From a very well done article by Prof. Brion McClanahan, we get these pearls of wisdom:

The word “nation” found its way into the English language around the 14th century. Under the old definition, a nation was a group of people who shared a similar racial, cultural, or religious background that often included elements such as a common language.

A State was a sovereign political entity, not simply a “territory… of a government.”

By viewing the United States through that lens it becomes clear that modern definitions of nation and state are the product of centralization and the mischaracterization of the federal government as a “national government.”

States’ rights and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution were intended to protect this cultural distinctiveness, and secession was often seen as the only hedge against aggression from other States or sections. This is why the three most powerful States in 1788, Virginia in the South, New York in the mid-Atlantic, and Massachusetts in the North, considered an explicit recognition of States’ rights an essential condition for ratification of the Constitution. Of course, those who champion States’ rights and decentralization are often accused of preferring “Balkanization” over the blessings and security of “one nation.” If the federal government followed its limited, constituted authority, such “Balkanization” would not be necessary, but hardly anyone in the founding generation would have agreed to a system of central government that currently exists in the United States. As Morris said in 1787, it would be better to separate than to subject one nation to the cultural imperialism of another State, section, or nation. Modern Americans have never been taught that lesson.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27139558/Brion-McClanahan-The-Uni ted-States-is-Not-a-Nation

Tenth Amendment Center News:

The Tenth Amendment Summit last week in Atlanta, GA was a huge success! A sold-out crowed cheered speaker after speaker in railing against federal power on issues left, right and center.

The following two links are the first of our reports back from the event. Please share them with your friends!

Resolution of the First Annual Tenth Amendment Summit:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/28/resolution-o f-the-first-annual-tenth-amendment-summit/

It’s not About Political Parties. It’s About Liberty:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/01/its-not-about-political-parties-its-about-liberty/

The tenth Amendment Center has provided some great support for state sovereignty:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

One article on Tenth Amendment by Prof. Rob Natelson is especially good:
http://tinyurl.com/yk92jyp

Please consider joining and/or supporting this very patriotic group.

=====================

From a very well done article by Prof. Brion McClanahan, we get these pearls of wisdom:

The word “nation” found its way into the English language around the 14th century. Under the old definition, a nation was a group of people who shared a similar racial, cultural, or religious background that often included elements such as a common language.

A State was a sovereign political entity, not simply a “territory… of a government.”

By viewing the United States through that lens it becomes clear that modern definitions of nation and state are the product of centralization and the mischaracterization of the federal government as a “national government.”

The rest of Prof. McClanahan's article is here:http://www.scribd.com/doc/27139558/Brion-McClanahan-The-United-States-is-Not-a-Nation

Then there are views as those expressed by Atty. Tim Baldwin that support secession:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26576127/Timothy-Baldwin-A-Concurring-Opinion-for-Secession

And, not to be forgotten, Derek Sheriff and Ron Paul believe that federal nullification has already begun:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26117929/Derek-Sheriff-Nullification-It-s-Official

For years after FDR's progressive social security system was implemented, millions of working Americans and businesses were forced by the federal government to contribute into the SS under the guise that it was a retirement program.

By now everyone knows the SS account in their name merely reflects how much they have put into the system, but there is no account, there has never been a savings account, and they have no money invested in anything. The money was taken from the American worker and used to expand the central government.

What really pi$$es me off is that the communists and progressives tell everyone they are for equality and for worker's rights, and then they steal the worker's blind. Theft on a grander scale than any thief who is in prison.

Today we have millions of workers who contributed into the SS and who believe they are secure because of the reliability of the federal government, but who, in reality,have nothing. What a sham!

If we figure out a method of fixing the money problems this country has (e.g., fraudulent money, the central bank, bankruptcy of the federal government, fraudulent tax system, etc.) we had better include a fix for our seniors who would now become poverty stricken as a result of the massive fraud imposed on them by the federal government.

I'm really 'hoping' that Americans will demand 'change' from their system of government and restore state sovereignty to our country.

It is my perception and belief that having the states once again control the federal government is the only solution that will restore our people to prosperity.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27200012/Edwin-Vieira-Going-to-th e-Roots-of-the-Problem

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26576127/Timothy-Baldwin-A-Concur ring-Opinion-for-Secession

Libertarian
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.  Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord

By Walter Scott Hudson
October 15, 2009
Fightin’ Words
 
http://fightinwordsusa.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/obama-poised-to-cede-us-soverignty-claims-british-lord/
 
The YouTube video is here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40

The Minnesota Free Market Institute (http://mnfreemarketinstitute.org/) hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.
 
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/climate_myths_and_national_sec.html
 
A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.
 
Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:
 
At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
 
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
 
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
 
[laughter]
 
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.
 
So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.
 
But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.
 
So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:
 
Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
 
Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevant to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:
 
Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.
 
I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com (http://tinyurl.com/yeklv8h), they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty (http://tinyurl.com/yza3jz3), because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.
 
Question: Is it really irrevocable if that treaty is signed? Suppose it’s signed by someone who does not have the authority, as I – I have some, a high degree of skepticism that we do have a valid president there because I -
 
I know at least one judge who shares your opinion, sir, yes.
 
I don’t believe it until I see it. … Would [Obama's potential illegitimacy as president] give us a reasonable cause to nullify whatever treaty that he does sign as president?
 
I would be very careful not to rely on things like that. Although there is a certain amount of doubt whether or not he was born in Hawaii, my fear is it would be very difficult to prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii and therefore we might not be able to get anywhere with that. Besides, once he’s signed that treaty, whether or not he signed it validly, once he’s signed it and ratified it – your Senate ratifies it – you’re bound by it. But I will say one thing; they know, in the White House, that they won’t be able to get the 67 votes in the Senate, the two-thirds majority that your Constitution has stipulated must be achieved in order to ratify a treaty of this kind. However, what they’ve worked out is this – and they actually let it slip during the election campaign, which is how I know about it. They plan to enact that Copenhagen treaty into legislation by a simple majority of both houses. That they can do. But the virtue of that – and here you have a point – is that is, thank God, reversible. So I want you to pray tonight, and pray hard for your Senate that they utterly refuse to ratify the [new] Treaty of Copenhagen, because if they refuse to ratify it and [Obama] has to push it through as domestic legislation, you can repeal it.
 
Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution (http://tinyurl.com/yzl8w26). If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.


Edited to add @ 8:31 am:
 
Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:
 
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
 
World Government (heading added)

a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
 
To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)

b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: a) an Adaptation window, b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, c) a Technology window; d) a Mitigation window; and e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
 
With Enforcement Authority (heading added)

c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; b) a long-term REDD process; c) a short-term technology action plan; d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].

http://fightinwordsusa.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/obama-poised-to-cede-us-soverignty-claims-british-lord/

The first political coup in North America occurred in 1634, when the Massachusetts Bay colonists, in what was a representative system of government, overthrew governor John Winthrop and replaced him with his deputy, Thomas Dudley. The coup was carried out by arguments and speeches and in accordance with the rule of law – not with swords and firearms.

Today there appears to have been another non-violent coup, but this one has been based on deception and fraud. The American voters in 2008 elected a man into office, Barack Hussein Obama, who may actually not be a U.S. citizen, nor a ‘natural born citizen.’ A natural born citizen is a person who is born on U.S. soil and who has two U.S. citizen parents. One of the requirements to becoming President of the United States is that the candidate must, according to the Constitution, be a 'natural born citizen' - not merely a U.S. citizen.

It is believed that during the 2008 U.S. presidential elections, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama were natural born citizens. McCain was born in Colon, Panama (not U.S. soil) to two U.S. citizen parents (this has been substantiated – we have a copy of his actual Panamanian birth certificate).

Obama’s birth location is unknown (because he will not provide verifiable birth records), but he cannot be a natural born citizen because of his father's citizenship (British). Obama has written an autographical book in which he describes his father as being a native and citizen of Kenya (at a time when it was controlled by Britain), and, if true, excludes Obama from ever being considered a natural born citizen. His father (now deceased) was apparently never a U.S. citizen. The possibility also exists that Obama was actually born in Kenya (Kenya actually claims Obama as their own - do they know something we do not know?), and that birth location would automatically exclude his eligibility to be president.

If you recall, during the Congressional electoral count, Nancy Pelosi did NOT ask the mandatory question about objections, and she unlawfully ignored at least one video taped person whose hand was raised in objection to Obama's election as President. It was clear to television observers that the Democratically controlled Congress wanted Obama in office - at all costs. No questions permitted.

One has to ask why Obama has allegedly spent so much of his time and money hiding ALL of his personal records. Why do Google and YouTube erase certain Obama personal digital record links from the Internet? Why does Obama, a constitutional attorney, refuse to validate his own eligibility to be POTUS?

The rash of legal actions against Obama are trying to verify, one way or another, Obama's eligibility to be POTUS, and he's fighting every attempt to do that. Why? If Obama is/was not eligible to be POTUS and has assumed the office in spite of his ineligibility, he has committed fraud on the American people, and he is a usurper to the office. Legally, any action he causes to happen while he is in office is subject to reversal and/or cancellation. If proven to be a usurper, Obama cannot be impeached because, legally, he will never have been President.

On the civilian side, the federal courts have steadfastly refused to hear this eligibility for various reasons, often because of plaintiff’s ‘standing.’ Recently there have been quo warranto actions filed with the Attorney General, and so far, AG Holder has not acted on the quo warranto against his boss – Barack Obama. Conflict of interest? Probably.

Regardless of the conspiracy theories, suspicions, accusations and investigations about Obama, the simple questions that stand out above all others: Is anyone in our military, any Federal employee, our Congress, our Senate, our Federal law enforcement agencies, our Federal intelligence agencies willing to follow his orders? Are they legally able to obey his orders? If they do obey his orders, and he is later declared to be ineligible, will the people who followed his orders be subjected to Nuremberg type trials in an International Court? Citizens serving in the military may be particularly vulnerable to following orders that have their chain of origination to Barack Obama, CinC, and their legal actions to clear up the questions are a little less obvious.

Having said that, there are currently many legal cases in which the names of active and retired military personnel are included. Supporting all of the legal actions, there are several attorneys who have stayed with the Obama eligibility litigation for an extended period of time, including: Mario Apuzzo, Philip Berg, Leo Donofrio, and Dr. Orly Taitz.

The questions asked by many citizens is what can they do to help resolve the eligibility questions surrounding Barack Hussein Obama. Every American who is concerned about this situation needs to take some action today. If you can’t join the fight, then find someone to support financially. Most of the people filing these lawsuits and their lawyers are doing so with their own money. Most of the people on the Internet, trying to get the truth out, are using their own money. If you can’t take the time or don’t know what you can do, send money. Win or lose, you will at least know you were a part of history. If Obama creates his civilian mandatory work program, forcing people to work for three months, as he and Rahm Emanuel have repeatedly said, and you did send somebody 10 bucks, at least you and your family are going to know you tried.