Are we going to debate the philosophies of felons, murderers and tax protesters? Waffler, are you SERIOUS?! Have you heard of a thing called the Boston Tea Party (tax protesting) or of the Declaration of Independence (act of sedition, punishable by death)? What of Washington leading his ARMY against the established government? This was punishable by death, the same consequence of a murderer -- in fact, such traitors that we call our "founding fathers" would receive a death WORSE than murderers. Are you REALLY this ignorant. Are you REALLY this unadjusted? Are you really, really, really this indoctrinated? You really have no idea what the Declaration of Independence was all about, do you? It was a document of total ordered and peaceful civil disobedience! In essence they said, "We reject your authority! We reject your ruling power! We reject those laws that bind us down under a tyrannical yoke! We proclaim ourself free and independent from consent we have ever had under your rule, and these are the reasons why...." Agree with today's tax protesters or not, but when they use their right of PEACEFUL civil disobedience to speak out and defend themselves and their ideas against what they believe, reason, and purport as a tyrannical and usurping government... Then, in the spirit of of our founding fathers and of the greatness of this land upon which we live, let us extend respect to those men who would rather live and act according to their principles and go to jail than to cower to such a tyrannical regime.

Ah, good man that Thomas Paine. I liked his earlier works much better than this later works. "Common Sense" is a timeless masterpiece -- a real American trademark.

One of those, "well, yeah, of course" kind of quotes... But I agree; apathy is a leading killer of liberty and freedom, especially when it's apathy towards the infringement of another's rights.

Absolutely spot on -- Very well said.

Well said Archer, natural law is all encompassing -- and it certainly goes well beyond such trivial expressions and descriptions as gravity. What is the threshold for tyranny in modern America? It's an interesting question to analyze.

Just that there are five quotes today all saying the same thing: that the states are sovereign entities.

..smiles.. Editor, are you trying to say something here?

Thank you.

Waffler, was the term "under God" added or not? Of course I know the history of the pledge, you moron; my comments have nothing to do with WHEN the phrase "under God" was added -- just that it was added and used as I stated. Pick your arguments!

..smiles.. Ah, good catch on the mis-spell -- at least you got me on something (it's about time). As for the name dropping, I've only ever talked about two or three people -- usually as a reference to counteract your insane stupidity -- certainly not even a handful of whom I could name (but who cares); why would Ambassador Bruton call someone who has no thought, logic, and reason in his daily process? Please read a book Waffler -- start with the Greeks (Socrates, Aristotle and the like -- then onto the epicureans, stoics, etc.) and follow that into St. Augustine and Aquinas... then make your flow into Machiavelli, Luther and Calvin, Blackstone, Rousseau, Locke, Burke, and Hume. Try some Voltaire, but you wouldn't really get him unless you had a foundation in his predecessors; otherwise you'd continue to look like the moron that you've already established yourself as on this blog. As per the secession of the states: New Hampshire has threatened to do it several times in the last 5-7 years -- and Montana has already given formal notice to the federal government wherein it will leave the union if the REAL I.D. goes through against its sovereign state (and again, a formal letter was presented concerning the recent Supreme Court decision concerning the 2nd Amendment). I can reason with the reasonable, but I can't convince stupid! Why waste time on you when you don't obviously use reason, logic, and fact? Because lies told often enough become the perceived truth, and I'll be damned if I'll let the lies and false perceptions that spew out of your mouth possibly go without setting the record straight. You really are in the minority on this blog -- I find myself remembering fondly of the days when we would write on the folly of Anon from Reston and his socialist responses. At least he had a string of logic and a sustainable premise of logic; you, however, contradict yourself continuously. I am only left thinking that you actually study out what false fallacy you're going to use when you respond. You are a failure as an American -- both in thought, action, and support in the principles of what makes this country great -- If you want Democracy, move to Europe; you'll find many friends there! You will fit in particularly well in France.

HA HA HA, Waffler, you ignoramus! When will you actually read your philosophy and history? The several states NEVER abdicated their sovereignty -- or rather their "absolute power or authority"! They delegated it, while resolving that each State could succeed from the Union! READ THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION'S SCRIPT!! You have NO idea what Locke and Rousseau talked about, do you?! Are you seriously this delusional?! You have stretched tacit consent to a level I could NEVER have conceived even possible. Archer's logic is not flawed, because it is a historical FACT! Please, Please, PLEASE go pick yourself up a political science book and just start skimming through it -- I would suggest you start with the PLSC 101 (just in order to pick up the basics). I can suggest a few for you, if you don't know where to go. As I talked with John Bruton several months ago, the EU Ambassador to the United States, he said that each "sovereign state" (in the EU federalism) is more than free to "succeed" from the EU, just like any "any State in the United States has to succeed from their federalism".

"One nation under God" was an epitaph of a "nation" that was once united under an overwhelming religious people; this belief in a "God" united a people -- as one "nation" (a group of homogeneous learnings in religion, language, ethnicity, etc.). We are no longer "One nation under God", because we have rejected the notion that a "God" has anything to do with politics or our "nation". This unification of a "nation under God" had nothing to do with the legal status of a "United States".

Amen, and Amen! Let men return to a state of nature, to reason and argue as logical beings their inalienable rights as given by their Creator! Let the bells of freedom ring once again with the music of personal liberty and accountability without restraint; let natural law only govern our movements, as we reason our interactions as creatures of this earth from where we were born. Long live our Republic!

Excellent observation! This is why, in political science, we call the USA a "federalism" and not a "nationalism". There is a difference.

Interesting observation. A nation and state differ in that a nation deals with homogeneous characteristics of religion, language, ethnicity, etc., whereas a state is a geographically defined area with a centralized and operating political center that is recognized by other states. Sadly, over time, each State within the USA is more and more considered to be a type of mere territory to one great big State called the "United States of America", instead of separate and sovereign states; Ironically, in very name, the "United States of America" was simply a unification of the several sovereign states (much like France as a sovereign state, and Germany as a sovereign state, and Italy as a sovereign state are a part of a Federalist European Union-- each sovereign state is very much separated, but shares a common federalist union wherein certain sovereignty rights are specifically enumerated and delegated to a higher source, all while trying to maintain as much autonomy to the sovereign states as possible). Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Japan are all called "Nation-States" because each of these have specific homogeneous characteristics of language, belief, and custom within a specified geographic location with a politically recognized and active political center. For Webster to say that our States were also nations is for us to believe, what would be today, almost the unbelievable. Almost total autonomy and homogeneity within each specified sovereign state! The term "The United States" was not merely a cliche or a catchy phrase, it was a bold declaration of several independent and sovereign governing political bodies that did the unbelievable and united themselves in specific and enumerated areas for the common good of all the states. The matters of individual prosperity, therefore, did not come from the "federalist" government, but by the local leaders of the sovereign states. Sad how things have changed!

Ah, poor Waffler, you contradicted yourself, yet again. You accuse Mike of having no faith in "America or its people to govern its self or themselves", but you support registration and regulation? Why do you support registration and regulation, unless you don't trust "America or its people to govern its self or themselves"? It sounds like Mike is advocating a greater amount of freedom -- an amount so great that "people [can] kill as many deer as they wish". You don't trust the American people enough to take away restriction, but you trust them enough to regulate cars, boats, etcetera? The despot of natural law? Yes, for shame! Damn gravity and the attracting, coercive, and despotic force it has laid on man for billions of years!! I think you should revolt and throw yourself out of a 10 story window to show gravity your protest. You ignorantly, once again, use a false premise in equating natural law with the "natural right of kings". Read a book, get an education.

Yes, natural law, that damned despot... When will gravity ever cease to be such a menace and dictator upon the human race?!?! After billions of years of oppression and attracting coercion, when will we ever break free from natural law?! Your misunderstanding of history and how thought evolved is staggering. Through the Enlightenment, the "divine right of kings" was rejected, and the "sovereignty" of the people was acknowledged as a self evident state of being.

..laughs.. Happy Independence Day everyone! Well said, Archer.

Ah, the CFR and Trilateral Commission; I had the experience of meeting with Joseph Nye Jr concerning his new book "The Powers that Lead" last March. Nye is the vice chairman of the Trilateral Commission and a member of the Bilderburgers. Very interesting fellow. Archer, well said. I have read a great deal of Adams "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government and the United States of America." It's a great piece.

The Constitution, said Paine, is not a contract between the government and man, because such a principle would establish our government as an independent and separate party from the people that had power to negotiate and barter. It is a document that strictly prohibits, partitions, and dictates exactly what the federal government can and cannot do (and by virtue of the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot do ANYTHING unless there is a specific Constitutional Amendment saying so). On the surface, a Republic operates much like a Democracy, but, by design, it seeks to protect the rights of minority that are non-existent in a Democracy. Republics seek to do this by adhering to an outside codex of "laws", "rules", or "regulations" wherein the majority has no power, even if it is the majority. Life, liberty, and property are inalienable rights (endowed by a Creator) of individuals wherein it is reasoned that the majority absolutely cannot infringe upon anyone in matters pertaining to these rights. Rape, no matter what the ratio is (And no, Waffler, the ignorant champion of Democracy, has still not given me his magic number/ratio wherein rape, incest, and murder are okay, due to the majority's consent; 1:2, 1:100, 1:1,000,000?) is wrong, because it violates an outside and natural codex of reasoned laws wherein life, liberty, and property are violated. While many Republics around the world have based their rule of "law" on a different premise of reasoning and regulation, the United States, as Adams stated, picked to establish their Republic upon the "simple principles of nature". Now, the ignorant among us may shout: "What does 'natural' mean anyway?" Well, I suggest you take a jump out of a 10th level window and find out just how natural gravity is. It had to do with the Enlightenment's justification of returning and understanding the "state of nature" wherein all men interact with each other on a proper basis; an understanding wherein all men can reason with their senses how things moved and interacted in a state of nature.

Waffler, can you prove that he is? Not just the historical facts that "Thomas Paine lived from 1737 to 1809 and wrote the stirring script 'Common Sense' from which many of the Colonialists began the Revolutionary War", but the actual substance of what he's talking about? Concerning what he talks about in "Rights of Man" when he plainly lays out exactly what our Constitution was to be (as what it was not), as well as his other well published works? Can you prove that any public schools actually TEACH the doctrines, principles, beliefs, and history leading up to the founding fathers in such a way that high school students will grasp a clear and undeniable knowledge of the philosophy and reason behind the revolution? I agree with Ken, names and dates are readily taught, but the basic principles, ideas, and foundational philosophy of the ancients is sadly lost in our public educational systems. Very well said, Ken.

Yes, Franklin may have thought this in 1763, but what did he think of it when the Continental Congress inflated the currency so drastically that it became worthless? I certainly don't want my currency to be backed by "patriotism". To say that the amount of green backs in the market has not changed drastically through the years is ignorant of nearly every financial, economic, inflation, and historical fact of our currency. How in the hell do you think inflation works? Arbitrary interest rates and the amount of worthless paper money flooded into the market (this is a basic fact discussed in the first few chapters of any Econ 101 book college book). Gold has retained its value (purchasing power) throughout history; whereas our dollar has become super-inflated (more money in circulation than before). This is such a moot point and common knowledge that I don't know why I've wasted my time -- I can't believe the onslaught of accepted ignorance some people purport.

It is a statistical principle that correlation does not equate to causation.

One of my all time favorite quotes, absolutely brilliant!