42 votes

Mississippi Flexing Its Rights!

Recently Gov Bryant has come out against federal gun grabbing laws. There is now legislation that will be considered that will nullify ALL unconstitutional Federal laws. MS is known for this in the past and will continue to fight with Republicans and MS for Liberty Champions working together on legislation.

All we want is LIBERTY!

What do you guys think. Will the Feds drop the hammer on us, or kneel crying as Americas nullification power makes them less and less relevant?

Links:
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2013/pdf/HB/0400-...

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2013/pdf/history/SB/SB2234.xml

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20130125/NEWS010504/301...

http://www.infowars.com/states-rights-pushed-in-bill-that-wo...

http://www.infowars.com/mississippi-governor-vows-to-block-o...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So THIS is why Obama is

So THIS is why Obama is dropping the Southern Strategic Air Defense... they hate Obama and his yankee supporters view Mississippi as economically negligible.

"You must be frank with the world; frankness is the child of honesty and courage...Never do anything wrong to make a friend or keep one...Above all do not appear to others what you are not" - Robert E. Lee, CSA

When State Police and Sheriffs start coming to the aid

of citizens who are being persecuted and hounded and targeted by the Feds enforcing unconstitutional laws, then I'll pay attention. Until then, this is all hot air.

Maybe Mississippi is our

Maybe Mississippi is our "Free State" project in the south. Land is cheap, and liberty is for sale.

I think we

will begin to see States rights against International Organizations like the UN. Its usually how it goes, You Majesty Obama will run to his friends when his people nullify his Orders.

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?
http://youtu.be/yNF09pUPypw

When states enact laws that

When states enact laws that allow the production, sale, and use of marijuana, the federal gov't barges in and ransacks the facilities and imprisons those who were simply following state law. The federal government will overstep it's bounds until it is forced back into it's lawful place.

Ultimately the county sheriffs have to be on board with the people. The Feds are not supposed to execute any warrants without the consent of the county sheriff. Unless the sheriff is on board with the people, the Feds will do whatever they want.

The founders would be ashamed at us for what we are putting up with.

Too Bad

I think most of the Sheriffs standing for our gun rights, don't understand how bad the federal war on drugs is. We'll keep prodding them.

It is as

Anti-federalists feared. Yet I am encouraged by the resistance. Now we only need follow through.

Push too far and this

Push too far and this president would gladly play the Lincoln role and crush the "rebellion". I doubt he would give a second thought to ordering that rebellious plebes be mowed down.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Lincoln was able to do that because he made a deal with

the bankers to float him bonds and issue currency backed by them to pay the soldiers. Otherwise, he was having a hard time keeping enlistments up enough to fight the war.

While we now have the FED to loan endless amounts to be used to pay mercenaries to murder Americans in a civil war, that very behavior is going to produce hyperinflation for those FRNs, thus making them worthless and the soldiers won't be able to be paid anyway.

If we can hold out long enough and cost them enough, we can blow their plans all to hell by forcing them to hyperinflate. We will win in the end, not because we had the superior fire power, but because we had just enough fire power to hold them at bay long enough they bankrupt themselves out of victory.

agreed. How it all ends is

agreed. How it all ends is debatable, but a similar story is playing out.

Historically

it will begin the tyrant's political undoing

ORLY?

That must be why 99.9% of my fellow Americans see Lincoln as the hero who ended slavery...

I see a difference between

between Presidents 16 and 44 (and believe those 99.9% are correct):

the former exercised political responsibility by denying Southern states their prerogative to secede based on a morally unjust cause--the perpetuity of legal slavery

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
"..and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction"

Text
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Ca...

the latter infringes upon the innocent and encourages their enslavement by advocating the removal of their right to bear arms

http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/legislation/277555-obama-a...

Fighting to preserve the union had NOTHING to do with

slavery.

He didn't want to keep them in for that reason.

He wanted to keep them in because the Treasury needed the taxes generated by the South's agricultural activity.

He also wanted to prove the point that the D.C. government was supreme and there was no more State autonomy at all.

Lincoln not only signed a proposed Constitutional amendment that would have protected slavery in the South, he offered to back off that issue entirely if the Southern states would back off their secession rhetoric and stay put. They refused because they knew that wasn't the real issue they were ticked off about and that if they stayed, later down the road they would be helpless to resist any orders from D.C. on that count as well. Their only hope for maintaining their sovereignty was to defend it and exercise it.

The modern equivalent would be if States seceded again today over gun grabbing and a myriad of other issues, but Obama murdered 30 million of us in a war and later used "universal health care" as a rallying cry. The war wouldn't be over universal health care. The war would be about federal tyranny. But that wouldn't stop the historians from skewing the issues towards Obama's plan for 'social democracy' aka—communism.

>

1) 'Fighting to preserve the union had NOTHING to do with slavery'

Untrue and as cited above, South Carolina publicly declared this unjust cause as a significant factor when seceding, and Abolitionists politically declared their position when engaging the conflict
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=69&subjectID=4

2) 'He wanted to keep them in because the Treasury needed the taxes generated by the South's agricultural activity'

Unsubstantiated claim: please source

3) 'He also wanted to prove the point that the D.C. government was supreme and there was no more State autonomy at all'

Unsubstantiated claim #2

4) 'Lincoln not only signed a proposed Constitutional amendment that would have protected slavery in the South, he offered to back off that issue entirely if the Southern states would back off their secession rhetoric and stay put'

I will concede that Lincoln's politics were confused when the War opened, however let me conversely ask: what 'right' did the Southern states wish to exercise as the declared rationale for their secession?

5) They refused because they knew that wasn't the real issue they were ticked off about and that if they stayed, later down the road they would be helpless to resist any orders from D.C. on that count as well

Again, what issue did the Southern states wish to defend as the declared rationale for their secession?

6) 'Their only hope for maintaining their sovereignty was to defend it and exercise it'

Disagreement and as publicly announced here
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.. and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.. and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union”
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Mississippi
Mississippi (similar again to South Carolina) lost its political position when publicly committing to the unethical subjugation of personal agency ~ slavery

7) 'The modern equivalent would be if States seceded again today over gun grabbing and a myriad of other issues, but Obama murdered 30 million of us in a war and later used "universal health care" as a rallying cry'

Disagreement: a (milder) modern parallel would be if a county in Michigan said, "we want to secede from the state so that we may prevent women from voting". If the MI Governor stated, "we will not permit you to violate other individuals' agency and will defend the innocent", I believe his political choice would have been correct
(incidentally I do not agree with conventional 'NeoCon' ideology which believes in interceding in other sovereign countries' civil affairs)

8) '..The war would be about federal tyranny. But that wouldn't stop the historians from skewing the issues towards Obama's plan for 'social democracy' aka—communism'

I agree that states have the right to secede over just firearm ownership or coercive taxation but again, the South's declared cause claimed neither exclusively and remained unjust

The former did not exercise political responsibility

He excercised tryanny by employing the military against it's own citizens. Plain and simple.
His actions costed more lives than all other wars combined - you simply cannot justify that by any means.
By your standards - Stalin and Hitler could claim the same use of political responsibility. Hell, if Obama wanted to confiscate the guns he could claim the same moral responsibility.

The minute someone is using coersion and force in the name of morallity you can pretty much bet the farm morallity has nothing to do with it. And if the war really was about slavery and making black men equal - then he should be looked upon as a double failure. Black people were no longer called slaves - they were called convicts - and unlike slaves who have an inherent value in the fact that they are assets to a farm - convicts are liabilities to the state - and as such the treatment of slaves paled in comparison to the treatment of convicts. So instead of being a slave to a plantation - they were slaves to the government. Read a little history - as slaves - I mean free black men convicted of crimes by all white courts - now called criminals - were horreduoulsy treated by the prison system - sold out to private companies who literally would work them to death - only to make sure the police kept a steady supply of fresh slaves(damnit - I keep doing that - I mean free black men convicted or crimes).
Where was the moral outrage, where is the moral outrage? Hell - this STILL goes on.
Exactly - there is none. Lincoln got his Ferderalism and the south still had slavery. It was just now taken from the hands of the plantation owner and put in the hands of well conncected contractors.

The reality is that the South would have fell rather quickly if the North had let them secede and granted freedom to any black person in a northern state. The North could have froze southern assets and banned trade with them. Britian would have followed the North and banned trade as well. The North then could have used the Navy to intercept slave ships in international waters(they would have had the help of the British in this endevour as well).
The point is there were MANY other options to consider that would have made more sense politically - so the use political morallity is just plain silly.

>

1) ‘He excercised tryanny by employing the military against it's own citizens’

Incorrect: Lincoln authorized action against the newly formed Confederacy which opened military hostilities on the Union’s Fort Sumter, SC in 1861
http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-fort-sumter
Because the Confederacy was also publicly founded upon an unjust moral (~slavery)
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Mississippi
and had thus demonstrated itself to be a malicious state, enacting martial law so as to seize militant Secessionists was likewise correct
http://welcometobaltimorehon.com/pratt-street-riots-april-19...

2) ‘His actions costed more lives than all other wars combined - you simply cannot justify that by any means’

False: your claim was just countered above

3) ‘By your standards - Stalin and Hitler could claim the same use of political responsibility’

False: Hitler publicly stated his immoral ideology
(ex. racial persecution)
"[Nazi philosophy].. demand(s) the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe"
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/kampf.htm
while demonstrating malicious intent by opening hostilities against Poland in 1933
http://www.secondworldwarhistory.com/blitzkrieg-the-german-i...

Although Stalin did not formally publish his political ideology, he officially endorsed the "liquidation of the kulaks (wealthy peasants) as a class" on 27 December 1929 and likewise enacted resolutions in January 1930 thereafter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization

4) ‘Hell, if Obama wanted to confiscate the guns he could claim the same moral responsibility’

I would agree that Obama’s Executive Orders concerning firearm ownership are unethical and should be opposed

5) 'The minute someone is using coersion and force in the name of morallity you can pretty much bet the farm morallity has nothing to do with it'

Disagreement: I see ‘force’ as a neutral term (ex. theoretically compressed energy used to open a door or remove an animal from destroying your property), while ‘coercion’ bears immoral intent (ex. threatening someone under injury to pay taxes against their conscience)

6) 'And if the war really was about slavery and making black men equal - then he should be looked upon as a double failure'

As mentioned above I will concede that Lincoln's politics were confused when the War opened, however I would agree also that the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation
"all persons held as slaves … shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free"
http://www.historynet.com/emancipation-proclamation
was a civil success

7) 'Black people were no longer called slaves - they were called convicts - and unlike slaves who have an inherent value in the fact that they are assets to a farm - convicts are liabilities to the state - and as such the treatment of slaves paled in comparison to the treatment of convicts. So instead of being a slave to a plantation - they were slaves to the government. Read a little history - as slaves - I mean free black men convicted of crimes by all white courts - now called criminals - were horreduoulsy treated by the prison system - sold out to private companies who literally would work them to death - only to make sure the police kept a steady supply of fresh slaves(damnit - I keep doing that - I mean free black men convicted or crimes)'

If referring to political persecution during the Reconstruction and beyond, I will concede that more extensive measures validating personal agency would have been ideal. However not all political battles are won, and I do not see how this would have been Lincoln’s civil responsibility after his death

8) 'Where was the moral outrage, where is the moral outrage? Hell - this STILL goes on. Exactly - there is none'

False: numerous public figures have criticized unjust laws concerning racial persecution
http://www.cpsr.cs.uchicago.edu/robeson/bio.html
while the Civil Rights movement led by figures such as Martin Luther King Junior further achieved gradual success concerning personal agency and the virtues of freedom and justice
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on-this-day/November/Sup...
The contest concerning free dominion continues of course today where individuals face comparable issues, yet I believe that we are graced with a divine conscience to understand the nature of virtue

9) 'Lincoln got his Ferderalism and the south still had slavery. It was just now taken from the hands of the plantation owner and put in the hands of well conncected contractors'

Civilly incorrect in that abduction, indentured labor and human proprietorship has been outlawed in the US
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/house-passes-the-...
Otherwise different forms of political subjugation unfortunately remain, and I suppose that is why we are in the midst of discussion on the Daily Paul

10) 'The reality is that the South would have fell rather quickly if the North had let them secede and granted freedom to any black person in a northern state. The North could have froze southern assets and banned trade with them. Britian would have followed the North and banned trade as well. The North then could have used the Navy to intercept slave ships in international waters(they would have had the help of the British in this endevour as well). The point is there were MANY other options to consider that would have made more sense politically'

Perhaps, while the point of your conjecture is mute regarding the subject of the American Civil War IMO since Lincoln's judgment was correct about the demonstrably malicious Confederacy

11) 'the use political morallity is just plain silly'

Disagreement upon the basis of civil law which judges criminal intent through conscientious choice
http://thelawdictionary.org/criminal-intent

The Civil War wasn't about

The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about the fedgov wanting to preserve itself. If Lincoln's motives were to end slavery there were other ways to go about it.

>

1) "The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about the fedgov wanting to preserve itself"

Why did the federal gov't want to preserve the Union? The Southern states publicly declared their intent to violate individual rights within the institution of slavery. Such an immoral entity therefore loses its ethical position within the political arena

2) "If Lincoln's motives were to end slavery there were other ways to go about it"

Perhaps so, while the point of your conjecture remains mute since Lincoln's judgment was correct regarding a malicious state

See my comment above. Slavery and preserving the union

were not linked in the slightest.

Preserving the union was about preserving a tax base. And it was about Lincoln's ego and saving face.

He wanted to prove Congress and the President had power over the States, INSIDE the States. The South said they didn't have that power. The question technically still isn't settled to this day. But the only parties who held that contention were conquered and occupied after a bloody war and they gave up fighting for their cause.

The South did not secede over slavery. There was no move to ban slavery. In fact, there was an effort to preserve it to keep the South in the union. The South still left, because slavery wasn't the issue for them. The issues were the intrusive and dictatorial internal regulations and heavy taxation that Congress was reigning down on them and that Lincoln was enforcing. Slavery was just fodder for the sheep.

Saying Lincoln preserved the union because of slavery is the Sesame Street-Kindergarten version of the story.

>

1) ‘See my comment above'

Could you please specify which you are referring to?

2) ‘Slavery and preserving the union were not linked in the slightest'

Point previously refuted: South Carolina for example publicly declared this as a significant cause when seceding, and Lincoln ultimately included its abolition as a just cause when defeating the Confederacy
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=27&subjectID=3

3) ‘Preserving the union was about preserving a tax base'

Redundantly unsubstantiated claim: please source

4) ‘And it was about Lincoln's ego and saving face'

Unsubstantiated claim #3

5) ‘He wanted to prove Congress and the President had power over the States, INSIDE the States. The South said they didn't have that power'

Partial disagreement: certain federal privileges are Constitutionally granted that surpass state powers
[ex. maintaining a national military]
and vice versa for state authority above federal
[ex. conducting criminally fugitive rendition]
(note that I personally do not agree with all of the Constitution's enumerated clauses)
http://sparkcharts.sparknotes.com/history/usgovernment/secti...
Which powers then are you referring to concerning the Civil War?

6) ‘The question technically still isn't settled to this day. But the only parties who held that contention were conquered and occupied after a bloody war and they gave up fighting for their cause'

Partial agreement if referring to judging the proper scope of powers between various apparatus of governance
(ex. international : federal : state : county : township : estate : domicile : self),
while other scholars have both agreed with Lincoln's positions regarding the Civil War
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=27&subjectID=3
and disagreed with the Confederacy's
http://www.historynet.com/the-confederacy-americas-worst-ide...

7) ‘The South did not secede over slavery'

Incorrect claim previously refuted
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.. and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.. and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union"
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Mississippi

8) ‘There was no move to ban slavery. In fact, there was an effort to preserve it to keep the South in the union'

Partially incorrect and as previously stated, emancipation was ultimately included as a just cause when defeating the Confederacy
http://www.civilwar.org/150th-anniversary/emancipation-procl...

9) ‘The South still left, because slavery wasn't the issue for them'

Previously refuted again
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.. and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.. and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union"
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Mississippi

10) ‘The issues were the intrusive and dictatorial internal regulations and heavy taxation that Congress was reigning down on them and that Lincoln was enforcing'

Please substantiate your claim

11) 'Saying Lincoln preserved the union because of slavery is the Sesame Street-Kindergarten version of the story'

It does not mean that the argument from historical record is incorrect

had to sign in to upvote you

had to sign in to upvote you and say you're a boss.

I'd love to see a Governor

I'd love to see a Governor get up there and just DO IT. Just don't hold back and go all out for liberty... What are the Feds gonna do, arrest the guy? When a Governor is arrested for fulfilling a mandate for liberty, it'll just wake more people up. You think we'd've gotten free from Britain if they hadn't shot people in Boston or dissolved state legislatures? These are the things that wake people up... We just need people of courage. Go Mississippi!

"You must be frank with the world; frankness is the child of honesty and courage...Never do anything wrong to make a friend or keep one...Above all do not appear to others what you are not" - Robert E. Lee, CSA