Oklahoma House Votes 83 to 13 to Restore Sovereignty Under the 10th Amendment Over All Powers ...

Just Curious

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:34:50 +0100

Just curious;It would be interesting to know who the 13 were that voted No to Americans re-affirming their rights. - mr_bellows

Pithy

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:07:34 +0100

Lock-and-Load! - FrankyB

As useless as a fart in a windstorm!

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:38:10 +0100

Just a buncha hoopla over a totally meaningless gesture from another smoke & mirrors gang. A "resolution" has absolutely NO power what-so-ever under law, it holds no water, it means nothing! It simply proclaims that a few impotent legislators more-or-less agreed on an idea, nothing more. But now the sheeple can go back to sleep, because they "feel" that the critters in the State House really took a stand here! About as useless as a fart in a windstorm! - Tinkerman

Socialist/Communist Government

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 05:40:24 +0100

We pass this, and we will get invaded and not a story will be announced in the national news. Oklahoma must be ready. The national guard up north was getting ready to train going door to door looking for weapons. The federal government is anticipating this. - RichardR369

Great start!

Mon, 23 Feb 2009 06:44:38 +0100

This is a great step to tell the Federal Government to "take a hike". Next we need each state to rebuild it's "State Militia", so we can truly defend ourselves from the Federal Corrupt Communist "1984" Regime. - Dave B

RE: Americans for Sovereignty hopefully in Connecticut

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:19:41 +0100

I filled out a get US out of the UN survey for Americans for Sovereignty hoping that Connecticut legislators get my message. If we throw the UN out of New York City, we won't have any more 9/11s, Socialists, Communists, world government, UN Tax, UN Soldiers, or our guns taken away from us. My late father's Navy will have absolute freedom of the seas with the UN and the LOST out of the way. Connecticut is a Democrat state so I can't get my hopes up too high. But I'm formalizing my membership in the Connecticut Sons of the American Revolution after I formalized my membership in the Mayflower Society. My father's navy born in 1775 says do not tread on me and my father reminded others of that statement as a Republican Conservative of many years standing. BGen Peter F. Steele, USMC [Ret] for RADM Peter Steele, USN. - Peter Steele

Just the first step...

Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:33:47 +0100

Unfortunately, I fear this is just the first step. Each of us may want to consider how we can prepare our legislatures for more aggressive actions. - Bob Donohoo

The Feds are not doing their job

Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:50:33 +0100

I agree with the above article. I would like to show where the federal government is falling down on its job: The Second Amendment is clear: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” God established governments to punish crime, but what happens if governments are law-breakers also? For instance: Why should a state government be allowed to require a permit for a person to carry a concealed weapon when the federal Constitution guarantees our right to keep armed? Should federal police arrest state governments for breaking the law of the land? I think so. The federaal Government has been guilty of doing what they shouldn't and not doing what they should. - MarkGlen

Irony

Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:58:14 +0100

After posting here I went and did more research and I determined it was easier to get Charles Key's (the sponsor of the bill) cell phone number than it was to get info out of the OK legislature website, so I just called him and got the full scoop, and it does sound pretty promising. Now, I've heard that the bill is also up for consideration in Maine, but their site is even more hard to use than the Oklahoma one. Any info on that? Dave - Dave Nalle

...

Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:34:08 +0100

Dave, I just noticed I hadn't included a link to the actual vote results for Oklahoma HJR1003 on Feb. 18. So now I've added a link for "passed by a very large margin, 83 to 13 on February 18" in the above article. The link takes you to the official OK legislative webpage that summarizes the vote on HJR1003, gives the date, and lists all voting for and against. You'll find it all appears to be very real. - lgreenley

...

Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:12:45 +0100

Dave, sorry about the wrong link being supplied for Oklahoma HJR1003. Now it's corrected. It was passed overwhelmingly on Feb. 18 by 83 to 13. I find the Oklahoma legislative website to be very hard to work with, so I'm not surprised that you haven't been able to verify introduction and passage of HJR1003. I've had to resort to supplementing searches on the OK site with Google searches to find what I want. I knew the resolution had passed because I had been told by people who were there. I should have included in my article above that last week the Oklahoma Senate Judiciary Committee approved SJR10 (the Senate version of HJR1003) to be voted on by the full Senate by a vote of 6-1. - lgreenley

Wrong info here

Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:57:04 +0100

Your link to the Oklahoma State Sovereignty bill is wrong, and my research suggests that the bill has neither been reintroduced or passed as you suggest. It's not even on the legislative docket for the Oklahoma house. I'm sure it WILL be reintroduced, but your info here is just wrong. For accurate coverage of this issue see the series of articles on Republic of Dave. - Dave Nalle