TripWire's weblog
Posted by TripWire on 10/14/10Last updated 11/11/10
The growing friction between the Sovereign State of Arizona and the run-amok federal government compels me to post a statement and a question. Arizona is duty bound to protect its citizens from external and internal threats. To that end, I believe it should possess nuclear weapons at state level control. These nuclear devices would be fully autonomous to the state and independent from federal government control. Where would you like to see Arizona get nuclear warheads and delivery systems if it’s unable to get them from an increasingly hostile federal government?
Consider this before you distill an answer;
The federal government is deliberately failing its constitutional obligation to provide mutual defense of Arizona. This travesty occurs while the same federal government barely passes an unconstitutional insurance mandate. When AZ correctly steps up to address foreign invasion, the federal government inappropriately pulls the UN into the dialogue. The frightening paradox presented in these events must be a cautionary tale to each of the Sovereign States of the American Republic. Frankly, I believe they should consider acquiring their own state controlled nuclear warheads and the means for delivering them. Each state, if denied by the federal government, should consider purchasing the necessary components from our nuclear armed European friends. Or, I’d go so far as to suggest purchasing these weapons directly from Russia, China, India or Israel.
In Maryland, the time will come when the tax burden for illegal alien sanctuary becomes so painful even misguided supporters will clamor to end it. The expected knee jerk reaction from an increasingly belligerent federal government may come in the form of baseless lawsuits like those levied against Arizona. Or perhaps the federal government will pursue a more dictatorial approach instead. Imagine an insolvent and desperate federal government under rogue leadership reaching out to the UN as it is doing now against AZ. But in addition to posturing for consideration of a state’s rights matter through the lens of dubious international law, it urges that cabal to deploy a foreign-soldier-army of UN-led troops on US soil to compel an ‘international-solution’?
Witness, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s ceaseless campaign against personal firearms together with UN Agenda 21, lends evidence to this scenario being not only plausible but likely planned.
Cold war paranoia blinded us to leaving nuclear arms in sole possession of the federal government. It should be painfully clear that this policy is foolish if we wish to remain free. Therefore, the states must reassert their sovereignty and do so with crystal clarity and vigor. A state that possesses its very own nuclear weapons will accomplish that task.
Poll: Do you believe each state has a right to possess its own nuclear weapons?
4 votes so far. [View Results] |
Categories: Domestic Policy, Current Events, Philosophy, Revolution, State Legislation
Tags:
Showing comments 1—4 of 4
Posted 10/14/10
BusterBrownJeans
East Lansing, MI | I don't think they need nuclear weapons. Arizona just needs to recall its national guard troops and place them on the boarder. Also they should collect all federal taxes from the people and not pay the federal government. We need our public schools to actually educate our people on what type of govt we have and its not a democracy. I try every chance I get to educate my friends and family about how our govt was meant to be run and that this country is a REPUBLIC. |
Posted 10/15/10
matthaws
Spring, TX | Better yet, Arizona should collect all the federal taxes and give them back to the people. No point in Arizona keeping that money. |
Posted 10/25/10
bassinbird
jessup, MD | I believe that not only the states but also the people should have whatever the federal government has. It is the only true way to safeguard Liberty. |
Posted 11/11/10
TripWire
Parkville, MD | I concur with each of you with respect to AZ keeping federal taxes receipts it would ordinarily forward to Washington. I believe the state of Louisiana under Governor Edward Edwins did something similar. He held back the federal gasoline excise tax. I believe Washington was threatening to withhold that money if LA didn't comply with raising their legal drinking age to 21yo. Much to his credit he told Washington to go to hell! Unfortunately for LA the money held back was squandered because of the endemic corruption there.
|
You must be logged in to post comments. [Become a member]
|
Posted by TripWire on 03/30/10Last updated 03/30/10
A self described militia in Michigan is arrested by federal agents. Yet this militia has harmed no one.
I direct those interested to; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/29/national/main6343544.shtml
The indicted have done no harm. Yet, our government arrests them.
Where this same government will question a bona fide threat like the airline "underwear" bomber less than an hour.
There's a clear difference between these people. One group claims Christian affinity, harms no one, gets arrested, faces persecution and imprisonment.
The other, actually detonates an explosive with real potential for loss of life, has muslim affinity, yet gets a pass from the government.
Draw your own conclusion. But I walk away with the impression that it's ok to be violent so long as one is muslim. Where just declaring a Christian sentiment will incur our Godless government's wrath.
Poll: Why do you believe the government persecutes Christians?
2 votes so far. [View Results] |
Categories: Campaign For Liberty, Foreign Policy, Education, Media, Civil Liberties, Law, Domestic Policy, Republican Party, US Constitution, History, Just For Fun, Current Events, Philosophy
Tags:
Showing comments 1—1 of 1
Posted 06/25/10
Tim B
Lutherville, MD | Even though it's too late to respond to the poll, I would like to add my perspctive. It's because good people have abdicated their civic duty. And not just their civic duty in general. But their civic duty to be Religious and Moral.
America, collectively, as rejected the warning George Washington gave in his farewell speech: "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
You know what's interesting? The Constitution of Maryland in Articles 36 and 37 of the "Declaration of Rights" mandates a belief in God. I wonder how many how in the general popuqlation of this state realize that? |
You must be logged in to post comments. [Become a member]
|
Posted by TripWire on 02/26/10Last updated 02/26/10
The lunatic fringe on the left is trying to get animals - well animal-rights. The whole notion is absurd on its face. But, let's play along for fun.
Advocates for this nonsense aren't rational, rather they work predominately in an emotional realm. They feel 'our' pain. I wonder if they feel my pain excarebated by this rubbish.
I'd say we join these 'kooks'. Because we can make a lot of great things happen if we do. Supporters of this notion will probably restrict their advocacy to "cute & fuzzy" animals. Which is so biased it's not funny nor fair. Those pretty birds which many in the fringe absolutely adore, well they eat earthworms. I love worms! You can bet I will help my fellow worms file tons of class action suit against all birds; foreign and domestic. When birds can no longer violate the rights of earthworms we can all rejoice for justice is served. Granted all birds will eventually starve to death pushed to extinction by this foolishness.
That's just one volley in this campaign. Bacteria are living, sentient beings just like worms. They too deserve access to the courts. Humans have long disrespected them. We wage genocidal war against their kind. What with our overzealous use of antibacterial soaps billions upon billions of them are killed each minute of the day. Oh, if only we could hear them cry - the horror, the horror. Someday, justice will be served and it'll be illegal to possess, use, distribute or manufacture antibacterial soaps.
Maybe, someday, unborn human babies will get the same "rights" as animals too.
Categories: Campaign For Liberty, Civil Liberties, Law, Health Freedom, Action Item, Commodities, Just For Fun, Current Events, Philosophy, Social Issues
Tags:
No comments yet.
You must be logged in to post comments. [Become a member]
|
| |
Local Coordinator
RSS feed
