Nullify Now conference in Fort Worth, TX.

[LoveIsTruth]

Thomas Woods at Nullify Now Ft. Worth

Brilliant!

Thomas Woods at Nullify Now (Part 1 of 4)


Thomas Woods at Nullify Now (Part 2 of 4)


Thomas Woods at Nullify Now (Part 3 of 4)


Thomas Woods at Nullify Now (Part 4 of 4)

[moonwhim]

Thanks for posting this!

[highfive]

This is great!

[highfive]

More

http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/interv ... -a-zombie/

[LoveIsTruth]

Thanks!

[pritchet1]

A hearty "Amen"!

[highfive]

I think that Thomas Woods makes a lot of sense, has Jefferson and Madison on his side. My heart beat a little quicker when I heard him.

So, I am really interested to see if this movement could work. Would the people be able to defy the totalitarians? And if they could how would the church stand on that movement? I know that D&C 98:4-7 says:

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

Do you think that the Church would support members in this movement? I imagine if it was part of a legitimate movement we might not be viewed as disobeying the law of the land. This movement seems to me to have the widest appeal among people, make the most sense, and maybe it is something we could latch on to.

What do you guys think?

[pritchet1]

With the American Grand Jury, we have tried everything imaginable peaceably, short of taking up arms, but the Judicial part of the US Government has become so compromised, that nothing can get done legally at the Federal level. The Nullification movement may be the only non-violent option. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the ... -movement/

I like how the scripture is couched with "Constitutional". Since we consider the US Constitution to be an inspired and sacred document and the Nullification Movement at this time is a peaceful action and constitutional, I do not see why any sane person and lover of Freedom and Liberty would not approve and support such action in each state of the Union and its Territories.


I'd rather support that, than the so called "de jure government of the united States" with Tim Turner as the "interim President" via the "Restore America Plan" group.
http://www.panamalaw.org/restore_americ ... 27-10.html
http://www.panamalaw.org/tim_turner_is_ ... tates.html

Gone topsey-turvey?
http://uswgo.com/restore-america-plan-r ... g-time.htm

[larsenb]

More

http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/interv ... -a-zombie/

Wonderful! A couple of other zombie 'arguments' or terms: 9/11 troofer, or, conspiracy theorist, etc.

I"m getting his book (Nullification), and think this ploy should certainly be in the arsenal of those fighting the growing tyranny. The States should use it wherever appropriate, which would be to nullify unConstitutional 'laws'.

[LoveIsTruth]

Do you think that the Church would support members in this movement? I imagine if it was part of a legitimate movement we might not be viewed as disobeying the law of the land.

Whatever federal or State law contradicts the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land, that Federal or State law is no law at all, but is null and void. And it is our duty to disobey, i.e. nullify it.

So viewed correctly, nullification is upholding the law, rather than violating it.

Thanks for your post.

[LoveIsTruth]

Please check out Nullification Constitutional Amendment
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 19&t=12544

[highfive]

Check this article out:

The best kept Supreme Court secret, ever.


J.T.Coyoté
Infowars.com
September 10, 2010

In June of 1997 Sheriffs Jay Printz of Montana and Richard Mack of Arizona, properly embarrassed the federal government by winning a 5-4 Supreme Court decision finding key provisions of the Brady Law unconstitutional on 10th Amendment grounds. The 10th Amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This landmark victory for state sovereignty by upholding the 10th Amendment, limits federal power within the states to it’s prescribed Constitutional parameters — not just firearms legislation alone, but all federal mandates, funded or unfunded. The court held that the states cannot be coerced into any federal mandate that is not supported directly by constitutional provisions granting that federal power.

There’s a reason why most have not heard of this 1997 decision. It was quickly swept out of the media, by Bill Clinton and that inconvenient stain on Monica Lewinski’s blue dress. Only now, is the meaning of this decision seeing the light of day.

Question: “Does this ruling mean that mandates, such as the educational ones proposed in the No Child Left Behind Act cannot be forced on the states?”

Yes, and any found by the State’s Federal Oversight Committee to be beyond the federal powers enumerated in Article I section 8, as well as those that cannot be adjusted to comply with the constitutional federal guidelines, therefore, are not enforceable upon the states. It can be demonstrated, to the chagrin of federal education wonks, that since the first federal education laws were implemented in the last half of the 20th Century, America has experienced steady decline in student test scores. From number one in the world, to what is now the lowest in our nation’s history.

Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997) implies, that a creation by the Constitution, namely the federal government, cannot become more powerful than the Constitution itself. Therefore, the Welfare Clause (often cited for implementation of federal education programs), cannot be used to sanction the wholesale commandeering of the states at federal gunpoint to implement over-arching, make-worse, cookie cutter style programs. Programs of single minded globalization, that ‘dumb down’ a state’s children to an unacceptable minimum federal standard. One they’ve methodically been working toward for decades no doubt.

The ‘federal usurpers’ also wrongly cite the Supremacy Clause as yet another source of sweeping federal power. The Supremacy Clause grants the federal government no such power at all. This Clause merely states that the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights, is supreme LAW in all cases in precedent, policy, treaty, and law, NOT the Federal government or any of it’s branches or agencies.

Question: “…all mandates? Some of those things are connected to much needed money for the states.”

With certain constitutional exceptions the states alone have the power to tax. We know now that the Federal Income Tax goes exclusively to pay the interest on the fraudulent Federal Debt. It filters through the FED directly to the global banking elite, doubtless to maintain their island paradise fortresses. Then, the FED prints and loans more money to the federal government, at interest on the people’s back, to fund new federal programs, trickle-down to the states, which devalue the dollar while increasing the interest and the national Debt. It’s a Global bankers get rich ponzi scheme par excellence.

All federal programs not supported by the Constitution, should be curtailed immediately, and state programs should be implemented and funded with money kept here in the states, rather than sent to the FED to fund No-Win-wars and globalist opulence.

[larsenb]

Check this article out:

The best kept Supreme Court secret, ever.

J.T.Coyoté
Infowars.com
September 10, 2010
. . . . . . . . . . All federal programs not supported by the Constitution, should be curtailed immediately, and state programs should be implemented and funded with money kept here in the states, rather than sent to the FED to fund No-Win-wars and globalist opulence.

he should have added: and all other globalist control schemes, including NAFTA, the IMF, the World Bank, major financing of the UN, etc., etc.

[pritchet1]

Links to Printz vs U.S.;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States

http://www.infowars.com/the-best-kept-s ... cret-ever/

http://www.infowars.com/the-constitutio ... ce-itself/

Step-by-Step Plan;
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/200 ... r-freedom/

[LoveIsTruth]

... 5-4 Supreme Court decision

Interesting article. Thanks.

The only thing that bothers me is that it was 5-4 Supreme Court decision, so one swing vote could have or still may overturn it!

It was never intended to be this way. Vastly more important than horizontal checks and balances (i.e. the three branches of federal government checking themselves), were vertical checks and balances with State and the people checking the government via State and Jury nullification. This approach is philosophically more correct and important, since it is the people who create the government and therefore are superior to it; as well as it is the States who created the Federal government and therefore are superior to it!