Showing posts with label secession. Show all posts
Showing posts with label secession. Show all posts
Monday, March 22, 2010
We're done for...
I'm sure you already know about this, but the health "care" bill passed. It was a somewhat close vote, and good 'ol Virginia didn't let me down. To nobody's surprise, North Carolina had mostly "Yes" votes. Where does it all end?! Souther States voting FOR this horrible, unconstitutional expansion of government? What has the world come to? Curse the Radical Republicans and their Reconstruction. Oh well. The one positive thing about this is it will help bankrupt the Feds. Once they can no longer keep States restrained with funding, maybe we'll start seeing a secession movement getting somewhere. After all, nullification movements are making real progress, and the next step is a successful nullification of the HEALTH CARE BILL. This bill may have some unpleasant and unforeseen consequences for Washington... I can't remember which State, but one or more has a bill under consideration nullifying the health bill if it passed. Y'know, this bill is sorta like a kidney stone. It sits there for what seems like ages, but inevitably passes. Next up, I guess, is cap-and-trade.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Chris Matthews hates freedom
He doesn't like states' rights. Of course, anyone who says "nullification" is a racist. Good grief.
Allow me to tear his amusingly silly arguments to pieces.
First off, he says "Who does she think she is, John Calhoun?" I wish! He'd come in handy right now.
Apparently, Martin Luther King Jr. is an authority on what nullification means. Riiiight. Hey, Matthews, all these "firearms freedom" acts are nullification. Last I checked, the second amendment wasn't racist. This guy is utterly clueless. So what if some freakshow racist governor said favorable things about nullification 40 FREAKIN' YEARS AGO?! That doesn't make it racist.
One of the other folks with him talks about the "racial aspect" of secession/nullification. What racial aspect? It has nothing to do with race at all! Unless you count the fact that for some obscure, probably silly reason certain people associate states' rights with racism even though it is purely political. The New England states in the 1800's favored secession. Last I checked, they didn't have slaves. Another claim was that if Democrats were running around screaming "SECESSION!" they would be denounced as anti-American. Wrong. It's called Vermont. Y'know, little obscure state in the Northeast, trying to secede, filled with, um, FLAMING LIBERALS. And yet, by most secessionists, they are admired despite their liberal ideas. And to top the insanity off, Matthews, a liberal and major Obama worshipper, comments that people who support secession/nullification think they are more American than people who want to abide by the Constitution. My response: Hey, genius, where ya been for the past 250 years? You're the one who is abusing the Constitution. Nullification and secession are specifically to GET RID OF unconstitutional laws. Frankly, secession is fully justified as of right now. Nullification is nice, but secession is better.
Finally, I would like to make one last statement. Hey, Matthews, ever heard of these neat little things called the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions? By Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. What? Never heard of 'em? How 'bout the Declaration of Independence? It's a document of secession, and arguably the most American document ever written. Stop making silly blanket statements. I'm not racist, nobody I know personally who supports secession is racist. Do your research next time.
As an amusing side note, somebody pointed out that one of the guys says that the Texas voters aren't a diverse crowd. He says this while on a show with two other white, liberal, middle aged guys. Go figure.
Allow me to tear his amusingly silly arguments to pieces.
First off, he says "Who does she think she is, John Calhoun?" I wish! He'd come in handy right now.
Apparently, Martin Luther King Jr. is an authority on what nullification means. Riiiight. Hey, Matthews, all these "firearms freedom" acts are nullification. Last I checked, the second amendment wasn't racist. This guy is utterly clueless. So what if some freakshow racist governor said favorable things about nullification 40 FREAKIN' YEARS AGO?! That doesn't make it racist.
One of the other folks with him talks about the "racial aspect" of secession/nullification. What racial aspect? It has nothing to do with race at all! Unless you count the fact that for some obscure, probably silly reason certain people associate states' rights with racism even though it is purely political. The New England states in the 1800's favored secession. Last I checked, they didn't have slaves. Another claim was that if Democrats were running around screaming "SECESSION!" they would be denounced as anti-American. Wrong. It's called Vermont. Y'know, little obscure state in the Northeast, trying to secede, filled with, um, FLAMING LIBERALS. And yet, by most secessionists, they are admired despite their liberal ideas. And to top the insanity off, Matthews, a liberal and major Obama worshipper, comments that people who support secession/nullification think they are more American than people who want to abide by the Constitution. My response: Hey, genius, where ya been for the past 250 years? You're the one who is abusing the Constitution. Nullification and secession are specifically to GET RID OF unconstitutional laws. Frankly, secession is fully justified as of right now. Nullification is nice, but secession is better.
Finally, I would like to make one last statement. Hey, Matthews, ever heard of these neat little things called the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions? By Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. What? Never heard of 'em? How 'bout the Declaration of Independence? It's a document of secession, and arguably the most American document ever written. Stop making silly blanket statements. I'm not racist, nobody I know personally who supports secession is racist. Do your research next time.
As an amusing side note, somebody pointed out that one of the guys says that the Texas voters aren't a diverse crowd. He says this while on a show with two other white, liberal, middle aged guys. Go figure.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Absurd Conclusions About the Secession of Texas
It's really weird. It seems like almost any liberal talking about the possibility of Texas seceding reaches the conclusion that it will be taken over by Mexico. Huh? If Mexico would take over Texas, why don't they also take over Ecuador, El Salvador, any of those little countries in Central America? They'd be easier than Texas.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Proof that we need to GET OUT.
I found this horrifying article on my dad's blog, The New Mrs. Gunderson. If you don't think we're at the point that secession is a necessity, think again. This is nothing short of communism. This is EXACTLY what the Soviets did. It DOESN'T WORK.
U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms
Goal Is to Limit Risk to Broader Economy
By Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; A01
The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.
The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.
Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.
The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week. Sources cautioned that the details, including the Treasury's role, are still in flux.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is set to argue for the new powers at a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the furor over bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, which the government has propped up with about $180 billion in federal aid. Administration officials have said that the proposed authority would have allowed them to seize AIG last fall and wind down its operations at less cost to taxpayers.
The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy. The Federal Reserve is widely considered to be the leading candidate for this assignment. But some critics warn that this could conflict with the Fed's other responsibilities, particularly its control over monetary policy.
The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure.
Besides seizing a company outright, the document states, the Treasury Secretary could use a range of tools to prevent its collapse, such as guaranteeing losses, buying assets or taking a partial ownership stake. Such authority also would allow the government to break contracts, such as the agreements to pay $165 million in bonuses to employees of AIG's most troubled unit.
The Treasury secretary could act only after consulting with the president and getting a recommendation from two-thirds of the Federal Reserve Board, according to the plan.
Geithner plans to lay out the administration's broader strategy for overhauling financial regulation at another hearing on Thursday.
The authority to seize non-bank financial firms has emerged as a priority for the administration after the failure of investment house Lehman Brothers, which was not a traditional bank, and the troubled rescue of AIG.
"We're very late in doing this, but we've got to move quickly to try and do this because, again, it's a necessary thing for any government to have a broader range of tools for dealing with these kinds of things, so you can protect the economy from the kind of risks posed by institutions that get to the point where they're systemic," Geithner said last night at a forum held by the Wall Street Journal.
The powers would parallel the government's existing authority over banks, which are exercised by banking regulatory agencies in conjunction with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Geithner has cited that structure as the model for the government's plans.
U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms
Goal Is to Limit Risk to Broader Economy
By Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 24, 2009; A01
The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.
The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.
Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.
The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week. Sources cautioned that the details, including the Treasury's role, are still in flux.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is set to argue for the new powers at a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the furor over bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, which the government has propped up with about $180 billion in federal aid. Administration officials have said that the proposed authority would have allowed them to seize AIG last fall and wind down its operations at less cost to taxpayers.
The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy. The Federal Reserve is widely considered to be the leading candidate for this assignment. But some critics warn that this could conflict with the Fed's other responsibilities, particularly its control over monetary policy.
The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure.
Besides seizing a company outright, the document states, the Treasury Secretary could use a range of tools to prevent its collapse, such as guaranteeing losses, buying assets or taking a partial ownership stake. Such authority also would allow the government to break contracts, such as the agreements to pay $165 million in bonuses to employees of AIG's most troubled unit.
The Treasury secretary could act only after consulting with the president and getting a recommendation from two-thirds of the Federal Reserve Board, according to the plan.
Geithner plans to lay out the administration's broader strategy for overhauling financial regulation at another hearing on Thursday.
The authority to seize non-bank financial firms has emerged as a priority for the administration after the failure of investment house Lehman Brothers, which was not a traditional bank, and the troubled rescue of AIG.
"We're very late in doing this, but we've got to move quickly to try and do this because, again, it's a necessary thing for any government to have a broader range of tools for dealing with these kinds of things, so you can protect the economy from the kind of risks posed by institutions that get to the point where they're systemic," Geithner said last night at a forum held by the Wall Street Journal.
The powers would parallel the government's existing authority over banks, which are exercised by banking regulatory agencies in conjunction with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Geithner has cited that structure as the model for the government's plans.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Proof that secession is legal
Now, despite the video, probably not everyone who reads this takes secession seriously. Well, I have one thing to say in response:
Nothing. But the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and various highly respected people sure do!!
Quote #1: The Union "was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right to do so." Alexis de Tocqueville, author of the book Democracy in America, written not to long after the US' founding.
Quote #2: "We should be determined... to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government... in which alone we see liberty, safety, and happiness." Thomas Jefferson.
Quote #3: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Tenth Amendment, United States Constitution.
Quote #4: "The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the RIGHT but in the HEART. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint." John Quincy Adams.
The last quote means, in short, "Secession wouldn't be good, but it would be a heck of a lot better than being forced to stay together."
I hope I've convinced the rest of you.
Nothing. But the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and various highly respected people sure do!!
Quote #1: The Union "was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right to do so." Alexis de Tocqueville, author of the book Democracy in America, written not to long after the US' founding.
Quote #2: "We should be determined... to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government... in which alone we see liberty, safety, and happiness." Thomas Jefferson.
Quote #3: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Tenth Amendment, United States Constitution.
Quote #4: "The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the RIGHT but in the HEART. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint." John Quincy Adams.
The last quote means, in short, "Secession wouldn't be good, but it would be a heck of a lot better than being forced to stay together."
I hope I've convinced the rest of you.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Benefits of Secession
You probably saw my older post suggesting secession, and you probably thought I was crazy. This post, however, should show you that, although I'm still a nut, secession is a good idea. The best part of it would be just getting out of current troubles, and starting all over. A clean start is exactly what we need. We could look at all the mistakes the US has made and in the new country's Constitution make it as difficult as possible to repeat those. Think about it: seeing on the news "major US bailout about to take place" and not having to worry about it at all. Or seeing the crazy-high US inflation rates and knowing that you won't have to worry since your country's economy is solidly on the gold standard. And imagine being freed from the incredibly stupid Endangered Species Act. Or even sending DDT over to the poor countries that are plagued with malaria, something the US isn't allowed to do, since after getting rid of malaria here, the government banned it. Not to mention, no UN!!! Oil drilling!!! Nuclear power plants!!! I for one would be happy with just half of those benefits.
Various Interesting Facts Involving Abraham Lincoln and Secession
Fun Fact #1
Lincoln supported secession until it happened.
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, most sacred right-a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to excercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Abraham Lincoln, Jan. 12, 1848.
Fun Fact #2
West Virginia shouldn't exist.
"but no new States shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress." Article IV, Section 3, U.S. Constitution.
Fun Fact #3
New Hampshire is trying to secede.
Apparently, libertarian orginizations are requesting libertarians to move there to get a powerful majority, the state already having a large libertarian base. They will then attempt to secede, and if successful, will hopefully convince my home state of North Carolina and my favorite state of South Carolina to do the same.
Lincoln supported secession until it happened.
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, most sacred right-a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to excercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Abraham Lincoln, Jan. 12, 1848.
Fun Fact #2
West Virginia shouldn't exist.
"but no new States shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress." Article IV, Section 3, U.S. Constitution.
Fun Fact #3
New Hampshire is trying to secede.
Apparently, libertarian orginizations are requesting libertarians to move there to get a powerful majority, the state already having a large libertarian base. They will then attempt to secede, and if successful, will hopefully convince my home state of North Carolina and my favorite state of South Carolina to do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
