What has really happened to ‘State Rights’...?
Submitted by RestoreOurRepublics on Thu, 01/19/2012 - 08:04State Rights has been at the forefront of the liberty movement for some time now. With Ron Paul’s campaign in 2007/2008 a great awakening has taken place in the hearts and the minds of many of the people. A waking up, if you will, to the blatant fact of lawlessness executed by our governments, and an era of the Rule of Men and their monetary system of slavery, here in America – all the way up and all the way down. I am here to do my very best to explain and inform you of what has happened, a point Dr. Paul has touched upon, but one which the people (those who actually care about freedom, liberty, and unalienable rights) have not grasped; the starting point of the overthrow of law (usurpation), the destruction of State rights, and the downward spiral of our great American institutions.
Most of us who support the rule of law (the fundamental principles of constitutional republics) have come to the realization that we are not being told the whole story, we were and are being taught half truths, and brazen lies about what our governments have and have not done. We have been spoon-fed revisionist history, told to place our hope in men once every two years to restore to us what has been lost, and to ignore the evils of the past because the ‘ends justify the means’. The truth is, my country men, comfort and security has reigned supreme in our communities for generations now; we have lost our way and have come to believe that a little freedom is equal to the “Freedom” our forefathers intended for us. If you are reading this you are the exception, truth is what matters most, and the consequences in pursuit of truth are worth the sacrifice; “..our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”
What has inspired me to write this, aside from the obvious passion that “eternal vigilance” requires of us, is the recent ‘hue and cry’ coming from former Bush administration speechwriter Michael Gerson: that Ron Paul is on a “quest to undo the Party of Lincoln”. This is where the answer to our question begins, but it is a trick question, because without coming to terms with the answer we will never restore to ourselves and our posterity what has been lost.
The trend we see today with the Obama administration is nothing new and, in fact, was initiated by the so-called ‘savior of the Union and great emancipator’. Lincoln and the 37th Congress waged an unjust war for the purpose of consolidating power in Washington City, this is the bottom line. I am aware of the rhetoric surrounding the ‘necessity’ of the war, but the truth is, if we are reasonable and logical; if we truly take the time to look at the history of the time and what followed, the picture becomes quite clear – the ‘American Civil War’ was a revolution waged by the ‘Radical Republicans’, one which was intended to overthrow the founding principles of our National constitution and the States which granted it power.
Lincoln’s war of genocide was the first step in setting the stage for all that we see that is going wrong in our nation today. The next great breach of trust and power grab by our National government occurred in 1867 and 1868 with the 39th Congress – the Reconstruction Acts. These Acts forced the ratification of the 14th Amendment and forced the annulment of lawful state governments. Now, many will say that this amendment was for the purpose of ‘giving civil rights’ to the recently freed slaves, however I would beg to differ – What then was the purpose of the ‘Civil Rights’ movement in the 1960’s? A closer inspection of the intent of the 14th Article of Amendment is also necessary to draw a clearer picture. The following is an excerpt from one of the ‘fathers’ of Congressional Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment, and is quite clear, and telling, as to the true purpose:
“...All were ordained in the spirit of liberty, all prohibited the existence of any form of slavery, and all heartily recognized the supreme sovereignty of the National Government as having been indisputably established by the overthrow of the Rebellion which was undertaken to confirm the adverse theory of State-rights...
...As the vicious theory of State-rights, had been constantly at enmity with the true spirit of Nationality, the Organic Law of the Republic should be so amended that no standing-room for the heresy would be left....
...Its opening section settled all conflicts and contradictions on this question by a comprehensive declaration which defined National citizenship and gave to it precedence of the citizenship of a State. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." These pregnant words distinctly reversed the origin and character of American citizenship. Instead of a man being a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of one of the States, he was now made a citizen of any State in which he might choose to reside, because he was antecedently a citizen of the United States.
The consequences that flowed from this radical change in the basis of citizenship were numerous and weighty...
...The first section of the Constitutional amendment which includes these invaluable provisions is in fact a new charter of liberty to the citizens of the United States; is the utter destruction of the pestilent heresy of State-rights, which constantly menaced the prosperity and even the existence of the Republic; and is the formal bestowment of Nationality upon the wise Federal system which was the outgrowth of our successful Revolution against Great Britain...” James G. Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress 1861 - 1881
Vol. 2, pp. 300, 303, 312-313 (The Henry Bill Publishing Company 1886)
My countrymen and women, this is but the tip of the iceberg of what happened to State rights. For 151 years our system of government has been trying to rationalize and incorporate lawlessness into our system of government – “How can we make it appear that the Constitution for the United States of America is unfettered; that we have not set up a legislative oligarchy?”
I realize that this issue is not a simple one, the legal implication are “numerous and weighty”, but how can we expect to repair or remodel our house when we are unwilling to address the foundational problems which have persisted? Are we a nation of laws, or a nation of men? Do we truly believe in the fundamental principles of law embraced by our founding fathers or are the political whims and passions of the day superior to Natural Law? This issue is not unknown to the legal profession; it has just been considered taboo – From the Supreme Court of Utah:
“… In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, which the present Supreme Court of the United States has by decision chosen as the basis for invading the rights and prerogatives of the sovereign states, it is appropriate to look at the means and methods by which that amendment was foisted upon the Nation in times of emotional stress…
...We have spoken in the hope that the Supreme Court of the United States may retreat from some of its recent decisions affecting the rights of a sovereign state to determine for itself what is proper procedure in its own courts as it affects its own citizens. However, we realize that because of that Court's superior power, we must pay homage to it even though we disagree with it; and so we now discuss the merits of this case just the same as though the sword of Damocles did not hang over our heads.” Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403(1968)
This issue can no longer be ignored; it is ripping our nation apart. The ‘Civil War’ was a crime, Lincoln a tyrant and usurper, Reconstruction unconstitutional, and the 14th Amendment a nullity, void, in law. Constitutionally-minded people, such as Ron and Rand Paul are not ‘going to save us’; they are there to walk shoulder-to-shoulder with us, to give us aid and support in restoring our republics. Are you willing to educate yourselves upon this truth we must face? Are you willing to face the broken heart of our nation, and then do what must be done?
I will look forward to the discussion.
In liberty,
Isaac Hutchison Birch
There's something more insidious than what Obama is doing...
....within the "conservative" movement there is now movement afoot to INCREASE the scope and size of government through state's rights.
Example: AZ SB1070. Under the guise of "state's rights" they use state law to enforce federal law. That in itself is not strictly objectionable (though there are valid objections to it.)
The problem is HOW they enforce it. For example, the law states that state databases of state citizen information be dumped into federal databases, including the Homeland Security REAL ID database.
That turns the drivers license into a national id.
Further, police can stop ANYONE for ANY REASON just to check their papers (i.e their drivers license against the INS, i.e. Homeland Security database)!
I have several other examples, but I think this one illustrates the point.
While that was done under "state's rights", is that really the direction we want "state's rights" to go?
Historically, conservatives have supported "state's rights" to UNSHACKLE themselves from the onerous federal government, not to EXPAND government, like SB1070 does.
Obama?
I do appreciate the comment, however it appears you did not read anything that I wrote. Did you only read the title, maybe the first paragraph and posted a response? The nefarious mechanization of a de facto government to maintain and uphold the greatest usurpation in the history of a free people is an interesting course of study. But, the point of this article is to educate people upon the jurisprudence of that usurpation. Considering the amount of information on this topic this is a relatively short article. I encourage you to take the time to read the article and perhaps some of the comments and my responses.
Kind regards,
Isaac
United States Supreme Court
My case was docketed on March 27th. The NC Attorney Generals Office has waived its right to respond to the petition itself(giving reasons why the petition should not be granted). Now it is just a matter of seeing if the Court will order them to respond, deny or grant the petition. I will be updating my Blog in the next day or two on the topic.
Repeal the 16th and 17th. Until then, there are no state rights.
Original intent was to tax the states, and have the states represented in the Senate. Restore that precept, and most of the problems we discuss here will diminish, if not vanish.
Vote for Liberty...Buy Silver Eagles.
The 16th and 17th...
Sorry for the delay in response. I believe you are missing the over-arching point. The 16th and 17th are already de facto in nature, because of the unconstitutionality discussed above. You must ask yourself who ratified the 16th and 17th amendments? A de facto; unconstitutionally enacted political status. Look into the doctrine of 'unconstitutional acts' a little more closely and that should clear it up for you.
Governors
I can't understand why governors especially Republican ones, haven't come out and endorsed Ron Paul. It seems to me that governors stand to gain the most with Ron Paul in the White House.
The amount of power that Ron rightfully wants to give back to the states should have them salivating. With a Ron Paul presidency the governorship might actually mean something again.
I guess its up to us to begin the conversation with our governors and former ones, on why we believe it is important to us to have Ron Paul as the president. And why it would give power back to governors where it belongs.
Let the discussion begin here.
Governors for Paul!
I have an inkling that most governors prefer FRNs to power
It's easier to get re-elected by dispensing FRNs, and the supply from the Feds would hopefully decrease during a Paul presidency.
States Rights, Per Tom Woods
Overall: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxjgYploYNg&feature=relmfu
Problem: 14th Amendment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P56ZeBotFeA
Solution: Nullification
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJkvzbYhmms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJUVhZ3Pomg
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none.--Thomas Jefferson
More On Nullification (Excellent)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxxJYbZktyQ&list=FLk4b6P1C3Q4...
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none.--Thomas Jefferson
Thank you...
Alliance With None,
Thank you for the video posts. Mr. Woods' information on State Rights and nullification is very informative. It is my intention to thoroughly study the topic and the historical references he presents. I must say, however, that his information on the 14th Amendment is a little glossed over. John Bingham of Ohio is but one of the men on the committee that drafted the 14th Amendment. In my view, much of the juridic controversy surrounding the 14th is derived from attempts to make something fit into the Constitution that has an extremely unconstitutional foundation, origin, and intent.
Though Mr.Woods addresses the issues surrounding the War of 1812; i.e. constitutionality of a war of aggression, secession, conscription, nullification etc.; he neglects to tie his conclusions to Lincoln's administration and Congressional Reconstruction.
Now, to tie the 'solution of nullification' into the issues which I am bring up:
The 14th Amendment did in fact create a new political body; a new national citizenship within the federal jurisdiction, making the federal government supreme, ultimately destroying the "...pestilent heresy of state rights..." (James G. Blaine). This did bring about the application of the 1st Amendment to the states (further study of the 1st Congress' debates on the 'Bill of Rights' will demonstrate original intent; 2 thru 8 applied to both the states and the general government). The 14th Amendment was ratified by and through the Reconstruction Acts - it is a nullity and void as an operation of law according to the doctrine of unconstitutional acts. The political office/status of 14th Amendment US citizenship is de facto and a nullity (as if it never existed). In order for a political body to nullify anything, Reconstruction needs to be addressed and the lawful body politic must be asserted for nullification to be applied, or to even bring a claim in law upon the issues. For a 14th Amendment citizen to bring such claims in law is a sophism, because of the nature and relationship between a body politic de facto and one de jure.
As I said before, thank you for sharing the information, it will prove very helpful in sharping the point of my argument.
Best regards,
Isaac
You're Quite Welcome
See above for an additional (and perhaps definitive) talk on nullification.
Plus another lecture on states rights generally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm-8oIw2_6c&feature=relmfu
Good luck Isaac!
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none.--Thomas Jefferson
Isaac, what do you propose to do about it?
I'm curious to know what you would propose to do about the problem you have pointed out. I can tell you without hesitation, and with actual data, that VERY little interest exists on this forum or in this nation in actively restoring the rule of law, or even in influencing the society to read its own Constitution. Yes, many would enjoy passively watching a new president tackle this issue, but you'll have a really hard time getting people to accept the idea that their active participation in it will be necessary. (And it will.)
http://www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
http://www.dailypaul.com/212252/read-it-america-getting-one-...
Indeed, there is far more interest here in the Paul campaign itself---even to the unhealthy extent that its success is irresponsibly exaggerated and that its faults are summarily denied.
For example, your own post says, "With Ron Paul’s campaign in 2007/2008 a great awakening has taken place in the hearts and the minds of many of the people." While, on the one hand, you say merely, "many", your use of the term "great awakening" brings to mind (perhaps purposely?) the massive public movement of the 1700s. Meanwhile, however, the Ron Paul movement has yet to attain to such a momentum. Thus is your assertion, as well as so many others here that are like it, highly exaggerative. Nearly everyone (myself included) is prone to the mistake (upon his own "awakening") of assuming that "everybody else" is waking up, too.
Another common exaggerative trap is that of picking but a single issue and grossly overstating its importance. You do that when you say:
The facts of the matter are as follows:
Meanwhile, a great deal of irrational argumentation is present here---especially when it is engaged in pursuit of downplaying apt criticism of the Paul campaign. In short, it seems taboo to say anything that short-sighted people might see as "critical of" or "damaging to" the campaign. Never mind if the idea could improve the campaign. This comes as no surprise, however, as this is the typical behavior of our complete society. What passes for sound argumentation today is a joke...and so is the political ethic of the populace.
Your parting line was:
And this raises anew my question for you: What, in your view, "must be done"? What do you propose?
Jack
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.characternotincluded.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
Your opinion...
Forgive me if I do not respond to all your statements and opinions on the subject, I do appreciate you taking the time to post a comment.
My intention is to take the issue to the United States Supreme Court, which I am in the process of doing. It is not necessary to have the majority support of public opinion, as this is a claim in law. The Constitution for the United States of America is a contract, or trust indenture if you will, of which I am a claimant to, and my claim is that it has been breached.
As far as there being "no clear and present danger" that is your opinion.
Instigating a significant social paradigm shift, historically, only takes a passionate minority.
I would be happy to send you a copy of the petition, just contact me.
Kind Regards,
Isaac Hutchison Birch
This was just responding to your last comment....
"Best of luck to you as well, keep asking questions, keep digging, and watch out for the snake oil. The snakes are oily enough as it is"
I agree however, this just makes too much sense for me. I believe we have the right to self-govern. I don't see what is so crazy about it
Subsection 33 Book I of Law of Nations states,"But if the question be, to quit a form of government to which alone it appeared that the people were willing to submit on their entering into the bonds of society, — if the greater part of a free people, after the example of the Jews in the time of Samuel, are weary of liberty, and resolved to submit to the authority of a monarch, — those citizens who are more jealous of that privilege (freedom), so invaluable to those who have tasted it, though obliged to suffer the majority to do as they please, are under no obligation at all to submit to the new government: they may quit a society which seems to have dissolved itself in order to unite again under another form: they have a right to retire elsewhere, to sell their lands, and take with them all their effects."
Prince Giorgio of Seborga tends to agree with this view completely......
How to start your own country Seborga
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wQ3fI5-H3I
The Problem is Choice - Peaceful Settlement of Disputes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPzgjDwU2sg&list=FLef4ALnQaec...
I guess I just don't see what is so crazy about exercising the right of self-determination and hope these help illuminate this completely rationale "under-standing"
Self determination
There is nothing wrong with self determination. To be honest with you, if my petition fails, I will most likely try one more time to get the issue heard, refining the questions. However, just as Vattel suggests, if my attempts fail I will "retire elsewhere".
My contention with the issues you where suggesting, which were presented by David Williams, in our previous correspondences is not an issue with self-determination, or sovereignty, but the purported 'historical facts' and conclusions of law that were being suggested. I found both to be wanting and misleading. David Williams, as I said before, is quite articulate and well spoken, which makes him seem credible. However, a little research suggests otherwise, meaning this: He presented a narrow view of what he was asserting, i.e. giving one definition of 'constitution' out of 5 or 6, and presenting only the secondary definition. I could go on...
Take care King. Perhaps things will change here in the U.S. perhaps they will not and I will run into you 'elsewhere'.
For sure...you too
In the meantime I will keep studying as not understanding the truth keeps me at the mercy of liars. I do hope the US can turn around.
However, if we continue to be denied a voice (voter fraud etc) in the democratic participation of our country of origin, and we continue to be denied basic human rights as well, it merely makes a stronger case for secession or the creation of a new nation-state.
And yes, maybe he is wrong about some of the historical facts presented, but he isn't the only one who has stated these facts. Hopefully you are right and this thing can be resolved in a less drastic manner. But if not, I am not sure I can say he is entirely wrong as "the fact (of having no standing to state a claim for which relief can be granted) speaks for itself". But I do think what you are doing is very important and I wish you well in your endeavours.
You know what? Have at
You know what?
Have at it.
Seriously. I wish the South would just secede from the US. It is a backwards, broken down, poor place that is more than 30 years behind rest of the country. In education, in technology, in industry, etc. States like California and New York have to subsidize these states; build roads and factories for them...22 of the top 25 poorest states are red states; all the major Southern states (save the great Texas) are welfare queens; they take and take and take and pay little in taxes. Southern academic schools are pathetic compared to their northern rivals.
It is a place where over half the population believes the Bible LITERALLY. A place where 28% of the population is against interracial marriage; a place where over 80% of the population believes that slavery WAS NOT a cause of the Civil War; a place where it is legal to marry your cousin, but not legal to marry someone of your own sex.
Forget them. They've been dragging down America for too long.
Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:
Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...
Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a
Well bless your heart!
that's Southern for "you are an idiot"
=======
RON PAUL 2012
Wow.
That is pretty amazing you would vomit that tripe all over the place. The only response I think I will make on this is a quote from Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies in this word: Lies, damn lies, and statistics"
That's got to be the most
That's got to be the most factually inaccurate and bigoted post I have ever seen on the Ron Paul forums. A simple google disproves most of your "statistics", with the rest simply being bigoted and empty rhetoric.
"22 of the top 25 poorest
"22 of the top 25 poorest states are red states"
From poorest to richest; top 26:
Mississippi Red, South
West Virginia Red, South
Arkansas Red, South
Kentucky Red
Alabama Red, South
Oklahoma Red
Tennessee Red, South
Montana Red
South Carolina Red, South
Louisiana Red, South
New Mexico Red
North Carolina Red, South
Florida Red, South
Idaho Red
South Dakota Red
Missouri Red, South
Michigan Blue
Ohio Mixed
Indiana Red
Maine Blue
Nebraska Red
Georgia Red, South
Kansas Red
North Dakota Red
Iowa Red
Texas Red, South
There ya go!
"all the major Southern states (save the great Texas) are welfare queens; they take and take and take and pay little in taxes."
http://gumption.posterous.com/disproportionate-ratios-betwee...
Every single southern state except Georgia and Texas (barely) take more in federal spending than what they pay in taxes.
"Southern academic schools are pathetic compared to their northern rivals."
Do I even have to prove this one? Texas and North Carolina are the only two states with decent post-secondary public education (and for both states it falls dramatically after the flagship schools).
"It is a place where over half the population believes the Bible LITERALLY."
http://able2know.org/topic/97100-1
"A place where 28% of the population is against interracial marriage"
See the Gallup 2005 poll.
This link: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/04/08/46-of-Miss-GOP-Ban...
46% of Miss GOP wants to ban interracial marriage.
This link: http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/Record-High-Approve-Black-...
21% of Southerners and 22% of conservatives disapprove of interracial marriage.
"a place where over 80% of the population believes that slavery WAS NOT a cause of the Civil War;"
This number could be wrong. 42% of Southerners say slavery wasn't a MAIN caus eof the car and 36% say it wasn't a cause at all.
"a place where it is legal to marry your cousin, but not legal to marry someone of your own sex."
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/96371/more-u-s-states-allow-...
Check out this graphic.
Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:
Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...
Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a
reply
"all the major Southern states (save the great Texas) are welfare queens; they take and take and take and pay little in taxes"
Except when you take into account the federal welfare programs and such, the blue states take MUCH more than they give.
Not saying I'm a huge fan of the south or anything, but when I lived in Florida and Georgia I didn't come across any kissin' cousins, hardcore Bible thumpers or anything like that. I also found a lot of the people to be far less snooty and judgmental than people from the north (and this is coming from a native New Englander).
And frankly, I don't get the whole "southerners are bigots" meme, which in bigoted in itself. Again, I'd say places such as NYC and Boston are far worse when it comes to race relations. You don't have black, brown, and white gangs killing each other in record numbers in Little Rock, do you?
"Do I even have to prove this one? Texas and North Carolina are the only two states with decent post-secondary public education (and for both states it falls dramatically after the flagship schools)."
I believe this to be a moot point given that public education throughout the country is pretty much shit.
As far as slavery being the main cause of the civil war...yeah, you may want to check into that. Lincoln himself owned slaves, and simply wanted power. Notice how the federal government became MUCH more powerful after the war.
As far as the marriage thing goes, it actually makes some sense if you think about it (not that I condone it). Historically, marrying a first cousin wasn't considered a very big deal, while homosexuality in general was condemned (though obviously the level of tolerance of either varied between cultures).
A signature used to be here!
Proof on the federal weflare
Proof on the federal weflare programs? Blue states tend to have better state-run welfare programs, but where is your proof that the federal government gives more welfare tot he blue states?
On education; there are plenty of states with excellent education. The American university system is unrivaled.
I can see that slavery wasn't a main cause, but to say that it wasn't a cause at all is foolish. Had the North been willing to accept slavery, the war would have been definitely postponed if not avoided. Many of the seceding states, in their seceding resolutions, stated that slaveyr was the cause of the war, as did the VP of the Confederacy.
Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:
Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...
Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a
First off, this discussion
First off, this discussion has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread, and by respionding I know I'm simply "feeding the troll", but for those who might be inclined to agree with this guys tripe -- statistics are easily manipulated to support/deny a claim. NOTE, he posted random polls/blog links, and resorted to demeaning stereotyping & name calling
I'll simply post gov't agency-based numbers
=========================================================
Welfare spending by Sate [$ per capita, 2011 estimated total]
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/compare_state_spending_2011h40c
Lowest-spending 12 states [$ per capita]:
Alabama
Mississippi
Texas
Arkansas
Arizona
Georgia
Missouri
South Carolina
Oklahoma
Virginia
South Dakota
Tennessee
Highest-spending 12 states [$ per capita]:
California
Connecticut
Ohio
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Oregon
New York
Washington
Massachusetts
Alaska
District of Columbia
the last "hard numbers" we have are 2007-2008 [here are the highest-spending welfare States]:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31910310/The_Biggest_US_Welfare_State...
1. California
2. Maine
3. Tennessee
4. Massachusetts
5. Vermont
6. Washington, DC
7. New York
8. Minnesota
9. Washington
10.[tie] Indiana - New Mexico
12. Rhode Island
13. Michigan
14. Pennsylvania
15. Oregon
so that's 1 Southern State, and how many Northern/New England States? looks like 5 to me
====================================================
Tax Contribution -- here's a prime example of how "statistics" can easily be manipulated to support a broad claim like you made "all the major Southern states (save the great Texas) are welfare queens; they take and take and take and pay little in taxes"
Are we talking gross revenue, revenue per capita, Federal taxes paid vs Federal spending, payroll taxes only, etc etc etc?
all of these factors will have an effect on "results" of "who's the worst"
====================================================
Cousin Marriage -- which is nothing more than a social taboo. Genetically speaking there is very little "danger" in first-cousins procreating...but I know some love to stereotype us with their Deliverance-propaganda, so here are the legal standings by State on the subject:
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/state-law...
"Southern" States that allow first cousins to marry [7 total]: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina*, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia
"Non-Southern" States that allow first cousins to marry [13 total, of which 8 are "Yankee"/New England states]: Vermont, California, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island
====================================================
Education -- there are too many factors which play into education to make a broad generalization like "schools in the South suck"--that's merely bigoted rhetoric. You must take into account socio-economic factors, demographics, per student spending inequalities, and the list goes on. Are we looking at public schools only, or do you include test scores for homeschoolers/charter/private/etc schools? Are we talking K-12 or university or both? Are we talking total spending, test scores, $ per student, etc etc etc
here's a US News' Top 100 High Schools:
http://education.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-high-sch...
As far as the university system, it really depends what sort of course work you're comparing -- different schools excel in different fields
====================================================
Slavery and the War for Southern Independence [aka War of Norther Aggression, aka War Between The States, aka Civil War] --
Although no one can disagree that slavery was a major contributing factor during the War, it certainly wasn't a "cause" of the war [didn't actually become an issue until well into Secession]. There is way too much info re: the Causes of the War for an online post, but simply put the initial "main cause" had to do with the North imposing excessive and unfair taxes on the South. Educate yourself by reading the speeches, letters, writings of those leaders in the decades leading up to Secession -- not the grossly simplified, revisionist rhetoric of modern public school textbooks
====================================================
"Literal" Bible -- who's to judge how people respond to their religious texts? Is there a slight larger percentage of those in the South who read the Bible literally? sure...is they're an even greater percentage of say Muslims who take their text literally, or Orthodox Jews who take their's literally? Or how about atheists who take anything Richard Dawkins says as "indisputable truth"?
Religion and faith are exactly that, based on faith. They can never be proved or disproved. Judging & demeaning others based on their religious or non-religious beliefs is bigoted & intolerant, simple as that. This goes for everyone.
========================================================
I spent the time to respond above simply to show that many assumptions that we make, even those based on "statistics", can be easily manipulated and misrepresented in order to further stereotypes -- this is what Dr. NO did, seemingly because s/he hates Southerners
The fact that Dr. NO even brought up these bigoted stereotypes in this thread goes to show the trolling nature of the poster, but more importantly the attempt to take a very serious & i might add NON-REGIONAL subject -- the challenging of the illegal, un-Constitutional 14th Amendment -- and dismiss it as a "oh its those dumb rednecks again". This matter -- challenging the 14th Amendment -- affects all People of all States equally. It undermined & continues to undermine the very foundation of our great Republic, from Florida to Maine to California to Alaska.
So let's get back on topic.......
Very Important Article
Mr. Birch's article is very important because reclaiming our country depends on whether the truth of history is known and understood or not. The history of this country, its Constitution, is part of the whole fabric of history, a tapestry that spans many centuries, even before the colonies were formed. We must look at the whole, and some of it just isn't very pleasant, and could damage our faith in just about everything we thought we knew and believed. When I found out some of it, it quite literally made me feel like I was about to toss my cookies. We've been lied to since day one. I am not about to discuss particulars of that. That's for each of you to find for yourselves. The Constitution of 1787...was it really for We The People? Was the Civil War really fought to make all men free, or to enslave all men? What has Congress really been doing to us for 225 years? How much more are they going to do to us before we understand that we must make it stop?
"What if the American people learn the truth: ...We have allowed our nation to be over taxed, and over regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats- The founders would be ashamed of us for what we're putting up with!" ~Dr. Ron Paul, for President 2012.
What happened to States Rights?
UN Agenda 21: Sustainable Development
Book available from the UN for $65 or you can find more info on the web.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
Question
Are you saying that State rights are 'gone' because of Agenda 21?
Yes
The UN Agenda 21 is all about moving the USA to global government, and they do it through corporations. One might have thought that Nader won the election with all the corporations who went GREEN, eh? This greening is UN Agenda, which Nader opposed BTW, and why he was silenced and demonized.
All of our States are adopting UN Agenda laws beginning with the Environment.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
Is it...
The question is: Is the treaty Constitutional? No, it isn't. Second, what is the foundation of its enactment? Congressional Reconstruction. I definitely understand the concern over the treaty, however it is a symptom of the root problem, not the root problem itself.
You can purchase the tome for $65.00 in UN bookstore
It is THE GLOABL roadmap to NWO global government run my corporations.
You can actually adjust your corporation with the changes they inform you and turn a profit, as many corporations who turn "Green" have.
To say it's a symptom... hmmm. The US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and congress are irrelivant to this global movement. The "Neos", Neocons in the GOP and Neoliberals in the Democratic Party are the same party with two branches occupying BOTH major parties. The Neocons outted the conservatives, betrayed them, had them faulsely arrested, smeared... Corporations the fell through fraud, and the neoliberals did the same to liberals... it's been going of for quite some time. Now the Federal Reserve is going to end, because this global government wills a global centraol bank, with branches representing the resources of wach continent, and let me point out, ALL the work is based on science. The UN science claims the Earth can only support a human population of 500 million humans.
It's so unreal, who can believe it? And yet, everyday we move closer and closer.. symptoms? Sure like AIDS is a symptom on an immune diffenciency.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!