background image

Friday, April 24, 2009

A fun pass time on YouTube - Secession is a Right?

I'm not 100% sure how we got into a big discussion, but I am enjoying it so far. It's amazing how people want to tell you something is impossible, when indeed, nothing is impossible.

Here is the conversation thus far:

ZexMerquise (1 week ago)
+7
Texas is not a state. It's its own country.
Everything is bigger in Texas.
Don't mess with Texas.
They answer to the Republic, Liberty, Justice, and the right to bare arms.
REAL Americans live there. People who send their kids to fight for the freedom of this country.
If any other country took over this country, Texas would be the United State of America.


wittumy (3 days ago)
+1
zex....Texas is a state not its own country as you say. Glenn Beck, Rick Perry, Ted Nugent don't speak for Texans and I find it offensive none of them said a damn word until now and try to get us to believe they are not "party" biased. Mr Beck you backed and still back torture and illegal wire taps because you're scared.....seeing you stand in front of the Alamo which represents brave determination makes me ill.



Then I posted in the next min-conversation where someone called secession "treason".

USConsitution Art 3, Sec 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

If you just leave and start your own government how is that treason? You aren't declaring war, or giving their enemy aid or comfort. Perhaps that's it, then....people think when you leave a union you automatically become it's enemy? That's not the case. I know plenty of failed marriages where the couples are still amicable with each other and work together.

Keep in mind I am not saying I am for secession, but I can understand a State deciding it has had enough with the federal government and doing the only thing it can...threatening to leave. The federal government is nothing without the states the give it life.


olivemike81 (3 days ago)
0
In another segment at the Alamo Beck was practically casting a vote for Texas to succeed. If Texas does suceed, I doubt it will, and we have Civil War 2 I'll be the first one to sign up for the military and crush those traitors. Just like we did the first time.

TotalDeadEnd (3 days ago)
0
It's not that they'll rise up to try to overthrow us. They just want to run things their way without having the government interfere. Kind of like the states that Native American Indians want.

And the word is secede, by the way.

olivemike81 (3 days ago)
0
There are ways to go about this without threatening treason.

mcbluefire (1 day ago)
+1
Secession is not treason. It is a State's last line of defense against a federal government that no longer honors its side of the contract - you know that annoying Constitution thing. The government are the traitors for ignoring the law of the land they swore to uphold.

olivemike81 (1 day ago)
0
We're talking about money here. We're not talking about the federal government stealing state land or something. Obama's plan for the economy may fail but maybe you should see if it fails first before you talk about seceding from America.

mcbluefire (1 day ago)
0
Right....because money is not property and putting a debt against me, my children, and everyone in this country isn't theft? Listen to yourself. Money is what we use to buy property - it is how we are compensated for a labor - our property. The federal government has a rule book to follow - The Constitution. They are not following it and thus are governing in anarchy. Obama's plan isn't knew it is the same failed technique that prolonged the great depression.

olivemike81 (1 day ago)
0
Well actually the truth is when FDR cut back on spending the job loss rate increased. And when FDR took office in 1933 unemployment was at 25%. Just before World War II it was less than 10%.
And it's not like Obama is planning to keep all the money he spent in his plan. The idea is to stimulate the economy and eventually pay off the money spent. Not exactly stealing.

mcbluefire (1 day ago)
0
Government temporary jobs are not a solution to unemployment. If it is such a great bill, why was Congress not given a reasonable amount of time to read a 700+ page bill? It was never read in session. HR1 was about paying off campaign contributers, not helping the economy. Look at the language - most of the money doesn't even have to be (or cannot be) used until 2003 before he starts campaigning again. Look: 200 million for homeless, but 2.8 billion for broadband - that's priorities!

wittumy (1 day ago)
0
mcblue....succession is not a possibility...you're believing idiots like Perry. I bet you also liked Bush didn't you?

mcbluefire (1 day ago)
0
Aye, as a liberty loving Constitutionalist , I just adored all the work that Bush did in dismantling it. Anything is possible, and The People reserve the right to throw off government that no longer works for them and setup a new government that will defend their rights and their way of life. Read the Declaration of Independence sometime and then convince me that the people who fought a war for that right gave it up when they joined the Union voluntarily. Bush was one more bad president.

wittumy (1 day ago)
0
mcblue....let's save time....what in the constitution says they can. I, even with Bush's faults do not have a loss of faith in my government.

mcbluefire (1 day ago)
0
The Constitution limited the federal government, removed a bit of power from he States, not the People. Therefore, since it is not listed as a right removed from the States, it is a right retained by the States. I do not have faith in any -body- that lies repeatedly. Our government is too big to be blindly trusted, period. I don't want secession, I want the government to follow the Supreme Law of the Land.

wittumy (1 day ago)
0
mcblue...you're still not there. Where does it say you can seceed if you don't like what the government is doing.

mcbluefire (1 day ago)
0
Ah, I see... let's play that game. Show me where it says a State cannot, then. No amendment was made following the civil war that specifically removes the right of secession, so I guess that question still isn't settled. I'll stick to the federalist papers view of the Constitution and the 10th amendment which leaves all rights to the States and The People which aren't specifically granted to the feds...thus guaranteeing the right of leaving the union just as they joined it - voluntarily.

wittumy (10 hours ago)
0
mcblue.....you were the one who said they could seceed not I. I've asked for proof and you wish to push the burden of your comment to me.....what "game" am I playing?

mcbluefire (4 hours ago)
0
Wow. I've given you all the proof necessary. Anything not prohibited by the Constitution remains a right. The fact that you can't understand that is amazing to me. Any State can seceed and has the right to do so. This isn't a union any more binding than a marriage. Anything that can be created can be ended. If it helps you sleep better at night you keep believing the socialist pledge of "indivisible", I'll stick with Freedom. Good luck to you.

wittumy (1 hour ago)
0
mcblue....I'm not a socialist anymore than you're a damn fascist so cut the elementary school bullshit. Of course "anything that is created can be ended"....but there is usually a reason/cause. What in the constitution says any little bit of disent can be grounds for a state to seceed...as you suggest? Who decides whether the government is lying...Glen freaking Beck? Give me something in the constitution that identifies states' right to seceed and what is necessary to prove the right to do so.

mcbluefire (20 minutes ago)
0
You get upset too quickly. I didn't call you a socialist, I called the Pledge socialist. Glen Beck is of no significance to me, other than an American who knows something is very wrong as well. When does a State have the right to secede? Why can't you read my posts and see your answer? When The Federal Government No Longer Operates Within The Bounds Of The Constitution. That is when. More to the point whenever the people of that State no longer find it in their best interest to remain.

mcbluefire (17 minutes ago)
0
Forgive me for using elementary school bs, but you are begging me for the obvious answer that is already there and acting like it isn't. We The People run this country and our States, not Us The Government. This country has a government, not the other way around. Realize that secession is a last resort of a State when it has no other choice and quit wasting time trying to prove people don't have that choice. We hope it doesn't come to that - but it is an option.

I am now waiting for his likely reply. It is very confusing to me that we are having a long drawn out argument over something that is up to the states to decide. I sense that we are probably on the same page for most things when it comes to Liberty, except that Wittumy doesn't think we are past the point of no return thus far. I believe it could still be solved on paper, but a miracle would have to occur to get the our federal government back in line with the Constitution and suddenly voting away all the powers they've grabbed. I want that miracle, and I'm praying for it!

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Fed up, yet?

I am so tired of people saying that the government had to do something to fix the financial mess. Prove it! Where in the Constitution does the federal government derive it's power to act in a financial crisis?

"The government is not here to ensure our financial welfare by borrowing against our future. No one can borrow their way out of debt. Doing nothing is exactly what our Constitution required this anarchist government to do. They think they know better than the founding fathers. The truth is they are the reason we are in this mess and they are just making it worse. Wake up! Government is never the solution it is the disease! It is fire, not warmth. It consumes, it does not create." -Marc Bessent

Sunday, April 19, 2009

My thoughts on the Church transforming the world

This was in response to a letter that Reverend Carl posted to a forum I am in. He has been feeling moved by the spirit and realizes that his church isn't alive in the spirit, but rather is dead in the world. Much of what he wrote I agreed with, but when it came to the Church needing to transform the world, I felt moved to fill in the details a bit. Basically the body of Christ is here to bring people to Him so that they may know Him and choose to live a Godly life - we cannot do it by force, nor should we for it is in disobedience to God when we do.

Here is my response:


A powerful message, Reverend Carl!

I feel compelled to respond, not only to commend you for voicing what you know to be true and what you have felt but because I feel that the Holy Spirit is moving me to remind us that we must not let the church be modified by the world nor is the church to modify the world, but rather one person at a time by bringing them to know the Lord. I picked up on the portion where you state that the Church is to transform the world. As long as that is done through the church and even local policy, it may succeed, but when it rises to national and empire levels as law it fails.

We are to reach out to as many people as we can and attempt to bring them to the Lord through Jesus. We can, however, only plant the seed. It is not our time to shape the world. When we try, we fail miserably and very quickly our moral laws that we get placed into the world work to defeat us or destroy the lives of those we had hoped to protect. Examples of such laws of morality that have been put into place and are failing their intended purpose include the drug laws, the attempt to make abortion illegal, attempts to regulate sexuality between two consenting adults... to name a few.

I am concerned that a worst case scenario of abortion is that one day not only will it be 100% legal but it will also be a tool of "the state" to be ordered on people as officials see fit. I am sure the fight against this sin has gone on long before recorded history. Well intended people of our states achieved some success making the practice illegal at local and state levels. Yet, when those people pressed to have it made illegal at the federal level not only did they lose, their efforts were reversed and we eventually lost the right for states to make it illegal. Now we have legislation in process that will make it illegal for medical providers to refuse to provide abortion. This is the natural result of trying to press Christian ideals on a broken world.

As horrible as abortion is, it is a sin. The Lord sees no degree of sin. All sin is equal in His eyes. There is no question that our Lord has beaten evil and will always triumph! Evil cannot defeat his design and in adversity the Lord shows himself. With the truth that all those who are not of age to decide to accept Him, He brings them to him. Thus, there are over 50 million "American" souls who went straight to the Lord in Heaven. Does that not fly directly in the face of evil? It is a major silver lining on such a terrible cloud.

I believe that we should fight evil, but not through the force of law over those who have not chosen to accept the true path to God. We must fight evil through example and by sharing the natural law that surrounds most sins. Naturally a drug user will become addicted, endure bodily harm, and reduce their healthy lifespan. Naturally a woman who submits to abortion will feel some remorse and wonder if there could have been a better way, or even physically suffer during and after the procedure.

We need sinners in the pews, so that the message of Christ may eventually reach their hearts and then they will repent and come to know the glory of their future in Him. There is a difference between members of the body of Christ, and souls that need to hear the message so that one day they may be saved. You can, however get many of the sinners who have no desire to ever change to willingly leave your church by preaching the true Gospel of the Lord and changing the direction of the Church from one of comfort to one of principle. As an example, Chuck Baldwin sure upset many members of his church when decided to run for President on the Constitution Party ticket, and after viewing many of his sermons I can see how bringing the truth of the word of God to bear on our present day can make people decide to find a calmer church that ignores adversity and thrives on comfort and fellowship or just focuses on one or two sins, making everyone else in the Church feel like they are fine and dandy.

God gave us free will so that we may each turn to Him or commit ourselves to Hell as we chose. It is error for any man to step in and tell a person that he must conform to the will of God. Judgement has not come to America, perhaps it is true that we have lost some of the favor of our Lord... The Lord permits adversity and trials so that we may turn toward Him to seek His Love and Strength. Think about it from a different perspective: When we live comfortably in luxury are we in God's favor or are we letting ourselves be pacified into thinking we do not need Him? I tend to believe the later, for Heaven will not come to us until after we die knowing that Jesus died for the forgiveness of our sins. Not the sins of the past, but for all the sins for all time that this "world" is permitted to exist.

As long as we work with each other and help our brothers and sisters by ensuring we keep true history preserved, keep our focus on the Saviour, and live as close as we can to the example of our Lord we will reach others and they will know what it is to be a Christian.