[mattduke]

Obamas bill of right shredding power grab National Defense Authorization Act has been met wih open defiance by at least 16 counties.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 ... ects-ndaa/

[Cloud9]

This is an age old argument that has been going on since the inception of the government. The Federalists never wanted a Bill of Rights. They only agreed to one because they needed the Antifederalists to sign on in order to get the Constitution ratified.

The concept of federalism as borrowed from the Iroquois Confederation can best be modeled by a tetrahedron. A tetrahedron is a four sided pyramid. It is one of the most stable and durable geometric forms. The three visible sides of the pyramid represent the three sources of power in the federal system. The first and most obvious side is the federal government. The second is the state governments. And the third is the people themselves.

The fourth side, the base of the pyramid, represents the fourth estate, the press, the internet. It is the medium in which the free flow of ideas and information interact. Without the fourth estate the three visible sides cannot appropriately appraise their situational environment and make informed decisions.

Since the inception of the republic, the Federalists have gone about garnishing more and more power for themselves at the expense of the people and the states. Decisions beginning with Marbury v. Madison and military expeditions like the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War have shrunk the state’s side of the pyramid and the people’s side of the pyramid to mere shadows.

The NDAA was the final victory of the Federalists over the Antifederalists. It stripped the Constitution of the Bill of Rights. I suspect it is a pyric victory. The system is out of balance. The states and the people know this. The original agreement between the Federalist and the Antifederalist has been broken. The social contract between the federal government and the people has been shredded.

Balance will be restored. We are in the initial stages of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Those were the first steps toward civil war. At some point, the heavy hand of the Federalists will come down on sections of the population they deem to be dangerous to their interests and the status quo. This will marginalize the support for the ruling oligarchy. Given a legitimate electoral process, the required balance will be restored by the ballot. If the electoral process is thwarted by blatant and obvious corruption then the ballot will be replaced by bombs and bullets.

In the last civil war, the Federalist were able to wrap themselves in the flag of the Union and claim the righteous stance of abolitionists. They were able to couch their power grab in the terms of liberators. The shredding of state’s rights at Appomattox was seen by the majority as blow for liberty. The nation celebrated union and the end of slavery.

Today, the endless growth of petty fiefdoms within the federal bureaucracy has brought the federal government into every aspect of our daily lives. The salaries and pensions of those bureaucrats cannot be sustained in a contracting economy without the continual and perpetual debasement of the currency.

This debasement will collapse the system. The vision of total control so dear to the Federalists is an illusion. The closer they come to their goal, the closer we come to the collapse of the system. The day that socialism succeeded in the Soviet Union was the day the system collapsed.

[dinopello]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cloud9', 'B')alance will be restored.

[Pops]

Nice, cloud.

-- Matt
Silly to title the thread with the name of the Other since the argument goes that the statute simply reiterates the post 9/11 Authorization of Force law.

So vacate Os NDAA sacrilege and lets get back to good old fashioned Bushco AUMF, is that your point?

Divide and conquer is the best tactic so score one for the conquers.

[SeaGypsy]

The definitions are no different in their deliberate total vagueness. My favourite is: "To hold the person/s until 'hostilities cease'. Given that we are entering an age 'the long emergency' where there will be an endless stream of people going nuts at TPTB; this term could easily be taken as 'for the natural term of life'.

[autonomous]

In addition to the aformentioned counties, there are cities and states that have passed legislation "nullifying" the NDAA:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/ndaa/

[mattduke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'N')ice, cloud.

-- Matt
Silly to title the thread with the name of the Other since the argument goes that the statute simply reiterates the post 9/11 Authorization of Force law.

So vacate Os NDAA sacrilege and lets get back to good old fashioned Bushco AUMF, is that your point?

Divide and conquer is the best tactic so score one for the conquers.

[SeaGypsy]

In Australia various state governments have been trying to introduce 'Anti Bikie' legislation/ amounting to 'crime by association'. New South Wales (the biggest pop state/ home of Sydney) it is a crime to associate with anyone who has a criminal record, more than 3 meetings and you are a criminal for knowing one. Absolutely ridiculous law, if you are friends with someone who is convicted of a crime you must write them off and never associate with them again. I bring this up because similarly to the Bush/ Obama Homelands security bills/ laws which do away with ordinary freedoms are being put through with nary a whisper of dissent. The gullible public assume that trust can be fairly placed with the authorities to not abuse these laws. This is the thin edge of the wedge. Government taking enormous liberty to destroy freedoms, which they may at any future time begin to use as they see fit. Whether talking about crime in general (including stupid drug laws etc.) or 'terrorism' (politically motivated violence)/ the state should have to prove a crime before they can convict or punish a criminal/ terrorist. These laws are about being able to arrest and detain on suspicion; wildly open to interpretation.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mattduke', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'N')ice, cloud.

-- Matt
Silly to title the thread with the name of the Other since the argument goes that the statute simply reiterates the post 9/11 Authorization of Force law.

So vacate Os NDAA sacrilege and lets get back to good old fashioned Bushco AUMF, is that your point?

Divide and conquer is the best tactic so score one for the conquers.

[mattduke]

Take a moment for introspection into your own knee-jerk reaction to a post highlighting resistance to NDAA tyranny. You are hesitant to decry the crimes of Obama because you hate the Republicans more. And thus the crimes continue, while always a full one-half of the population remains silent.

[Cloud9]

We must understand that both parties are dominated by Federalists.

[SeaGypsy]

Who are as much as they dain to admit, duty bound to multinational corporatism.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mattduke', 'T')ake a moment for introspection into your own knee-jerk reaction to a post highlighting resistance to NDAA tyranny. You are hesitant to decry the crimes of Obama because you hate the Republicans more. And thus the crimes continue, while always a full one-half of the population remains silent.

[mattduke]

If you are against NDAA why did you vote for Obama? A simple veto from your dear leader is all it would take. I can't recall Obama as having ever vetoed anything at all! I can't believe you rubes voted for him. The next time I see a Obama sign adjacent to an anti war sign I'm going to lose my mind.

[dissident]

One would have to be detached from reality not to a smell a rat with all of these police state laws. What is the new threat that requires change in the legislation this deep? Don't tell me it is Islamic terrorists. Any 9/11 repeats yet? How about thwarted ones more substantial than the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber?

The only logical conclusion is that the deciders know that social breakdown is in the pipeline. These laws are designed to protect the US government from its own people. It is good to see that some people are at least half awake, but unfortunately the majority are not. Also, it does not matter who you vote for, the agenda is always the same as evidenced by actions and not words.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mattduke', '[')i]If you are against NDAA why did you vote for Obama? A simple veto from your dear leader is all it would take. I can't recall Obama as having ever vetoed anything at all! I can't believe you rubes voted for him. The next time I see a Obama sign adjacent to an anti war sign I'm going to lose my mind.

[mattduke]

The simple fact is that you vote for presidents that sign Patriot Act and NDAA into law and I do not. You are the problem. I'm surrounded by people like you that keep voting for these criminals, starry eyed and dazzled every four years, fooled every single time.

[Pops]

Ah, so the problem is people who vote?

Got it.

[Cloud9]

Why not punish the guy who signed it by voting for the other guy. Would Romney another Federalist have signed the same legislation? Probably, but probably doesn't out weigh did.

[mattduke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'A')h, so the problem is people who vote?

Got it.