Will Any State Have the Stones to *Secede* from U.S.! (farmland, houses)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
-------amazing that someone could be so narrow minded to mistake self-sufficency with food production----
Kinda hard to survive w/o food
I just read an article in a local newspaper about dairy farming in Alaska.
There are only 5 dairy producers in the entire state and the one they interviewed was the biggest ( 100 cows)
He stated there is hardly a market for his milk as Alaska can import it cheaper from Washington.
The place he sells his milk to is very deep in debt.
So... this means exactly what? I don't see any international milk crises over the past 60 years. Or people lining up in grocery store forecourts to fill up before the price of milk jumped by 20 cents. Or the little known (but brilliant) German military strategy to push into North Africa and the Middle east during WW2 to capture the rich dairy fields of Libya and in the Gulf of Arabia.
You can get milk from anywhere, if it wasn't available at below cost to produce here from WA (which BTW the price is set by the USDA), then we'd either produce it ourselves, or get it elsewhere. Oil is currency.
Of course the converse is not true, how much milk could you produce and distribute if you had no oil? Not much I'll bet, now sure you can get it from elsewhere, but it would be arrogant to believe that food cannot be obtained anywhere but the US.
This of course is entirely off topic to the thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctichomesteader
When the president is guilty of treason, it is not treason for the states to stand up to him, incl. through secession.
Well that depends, I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, there was no expiry date mentioned during that oath.
If that enemy happens to be the POTUS, then I will defend the Constitution against that enemy. This does not necessarily mean by seceding, seceding is avoiding the issue and in my opinion failing to uphold that oath. That's not to say that I think secession is wrong per se, I just personally do not support it.
Over a Decade ago I was just another one of the sheep, it took a serious injury then 2yrs in a coma to change my perspective on our country.
Every day I see the gap between those in power grows exponentially from the rest of us.
I began to wonder a few years ago would I ever see someone, ie a head of a state stand up to the corrupt powers that be.
Isn't it time people that we all unite and get on the same page, after all the powers that be need underlings to do their dirty work, when you actually think about it how powerfull are they when they rely on public servants to enforce thier corruption.
I never want to see people get hurt, but I honestly felt that the full collapse of our financial system as we know it would be a good thing, it would or hopefully topple and reset thsi horribel system.
What is everyones take?
I totally agree. I started a similar thread on the politics forum.
The American people MUST drop this left vs. right argueing and band together for real change.
We are drifting from a republic into an oligarchy very quickly. We need to stand up before it's too late.
I totally agree. I started a similar thread on the politics forum.
The American people MUST drop this left vs. right argueing and band together for real change.
We are drifting from a republic into an oligarchy very quickly. We need to stand up before it's too late.
Government's ability to continue to grow in power is due to them, and the media, fueling division between the American people. Until we remedy that....we will continue to be walked on by those who pretend to actually serve us and our country.
Gov of Louisiana would have ordered NG units to New Orleans for Katrina, instead Bush did so.
You are either nationalized or not. You can rotate in/out of the country in your particular unit, but the status of the State's National Guard remains nationalized.
Gov of Louisiana would have ordered NG units to New Orleans for Katrina, instead Bush did so.
You are either nationalized or not. You can rotate in/out of the country in your particular unit, but the status of the State's National Guard remains nationalized.
Unless you have *orders* nationalizing your unit, you are a dual state/Federal asset. The Feds can nationalize you and deploy you anywhere in the states or internationally within limits; the state that 'owns' you can use you within its borders under less stringent limits.
Both of these Governors *could* deploy their own Guardsmen. They chose not to. Why?
Money. If the Feds do, the Federal government pays and coordinates which units to call up and deploy (hint: that's nationalization, not a full 'US nationalized them all-that's nonsense). If the state does, the state pays and can only deploy its own Guardsmen, within its own borders.
Now google 'Governor Schwarzenagger deploys national guard' and 'Governor richardson deploys national guard.' Then get back to me when you've done the faintest bit of research on laws governing national guardsmen. Second hint: it's Title 10.
Last edited by MissingAll4Seasons; 11-27-2010 at 09:57 PM..
Of course the feds will have a choice about getting their nukes back; the nukes are under their control and they will just take them where they please, regardless of your personal interpretation of the legal situation. All weapons of our military, nuclear or conventional, belong to the federal government. Their present location is irrelevant and is also often temporary and changeable, as military bases have been closed in the past in order to save money.
Of course state national guard forces are a different situation, being under the control of the state's governor until such time as they may be called up and nationalized, but in any case they don't have nukes. And any state guard commander who would try to ignore a federal nationalization order would be guilty of treason. All military people have been well trained in how the legitimate chain of command works, and the higher their rank, the more true that is.
Our American Civil War was made possible because large numbers of people, including military people such as Robert E. Lee (who was in charge of putting down the Harper's Ferry raid, by the way), felt that their loyalty to their state overrode their loyalty to the federal government. Almost no one today feels that they are, first, a citizen of a state, and, second, a citizen of their country.
so sorry you dont understand still. if a state does in fact secede, then all federal property in their state now in fact becomes their property, including any and all nukes.
as for your information, I am a citizen of my state before I am a citizen of the USA. hence the united States of America, not the more known phrase United States of America.
so sorry you dont understand still. if a state does in fact secede, then all federal property in their state now in fact becomes their property, including any and all nukes.
as for your information, I am a citizen of my state before I am a citizen of the USA. hence the united States of America, not the more known phrase United States of America.
Actually, I understand completely. It is your interpretation that federal property would become state property if that state secedes. I am saying that regardless if your interpretation, the feds would remove their nukes, period, even if we were to agree (which we won't) that such removal is illegal. So in actuality and as a practical matter (as opposed to technically and as a legal matter), nukes would remain under the control of the federal government.
As for your attitude and feeling that you are a primarily a citizen of your state (and only secondarily or perhaps not at all a citizen of the United States), I do not dispute that that is indeed your genuine attitude and that you are not alone. I wrote that your attitude is shared by relatively few people when you consider the population of the entire United States. Perhaps you hang out with like-minded people and have a false sense about how common it is.
I don't believe in left leaning snopes. Find another source that is believable.
I've come to the conclusion that factual arguments are liberal, while emotional appeals are conservative. Ergo, Stephen Colbert's concept of Truthiness -- "a 'truth' that a person claims to know intuitively 'from the gut' without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts."
The motto of Truthiness advocates seems to be "if the facts don't agree with your beliefs, you obviously need different facts." And IMO, dear hearts, therein lies the founding factor behind Truthiness proponents like Fox Noise - ah - "News" and Rush Limbaugh.
As syndicated radio humorist Red Neckerson used to say, "That's my opinion; oughta be yours!"
Dude, unless you have *orders* nationalizing your unit, Then get back to me when you've done the faintest bit of research on laws governing national guardsmen. Second hint: it's Title 10.
Showing disrepect for others does not make you a better than anyone else here. My unit was nationalized during Korean War and I don't believe it was ever returned to the State's status.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
.
