Are you prepared for the coming Civil War? (regime, Brown, border)

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Repubocrat

I have never seen our fellow Americans so angry, frustrated and ready to explode. I was listening to the Glenn Beck show a few days ago and he touched on the subject of a possible Civil War in the next 4 years. I am preparing for the worst, how are you preparing for the coming Civil War?

Were you alive during the Vietnam War? I was in high school, then college, then a young adult all during Vietnam. Things were way worse than now.

Originally Posted by MotleyCrew

Perhaps we could solve some of our problems by voting in a sound businessman or woman instead of an academic/lawyer next time around. Does not matter if it is a R or a D. Take a look at how well Wyoming is run. Dems and Repubs all are fiscally responsible people and their unemployment rate is below 4%. Incredible!!

The problem with that is that business people don't have to deal with all these different constituent groups. Government is just "different". That's why the two presidents who were engineers were such bombs (Hoover and Carter).

[jetgraphics]

DUTIES of U.S. citizenship

Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Title 50 USC Sec. 453. Registration (Selective Service)

(a)...it shall be the duty of every male CITIZEN of the United States, and every other male person RESIDING in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder. ...

In case you weren't informed, asserting citizenship is a voluntary act. Conscription cannot be imposed without consent, lest it violate the Declaration of Independence, wherein governments are instituted to SECURE rights (to life, liberty and property). Compulsory conscription is a blatant violation of one's life, liberty and property.

To the best of my knowledge, from reading and researching the law, the Federal and State governments have never infringed upon the rights of the sovereign people. However, citizens / residents are in another class. And it was done by their own actions. No law can change the status of an individual.

To illustrate:

The social status of a citizen shall never be the subject of legislation.
Art. 1, Sec. 1, Para. 25, Constitution of the State of Georgia

No special law relating to the rights or status of private persons shall be enacted.
Art. 3, Sec. 4, Para. 4(b), Constitution of the State of Georgia

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. ...."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia

More on individual sovereignty of the private people.

[JMadison]

Originally Posted by Anonymous Political Junky

And you need to understand that there are lots of ex-military that are members of many militias. Also, there are plenty of military that would never shoot their fellow citizens. The government will have to depend on those damn illegals and felons they accepted for the wars that we should not be in.

All of you seem to forget that our military does not do well when it comes to guerrilla warfare. In fact, they damn well stink at it.

Problem is this... the militias don't have F-16's and Attack helicopters, etc. I'm sorry, but any local militia vrs. a well trained military unit is likely to end up, well, dead. LOL! If there's a real breakdown, rioting "citizens" may not be perceived as citizens anymore, but rather as rioting looting mobs. Possibly even treasonous, right?

Sure, some or even many soldiers might have a hard time shooting former citizens, but then again... in the Civil War, nobody seemed to care. So I'm going to argue that under sufficiently crazy conditions, that unwillingness will evaporate.

Now clearly, it'd be difficult to put the whole country on lockdown, but I'd still bet in favor of the military if an all out societal breakdown occured.

I find it hard to believe that the military hasn't thought about this issue and not stockpiled supplies and devised strategies, for their own survival at the very least.

Now the masses of people may want to riot or whatever, but I'd be more concerned with whether or not we are heading toward another global war, perhaps sparked by the mid east.

After all, wasn't the last great depression "cured" by WWII?

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by Repubocrat

I have never seen our fellow Americans so angry, frustrated and ready to explode. I was listening to the Glenn Beck show a few days ago and he touched on the subject of a possible Civil War in the next 4 years. I am preparing for the worst, how are you preparing for the coming Civil War?

Sorry kiddo, but I don't think you know what a civil war is or have ever lived through one. I have lived in countries that have been on the brink of civil war or were actually in one. I was once caught in the middle of a military coup d' etat in an Asian country. There was a civilian uprising supporting the coup plotters, while the government had its own loyalists protecting the capital. The house I lived in was close to the foot of a key bridge that was captured by rebel troops, while the opposite side of the bridge was controlled by government forces who were trying to barrel their way to our side.

I know the smell of civil war (impending and actual). I can tell you that the US is not on the brink of civil war. I suggest you learn some more about the real world, perhaps travel overseas, instead of getting spoonfed by Glen Beck.

[Adrian71]

Originally Posted by Repubocrat

I have never seen our fellow Americans so angry, frustrated and ready to explode. I was listening to the Glenn Beck show a few days ago and he touched on the subject of a possible Civil War in the next 4 years. I am preparing for the worst, how are you preparing for the coming Civil War?

I remember Pat Buchanan warning of an imminent cultural civil war. That was 16 years ago, at the GOP convention.

The alarmists always talk like this. It's nothing new. It's how you get the base stirred up.

[mpyne]

Originally Posted by kb09

I don't think we will have a civil war in the coming years (seriously, who is gonna fight who? The Repubs and Dems are in bed together), but I do think we might have a revolution.

Basic thing is: put a squeeze on the middle class (which breeds revolutionaries) and don't represent what they want and you are going to have a revolution sooner or later.

Obama is talking about raising taxes on the rich and I think that is all good and fair: but, I can't help but think (and I know) that the rich will find a way to push as much of their tax burden down onto the middle class. There are so many deductions and write off's that you can file on taxes that its unbelievable.

With any government, the way power and wealth is distributed is in the form of a triangle. The ones with the most wealth and power take up the top portion of the triangle, the ones with moderate wealth and power (middle class) take up the middle part of the triangle, and those with the least wealth and power take up the bottom half. It makes for a situation where the rich do as little as they can to satisfice the poor (who benefit the least from the system).

Now on a progressive tax scale, the more resources you have the more liability right? Well poor people can't pay taxes (if any, it's a little amount) so the burden to support them lies on the shoulders of the middle class and the elite. The top benefits the most from the system and have the most to lose if the system changes. Since they have the most wealth and more importantly power, they push as much of their tax burden as they can onto the middle class. Then, it is left that the middle class is supporting both the top and the bottom.

Raise taxes on the rich and they will find a way to push it off onto the middle class. The people at the bottom half of the top, get pushed into the top half of the middle and the people at the bottom of the middle, get pushed into the top half of the poor. It's called a middle class squeeze. if you have a tight enough middle class squeeze, a revolution is inevitable. Couple that with misrepresentation and misappropiation of funds and you will have a revolution significantly quicker.

We have come to a point where the people who are supposed to serve us (i.e. government) are self serving and only serve those that get them bank (which is the definition of an oligarchy; rule of the few, for the few). When government can no longer - or is no longer willing - to serve the people, then it is time for a REAL change and time for a revolution. Too many have take confidence in the thought that "it will get better, we can't get any worse" when it can always get worse. Realize that you are being decieved and lied to a on daily basis: they say the only difference between a fool and an intellect is that the intellect knows he's being lied to. The repubs and dems pander hate and go back and forth all day long, but when the curtains close and the show is over, the strip and get down into bed with each other. They are able to create hate and divide people where there is none, can turn neighbor against neighbor or husband against wife to further their own selfish agenda when they don't give a damn about any of us out here; we are simply the ponds they use to further their own agendas and they know best on how to do it (appeal to emotions rather than logic and you can get a large following fairly quick). The government and the people that are supposed to represent us are so corrupt that it sickens me; and all the while they are corrupt and screwing us with our eyes open, we sit here and can only blame the other party and divide ourselves even more.

But hey, they want to keep it that way because it's easier to remain in power (and keep it) when you can divide the people and pander hate between them.

exactly as the democrat and republican yell at each other as their families starve to death the elite laugh at them
what I believe we are seeing is the erosion of the middle class. If Americans were smart we would band together to preserve our way of life

[xlabel]

I don't know about any civil war but unrest and lawlessness seems a real possibility, much like the Superdome after Katrina. Right now I'm glad I'm not an illegal, elderly, or live in a big city.

If the government wants to subdue us, forget about your guns, they'll make you lay down your arms with soundwaves or some super secret hi- tech immobilizer.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Repubocrat

I have never seen our fellow Americans so angry, frustrated and ready to explode.

It is a troubling situation. Most Americans are quite ignorant of the law on the books, and assume that the abuses of government is somehow "proof" of unconstitutional behavior.

With all due respect, the majority of Americans are burdened by the chains of socialist slavery, and know not of their agreement that allows the servant government to ignore the limits stated in the U.S. Constitution.

In Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, the exclusion of paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice is a fact. According to the Statutes at Large of the United States of America, the Articles are listed as Statute #2. And there is no notation that they have been repealed nor superseded. However, they have been incorporated by reference (Art 6) into the U.S.
constitution. And there are specific powers listed in the Articles, not listed in the Constitution, that the United States, in congress assembled, exercises.

EXCEPTED FROM PROTECTION

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, PAUPERS, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice EXCEPTED, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]

In support of that fact, is found in the definition of "status crimes" which
directly connect to the pre-constitutional exclusion.

"Constitutional" violations of inalienable rights

" State code 124 Sections 6, and 7, authorizing the overseer of the poor to commit to the workhouse able-bodied persons, not having the means to support themselves, and who live a dissolute and vagrant life, and do not work sufficiently to support themselves, are not repugnant to the constitution, giving every man an inalienable right to defend his life and
liberty."
In re Nott, 11 Me. (2 Fairf.) 208. (Me. 1834)

Translation: compelled labor and restricted liberty is constitutional - when
dealing with paupers and vagabonds.

"Act May 29, 1879, providing for the committal to the industrial school of dependent infant girls, who are beggars, wanderers, homeless, or without proper parental care, in no way violates the right of personal liberty, and is constitutional."
Ex parte Ferrier, 103 Ill. 367, 42 Am. Rep. 10 (Ill. 1882)

Remember the exclusions: pauper and vagabond?
Compelled labor and restricted liberty are constitutional - when dealing with
paupers and vagabonds.

" An act providing for the care and custody of the person and the estate of habitual drunkards is not unconstitutional, as depriving a citizen of the right to enjoy, control, and dispose of his property, and to make contracts."
Devin v. Scott, 34 Ind. 67 (Ind. 1870)

Translation: taking custody of the person and property of a drunkard
(impaired person) is not unconstitutional.


LOSING YOUR CHILDREN

" ... where a minor child is abandoned by the parent, to be supported by the town, such parent shall be deemed a pauper, and be subject to the same rules and regulations as a pauper, [this statute] is not in conflict with those provisions of the constitution of the United States or of the state of Connecticut which guaranty security to the person."
McCarthy v. Hinman, 35 Conn. 538 (Conn. 1869)

Translation: parent who surrenders a child to the state becomes a pauper. And parent (as well as child) becomes subject to the (Collective) State. Did you "voluntarily" enroll your children into national socialism? At birth?
Now you know why you can't spank your children. They're no longer yours.

"STATUS CRIME - A class of crime which consists not in proscribed action or inaction, but in the accused's having a certain personal condition or being a person of a specified character. An example of a status crime is vagrancy. Status crimes are constitutionally suspect."
BL 6, p.1410

" VAGRANT - At common law, wandering or going about from place to place by idle person who has no lawful or visible means of support and who subsisted on charity and did not work, though able to do so.... One who is apt to become a public charge through his own laziness."
BL 6, p. 1549

"PAUPER - One so poor that he must be supported at public expense."
BL 6, p. 1128

The lack of the financial means or property to support oneself is the prerequisite for being indigent, but as soon as one is supported at public expense, the trap door springs open, and down he falls.

A pauper was and is a status criminal. But under national socialism, he is no
longer prosecuted for just "being a pauper". The "Homeless" problem is evidence of that fact. Prior to national socialism, a vagrant was arrested and incarcerated. After national socialism, no one is arrested or incarcerated for mere vagrancy because "everybody" has no domicile and have claimed to be vagabonds at law.

Remember, Socialism abolishes private property. Private property is land, houses, and CHATTELS (people) owned absolutely. Without private property rights, there is no absolute right of the parents to their children. Without private property rights, coverture (absolute ownership by the husband / father) of the family property ceases to function for the benefit of the next generation, hence the loss to "estate taxes" and "death taxes".

Without absolute ownership of oneself, one's labor, and the fruits of one's labor, there's nothing for government to secure - by original compact.

If one has surrendered his private property rights in order to access charity from the public treasury (entitlements), one has no rights except those "privileges" the government grants to the paupers it is supporting.

That's how the "other compact" supersedes all that we have been led to believe about the "real American law".

Pauperization is America's bane, and our greatest shame.

[KsStorm]

How pathetic. A bunch of sore loser crybabies hollering "Revolution! Civil war!" because the old dude & the Harpy LOST.. Boo freakin' HOO. Get over it.
That peice of crap McVeigh & his ilk is their hero. I say report their sorry traitorous butts before MORE innocent people are killed due their psychotic delusions.

[sandiaman]

One big difference between 1968 and 2009, is the media (or as was called in '68, the establishment). The media still controls how we think, what is cool, and how cool it is to just be cool. Another HUGE difference is the internet. No internet no new ideas. The internet keeps the media somewhat in check. In 2009, the media is overwhelmingly slanted toward the left. Look at the recent Academy Awards and the gay agenda it promotes. A movie without a left ish moral doesn't stand a prayer of a chance of winning any award. Ooops, I an't be saying that, can I?