WA State Petition to secede from the Union

[Cremator75]

they're domestic terrorists trying to cause severe disruption in our political system...

and are hell bent on depriving others of rights which don't coincide with their religious beliefs.

Charge them with treason and/or deport them.

= The current POTUS

 

[gogodawgs]

For a state to secede the state government must do it not an individual petition to the Feds.

I would be on board our state threatening to secede if they were doing so for the right reasons and for more liberty. Of course I think this was made more difficult to do since senators are now not representatives of the state as originally intended.

I am also a fan of nullification by the state and by the people in the state.

Treason! Give me a break! Only those who put nationalism over individual rights would feel this way.

I respect soldiers and warriors, there's a difference though in fighting for you country and fighting for freedom and liberty, I blame the state propaganda and war mongering politicians for the misdirection not the soldiers mostly who are very young men when they are admitted into the services.

+1

 

[DCKilla]

If you want secession, prepare for war. Because, that is what you`ll get. There is no other conclusion. There are other ways without the need to fight.

 

[Freedom First]

Yes, really. Those who are wanting to states to secede are no better than the terrorists We as a People fight overseas, they're domestic terrorists trying to cause severe disruption in our political system, fueling militant groups who plan attacks on our electorates and are hell bent on depriving others of rights which don't coincide with their religious beliefs.

Charge them with treason and/or deport them.

Paranoid much? Or perhaps just ignorant?

These people have the Right to Speak Freely and to Petetion their Government for Redress of Grievances. That's ensconced in the First Amendment. Ever read it? They are not traitors. They are not terrorists. They are innocent of the charges you lay at their feet. There are a Few of them who actually understand the correct view of their relationship to .gov. Then there are the angry mob types who just want it over. Too bad for you, they're all protected by the First Amendment.

The Second Amendment you partially embrace is clearly very important to you or you wouldn't be here on OCDO. But let me suggest that you are missing the first half of it. You know, the part that talks about militias being important to the security of a Free State? Ever think, er, wonder why those horrible, intolerant, white slavers included that bit in there? Probably not. Two key words to think on: Free State...

If Washington State, through her elected government, decides to walk, she would be completely within her Rights as a Free State to do so regardless of the opinions of the SCOTUS and the painful results of the unCivil War. Amendments Nine and Ten are all any honest State would need to legally extract themselves from this co-called union in addition to needing some real men in the State to back up their choice. Of course war would be declared against her, her land would be laid waste and her people killed for having the gumption of saying "No!" to .gov in such a clear manner. That's what a loving "mother" country does...

These States were meant to be and still should be Nations unto themselves. You and I have been raised in a fraudulent education system which teaches many lies to children. Such as America is a democracy, we are one nation under God indivisible, you have rights, your vote counts, the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is "constitutional", etc.. Clearly, you still embrace the System's view. I have rejected what I was indoctrinated with and have sought out the words of the Framers and those who influenced their ways as a lamp to guide my feet.

The Agent of the States (look it up) was designed to exercise power at the States behest, not of it's own choice and definitely not on the States or the People THAT CREATED IT. It was not designed to have "Free Will". When it leaves it's clearly enumerated responsibilities behind and seeks more and more power over those IT WAS CREATED TO SERVE, it is the Right and Duty of the People to replace it with something that provides better guards for their Freedom. Don't like that phrasing? Take it up with Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration.

It's this demented machine, .gov, that is seeking "...to cause severe disruption in our political system, fueling militant groups who plan attacks on our electorates and are hell bent on depriving others of rights which don't coincide with their religious beliefs." Statism is a religion. And people like you are her prophets.

If a war starts, I'll join the PA state military and go to arms against the domestic terrorists who want to secede because they didn't want to get their way. I'm all for mowing down anyone wanting to commit terroristic acts just as we mowed down al-qaeda and the taliban.

What to say in the face of your mindless intolerance? You talk like a Stormtrooper. I.e. One carrying the Death's Head. They used the language of the Reich (domestic terrorists, militant groups) unknowingly. They brooked no reluctance to embrace the all powerful national state. They killed their neighbors without a thought to their own involvement. And they obeyed without thinking...

Those men on the Lexington Commons didn't place themselves in danger and die so you could cheer for the massacre of humans in distant foreign nations. The men, and they are real men, misguided though they may be, in the Taliban at least have the spine to stand against an illegal regime when it invaded their land and immediately started uprooting their way of life. We sit and do nothing while it is OUR OWN NATION overrun by those intended to serve us and OUR WAY OF LIFE attacked. The men in Lexington fought so their children might be Free to live as they saw fit. So, today, do the "terrorists" in Afghanistan struggle for the Freedom to live AS THEY SEE FIT.

So, you can keep your .govspeak and your mindless ignorance of the Rights of ALL AMERICANS to speak and be heard. You can embrace the media-driven life you have chosen for yourself and live it however you wish. But, please be aware, when you (collectively) come for me, I am not alone and I stand for True Freedom and the intentions of our forefathers. I will die before I surrender another inch to you and your ilk. My children will live Free.

 

[acmariner99]

Like many Americans, I am very displeased with the direction this country is going. I didn't like that Obama was reelected, but what I like even less is the deep partisan divide that has split DC down the middle. Their mind numbing self-interest and only walking the party line is putting this country severely at risk - as has the unwillingness to compromise as a country, not just Congress.

I don't see how "sending a message" in this matter is a bad thing, though I think it does send the WRONG message. It shows an extreme viewpoint and a continued desire to do what partially got us into this mess in the first place! (Not compromising). Both parties need to get off of their high horses - the Democrats need to stop the "we won, do it our way mentality" and Republicans need to stop being so afraid of Obama's agenda that they refuse to hear anything the Dems suggest.

What I do see coming is the states starting to show more initiative in resolving their fiscal problems locally and perhaps even regionally. Washington took a step in that direction with passing the marijuana initiative this year. If DC cannot get it done - I would support action on the part of the states to solve their problems even if the proposed solution comes into conflict with Federal law. I would hope that such action would encourage other states to follow suit and even push for a change at the Federal level. We can still use states rights and our federated nature as a country to our advantage without crying for secession.

 

[gogodawgs]

paranoid much? Or perhaps just ignorant?

These people have the right to speak freely and to petetion their government for redress of grievances. That's ensconced in the first amendment. Ever read it? They are not traitors. They are not terrorists. They are innocent of the charges you lay at their feet. There are a few of them who actually understand the correct view of their relationship to .gov. Then there are the angry mob types who just want it over. Too bad for you, they're all protected by the first amendment.

The second amendment you partially embrace is clearly very important to you or you wouldn't be here on ocdo. But let me suggest that you are missing the first half of it. You know, the part that talks about militias being important to the security of a free state? Ever think, er, wonder why those horrible, intolerant, white slavers included that bit in there? Probably not. Two key words to think on: Free state...

If washington state, through her elected government, decides to walk, she would be completely within her rights as a free state to do so regardless of the opinions of the scotus and the painful results of the uncivil war. Amendments nine and ten are all any honest state would need to legally extract themselves from this co-called union in addition to needing some real men in the state to back up their choice. Of course war would be declared against her, her land would be laid waste and her people killed for having the gumption of saying "no!" to .gov in such a clear manner. That's what a loving "mother" country does...

These states were meant to be and still should be nations unto themselves. You and i have been raised in a fraudulent education system which teaches many lies to children. Such as america is a democracy, we are one nation under god indivisible, you have rights, your vote counts, the scotus is the final arbiter of what is "constitutional", etc.. Clearly, you still embrace the system's view. I have rejected what i was indoctrinated with and have sought out the words of the framers and those who influenced their ways as a lamp to guide my feet.

The agent of the states (look it up) was designed to exercise power at the states behest, not of it's own choice and definitely not on the states or the people that created it. It was not designed to have "free will". When it leaves it's clearly enumerated responsibilities behind and seeks more and more power over those it was created to serve, it is the right and duty of the people to replace it with something that provides better guards for their freedom. Don't like that phrasing? Take it up with jefferson and the signers of the declaration.

It's this demented machine, .gov, that is seeking "...to cause severe disruption in our political system, fueling militant groups who plan attacks on our electorates and are hell bent on depriving others of rights which don't coincide with their religious beliefs." statism is a religion. And people like you are her prophets.




What to say in the face of your mindless intolerance? You talk like a stormtrooper. I.e. One carrying the death's head. They used the language of the reich (domestic terrorists, militant groups) unknowingly. They brooked no reluctance to embrace the all powerful national state. They killed their neighbors without a thought to their own involvement. And they obeyed without thinking...

Those men on the lexington commons didn't place themselves in danger and die so you could cheer for the massacre of humans in distant foreign nations. The men, and they are real men, misguided though they may be, in the taliban at least have the spine to stand against an illegal regime when it invaded their land and immediately started uprooting their way of life. We sit and do nothing while it is our own nation overrun by those intended to serve us and our way of life attacked. The men in lexington fought so their children might be free to live as they saw fit. So, today, do the "terrorists" in afghanistan struggle for the freedom to live as they see fit.

So, you can keep your .govspeak and your mindless ignorance of the rights of all americans to speak and be heard. You can embrace the media-driven life you have chosen for yourself and live it however you wish. But, please be aware, when you (collectively) come for me, i am not alone and i stand for true freedom and the intentions of our forefathers. I will die before i surrender another inch to you and your ilk. My children will live free.

qft

vvvvvvv

 

[Freedom First]

qft

vvvvvvv

Yep. that's what I wrote. Jeesh.

 

[Metalhead47]

If a war starts, I'll join the PA state military and go to arms against the domestic terrorists who want to secede because they didn't want to get their way. I'm all for mowing down anyone wanting to commit terroristic acts just as we mowed down al-qaeda and the taliban.

Like the Royal Army mowed down all those minute men & farmers with rifles & other domestic terrorists because His Majesty King George wouldn't give them their way, RIGHT?

Can't we start small? I would rather split the state at the top of the Cascades!

This is why the idea of WASHINGTON seceding is so ridiculous. The left half of the state is utterly enamored with, and ADDICTED TO, the bread from Obama & his cronies. Idaho or Montana, now....

This kind of crap tends to make me really angry. My family has a long and proud military tradition. I, my brothers and sister, my cousins, uncles and our ancestors have served our country proudly, as have many, many others... and you want to run like a rabbit because you don't like the way the election turned out?

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

I served our country for 22 years fighting for what Americans beleive in. Why would I give up everything I have fought for just because some assh*^e gets reelected. If any state seceded from the united states all federal money would stop and state taxes would go up to cover it. If you don't like this country change it or get the frick out. Just my humble opinion.

I believe "getting the frick out" is exactly what those who would support secession are trying to do, since (as they see it) they have tried to change it, and failed.
Bookman, 1911er, and others who have (and continue to) served: Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps the Nation you agreed to serve is no longer what you thought it was (if it ever even was in the first place)? You are not required to follow an unlawful order. When those in power over you betray their own oaths, are you not bound by duty to remove them from such power, up to and including the most extreme of measures.

Like many Americans, I am very displeased with the direction this country is going. I didn't like that Obama was reelected, but what I like even less is the deep partisan divide that has split DC down the middle. Their mind numbing self-interest and only walking the party line is putting this country severely at risk - as has the unwillingness to compromise as a country, not just Congress.

I don't see how "sending a message" in this matter is a bad thing, though I think it does send the WRONG message. It shows an extreme viewpoint and a continued desire to do what partially got us into this mess in the first place! (Not compromising). Both parties need to get off of their high horses - the Democrats need to stop the "we won, do it our way mentality" and Republicans need to stop being so afraid of Obama's agenda that they refuse to hear anything the Dems suggest.

Whenever good compromises with evil, GOOD ALWAYS LOOSES and evil never does. Which is not to call the republicans "good," but the democrats, as a political unit, are most certainly "evil." The republicans simply blocking anything the democrats come up with is really the best thing they can do at this point, since anything the democrats come up with WILL BE BAD. Status quo and political gridlock is really the best case scenario right now, since whenever the gov't actually DOES SOMETHING, it usually means we loose just a little more liberty. This will not improve anything of course. But neither will it make anything worse. My hopes for the country over the next two years is simply not to get worse.

Someone said something about "becoming the system to change the system." What does one do when the system has become to corrupt to be changed? There comes a time when a structure has become TOO corrupted, when the rot has become to extensive and so grave that "fixing" it is impossible, it must be razed to the ground and re-built on the original foundations...

 

[acmariner99]

Whenever good compromises with evil, GOOD ALWAYS LOOSES and evil never does. Which is not to call the republicans "good," but the democrats, as a political unit, are most certainly "evil." The republicans simply blocking anything the democrats come up with is really the best thing they can do at this point, since anything the democrats come up with WILL BE BAD. Status quo and political gridlock is really the best case scenario right now, since whenever the gov't actually DOES SOMETHING, it usually means we loose just a little more liberty. This will not improve anything of course. But neither will it make anything worse. My hopes for the country over the next two years is simply not to get worse.

Someone said something about "becoming the system to change the system." What does one do when the system has become to corrupt to be changed? There comes a time when a structure has become TOO corrupted, when the rot has become to extensive and so grave that "fixing" it is impossible, it must be razed to the ground and re-built on the original foundations...

That is exactly what I am talking about .. unless both sides do some give and take, we ALL will suffer starting 1/1/2013. DC's inability to work together will result in me automatically paying a lot more tax than I should - and no pay increase next year will offset it - and many won't get one at all. That mentality of "whatever the dems decide will be bad" -- HAS TO STOP!!! Since the Dems control the Senate, you can forget about them agreeing with a Repub bill from the House.

You forget, the Constitution we all cherish was founded on compromise - the House vs. the Senate, the 3/5 Compromise, balancing federal vs. state power, population vs. the states themselves. All of these were diverging ideologies, but the Founders sat their rear ends down and hammered out a document that formed a working, but not perfect idea of how they wanted the country to run. Many questions weren't answered until much later and are still being answered.

I don't like where we are either, but I am not ready to give up on our government - if all of us truly had given up, we would have all picked up our rifles by now. I may not like what "compromise" may or may not be created from this fiscal cliff - but I would be willing to bet it would at least be better than where we are going if nothing gets done.

 

[Flopsweat]

OK, so it sends a message. What message is that, "We're angry"? Nope. I think it says "We're angry and we're stupid."

At first I though that a secession petition was funny and a good idea. Now I'm pretty sure the whole Petition the White House deal is just a political version of American Idol. Text "J" for Justin or "E" for Electra. They're not going to do anything with it folks, except to use it for propaganda. It's just one more distraction from the key issues like fixing the economy and the debt, which are apparently still Bush's fault. Obama is going to stand in front of a camera with a grin on his face and make some clever remark belittling the secession petitions. It's going to remind you of his "clinging to their religion and guns" remark.

 

[retrodad]

+1 - Well said, John.

+1 - Hear, hear! As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

 

[deanf]

Since the above said document specifically allows states to suceed.

The Declaration of Independence is not binding. It establishes no law or duty.

 

[Freedom First]

The Declaration of Independence is not binding. It establishes no law or duty.[/COLOR]

You are correct. Jefferson and the boys were quite clear in their language though,

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

And your point about binding? Should the Declaration be relegated to the dustbin of history? Or should it be included in the worldview of those men who shaped this nation for us to learn from and to use as an example?

I would suggest that we do use it as binding. My Oath was and is to the defend the Constitution and that document was one of the foundation stones for what followed. The principles it forwarded were the basis for the Freedoms we are meant to enjoy today and so, in my mind, we dare not ignore it's voice in our discussions.

 

[Difdi]

I served our country for 22 years fighting for what Americans beleive in. Why would I give up everything I have fought for just because some assh*^e gets reelected. If any state seceded from the united states all federal money would stop and state taxes would go up to cover it. If you don't like this country change it or get the frick out. Just my humble opinion.

Yes, really. Those who are wanting to states to secede are no better than the terrorists We as a People fight overseas, they're domestic terrorists trying to cause severe disruption in our political system, fueling militant groups who plan attacks on our electorates and are hell bent on depriving others of rights which don't coincide with their religious beliefs.

Charge them with treason and/or deport them.

Apparently you're both unaware that the military, like elected officials, swear oaths to defend the constitution. Freedom of expression is one of those things that oath is sworn to defend. So is the democratic process enshrined in our constitution.

You don't defend something by trampling the substance of it into the mud in the name of protecting the symbol that merely represents it. Foreign enemies of the constitution are usually easy to spot, they're usually shooting at you. But have you ever wondered what a domestic enemy of the constitution would look like? I would imagine such an enemy would be someone who considers anyone exercising their rights under the constitution to be an enemy, a traitor, or a terrorist.

 

[ConcordScout]

Yeah... send my name and personal info to the whitehouse in a self-made list of disgruntled citizens? Nooo thank you... I don't need them noticing me... ever.

 

[Citizen]

Yeah... send my name and personal info to the whitehouse in a self-made list of disgruntled citizens? Nooo thank you... I don't need them noticing me... ever.

You could always use a couple proxy servers with encryption and a made-up name and e-mail. As long as you personally don't make duplicate signatures, I would say it is ethical. Its not like they're going to check all 25K signatures for validity, and ignore the outpouring of annoyance if the verifiable name count falls to 24,999. Its only the security apparatus seeking traitors or IRS audit targets you have to worry about.

 

[kparker]

If Washington State, through her elected government, decides to walk, she would be completely within her Rights as a Free State to do so regardless of the opinions of the SCOTUS and the painful results of the unCivil War

I think it's even simpler than that. Consider this, from the Declaration:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

If people withdraw their consent, what possible moral justification could the state have to continue to govern them?

 

[Flopsweat]

...
But have you ever wondered what a domestic enemy of the constitution would look like? ...

 

[Metalhead47]

View attachment 9561

Awww man, I did NOT need to see that first thing in the morning. Think you coulda posted a warning first or something??:cuss:

 

[Grapeshot]

--snip--

If people withdraw their consent, what possible moral justification could the state have to continue to govern them?

Moral justification? Really? Next thing I know we'll be talking about the law, the Constitution.

Consider that "might makes right." Whether that is moral or not seems irrelevant.

There are other ways out of this dilemma and they are actively being sought - wish us all good luck.