encompass all the f-up's of the U.S.'s current system (to include it's Tax Codes, say. Fair Tax Initiative, perhaps?)

2) Couldnt the State(s) re-model their economies, and establish their own currencies? (once legally separated from the Union)

3) Everyone seems to be basing their thoughts on all this, under the mode of going about things, relying on things, the way they are currently done-many of which are waaaaaaaay off-course from the direction of the original intents of our founding fathers. I think the initial basis of even posting these petitions is to try to get States BACK to where they should be headed, vs. this so-called "progress" which, clearly, isnt progressing much of anything but ruin for EVERYONE.

"

Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists
I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building."

I do find it more than a little ironic, that folks of this ^ mindset, who are among the whiniest lot in regards "tolerance" are also the quickest to call for the ban, or intolerance of the rest of us.
Sir, (or Ma'am, if that's more appropriate for the likes of you) do you not ever THINK , just a little bit, before flying off the handle with such knee-jerk, emotional reactions to this with which you disagree?

j4l said:

Not that I think any of this will actually happen, much as I'd like it to (I've been pro-secession since the 1st time Clinton took office ), but if it were to happen in one or two, or even all of the 7 States that currently meet the petition threshold, folks seem to be over-looking some key points:
(in theory, mind you, and not without a lot of hardships for a few years)

1) Given a chance at a completely clean slate, who's to say a State, or Coalition of States, wont choose to work towards creating governments, and economic systems that DONT encompass all the f-up's of the U.S.'s current system (to include it's Tax Codes, say. Fair Tax Initiative, perhaps?)

2) Couldnt the State(s) re-model their economies, and establish their own currencies? (once legally separated from the Union)

3) Everyone seems to be basing their thoughts on all this, under the mode of going about things, relying on things, the way they are currently done-many of which are waaaaaaaay off-course from the direction of the original intents of our founding fathers. I think the initial basis of even posting these petitions is to try to get States BACK to where they should be headed, vs. this so-called "progress" which, clearly, isnt progressing much of anything but ruin for EVERYONE.

Click to expand...

This is true~~if the states create their own currency, if they need money bad enough they can just print like DC does. Not that I would want that, it is the biggest part of the problem.

j4l said:

...Couldnt the State(s) re-model their economies, and establish their own currencies? (once legally separated from the Union)...

Click to expand...

This is only ONE of the many benefits that make the Union worth it.

We just simply need a federal government that does not exceed its Constitutional authority.

A few generations of not educating people gave us what we have today. Most people do not know the Constitutional role of the federal government. Polling here will not be representative.

Sig229 said:

Indeed they are paid by local and state taxes. But do you have any idea how much local LE and Fire rely on federal grants? A lot!
My mother lives in a town with one stop light, one gas station and about 200 residents. But her local FD have been getting FEDERAL grants over the last ten years and have some off the most expensive equipment that money can buy. And guess what? They really never even use it.

The two part time cops in that town also recently got a K-9 dog and all of the training that goes with a K9. AND a brand new SUV so that the K9 has more room in the vehicle while on patrol. All federal money. Dont kid yourself, federal grants are huge even in the smallest communities.

In my home town of Baltimore, federal money flew out of the treasury for new officers, overtime, and even police cameras that went up throughout the city.

When the district commander of your local PD comes in and tells the officers at a patrol briefing that "due to losing our federal grants, we have to make some cuts in equipment and man power. Only half of you are going to get paid this month".
What exactly do you think those police are going to do? Help your/our cause?

Click to expand...

Sure, some localities believe it is OK to suckle on the Federal teat and blow millions of dollars the Federal Government does not have, but then there are those that do not do so. A majority of fire and police departments would still be able to operate; they just would not be able to buy all of this fancy gear that they already do not need.

And I am like the others: who needs the police?

Having some experience with the Texas independence movement , I would submit that the PREFERRED goal PLAN A is a reset to constitutional parameters for the renegade federal government .

If that preferred goal is not met - INDEPENDENCE (secession) is PLAN B. PLAN B option will proceed concurrently with PLAN A.

Texas secession movement is a very serious endeavor however, and ample legal authority exists for the Republic of Texas to reclaim its "Star" from the Star Spangled Banner and end its formal association with the union of 49 United States. Texas also has the option of establishing 4 additional states within its present borders. That would translate to a total of TEN U.S. senators representing reconfigured states of Texas , West Texas, South Texas, East Texas, North Texas, and Travis-Austin for example.

Texas independence does not mean estrangement from the U.S.A. at all. The nation of Texas would maintain its shared cultural, commercial, and military relationship with the U.S.A. much as Canada does- voluntarily. The Republic of Texas' membership in the Union in 1845 was effectively cancelled in 1861, and forcefully reinstated under duress in 1866 constituting status as a captive nation of war.

The 1845 joint resolution of Congress supporting annexation of Texas merely served to send a message to Mexico that any aggression against Texas would be considered an attack against the United States. No actual annexation ocurred. The U.S. did not in 1845 acquire "ownership" , and does not now "own", or "possess" Texas as a territory. Texas is a nation that elected to become a member of the Union in 1845. Texas was not metabolized by the Union for perpetuity in 1845. Texas stands alone as the only nation holding membership in the Union. Texas never surrendered its nationhood.

The question of continued membership in the Union of the U.S.A. will depend upon the larger question of whether the union of these United States returns to its reservation - the U.S.Constitution.

MAC702 said:

This is only ONE of the many benefits that make the Union worth it.

We just simply need a federal government that does not exceed its Constitutional authority.

A few generations of not educating people gave us what we have today. Most people do not know the Constitutional role of the federal government. Polling here will not be representative.

Click to expand...

You scored a couple of perfect X-ring hits there, BUT- that IS the issue, and IS why some have posted these petitions-
This Union has long-since (and we're talking about all the way back to- at least- the 1930's here, not JUST because Obama was re-elected) left it's original intent in the dust.

Granted, several generations of folks either not knowing, not caring, or even down-right in opposition to, the origins of this nation, have led folks to sit on their hands, and allow the Gov't to out-grow it's limitations, trample our rights, and move to foster dependancy of it's people upon it's existence.
But, this does NOT mean there arent still plenty of us out here who know, and understand, our original path, and would much prefer we move a bit back to how things are SUPPOSED to be done.

The problem is, we have sunk to the point where we can no longer count on votes, or elections, as the legal, proper, vehicle for changes or corrective-actions. When more than half our national population has lost it's collective minds, and turned it's back on the intent of our founding principles, and chooses not once, but TWICE :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: to commit National Suicide, what hope is left, short of armed revolt or self-destruction?

" I would submit that the PREFERRED goal PLAN A is a reset to constitutional parameters for the renegade federal government ."

BINGO!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_1...m-marxist-states/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Serious attention is being given to available strategies for Texans to have the opportunity to vote on the question of maintaining membership in the Union of the 50 United States of America.

A considerable amount of planning is already in place - Texas State Guard already exists. Department of Public Safety has had an active role in protecting the Texas/Mexican border for some time.

IF....if ...the Marxist trend continues in Washington, D.C. to proceed down the United Nations "new world order" yellow-brick road -Texans will eventually come around and opt for independence once again.

IF......when that happens consider the certainty that a rather large segment of the freedom loving population in the other 49 states would pack up and migrate into Texas- with their guns, I might add.

I believe the swing in the balance would argue strongly against the occupant of the Whitehouse in Washington, D.C. contemplating a mobilization to confront such a tsunami of freedom fighters. Much better to "make nice-nice " and negotiate a resolution to the problem = acceptance of the "fundamental transformation ". It just wasn't quite what Obie-wan had in mind.