Imagine The Dissolution Of Unconstitutional Federal Agencies Like The FBI, NSA, CIA, DHS, DIA, FEMA, And A Host Of Other Illuminati Pawns

Dissolve the USA as it presently stands, and you get rid of the U.S. Federal Government as well as its Nazi run Intelligence community. All 50 states become sovereign nations . This would be a crushing blow to the Illuminati who've maintained control of the U.S. Federal Government through the privately held Federal Reserve System since 1913, and who are also directly responsible for the present state of ruination that the United States is in. Imagine not having this massive over bloated federal government or the Federal Reserve System vacuuming out your pockets every year. We'd be back on the gold standard which would destroy the inflationary cycles which have led to the devaluation of the Federal Reserve Note.

The individual states would again be able to prosper without being suffocated by a massive and corrupt federal government being controlled by an Illuminati run central bank. The central banks have always been the way in which the Illuminati have taken over countries, by indebting their governments to these banks.

And while the CIA controlled U.S. Media has not mentioned it, there is at present the intention by several American states, to in fact secede from the union, invoking their 10TH Amendment right in which to do so.

This is discussed in greater detail in the second of the following two articles. And given the Federal Reserve System's orchestration of the present depression that Americans now find themselves in, there will likely be many more states seeking to either secede from or abolish the U.S. Federal Government altogether within the near future.

Americans are now witnessing history in the making here. A situation as meaningful and dramatic as that of the original 13 colonies breaking away from the British crown in the 18TH Century and declaring their independence after having fought and won the American Revolutionary War. Interestingly enough, given the abject deceptions by the U.S. Federal Government of the American Proletariat, the American middle class has even more reason in the modern day to secede from this union, than the original 13 Colonies did back in the 1700's when they declared their independence from the tyrant, King George III.

See how the Illuminati played a role in all of this and in how they cleverly infiltrated America long before their creation of the privately held Federal Reserve System; the tool which they used to completely overun the American people.

The Illuminati spreads to America:
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn01-3

On Dissolving the United States of America
by Michael S. Rozeff

The United States of America is a political union of fifty states and a federal district, commonly considered to be operating under the authority of the U.S. Constitution that was first adopted in 1787. The Union known as the U.S.A. was a creation of the then-existing thirteen states of the Union.

Lysander Spooner has provided ironclad arguments that this Constitution is an invalid authority for Americans of today. If that is so, and I believe it is, then no "legal" moves need to be taken to dissolve the U.S.A. It is already an entity that has no legal authority. In this case, the Union does not legally exist.

To demonstrate that fact and make it operative, however, requires that the Union be effectively shattered; and that requires the successful secession of any person or any political entity within the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. This avenue was tried in 1860 by several southern states. The result was the War for Southern Independence, which was won by those states who supported the Union. This victory established the Union as a power and as a central or national state dominant over the individual states, not by legal consent but by force of arms. The southern states were beaten into submission, and the subsequent legal political authority of the U.S.A., such as it is, rests on its military victory in 1865.

Realistically, then, most people and the individual states do not today challenge the authority of the Constitution. They accept the U.S.A. as a legal entity. Under that condition, dissolving the U.S.A. requires a certain degree of legal maneuvering, although the secession route is still a viable option that can be exercised at any time and with justification. Now, under the Constitution, provisionally assuming its sway if not legally but in reality, amendment is possible in two ways according to Article V. The only way that has been used to date is that both houses of Congress approve an amendment by a two-thirds vote followed by approval by three-fourths of the state legislatures within seven years. The other way, never used, is that two-thirds of the state legislatures agree to a convention at which constitutional amendments can be introduced. These need to pass by a three-fourths vote. Both methods show clearly that the Constitution is sustained by the states. If three-fourths of them want to dissolve it, they can. Naturally, such a step involves many other legal ramifications and changes. However, the country has an ample corps of Washington, New York, and other lawyers that is up to the task.

Dissolving the Union can therefore be done in two basic ways, either by an effective set of secessions or by amending the Constitution so as to gut the Union. There are any number of other, less well-defined and more messy ways. In fact, secessions would probably result in a messy process that would, for a time, create uncertainty and indeterminacy as to the final political results.

I endorse dissolving the U.S.A. This does not mean that I endorse the 50 states or whatever political combinations of states result as a final ideal political system. I simply view that outcome, which ends the national (usually called the federal) government as greatly preferable to what we now have. Individual states could profitably break up too, but that is another matter.

The idea of dissolving the U.S.A. and its Constitution is not really as radical or extreme as it seems at first sight. The United Kingdom is on its way to dissolving. Majorities in both Scotland and England favor full independence for Scotland. The Soviet Union, in 1990-1991, dissolved into 15 separate states. Although this entailed some bloodshed, turmoil, and uncertainty over a 2-year period, it was by and large not at all a terrible happening. There was no major civil war anything like the War for Southern Independence. The aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union has certainly been largely benign as at least some of the individual states that resulted have moved in the direction of free-market policies that have benefited them. The progress of Russia itself has been far greater than when it was part of the Soviet Union.

The secession or independence movement failed in the case of the Chechen Republic after two wars with Russia. Dissolution of a political unit can lead to serious conflict when states insist on territorial sovereignty and believe that it can be maintained by force of arms.

Why should the U.S.A. be dissolved? Why should we get rid of our national (federal) government? Why should Americans have something of a fresh start politically? The reasons for doing this are voluminous. The evidence that it should be done is extraordinarily one-sided. It is covered in detail by hundreds of publications that comprise a "freedom" literature.

What is amazing is that there is so little discussion of the matter of dissolving the U.S.A. We may as well say that for all practical purposes there is none. The influential figures of our nation do not raise this as an issue. It is certainly not on the agenda of our dominant political parties or their members. There is no ongoing debate about dissolving the Union.

If those individuals who favor retaining the national government think that it is such a good idea, then let them debate it. Let them show why the Union should be our form of government. Let them show how wonderful the Union has been for us. Let them go toe-to-toe with those of us who think the opposite. Of course, they do not want to debate this matter at such a basic level. To concede that the Union could even have serious and uncorrectable flaws would be to yield too much ground. It would grant the possibility that the Union is a detriment to the American people. Merely entertaining this possibility in public might make too many people stop and think. It might make them question the existing system, and such doubts might threaten the power, wealth, privilege, and position of those who benefit from the Union.

Rather than debate Union, the supporters of the national government have a better strategy. It goes way beyond stonewalling, which is not even on the horizon. It is to build support for the Union incessantly, to hammer the need for more and more laws passed within the Union’s ambit, and to pass these laws by constantly appealing to the fears of Americans. Rocking the boat, even if that boat is sinking, even if we are all swallowing sea water, is damned as a course that we all must avoid as a risk to our very lives and well-being. Almost any action of government, however ridiculous, stupid, or counter-productive, is painted as enhancing our security, even when it is obvious that the opposite is the case. The security theme is implicit in the notion of unity. We are always asked to obey the laws, pull together after votes are taken, end our dissent, be as one, and be as one nation. We are always asked to accept the laws, for fear that if we do not, we will be attacked, or not have medical care, or not have gasoline, or not have income in our old age. Unity and security are objectives interlarded with the element of fear. Even in the Federalist papers, written in support of the national Union, the appeals for unity were frequently based on heightening fears of European countries attacking the defenseless states and of states fighting with one another.

Beyond the psychological strategy of arousing fear, which has not changed in over 200 years, the tacit assumption held by almost everyone is that the Union is some sort of permanent political entity that deserves to be maintained and that has the worth and value to be maintained. The tacit assumption is that no other political arrangement would serve the American people better. The applause given to national laws is always based on how much good those laws will do.

These two assumptions are both false. The federal government is inept, inefficient, overbearing, power-hungry, dictatorial, and unjust. And it is becoming more so as time passes. The record on war-making alone is enough to show the negative value produced by the Union. Without the Union, the American people would either have avoided nearly every war they have fought in or would have had a greatly reduced role in these wars. Other wars and conflicts may have occurred had there been no Union, but they could not possibly have been at the scale of the wars that Americans have fought under their Union. With many independent states, the incentives for making internecine wars would have been vastly reduced, because the costs of fighting would have fallen far more directly on the individual states that chose to participate.

With the Union, a central power existed that could extract resources from every individual state’s citizens and could force every American in every state into major conflicts that those individual states would never have entered by themselves and which they could never have paid for by themselves. The Union became the vehicle for making more and bigger wars, simply by forcibly amalgamating the combined resources of all the individual states. Far from avoiding wars by a position of deterrent combined strength, the Union engaged in more and larger wars using that strength.

As matters stand, the existence of the Union made possible at greatly enhanced scale the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the War for Southern Independence, the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War, World Wars I and II, the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Afghanistan War, several Iraq Wars, and countless other interventions and hostile actions in other countries. Only with the Union would we have what we today have: a bloated Empire saddled with trouble spots all over the world. These bring us only insecurity, even as we are made to believe that American troops and interference overseas will assuage our fears. Only with the Union could we possibly have major political figures from both parties who promise us that we will be at war for the next 100 or 1,000 years!

There is nothing that the Union accomplishes that is good, if there be anything, that cannot equally well or better be accomplished by the 50 states or subsets thereof acting alone or in federations with one another. And there is much that is bad that the Union does that will be avoided if the Union is dissolved.

The Union is now a coercive monopoly force at the apex of our political system. It gained the monopoly role by defeating the southern states, and it is continually enhancing its position of dominant power by obtaining political changes, such as the direct election of senators and the broadening of the popular vote. It is not stretching reality too far to say that our national government is becoming more and more like the Soviet Union’s Central Committee (although that was a party organization) or like the Politburo. A tiny group of men and women run the country, sustain and increase their power, gradually diminish civil liberties, gradually regulate every aspect of the economy, and gradually make every citizen fearful of even speaking out against their actions.

What is the logical result of Union? Centralization of power and an increase in oppression and the likelihood of further oppression. If we do not think about dissolving the U.S.A. now, we will be thinking about it later when we, as did the citizens of the Soviet Union, begin to chafe and grumble at how bad things are. But why wait for those sad days that are nearing when Medicare and Social Security both fail, or when bombs are dropping on American cities, or when our roads develop even more potholes, or even more bridges collapse, or we find that our dollars are worthless? Why wait?

Dissolving the U.S.A. is becoming more and more an urgent and visible matter. Let us do a favor for ourselves and for our children and grandchildren. Let us place dissolving the U.S.A. at the top of our political agenda.

January 15, 2008

Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

Also See the following article:


Source: OpEdNews.com

Page 1 of 2

Firestorm Brewing Between U.S. States and Federal Government

by Lance L. Landon

States May Be Getting Ready To Dissolve Our Federal Government

Could this be an ominous shadow drawing on the end of the United States of America? For years the Federal Government has presumed to be the all-powerful force governing our country, but it just could be that the Federal Government only exists at the pleasure of the state governments and the citizens thereof. States declaring sovereignty sounds like an act of secession and revolution. However the federal government can apparently be dissolved and another one formed anew at the discretion of the states. The existing Federal government may not leave willingly like so many European governments that are replaced routinely and it may engage a military effort with our own soldiers or the likes of a Black Water illegal military invasion to retain total control over us.

United States Federal Government laws are often in violation of the Tenth Amendment, which is perturbing, these events. This is predicated on an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation, which states that, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation [now Federation] expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

A growing number of states are declaring their sovereignty afforded under the U S Constitution’s Tenth Amendment however the conventional news media are not telling you about what is happening. The State of Washington on Wednesday - 11 February 2009 and most recently, New Hampshire [2009], Montana [2009], Hawaii [2009], Michigan [2009], Missouri [2009], Arizona [2008], Oklahoma [2008], Georgia [1996], and California [1994] all of which have introduced bills and resolutions declaring and reaffirming their sovereignty. Some other states have done this in the past but then let the issue go. Additionally, the states of Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering similar measures. More well may follow, such as Wyoming and Mississippi.

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791 and states, “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.” Historically, this was done to reassert the assignment of the remaining rights to the states and the people of our country if they were not specifically delegated by our Constitution to the United States Government. Further, Amendment Nine on the Construction of the Constitution, Ratified on 15 December 1791 states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The Arizona State Legislature is currently formulating a bill that declares their state sovereignty. Their bill further asserts their state’s right during martial law to call back servicemen to protect Arizona state, "…if the President or any other federal entity attempts to institute martial law or its equivalent without an official declaration in one or more of the states without the consent of that state …” There is more near the end of this article.

A lot of this recent activity has come about due to the reckless demise of the banking system now and also in memory of the past during the great depression that fomented during 1929. There is a Russian academic, Igor Panarin who recently predicted that the United States would break apart into about six separate regions by 2010. Predictions of similar persuasion have been made before, rather they are right or not some big problems may soon ensue.

Much of the presidential character of the cabinet assembled by President Obama is representative of that of the previous administration. Obama perhaps is keeping the Adage, “keep your friends close and keep your enemies even closer.” A disrespect for our so-called leaders is met from our so-called leaders disrespect for us the citizens of our country. Should this be the case yet again, this would establish further reason for the states course of recent action

It may seem ironic that as we have a President from the land of Lincoln, and one who admires Lincoln, that another civil war could be brewing. It’s further ironic that states are beginning to fight back. Many individuals that were imprisoned by Abraham Lincoln for advocating their free speech on issues of the day. These times may be as exciting and revolutionary as when our country was beginning. Benjamin Franklin said something on the order of, “if we do not hang together, we most certainly will hang separately.” Its also ironic that our revolutionary war was with Great Britain and that the so-called Federal Reserve Board (The Banksters) is a corporate instrument of Great Britain, still engorging itself with our blood, our wealth and our money.

The state sovereignty issue was discussed on late night radio on Coast-to-Coast AM. Comments reflected by Alex Jones indicate federal misjurisdiction of its authority that is infringing on state matters and on individual rights. States formed this federal government and it may be disempowered by 34 states [2/3rds]. The Federal government may have disenfranchised itself by making treatise that subvert its powers. As such the Federal government may already be insolvent even though it’s still operating. There is mostly Republican, some Democratic and much nonpartisan sponsorship on recreating state sovereignty to resolve these issues. Take a look at these links: click here and here.

Strings attached by the federal government to returning state money for federal programs may be invalid. States are rejecting federal intervention. Issues at hand involve the National Guard, Posse Commentates, and FEMA Prisons for events of rebellion [or civil demonstration] and revolution and a reimposition of the concept of establishing a North American Union. Take a look at Jerome Corsi’s book, “The Late Great USA”.

Federal negation of states’ rights is selling us out and is treasonous is among the repressive efforts against the states. States may dissolve this federal government. An effort in Missouri to push for sovereignty began three years ago when Missouri started to revive interest in its sovereignty. Other issues are 2nd Amendment Rights being taken away and the institution of civil disobedience, revolution and re-evaluation of where we want our government to go.

Unfunded mandates are forcing issues that the states will block is just one of many issues at hand. The Federal Government essentially has succeeded from our union. PDD-51, part of The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, allows for martial law a lot too easily; this is really not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States.

The negation of Congressional authority by the Executive branch is further ammunition for the states to declare their sovereignty. Congress has become a ceremonial branch of the government with no real power left. Congress has just given up its power by not reading the legislation it is being persuaded to pass hurriedly. Nobody in Congress seems to read the bills they pass. We must educate ourselves or suffer the consequences for lack of knowledge. Presidents have become front men for wealthier world powers.

Generally all state resolutions and bills to regain states inherent rights are a perfectly legitimate concept. While succession could be a possibility, the dissolution of the entire federal government and the institution of a new one predicated mostly on our current one is a distinct possibility.

It has come to the point where the banks are controlling Washington DC [or, is it the Bilderbergers as part of the new world order?]. Or is it just the old world order they are trying to recreate? The use of crises to terrorize us and promote a new world order, based not on what is good for us, but for them! Any world government that should arise must be democratic and not arbitrary. Actually, it is still the Old World Order that the new world order advocates guised in the remains of globalism misused.

The primary Constitutional responsibilities of the Federal government are to control our borders, our currency and our military of which they are abdicating on all of these. Granted there is an enumeration in Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution providing for eighteen or so in total responsibilities and rights. Clause 18, considered the expansion or elastic clause states, “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The union is already gone and America has been sold out to foreign banks. States have the right to dissolve the federal government in order to reconstitute it. There is a non-democratic globalist effort that is stealthily moving ahead with its plan for a world government and economy made in their image, not ours.

The Constitutional principle in the Tenth Amendment is reflective of Federalism in that by providing that powers not granted to the National government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and to the people. In the Articles of Confederation, a precursor to our Federal Government today, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

Once our Constitution was ratified, many desired the addition of a similar amendment limiting the Federal government to powers to those "expressly" delegated; this would have denied the use of implied powers. These powers result under the Elastic Clause the Constitution. Those implied powers are powers not given to the government directly through the Constitution, but are considered to be implied in Section Eight of our Constitution.

This document lets the government create Legislation and laws they considered necessary and proper so that they may remain in force, to meet as then or in the future unanticipated applications of the Constitution. The word "expressly" did not appear in the final version of the Tenth Amendment as it then was ratified.

Some state representatives on late night radio Coast to Coast AM were Matt Shea - WA, Jim Guest - MO, Dan Itse - NH, & Charles Key – OK provided a range of views on this subject. Click here.

In response to increasing federal encroachment, a growing number of states have passed and proposed resolutions to assert the Tenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

The Declaration Of Independence states: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"


A new vision for America is in the works. This is not just about state sovereignty, but America’s Sovereignty. We will be rebuilding America in the image we want, not what outsiders want. We are not ending America, but providing it a new beginning.

Here in are some of the resolutions and portions thereof:

A small portion from the resolution in Arizona created in 2009: “Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring, that:

1. That the State of Arizona hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

2. That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

3. That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.”

~~~

Each state’s resolution has some language that is about the same but also has more to say in many cases. The California Resolution initiated in 1994 reads thusly,

“WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"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"; and

WHEREAS, The 10th Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the United States Constitution and no more; and

WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the 10th Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, In the year 1994, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, Numerous resolutions have been forwarded to the federal government by the California Legislature without any response or result from Congress or the federal government; and

WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the United States Constitution; now, therefore, be it

Firestorm Brewing Between U.S. States and Federal Government

by Lance L. Landon Page 2 of 2 page(s)


Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That the State of California hereby claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution and that this measure shall serve as notice and demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President pro Tempore of the United States Senate, each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States and to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state legislature in the United States of America.”

~~~

While each State Resolution and/or Bill is written somewhat differently but expresses much of the same determination. New Hampshire has a rather interesting and long dissertation in its resolution, excerpted here are some poignant points,

“That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:


I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government . . .”