Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [FSP] Re: The Free State Project is NOT a "secessionist movement"

Expand Messages
  • Chris Lawless
    Yes Dan Itse the prime sponsor of this bill (which is being heard RIGHT NOW) in the NH House will be speaking at the 2009 Liberty Forum
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 5, 2009
      Yes Dan Itse the prime sponsor of this bill (which is being heard RIGHT NOW) in the NH House will be speaking at the 2009 Liberty Forum (www.freestateproject.org/libertyforum)
       


      ****************************************
      I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

      --- On Wed, 2/4/09, Carol Moore/Secession.Net <contacts@...> wrote:

      From: Carol Moore/Secession.Net <contacts@...>
      Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: The Free State Project is NOT a "secessionist movement"
      To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 12:42 PM






      http://www.gencourt .state.nh. us/legislation/ 2009/HCR0006. html

      Hmm, next thing you know the NH may be seceding without FSP :-)

      --
      Carol Moore in DC
      http://carolmoore. net/
      http://carolmoorere port.blogspot. com/
      http://youtube. com/carolmoore
      http://secession. net
      http://stopthewarno w.net
      http://whatwouldgan dhido.net
      http://radicalbutto ns.com

      NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
      the National Security Agency may have read this
      email without judicial or legislative oversight
      or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
      recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.



















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Tim Condon
      The resolution appears to be very explicit that it is not a threat nor an invitation nor a suggestion that New Hampshire would ever want to entertain the silly
      Message 2 of 13 , Feb 5, 2009
        The resolution appears to be very explicit that it is not a threat nor an
        invitation nor a suggestion that New Hampshire would ever want to entertain
        the silly notion of secession. But that's just my reading! ;--) --Tim
        Condon


        On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Carol Moore/Secession.Net <
        contacts@...> wrote:

        > http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
        >
        > Hmm, next thing you know the NH may be seceding without FSP :-)
        >
        > --
        > Carol Moore in DC
        > http://carolmoore.net/
        > http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
        > http://youtube.com/carolmoore
        > http://secession.net
        > http://stopthewarnow.net
        > http://whatwouldgandhido.net
        > http://radicalbuttons.com
        >
        > NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
        > the National Security Agency may have read this
        > email without judicial or legislative oversight
        > or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
        > recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Chris Lawless
        Video of the fantastic bill that was heard in committee yesterday: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/81954 **************************************** I would remind
        Message 3 of 13 , Feb 6, 2009
          Video of the fantastic bill that was heard in committee yesterday:
          http://www.dailypaul.com/node/81954

          ****************************************
          I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

          --- On Wed, 2/4/09, Carol Moore/Secession.Net <contacts@...> wrote:

          From: Carol Moore/Secession.Net <contacts@...>
          Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: The Free State Project is NOT a "secessionist movement"
          To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 12:42 PM






          http://www.gencourt .state.nh. us/legislation/ 2009/HCR0006. html

          Hmm, next thing you know the NH may be seceding without FSP :-)

          --
          Carol Moore in DC
          http://carolmoore. net/
          http://carolmoorere port.blogspot. com/
          http://youtube. com/carolmoore
          http://secession. net
          http://stopthewarno w.net
          http://whatwouldgan dhido.net
          http://radicalbutto ns.com

          NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
          the National Security Agency may have read this
          email without judicial or legislative oversight
          or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
          recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.



















          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • GaryT
          Well, it is nice to see that some people at the higher echeolons of govt, actually get it . Most poignant to me was the passage: That they will concur with
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 10, 2009
            Well, it is nice to see that some people at the higher echeolons of govt, actually "get it".

            Most poignant to me was the passage:

            " That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution"

            Which is exactly what the federal government has managed to work over the years.

            Gary T


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Carol Moore/Secession.Net
            To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:42 PM
            Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: The Free State Project is NOT a "secessionist movement"


            http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

            Hmm, next thing you know the NH may be seceding without FSP :-)

            --
            Carol Moore in DC
            http://carolmoore.net/
            http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
            http://youtube.com/carolmoore
            http://secession.net
            http://stopthewarnow.net
            http://whatwouldgandhido.net
            http://radicalbuttons.com

            NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
            the National Security Agency may have read this
            email without judicial or legislative oversight
            or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
            recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Tim Condon
            The passage below is from a bill that has been submitted to the Free State House and Senate by several libertarian-conservative legislators. Regretfully,
            Message 5 of 13 , Feb 11, 2009
              The passage below is from a bill that has been submitted to the Free State
              House and Senate by several libertarian-conservative legislators.
              Regretfully, however, it is written in turgid, archiac, prolix language. I
              wish someone would simply re-write it in clear, contemporary English so that
              everyone can have a clear, simple understanding of exactly what the bill is
              espousing. ---Tim Condon


              On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@...> wrote:

              > Well, it is nice to see that some people at the higher echeolons of govt,
              > actually "get it".
              >
              > Most poignant to me was the passage:
              >
              > " That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably
              > against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that
              > that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General
              > Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of
              > all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the
              > States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with
              > a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal,
              > (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their
              > consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to
              > surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving
              > its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the
              > co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will
              > concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take
              > measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of
              > the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the
              > Constitution"
              >
              > Which is exactly what the federal government has managed to work over the
              > years.
              >
              > Gary T
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: Carol Moore/Secession.Net
              > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:42 PM
              > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: The Free State Project is NOT a "secessionist
              > movement"
              >
              >
              > http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html
              >
              > Hmm, next thing you know the NH may be seceding without FSP :-)
              >
              > --
              > Carol Moore in DC
              > http://carolmoore.net/
              > http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/
              > http://youtube.com/carolmoore
              > http://secession.net
              > http://stopthewarnow.net
              > http://whatwouldgandhido.net
              > http://radicalbuttons.com
              >
              > NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
              > the National Security Agency may have read this
              > email without judicial or legislative oversight
              > or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
              > recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Chris Lawless
              turgid, archiac, prolix language.   Much of the language is taken from the Original Kentucky Resolutions.  
              Message 6 of 13 , Feb 11, 2009
                'turgid, archiac, prolix language.'
                 
                Much of the language is taken from the Original Kentucky Resolutions.
                 
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Resolutions

                ****************************************
                I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

                --- On Wed, 2/11/09, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:

                From: Tim Condon <tim@...>
                Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: The Free State Project is NOT a "secessionist movement"
                To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2009, 6:11 AM






                The passage below is from a bill that has been submitted to the Free State
                House and Senate by several libertarian- conservative legislators.
                Regretfully, however, it is written in turgid, archiac, prolix language. I
                wish someone would simply re-write it in clear, contemporary English so that
                everyone can have a clear, simple understanding of exactly what the bill is
                espousing. ---Tim Condon

                On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                > Well, it is nice to see that some people at the higher echeolons of govt,
                > actually "get it".
                >
                > Most poignant to me was the passage:
                >
                > " That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably
                > against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that
                > that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General
                > Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of
                > all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the
                > States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with
                > a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal,
                > (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their
                > consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to
                > surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving
                > its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the
                > co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will
                > concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take
                > measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of
                > the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the
                > Constitution"
                >
                > Which is exactly what the federal government has managed to work over the
                > years.
                >
                > Gary T
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: Carol Moore/Secession. Net
                > To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com
                > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:42 PM
                > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: The Free State Project is NOT a "secessionist
                > movement"
                >
                >
                > http://www.gencourt .state.nh. us/legislation/ 2009/HCR0006. html
                >
                > Hmm, next thing you know the NH may be seceding without FSP :-)
                >
                > --
                > Carol Moore in DC
                > http://carolmoore. net/
                > http://carolmoorere port.blogspot. com/
                > http://youtube. com/carolmoore
                > http://secession. net
                > http://stopthewarno w.net
                > http://whatwouldgan dhido.net
                > http://radicalbutto ns.com
                >
                > NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
                > the National Security Agency may have read this
                > email without judicial or legislative oversight
                > or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
                > recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------ --------- --------- ------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



















                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Tim Condon
                Yes, as you can see, they were written in 1798. That s not the way people write, or talk, today. Hence my wish for someone to decipher the language of the
                Message 7 of 13 , Feb 11, 2009
                  Yes, as you can see, they were written in 1798. That's not the way people
                  write, or talk, today. Hence my wish for someone to decipher the language of
                  the proposed legislative resolution into common, everyday, current American
                  English. --Tim


                  On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Chris Lawless <dreepa@...> wrote:

                  > 'turgid, archiac, prolix language.'
                  >
                  > Much of the language is taken from the Original Kentucky Resolutions.
                  >
                  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Resolutions
                  >
                  > ****************************************
                  > I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And
                  > let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no
                  > virtue!
                  >
                  > --- On Wed, 2/11/09, Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > From: Tim Condon <tim@...>
                  > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: The Free State Project is NOT a "secessionist
                  > movement"
                  > To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
                  > Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2009, 6:11 AM
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The passage below is from a bill that has been submitted to the Free State
                  > House and Senate by several libertarian- conservative legislators.
                  > Regretfully, however, it is written in turgid, archiac, prolix language. I
                  > wish someone would simply re-write it in clear, contemporary English so
                  > that
                  > everyone can have a clear, simple understanding of exactly what the bill is
                  > espousing. ---Tim Condon
                  >
                  > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM, GaryT <garyonthenet@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                  >
                  > > Well, it is nice to see that some people at the higher echeolons of govt,
                  > > actually "get it".
                  > >
                  > > Most poignant to me was the passage:
                  > >
                  > > " That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so
                  > palpably
                  > > against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that
                  > > that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General
                  > > Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States,
                  > of
                  > > all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of
                  > the
                  > > States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government,
                  > with
                  > > a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal,
                  > > (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with
                  > their
                  > > consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to
                  > > surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one
                  > deriving
                  > > its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the
                  > > co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal,
                  > will
                  > > concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take
                  > > measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others
                  > of
                  > > the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the
                  > > Constitution"
                  > >
                  > > Which is exactly what the federal government has managed to work over the
                  > > years.
                  > >
                  > > Gary T
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > From: Carol Moore/Secession. Net
                  > > To: freestateproject@ yahoogroups. com
                  > > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:42 PM
                  > > Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: The Free State Project is NOT a "secessionist
                  > > movement"
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > http://www.gencourt .state.nh. us/legislation/ 2009/HCR0006. html
                  > >
                  > > Hmm, next thing you know the NH may be seceding without FSP :-)
                  > >
                  > > --
                  > > Carol Moore in DC
                  > > http://carolmoore. net/
                  > > http://carolmoorere port.blogspot. com/
                  > > http://youtube. com/carolmoore
                  > > http://secession. net
                  > > http://stopthewarno w.net
                  > > http://whatwouldgan dhido.net
                  > > http://radicalbutto ns.com
                  > >
                  > > NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders,
                  > > the National Security Agency may have read this
                  > > email without judicial or legislative oversight
                  > > or warning, warrant, or notice. You have no
                  > > recourse nor protection save to secede from the union.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ------------ --------- --------- ------
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.