‘We Are Preparing For Massive Civil War’ Says DHS Informant

[A Son of Liberty]

Fair enough. But sovereignty over what exactly? Everyplace you happened to put your foot? Everyplace you happened to put your foot first? Everyplace your ancestor happened to put his foot first? I'm all for enjoying the fruits of my labor. Am I really naturally entitled to the fruits of some ancestors labor who didn't know about me and might have disinherited me if he had the chance? Don't get me wrong. I believe in inheritance rights[1]. But I think that's a construct.

[1] Edit: It's actually a right to devise (dispose of) property rather than a right to inherit it. Technically there are no inheritance "rights" because anyone can be written out of someone's will.

Out of respect for the owners/moderators of this website, I’d be happy to continue the discussion with you in one of the private sub-forums; my responses would contain content outside of what they allow in the open forums here.

 

[jmdrake]

The way I see it, is with your 18,000 posts there is a high probability you've already seen those answers and rejected them. I don't plan on running down that pointless road with you.

Actually I haven't seen a real answer to the particular question I posed. The only answer I can think of is one that I gave myself which is to forget roads, get helicopters, and everyone agree that they don't have property rights to their airspace. It's funny that you can't take the time to give a simply answer to a straightforward question, but you do have time to continue to engage and insult someone that simply disagrees with you and doesn't think the FSP is well thought out. Fine. To each his own.

If federal troops come across your border to enforce the 16th amendment, you haven't successfully nullified the 16th amendment, either. Neither is passive.

A state could still successfully, and peacefully, nullify by not cooperating with those federal troops. Are you aware that most "federal" prisons are housed in state prison facilities? And imagine what would happen if, instead of helping DEA agents, sheriffs started actively tipping off hemp growers when the DEA came to town? The federal government requires active cooperation from its vassals in order to carry out its schemes. Heck, the federal government can't even hold elections without active cooperation from the states.

Who said anything about a desire for taxes or wars or 130,000 laws? I'd love to see Ron Paul elected president.

I was talking about their desires, not yours.

Yes. But the fact that I want Ron Paul elected proves that there are some people who aren't interested in secession but have a desire to dispense with taxes, elective wars and needless laws.

You mad bro? No reason for name calling. Let's keep this civil.

You started with the incivility. But I don't mind returning to civil discourse if that is what you wish at this point.

What was interesting about your response to the FSP is not your disagreements with anarchy per se, but moreso that you immediately jumped to the conclusion that a country ran by Ron Paul supporters would be anarchist, and that country would inherently be worse than the one we have today.

Please quote where I said that. I'm pretty sure I never said that. I'm trying to get Ron Paul supporters elected to office after all. But none of the ones I've worked for have stated secession as one of their goals. (Yeah I know. You think "nullify" = "secession" even though it doesn't). I want to return to a constitutional republic. Yeah the constitution isn't perfect etc, but it's better IMO than what I've seen so far from proposed.

Edit: Why do you make the assumption that FSP = country run by Ron Paul supporters? That's one way Ron Paul supporters could run a country. Another is that they could simply get elected to office. I saw someone pose the question would a president Ron Paul oppose secession. Well why would any Ron Paul supporter want to secede if he was president?

 

[TheTexan]

Actually I haven't seen a real answer to the particular question I posed. The only answer I can think of is one that I gave myself which is to forget roads, get helicopters, and everyone agree that they don't have property rights to their airspace. It's funny that you can't take the time to give a simply answer to a straightforward question, but you do have time to continue to engage and insult someone that simply disagrees with you and doesn't think the FSP is well thought out. Fine. To each his own.

Two more reasons I'm still not going to give you a straight forward answer to the roads question: 1) I have no interest in debating anarchy with you, and 2) This isn't the place to do it

A state could still successfully, and peacefully, nullify by not cooperating with those federal troops. Are you aware that most "federal" prisons are housed in state prison facilities? And imagine what would happen if, instead of helping DEA agents, sheriffs started actively tipping off hemp growers when the DEA came to town? The federal government requires active cooperation from its vassals in order to carry out its schemes. Heck, the federal government can't even hold elections without active cooperation from the states.

"Not cooperate" meaning... stand aside and not cooperate but let them do what they came to do? Or "Not cooperate" as in, get in their way and make sure they don't do it?

You started with the incivility. But I don't mind returning to civil discourse if that is what you wish at this point.

Did I? What was it, the ignorance of freedom comment? There are a great many people in this country that are ignorant of freedom. I don't mean it as an insult, it just is what it is. They don't understand it and never will, and I do not fault them for that.

Please quote where I said that. I'm pretty sure I never said that. I'm trying to get Ron Paul supporters elected to office after all. But none of the ones I've worked for have stated secession as one of their goals. (Yeah I know. You think "nullify" = "secession" even though it doesn't).

You did say it. Here's the quotes:

FSP does look to be our best bet presently. Agglomerate in NH -> Nullify -> Secede.

As for the FSP, after spending time here at RPF and seeing how some people sling around "property rights" I don't think I'd want to leave there. I'm afraid all of the roads around me would become private property and people could say "You are banned from traveling on my road" and if I dared have a bumper sticker on my car that said "The owners of these roads suck" just my speaking up for myself could be construed as a "violation of property rights" etc.

Roads issue is an anarchy problem. Not a minarchy problem. You immediately assumed that a country ran by RPF members would be anarchist. The 'anarchist' claim may be an implied assumption based on your roads complaint.

What you said explicitly though is that you said you'd rather live in this country than a country ran by RPF members. Is this not what you meant? If so please clarify.

 

[jmdrake]

Two more reasons I'm still not going to give you a straight forward answer to the roads question: 1) I have no interest in debating anarchy with you, and 2) This isn't the place to do it

Then quit answering.

"Not cooperate" meaning... stand aside and not cooperate but let them do what they came to do? Or "Not cooperate" as in, get in their way and make sure they don't do it?

False choice. Not cooperate meaning "When the Feds inevitably come to you and say 'would you please let us keep prisoners X1 - X1000 in your facility. We'll gladly pay you for it'." telling them to take a hike. Not cooperating also as in not turning over records the feds need etc. There are lots of ways to passively/aggressively not cooperate.

Did I? What was it, the ignorance of freedom comment? There are a great many people in this country that are ignorant of freedom. I don't mean it as an insult, it just is what it is. They don't understand it and never will, and I do not fault them for that.

And I think you're immature. I hope someday you will mature. It's not your fault that you are immature. There are a great many people in this country who are immature and think they know more than what they do. I don't fault them for that.

You did say it. Here's the quotes:

As for the FSP, after spending time here at RPF and seeing how some people sling around "property rights" I don't think I'd want to leave there. I'm afraid all of the roads around me would become private property and people could say "You are banned from traveling on my road" and if I dared have a bumper sticker on my car that said "The owners of these roads suck" just my speaking up for myself could be construed as a "violation of property rights" etc.

Ah. I see you have a reading comprehension problem. I didn't say I didn't want to live in a country run by Ron Paul supporters. I said I didn't want to live there as in the free state project! There are many Ron Paul supporters that don't have the "f*ck em" attitude that you've displayed. Many who aren't looking to "secede". Some who do what to secede I'm cool with too. But I've run into enough who don't really have a concept of freedom, but think they do and that it's just the "other guy" that doesn't, not to want to live in some seceded - land locked country run by them. In other words, I'm not rejecting the idea of Ron Paul supporters in general running a country, just ones like you. Sorry, no offense intended.

Roads issue is an anarchy problem. Not a minarchy problem. You immediately assumed that a country ran by RPF members would be anarchist. The 'anarchist' claim may be an implied assumption based on your roads complaint.

I never said anything regarding a "country run by RPF members". I specifically pointed out types of RPF members that I wouldn't want running a country. And really it's not the anarchist part that bothers me as much as the "f*ck em" attitude. Some anarchists are wonderful people.

What you said explicitly though is that you said you'd rather live in this country than a country ran by RPF members. Is this not what you meant? If so please clarify.

What you wrote isn't what I said. What part of the phrase "some people" do you not understand?

Again what I said. This time read carefully.

after spending time here at RPF and seeing how some people sling around "property rights"

For example, I've seen some people argue the abortion question this way. If someone stole his way onto my boat, shouldn't I have a right to just throw him off? Of course it's a bad analogy because no fetus ever forced himself into a woman. That's true even in cases of rape. The guilty party is the rapist. That would be like someone being kidnapped and forced onto a boat owned by a third party. Does the third party have a right to throw the kidnap victim off into the ocean just because of "property rights"?

Now I'm not trying to derail this further by talking about abortion. It's the analogy that concerns me that lifts property rights above human rights. I wouldn't even throw someone overboard to certain death just for being a stowaway even if he wasn't forced on my boat. I'd make him earn his keep by scrubbing the deck or whatever else has to be done on a boat, then deal with the balance of what he owed me once we got to shore. To me that's the moral thing to do. Others may see it differently.

 

[TheTexan]

False choice. Not cooperate meaning "When the Feds inevitably come to you and say 'would you please let us keep prisoners X1 - X1000 in your facility. We'll gladly pay you for it'." telling them to take a hike. Not cooperating also as in not turning over records the feds need etc. There are lots of ways to passively/aggressively not cooperate.

And if the Feds arrest you for not cooperating, and then simply get the records themselves?

Ah. I see you have a reading comprehension problem. I didn't say I didn't want to live in a country run by Ron Paul supporters. I said I didn't want to live there as in the free state project! There are many Ron Paul supporters that don't have the "f*ck em" attitude that you've displayed. Many who aren't looking to "secede". Some who do what to secede I'm cool with too. But I've run into enough who don't really have a concept of freedom, but think they do and that it's just the "other guy" that doesn't, not to want to live in some seceded - land locked country run by them. In other words, I'm not rejecting the idea of Ron Paul supporters in general running a country, just ones like you. Sorry, no offense intended.

I never said anything regarding a "country run by RPF members". I specifically pointed out types of RPF members that I wouldn't want running a country. And really it's not the anarchist part that bothers me as much as the "f*ck em" attitude. Some anarchists are wonderful people.

What you wrote isn't what I said. What part of the phrase "some people" do you not understand?

Because you disagree with some people in the FSP, you want no part of the FSP?

 

[azxd]

Exactly. I've explained the message of liberty to people plenty of times. And I'm so tired of saying the same thing over and over again. I know I'm right. But it's depressing talking to people who obviously don't want to hear it. So I won't waste my time or theirs. I won't stop talking about liberty and freedom with other like minds, and I'll try a few times on people I think are worth it, other than that. No, I'm going to enjoy my life.

I'm sure you are doing a fine job of it ... A single person cannot solve the World's problems, and in fact, is often busy just solving their own

 

[azxd]

I suppose a collapse would really suck. I'm not overly concerned however because I have several fishing poles and live in the woodland zone of the United States where deer and bluegill are abundant. I also have several rifles.

That's really all one needs isn't it? A fishing pole, a rifle with a few 28 rnd magazines and a pocket bible. I'm good. Could use some warm boots though. Oh and a hat with ear flaps, those are good.

NOPE ... Not even close.

What one needs to survive any situation is knowledge and the ability to remain calm.
Without those, survival can become short-lived and very rough.

All material things are expendable and replacable

 

[jbauer]

Thats just plain assinine. If you support liberty you continue to talk about it, you continue to exercise your rights. You continue to try and "unplug" people. Everyone's ready to hear about liberty. Everyone is NOT ready to hear about it today. You have to be ready to teach them when they become ready to learn. You'll never know if they're ready without talking to them.

Exactly. I've explained the message of liberty to people plenty of times. And I'm so tired of saying the same thing over and over again. I know I'm right. But it's depressing talking to people who obviously don't want to hear it. So I won't waste my time or theirs. I won't stop talking about liberty and freedom with other like minds, and I'll try a few times on people I think are worth it, other than that. No, I'm going to enjoy my life.

 

[azxd]

Thats just plain assinine. If you support liberty you continue to talk about it, you continue to exercise your rights. You continue to try and "unplug" people. Everyone's ready to hear about liberty. Everyone is NOT ready to hear about it today. You have to be ready to teach them when they become ready to learn. You'll never know if they're ready without talking to them.

Exactly. I've explained the message of liberty to people plenty of times. And I'm so tired of saying the same thing over and over again. I know I'm right. But it's depressing talking to people who obviously don't want to hear it. So I won't waste my time or theirs. I won't stop talking about liberty and freedom with other like minds, and I'll try a few times on people I think are worth it, other than that. No, I'm going to enjoy my life.

Queen never said what your read

 

[jmdrake]

And if the Feds arrest you for not cooperating, and then simply get the records themselves?

They don't have the power to arrest everyone. Note how the feds initially backed down when people were going to "opt out" of the body scanners. Eventually when folks decided "I guess this isn't so bad. I'll go along" things picked up again. Besides, even our current law which has disregarded the constitution, the federal government has no power to compel the states to do squat. The feds are not allowed to commandeer state government, legislative or otherwise. That's why garbage like the Adam Walsh Act is tied to incentives paid to the states. If you're interested I can send you the case law on this. Claiming that the states nullifying federal law is the same as secession is as off-base as claiming that a president's veto or a congressional override of that veto or the Supreme Court overturning a federal law is somehow "secession". Can nullification lead to secession? I suppose. If the feds decide to ignore current Supreme Court precedent and commandeer state government. But saying that means nullification = secession is like saying a husband and wife disagreeing finance = divorce since it can lead to divorce.

Because you disagree with some people in the FSP, you want no part of the FSP?

The Ron Paul supporters I'd like to see running the country aren't the ones that are pushing for secession. And I think I've laid out my concerns about the FSP in general well enough at this point. Why can't you just accept that not everyone agrees with the FSP, at least from a "secession" point of view, and be done with it? If you want to secede, I'm not going to stand in your way. And when anti-secessionists bus in enough people to NH to override the FSP I'll just chuckle to myself and say I told you so. In the meantime, instead of trying to take over a single state in order to "secede" I'll continue working to help others try to take over the government of all 50 states and the federal government and restore the republic.

 

[azxd]

The real FSP will occur overnight, and will not be announced.

 

[jmdrake]

The real FSP will occur overnight, and will not be announced.

 

[azxd]

[SIZE=+1]The American Writ of Grievances[/SIZE]

 

[TheTexan]

The feds are not allowed to commandeer state government, legislative or otherwise.

They don't have the power to? Oh, I'd like to see you tell them that after you nullify everything in existence and they decide to have the Supreme Court "reaffirm nullification" in yet another case, to legitimize *whatever* they decided to do to your state.

The point you still have not grasped is that nullification is not passive. It's only passive while the Federal Government allows you to be passive. At some point, if the FedGov decides to put your nullification to a stop, you will be faced with a choice: defend the nullification, or forfeit it. Exactly the same with secession. You either defend your secession, or forfeit it.

The Ron Paul supporters I'd like to see running the country aren't the ones that are pushing for secession. And I think I've laid out my concerns about the FSP in general well enough at this point.

Actually you haven't. Pretty much the only thing you've said so far is that "I don't want any part of the FSP because I disagree with some people on the RPF". Pretty much those exact words, which you restated in your "rebuttal."

Why can't you just accept that not everyone agrees with the FSP, at least from a "secession" point of view, and be done with it? If you want to secede, I'm not going to stand in your way.

I can, and do accept that. Everyone has their own reasons for joining the FSP but they all want liberty, and recognize we need to agglomerate to take it.

There are many people on these forums that I respect that do not want to be a part of the FSP. Either they want to give freedom to the entire country, or don't want to leave their home, or think it wouldn't work, or think it makes it easier for the Fed Gov to target us violently because we're in one place. I disagree with all of these reasons, but they are legitimate reasons nonetheless.

You on the other hand... don't want to be a part of the FSP because you disagree with some of the people on these forums. Which is just silly. You'll probably deny it and claim "reading comprehension" again... but those are the words you said, and continue to say. Cognitive dissonance IMO.

 

[Carson]

Let me get this straight though.

The government lobbyists would rather have civil war just to cling onto power, in order for people like Ben Bernanke to get a blow job from a Japanese Stripper in his jacuzzi? They can't just quit while they're ahead, because that extra $1,000,000 dollars is so important for them?

They are like a monkey caught in a coconut trap and can't let go of the peanuts and free their hand out of the hole.

I wonder if a monkey can be coaxed to let go of the peanuts in the trap if he is given peanuts in the other hand and they are gradually pulled farther and farther away.

If the banking system was restored to a real banking system and the counterfeiting was done away with, the economy could blossom again like it never has before. It should be good for everyone.

 

[UWDude]

The r3volution is a peaceful movement. We don't want collapse, we want a gradual waking up of the masses, a real change of public opinion and subsequently real change in the role and scope of government in general.

never gonna happen. I used to think it could years ago, but you clearly do not understand the forces aligned against you.

The only thing that will change this country is catastrophe.

It is the state of man, to be fat and happy until he is forced to change.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

never gonna happen. I used to think it could years ago, but you clearly do not understand the forces aligned against you.

The only thing that will change this country is catastrophe.

It is the state of man, to be fat and happy until he is forced to change.

Sad but true.