[cia-drugs] Firestorm Brewing Between U.S. States and Federal Government
Firestorm Brewing Between U.S. States and Federal Government by Lance L. Landon February 19, 2009' OpEdNews States May Be Getting Ready To Dissolve Our Federal Government Could this be an ominous shadow drawing on the end of the United States of America? For years the Federal Government has presumed to be the all-powerful force governing our country, but it just could be that the Federal Government only exists at the pleasure of the state governments and the citizens thereof. States declaring sovereignty sounds like an act of secession and revolution. However the federal government can apparently be dissolved and another one formed anew at the discretion of the states. The existing Federal government may not leave willingly like so many European governments that are replaced routinely and it may engage a military effort with our own soldiers or the likes of a Black Water illegal military invasion to retain total control over us. United States Federal Government laws are often in violation of the Tenth Amendment, which is perturbing, these events. This is predicated on an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation, which states that, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation [now Federation] expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” A growing number of states are declaring their sovereignty afforded under the U S Constitution’s Tenth Amendment however the conventional news media are not telling you about what is happening. The State of Washington on Wednesday - 11 February 2009 and most recently, New Hampshire [2009], Montana [2009], Hawaii [2009], Michigan [2009], Missouri [2009], Arizona [2008], Oklahoma [2008], Georgia [1996], and California [1994] all of which have introduced bills and resolutions declaring and reaffirming their sovereignty. Some other states have done this in the past but then let the issue go. Additionally, the states of Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering similar measures. More well may follow, such as Wyoming and Mississippi. The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791 and states, “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.” Historically, this was done to reassert the assignment of the remaining rights to the states and the people of our country if they were not specifically delegated by our Constitution to the United States Government. Further, Amendment Nine on the Construction of the Constitution, Ratified on 15 December 1791 states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Arizona State Legislature is currently formulating a bill that declares their state sovereignty. Their bill further asserts their state’s right during martial law to call back servicemen to protect Arizona state, …if the President or any other federal entity attempts to institute martial law or its equivalent without an official declaration in one or more of the states without the consent of that state …” There is more near the end of this article. A lot of this recent activity has come about due to the reckless demise of the banking system now and also in memory of the past during the great depression that fomented during 1929. There is a Russian academic, Igor Panarin who recently predicted that the United States would break apart into about six separate regions by 2010. Predictions of similar persuasion have been made before, rather they are right or not some big problems may soon ensue. Much of the presidential character of the cabinet assembled by President Obama is representative of that of the previous administration. Obama perhaps is keeping the Adage, “keep your friends close and keep your enemies even closer.” A disrespect for our so-called leaders is met from our so-called leaders disrespect for us the citizens of our country. Should this be the case yet again, this would establish further reason for the states course of recent action It may seem ironic that as we have a President from the land of Lincoln, and one who admires Lincoln, that another civil war could be brewing. It’s further ironic that states are beginning to fight back. Many individuals that were imprisoned by Abraham Lincoln for advocating their free speech on issues of the day. These times may be as exciting and revolutionary as when our country was beginning. Benjamin Franklin said something on the order of, “if we do not hang together, we most certainly will hang separately.” Its also ironic that our revolutionary war was with Great Britain
Re: [cia-drugs] Firestorm Brewing Between U.S. States and Federal Government
Dear Norgesen, Thank you for Firestorm Brewing Between U.S. States and Federal Government. This concept is getting both positive and negative reaction. I think both reactions need a deeper historical overview to grasp both the implications and the bigger picture this needs to fit into. Here is a negative one. THE ZIONIST PLAN FOR THE BALKANIZATION OF AMERICA Posted By: Il_Bagattel Date: Saturday, 21 February 2009, 11:33 a.m. (Quote) ...Exactly as the hyperdimensional Luciferians planned. Small feudal states (I believe the neurolinguistic name is breakaway republics), kept bickering among themselves and divided along socio-economic lines are much easier to control and rule. This is basic Machiavelli 101. (Unquote and I greatly shortened) He goes on to state a breakup of the US is all part of a horrid secret government plan. The negative view poster is also equating this sign of trend with balkanization. Though the specific I dont think directly referenced in Machiavellis The Prince the concept of dividing areas you wish to control into competing factions and playing one against the other is known. In that sense he equates smaller and smaller independent areas as harmful. A glance at some maps might show this far more case specific. Here is a classic: Central Europe about 1547 (845K) [p.114-115] [1926 ed.] The link is here: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/central_europe_1547.jpg Note the breaking into very small kingdoms. This period was relatively very peaceful except for the slight gooking of Schmalkaldic League. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmalkaldic_League Wars did abound during that century, but there were also strong times of relative peace. The Reformation was still frothing. In times of peace the world tends to reduce, (or balkanize if you wish), into smaller and smaller kingdoms/states. In times of war the world forms into greater and greater alliances until such as WW II only a few countries in the world are neutral. I could add my own comments to the post. However I feel it best that all think how differently the man who wrote it might have aimed the post with more background. The giant question of smaller states vs large alliances gets very complicated. This was brought forth by the situation in Georgia and the Ukraine. On one hand the former Soviet Union WANTED to break up. This was known here in 1984 and there were briefings in the Pentagon in 86 though the curtain did not come down until 89/90. (The Pentagon briefings were very large, 1000s of varied officers and not classified but not too loud.) This was a case where the Soviet/Russian alliance/federation knew the trend was to smaller areas and allowed such. At the same time the West used the opportunity of new governments to go in and buy infrastructures to take over economies. Both the Ukraine and Georgia were, to an extent, examples of this. The war in Georgia showed how the West took over to the point of both military and public relations stupidity. After the recent Georga War the Ukraine saw it in its best interest to more tilt back toward the Russian alliance. However, (in relation to timing Black Sea agreements), Russia quasi-openly stated something to the effect, We know the world needs to go local but for a short time you had best lean on this shoulder. The pro breakup email post, in and of itself, is harder to criticize. Certainly the trend should be noted. It is far better to fit this into the bigger picture. For both protection and sustainability the world, (hopefully!!!), will tend to smaller and smaller governing areas. As much as possible the necessities will be available locally. The small areas will be independent enough to satisfy all. In a sense these smaller areas will be somewhat like Parishes in Louisiana are today. One Parish might be super fundamental Christian so you cant even buy a can of beer. In the next Parish there would be quasi-open prostitution and gambling. Obviously at the same time there would be greater need for global cooperation particularly in survival areas such as population control and enviornment. That is the rub and, yes, it is one heck of a rub. Some envision four international, (non-profit?), corporations: energy, communications, banking/commerce, and police/military. These might have relatively low paid staffs. In fact the presiding officer of one might even do one hour a day emptying trash baskets. As this, (possible/hopeful?), trend continues its course you will see some giant area alliances. One obvious new geopolitical alliance is the AUs announcement of plans for a United States of Africa. There many other lines need be redrawn as it would be far better to base smaller governments on old tribal areas than Colonial Era bicker/settle lines. Thank you again, Norgeson. I do keep abreast of this list every day. Michael
