Posted on 10/11/2009 3:28:57 PM PDT by combat_boots
I'm going to go back to this quote by Barney Frank of the US House, because it says everything those in state and local governments need to know:
Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in an interview that the defaults were, in essence, worth it.
“I don’t think it’s a bad thing that the bad loans occurred,” he said. “It was an effort to keep prices from falling too fast. That’s a policy.”
Got it? It's a policy to screw the state and local governments.
Huh, you say? It's simple, really: State and local governments rely on property tax revenues. Yet defaulted mortgages don't pay property taxes. Yes, there's a lien on the property but this doesn't help the municipal budget now.
And suffer they are:
Tax revenues used to pay teachers and fuel police cars continue to trail even the most pessimistic expectations, despite the cash from the economic stimulus plan pouring into state coffers.
"It's crazy. It's really just unbelievable," said Scott Pattison, executive
(Excerpt) Read more at market-ticker.denninger.net ...
Secession? ABSOLUTELY! It is way past time to tell all those useless eaters on the federal payroll to go screw themselves.
Moreover, this time around, EVERY state should cut bait, and then turn DC into a financial wasteland. March in, and take every last piece of property, right down to the last granite block. There is absolutely NOTHING in that city worth preserving, except for the Constitution... the rest of it could burn to the ground, and I would not shed a single tear.
That’s easy... the states likely to secede have all the nuclear weapons... Get my drift?
“...Zero hasn’t been able to put his bad policy ideas into effect because of dissent....”
Oh really?
Were you just born this morning?
I’ll go you one further:
In 1871 an Act was passed by Congress, and signed into law, which made the United States a commercial corporation, and gave the federal government sole ownership of the titles: United States of America, United States, and U.S. More prudentially, the title of the Constitution was changed in a very subtle yet exceedingly important way. The Preamble of our Constitution reads “...Do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” The key word is FOR, not OF. When it was written, the US Constitution had no title. The title was added at the time of printing, whence the title was excerpted from the Preamble: ‘The Constitution for the United States’
Now, that title is very important because the word “for” places supremacy of the Constitution over the federal entity called the United States. However, in 1871, by an Act of Congress, this was changed to read (on all documents excepting the Constitution) ‘The Constitution of the United States’... The word “of” immediately reversed the supremacy of the relationship and placed the Constitution beneath the federal government, as a set of by-laws under a corporation. Therefore the federal government is no longer under the constraints of the Constitution, but operates under the Uniform Commercial Code... and Admiralty Law (This is why the United States Supreme Court will hear no case relating to Obama’s eligibility for POTUS) Thus the federal government ceased to be federal, and in 1871 became a “national supreme power” ... an entity and arrangement flatly rejected during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
(Read the Journal of the Convention, or read John Taylor (of Caroline) ‘New Views of the Constitution of the United States’(2000, Regnery Publishing, Inc. First published in 1825 by Way and Gideon, Washington D.C.)
Oooooh... I LIKE your thinking!
What’s to stop the feds? The fact that the states most likely to secede have nuclear weapons... and it would only require 30 minutes to re target the warheads. How’s that for a disincentive?
Yeah... just as soon as we sink Lincoln and Omaha into the Missouri River, and Ben Nelson with them.
OH YEAH? ... Well, MY 2nd Amendment can BEAT UP your 2’nd amendment... So there!
“Where in the constitution does it give the federal government the authority to take my money simply to give it to someone else for no services rendered?”
“Where does it forbid it?”
“WOW N-S .... Are you a lawyer?”
No, but he plays one on T.V. ! LOL
Only an idiot would think the Constitution does not forbid it. NS is an idiot. He has shown that often here.
“and it would only require 30 minutes to re target the warheads.”
About 30 seconds really...and they know it.
“Where does it forbid it?”
Right here:
“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.”
It is called the Tenth Amendment.
“If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions’ authors (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power.”
–Thomas E. Woods
“And there is no doubt that rebellion is a right reserved to the people when they feel that there is no other alternative available to them. But the Constitution also gives Congress the power to suppress such rebellions, so it isn’t going to be a walk in the park.”
Neither was the American War for Independence... Should freedom have kowtowed to tyranny then too?
“It is far less dangerous today. There is no one in Northeast or on the left coast ready to lay down their lives to defend their own cities from attack. They’re sure not going to die for fly-over country.”
Well, alright! I will not have to fire on a moving target.
“The Constitution is a negative document. A power not granted is forbidden.”
“Actually it’s the other way around.”
Actually, it is a combination of both. Read John Taylor ‘New views of the Constitution of the United States (Way and Gideon, Washington D.C., 1823) You might also read Judge Joseph Story ‘A Popular Exposition of the Constitution of the United States’ (1825) which is an abridge version of his multiple volume study of the Constitution
Without the Federal government interfering in border enforcement, without the federal government committing acts of treason to aid abed and assist the Mexican invaders... Texas would be UNRESTRAINED, and WOULD BE MORE THAN ABLE to beat the freaking crap our of the Mexicans in any fight... just as they did once before... REMEMBER THE ALAMO!
“So, please tell me, just how do we “sit” on someone else’s Congressman? How do we “sit” on the Senators from the other states?”
It’s called a baseball bat... and an opponent having the guts to swing it full force. We use to call them “blanket parties.”
I agree there were many important issues involved in the Civil War, one of which was the principle and idea of Slavery. This is not an unusual thing with Civil Wars. What tends to happen is that the extremists on both sides (the ones with the low-brow mentality who shout a lot, appealing to emotion not reason) “force” people to choose sides, so that issues/reasons/concepts become tied to one side or another. So, States rights became tied to the South, slavery, and agriculture/ruralism, whereas Federal Union becomes tied to emancipation/industry/commerce. Prior to 1860, all Americans believed in States Rights. Most still do, But it is especially highly thought of in the South, and as the South lost the civil war, the impulse of States rights was weakened.
I have to disagree that Slavery was not the driving force behind the Civil War. I know most southerners never owned slaves and most couldn’t care less about them - they were fighting for independence and their “rights”. I also agree that the South, as a section, did have genuine grievances - but the point is those grievances, in and of themselves, would not have been enough to push the South into rebellion. It was slavery that poisoned all discussion. There are those who claim that the South only pushed the idea of States Rights so strongly because it gave them the political power to continue with Slavery. I think that’s too cynical, but it is certainly true that maintainence of the one supported the other.
Lincoln was a republican and therefore an abolotionist. He was a comparative moderate on the issue, but he was, quite definitely, anti-slavery. He didn’t declare emancipation right at the get-go because he was also a politician and he understood that in war the most important battles are foought with words, not bullets. Declaring emancipation would have causes huge upset and rallied the slave states. By making the war “just” about maintaining the union, Lincoln managed to get four slave states as allies (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware) and that was the first real victory for the Union.
Obviously Lincoln benefited from the re-telling of the war. He was on the winning side. He also had the fortune of being killed at the end of it, before his reputation could be sullied by the postbellum world :)
Don’t consider this to be argumentative. I merely add this to the discussion. Review these comments and see if you find the question of Lincoln’s true motives to be somewhat more in doubt that you first thought.
I am not convinced of Lincoln’s point of view, and am not wedded to the idea he did not want to end slavery. I do however think there is some question as to what his true motives were initially.
It’s my take that he wanted to preserve the union. I believe this remained his only goal until the last year of the war. As I said, I believe he declared the Emancipation Proclamation to curry more support for the war.
After reading those statements of his, do you find yourself more susceptible to this view? If not, that’s fine by me.
Let them have the east coast. How do we begin?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.