Fair / 61° F
The American liberty movement is rising [UPDATED]
Published 9:43am Wednesday, December 12, 2012 Updated 11:55am Wednesday, December 12, 2012Americans, indeed all people, are endowed with certain unalienable rights. Rights given to us, not by government, but by God (as the Declaration states, “by our Creator”).
These rights are: The Right to Life, that is the right to live, from conception to natural death. The Right to Liberty, that is the right to live as one best sees fit and to let others do the same.
The Right to pursue Happiness, that is, ultimately, to own, protect, and do with your property as you please, and to let others do the same. This is the ‘Natural Law,’ or ‘Common Law,’ if you will — and it is what our U.S. Constitution was set in place to protect; To limit the Federal Government, that, We the People, might live free.
It probably comes as no surprise to you, that all three of these rights are being violated by the federal government (Question: are they our government anymore when they are performing illegal activities that violate the law, i.e. that violate the Constitution?
Wouldn’t that be an invalid government?). The violations are too numerous to list, so I’ll list only two. In regards to the Right to Life, the federal government has sanctioned the slaughter of over 50 million innocent children by perpetuating and allowing the lie to continue that mothers have the right to kill their own offspring.
In fact, this is a violation — a grievous violation — of the natural Right to Life that has led to the American Holocaust.
Thomas Paine said, A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”
In addition, the executive branch now claims the right to assassinate American citizens, and, in fact, has done so – twice (that we know of). And though in fact, Anwar – al – Awlaki, was, most likely, guilty of the crime of terrorism.
Our Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, states that we are all afforded the right to a trial, that we are innocent until proven guilty.
Must it really be pointed out that the federal government assassinating its own citizens without trial should be a major cause of alarm, not to mention a grievous violation to Life and Liberty, and a serious violation of law?
That in fact, the federal government, under a Mr. Barack Obama, murdered two Americans without trial?
Must it be pointed out that our government is no longer abiding by the Constitution, that by assassinating Americans it has shown itself invalid, on par with such tyrants as King George III? Are we so blind? Has the faux media such as FOX, CNN, NPR, NEWSWEEK, and TIME blinded us from the obvious (By the way, TIME is the magazine who voted Hitler man of the year —twice).
Under Bush and Obama, Democrats and Republicans, we have seen a steady erosion of our civil and economic liberty, perpetual war, increased and unlawful surveillance, increased debt, and a trampling of our Constitution.
The way to reverse this is by the same tradition of our forefathers — with a firm reliance upon Divine Providence.
It will take a knowledgeable and informed public, and a determination to stand up for the Constitution and the Freedom it protects. Liberty is rising.
And its calling on you to defend our American Republic. Visit these sites to learn how: OathKeepers.org, CampaignForLiberty.org, LewRockwell.com, LP.org, ConstitutionParty.org. You can also give The Citizens Rule Book (Infowars.com, Fija.com) as gifts to friends and family this Christmas. Please do.
Now is the time. Defend Liberty and Stand ‘76.
Joshua Lake
Fergus Falls
“Nothing is more certain then the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people MUST CEDE TO It SOME OF THEIR NATURAL RIGHTS in order to vest it with requisite powers.” John Jay as Publius Federalist Papers #2
Probably best to write letters with an accurate understanding of history rather than to promote some sort of distorted fantasy.
John Jay (and Alexander Hamilton) held the view that states should subordinate their authority to the federal government, which is what John Jay advocated in Federalist Papers #2. This was a minority opinion, and the reason Jay was not invited to the Constitutional Convention.
“SOME OF THEIR NATURAL RIGHTS” was not intended to grant the federal government complete authority. In the case of the unborn, ALL OF THEIR NATURAL RIGHTS are violated.
What is the reason for this attempted slander of Joshua Lake, Larry? Your “accurate understanding of history” appears to be based on a quote, from a written opinion that was rejected.
What is with you Van Horn? Are you trying to see how many times you can make a fool of yourself in one day? See if you can grasp this…. SLANDER (noun) The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a persons reputation.
Why don’t you tell us how a written comment became a spoken statement. You might also enlighten us as to how Joshua Lake has been damaged.
Mike, maybe you better quit. New York became the 10th state to ratify the Constitution and the Federal Government as John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison promoted under the name Pubilus became and still is a reality. John Jay became the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (It is my opinion John Jay was not invited to the Constitutional Convention as he tended to be very outspoken in his belief that a stronger central government was needed. And you know how difficult it is to come to an agreement when those with lessor minds feel challenged.)
I have no ill will toward the letter writer–his understanding of an important part of our history is just wrong and I think it important to set the record straight.
BTW–you don’t have to take my word for things–read the orginal letters for yourself.
“It is my opinion John Jay was not invited to the Constitutional Convention as he tended to be very outspoken in his belief that a stronger central government was needed.”
Is this not a repeat of my statement above?
Mike, hush. It’s not fair to show up Larry’s ruse of repeating what a detractor says, claiming what Larry then repeats is accurate, and then claims by Larry that because he said it with “an accurate view of history” and your truth becomes an untruth until re repeats what you said as HIS truth, which disproves your truth.
In other words, when you state an inconvenient truth, Larry doesn’t attack the truth, he moves the arguments in circles in hopes that nobody notices.
Hey Jerome, you mean sort of like claiming that Karl Marx said something and then not able to show proof when asked?
Anyway Jerome it’s been more than 48 hours, I’m still waiting for that Marx citation.
Mike, you wrote, “This was a minority opinion, and the reason Jay was not invited to the Constitutional Convention.” This is an incorrect statement. It should be obvious to every reader, Jay’s position was the position of the majority because the Constitution was drafted and adopted, was it not? To make my point as to why he was not invited. let me point out, as you have no doubt already observed, when some people who tightly hold opinions not anchored in facts, math or an accurate understanding of history feel they have been embarrassed in public by someone forcefully pushing an opposing more well-founded view, resort to name calling or character assassination. It is my opinion those who supported the formation of a stronger federal constitutional government feared Jay’s style was unnecessarily abrasive, which might make it harder to come to an agreement.
There is a mistake I left in an earlier post. I had hoped you would do a little research and find it. Facts matter–you can do independent research on your own for the letters are all on the “net”.
Here’s another little something for your review; ”
Permit me, my fellow-citizens, to close these observations by remarking, that there is no spirit of arrogance in the new federal constitution. It addresses you with becoming modesty, admitting that it may contain errors. Let us give it a trial; and when experience has taught its mistakes, the people, whom it preserves absolutely all powerful can reform and amend them.” Tench Coxe writing in support of ratification of the Constitution. (Sounds a little like ‘we have to pass it to know what’s in it’. No?
Yes Larry, Pelosi sounds exactly like Coxe! LOL!
Or this from Benjamin Rush, “It is often said, that “the sovereign and all other power is seated in the people.” This idea is unhappily expressed. It should be—”all the power is derived from the people.” They possess it only on the days of their elections. After this, it is the property of their rulers, nor can they exercise or resume it, unless it is abused. It is of importance to circulate this idea, as it leads to order and good government.”
Note:”They possess it (power) only on the days of their elections.”
Writings of one of our founding fathers which is somewhat at odds with the comments of the letter writer above.
It says here to leave a comment to Walt Henry. I guess that is your alias, Larry? Or is Larry an alias for Walt Henry? Or Curly, Larry and Moe?
You can quote the opinion of all the founders you want, but what matters is what words they chose to put into the Constitution, sign, and sent to the States for ratification. It is a fact which you are loath to accept since you, as all radicals, find it inconvenient to deal with a constitution which stands in the way of imposing your socialist dictate by imperial fiat.
Hey Jeromebill, would those “socialist dictates by imperial fiat” be in the same book by Karl Marx where you said that Karl Marx said the goal of Socialism was to confiscate all money, assets and property from everyone? I’m not even going to try to explain the role of “Historical Legislative Record” to you Jeromebill, you wouldn’t get it anyway in as much as you’re not on the Supreme Court.
Jeromebill, you remind me of that whack-a-mole game, you keep popping up to blurt out one poorly conceived irrational blunder after another, and keep getting whacked on the head….although, that may explain your rationale for doing so. Luckily for you ObamaCare is now the law of the land, so don’t be afraid to ask for help. Although I’m not sure many veterinarians participate.
Jerome, you DO understand what these letter are don’t you? They are the “sales pitches” of the founding fathers, posted in newspapers of the day, urging passage of the Constitution and explaining what the Constitution means, the powers it will have, where those powers come from and how its “flaws” might be corrected as the need arises and the country grows.
A judge once asked me a question and as I read a previous and supporting decision to him, word for word as it had been written, he stopped me in mid-sentence and said, “I know what the law says! Tell me what it means!”
These pieces of letters from the founding fathers seem to suggest the letter writer above knows little of what it is he is writing about. They are not my words or my opinions–they are the words and opinions of those who wrote what the letter writer, and you, don’t seem to understand.