PDA

View Full Version : New Hampshire Talks Civil War Against Feds


Arglebargle
02-11-2009, 05:06 PM
New Hampshire Talks Civil War Against Feds
Op-Ed Contributor

by Hal Turner

http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=86510&catid=823

NORTH BERGEN, NJ — (OfficialWire) — 02/11/09 —

The New Hampshire state legislature took an unbelievably bold step today by introducing a resolution to declare certain actions by the federal government to completely totally void and warning that certain future acts will be viewed as a "breach of peace" with the states themselves that risks "nullifying the Constitution."

This act by New Hampshire is a clear warning to the federal government that they could face being stripped of their power by the States (presumably through civil war)!

The remarkable document outlines with perfect clarity, some basics long forgotten. For instance, it reminds Congress "That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever;. . . . . therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force;"

Federal gun crime laws? Void. Federal drug crime laws? Void. The gazzillion other federal criminal laws that deal with anything other than the specific enumerated crimes? ALL VOID.

One would think that if any lawyer anywhere in the entire country was worth his salt, all federal criminal trials would have ended years ago. This seems to prove that most lawyers are dullards.

New Hampshire deals a complete death blow to the pending federal hate crimes legislation by pointing out "That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; . . . . ."

Later in the Resolution, New Hampshire makes clear what the feds are now risking if they proceed further: The removal of all powers from the federal government by the States!

Quoting directly from the Resolution:

"That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually."

I have reported on this blog for quite some time that we here in the United States are heading toward Civil War. Many of you told me I was a nut for thinking that.

The simple fact is that we are long overdue for another Rebellion in this nation and I heartily endorse the idea of having one again very soon; preferably starting THIS year!

We must stop our federal government dead in its tracks because it is out of control and very dangerous. If stopping them means attacking them and destroying them by force, then so be it.

Blendix 007
02-11-2009, 05:28 PM
Having grown up in NH and spent most of life residing there, I feel like this a step in the right direction. I fully endorse this act and will defend it with my life, if need be.

I don't think it will pass in the legislature though. We've been invaded by elitist liberals from the south seeking to buy up our land because they overbuilt and destroyed theirs.

Live free or die.

KindGeeGirl
02-12-2009, 06:49 PM
It's about time they lived up to that license plate. Curious to see where this leads.

Live free or die :V:

wowzers
02-12-2009, 07:09 PM
We've been invaded by elitist liberals from the south seeking to buy up our land because they overbuilt and destroyed theirs.

Live free or die.

We didn't over build, people from florida did.

Uncle Coulro
02-12-2009, 08:58 PM
Washington and several other states have similar bills in committee. I wonder if NH, or any of the others, will pass theirs?

mule64
02-13-2009, 05:36 PM
I have heard that it is going to be brought up in every state. Oklahoma has a similar bill being discussed.

Blendix 007
02-13-2009, 06:28 PM
I have heard that it is going to be brought up in every state. Oklahoma has a similar bill being discussed.

8 states have drafted similar resolutions.

PeaceFrog
02-14-2009, 01:02 AM
Glad I'm in New York. We PWN the northeast.

china cat
02-14-2009, 10:14 AM
I passed this article on to my brother and thought he'd like more articles from this writer so I googled Hal Turner. Not that it negates the content of the article (with which I strongly agree) but yikes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Turner

Blendix 007
02-14-2009, 11:00 AM
I passed this article on to my brother and thought he'd like more articles from this writer so I googled Hal Turner. Not that it negates the content of the article (with which I strongly agree) but yikes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Turner

Regardless of this particular blogger this is actually happening. I've read the entire text of this bill. It consists of excerpts from the Constitution and excerpts from Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions 1798.

Penned by Congressman Dan Itse (R), he calls it the line in the sand. The federal gov't has seized the power they have, but they will seize no more.

It's mostly a stand to acknowledge the existence of the 10th amendment and the Constitution as a whole and to recognize it as law, which it is.

He says that this isn't for the purpose of succession but failure to recognize the Constitution by the federal gov't nullifies the union entirely. IE, if they chose to disregard the legal contract that binds us then there is no union and succession isn't necessary as there is no union to succeed from.

It gives the people of NH an out. If they cross anyone of the 6 boundaries laid out in the bill, then the people of NH no longer have to answer to the federal gov't and the federal gov't no longer has the power to enforce it's laws in NH.

"I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually."

china cat
02-14-2009, 11:07 AM
as already stated.. "not that it negates the content of the article..."

Arglebargle
02-17-2009, 04:06 PM
I think it's interesting that the right and left both agree that the federal government is corrupt and destroying our freedom, and one side thinks its the democrats and liberals, and the other thinks it the republicans and neocons.

Blendix 007
02-17-2009, 05:22 PM
Or one side believes in reducing gov't, thereby reducing the power held over us, and the other seeks to expand it, thereby increasing power held over us.

I'm neither a democrat or republican. I tend to vote republican in local elections but vote libertarian in national elections.

IMO, republicans have it right, in rhetoric at least. I just wish they'd start voting like they talk on the campaign trail. In the beltway, they talk small gov't and then vote like liberal democrats. I submit that both parties are a problem and have squandered the wealth of America away.

Arglebargle
02-17-2009, 05:43 PM
Or one side believes in reducing gov't, thereby reducing the power held over us, and the other seeks to expand it, thereby increasing power held over us.




That's exactly what I mean. We both want the government to have less power over our lives, and we each blame the other side. Then we see that both sides are guilty, but make rationalizations when our own sides do it.

PeaceFrog
02-17-2009, 10:20 PM
I don't think any third party is the answer, either.

It's like a pendulum swing. Each side can only see the faults of the other side, apparently.

That's the beauty of it, I guess.

zenLoki
02-18-2009, 02:20 AM
it amazes me that all this is coming at the cusp of Obama's term and not during Governor Bush's 8 years. heard rumors of this a few months back but about Vermont and Washington and glad to hear that some states are taking a stand. my greatest fear was that they would roll over on command which would doom us all to federal servitude. blendix, like you i stand with repubs for the most part and campaigned for Ron Paul's nomination but the party has been hijacked. although they've been talking small gov't since Reagan the past 8 years have shown us something quite different.

if anyone is looking for insight into where the federal power grab is leading read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine.

Blendix 007
02-18-2009, 05:17 PM
They tried it before the Patriot Act too but it didn't pass or garner as much attention.

china cat
02-18-2009, 10:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK2g0TGaAZA&feature=related

china cat
02-19-2009, 01:09 PM
even mtv is on board?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reCpV1YHuYs (https://webmail.uri.edu/redirect?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reCpV1YHuYs)

zenLoki
02-19-2009, 05:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reCpV1YHuYs (https://webmail.uri.edu/redirect?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reCpV1YHuYs)

seems MTV is setting things up to flow in a certain direction. that is one scary message to be putting out there for the general public and it's bound to increase the atmosphere of fear that's out there now. increase fear, increase stress and when something goes down people will be clamoring for the government to take care of them.