50 States ‘Resign’ From US Corporation? ….. “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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. “| Politics
NOW!! Spy-Proof Communications is Here from Before It’s News
(Before It’s News)
Have all 50 US ‘states’ tendered their resignation from the United States ‘corporation’ as this video from BackToConstitution suggests? According to the Declaration of Independence, it is not only our RIGHT, but it is our DUTY, to ‘throw off’ a government of despots who are committing a long train of abuses as this government clearly has been. A government of criminals is clearly no government at all and will be held accountable.
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Political leftists with global ambitions, who fear the wrath of a free people, have been trying to disarm American citizens for more than a hundred years now. Although Americans have been quite tolerant of past overreaches of political authority at the federal, state and local level, the silence of the people should not be misinterpreted as their consent. Far from it…
In the end, our rights shall NOT be infringed! PERIOD!
The subject of our inalienable rights, protected by the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and State Constitutions, is simple. – “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Why? – Because, a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State and a free people.
A state which is subservient to any supreme central power is not a “free state.” Our Founders created a Constitutional Representative Republic, not a democracy. The thirteen original colonies and the balance of the states by ratification, created a federal government via a compact known as the U.S. Constitution, and further protected states and individual rights via the Bill of (inalienable) Rights.
The people, via their states, assigned certain specific and limited duties to the federal government they created, along with the limited authority to carry out those duties.
Few issues highlight the gaping philosophical divide between libertarians and modern conservatives more starkly than the issue of guns. This might seem counterintuitive, because libertarians and modern conservatives often stand shoulder to shoulder against liberals and progressives to defend individual gun rights. The convenient alliance between modern conservatives and libertarians in the political trenches, however, conceals a fundamental and serious philosophical disagreement.
In order to fully grasp the division between libertarians and modern conservatives on this issue, it is important to understand why libertarians and conservatives think gun rights are so important. At the most general level, both libertarians and modern conservatives agree that all men have a natural right to defend themselves against aggression. More specifically, every man has a natural right to repel with violent force any unjust aggression against his life or his property.
Libertarians and modern conservatives do not defend individual gun rights out of some bizarre and loony obsession with a 200-year-old piece of parchment called “The Constitution.” On the contrary, they hold that the Constitution of the United States merely articulated something about man’s nature that has always been and always will be true.
The logical implication of this, both libertarians and modern conservatives agree, is that individuals have a natural right not just to defend their lives and their property against aggression from individual murderers and thieves, but that they have a natural right to defend themselves from unjust aggression by government. Hollow indeed would be the right to self-defense if it did not include the right to defend oneself against aggression by government – including one’s own government, because governments have killed and robbed exponentially more people than have private criminals.
Recognizing this fact, libertarians and modern conservatives agree that the natural right to self-defense must include a right to defend oneself against unjust government aggression, and that doing so usually requires more than simply a stick or a slingshot. A population armed with modern guns is not easily cowed, robbed, or massacred unless governments resort to wildly immoral and indiscriminate tactics or weapons of mass destruction.
So far so good. Libertarians and modern conservatives agree that…..
redstate.com ^ | 28 February, 2013 | mcrow44
Posted on Friday, March 01, 2013 9:42:43 AM by marktwain
The ‘need’ word has infected political rhetoric. President Obama recently suggested that we should eliminate certain tax loopholes because some taxpayers are doing just fine and they don’t need tax relief, i.e. the money.
Tea Party ^ | February 16, 2013 | Staff
Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2013 4:57:22 PM by yoe
On Thursday, that’s exactly what former D.C. cop and MSNBC script reader Chris Matthews did – he called the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre a racist for daring to defend the god-given natural right of self-defense.
By Alan Keyes
People who have read and pondered the articles I’ve posted here over the years have undoubtedly noticed my consistent reliance on the principles and logic of the American Declaration of Independence. Many of America‘s self-professed conservative political leaders fail to think through and uphold the Declaration’s tenets. This may yet prove to be a flaw fatal to the prospects of liberty. Is this failure the result of incompetence? Or is it a matter of malicious choice? Whatever the explanation, in spurning the Declaration they discard the Providential gift that has been and remains America’s defining and most essential moral resource.
The heart of most Americans still responds to the understanding of justice conveyed in the Declaration’s most famous words, particularly its acknowledgment that “all men are created equal.” The Declaration’s words still move even those avowedly committed to the socialist degradation of America’s character and institutions. We see new proof of this in the inauguration speech just delivered by the idol they have lifted up to be the historical focal point for consummating that degradation. Barack Obama has consistently used a rhetorical device wherein he cites or alludes to the Declaration’s words even as he advocates and implements an understanding of government that contradicts the Declaration’s logic. He did so again last week: