Nullification

[galtgulch]

<<<"(1788 – 89) Measures passed by the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky as a protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts. Drafted by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson (though their role went unknown for 25 years), the resolutions protested limitations on civil liberties and declared the right of states to decide on the constitutionality of federal legislation. Though their authors applied the resolutions to the specific issues of the day, Southern states later used the measures to support the theories of nullification and secession.

Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, in U.S. history, resolutions passed in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were enacted by the Federalists in 1798. The Jeffersonian Republicans first replied in the Kentucky Resolutions, adopted by the Kentucky legislature in Nov., 1798. Written by Thomas Jefferson himself, they were a severe attack on the Federalists' broad interpretation of the Constitution, which would have extended the powers of the national government over the states. The resolutions declared that the Constitution merely established a compact between the states and that the federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it under the terms of the compact; should the federal government assume such powers, its acts under them would be unauthoritative and therefore void. It was the right of the states and not the federal government to decide as to the constitutionality of such acts. A further resolution, adopted in Feb., 1799, provided a means by which the states could enforce their decisions by formal nullification of the objectionable laws. A similar set of resolutions was adopted in Virginia in Dec., 1798, but these Virginia Resolutions, written by James Madison, were a somewhat milder expression of the strict construction of the Constitution and the compact theory of the Union. The resolutions were submitted to the other states for approval with no real result; their chief importance lies in the fact that they were later considered to be the first notable statements of the states' rights theory of government, a theory that opened the way for the nullification controversy and ultimately for secession.">>>

So far a number of States have used nullification to respond to the unconstitutional Health Care Reform Act.

Consider urging your own State Representatives and State Senators to do the same.

www.campaignforliberty.com 231,092

Edited May 2, 2010 by galtgulch

[BaalChatzaf]

<<<"(1788 – 89) Measures passed by the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky as a protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts. Drafted by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson (though their role went unknown for 25 years), the resolutions protested limitations on civil liberties and declared the right of states to decide on the constitutionality of federal legislation. Though their authors applied the resolutions to the specific issues of the day, Southern states later used the measures to support the theories of nullification and secession.

Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, in U.S. history, resolutions passed in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were enacted by the Federalists in 1798. The Jeffersonian Republicans first replied in the Kentucky Resolutions, adopted by the Kentucky legislature in Nov., 1798. Written by Thomas Jefferson himself, they were a severe attack on the Federalists' broad interpretation of the Constitution, which would have extended the powers of the national government over the states. The resolutions declared that the Constitution merely established a compact between the states and that the federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it under the terms of the compact; should the federal government assume such powers, its acts under them would be unauthoritative and therefore void. It was the right of the states and not the federal government to decide as to the constitutionality of such acts. A further resolution, adopted in Feb., 1799, provided a means by which the states could enforce their decisions by formal nullification of the objectionable laws. A similar set of resolutions was adopted in Virginia in Dec., 1798, but these Virginia Resolutions, written by James Madison, were a somewhat milder expression of the strict construction of the Constitution and the compact theory of the Union. The resolutions were submitted to the other states for approval with no real result; their chief importance lies in the fact that they were later considered to be the first notable statements of the states' rights theory of government, a theory that opened the way for the nullification controversy and ultimately for secession.">>>

So far thirteen States have used nullification to respond to the unconstitutional Health Care Reform Act.

Consider urging your own State Representatives and State Senators to do the same.

www.campaignforliberty.com 231,092

Nullification will bring federal court orders preventing such acts from becoming effective. Any further resistance will bring Federal troops. Think about the the Whiskey Rebellion. Think about secession and what it came to.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[galtgulch]

Nullification will bring federal court orders preventing such acts from becoming effective. Any further resistance will bring Federal troops. Think about the the Whiskey Rebellion. Think about secession and what it came to.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al,

So far there has been no response that I know of from the administration that a number of state legislatures have sued for nullification of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

I expect that number of states involved will encourage other states to join them with nullification suits. It is a legitimate legal remedy although supporters of nullification in general are described as "extreme states rights" advocates. Thomas Jefferson was the original advocate of nullification of the Alien and Sedition Acts. The premise for its authenticity is that the sovereign states created the Federal government with enunciated powers, all other powers being reserved to the States, unless prohibited to the States by the original Constitution in Article 1 Section 9 e.g. only gold and silver coin are legal tender, or to the people. If the Federal government exceeds its Constitutional powers as spelled out explicitly than nullification is justified. In that way the States have superiority to the Supreme Court which often upholds the Constitutionality of a law using its devious use of sophistry.

I recall reading Henry Mark Holzer's article in The Objectivist entitled: The Constitution and the Draft which revealed the depths to which the Supreme Court can sink to uphold unenumerated or forbidden powers for the Feds.

Tyranny is certainly just over the horizon. If we stand still for this intrusion surely more will follow.

Are you suggesting that we simply do as we are told by our Leader without so much as a whimper? And here I thought you were a fighter for your own freedom. Guess I was wrong about you now that push has come to shove!

I am not suggesting taking up arms. Not yet. Nullification is legit if you can find a State representative willing to submit the appropriate paperwork and able to persuade his or her legislature. Thirteen other States have done it!

www.campaignforliberty.com 231,097

Edited May 2, 2010 by galtgulch

[imurray]

Nullification will bring federal court orders preventing such acts from becoming effective. Any further resistance will bring Federal troops. Think about the the Whiskey Rebellion. Think about secession and what it came to.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al,

So far there has been no response that I know of from the administration that a number of state legislatures have sued for nullification of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

I expect that number of states involved will encourage other states to join them with nullification suits. It is a legitimate legal remedy although supporters of nullification in general are described as "extreme states rights" advocates. Thomas Jefferson was the original advocate of nullification of the Alien and Sedition Acts. The premise for its authenticity is that the sovereign states created the Federal government with enunciated powers, all other powers being reserved to the States, unless prohibited to the States by the original Constitution in Article 1 Section 9 e.g. only gold and silver coin are legal tender, or to the people. If the Federal government exceeds its Constitutional powers as spelled out explicitly than nullification is justified. In that way the States have superiority to the Supreme Court which often upholds the Constitutionality of a law using its devious use of sophistry.

I recall reading Henry Mark Holzer's article in The Objectivist entitled: The Constitution and the Draft which revealed the depths to which the Supreme Court can sink to uphold unenumerated or forbidden powers for the Feds.

Tyranny is certainly just over the horizon. If we stand still for this intrusion surely more will follow.

Are you suggesting that we simply do as we are told by our Leader without so much as a whimper? And here I thought you were a fighter for your own freedom. Guess I was wrong about you now that push has come to shove!

I am not suggesting taking up arms. Not yet. Nullification is legit if you can find a State representative willing to submit the appropriate paperwork and able to persuade his or her legislature. Thirteen other States have done it!

www.campaignforliberty.com 231,097

Oh, and Ba'al, don't forget to buy gold! Galt usually is good about telling people that, unless he didn't think you deserved to know. Hahaha.

[dan2100]

<<<"(1788 – 89) Measures passed by the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky as a protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts. Drafted by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson (though their role went unknown for 25 years), the resolutions protested limitations on civil liberties and declared the right of states to decide on the constitutionality of federal legislation. Though their authors applied the resolutions to the specific issues of the day, Southern states later used the measures to support the theories of nullification and secession.

Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, in U.S. history, resolutions passed in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were enacted by the Federalists in 1798. The Jeffersonian Republicans first replied in the Kentucky Resolutions, adopted by the Kentucky legislature in Nov., 1798. Written by Thomas Jefferson himself, they were a severe attack on the Federalists' broad interpretation of the Constitution, which would have extended the powers of the national government over the states. The resolutions declared that the Constitution merely established a compact between the states and that the federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it under the terms of the compact; should the federal government assume such powers, its acts under them would be unauthoritative and therefore void. It was the right of the states and not the federal government to decide as to the constitutionality of such acts. A further resolution, adopted in Feb., 1799, provided a means by which the states could enforce their decisions by formal nullification of the objectionable laws. A similar set of resolutions was adopted in Virginia in Dec., 1798, but these Virginia Resolutions, written by James Madison, were a somewhat milder expression of the strict construction of the Constitution and the compact theory of the Union. The resolutions were submitted to the other states for approval with no real result; their chief importance lies in the fact that they were later considered to be the first notable statements of the states' rights theory of government, a theory that opened the way for the nullification controversy and ultimately for secession.">>>

So far thirteen States have used nullification to respond to the unconstitutional Health Care Reform Act.

Consider urging your own State Representatives and State Senators to do the same.

www.campaignforliberty.com 231,092

Nullification will bring federal court orders preventing such acts from becoming effective. Any further resistance will bring Federal troops. Think about the the Whiskey Rebellion. Think about secession and what it came to.

Ba'al Chatzaf

LOL! So, when it comes to foreigners who probably are unlikely to do you any direct harm, you're for total war, killing civilians, bombing everything in sight, but when it comes to something like jury nullification, suddenly you're reluctant because of fear of what the feds might not like it?

[BaalChatzaf]

LOL! So, when it comes to foreigners who probably are unlikely to do you any direct harm, you're for total war, killing civilians, bombing everything in sight, but when it comes to something like jury nullification, suddenly you're reluctant because of fear of what the feds might not like it?

The Feds have more physical force than the States. The Feds have tanks and planes. If it comes to a physical fight, the Feds will will.

The last thing you or I want is a Civil War. The last one we have killed 620,000 outright and maimed 1.5 million. That is more casualties than in any other war the U.S. has been in.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dan2100]

LOL! So, when it comes to foreigners who probably are unlikely to do you any direct harm, you're for total war, killing civilians, bombing everything in sight, but when it comes to something like jury nullification, suddenly you're reluctant because of fear of what the feds might not like it?

The Feds have more physical force than the States. The Feds have tanks and planes. If it comes to a physical fight, the Feds will will.

The last thing you or I want is a Civil War. The last one we have killed 620,000 outright and maimed 1.5 million. That is more casualties than in any other war the U.S. has been in.

I didn't call for one. I don't think, either, that jury nullification or decentralization strategies will result in one.

I was expressing my surprise that you would care here. If there were a chance for your side to win such a war and it involved killing or maiming whatever number of people, wouldn't you be for it? If not, why not?

[DavidMcK]

I'm not calling for a revolution either but as a matter of fact the government has enormous disadvantages in a fight including a reluctance of the police/military to fire on its own citizenry; it is questionable whether the government could use the military in a revolution at home; an underground revolutionary movement could have stealth on its side. It isn't for nothing that totalitarian governments have such massive spy networks: they are vulnerable. The reason secession didn't succeed is that the Southern states were too organized, they had specific targets and positions that could be attacked by a superior and better armed force that would make them lose (and did). How do you fight ghosts in the night? My point isn't that we need to start fighting violently it is that 'powerful' governments are weaker than you think, which is the point of 'Atlas' after all.

[BaalChatzaf]

.

I was expressing my surprise that you would care here. If there were a chance for your side to win such a war and it involved killing or maiming whatever number of people, wouldn't you be for it? If not, why not?

I am not for shedding the blood of my own people. Foreign devils I will gladly kill. My own? No. I will not fight a civil war unless the government became as ruthless as the Nazis or Stalinists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[galtgulch]

.

I was expressing my surprise that you would care here. If there were a chance for your side to win such a war and it involved killing or maiming whatever number of people, wouldn't you be for it? If not, why not?

I am not for shedding the blood of my own people. Foreign devils I will gladly kill. My own? No. I will not fight a civil war unless the government became as ruthless as the Nazis or Stalinists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al,

My question to you is just what would you suggest citizens do if the Congress passes a blatantly unconstitutional law?

Would you really ignore the history of America? The States were encouraged to adopt and ratify the original Constitution with the assurance that if the Congress did pass a law which gave the Congress a power not granted by the States, that the States could declare that law unconstitutional and NULLIFY it under the Tenth Amendment which reserved all powers, which were not explicitly forbidden to the States (in Article 1 Section 9), to the States or to the people.

Thus NULLIFICATION is a legitimate response to a Congressional unconstitutional power grab.

If you are afraid that the Congress would try to use force against the States you are probably mistaken. Nullification is acceptable but rarely exercised. See the new book, not yet available by Tom Woods entitled NULLIFICATION. See Tom Woods articles on the subject at www.campaignforliberty.com archived there.

I await you thoughtful response.

gulch

[BaalChatzaf]

My question to you is just what would you suggest citizens do if the Congress passes a blatantly unconstitutional law?

Take it to court. If the court upholds the law, learn to live with it. The courts decide what is constitutional and what is not, you don't. If you don't like what the courts decide then work to vote in people to congress who agree with you. If that doesn't work, then get used to it or leave the country or go on strike. Does that answer your question?

Neither you nor I decide what is constitutional or not. That is the job of the courts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited May 12, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[dan2100]

.

I was expressing my surprise that you would care here. If there were a chance for your side to win such a war and it involved killing or maiming whatever number of people, wouldn't you be for it? If not, why not?

I am not for shedding the blood of my own people. Foreign devils I will gladly kill. My own? No. I will not fight a civil war unless the government became as ruthless as the Nazis or Stalinists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I was unaware you had a people. So who are your people? Please don't gush and tell me fellow Americans. Some fellow Americans surely would prefer you joined the other side -- since your ideological brethren seem to be there.

And this only seems a way of sidestepping the question. And, above, sure enough, you do bring your ruthless view of war back in: you reveal you would fight a civil war. Now, would you fight it in the same manner as you would one against foreigners -- i.e., total war with no concern for civilian deaths?

Also, what do you mean by "foreign devils"? In other posts, you've demonstrated -- at least from the safety of your armchair; I hope you'd actually act different in the field -- a callousness toward the safety and lives of non-belligerents. Tell me, is everyone not over here a "foreign devil"?

Edited May 12, 2010 by Dan Ust

[BaalChatzaf]

Also, what do you mean by "foreign devils"? In other posts, you've demonstrated -- at least from the safety of your armchair; I hope you'd actually act different in the field -- a callousness toward the safety and lives of non-belligerents. Tell me, is everyone not over here a "foreign devil"?

Either actually or potentially. Consider the example of bombing civilians in Germany and Japan. The adult male population not directly engaged in combat and part of the adult female population were in manufacturing or expediting the activities of the military. They were in effect armaments of the enemy and therefore legitimate military targets. The children and infants who were killed in bombing the above were collateral damage. Collateral damage is one of the infelicities of modern warfare. If one wishes to win, one must expect to inflict collateral damage upon the enemy population. As to younger people, in Germany ten and eleven year old kids were inducted into the Volkssturm along with old men. They became legitimate military targets. Such is the nature of modern war. It were better that such wars did not have to be fought.

As I have said before, to fight a modern war one must divest himself of mercy, sympathy and compassion. If the enemy finds out we are soft on infants in cribs, they will line the tops of their buildings with infants in cribs. Count on it. To fight the kind of nasty wars that have become the usual kind of wars, one must become hard and nasty.

To answer another of your questions. Yes, we do have a people. Where and how did you acquire your first language as a child. Who fed you. How did you learn to put your clothes on. We are all part of large social unit starting with the natural nurturing family. None of us are atomic hermits, except when we are older and when we chose to be. Even then we are dependent on the products and services of others. If you wish to live in the woods you go into the woods wearing clothes you did not weave. So a "hermit" is to some extent, dependent on others. Rand's notion that we are atomic individuals is faulty. No matter how individual we are we are still connected to others in some fashion. Man is a social being. The only issue is how we weight our individual aspects vs our social aspects.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited May 12, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[dan2100]

Also, what do you mean by "foreign devils"? In other posts, you've demonstrated -- at least from the safety of your armchair; I hope you'd actually act different in the field -- a callousness toward the safety and lives of non-belligerents. Tell me, is everyone not over here a "foreign devil"?

Either actually or potentially. Consider the example of bombing civilians in Germany and Japan. The adult male population not directly engaged in combat and part of the adult female population were in manufacturing or expediting the activities of the military. They were in effect armaments of the enemy and therefore legitimate military targets. The children and infants who were killed in bombing the above were collateral damage. Collateral damage is one of the infelicities of modern warfare. If one wishes to win, one must expect to inflict collateral damage upon the enemy population. As to younger people, in Germany ten and eleven year old kids were inducted into the Volkssturm along with old men. They became legitimate military targets. Such is the nature of modern war. It were better that such wars did not have to be fought.

As I have said before, to fight a modern war one must divest himself of mercy, sympathy and compassion. If the enemy finds out we are soft on infants in cribs, they will line the tops of their buildings with infants in cribs. Count on it. To fight the kind of nasty wars that have become the usual kind of wars, one must become hard and nasty.

To answer another of your questions. Yes, we do have a people. Where and how did you acquire your first language as a child. Who fed you. How did you learn to put your clothes on. We are all part of large social unit starting with the natural nurturing family. None of us are atomic hermits, except when we are older and when we chose to be. Even then we are dependent on the products and services of others. If you wish to live in the woods you go into the woods wearing clothes you did not weave. So a "hermit" is to some extent, dependent on others. Rand's notion that we are atomic individuals is faulty. No matter how individual we are we are still connected to others in some fashion. Man is a social being. The only issue is how we weight our individual aspects vs our social aspects.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So, what is the chain of reasoning from "Man is a social being" to your philosophy of war? It seems you missed a few steps in it while you lashed out at the social atomist strawman.

[BaalChatzaf]

So, what is the chain of reasoning from "Man is a social being" to your philosophy of war? It seems you missed a few steps in it while you lashed out at the social atomist strawman.

The Good Guys fight cooperatively and collectively to defend their common weal against the enemy. No one fights a one man war for very long. Who makes the weapons. Who supplies the warrior? Who gives the orders and who formulates the plan and order of battle. Who supplies the intelligence. War is a cooperative collective activity. It cannot be fought properly as a mob of individuals each doing their own thing.

Even in -Atlas Shrugged- the man power of Galt's Gulch came as a militia to rescue John Galt. I am sure they had a plan and order of combat prior to engagement. The plan and order might have been reached by consensus. I suspect Ragnar, being the most combative and war experienced of the Galt's Gulch folks was the point man for planning the rescue.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dan2100]

So, what is the chain of reasoning from "Man is a social being" to your philosophy of war? It seems you missed a few steps in it while you lashed out at the social atomist strawman.

The Good Guys fight cooperatively and collectively to defend their common weal against the enemy. No one fights a one man war for very long. Who makes the weapons. Who supplies the warrior? Who gives the orders and who formulates the plan and order of battle. Who supplies the intelligence. War is a cooperative collective activity. It cannot be fought properly as a mob of individuals each doing their own thing.

This doesn't really support your case. Good guys -- not you because you're not one; you're a terrorist -- can work together and cooperate. That doesn't, however, mean they must follow the terrorist strategy of war -- the strategy you advocate. In fact, because they're the good guys, that would, in my mind, preclude the evil strategy. (Also, wars should not be fought to win at any cost. They should be fought, if they are fought at all, to win a better peace.)

Even in -Atlas Shrugged- the man power of Galt's Gulch came as a militia to rescue John Galt. I am sure they had a plan and order of combat prior to engagement. The plan and order might have been reached by consensus. I suspect Ragnar, being the most combative and war experienced of the Galt's Gulch folks was the point man for planning the rescue.

And how does this speak against the philosophy of individualism? Individualists can work together. There is no social atomism in Rand's view -- just in your view of her view.

[GALTGULCH8]

My question to you is just what would you suggest citizens do if the Congress passes a blatantly unconstitutional law?

Take it to court. If the court upholds the law, learn to live with it. The courts decide what is constitutional and what is not, you don't. If you don't like what the courts decide then work to vote in people to congress who agree with you. If that doesn't work, then get used to it or leave the country or go on strike. Does that answer your question?

Neither you nor I decide what is constitutional or not. That is the job of the courts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Actually each of us does have the right to decide whether the Feds have exceeded the granted enumerated powers. The federal courts are just an extension of the federal government and would naturally take the feds side. That would be like having your mother in law decide a dispute between you and your wife! The ultimate sovereign is the individual citizen and Thomas Jefferson said that it is in the mass of the people where our liberty resides. Here is the actual quote:

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson

Get it? Not the Supreme Court, not the Congress nor the Senate, not the President nor the Cabinet. Rather the educated and informed individual citizens!

That is just what the Campaign For Liberty is all about.

And nullification is our weapon as I indicated earlier in this thread. It was used by the individuals of the northern states against the Federal fugitive slave act of 1850 for example and is being used now against the medicinal marijuana legislation and the health reform act.

It is the recourse when the Feds have passed legislation granting themselves a power reserved to the states or the people by not being enumerated in Article 1 Section 8. Only such enumerated powers were granted by the sovereign states at the time of the ratification of the Constitution to the Congress. The Congress does not have the power to exceed its Constitutional granted powers regardless of the sophistry of the federal supreme court justices.

You are wrong to say that that is the job of the supreme court and that we have to live with their decisions. The supreme court has become politicized as we all know. They bend over backwards to justify whatever the president or the congress chooses to do these days regardless of the Constitutional limits. They uphold the most egregious nonsense. Read Levy's book The Dirty Dozen which discusses the twelve most egregious supreme court decisions. Take it out of the library!

You are one of the ultimate sovereigns. Educate and inform yourself as Jefferson admonishes. Then join us in restoring the republic! You are sounding submissive and spineless. I did hear that Obama is getting around to identifying those of us whom he considers to be his enemies. No socialist is he, rather fascist applies.

Stand and fight by making others aware of the campaign for liberty and read all the feature articles there each day.

gulch

[equality72521]

There is it seems to me a fundamental flaw with federal appointed judges who server for life being the sole arbiters of the constitution. Its much like appointing the mafia nephew of the godfather to protect you from the godfather and his thugs. The Founding Fathers never envisioned the supreme court as the final arbiter. The balance was always suppose to be from the conflict between the national government and the state. that is why the 17th amendment was such a bad idea.

[BaalChatzaf]

You are one of the ultimate sovereigns. Educate and inform yourself as Jefferson admonishes. Then join us in restoring the republic! You are sounding submissive and spineless. I did hear that Obama is getting around to identifying those of us whom he considers to be his enemies. No socialist is he, rather fascist applies.

Stand and fight by making others aware of the campaign for liberty and read all the feature articles there each day.

gulch

And when the Washingtonians send in armed troops what do you propose we objectors do? They have better guns, they have tanks, they have planes and choppers. A People's Militia armed with rifles cannot stand up to this. Look what happened in Tianamen Square.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dennis Hardin]

And when the Washingtonians send in armed troops what do you propose we objectors do? They have better guns, they have tanks, they have planes and choppers. A People's Militia armed with rifles cannot stand up to this. Look what happened in Tianamen Square.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob,

I sense a total loss of perspective here, not to mention a helpless resignation to the status quo. Are you truly ready to suggest that the United Sates in 2010 faces a situation at all comparable to what the Chinese protestors faced in Tianamen Square? You think the U.S. government would attempt such massive repression and censorship, and that the citizenry would let them get away with it? You think the freedom-loving sense of life in America has eroded to that extent?

“Learn to live with it”?

Wow. I feel like a pessimist at times, but that boggles the mind.

[Selene]

You are one of the ultimate sovereigns. Educate and inform yourself as Jefferson admonishes. Then join us in restoring the republic! You are sounding submissive and spineless. I did hear that Obama is getting around to identifying those of us whom he considers to be his enemies. No socialist is he, rather fascist applies.

Stand and fight by making others aware of the campaign for liberty and read all the feature articles there each day.

gulch

And when the Washingtonians send in armed troops what do you propose we objectors do? They have better guns, they have tanks, they have planes and choppers. A People's Militia armed with rifles cannot stand up to this. Look what happened in Tianamen Square.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob:

First of all, we are much better armed than you might suspect.

Secondly, the would be substantial defection, with ordinance from the military and police forces.

Third, the "Washingtonians" would be attempting to subdue urban areas street by street or rural areas where there would be tremendous tactical advantage to the "ruralarians" that would make the Afghan war look like a church social.

I do not think you have a grasp of how massive the casualties would be to the Washingtonians.

As Mr. Rick Blaine explained to the Nazi scumbag in Casablanca:

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

How many Americans are ready to bleed and die for their liberty? Some are. Are there enough?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dennis Hardin]

How many Americans are ready to bleed and die for their liberty? Some are. Are there enough?

Ba'al Chatzaf

If the federal government attempted to instigate a large scale repression of the American people comparable to what the Chinese did in the afermath of Tianamen, there would be a bureacratic bloodbath that would make Robespierre look like Little Bo Peep.

[BaalChatzaf]

How many Americans are ready to bleed and die for their liberty? Some are. Are there enough?

Ba'al Chatzaf

If the federal government attempted to instigate a large scale repression of the American people comparable to what the Chinese did in the afermath of Tianamen, there would be a bureacratic bloodbath that would make Robespierre look like Little Bo Peep.

I rather enjoy the fantasy of ten thousand government employees, numerous congressmen and such like having their heads paraded about on pikes. But if the army stays with the government any uprising is in for much pain. There will be blood.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anonrobt]

How many Americans are ready to bleed and die for their liberty? Some are. Are there enough?

Ba'al Chatzaf

If the federal government attempted to instigate a large scale repression of the American people comparable to what the Chinese did in the afermath of Tianamen, there would be a bureacratic bloodbath that would make Robespierre look like Little Bo Peep.

I rather enjoy the fantasy of ten thousand government employees, numerous congressmen and such like having their heads paraded about on pikes. But if the army stays with the government any uprising is in for much pain. There will be blood.

Ba'al Chatzaf

There lies the question - IF the army stays with the government... what if the army itself splits?