Is anybody following the news on these 20 states?

[tykhailfa]

Wow, I just read this about the 20 states of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas having petitioned to seceed from the nation after this election.  Wow...put some thought into that if New York and Texas are involved...man, that is truly scary to think about. 

yes that is scary i live in south carolina and i dont remeber signing anything about this lol

[vp44]

vp44, no I am sorry to disagree with you.  However, I believe, according to what I am reading, that jcribb may be spot on in that post.  This is real and scary and truly I do fear that this may be leading to marshall law being declared.  I would like to truly continue to look into what is going on in this story.  If it is a message to be delivered, then again, jcribb may be right in not knowing how the President will react.  There are just too many variables here.  I would hate to think that my Christmas dinner might be K-rations.

Thank you for that.  I just feel, at this point, we the people, need to be watching this, researching what this means (with so many states involved), and be knowledgeable with what is happening.  I am going back through and re-studying the Constitution, and anything to do with how the people can petition the gov't, for whatever reason/s, and what happens if the gov't does listen or refuses to listen, and ramifications that can happen from that.  There are a great many things going on behind the scenes with the gov't, and personally, I feel they are based on personal agendas that are not based on the will of the people. 

There are things that have been going on behind the scenes with the Gov. for many many years and not once have there been Martial law called upon people or states who want to secede. This is communist talk about Obama being a dictator. I think its people mad because their choice of President didn't win. Obama has been in office 4yrs and did he bring these to face then? All this talk about him of this sort is nothing but people opinions of him and nothing that is facts. Do you really think Obama is that type of person hmmm silly of me to ask that of course you do. I wonder what you thought of Bush. Nothing but a scare tactic to me.

[BK_Adores_Chase]

I AM NOT SURPRISED - Romney won by a million and a half votes in my eyes, why they give states numbers is beyond me obviously anyone running for president is going to target the big number states, it should be by POPULAR VOTE!!!  SO FRUSTRATING...Obama won with his campaigning NOT his policies...


 

[heroftimes]

Perhaps you should go see an eye doctor.  Here are the results with Obama winning with 51% of the popular vote and over 3 million more votes than Romney.

https://www.google.com/search?q=2012+presidential+election+results&oq=2012+presidential+election+results&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3j60l2.5536&sugexp=chrome,mod=14&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Not sure how you could construe this as Romney with more popular votes.

I AM NOT SURPRISED - Romney won by a million and a half votes in my eyes, why they give states numbers is beyond me obviously anyone running for president is going to target the big number states, it should be by POPULAR VOTE!!!  SO FRUSTRATING...Obama won with his campaigning NOT his policies...


 

[falcon9]

Mainly it is the intent to get the government's attention that the citizens are not happy with the direction of America under Obama's leadership.  The people are allowed to petition their government, and many want to remind the government that they work for the people, not the other way around.

While individual citizens have a Constitutional right to petition the federal government, it's doubtful that they will actually secede from the union.

The concerning thing about this, though, is how will the government react?  Will they listen and back off from some of these things they are doing, or will they ignore and carry on?

It can be estimated that a required response, (such as to Texas achieving over the minimum 25,000 signatures which would require a federal government response), will be of a placating political nature.  That is, political frustrations of the 'losing side' would be addressed but, not conceded to.

Will Obama decide to declare Martial Law, and then become an overall dictator?  He has civilian armies already ready to fight; he has signed numerous executive orders for action against the people, if needed.

Unless Texans, (or others), rise up in armed rebellion, it is entirely unlikely that either Martial law, dictatorship or use of force against "peaceful petition requests' will manifest.  Suggesting that they would is irresponsibly alarmist in lieu of valid referential evidence, (which does not consist of cited 'opinionsof 'intentions' but, would have to be incontravertible hard evidence).

He is not playing fair here, and people are fed up and letting them know they are.  But, I feel he does not give a care and will do exactly what he has already planned to do, which I feel, personally, is to the detriment of America, as we are known for.

Presenting such a "strawman argument" as if it were a factual 'action plan' is an specious scare tactic pontification.  The states won't legally secede. Martial law will not be declared because that would be an over-reaction to the petitions.  No 'Obama dictatorship' will be declared because that would be an over-reaction to the petitions.  No armed response to the petitions will occur sans an armed rebellion from the petitioners because that would be an over-reaction to the petitions.

To your first response, that's why I said the states doing this are mainly trying to get the government's attention - I believe it would be highly unlikely the states would secede or even be allowed to.  They want the government to listen, and have the Constitutional right to petition the gov't.

As long as such petitions get the required number of signatures within 30 days, (like the Texas petition did and as I'd stated), they are entitled to a response from a spokeman for the federal goverment.

I wasn't attempting to give a "strawman argument."  I was sharing potential questions or reactions for and to this situation.

Such "potential reactions" included speculative "strawman arguments" concerning "potential Martial law", "potential dictatorships" and use of "potential civilian armies".  That's not potentially a strawman arugument; it manifestly is one.

[angel0215]

Ya I have heard about this. I live In Arizona and they are or were petitioning as well. I find it very interesting. If anyone finds out any information should keep us all up to date on what is going on.

[jcribb16]

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice:
but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."

Proverbs 29:2 (KJV)


"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
~ Thomas Jefferson ~

[falcon9]

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice"

No, they don't.  When a religious theocracy is in authority, people rise up against it.

[jcribb16]

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice"

No, they don't.  When a religious theocracy is in authority, people rise up against it.

Yes, they do. Religion aside, when leaders use wisdom in their decisions, listen to the will of the people, and follow the Constitution, they are **righteous.  When they don't, they are evil, selfish, and are detrimental to the country.



**Definition of RIGHTEOUS (Merriam-Webster.com)

1.  acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin
2.  morally right or justifiable <a righteous decision>

<a righteous man can be trusted to act honorably regardless of the circumstances>

Synonyms: all right, decent, ethical, honest, honorable, just, moral, nice, right, good, right-minded, straight, true, upright, virtuous

[falcon9]

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice"

No, they don't.  When a religious theocracy is in authority, people rise up against it.

Yes, they do. Religion aside ...

This context isn't a matter of "religion aside". When someone so fundamentally religious tries to use the term "righteous" in the context of government, they aren't putting "religion aside" but, are inherently implying that "righteous" means 'religiously-based'.

When they don't, they are evil, selfish, and are detrimental to the country.

Conversely, what is "righteous" to a religious believer isn't to non-religious persons and is likely support for a detrimental religious theocracy.

**Definition of RIGHTEOUS (Merriam-Webster.com)
1.  acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin

Hence the inherent religious connotations of that term.

[lynnc35]

Well I am in Missouri and work all the elections and haven't heard a thing about this, what they dont' teach us at work...lol. I don't know I am going to look into what this is now