[_redbird_]

Originally Posted by Aristocutionor

If the Feds are not backed down to their proper role of subservience to We the People and the sovereign nation States by the Rule of Law you will find yourselves living in a police state with no Rights and the USA dissolved for the NAU.

What is the NAU?

I'm glad you asked that, RB!

[i]The North American Union (NAU) is a theoretical regional union of Canada, Mexico and the United States similar in structure to the European Union, sometimes including a common currency called the Amero. Officials from all three nations have said there are no government plans to create such a union[1] The formation of a North American Union has been the subject of various conspiracy theories.

North American Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For some good hyperbole links, google NAU. Something tells me there is a group of armed white men in Idaho drooling over this stuff.

[Aristocutionor]

The Lakota Souix nation has seceded - rather, have declared the federal government in breach of their Treaty with the US. Treaties are with sovereign nations.

The sovereignty movement is not about dissolving the united States of America; it is about reigning in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CORPORATION (known as the US federal government). We the People are the sovereigns, i.e, the government, and the States are over the federal government. The States have the moral and legal obligation to, at a minimum, pass a Sovereignty Resolution or a Writ of Intent to Secede to maintain their Rights and the citizens' Rights.

Did you know that the "public lands" have been pawned as collateral for US debt? According to the Constitution the Feds are limited to owning DC and military installations so that too is illegal. The Patriot Act has been ruled in court to be unconstitutional, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, the [SIZE=4]Military Commissions Act of 2006[/SIZE], a ton of Presidential Directives, Executive Orders, and Signing Letters that supposedly over-ride Congressional Legislation are all unconstitutional at the federal and state levels.[SIZE=3][/SIZE] And, unfunded federal mandates outside the jurisdiction of the Feds and are a breach of contract with Statehood and Treaties with the sovereign native American nations.
There are many issues involved in the Feds' breach of contract with the States ranging from infringements or Right to usurpations of power to out right criminal activities: e.g, income tax on wages of any US Citizen working in any of the 50 States is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court has so ruled many times - Did you know the IRS is a non-government corporation registered in Puerto Rico?

Those things and more are why Oklahoma is correct and justified in its Sovereignty Resolution.

[Aristocutionor]

redbird4848 - You need to do your homework. It is not a conspiracy theory - no theory to it - it is fact! Google NAU. The Amero is already coined and available for pre-release purchase. The "treaties" under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) are not legal and without Congressional approval or oversight (ONLY Congress can make a Treaty) - get the FACTS!!!

[_redbird_]

Originally Posted by Aristocutionor

redbird4848 - You need to do your homework. It is not a conspiracy theory - no theory to it - it is fact! Google NAU. The Amero is already coined and available for pre-release purchase. The "treaties" under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) are not legal and without Congressional approval or oversight (ONLY Congress can make a Treaty) - get the FACTS!!!

You need to reread my post. I never said it was a conspiracy. I posted the definition from wikipedia. Wikipedia staed it was associated with conspiracy theories. Take it up with them.

I already went to the links on NAU, and the pro-NAU and the anti-NAU links. How much more homework is needed than going to the source? I didn't say anything pro or con on the subject other than it comes across like hyperbole.

The NAU website goes from talks on a trade agreement to BUSH IS SELLING OUT AMERICA!! There is nothing informative, just a bunch of flag-waving with a lot of anti-bush rhetoric and pictures of illegals holding mexican flags.

You have your agenda and have picked the okie threads as your current soapbox. I'm not going to discuss it because I am not an economist, a politician, or an alarmist, and when I don't know enough about a subject, I stay out of the discussion.

As for the Lakota seceding, I heard about that back in the early 90's. That is old news.

[colleeng47]

The BIA has always been a joke run by crooks.

[karibear]

Originally Posted by Goodpasture

One of the real problems in establishing the sovereignty of the states was the civil war. It pretty well denied the states the right to secede which is the ultimate test of being sovereign.

I would, however, really like to see the same rights applied to the Indian Nations. I am sick and tired of the BIA and Washington and OKC telling the NA's what we can and can't do with our own people, on our own land.

What has always boggled me is the concept of 'Federally non-recognized tribes.' Who made that decision, and why? If they [the Feds] recognize that there are tribes they don't want to recognize, that kind of proves that they DO recognize them, in a back-handed way. But it also totally excludes certain tribes from any potential benefits, such as education and medical services, because they can't get a CIB or BIA card since they aren't recognized. It's interesting to look at a map of Indian Country and see just how many there are.

[_redbird_]

Long before there was ANY CDF illegal immigration rants, and I am talking back in 1972, when I first witnessed the influx of south american peoples, I often thought it was just a matter of time before America took over mexico.

And as a child thinking these thoughts, I was not thinking from a political viewpoint or economist viewpoint, and definitely not from a racist pov.

I was thinking as a child. That these people were running from their country, the same way that europeans ran from theirs a century earlier. I thought if America takes over these countries, we would double in size and become like china or russia (was back then). And if america took over those countries, they would have what we have, so they wouldn't come running.

Like I said, it was the musings of a child. Of course the ramifications are much more complex.

And now, 25 years later, the trickle of illegals has become an ocean, and its ironic that the NAU poses such a great fear to some.

This doesn't mean I am for an NAU, so don't get your panties all scrunchied up! It is just that the concept of a multi-nation-state is not new.

I wonder when the U.S. decided to stop its expansion, back in the 19th century and why it stopped at the Mexican borders. No natural resources in mexico back then make it worth their time and effort~not to mention blood? Not worth the fight to take over mexico? Spain too powerful back then?

As for the sovereign state issue, it is even funnier that people say we will soon be living without rights. Can you critically define that? And what do they base that on? Not being adversarial, just wanting to know what exactly is meant when they say that. And god forgive me if I open the door to every oregon and idaho anti-federal hate groups in our okie forum.

Oh well, I am sure our trusty mod will boot it to politiacal threads if it gets out of hand.

[colleeng47]

Interesting post RB, looking forward to responses.

[TU 'cane]

Glad to see OK-SAFE getting some attention.

[mkfarnam]

Originally Posted by LadyRobyn

SERIOUSLY??? You just told a 100% Pure-Blooded NATIVE AMERICAN that he doesn't know what it is like to be over-run by illegal aliens and have his land taken away???? SERIOUSLY???

I think HE and his fore-fathers knew what it felt like long before YOU were BORN.

In that case, we were both talking about seperate occurrences.