Wealth is not an object that everyone has equal right to. No one is born equally with the same amount of wealth. There are people born into great hereditary privilege of money, and those not so much. There is a great disparity between the quality of life experience by this division, not unlike that when people of colour where segregated or people of some distinct social perversion. Rich people do not understand the poor, and the poor do not understand the rich. There cannot be a true peace in the world with such disparity and misunderstanding. Today, there is a similar type of underground rail road  but for those in poverty. Poor in Mexico sacrifice everything trying to cross the border into the States, and immigrants around the world from 3rd world countries try desperately to enter the modern world just for a crack at the riches. It is a rat race to the top of the money pile, that only a few can reach, and many fail. And there is no sympathy for failure. Those who cannot get a job or do not have particular talents are cast off with no regards. There is no market or demand for these people with no skill, and are forced into a state of poverty. Is it truly the persons fault for not having a job? Who can judge or say what experiences, personalities or conflicts this person has had that prevents them from gaining a job? Are we to throw them on the street and force them to change?

These are people who have potential. These are rejects of society that have a flavour in them that was beaten out, or told they cannot be what they desire. These are people that do not know what they want, because they understand the world is a massive place and there are many experiences to discover. These are people that have had hard times understanding what the world is about. These are addicts and abusers who where taught the world incorrectly and are trying to make peace. These people had no chance. Not everyone has the same experience. It is what makes this world a very amazing place to live in, but for some of those people a very difficult. There is no justice when a man cannot do what he wants in a free society, but must slave at something he does not like for the chance to do what he wants.

I think the universal rights are not complete. They address all the basic rights we take for granted now, but the true problem, the root of all evil as has been said, the money, is a right that all should have equal share in.  A very basic economic principle of trade exist  where one party has what another part wants. Now an important clause of this trade is that party one has an excess or a speciality in the item that the other part wants. And it is usually a naturally obtainable substance of that party, that is the item was procured not with force but by the natural forces of economics within that party. To translate for the individual, the optimal job for a person, is one that they are naturally good at, and most probably enjoy. Obtaining this job is difficult, as such they should not waste time in places they do no enjoy. Nothing of value will arise from that. A right for a person to a reserve of cash that is open to the public in times of unemployment would be greatly beneficial in this situation.

Of course, the immediate reaction from everyone, myself included to such an idea is abuse of this fund. Eventually someone will hoard all the money. But, a strict fiscal observation of the spending habits of the individual, and any large withdrawal or purchases can be easily avoided and prevented. Taking out money little by little will also prove to be worthless, as the inflation rate will ruin the savings. Using the money to invest is not a terrible idea either, as you are making a positive change to the market and a significant investment to a company. Some will argue that people will abuse it by withdrawn for drugs or illicit purposes, but using a cashless system renders this void, as all interactions can be monitored.

The most common concern would be that many people would cease to work. This is true, as a majority of people who are unhappy with their current jobs will immediately cease to work. But for many people, working gives a sense of purpose, an unwritten and unspoken benefit that many people do feel. This right will also not allow the lavish lifestyle that can be attain by finding legitimate work, as the immediate workforce will decrease, and positions will open with high salary due to the lack of employable persons. On the other hand, companies will benefit greatly, removing unmotivated employees who did not wish to work, and replace with employees who do wish to work. Some companies will fail, since no one will want to work there, and the market will invariably create a better company.

Most economists would agree this wealth fund would be a disaster and prices will skyrocket due to the ease of purchase of a number of items. And truthfully yes, this is a concern, primarily with food items. But the single most important innovation that has occured in the last few hundred years, can make this all very possible. The advent to modern technology.

Many low profile jobs, such as cashiers, train conductors, janitors, etc are all replaceable with the use of computers. Repetitive jobs with a zero accountability are all replaceable with computers. Picking farms and planting farms can all be done via robotic machinery, with minimal human intervention. Factory jobs can all be replaced. As such, jobs that do not require humans and are mostly the jobs that humans do not want, can all be replaced. These places can technically operate for no cost in the near future, with the use of complete solar energy.

This fund I propose, and right to access to this fund, is no where possible today. It requires a massive overhaul of the economic system, and certain key technologies have yet to emerge to truly replace some jobs. There is also a lot of social stigma against people who do not work and are generally made to feel they are wasting their time,  and instead waste their time doing something they don’t like. Living a life in misery isn’t life.  Everyone deserves the illusive feeling of happiness. It is the only right that should be guaranteed.

It’s quite simple Mr. President

We the people are

N  E  V  E  R

( let me repeat )

N    E    V    E    R

Going to give up Our Guns nor Our Second Amendment Rights!

Your Sir might be better served going after the Left Wing Loons who are committing these violent acts upon our Citizenry.

We have seen the Violent Gun Crime Stats in Cities where they have the most aggressive Gun Control Laws, ie Chicago (your home town) and Washington D.C. (your vacation rental). 

Both of these cities have the Highest Violent Gun Crimes rates in the Country and you have lived in both of them!

However, since you seem so bent on disarming your law abiding Citizens and you are constantly telling US…

((( GUNS DON’T KEEP YOU SAFE )))

Why not Lead by Example and Disarm your Secret Service Protection? 

That way, together, we can ALL live in the Safe Utopia you have created here in America with your Class Warfare Agenda

ANY QUESTIONS?

Related articles

• WAKE UP AMERICA: The Short History of America’s Gun Laws/Confiscations (votingamerican.wordpress.com)
• Defeating Barack Obama’s Assault on American Gun Owning Patriots (votingamerican.wordpress.com)
• Dishonored and Disrespected: Obama Disarmed US Marines at Inaugural Parade (addictedtome.newsvine.com)

The 9 Principles
1. America Is Good.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.

God “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” from George Washington’s first Inaugural address.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

Honesty “I hope that I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider to be the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” ~~George Washington

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

Marriage/Family “It is in the love of one’s family only that heartfelt happiness is known. By a law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family.” ~~Thomas Jefferson

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

Justice “I deem one of the essential principles of our government… 9. equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” ~~Thomas Jefferson

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit of Happiness “Everyone has a natural right to choose that vocation in life which he thinks most likely to give him comfortable subsistence.” ~~Thomas Jefferson

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

Charity “It is not everyone who asketh that deserveth charity; all however, are worth of the inquiry or the deserving may suffer.” ~~George Washington

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
On your right to disagree “In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude; every man will speak as he thinks, or more properly without thinking.” ~~George Washington

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

Who works for whom? “I consider the people who constitute a society or a nation as the source of all authority in that nation.” ~~Thomas Jefferson

The 12 Values
1. Honesty
2. Reverence
3. Hope
4. Thrift
5. Humility

6. Charity
7. Sincerity
8. Moderation
9. Hard Work
10. Courage
11. Personal Responsibility
12. Gratitude

http://the912-project.com/

Abortion Memorial (Photo credit: DrGBB)

The problem with libertarian philosophy on abortion being a “states rights” issue (or some say “the government should not have any role in whether a woman has an abortion”) is that it surrenders to the left.

It fails to understand that God never intended the government to separate itself from His moral law (i.e., “Thou shalt not murder”)

He ordained government to uphold it.

Sanctity of life, therefore, is not a right that states should determine, but is an unalienable right that the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to protect.

In other words, the personal right to life and liberty is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States!

Every unborn child has a personal Right to Life.

Constitution of the United States, page 1 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I respectfully submit to you that libertarian doctrine, on the issue of abortion being a matter of States rights is the same one used by the Democrat south to justify slavery.

Democrats said that the slaves were “property” and, hence, whether to free them or allow them “life and liberty” should be left to the States.

They were wrong. Slaves were not property, but human beings. Likewise, unborn children are not property. They too are human beings.

In the final analysis, the argument that the Right to Life is a “States Rights” issue is nothing short of moral surrender.

Tolerance -a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own. The act or capacity of enduring.

In other words: Its okay to hate someone for it. But its not okay to show your hatred for it. How fucked up is that?

There are those that say that our country was founded on Christian principles. I will not speak to this, but instead defer this to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and The Constitution of the United States of America.

John Adams during the Treaty of Tripoli – “As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion —”

Thomas Jefferson – ” Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions”

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

In short, shut-up your argument is void. There are no buts, or tip toeing through the fucking tulips on this one.

In other words. If I want to worship the magnolia tree I just planted and my belief says I must piss on every other tree like a dog, then guess what buddy, I’m headed to the park! No matter how outrageous or stupid you think it is. It’s my right! On top of that? I have the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines defending it! Welcome to America. Stop tolerating others and just simply accept that what is good for Johnny Numb Nuts may not be good for you and that’s okay.

Obama is the devil. Wait huh? Obama and the left are not so much different than the right. The topic does not matter to me. The fact is that both sides want to revoke or dismantle or prevent access to the fundamental Constitutional rights.

Please allow me to remind you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long-established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly 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.

For those that do not see Secession as a possible answer?

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” – Benjamin Franklin

Homeland Security: Against the Constitution

Patriot Act: Against the Constitution

Defense of Marriage Act: Against the Constitution

Insurrection Act of 1807 changes (2006-7): Against the Constitution

National Defense Authorization Act: Against the Constitution

Government Subsidized or Provided or Produced Anything: Is Against the Constitution and Federal Laws. Do you not realize we have laws that say the Federal Government cannot compete against private Industry? Yes, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac are illegal but use caveats to circumvent the law. Just as turning your healthcare over to the IRS as a tax, has done so as well.

Who Voted for the NDAA ?

This is a list of United States Senators and how they voted on this matter. Those who voted “Yea” are the ones who think they can detain us without trial: ( source ) ( source )

Alabama
Yea AL Sessions, Jefferson [R]
Yea AL Shelby, Richard [R]

Alaska
Yea AK Begich, Mark [D]
Yea AK Murkowski, Lisa [R]

Arizona
Yea AZ Kyl, Jon [R]
Yea AZ McCain, John [R]

Arkansas
Yea AR Boozman, John [R]
Yea AR Pryor, Mark [D]

California
Yea CA Boxer, Barbara [D]
Yea CA Feinstein, Dianne [D]

Colorado
Yea CO Bennet, Michael [D]
Yea CO Udall, Mark [D]

Connecticut
Yea CT Blumenthal, Richard [D]
Yea CT Lieberman, Joseph [I]

Delaware
Yea DE Carper, Thomas [D]
Yea DE Coons, Chris [D]

Florida
Yea FL Nelson, Bill [D]
Yea FL Rubio, Marco [R]

Georgia
Yea GA Chambliss, Saxby [R]
Yea GA Isakson, John [R]

Hawaii
Yea HI Akaka, Daniel [D]
Yea HI Inouye, Daniel [D]

Idaho
Yea ID Crapo, Michael [R]
Yea ID Risch, James [R]

Illinois
Yea IL Durbin, Richard [D]
Yea IL Kirk, Mark [R]

Indiana
Yea IN Coats, Daniel [R]
Yea IN Lugar, Richard [R]

Iowa
Yea IA Grassley, Charles [R]
Nay IA Harkin, Thomas [D]

Kansas
Yea KS Moran, Jerry [R]
Yea KS Roberts, Pat [R]

Kentucky
Yea KY McConnell, Mitch [R]
Nay KY Paul, Rand [R]

Louisiana
Yea LA Landrieu, Mary [D]
Yea LA Vitter, David [R]

Maine
Yea ME Collins, Susan [R]
Yea ME Snowe, Olympia [R]

Maryland
Yea MD Cardin, Benjamin [D]
Yea MD Mikulski, Barbara [D]

Massachusetts
Yea MA Brown, Scott [R]
Yea MA Kerry, John [D]

Michigan
Yea MI Levin, Carl [D]
Yea MI Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]

Minnesota
Yea MN Franken, Al [D]
Yea MN Klobuchar, Amy [D]

Mississippi
Yea MS Cochran, Thad [R]
Yea MS Wicker, Roger [R]

Missouri
Yea MO Blunt, Roy [R]
Yea MO McCaskill, Claire [D]

Montana
Yea MT Baucus, Max [D]
Yea MT Tester, Jon [D]

Nebraska
Yea NE Johanns, Mike [R]
Yea NE Nelson, Ben [D]

Nevada
Yea NV Heller, Dean [R]
Yea NV Reid, Harry [D]

New Hampshire
Yea NH Ayotte, Kelly [R]
Yea NH Shaheen, Jeanne [D]

New Jersey
Yea NJ Lautenberg, Frank [D]
Yea NJ Menendez, Robert [D]

New Mexico
Yea NM Bingaman, Jeff [D]
Yea NM Udall, Tom [D]

New York
Yea NY Gillibrand, Kirsten [D]
Yea NY Schumer, Charles [D]

North Carolina
Yea NC Burr, Richard [R]
Yea NC Hagan, Kay [D]

North Dakota
Yea ND Conrad, Kent [D]
Yea ND Hoeven, John [R]

Ohio
Yea OH Brown, Sherrod [D]
Yea OH Portman, Robert [R]

Oklahoma
Nay OK Coburn, Thomas [R]
Yea OK Inhofe, James [R]

Oregon
Nay OR Merkley, Jeff [D]
Nay OR Wyden, Ron [D]

Pennsylvania
Yea PA Casey, Robert [D]
Yea PA Toomey, Patrick [R]

Rhode Island
Yea RI Reed, John [D]
Yea RI Whitehouse, Sheldon [D]

South Carolina
Yea SC DeMint, Jim [R]
Yea SC Graham, Lindsey [R]

South Dakota
Yea SD Johnson, Tim [D]
Yea SD Thune, John [R]

Tennessee
Yea TN Alexander, Lamar [R]
Yea TN Corker, Bob [R]

Texas
Yea TX Cornyn, John [R]
Yea TX Hutchison, Kay [R]

Utah
Yea UT Hatch, Orrin [R]
Nay UT Lee, Mike [R]

Vermont
Yea VT Leahy, Patrick [D]
Nay VT Sanders, Bernard [I]

Virginia
Yea VA Warner, Mark [D]
Yea VA Webb, Jim [D]

Washington
Yea WA Cantwell, Maria [D]
Yea WA Murray, Patty [D]

West Virginia
Yea WV Manchin, Joe [D]
Yea WV Rockefeller, John [D]

Wisconsin
Yea WI Johnson, Ron [R]
Yea WI Kohl, Herbert [D]

Wyoming
Yea WY Barrasso, John [R]
Yea WY Enzi, Michael [R]

You, the reader do not get to see time pass as I write, however I stopped writing this article to take a moment to email my local Tampa FBI headquarters. In the subject line I entered: General Inquiry

In the body I typed: Good Afternoon, I am a blog writer and would like to inform my readers on the steps required to bring forth an accusation of treason against a fellow citizen of The United States of America. So lets see what response we get shall we?

I have chosen to take a stand and make my voice heard using appropriate channels to do so. I shall not support or encourage anyone to do so in any other method, without exhaustively seeking every possible means to do so peacefully.

We are American Citizens and have rights and the ability to exercise them appropriately. Regardless of what someone else thinks we should or should not have, those rights were determined for us in script in two documents. The first being a declaration of secession and war against the British, the second being A Constitution of laws and rights.

Regardless of sexual orientation, spiritual beliefs, race, or any other defining method, All men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

It is your first responsibility as an American citizen to protect not the government but the principles and laws of this nation. It is not your responsibility to yourself, it is your responsibility to every citizen of this nation including yourself. We have no fate but what we make. The Constitution is not a fucking Chinese Buffet. Regardless of the differences in belief or ideology the person you hate is your American brother or sister. I will and shall always stand for the principles of our nation. The actual principles, not these false representatives and interpretations.

Your parties have become corrupt beyond recognition. They have both chosen paths which lead to corruption and the indisputable truth that our Liberty, National Pride, Freedom, and very American way of life is threatened. Saying: “If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” is exactly the same thoughts I am sure the “pure-blooded” German had when Hitler came to power.  I have read Mein Kompf, a very well written diatribe of hate and stupidity. I hate to say this but Hitler and I do agree on one thing. National Pride. Pride in your country and its citizens is of the utmost importance to any National culture. However, we disagree on absolutely everything else.

Stop seeing yourselves as and stop associating yourselves with those that seek to undermine the absolute truths of our Nation. We can disagree on subjects and whats best for you may not be best for me. That does not mean that gives me a right to intercede into your life and remove your liberty or freedom because I do not belief your actions are correct. That is the simple truth of our Nation. That idea is why we have A United States of America to begin with. The colonists would not comply with King George and Parliament because their rights were being stripped and the road to a police state had begun. Why do you think there is a “no quarter” clause in the constitution?  They were sticking soldiers in peoples homes!

Get with it people. Its time to start acting like Americans. United We Stand. Divided We Fall isn’t bullshit. Its fact.

P.S. Is it okay to be scared shit-less that I opened the door on this can of worms by contacting the FBI on a general inquiry?

Follow The D.C. Clothesline on Facebook

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year.  People meeting me for the first time don’t believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos’n Mate.  Now I live in a “rest home” located on the western end of Pearl Harbor , allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can’t figure out what country you are the president of.
You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
” We’re no longer a Christian nation”
” America is arrogant”

– (Your wife even
announced to the world,” America is mean-
spirited. ” Please tell her to try preaching
that nonsense to 23 generations of our
war dead buried all over the globe who
died for no other reason than to free a
whole lot of strangers from tyranny and
hopelessness.)

I’d say shame on the both of you, but I don’t think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you.  To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said,” America hasn’t lived up to her ideals.”

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British?  Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War?  I hope you didn’t mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don’t think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination.  You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American.  If you don’t, I’ll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue .  You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don’t want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts , who was putting up a fight?  You don’t mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don’t want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing.  I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you’re the Commander-in-Chief now, son.  Do your job.  When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him.  But if you’re not in this fight to win, then get out.  The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you’re thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

You’re not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy.  That’s not our greatest threat.  Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.
And I sure as hell don’t want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle…

Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/haroldestes.asp

When a 95 year old Hero of  “The Greatest Generation”   Stands Up and Speaks Out like this, I think we owe it to him to share his words with as many Americans as we can.

By: Zack Beauchamp, ThinkProgress

“Legislation aimed at reducing gun violence is “a limitation on a God-given right of man that has existed throughout the history of civil society,” according to an article published in the leading conservative opinion journal National Review.

The author, David French, interprets the Christian Bible as granting everyone a right to self-defense. He suggests that this, if true, means that God’s will is that people have access to guns, as they are the means for self defense:

In fact, Jesus’s disciples carried swords, and Jesus even said in some contexts the unarmed should arm themselves… What does all this mean? Essentially that gun control represents not merely a limitation on a constitutional right but a limitation on a God-given right of man that has existed throughout the history of civil society. All rights – of course – are subject to some limits (the right of free speech is not unlimited, for example), and there is much room for debate on the extent of those limits, but state action against the right of self-defense is by default a violation of the natural rights of man, and the state’s political judgment about the limitations of that right should be viewed with extreme skepticism and must overcome a heavy burden of justification.

Even if French is right about the Christian view of self-defense (though Jesus did have choice words about “turning the other cheek“), it’s a logical fallacy to say this implies anything about restrictions on access to guns. Saying that people have a right to defend themselves if attacked isn’t the same thing as saying they should have a right to possess any conceivable means of defending themselves – presumably, French is fine with banning grenade launchers. The burden, instead, is on French to prove that universal background checks or limitations on assault weapon ownership somehow prevent people from defending themselves; to prove, in other words, that gun regulation is actually a restriction on the right of self-defense proper rather than a crime-prevention statute.

Moreover, French is wrong about the role of “self-defense” in a democracy. He cites John Locke, enlightenment philosopher and inspiration for the American Revolution, to suggest that gun rights are “fundamental rights of nature.” But as Ari Kohen, a professor of political theory at the University of Nebraska, points out, French radically misinterprets Locke:

But for people to establish a political community, Locke asserts that people must give up to the government their natural right to punish criminal behavior and agree to have the government settle grievances. This is why we have standing laws that are meant to be applied equally by independent officers of the law and by the courts.

Locke, as Kohen says, held that our right to use force was necessarily limited by the creation of legitimate government – that’s why we have police. This means that the government can limit access to certain weapons as means of discharging its responsibility to keep the peace. While the government may not be able to legitimately ban you from say, killing a home invader who’s brandishing a gun, it also can take reasonable steps to prevent criminals from being able to threaten you with arms in the first place without having to overcome a “heavy burden of justification.”

This isn’t the first questionable gun piece published in National Review. After the Newtown shooting, its editors suggested that mass school shootings were the price we pay for the Second Amendment. One of its writers, Charlotte Allen, infamously wrote that the Newtown massacre happened because there were too many female teachers.

Emphasis Mine

see: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/436-2nd-amendment-rights/15774-god-wants-you-to-have-an-assault-rifle

It is called DUE PROCESS.  The government is forced by the CONSTITUTION to respect all legal rights of the citizen.  The Obamanation and cronies are making up their own rules as they go.

THESE ARE THE TACTICS OF TYRANTS.

Arm yourselves, the fight is coming and coming fast.

Resist.

CDP

Americans more downbeat than at any time since Carter, poll says

Judge Napolitano explains the connection of guns and freedom.

He also explains how freedom was lost when there was firearm confiscation.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. And yet, the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a break on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government, and as our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.

The essence of humanity is freedom. Government — whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force — is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of Communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.

The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty — the personal dominion over self — by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.

But we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.

To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.

There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century — from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad — have disarmed their people, and only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/10/guns-and-freedom/#ixzz2IX2m8pEj

English: Image of the back of the Invitation to the Inauguration of Barack Obama, showing the indentation of the engraving process used to print the invitations. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The theme from today’s inauguration of President Obama is that the government is our protector and will provide for us from cradle to grave. When one looks for salvation, one need not look any further than our government. This overarching principle was so much on display at the inauguration that when one would expect “God” to be invoked in today’s speeches, one did not hear that name – one nation, under who?

Is the airbrushing of God out of President Obama’s inauguration an acknowledgement of our changing society and an attempt not to offend those who do not believe in the almighty or does it portend of a shift between the relationship between government and the governed?

Our founding fathers strongly believed in a deity and that our rights flowed from him. Those rights are enshrined in the Bill of Rights – freedom of religion, speech and so forth, all the way through the first ten amendments. Again, God gave us the rights and no government could interfere with these rights. The interference of our God given rights by the king of England led to the insurrection that eventually formed this nation. It is a founding principle for our nation and at the time of the Revolution was an extraordinary idea – that our rights came directly from God and where not to be rationed out by the sovereign as gifts of manna from above.

Well, if there is no God, like the inauguration pretended today, then where do our rights come from? The logical answer is the government, our protector. If so, our rights and liberties are subject to the whim of the sovereign and what the king doles out, the king can take away – in the bat of an eyelash.

So why was God scrubbed from much of today’s inauguration?

Barack Obama’s Acts of Treason

1. Perpetrating acts of fraud, perjury and conspiracy in his refusal to confirm his lawful eligibility to serve as president under the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1, constituting impeachable offenses of high crimes and misdemeanors adumbrated in U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 4;

2. Surrendering sovereign U.S. war-making to foreign powers and international authorities by attacking Libya without consulting Congress, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 and U.S. Code Title 50, r 33:1541-1548;

3. Accepting foreign title and office while acting as U.S. President and without consulting Congress when in 2009, Obama assumed the Chairmanship of the UN Security Council, the international body responsible for declaring war on behalf of the UN, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 9;

4. Making bribery attempts in word and in deed, as Obama administration offered bribes to at least three Federal candidates for office: Joe Sestak, Andrew Romanoff and Jim Matheson, in violation of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 201;

5. Defying a Federal Court Order by refusing to halt the unconstitutional implementation of the “Patient Healthcare and Affordable Care Act of 2010, popularly known as “ObamaCare”, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3, and Article III, Sections 1 & 2;

6. Defying a Federal Court Order by refusing to grant lawful deep water drilling permits, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3, and Article III, Sections 1 & 2;

7. Executive Branch creation and implementation of regulations asserting unconstitutional force of Federal law on matters explicitly rejected by or contrary to the will and intent of Congress, specifically the EPA implementation of Cap and Trade, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 1 and Section 8;

8. Refusing to secure our broken borders from illegal alien invasion, international criminal incursion, and terrorist cadre penetration, in violation of U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3 and Article IV, Section 4;

Whistle Blowers: Barack Obama Violates Federal Court Order ~ Charlotte N C. Indictments And Impeachment.

9. Executive Branch malfeasance and impeding the administration of justice by preventing the U.S. Department of Justice from investigating crimes committed for the direct benefit of the President by presidential associates including: voter intimidation at the hands of the New Black Panthers and ACORN election fraud, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3, and U.S. Criminal Code Section 135, (Comp. St. § 10305);

10. Direct mobilizing and funding of mob violence, sedition and insurrection, as witnessed in Wisconsin, by the President’s own reelection campaign group Organizing for America, and including open statements of incitement to the insurrection by the President himself, in violation of U.S.Penal Code, Chapter 115, Section 2383;

11. Executive Branch usurpation of lawmaking powers voiding duly enacted legislation of Congress by improperly preventing the U.S. Department of Justice from defending established Federal law – specifically the Defense of Marriage Act, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 3;

12. Adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, as witnessed by consorting with, supporting and installing to powerful Federal positions persons who in writing, word and deed have called for and promoted the overthrow of America’s constitutionally guaranteed Republican form of government, and the overthrow of the United States Constitution; including but not limited to William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, Van Jones, Dalia Mogahed, Harold Koh, and Eric Holder, in violation of U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section IV and U.S. Penal Code, Section 2385.

Constitutional Experts Call Obama’s Abuse Of Executive Power Historic

Related articles

• The Twelve Treasonous Acts of this President (votingamerican.wordpress.com)

ANY QUESTIONS?

Related articles

• Not Wanting to Waste a Crisis, White House and Special Interest Groups Plan to Push More Gun Control Laws That Criminals Won’t Obey (maddmedic.wordpress.com)

Dark blue: Common law jurisdictions. Light blue: Jurisdictions with mixed systems using elements of common law (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Pember and Calvert (2013) discuss “Common Law” and define it to be as old as America dating back to the Anglo-Saxon era and is adopted or fashioned after British Law, and became common law to distinguish it from ecclesiastical law found in the church. Hence, the law was used to settle matter of the people according to their customs. Common law is inductive which says that court decisions and rules are established by what has happened before. Also, in this particular setting are found a judge and jury.  (p.2, 3. Para. 1, 3).

Similarly, American courts today are supported by this same common law and its standard where “Precedents” from prior cases are used to establish credibility in certain court cases.  For example, the infamous “Roe v Wade” case is used in many cases where women might be denied rights concerning their bodies in abortion issues to establish a precedent. The role of establishing a precedent does not stop there it infiltrates many other venues of law and those who find themselves at the mercy of the court. Murder is a huge issue where bout establishing precedent would be used. (i.e. Mass Murder, Rape, etc.). For the journalist who would write a story concerning either of the crimes mentioned, the notion that there has been a previous case to draw from can help them refresh their public’s  memory of a particular high profile case. For a reporter, storytelling is key and in turn keeps the public morale up; also sells papers if people are being kept abreast of these occurrences.

In “Equity Law” litigants are awarded damages and can apply for restraining orders. At first glance of this law I am reminded of Judge Joe Brown where people sue for damages and have the burden of proof; however, I would rather go with a civil suit like domestic violence where there could be damages accrued, pay for those awarded, and/or a restraining order granted to the victim. Although, many domestic violence cases are handle by a District Attorney; monetary awards can be sought in a civil type setting.

Pember & Calvert (2013) states, “The rules, and procedures under equity are far more flexible than those under common law. Equity begins where common law leaves off. Equity suits are never tried before a jury, and ruling come in the form of judicial decrees, not in judgments of yes or no.” Hence, the judge decides the outcome and makes the ruling on these types of cases.

As stated before, in this particular case there might be some sort of altercation where a boyfriend damages property by hitting a woman’s car with a bat and shatters the windshield. Also, he could have punched her and she needed to be seen by a dentist or see a physician for a bruising which has resulted in medical and dental bills. In most of this type cases the judge sets the standard of protection in the restraining order. All this I see as Equity Law. I think that it is up to the journalist to make these type of stories subject specific because the of the prevalence of these type issue; especially among stars who are seen publicly. Notably, the journalists’ job should also be to seek out ways to inform the public of how the case is handled instead of making the occurrence seem glamorous; if a black eye can be seen glamorous.

Finally, “Constitutional Law” where again, “Roe v Wade” case is used in many cases where women might be denied rights concerning their bodies. These rights recognized as “Inalienable Rights” in which the 1^st Amendment to the United States Constitution says all men are entitled to the right of “Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”. I argued this point in the gay marriage issue a while ago and was met with a barrage of insults and comments because of the biblical aspect; however, I continue to support gay rights or any other civil rights issue because for the government “belief in God” has nothing to do with “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” no matter how morally wrong it might seem to someone else.

The text gives a description of the law saying, “Constitutions tend to be short, and, at the federal level and in most states, infrequently, amended.” (Pembert and Calvert, 2013, p.11. Para.2)

I believe journalists sometimes have to become teachers through all these; generally, reporting fact and truth that makes sense.

Related articles

• Real Law….. (awakenlongford.wordpress.com)
• LITIGATION: California Senate Bill 921 Litigant tries to avoid the intra-military immunity doctrine (civil1.org)
• Is the “Declaration of Independence” a Treaty? (adask.wordpress.com)
• The “Common Law Property” Myth in the Libertarian Critique of IP Rights (Part 1) (truthonthemarket.com)
• Liberty Forum: The Constitution and the Common LawMichael Ramsey (originalismblog.typepad.com)
• Court rules unborn is ‘child’ (wnd.com)

United States Declaration of Independence (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the Declaration of Independence it states that “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”

Rather treasonous words, right? WRONG!

What it says is that if “We The People” do not like the way OUR government operates, we have every right– nay, RESPONSIBILITY– to change it.

While I do not agree with some (a LOT) of the crap in Washington, I do believe that the type of government we have is the right one. We just need  men and women who aren’t out to line their own pockets at the expense of the rest of us.

Stay tuned for more information and a petition signature request that may finally result in actual change.