Topic: Like we need more proof the entire enterprise is diseased...

[Libertas]

"...the administration sees the "Horse Act of 1884" as providing ample authority for the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to regulate the tens of thousands of preparers who fill out millions of Americans' federal tax returns."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/24/us-usa-tax-preparers-idUSBRE98N17N20130924

The IRS needs to end.  It would also take care of ObamaCare because the government would lose its enforcement arm.  Any continued funding of this department is unforgivable!

[warpmine]

"...the administration sees the "Horse Act of 1884" as providing ample authority for the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to regulate the tens of thousands of preparers who fill out millions of Americans' federal tax returns."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/24/us-usa-tax-preparers-idUSBRE98N17N20130924

The IRS needs to end.  It would also take care of ObamaCare because the government would lose its enforcement arm.  Any continued funding of this department is unforgivable!

This obomination of a government needs to end now before the shooting begins.

[Libertas]

"...the administration sees the "Horse Act of 1884" as providing ample authority for the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to regulate the tens of thousands of preparers who fill out millions of Americans' federal tax returns."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/24/us-usa-tax-preparers-idUSBRE98N17N20130924

The IRS needs to end.  It would also take care of ObamaCare because the government would lose its enforcement arm.  Any continued funding of this department is unforgivable!

This obomination of a government needs to end now before the shooting begins.

Y'all see any evidence whatsoever that Conservative/Libertarian/Tea Party (CLTP) concerns are even given fair treatment in discussion let alone adoption even on a trial basis?  Any evidence anywhere the non-CLTP PTBs are interested in any form of peaceful coexistence with us?  Hello?  Bueller?  Bueller?

No.

All the evidence we see is that the statists want us gone, they want us to either give up and shut up or they'll make us give up and shut up...and if left to their own devices they would enslave us and eventually get around to just killing us off through whatever pleasant euphaisms they dream up to hide their tyranny.

Will they let us carve out our own safe areas within the confines of this nation?

I doubt it.  Their view that the member states have entered into a involuntary suicide pact seems preeminent in their designs, and they like to cite Lincoln and the Civil War as the last arbiter on that discussion, when point in fact the Civil War was a defacto fight over slavery and not purely on a states rights basis...as no state should have the right to hold any person in involuntary servitude...so I would argue a states right to be a participant in the federal compact from that point forward (since all states are equal in that none no longer practice the immoral ensalvement of other human beings and are living up to the principle of "All men are created equal") has been made even more compelling and as such each state has a right to leave the compact if it so chooses.  That the Fedcoats can use force to prevent it because they've done it before is a weak argument now because where is the moral imperative impelling force?  What is the state doing that is so immoral?  There is no taint of slavery, no taint of any kind...merely a state and its people desiring to be free and sovereign as the Declaration and the Constitution guaranteed them to be!

This is where we are. 

If they do not let us leave peacefully, the Founders example leaves only one alternative left to follow.

Who will lead? 

Who will follow?

Who will sit out?

Who will side with the statists?

The time for choosing draws near, and the options are few, and making no choice is making a choice for the status quo.

[Weisshaupt]

Their view that the member states have entered into a involuntary suicide pact seems preeminent in their designs, and they like to cite Lincoln and the Civil War as the last arbiter on that discussion, when point in fact the Civil War was a defacto fight over slavery and not purely on a states rights basis..

To be fully accurate, the Civil War was a fight over if involuntary servitude could be legalized in the territories or the States that came from Territories.  The Constitution is quite clear that the original Slave Owning States of the Colonies could continue to own ( but not import) slaves, until such time as they chose to discontinue the practice.  It was only after the war began that Lincoln (unconstitutionally)  issued the emancipation proclamation freeing the slaves in the original colonies, which turned it about "States Rights" - in which we real mean "Abiding by the agreements you made" -and being allowed to "self-determine the system you live under" --  and obviously you have the right to make null and void any contract in which the other party is NOT HOLDING UP their part of the bargain, and a right to live under a government of your own devising, and much of the South went to war over those two principles. ( When they sang songs, or wrote of their cause,  it was these grievances they harped on, not the right to own a slave..because it was a looser then and its a looser now.. )

Whenever a lefty tells me that I must submit because "Majority" I remind them that a "Majority" voted to make Blacks personal property. That a majority voted to ban Gay Marriage. No Majority has the right to violate the rights of others - like their right of conscience, their right to defend themselves, and their right to keep the fruits of thier own labor rather than have them stolen to fund a slavemaster's agenda and feed his no good non-contributing zero entitlement baby children.   They never seem to respond after that.

 

[Libertas]

So you're agreeing with me, just in a contrarian way?   

Take slavery entirely out of the question - Say the South in 1860 and all the territories have banned slavery outright, all states and territories are "free"....Would there have been war over a state leaving the union for any reason?  If so, under what banner?  Union trumps states rights?  Without the taint of slavery I think the Fedcoats job would be immensely propblematic, getting public support for war against another state even more problematic and I suspect it would have caused other states to tell the Fedcoats to pound sand...and not just some southern states, I could see some New England states maybe bowing out.  I suspect states leaving the union under such circumstances would have garnered quick recognition by European powers.  It would have been a whole different deal.

Laying out the massive difference between then and now must be engaged and won or secession efforts will collapse under Statist-Media Complex attack.

And that leaves the final option...

I'm OK with skipping all preliminaries, but a lot of folks aren't comfortable with that and want to go through the motions.  Fine, get on with it then, but Ya got one shot if that.

[Glock32]

The Southern states viewed themselves as simply repeating what the 13 colonies had done less than a century before, i.e. withdrawing their consent to be governed any longer by the present government.

The modern day federalists will always point to that argument as being nothing more than a dry, academic way of saying "states rights" includes the right to hold men as slaves. It is not. The connection of slavery has more to do with the point in history that the Civil War occurred than it does to the actual debate about the nature of sovereignty.

They point to slavery and say "this is what can happen when the decentralization advocates get their way", as if by pointing this out they are absolving the centralization advocates of potential wrongdoing. There's plenty of evil that can take root when government is highly centralized, and ultimately such a situation offers far more fertile soil for evil than does a highly decentralized system.

[Glock32]

So you're agreeing with me, just in a contrarian way?   

Take slavery entirely out of the question - Say the South in 1860 and all the territories have banned slavery outright, all states and territories are "free"....Would there have been war over a state leaving the union for any reason?  If so, under what banner?  Union trumps states rights?  Without the taint of slavery I think the Fedcoats job would be immensely propblematic, getting public support for war against another state even more problematic and I suspect it would have caused other states to tell the Fedcoats to pound sand...and not just some southern states, I could see some New England states maybe bowing out.  I suspect states leaving the union under such circumstances would have garnered quick recognition by European powers.  It would have been a whole different deal.

Laying out the massive difference between then and now must be engaged and won or secession efforts will collapse under Statist-Media Complex attack.

And that leaves the final option...

I'm OK with skipping all preliminaries, but a lot of folks aren't comfortable with that and want to go through the motions.  Fine, get on with it then, but Ya got one shot if that.

I think you are right. Even the moral argument against slavery had difficulty gaining traction in much of the North. There were draft riots in NYC. Confederate sympathizers in Connecticut burned down the Colt factory, etc.

[Libertas]

And, we need to get more than 17% traction on the idea (if Rasmussen-less Rasmussen poll is anywhere near accurate)...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/september_2013/17_would_vote_to_secede_and_form_new_state

[Weisshaupt]

So you're agreeing with me, just in a contrarian way?   

Just adding Nuance I felt was important.