Muscatine

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

PROPOSING THE DISSOLUTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS OCCUR.

(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)

Whereas, on July 4, 1776, our founding fathers proclaimed that the people had the right to alter or abolish their government and declared thirteen British colonies to be free and independent, or sovereign, states; and

Whereas, on March 1, 1781, the thirteen states formed a central government they called the United States of America under a charter known as the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which stated that "each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence"; and

Whereas, on September 17, 1787, the leaders of the Continental Congress signed the present Constitution of the United States, which was then transmitted to the thirteen states for ratification and the formation of a new central government; and

Whereas, several of the states delayed ratification of the Constitution and three states made clear their position regarding sovereignty by stating that "the powers of government may be resumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness"; and

Whereas, eventually all thirteen of the independent states ratified the Constitution of the United States and joined the new Union, while retaining their sovereignty as states. The states made the new central government sovereign only to the extent that the states delegated to it limited and specific powers; and

Whereas, the Constitution of the United States is merely a treaty among sovereigns, and under treaty law when one party violates the treaty the other parties are automatically released from further adherence to it unless they wish to continue; and

Whereas, the fifty current principals, or signatories, to the treaty have done well in honoring and obeying it, yet the federal agent has, for decades, violated it in both word and spirit. The many violations of the Constitution of the United States by the federal government include disposing of federal property without the approval of Congress, usurping jurisdiction from the states in such matters as abortion and firearms rights and seeking control of public lands within state borders; and

Whereas, under Article V, Constitution of the United States, three-fourths of the states may abolish the federal government. In the alternative, if the states choose to exercise their inherent right as sovereigns, fewer than thirty-eight states may lawfully choose to ignore Article V, Constitution of the United States, and establish a new federal government for themselves by following the precedent established by Article VII, Constitution of the United States, in which nine of the existing thirteen states dissolved the existing Union under the Articles of Confederation and automatically superceded the Articles.

Therefore

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring:

1. That when or if the President of the United States, the Congress of the United States or any other federal agent or agency declares the Constitution of the United States to be suspended or abolished, if the President or any other federal entity attempts to institute martial law or its equivalent without an official declaration in one or more of the states without the consent of that state or if any federal order attempts to make it unlawful for individual Americans to own firearms or to confiscate firearms, the State of Arizona, when joined by thirty-four of the other fifty states, declares as follows: that the states resume all state powers delegated by the Constitution of the United States and assume total sovereignty; that the states re-ratify and re-establish the present Constitution of the United States as the charter for the formation of a new federal government, to be followed by the election of a new Congress and President and the reorganization of a new judiciary, similarly following the precedent and procedures of the founding fathers; that individual members of the military return to their respective states and report to the Governor until a new President is elected; that each state assume a negotiated, prorated share of the national debt; that all land within the borders of a state belongs to the state until sold or ceded to the central government by the state's Legislature and Governor; and that once thirty-five states have agreed to form a new government, each of the remaining fifteen be permitted to join the new confederation on application.

2. That the Secretary of State of the State of Arizona transmit copies of this Resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and each Member of Congress from the State of Arizona.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (2008)
HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION 1089 By: Key
AS INTRODUCED
A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States over certain powers; serving notice to the
federal government to cease and desist certain
mandates; and directing distribution.
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States reads as follows:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people."; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal
power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the
United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means
that the federal government was created by the states specifically
to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as
agents of the federal government; and
WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York
v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not
simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the
states; and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and
some now pending from the present administration and from Congress
may further violate the Constitution of the United States.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal
government by the Constitution of the United States.
THAT this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government,
as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates
that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated
powers.
THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President
of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker

of the House and the President of the Senate of each state's
legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the
Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

nafta superhighway

martial law in arkansas town

Pelosi Says They Have "Cleaned Up Congress" and that Bush Hasn't Committed A Crime

by Scott Creighton

During an interview on The View, House Speaker Pelosi dismissed Joy Behar's question about why Pelosi is refusing to hold impeachment hearings by saying "If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story.". (Newsbusters)

(Replace Pelosi petition)

Pelosi's blatant disregard for the rule of law when it comes to this administration has been evident from day one. When she first took our constitutional provision of impeachment "off the table", she effectively re-wrote the constitution to suit her own personal agenda. She gave away the only tool to hold the president in check. The founders of this once great nation knew that without this important restraint, any president could seek an imperial level of control that even King George himself didn't have. And Pelsoi gave that oversight away.

Or should we say, she sold it.

One and a half years ago, when the call for impeachment really took off, Nancy Pelosi argued that they had to "build the case" so that it was clear to the American people that it wasn't a partisan attack. One year ago she claimed they "didn't have the votes". Six months ago she claimed there "wasn't enough time". And now, remarkably, Nancy Pelosi, leader of the Democratic Party in the House, is further covering up for the rogue presidency of George W. Bush by claiming on a national television show that Bush and Cheney haven't committed any crimes.

This just days after some 12 people came before the House Judiciary Committee and brilliantly testified to the numerous obvious crimes committed by the Bush administration.

Pelosi made this remarkable comment because she knows that very few people actually watched the CSPAN coverage of the "non-impeachment" hearing and certainly not many people that watch The View. So, she was able to misinform millions of The View's audience without regard for the small percentage that would see through her propaganda.

And that is the point; as long as they can keep the majority of Americans in the dark for just a little while longer, then they can ride out this call to investigate this criminal administration, wait for time to pass and people to forget the facts as they re-write the history, and prepare for the next imperial presidency that will again be unincumbered by the rule of law.

Because that is the end result, people. That is why she took impeachment off the table; from the very beginning she was protecting the 1%ers that this criminal administration serves.

She is not the leader of the opposition Party, but rather, she is a co-conspirator of the most criminal administration in the history of this nation.

She will argue, if pushed enough, that she is attempting to protect the democratic leadership in congress as well as Obama's shot at the White House by making the republicans in the Senate "own this war". But that is a smokescreen that a 10 year old can see through. The design of that talking point is to keep liberals and progressive democrats from talking about, writing about, or working for impeachment. And it has worked.

Many "progressive" sites have banned discussion of impeachment over the past year, year and a half because they felt it would reduce their candidates chances for election in the fall. This has become a guiding principle for some democrats, that has been consciously intertwined with their feverish desire to see Obama in the White House in 2009.

What these well meaning progressives don't see is that the people that really run this country are using their heartfelt "hope for change" as a leash to keep them tethered, obedient, and silent.

But Speaker Pelosi knows what the "Help America Vote Act" did, and she knows what the republicans are doing to the voter registration rolls throughout the south. And she knows damn well what all the hype over Iran is about.

The HAV act placed thousands of unverifiable privately operated electronic voting machines through out the country since it's inception. Greg Palast just did another expose into massive voter registration purges of mainly black and Latino voters in key districts. And we will be involved witha war with Iran before the next election and that will serve to help sell the reason why the "American War Hero" John McCain pulled off the stunning upset of 2008.

After that, there is no chance of impeachment. Bush will put blanket immunity "on the table" for a multitude of crimes that Pelosi now says didn't happen. And the American People will be the big losers in all of this.

Crimes of this magnitude could never have been accomplished without the consent of the leaders of the opposition party as well as the owners and producers of the MSM news outlets.

And as we draw closer to the election that will effectively cap off the end of our form of democracy as we know it, the apologists and co-conspirators within these 5th columns of deceit are going to have to press doubly hard to keep the majority of the American populous from knowing the truth.

And that is exactly what Pelosi is doing in her chat on The View, which you can read for yourself below.

(Replace Pelosi petition)

partial transcript from The View:

ELISABETH HASSELBECK: When Katie Couric was interview him [Obama] he still didn't admit in clear terms that the surge was a success, the surge that he indeed did oppose, and we would be in a different situation had he been making the decisions there. Do you still feel that same way that the surge was not a success?

HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: We had this conversation before Elisabeth. The surge's purpose was to have a military time frame where there would be military security to enable the government of Iraq to make the political changes necessary for reconciliation. I said it before when I was here and I'll say it again: Even with all of the time that has elapsed, they still have not done that.

HASSELBECK: The sectarian violence is down, the civilian deaths are down. I think we need to acknowledge-

PELOSI: The security has, has been improved, but the purpose of the surge was to pass the laws to bring the reconciliation, so we can bring our troops home safely soon honorably and responsibly. And that has not happened. Now the government of Iraq is saying "we want you to go home." So maybe the time has come for us to sit down with them and figure that out.

[...]

JOY BEHAR: You've ruled against impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney. And now Kucinich is trying to pass that. Why do you, why do you insist on not impeaching these people so that the world and America can really see the crimes that they've committed?

[applause]

PELOSI: Well, I think that it- I think it was important- When I became speaker- and by the way, a very important position, president, vice president, speaker of the House- I saw it as my responsibility to try to bring a much divided country together to the extent that we could. I thought that impeachment would be divisive for the country. In terms of what we wanted to set out to do, we wanted to raise the minimum wage, give the biggest increase in veterans benefits to veterans in 77 year history, the veteran- pass research in stem cell- the stem cell research, all of that. This week we're going to pass equal pay for equal work. It has been a long time in coming [applause], pay equity. We're going to pass legislation for product safety, for toys that children put in them. There's an agenda that you have to get done, that you have to try to do it in a bipartisan way. The president has to sign it. If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story.

BEHAR: Can they still do it after he is out?

BARBARA WALTERS: When, when we first- when I interviewed you last year, you had just begun, and you were going to clean up the mess, remember?

PELOSI: We did.

WALTERS: You, you look around this country, 75 percent of the country, forget George Bush, thinks that Congress is doing a lousy job.

HASSELBECK: I think it's 91 percent now.

PELOSI: Well, I don't disagree withthat because largely it's predicated on ending the war in Iraq. That's the main question, and we were not successful. In our House of Representatives, I'm very proud of our members because they voted overwhelmingly over and over again to bring the war to an end, to bring the troops home safely and soon, send it to the Senate, and it hits a dead end. But in terms of that particular standard, I would say I disapprove as well. But we do, we passed some of the things I just mentioned, the energy bill. We worked in a bipartisan way, and ovation, agenda, we have to create jobs, expand health care, protect the American people, and educate our children. And you can't do that if you're trying to impeach the president at the same time, unless you have the goods that this president committed these crimes.

BEHAR: They did it to Clinton.

PELOSI: But they didn't have the goods and it was wrong, and it was wrong, and it was wrong when they did that. Not that I- I have total disagreement with president on the war, the reason why we went in, which was based on a false premise. But that's a different story than saying "can we try to get something accomplished for people," have concerns about the economy and the rest.

Iraqi Peace Activists Speaks Out Against the US Occupation