The "A" from Reston; are you saying rich people don't bathe or what is your definition of rich that would make someone on your list / definition filthy?

🤣🥳

Sillik, hahahaha, lolololol you are a prime example of one that Harriet Tubman would free from slavery if you but knew (knows) what slavery is. Your avowed socialism is a supreme example of slavery. Your religious dogma of controlled group think is antithetical to individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty at nature’s law.

Bryan, maybe? Your comment is absolutely UNknowable under current conditions. The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land has so sufficiently replaced knowledge of nature's law / natural law / common law / inalienable rights / liberty / a "republican form of government" — with — their own religious dogmas, that the majority of voters are without rain, thunder and lightning to vote on.

It is NOT ! ! ! the duty of the unelected / unconstitutional monopoly / anti-nature's law / anti-unalienable rights & liberty / ultimate determinants of what is law - bar/gods to be: thought police, nor those who have power to prevent or suppress ANYTHING.

I liked Tupper Saucy, he was a good man

I have posted this multiple times. Early in my marriage, circumstances exposed that I had not as much as a vehicle for my young family to sleep in. We went hungry but would not take government assistance. I absolutely concur, it is; "Better to starve free than be a fat slave."

Sillik, socialist dogma within their lying religion promotes slavery and eventually, all but a few starve.

cal, are you aware that slaves in the Old Testament was a policy denied by god but taken on by man, complete with using the rules of the surrounding societies.

And the Democrat party also.

Government's replacement of bravery with fear is partly couched in the concept of safety and security. Tyrannous malefactors spew their religious dogma that it is a primary responsibility of government (carnal god's priesthood) to keep their serfs and slaves safe and secure. Hellen Keller said: “Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.” (Helen Keller). Safety is uniquely an element of Admiralty law, not the "law of nature" (Declaration of Independence) or the "Lord's perfect law of liberty". When politicians or others within positions of authority and power present safety or security of people as the moral and legal basis for their usurpations, they do so by an elevation of Admiralty law over common law, nature's law and law of the land. John Locke (second to the bible quoted source for the Constitution) claimed government's duty was to protect "rights" of the people, not the people themselves (a government of law vs a government of men)

Archer 😁 I've ask GBT differing questions on the subject and then after a few communications in logic and religion back and forth, GBT came to my same conclusion; BUTTT !  when I had someone else on a different computer ask the same questions, GBT continued to give its original prejudice. GBT would only give my specific answer back when it knew it was me.  I'm sort of a half hearted fan of AI. It is a good tool when used appropriately. After retirement, I contine to work with attorneys across the country. I've used everything from the most expensive SpellBook to GBT and, I've not found one excerpt from AI that didn't need to be corrected and added to.

David, define religion. Marx used the addictive tenets of religion to organize his version of socialism.

Could be. In an atmosphere of the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land, freedom has been suppressed. How many in that suppressed condition even have any inkling what freedom is? How many would gain their freedom by willingly setting up a republican form of government where representatives represent the law of nature and of nature's God instead of corporeal man, - where compelled compliance, victimless crimes, government licenses, larceny with immunity (2nd plank of the communist manifesto, debt / funny money, government confiscations, etc.) do not exist? How many would choose to personal sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty and perfected allodium at nature's law?

"all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." (Declaration of Independence) The here posed expression of freedom is currently playing out the events in Iran — thus, the rating with stars.

Volumes have been / could be written — we hold this truth to be self evident.

I am aware my above comment is a bit out of context of what Emerson was saying. My comment was to a broader picture.

That is one option. Mahatma Gandhi offered another option. Jesus the Christ's (the King of Kings) resurrection displayed a completely different conclusion.

Robert, I say hmmm. Your woke religion's dogmas are antithetical to nature's law. FYI, theft at any level is contrary to law. Resorting back to an immoral caste system for justification of newer version thereof only works in a statist theocracy of dupes.

The de jure States united was to be a "republican form of government" at the "laws of nature and of nature's God." (Declaration of Independence) Those noted as representatives were to represent nature's law which was/is common and equal to each and every sovereign individual. Abilities, capacities, needs, wants, etc. are uniquely different to/with each and ever person — THUS — such can NOT equally be represented in a body politic of We The People. Taxes, like the 2nd plank of the communist manifesto, are an abandonment of nature's law in favor a totalitarian enslavement of the any and all — THUS — by definition disallowing any representation.

Within the de jure States united there is a separation of powers; namely, independent Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches. Each has their own policies, procedures, administrations and rules. By example; within the Legislative and the Judicial Branches, a founding premise at nature’s law is: “a person is innocent until proven guilty.” Enforcement proceedings within the Executive Branch (right, wrong or indifferent) may declare a person guilty until proven innocent” (such are tax courts and traffic tickets - {each State has a written policy to effect that status}). Immediate enforcement activities (policing exercises) under the executive branch may or may not include a judicial or legislative branch’s absolutes.

Your reference to border defense has a couple of Constitutional citations which use the word “invasion”. Protecting against invasion has narrow legal and military meanings. At Article IV, Section. 4, Clause 1 it says: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;” and, at Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 it says: The Congress shall have Power: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

Invasion means: “The entry of a country by a public enemy, making war.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary); or, “⋯ the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder.” (Black’s Law Dictionary)

Immigration does not fit within any meaning of invasion (legally, militarily or otherwise). Immigration means: “The removing into one place from another. It differs from emigration, which is the moving from one place into another.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) Or, “The coming into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence. The correlative term "emigration" denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country.” (Black’s Law Dictionary) Or, “The entrance into a country of foreigners for the purposes of permanent residence. The correlative term emigration denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country.” (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2)

The word “defend” only shows up once in the Constitution and that is at Article II, Section 1, Clause 7. That is in reference to the President’s oath / affirmation of office.

It is my firm understanding that unchecked or non-regulated immigration is an affront to a nation (as united sovereigns at law). Because there is NO de jure States united at nature’s law, no semblance of original common law and no republican form of government defined by a Constitution, I will keep referencing what should be.

Archer, of course you are right (-; BUT :-) under fleshly philosophy of men (legal positivism most specifically) — unless it is written; it ain't so. Immigration was such an important topic and event to the several States, that authority was not given to the federal government. To my knowledge, each State operated its immigration policy(s) within the common law sovereign authority of the individuals within the State; subsequently, no State has put forth a written policy concerning immigration. The federal government (having in fact NO common law authority) usurped unconstitutional power to enact federal immigration policy.

As to Spooner's here quote, we hold this truth to be self evident to all those who have eyes to see, ears to hear, a brain to think and a soul to feel.

A government of, by and for people is antithetical to a government of nature's law. The individual sovereign with acknowledged inalienable rights and liberty at the "laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence) is enslaved by totalitarianism's tyranny, despostism and usurpations (i.e., compelled compliance, government licenses, victimless crimes, larceny with immunity {2nd plank of the communist manifesto, funny money, confiscations, etc.}, and a lack of perfected allodium.

A legal foundation of the de jure States united's republic was stated by William Blackstone:  "It is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted."

Originally, there were 13 sovereign states with the traditional power over immigration.