Comments on: Secession or Sovereignty; the Montana House Debates
By Roark on 04-23-09
It’s unfortunate that HR3 did not pass the House. It is an excellent bill that states clearly what is already framed in our Federal Constitution; federalism, or the proper relationship and legal laws that define the Federal and State governments. I say try again!-we almost had it passed. Now, more than ever this is a statement that Montana needs to send to DC stating clearly that the US Constitution must be obeyed.-that the Federal government cannot exceed its defined Constitutional bounds and usurp State’s rights.
By John Adams (1735 - 1826 on 04-23-09
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Greed, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.
By Teddy Roosevelt on 04-23-09
When Democrats called into question the wisdom of the war in Iraq, the Republicans called this unpatriotic and even treasonous. Now Republicans talk of secession and we are to stand by and not consider this to be tinged with evil? The narcissism and self-destruction of the Republican party continues to astound me. These are not sane people.
By FreedomForAChange on 04-23-09
With freedom at a premium price and the supply of it at an all-time low, MT will find itself with an influx freedom-loving people (regardless of party labels) just like me who are willing to sell everything they have to move there so that we can contribute to a state that believes in freedom.
These people who think that the issues involved in HR3 are party-politics between Republicans and Democrats are disillusioned and do not see the real issues, concerning freedom. If the talk of secession is equal to “tinged evil”, then America’s founding fathers and entire 13 colonies were proponents of “tinged evil”. (I wish people in America would study history!)
If I have anything to do with it when I get there, HR3 would have passed with flying colors! I hope many will join me.
By Joe on 04-23-09
Read the 10th Amendment. Secession is allowed by law in the constitution. Secession = Freedom.
By Roark on 04-23-09
“Teddy Roosevelt”, NOBODY here is giving the GOP a free pass. In fact, it IS the GOP which brought us to this mess. They had all 3 branches of government, and instead of defending liberty and cutting the size and scope of government when they had the perfect opportunity, they did the complete opposite; they grew government and eroded our liberties even further. The Democrats at least admit to and practice statism in the open with no apologies, whereas the GOP, the supposed defenders of freedom, do the same thing as the Democrats, but with smoke, mirrors, and tricky rhetoric. They all need to be thrown out, because they have all broken the law when they vote in favor of any bill that is contrary to the US Constitution and its original intent.
By FreedomForAChange on 04-23-09
“Roark”, you are correct. Republicans (especially on the national level) have sold America’s principles of freedom as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution and Bill of Rights to something other than our best interest. Democrats for the most part are no different.
No one who believes in the fundamental maxims of freedom gives any politician or group of politicians or any elitists who control politicians a free pass when it comes to destroying the liberty that was paid for by our ancestors.
As soon as We the People will get our minds out of the “Republican-Democrat” trap and racket, the sooner we can reclaim our freedoms and the power of We the People.
By woody on 04-23-09
the only reason you righties are crying the demos and rethug are the same is because you lost and are now irrelevant and so want to take your ball and go home…..Sorry but it isn’t “your” ball anymore….
anyway just to break it to you Secessionists but the USA already fought a civil war and we answered that question long ago….thank God the vote didn’t pass - it would have made MT look as dumb as the texas governor - and not a way to try to attract high paying quality jobs to MT.
AND hannity your hero said waterboarding wasn’t torture and he was willing to be waterboarded for charity…any of you righties know who I can donate to?
By Farmer on 04-24-09
I would hope that come next year when there are elections for some of our “elected” representatives that this is kept in mind and that we can get rid of some of our “wonderful” elected officials that have-and are doing this to us. First and foremost, I think that Pelosi should hit the bricks. That woman is a nutcase!
By freeMONTANA on 04-24-09
This bill is not about secession. It’s about State’s Rights. Which is the right of the several States to govern their internal affairs. This bill would have been a warning to D.C. not to meddle or infringe on Montana’s Rights. Texas, Oklahoma and I think Tennessee have already passed similar resolutions, with other State’s in the process of doing the same.The State Sovereignty movement is decades overdue. BTW Gov. Perry is not serious about TX seceding. He worked with Bush and Mexico’s president Fox on the NAFTA superhighway, SPP, NAU Too bad our clueless democrats in Helena did not have the vision too pass H.R.3. They did our State a terrible disservice.
By FreedomForAChange on 04-24-09
You know it is interesting…I wrote a response to “woody” and “Teddy Roosevelt’s” comments and accusations (dated against those of us who opposed the cameras being placed to pass out tickets (tax collection) and “spy” as “conspiracy theorists”. It my response, I presented the philosophical and historical foundation of such a principle in a spirited and debate format—however, Flathead Beacon webmaster/editor would not post my comment because it was apparently “not civil enough.”
But you if you notice, “Woody’s” comments are posted which call people who believe in the above-mentioned principles “righties”, making fun/light of those men and women who died for the Confederate cause of freedom and even goes so far as to recommend the torture tactic of waterboarding on Hannity (not that I like Hannity’s views). I guess “Woody’s” comments are “civil” as is required, but mine were “unacceptable” and not worthy of public view.
I say this to those of you who are frustrated with people like “Woody”—people who have no clue about the principles of freedom articulated by our founders, enlightenment philosophers, and generations of freedom loving people dating back to the enactment of the first Magna Charta in 1215 in Great Britain—I say, those people are too far gone. Anymore, what they need to hear is the dogmatic truth, not as given to a 5 year old, but to a “grown up”. Forget this “no offense, but…” stuff.
Time is too short to waste energy or not get to the point and address the issue that truly makes change. If they reject the truth, the principles of freedom and doing anything about it, then at least you know that they are an enemy to freedom and you can act accordingly.
By woody on 04-24-09
Is that a threat “Freedom”? YOU SAID:“If they reject the truth, the principles of freedom and doing anything about it, then at least you know that they are an enemy to freedom and you can act accordingly.”
I take that as a threat.
Once again why does the right find it so necessary to threaten violence against those that have political or intellectual differences.
BY the way I am against traffic cameras.
AND Hannity said waterboarding was not torture and was willing to be waterboarded for charity. THAT was a joke!
PLUS why does the right get so upset when called names when the posts here are usually 10 to 1 calling me and other lefties(liberals)a dirtbag, idiot, traitor, socialist,etc etc etc?
THE only freedoms the misnamed “Freedomforachange” believes in are his freedoms - not mine - Instead I get threatened for professing my beliefs in MY version of freedom that doesn’t include torture or giving away the gov to the corporation or bombing countries that had nothing to do w/ 9-11, or the fact that I believe the poor in this country have received the shaft by the “republican rightwing - who want to give away the country to the rich to do what they may w/ it.
AND anyway I say righties and lefties as popular terms for republicans and democrats. THEY ARE MAINSTREAM TERMS!
AND the enemy to freedom has been the last 8 years of republican rule - why no calling out the bushies for torture and spying on America?
When was the last time a liberal threatened violence against a republican like freedom just did to me?
When did I make fun of the south or the civil war? I have not.
Hey rutger - you make valid points vis-a-vis rahm emanual BUT you lose all credibility when you resort to racism. AND I didn’t say Montana’s are upset that Obama won - I said the right and the republcans - I know plenty of democrats in Montana that dropped to their knees and prayed a great big Thank You to Jesus when Obama won.
By FreedomForAChange on 04-24-09
Of course you would take that as a “threat”...and of course you assume and presume “violence”...as if this country is filled with “righties” who go around killing “lefties”...get real and wake up and grow up. Fortunately, the time has not arrived to where we have to take up arms to fight for our freedoms. But who knows, that time may come again.
I certainly do not use the “main stream” terminology “left, right, conservative, liberal, republic, democrat” because they rarely reflect the true nature of philosophy and understanding concerning politics, human nature and government.
Certainly your passion for your beliefs are just as strong as any “righty” or “conservative”. Would you not fight for the freedom you say you believe in? If not, how strong are your beliefs? If not, what does that say about the “truth” you are criticizing others for not believing? If so, why condemn others of us who are willing to do the same?
As for your observation of the “last 8 years”, if you look at most of comments, most agree with you—including myself. Anyone who believes in limited government, limited spending, state sovereignty, etc., would have to look at the Bush administration as nothing but the same ol’, same ol’ big government—in fact, it was the worse we had ever seen—until Obama took office.
Those of us who look beyond the party label and personality certainly see that the puppets holding office are simply doing the bidding of those who hold the money of the world. The agenda is clear, and many of us who see the handwriting on the wall hope to God that there will be a group of states who will be what the Federalist Paper writers declared the states should be: protectors of the state citizens against the tyrannical acts of the federal government using their “VOICE and ARMS” (that is a quote).
I am sorry you do not understand the history of American government, both pre- and post-civil war and do not accept the fact that states have a right to secede (which was the very thing that the 13 colonies did in 1776…duh!), but the fact remains. It is a right grounded in the natural laws of God, stating the maxim that no people can be forced to serve at the rod of a government without their consent (thus, the “Declaration of Independence” from Great Britain was drafted to state such a natural law and right of We the People). Where do you think truth, natural rights, and freedom come from?
If we are forced to stay part of a union that is antithetical to the expressed purpose of the constitution, bill of rights and declaration of independence, then we are nothing but slaves.
By woody on 04-24-09
Actually google right-wing violence and see what pops up. How about the police in PA that were just shot to death by a rightwing wacko? Or how about the rightwing wacko that ran into a Unitarian church and started shooting? BECAUSE the right is VIOLENCE filled.
Hence I take your words “they are an enemy to freedom and you can act accordingly.” as a threat. If it isn’t a threat please clarify. Seems pretty threatening to me. Or maybe you are just a bully.
It’s amazing you libertarians always profess to be non-partisan and then want to get rid of ANY laws that might actually rein in the over-reaching power of the monied elite.
It’s like saying lifting weights in repetition will get you into shape so you sit at the bar and your repetitions are 500 16 oz lifts - and then wonder why your not getting any skinnier.
By Roark on 04-24-09
Ignore Woody. He’s primarily long on wind and short on idea’s.
By FreedomForAChange on 04-24-09
As if the number of murderers, rapists, thieves, corrupted politicians, etc. do not believe in “leftists” ideology. How many people on welfare are also in prison today because of the violence they perpetuate?! Also, as if the “rap culture” in the US is not completely filled with violence and immorality—the same group of people who sing Obama’s praises! (though thankfully there are a very, very small number of them who realize the pretense of this administration, as well as the previous). Do you put yourself in the same category with those criminals and thugs? Get real.
Of course there will be exceptions to the rule, where people who commit violence—including those “leftists” who shoot pastors in their churches and Christians at their schools, etc. Most certainly the major media would not want the masses to know that “leftists” commit such violent crimes.
What about the leftist ideology that promotes a woman’s choice to terminate pregnancies even in the last 3 months of pregnancy—at choice, with no due process for the baby! You do not think that is violent! If not, maybe you should take a look at the videos portraying such. Killing the most innocent of life in society—a “right” advanced by so-called and self-proclaimed “peace lovers”.
You know, if I knew who the hell you were, where the hell you lived and did not live 2,500 miles away from MT, certainly I would have the ability to “threaten” you. Any “threat” requires the ability to carry out the act. Are you in fact scared? You might not feel so intimidated by people you perceive as “threatening” you if you exercised the natural right of self-defense (i.e., go by a gun and learn how to use it). hahaha…Ignorance and ramblings do not win your arguments.
By the way, you presume too much—I am not an “independent”. I am a Constitutionalist—like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Wilson, James Otis, Patrick Henry, and all of those other “right-wing conspirators” of the 1770’s and 1780’s.
By woody on 04-24-09
Where are the news stories on the left killing anyone because of their ideological belief? NOWHERE.
AND the framers of the Constitution wrote the most radically liberal governing document the world had ever seen so it is simply false to say that Jefferson et al were rightwing.
I do live in the flathead - in columbia falls in fact, and firmly believe in the right to bear arms.
IF you don’t live in the flathead WHY are you posting here - go to YOUR local newspaper and spout your garbage. AND take roark the east coast plant w/ you for heavens sake.
It’s hypocritical to the nth degree to push state rights and then come in a local newspaper from 2500 miles away and push your hatred.
ANYWAY to say that the rappers are pro-democratic party in all their misogyny mis-states the facts that it is the republicans that push that garbage w/ their stupid testicle lock-box statements etc etc etc….
AND a threat does not have to have an ability to be carried out to be a threat.
threat definition
threat (t?hret)
noun
1. an expression of intention to hurt, destroy, punish, etc., as in retaliation or intimidation
Notice it says nothing about the ability to carry out the threat.
I am not scared of you believe me - I do think you are a mean bully though who finds it refreshing to threaten people who may disagree w/ you on political thought. I guess the right to free speech only applies to you. AND you are a Constitutionalist. That is turning logic on it’s head.
GO crawl back under your rock.
WHAT is scary is that the last time we had a democratic President the rightwing haters worked themselves up so much that the crazy Tim McViegh believed all the garbage and then blew up the Fed BLDG - killing a bunch of innocent citizens and kids in a day care.
AND what does welfare have to do w/ violent convicted prisioners? WOW - talk about synapses not firing correctly.
By FreedomForAChange on 04-24-09
This will be my last exchange with “woody”. As an attorney, it is my natural inclination to debate those who clearly have no position or grounds and who clearly do not have history to support their theories. But as a man of common sense and prudence, I know that “woody” is the type of individual who is ignorant of not only history, but current events, and is unlearned in the fundamental concepts of free government and citizenship. With that fact acknowledged, I write my final thoughts in this discussion (because I believe “woody” enjoys name-calling a little too much, and as Flathead Beacon desire, “we should keep it civil”) and let those who are reading this discussion judge the merits, based upon the study of law, history and government—not merely opinion and rhetoric.
As for my interest in your “local” news and politics, I view MT as one of the few remaining states who understands freedom (much more than most states). Of course, my opinion is not based upon people like “woody”, but based upon the hundreds of Montanans I have talked to and discussed these issues with, including your State legislators and senators and other politicians. It is truly encouraging to see their understanding enlightenment level compared to most people in the US. Thus, given my “right to free speech” and given my tendency to agree with most Montanans with regard to politics, I join Flathead Beacon’s discussion concerning the issues that affect all of us—especially for those who intend to move to MT because they want to live and associate themselves with freedom-loving people. I thank God that “woody” is the small minority in MT…
By FreedomForAChange on 04-24-09
..People like “woody” love to argue emotions and not the facts or history. They make a general statement like, “righties are filled with violence” but when confronted with amount of violence by those who are “lefties” such as the millions of minorities who are consumed with violence (as expressed through their music and lifestyle), they say, “that makes no sense” when in fact most of America’s violent crimes are committed by those who receive welfare, government assistance, hand-outs, medicare, etc., the vast majority of whom are “lefties” and who despise America’s founders as being “racists, homophobes”, etc.
They claim that we who believe in a certain standard of politics, ideology and morals are “hate-mongers” because we believe that there is right and there is wrong. They get highly offended when we are not willing to accept their position as right and then claim that we “intolerant” and filled with “hate”, when clearly there attitude reflects nothing but hate for us. Quite obviously, the US is filled with diverse peoples—peoples who have completely opposite views and beliefs. Is it any wonder why it is collapsing? What does the Bible, “a house divided against itself cannot stand”. The only question is, who is going to prevail. People like “woody” attempt to make us who believe in fighting for freedom as some sort of lunatics or ab orations of nature, when they themselves have guns for (presumptively) self-defense. Yet, they fail to understand that there comes a time when the attack on freedom deserves the response with which it is confronted: “meet force with force”. If “woody” has a right to self-defense against individuals, how much less does the state of MT and its citizens have against those governments (foreign and domestic) who would take away the very same rights that “woody” claims he has a right to defend against the individual? Again, even a short study of these principles articulated in history would give even a non-intelligent high-schooler the knowledge and equipment to know when to stand up and say, “enough is enough.”...
By FreedomForAChange on 04-24-09
Undoubtedly, not all views can be correct, so it is up to those people who believe in searching for truth to decide what truth and where it is found. Every area of life revolves around the idea that there has to be an objective standard of what constitutes freedom. If there were not, then why the hell do we have a constitution (state and federal) to establish the limits of government?
Knowing that the facts and history do not support their argument, people like “woody” are left with nothing but name calling and accusations to isolate and ostracize those who would call their views absolutely wrong. Thus, when someone from their opposite view makes a statement like, “...and treat them accordingly”, they automatically assume that such a statement is meant to seek, kill and destroy—literally and physically—ignoring and refusing to believe that such a statement could mean something other, such as politically, socially, ideologically or otherwise. Although admittedly, when lines are crossed, decisions much be made, which is what Montana is doing even now. It is an internal justification to believe what they believe and a reason to place their opposers on the “terrorist watch list”, as the current department of homeland security has recently done. (By the way, I would call that a threat, “woody”—look at your definition. By the way, while you are looking at a dictionary, you should also read and study what our founders read and studied to get an idea about what America should be about, including the right to secede)...
By FreedomForAChange on 04-24-09
...Certainly, I never suggested that “woody” and those like him should not have their opinions, or express them. Whose stopping them? I support everyone’s right, under the 1st amendment, to express their view—regardless of how ridiculous they are. But that does not mean that we who believe in freedom’s principles must accept their views or even entertain them—nor does it mean that we not attack those enslaving philosophies. The right to think and speak does not impose upon the rest of us the mandate to accept and condone.
Also, “woody’s” classification that our founders wrote the most “radically liberal document the world had ever seen” is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. The fact is, the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution and Bill of Rights were ideals and ideas that dated back to the Magna Carta (not to mention the beginning of Creation as recorded in the Bible) and had been discussed by jurists, theologians and philosophers for hundreds of years in Angl-Saxon history. They were also drafted upon the fundamental principles of natural law (laws established by God at Creation), which existed during the times of Moses and before…
By FreedomForAChange on 04-24-09
...In fact, our founders and enlightenment philsophers quoted the Bible 33% of the time when quoting authoritative sources regarding freedom (including Thomas Paine, who was one of the least “religious” founders)—more than any other source, including the Englishman’s rights under common law (See William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England).
Thus, the founding documents were not “radically liberal” but rather were extremely and fundamentally conservative, because they were attempting to formulate a government upon the natural laws from God, which existed at Creation, and they attempted to circumvent the elitist power of Great Britain from abusing those long-held rights found in not only English law and constitution, but the laws of God—which never change.
Even assuming your categorization of our founding documents is true, the fact remains that our founders did not believe in a “living constitution” whereby the meanings and intents of such changed with time, but believed that a true constitution must adhere to the actual intents and purposes of the constitution to remain free. This means that secession is an absolute right of the state and We the People. It has how we even came to existence, by God. Otherwise, all you have is “situation law”—once again, proving the “conservative” nature of our nation’s founding.
Unfortunately, people like “woody” have been indoctrinated much by public education, major media, party loyalists, religion- and God-hating organizations and has accepted the fallacy that has been expressed by “woody” throughout his comments.
I say that the only way America will remain free is for the people of the states and their legislators and governors to seriously take a look at what made America free to begin with. It wasn’t “conservative v. liberal”, it wasn’t “right v. left”. It was recognizing the natural laws of God and implementing them into society and government.
By grannysgadgets on 04-24-09
Freedomforachange : *HEAR HEAR* !Well said, eloquently spoken, with facts, and a deep knowledge/ understanding !
THANK YOU !
By sophie on 04-24-09
Who are you crazy people? Do you actually believe what you write? I actually live in MT and I am glad that I don’t know any of you pro HR3 people. I would say to freedom for change and all those pro HR3 grow up and stop being such weirdos. Freedom/change please, please don’t move here. I ‘m glad the feds power usurps that of each individual state; that is how it should be. A poor state like MT gets alot of help from the feds so don’t trash them too quickly or they might stop sending everyone’s welfare checks.
By Eric on 04-24-09
By Sophie…honey stick around. They only get stupider with each post. Sometimes I wonder if I’m living amongst a bunch of Jeff Foxworthy’s joke lines.
By woody on 04-24-09
freedom only believes in his sort of freedom…the rest of us get the rack for believing in OUR type of freedom…luckily he is firmly in the minority in this country or we would be in the shape somalia is in.
Actually the fight for independence was a fight of the rightwing/royalists against the “liberals” no matter what way you want to slice it. Just like the bush crime family they are trying to rewrite history to try and show that they didn’t crash the world economy thru their overarching greed. BUT now that they overwhelmingly lost the last election they are turning rabid.
AND if you really are 2500 miles away I say par for the course… - another east coast loony trying to tell the rest of the country what to do - and they argue for state/local rights…....we do want our state rights - stay in YOUR state!
1+1=3 to these people - YOU LOST THE ELECTION - GET OVER IT!
Freedom is another rascist - “violence by those who are “lefties” such as the millions of minorities who are consumed with violence (as expressed through their music and lifestyle)” Talk about a broad stroke! Didn’t you just profess that each individual is their own person but then you go and smear entire segments of the population based only on their minority status -AND you are an attorney -
What’s the difference between a catfish and an attorney? One is a scum sucking bottom feeder - and the other is a fish!
hate to break it to you but we are now into the 21st century - being a racsist - even in Montana is no longer cool.
BESIDES the founding fathers were not pushing Jesus and the Bible on us…...that is why is says “natures God - not Jesus.
Go ahead and insult me all you want - but you are a MINORITY in your beliefs - which are actually what?
JUST another Christian working to make sure the entire world hates us and turning the ideas of the true Jesus on it’s head.
Jesus said turn the other cheek - not an eye for an eye. WE complain about fundementalist islamic crazies but reading (anti)freedom makes me more afraid of the christian right - he is neither christian or right.
By Teddy Roosevelt on 04-24-09
Did anyone catch that? FreedomForAChange said we were “...making fun/light of those men and women who died for the Confederate cause of freedom…”
It is a distorted mind to believe that those who fought for the right to enslave other people, and entire race of people, were fighting for freedom…
We all must stand up and provide a voice of opposition to those who call good evil and evil good.
By FreedomForAChange on 04-24-09
Indubitably, any one who thinks that the ideas expressed by “FreedomForAChange” above are “strange” (or are any variation of “strange”) would have been British loyalists during the year 1776. History proves that not all colonists were loyal to the colonies…but fortunately, they lost the war.
I challenge anyone to read the following works and prove what was said above as NOT being what our founding fathers believed in. Certainly you can disagree with it, but if you do, then you certainly identify yourself as an enemy of the US Constitution—unless of course you can amend the constitution by a 3/4’s majority of the STATES (HELLO!!!)...Otherwise, the constitution remains constant and must be adhered to, and when breached is not enforceable upon the non-breaching party.
1. Story, Joseph, LL. D., “A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States”.
2. Hamilton, Alexander; Jay, John; Madison, James, “The Federalist Papers”.
3. Jefferson, Thomas, “The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson,” Edited by John P. Foley (New York and London, Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900).
4. American Oratory: Selections of Speeches from Eminent Americans.
5. Paine, Thomas, “Rights of Man, Common Sense and other Political Writings”.
6. Sidney, Algernon, “Discourses on Government,”.
7. Grotius, Hugo, “Hugo Grotius on the Rights of War and Peace”.
8. Jay, William, “The Life of John Jay”.
9. Root, Jesse, “Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Superior Court and Supreme Court of Errors from July, A.D. 1789, to June, A.D. 1793”.
10. Blackstone, William, “Commentaries on the Laws of England”.
11. Sidney, Algernon, “Discourses on Government”.
12. Montesquieu, Charles, “The Spirit of Laws”.
13. “The Anti-Federalist Papers” and the Constitutional Convention Debates
14. Story, Joseph, LL. D., “A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States”.
15. Rawle, William, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America”.
...Just to name a very few. Certainly I am willing to be “stand corrected”, but not by people who do not have a thorough knowledge about where America came from and on what foundation it was laid.
By FreedomForAChange on 04-24-09
“Teddy”...let me guess, you are public-school educated and get your news from FoxNews.
That would explain your statement. Good one.
By woody on 04-25-09
That is me (anti)freedom said made fun of the civil war. WAR is not a laughing matter regardless of the love professed for it by the republicans.
AND if you a really an attorney then you would known that the CIVIL WAR established the precedent that the individual STATES CANNOT secede for the country.
I know the right loves to fight the last war not the current one BUT the civil war was over 150 years ago.
By mooseberryinn on 04-25-09
“liberals” are great folks, as long as you agree with them. Otherwise you are an ignorant redneck right-wing extremist. Ok then, smile and say “yes sir, yes sir, no opinion”, and please don’t say ya bought a gun!
By FreedomForAChange on 04-25-09
The Civil War set precedent for the current US tyrannical regime (i.e. federal government). Shouldn’t tyranny always be resisted? I guess if someone were to attack “Woody’s” home and destroy him and his family, that person would then have set the precedent that “woody” did not have the right to resist the aggressor and would have the right to occupy “woody’s” used-to-be home. Better have that gun handy, “woody”. Oh, and you might want to learn mixed-martial arts, just in case you run out of bullets. Since you probably watch plenty of tv, you could take some lessons by watching the UFC fights.
“Woody’s” philosophy is “might makes right”—just like the old empire of Rome, which of course was destroyed from within because of its decadent philosophy of empiralism. “Woody’s” philosophy says that the War for Independence in 1776 was “right” because America won the war, but the War for Independence in the 1860’s was not “right” because the Confederates lost.
Woody certainly and at least admits that the “Civil War” (so-called) was NOT about slavery—that’s correct. If it was, why did Lincoln not “free” the slaves in the non-seceding southern and northern states—yes, there were slaves in the North—shocker!!?? Even worse, the North profited more from slave-labor than the South did. Folks, you won’t learn this stuff on tv or in public schools. For your education enlightenment, try reading “Southern Wealth, Northern Profits”, just to name one historical book on the topic, which was written just before the War in the 1860’s.
If the US Constitution was designed to FORCE the states to be part of a union, then why did the states have to voluntarily join? Why were copious documents written by the most influential jurists of the 1780’s to convince the states to voluntarily join this union?—acknowledging the accepted ideal that the states had the right to secede if the federal government breached the compact? Is the Constitution a compact OR a dictator’s order? (Hey “woody”, look up the definition of a “compact” in a highly used legal dictionary [not your cheap elementary public-school or online version], such as Black’s Law Dictionary—you’ll see that a “compact” is an agreement between government and people—i.e. contract—that when breached by one party, the other party can rescind it…try studying contract and compact law, which is the very basis for secession).
Why did the Declaration of Independence expressly state that We the People have the right and even duty to abolish our government if we so choose (especially when it becomes destructive to the expressed ends of government)? Why did our Founders state that government is by the CONSENT of the governed? Why do any US Constitution amendments have to ratified by the States? Why do states have their own constitutions and government system at all?...
By FreedomForAChange on 04-25-09
...If winning a war is all that is needed to “set precedent” of “right and wrong”, then why not go ahead and declare war against all of the “evils” in this nation and destroy them utterly and physically? What would make that wrong? Who is stopping the federal government from ending all “state injustices” by force? Who is stopping the federal government from taking “woody’s” home and giving it to some “poor soul” on welfare who needs the home more than “woody” does? Have you no concept of the word JURISDICTION!? What about AUTHORITY?! People, it is clear that “woody” and his type know nothing of what made America—either morally, religiously, legally, philosophically or factually.
Thus, until presented with more than merely personal feelings and 5 second soundbites of “The States can’t secede, you big poo-poo head,” then the “woody”-type comments are laughable, and yet very, very sad at the same time.
Certainly I do not see anyone offering any legal or historical proof that HR3 is unconstitutional, immoral, illegal or in any way wrong. If so, BRING IT ON!!! I have already given a list of resources, which came directly from our founding generation…go for it.
By John on 04-25-09
Freedom… you keep marching ahead with your Southern brothers and the Republican party… You’re on your way back to power and won’t be irrelevant for long!
By FreedomForAChange on 04-25-09
“John”,
I would love to march ahead with anyone who loves freedom and who loves the traditional American values—Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitution, Whig…or heck, NO party, for all I care. From the South, North, West or East—all are welcome to march under the banner of Freedom—as opposed to all ideas. Obviously, not all ideas are consistent with freedom. Thus, freedom-protectors should ready to identify an enemy when presented.
Since freedom is never irrelevant, it will always be my aim.
By woody on 04-26-09
what’s funny about (anti)freedom is that he wants the rest of the country to follow his crazy out of touch beliefs or we are stupid…..how did he say it….“public educated”
Pretty much says it all right there - just another greedy rich white southern dude wanting a free ride on the backs of the working man. WELL we voted and we voted to raise your taxes if you make over 250K - WE THE PEOPLE SPOKE! I’m mad at Obama for not acting faster on that - but I think he’ll come around.
OBAMA has lowered taxes for those under 250K - the largest monetary tax cut in history - but if the rich don’t get it all they whine and cry.
AND after the idiotic thing Gov Perry said about Texas seceeding from the Country - guess what a new poll said 75% of texans thought that was a stupid idea. AND last I checked Texas - land of the good doctor - wasn’t a liberal bastion.
What is his version of freedom? Taxes are the price you pay to live in a country - if not who will pay for the socialist roads, schools, fire department, police department, military (the most socialist organization in the country)?
They’re called the commons and we need to maintain them not destroy them as the crazy right wants to do.
They keep saying freedom freedom freedom but what is their answer to freedom - LESS TAXES AND MORE GUNS ONLY!
By Don on 04-26-09
Freedom and Woody2 things to think about in your very important debate is: Material
Woody you seem to be on the Obama ‘Talking Points” while freedom seems to be more on the constitutional side of this debate. Freedom, you have laid down a nice basis for giving a state the right to secede from the union, while woody seems to just be in the mindset “we won get over it!” Your debate is definitely one-sided when it comes to education. While freedom is citing books, history and papers, woody you are just citing the talking points of the liberal establishment. I am by no means biased, but if you are going to get into a debate, you better be armed with the right credentials. long-winded answers seems to be good for the President, but here it is not. freedom is using fact, not fiction and Woody is using bias. Well there you go, freedom has won this debate. Tillnext time gentlemen.
By Think Again on 04-27-09
The Flathead Beacon forums rock! Thinking people, having honest discussions. For 75 years, the Federales - led and funded by the likes of Soros - have distorted/changed the letter and intent of our founding documents. After individual liberties, the intended relationship between our Federal Government and the States is the most important. We definitely need a strong movement to reaffirm the 10th Amendment.
By grannysgadgets on 04-27-09
Don : I agree !
By tpreitzel on 04-27-09
Good Lord! Does ANYBODY read the US Constitution anymore much less the federalist and anti-federalist papers? Our country is in a mess because Americans are thoroughly brainwashed by the government school and mass media institutions. The long train of abuses by the federal government has finally sparked a justified backlash. HR 3 simply restates the obvious intent of the founders via the enumerated powers section of the US Constitution and the adoption of the 10th amendment. By failing to pass this resolution, the Montana legislature is literally guaranteeing the future secession of Montana along with other states in the near future. The people have had enough and rightfully so. This resolution needs to be reintroduced until it passes, because it’s the RIGHT, i.e. constitutional, course to take.
By woody on 04-27-09
Go back thru my posts and you will see I did use facts - you republican/libertarians just choose to not belive them…and that is fine….my words are for the people on the fence not the ones here whose minds are already made up…..
ANYWAY precedent did establish the fact that states cannot secede from the US no matter how many articles and books you write about here…..
anyway what are the freeedoms you all want so badly? More guns and less regulation to let big business and the monied elite run over the average american.
Slamming immigrants, democrats, public education and unions aren’t the way to fereedom….nor is the libertarian give the corporations more power going to give you more freedoms - unless you are one of the corporations or their spokeman - such as anti-freedom.
If granny and roark and freedom and the rest of the wacky right agreed w/ me I would seriously have to rethink my positions but since they vigorously disagree w/ me it must mean I an hitting a nerve and on the right track.
THE rightwing is all for their freedom to think what they will - but if someone disagrees they are labeled as Anti-American etc - the rightwing/libertarian fringe are the worst breakers of their own rules.
By Cowgirl up on 04-29-09
Article IV of the United States Constitution provides for the creation of new states of the Union, requiring that any such creation be approved by the legislature of the affected state(s), as well as the United States Congress. In 2008, several dozen Montana politicians, including Secretary of State Brad Johnson, threatened secession due to D.C. v. Heller, a Second Amendment case that was before the U.S. Supreme Court. In a joint resolution, the Montana politicians argued that when Washington approved the state constitution, including a clause granting “any person” the right to bear arms, upon the Treasure State’s entry into the Union in 1889, the federal government recognized that clause as consistent with the Second Amendment. If the Court had come down conclusively on the side of a collective right, they argued, it would breach the compact for statehood between Montana and the federal government.
By grumpy on 04-29-09
Before the election it was said this man would tear the country apart.create a constitutional crisis, raise taxes, enact more gun laws,....say it ain’t so
By John on 05-04-09
What gets me on this story is this little bit:“
In Texas, Perry may regret all the secession talk. Soon after his comment (see clip below), Rasmussen Reports polled Texas voters and found that 75 percent of them want to remain in the United States, with just 18 percent opting to secede. And the governor was already facing a tough reelection.
“
So, only 75 percent of Texans want to remain Americans? And broaching the subject of secession is a source of regret? I’d say the missing 25 percent ought to be addressed: only 13 percent of the nation is black, and we all feel their wishes should be addressed. For a more dramatic figure, we address the Jewish voters, at under 2 percent. We address Native American interests, at .9 percent. Here, we see that almost twenty percent of Texans want to renounce citizenship and secede from the United States. I think that’s a constituency that deserves some attention from the governor. Not that he said anyone should secede, mind you.
By James Brooks on 05-08-09
The prior article, by John, quotes a poll as saying that most Texans look on talk of secession with regret. In 1861, most Southerners also looked on talk of secession with regret. They regreted what they saw as a growing necessity, secession from the union. They didn’t want to leave the union, but felt they had no choice.In 1866, top Republicans wanted to prosecute Confederate President Jefferson Davis for treason. Davis at that time was in prison awaiting trial, where he had been held for over a year. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Salmon Chase, was asked how the government could best prepare its case against Davis. Chase replied that the government had no case, because secession was allowed by the U.S. Constitution.
By bart in Kalispell on 06-06-09
Here’s how the white man has busied himself in Montana since the 1800’s, with various magnitudes of impact: explorers, fur traders, miners, lumbermen, ranchers, farmers, real estate agents, militant Christians, and now try swinging a dead ground hog over your head without hitting a weekend Constitutional law expert.
A landlocked state with virtually no self-suffiency ought to think twice about refusingthe federal monies that have steadily aided Montana in its drive to become a 21st century state. But I guess all you geniuses will just assign me my time(s) to patch the Interstate. Can I have Sept. 4 off? I’m going to try to sneak into the United States.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.