👍

An update. The socialist I here spoke of just passed and to her last days, could not find it in her to forgive me for my family's charitable Thanksgiving game. Socialism is truly a religion that rots the brain, heart and soul.

👍

👍

Archer, I agree

As experienced in my travels outside the U.S., the quote stills portrays some validity.

Researching definitions of personal sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty and individual freedom, no where in the concepts of such does possessing power show up. I'v seen no historical evidence of the quotes focus leading to or keeping freedom. In a history of human nature, "power" is most often present — BUT — that is a whole other topic outside the above quote.

How many individuals within the jurisdictional boarders of the de jure States United can legally define and describe individual sovereignty, inalienable rights or liberty? How many think the more licenses one has the freer they are? How many understand the full scope of personal responsibility?

Waffler, ALL Amendments are to clarify or better administer "the laws of nature and of nature's God" — NOT to deny individual sovereignty, inalienable rights or liberty ! ! !

Profound insights with possibilities (counterarguments; correct / dubious ideas, etc.) may or may not arise in debate. Profound insights with possibilities may or may not occur during life’s events or ⋯, etc.

"any right" ? ? ? Government has NO ! ! ! rights but duties only ! ! ! Government (Executive, Legislature, Judicial, official academia, operation of law, etc.) has NEVER given a finite, legal or usable definition to what a "right" IS. A very abstract / inanimate / loose mention of “rights” is a distant supposition not related to ancient, legal or scriptural knowledge, understanding or use of what “rights” are. By example: right to life, right to own self-defense implementation, right to a free press, etc.; OR something that is related to just or moral (a circular argument - what is just and what is moral). An “inalienable” right simply means the “right” (what ever that is) can not be transferred to another. Referencing “inalienable” under such context reduces rights to sensorial life (such as to individual noble heirs of the Eternal Father). Intangible representation (government) is not sensorial life, thus incapable of rights.

Joe, the concept of charity (a gift of love) when describing compassion falls no where in a legally defined contract of loan. AND, no were in the de jure Constitution (based on "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence)) are servants of the "law" (not we the people) authorized to participate in commercial activities as lending money based on compassion.

Jim, that would be a great start. A major problem with such honesty, just system and lawfulness is, what to do with the Common Law Grand Jury's finding? The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land's courts (where the Jury's finding would go) is corrupt and has NO recognition or understanding of (is condemned and reviled by) the de jure Constitution's "law of nature and of nature's God".

Steve, then a great big thank you from the participants here.

Our government should follow the "laws of nature and of nature's God" and then, the above quote would not even be an issue.

Waffler, again I shake my lowered head in unbelief. The individual sovereigns within the de jure States united declared their independence - separating themselves from carnal gods that claimed an ability to create law by way of an empty theological philosophy of men (mostly legal positivism). The founding sovereigns chose to live by and abide "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence — 1st paragraph). The second plank of the communist manifesto / unlawful theft of the noble laborer's fruit is antithetical / diametrically opposed to nature's law / Constitutional law / the Lord's perfect law of liberty. The law you reference is in fact, NOT law but rather, a tyrannically enforced usurpation. I was once privileged to participate in research showing the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. Even if the 16th Amendment was legally ratified, it could not be employed as it would not just modify the Constitution but, it would nullify the very premise / principles / law that was the foundation thereto.

Archer, of course you are right. Growing up, my mother had a Jewish friend that was in the Nazi camps as a young girl (still had her identification number on her arm). She said basically the same thing — that the German Jews were pseudo-communists that could not let go of their wealth. The communists and the corporatists (fascists) always hated each other for their differently applied versions of socialism. I find it amusing that those today who put down fascists so radically lean communistic. Mussolini coined the phrase fascism (a band or bundle of sticks) meaning the State owned everything, either directly or through corporations vs. the communist State that owned everything outright in its own name. I also find it amassing that that today's ignorant communists either can't define what fascism is or make up emotional retorts from a Marxist perspective.

👍 👍 👍

Waffler, to your point; “A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years”. (Lysander Spooner). Because in fact, the de jure States united were to be an Article IV Section 4 (Constitution) representative republic, where the "laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence) were to exist supreme, "government" would be defined as individual's representing the law and the administration thereof — they would be the government. If those individuals claiming to represent nature's law with an accurate justice thereto, did NOT represent the law or subsequent justice, they are usurpers not of the government. Thus, constitutionally, "we" are NOT the government.

Archer, thank you — we hold this truth to be self evident

Please give me a lawful / finite definition of "right" at nature's law (inalienable or temporary, that which law may/can never take away, etc.) I recognize that mental / spirit helots, serfs, slaves and carnal gods cannot supply such definition as it will speak against their hatred and usurpations of "the laws of nature and of nature's God")

🤪🤣 Waffler, a great argument against democracy.

Waffler, your shallow propaganda is off topic (of course, needing to advance a lie) The single most feared / hated form of government at the time of the founding of this "representing law republic" was democracy.

By example; "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for supper. liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." (attributed to Benjamin Franklin). 

“A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years”. (Lysander Spooner)

Individual sovereigns complete with intact inalienable rights and liberty at nature's law in a representative republic voted on how best implement administrations of law rather than a democracy's voting on a new master / jailer.

Claiming independence, absolute right(s), individualism or sovereignty over your own body and mind — not conflicting with an other person's independence, absolute right(s), individualism or sovereignty (not the State) will probably get you locked up today. Today, acting as a non-helot / serf / slave to the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land is a criminal offense.

Archer Yep 😁