“Not until right is founded upon reverence will it be secure; not until duty is based upon love will it be complete; not until liberty is based on eternal principles will it be full, equal, lofty, and universal.”

We have a documant that holds this truth to be self evident. Any one remember what it's called? If so could you please inform the Kenyan usurper?

The Kenyan usurper has probably heard of the Constitution but pays no attention to it. Maybe soneone could slip it onto his teleprompter before he makes one of his many boring speeches.

Right founded on reverence I think means respect for others. The two J's above show in their responses they have none. Polls show that the majority of the American people think Obama is the reasonable one in his speeches and his performance. Reasonableness is a sign of a persons respect and reverence also, in my opinion. Obama won this election and is leading this country for one reason and one reason only because he has a brain and our politics is based on let the best man win. The alter-hero Sarah Palin said the other night while speaking the Tea Partiers, "Under Obama the nation and the world (and I guess she also implied the universe) has lost faith in the hope and dream of Alaska". I guess she meant to say America but had forgotten to write America on her hand.

Waffler you are so unbelievably twisted its pathetic. I advocate the Constitution and you say I have no respect for others? Its the single greatest document in history that gaurantees the rights of all. That I would do so automatically says I respect thje rights of others. What the hell is wrong with "your kind" anyway? Are you all so pathetically twisted...oh right I forgot, the answer is a resounding yes!

PS Waffler, "Polls" show that no President in history has had his popularity ratings plunge right through the floor in so short a time. The man is a talking head - puppet and that's a generous description.

WOW, we hold this truth to be self evident. I need neither reverence nor respect crimes against humanity, slavery, acts contrary to natural law, or any other form of tyranny or despotism (all examples of Obomunist, his czars and stars), no matter what any statist theocracy, majority or minority may say.

Well, that can't be said any better than Giles' has said it. Bravo.

Oh and Waffler, until you understand that reverence means for the rights of the individual you will continue down the road of slavery everytime.

The question I guess Carlton is reverence for what? Some like those who don't pay taxes and go to jail I assume have reverence for one thing SELF. For what one has reverence for is paramount. Do you have reverence for your family, town, province, nation, and government etcetera. Do have reverence for the society in which you live. I respectfully suggest that by the comments of Mike and Archer they have no reverence of awe for anything but the concept of SELF. My neighborhood is going through a great test of dichotomy. We are trying to include our homes into a Historic Preservation District. Inclusion means we will cooperate with each other and with a Commission on any architectural, landscaping, painting and other changes to the exteriors of our homes for the purpose of maintaing an historic looking 1890's neighborhood. Now 15% of the folk are livid that they can be pressured in this way. They wish to have the "freedom" to do anything they wish. I suggest that their reverence is to SELF and not to Historic Preservation or to the wishes of their neighbors.

The quote is good. The above coments are questionable.

Yeah, the speeches are well done, but don't you remember your Mom telling you, "Actions speak louder than words." Well, there is action taking place that is louder than standing in a thunderstorm when the lightening is 10 feet away. We are about to be burned.

So Waffler, a question; why can't the 85% make a pact amongst them selves and do what they want without infringing on and/or, violating the innocent? Why are the 85% so selfish, so anti God given inalienable rights that they would not allow the minority to live in peace, out of slavery (having to perform to the despotic majority's fashion sense)?

Waffler, thank you for the excellent example of that which is contrary to (being diametrically opposed) what the Constitution with original intent, law, justice, morality, liberty, freedom and all that is nobly sacred is and expresses. The U.S. Republic set forth individual rights so the fashion needs of the bulling self centered majority couldn't force the minority against their conscious, violating their life, liberty, or property (the selfish 85%'s fist ending at the 15%'s nose). You've finally explained well your immoral hatred for law's foundation, that being each child of God is equal in their noble status, and your despotic, tyrannical, and otherwise disgusting dogma that selfish power makes right (that there is no noble free, all are slaves subject to the whim of totalitarian dictatorship). Your dialog decries well your true innermost religious self. Your god is truly the arm of flesh's statist theocracy, complete with all its bullying selfish and immoral cannons of power. I know if you were of the 15% here, you would be a dutiful slave and say, "let my 85% masters tell me what I have to do and look like." (but, because your in the power position, you don't have fain that kind of humility

Groups have rights also Mikey. I was in St Augustine, Fla. two weeks ago. I went on a Pub Crawl of the historic district. The tour guide explained how the Town Fathers "threw the franchisers" out of the District. That is the McDonalds, Wendy's. KFC etcetera. Now you may see that as an infringement upon the local merchants who owned and desired to be in the district with their glaring signs and cookie cutter establishments. So who is offending who I ask you? You purport a certain relgiosity on many occasions and discuss activities with your church, so how would you feel about a porn shop next to your church, home or childrens school? What we are talking about here is liberty, together with wisdom, virtue, style etcetera. Many social gatherings, architectural areas, etcetera have issues related to style. If your style does not fit you may be invited out. You still have liberty to conform and stay or not conform and go. You know obviously nothing about God at least not the Judeo-Christian God. That Liberty is contained in the perfect Law of Liberty, The Ten Commandments. Keeping that law conforming to that law sets one free, there is no provision for some of the followers to keep it and some not. Your doggerl above does not become you Mike. I for one do care about style and when I leave my 1890's home and walk the blocks of my 1890's town I like it to look that way and stay that way. Chicago built a huge new library 15 or 20 years ago. It was not done helter/skelter free style, no one argued about their Constitutional Rights to build it any way they chose. It was studied and a group of individuals (not one individual dictator) selected a style that befit the Chicago of circa 1935, in their opinion . Now I agree that this group circumvented many individual desires about style. But grow the hell up my friend just grow the hell up!

Groups do have rights, but only as a gathering of individuals. The number of individuals (majority, minority, 1, 3, 5, 1000000, etc.) doesn't matter. In a free America, anyone is free to offend another lawfully. Offense is in the eye / ear / censorial of the beholder. If it does not breach natural law, it is lawful. It doesn't matter who is offending who. The question to be ask is: were inalienable rights to own property violated. Your unlawful false dichotomy and illogical justification are emotional, unjust and just plane wrong. A porn shop, though I find repulsive and anti godly, has a right to be placed anywhere it wants. If it is found that the porn shop promotes illegal activities it can then be dealt with accordingly. There is a lot to be said for city planning, zoning, etc. but it can not infringe on personal property rights. What you are talking about is power, control and an unprincipled totalitarianism, not liberty, wisdom, or virtue. Developers have a right to build in neighborhood regulations for purchasing and what you can do with the property once you own it. That would be part of the original purchasing contract. You are free not to buy the property if you don't like the conditions of the sell. No pre-existing conditions, constitutionally there can be no ex-post- facto laws. Your conforming under law would be defined as selective slavery. I realize by your past posts that I don't know as much as you have forgotten but what I do know is the law in the Bible, including the 10 commandments make up that body of laws that the founders called natural law. That very natural law is absolutely contrary to statist theocracy's tyrannical cannons you are here spewing. To say the current statist theocracy stands in God's place to make law is beyond ludicrous and most fowl. I'm glad you like the style of your neighborhood but that does not supersede your neighbor's inalienable property rights. You continually speak out of both sides of your mouth. First you say groups have rights to discuss but not force, then you give justified examples of force. If by, growing the hell up, you mean I have to be a slave like you that justifies terrorizing my neighbor because he has another style than me, NO THANKS! ! !

I am glad I appear to you to talk out of both sides of my mouth, tha is the proof that I think and search for the truth or the correct way. It is easy for you and some y others on here to toe a straight line because you are ideologues and see every thing through rose colored glasses or are totally blind folded, By growing up I mean for you to open your mind, become a thinking person and stop being a robot. I just finished reading Joseph Conrad's novel "The Nigger of the Narcissus". It was very appropos to our discussion. It was an allegory. The story concernd a sole black man who was a crew member on an 1890's sailing ship. He fained illness when he boarded and failed to work the entire trip. When he was found out the Captain ordered him kept below for the remainder of the voyage and he died apparently of pure lack of activity. The remaining crew all bent to their chores and labor and saved the ship through a terrible storm and it eventually returned home safely. James Wait the faker was buried at sea. The allegory Mike is about exercising your liberty, your freedom, or living and relating responsibly with your fellow man. Many on this site bewail welfare, and people who they feel do not carry their own weight so to speak, then these same people complain about carrying their own weight as in paying taxes. They call tax cheats who are in prison, political prisoners. I suggest the tax cheats are just another example of James Wait, The Nigger of the Narcissus, who died of his own arrogance and selfish pursuit of his personal idea of Liberty in spite of the need of his group and of the ship upon which he was sailing. Well these tax cheats are of the same ignorant, selfish camp and are helping to bring down the ship of state, the community and nation in which we live. Now Carlton in Canada will say that my words will make him puke, but he is up there in Canada, I wonder if he even pays US Taxes since he is an American expatriot. PS: These folks oft complain about welfare folk with an overlay probably of racism, but as soon as a black man (Barak Obama) tries to get and lands an honest job they complain about that also. Some people just love to bitch and be unhappy all of the time, I suggest they shall get their wish.

Waffler, nice comments and civilly said well. You know well the parts I don't agree with. You've also been here long enough to know there were times I didn't have as much as a car for my family or me to sleep in. We slept where we could and ate when it was available. I did eventually receive some church help but came back totally on my own without any government assistance. In as desperate times as these are now, it is for each individual to reach deep and help his neighbor. Government either directly caused or otherwise encouraged the current problems and have no legitimate place in trying to fix it; unless it is to return to the bounds of the Constitution. Color, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, style or any other categorization of the human experience has anything to do with virtue, integrity, morals, or work ethics. All, are individual attributes (for God is no respecter of persons). My failed business (caused by others criminal activities) did not entitle me to anything from the public troff. Religion is: "real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men." (Bouviers Law Dictionary) By lawful definition, well fare or duty performance to our fellow man is a religious activity. If government practices religious ordinances (marriage, well fare, etc.) it becomes a theocracy. If that theocracy is dominated by a central dictum, it is defined as a statist theocracy. The United States lawful jurisprudence was based on individual sovereignty and a separation of church and state. The statist theocracy has been growing exponentially in totalitarian tyranny almost since inception but, especially since the civil war. The current messiah of the de facto statist theocracy is just another expiative of anti-god, unconstitutional, anti-law, unjust despotism, unrelated to race or color. Mr. Obomunist Goodwrench is a traitor to his office, a liar, a thief, immoral, a promulgator of a de facto statist theocracy, as were his predecessors of differing ethnic origins. Mr. Obomunist Goodwrench can not secure right as he reverences only his unlawful prejudice manifest through the de facto statist theocracy. The de jure Republic has no rights but duties only thus theocratic activities can not issue from love. Love based duties enter a realm of completion when derived from individual conscious. Not until liberty is based on eternal principles will it be full, equal, lofty, and universal. To claim a right is superior when manifest from a majority is to deny all lawful definitions of liberty. The current statist theocracy's messiah does not administer any eternal principles.

I wish I could say that your retort were civilly or nicely said but I really don't understand your ideological babbling. I for example suggest to you that America and its people are a religious people. Read Ahlstrom, The "Religious History of The American People" thus we all practice a sort of public religion via our democracy and institutions. We are all in this together in ways we can seldom understand fully. So again your forever attempt to be special, separate yourself, your family, your church from the rest is, I think unfortunate and really not a correct understanding of the dynamics of the American community.

The quote is right on. In answer to what is to be 'revered', just read the sentence -- it is to revere 'right.' If we revere our own rights as well as the rights of others (i.e. true equal justice), and if our duties are based upon the love of such rights (i.e. honor), and liberty is based upon the eternal principles that sustain it, then its ideal will be realized. Waffler is merely arguing for arbitrary power, unlimited by the rights of the people but at the whim of whatever council lays claim to powers over others. But it goes both ways, Waffler, because when the libs are out next, the seats of power remain and the next scoundrels get their turn at plundering the people. Waffler simply worships power and will bow to whomever has it for a preferred place in the king's court.

BTW, Waffler, to love the group and hate the 'self' is a fascist ideal. To talk of 'self' as if some sort of evil is the talk of a slave. That is what a collectivist mentality does. But of course Waffler doesn't really believe it for he has selected a special home for himSELF, has a nice pension for himSELF, enjoys the respect of himSELF by others, and would defend himSELF should the need be required. So it is all a bunch of hogwash. If the individual is respected in rights and property, then the sum total of ALL 'selves' is respected. If only 'groups' have rights, then I am assuming that some groups have more rights than others (which seems impossible to me from an individualist point of view). I guess in Waffler's world, the biggest groups deserve the most power -- even power over the other smaller groups. But that is simply tyranny and civil war. You can't have it both ways, Waffler.