Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: A Conditional "Maybe"  (Read 12239 times)

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: A Conditional "Maybe"
« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2007, 08:13:03 am »

I suggested wikipedia for the history and legal status of the Fed. Is there a reason to disagree with either the historic record as they state, or the legal status?

I believe it to be an archaic holdover from a time of inefficient global markets, but that is just my opinion...
Logged

Russell Kanning

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3531
    • We must be the change we wish to see in the world.
Re: A Conditional "Maybe"
« Reply #16 on: October 27, 2007, 10:40:08 am »

I moved to NH .... and I didn't even know who ron paul was.
I have met many fine people in The Shire who might not even vote ... or care about politics. Some of them are even sick of presidential primaries.
I think you should move all the way from Maine if you want to join a nonviolent revolution. Watching polls or pols ... might get you depressed. ;D
Logged
The NH Underground - "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi
New Hampshire Free Press - The Nonviolent Revolution Starts Here

"Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces." -- Etienne de La Boetie, The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude

LibertyforLife

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
Re: A Conditional "Maybe"
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2007, 10:43:08 am »

On one hand I want to destroy the machinations of 'government' by becoming a politician. On the other hand, I want nothing to do with the murderers, thieves, and liars D/B/A 'government'. Its a hard decision for me.

Logged
Live free or die!

RangerProbst

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
Re: A Conditional "Maybe"
« Reply #18 on: October 28, 2007, 03:07:36 am »



He uses the term 'fiat money' as its not back by the gold standard. And the US was simply printing it. The paper dollar is a 'note' as denoted on its face. Article 1 Section 8 does not state that the gold standard, or any other standard other than a congressional majority must be used. I'm quite sure his campaign was recently informed of this.

But for more viable proof, here is something more recent.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_PRIMARY_FILING_PAUL_NHOL-?SITE=NHMAL&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Paul is the sole opponent of the Iraq war in the mainstream Republican field. A strict constitutionalist, he favors small government, lower taxes and opposes the private Federal Reserve, the nation's central banking system.

"The Constitution says no emitting of bills of credit, so no paper money, so our whole system is unconstitutional," he said.[/i]
The Constitutional reference of 'No emittting of bills of credit' can be found in Article 1 Section 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

He also needs to further define 'private Federal Reserve'... my understanding is this is a quasi-governmental agency.



[/quote]

So basically, since every state has accepted the fiat money printed by the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank instead of gold and silver coin, which is the ONLY legal tender in payments of debts, our money system is unconstitutional. Well, that would make it seem to me that our current central bank system in unconstitutional. I guess that means Ron Paul is correct.

Forget about Ron Paul for a moment and let's look at the reality of our central banking system. The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank that has been given authority, by Congress, to print "Federal Reserve Notes." This privately owned bank charges our government interest on newly printed money. The money is spent in whichever fashion the green machine decides to spend it. Those of us that do pay taxes pick up the bill. In addition to tax payers picking up the tab on our governement's ridiculous spending sprees (that closely resemble what a 14 year old would do if they had daddy's credit card and no limit), the printing of money on a whim has devalued the savings of every American and has especially hurt those well into retirement. I've seen more 90 year old men working as greeters in Walmart than I ever cared to.

Not only is our central banking system unconstitutional, but it's a HUGE problem in a great many different ways. All Americans are being screwed out of their hard earned savings by the current system.

Why isn't this issue being addressed by all of the other candidates? Would you like to be greeter at Walmart once your retirment is devalued to a point where it won't last until you kick the bucket? If things stay the way they are, you'll probably get your chance.

In my opinion, it's definitely one of the top issues the candidates should be discussing during these debates. So now, with Ron Paul being the only candidate willing to take a stand and tell things the way they really are, how can you stand to support someone else that isn't even attempting to talk about a huge issue that impacts every single American, all day, every day?

Since you like wikipedia, here is a link for you about our fiat money...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Note
Logged
"The end of democracy, and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." - Thomas Jefferson

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: A Conditional "Maybe"
« Reply #19 on: October 28, 2007, 04:45:55 am »

I retired at 40 and work part time (40hrs/wk) at Home Depot, but not out of necessity. No male in my family has ever stopped working prior to death, or terminal illness... its just not in our nature.

The Fed was created by an act of Congress, I can't name one private company that was.

That would mean NH was violating the Constitution, not the federal government. A bill could be entered in the NH Legislature requiring State debts to be paid in gold and silver coin. At the very least a debate would ensue.

Your '14 year old with a credit card' is exactly the opposite of what is happening. The Congress is enslaving the next generation for the benefit of this one.



Logged

RangerProbst

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
Re: A Conditional "Maybe"
« Reply #20 on: October 28, 2007, 06:51:47 am »

I retired at 40 and work part time (40hrs/wk) at Home Depot, but not out of necessity. No male in my family has ever stopped working prior to death, or terminal illness... its just not in our nature.

The Fed was created by an act of Congress, I can't name one private company that was.

That would mean NH was violating the Constitution, not the federal government. A bill could be entered in the NH Legislature requiring State debts to be paid in gold and silver coin. At the very least a debate would ensue.

Your '14 year old with a credit card' is exactly the opposite of what is happening. The Congress is enslaving the next generation for the benefit of this one.


Congratulations on wanting to work until you die. That still doesn't make the inflation effects on savings go away.

The Fed was not created by Congress. A deal was brokered between bankers that would create the Fed and members of Congress. Because Congress was involved that means it's OK? Based on that logic, you are also pro-Patriot Act 1 and 2. The Federal Reserve Act was passed to enrich a dozen banking families at the expense of US citizens.

Exactly, that would mean EVERY state is violating the constitution. In the words of Ron Paul, which is what this was all about from the get go, "The Constitution says no emitting of bills of credit, so no paper money, so our whole system is unconstitutional."

So tell me how Congress enslaving the next generation with ridiculous government spending is NOT like a 14 year old with a credit card? Plus, I don't quite see how they are benefiting us either. Please don't go on and on about the fight against terrorism. Everyone that knows anything understands that Iraq and the "War on Terror" are all excuses for power brokers to make more money. Take a look at the Department of Homeland Security. 814,073 people charged for crimes in the last three years and only 12 of them were charged with terrorism, most of which got off. The "War on Terror" is more like the "War on US Taxpayer's Pocketbooks and Freedoms."

Logged
"The end of democracy, and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." - Thomas Jefferson

LibertyforLife

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
Re: A Conditional "Maybe"
« Reply #21 on: October 28, 2007, 10:05:00 am »

You can't make a payment with a 'note'. A 'note' is evidence of a debt. Debt can not be satisfied by using another instrument of debt to satisfy the first debt. Thats like trying to pay your water bill with your electric bill. When you use a 'note' you aren't satisfying the debt, you are discharging the debt, transferring the first debt to someone else. Its funny, the water company sends you a bill, and they gladly accept your debt in exchange for services. I think that it is a crime under common law to discharge your debt because it is fraud, but I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer.

The thing that I feel sorry for is all these people who are 'saving' their 'notes' for retirement and thinking that their 'notes' will be worth the same as they are the day they put them into the retirement account as the day they take them out.

Legal tender is just a sham, it should be revoked entirely. The reason none of the candidates talk about the FED is because neither the candidates themselves, nor the people at large even being to understand the crime that has been forced apon them. That the money they use and are lead to believe has no value. The crunch is coming, and this time it won't be just the United States that feels the burn, everyone everywhere will feel it.

I didn't think I'd see the day when our neighbors' money to the north would be worth more then our own money. Of course I use the word money in quotes as legal tender is not money, because it can not be used to pay debts.

You think the banking system is bad, how about the 1 million dollar bond that is taken out on each and every child registered to the state. Money that belongs to your child, but the State takes it and spends it however they want to without even telling you they have it or asking you if its okay with you if they spend it. You just go right on complying with them without even knowing what you are doing or knowing that you have this million dollars out there that is free for you to use anytime you want to.
Logged
Live free or die!

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: A Conditional "Maybe"
« Reply #22 on: October 28, 2007, 06:35:44 pm »

I retired at 40 and work part time (40hrs/wk) at Home Depot, but not out of necessity. No male in my family has ever stopped working prior to death, or terminal illness... its just not in our nature.

The Fed was created by an act of Congress, I can't name one private company that was.

That would mean NH was violating the Constitution, not the federal government. A bill could be entered in the NH Legislature requiring State debts to be paid in gold and silver coin. At the very least a debate would ensue.

Your '14 year old with a credit card' is exactly the opposite of what is happening. The Congress is enslaving the next generation for the benefit of this one.


Congratulations on wanting to work until you die. That still doesn't make the inflation effects on savings go away.

The Fed was not created by Congress. A deal was brokered between bankers that would create the Fed and members of Congress. Because Congress was involved that means it's OK? Based on that logic, you are also pro-Patriot Act 1 and 2. The Federal Reserve Act was passed to enrich a dozen banking families at the expense of US citizens.

Exactly, that would mean EVERY state is violating the constitution. In the words of Ron Paul, which is what this was all about from the get go, "The Constitution says no emitting of bills of credit, so no paper money, so our whole system is unconstitutional."

So tell me how Congress enslaving the next generation with ridiculous government spending is NOT like a 14 year old with a credit card? Plus, I don't quite see how they are benefiting us either. Please don't go on and on about the fight against terrorism. Everyone that knows anything understands that Iraq and the "War on Terror" are all excuses for power brokers to make more money. Take a look at the Department of Homeland Security. 814,073 people charged for crimes in the last three years and only 12 of them were charged with terrorism, most of which got off. The "War on Terror" is more like the "War on US Taxpayer's Pocketbooks and Freedoms."


The '14 year old with a credit card' is enslaving their parents, not their children.

Congress could dissolve the Fed, because they created it... not so with say Walmart. Suggesting that because I accept Congress acting within its Constitutional powers is not paramount to my agreement with their actions.

Congressman Paul is/was suggesting that the printing of paper dollars is the federal government acting unconstitutional... not quite the same as States acting unconstitutional. But it would be interesting to run for national election on a platform that each State is acting against the Constitution.

He then also wants a 'federal law' defining life to begin a conception... in direct violation of the 10th. I can only presume he meant to say 'Constitutional Amendment'.

I don't believe in a 'War on Terror'... I do believe in the geopolitics of oil.

LFL, you don't believe in fraud... remember the house painting.
But to check his sincerity, ask Congressman Paul if his campaign will take a donation in paper money? Or only gold and silver?

 

Logged

LibertyforLife

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
Re: A Conditional "Maybe"
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2007, 10:52:17 am »

Quote
'He then also wants a 'federal law' defining life to begin a conception'

Could you please provide evidence of this? As far as I understand, he believe that life begins at conception, and that is his right to believe so, and he also believes that abortion is wrong, which is his right to believe so, but he favors the repeal of Roe v. Wade, because it is not a decision to be made at the Federal level because it is not in the Constitution, and under Art. 10, is a right of the State, or of the people to decide.

This would also seem to defy the logic of an allegation that he wants a 'federal law' to do just the opposite of what he believes is not a Federal matter in the first place.

With regards to the house painting issue, I didn't say that I accepted reneging on contracts, only that force should not be used to force the parties to comply on the grounds that a contract is an agreement in terms, and that it defies logic that force would be needed to compel either parties to which they already agreed apon. If one party reneges on a contract, then there must be at issue a understanding of terms, but to force another to comply with your will is no better then shoving a gun in their face and telling them to give you the money.

Ron Paul has accepted ALDs, I know, because I sent him one and I haven't gotten it back. He would prefer, I would assume, the bad money first, because we always spend bad money before we spend good money, and because there doesn't exist much anymore of the exchange of non-monetary instruments due to government interference and coercion.

I don't agree with everything that Dr. Paul has to say, but I'd rather see him win then yet another type of Statist.
Logged
Live free or die!

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: A Conditional "Maybe"
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2007, 01:29:14 pm »

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

"In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094."

And you are correct this would violate the provisions of the 10th Amendment. But I do believe that Roe vs. Wade provided that States could right statues restricting abortion as long as the statues are equitable under the 14th and has provisions for the mother's life and health.

Generally force other than judicial authority is not used in NH for non-criminal actions. But there are several items at the State and local level that must be stopped. 
 

Logged

RangerProbst

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 89
Re: A Conditional "Maybe"
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2007, 11:34:28 pm »

I retired at 40 and work part time (40hrs/wk) at Home Depot, but not out of necessity. No male in my family has ever stopped working prior to death, or terminal illness... its just not in our nature.

The Fed was created by an act of Congress, I can't name one private company that was.

That would mean NH was violating the Constitution, not the federal government. A bill could be entered in the NH Legislature requiring State debts to be paid in gold and silver coin. At the very least a debate would ensue.

Your '14 year old with a credit card' is exactly the opposite of what is happening. The Congress is enslaving the next generation for the benefit of this one.


Congratulations on wanting to work until you die. That still doesn't make the inflation effects on savings go away.

The Fed was not created by Congress. A deal was brokered between bankers that would create the Fed and members of Congress. Because Congress was involved that means it's OK? Based on that logic, you are also pro-Patriot Act 1 and 2. The Federal Reserve Act was passed to enrich a dozen banking families at the expense of US citizens.

Exactly, that would mean EVERY state is violating the constitution. In the words of Ron Paul, which is what this was all about from the get go, "The Constitution says no emitting of bills of credit, so no paper money, so our whole system is unconstitutional."

So tell me how Congress enslaving the next generation with ridiculous government spending is NOT like a 14 year old with a credit card? Plus, I don't quite see how they are benefiting us either. Please don't go on and on about the fight against terrorism. Everyone that knows anything understands that Iraq and the "War on Terror" are all excuses for power brokers to make more money. Take a look at the Department of Homeland Security. 814,073 people charged for crimes in the last three years and only 12 of them were charged with terrorism, most of which got off. The "War on Terror" is more like the "War on US Taxpayer's Pocketbooks and Freedoms."


The '14 year old with a credit card' is enslaving their parents, not their children.

Congress could dissolve the Fed, because they created it... not so with say Walmart. Suggesting that because I accept Congress acting within its Constitutional powers is not paramount to my agreement with their actions.

Congressman Paul is/was suggesting that the printing of paper dollars is the federal government acting unconstitutional... not quite the same as States acting unconstitutional. But it would be interesting to run for national election on a platform that each State is acting against the Constitution.

He then also wants a 'federal law' defining life to begin a conception... in direct violation of the 10th. I can only presume he meant to say 'Constitutional Amendment'.

I don't believe in a 'War on Terror'... I do believe in the geopolitics of oil.

LFL, you don't believe in fraud... remember the house painting.
But to check his sincerity, ask Congressman Paul if his campaign will take a donation in paper money? Or only gold and silver?

 



I was using the "fourteen year old with a credit card" analogy to explain how our government spends our dollars. We are picking up the bill. If government spending doesn't change in a big way real fast, our children will be picking up the bill. I think we are on the same page with this.

Does Congress have the power to take us off the gold standard? States are not allowed to use any currency but gold or silver coins. How can Congress create a central banking system that doesn't support the law the states are bound to?

I wouldn't try to determine what Ron Paul was suggesting. I would look at what he said and he said that our whole system is unconstitutional. I agree with him. When he says "our whole system," he means "our whole system." In other words, EVERYONE is pretty much forced to use the unconstitutional system every day if they want to live a life that resembles normalcy in any way, shape, or form. Yes, this includes even him. I'm sure the US Treasury would laugh at him if he requested his pay check come in the form of gold coins.

I don't agree with HR 1094. I didn't say he is perfect in every way shape or form but still, he is 10x better than any other candidate running. Do you disagree? If so, I'd love to hear who you support for 2008.
Logged
"The end of democracy, and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." - Thomas Jefferson

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: A Conditional "Maybe"
« Reply #26 on: October 30, 2007, 08:54:50 am »

Art. 1 Sect. 8 gives the Congress the right 'To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof'. They can use any standard they wish and change it whenever they wish. 'To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.' This is what allowed the central banking known as the Federal Reserve.

Art. 1 Sect. 10 limits the States to only using gold and silver... the reason being that in colonial times each State printed/coined its own money. It created a united currency that would allow commerce to occur throughout the country within the same monetary system.

The US Constitution separates Federal and State powers. Even the 1st amendment states 'Congress shall make no law...'

So the US Treasury could pay him in any format Congress decides...
The truth being each of us could easily trade any country's currency for gold and silver coin, but the value of such would still fluctuate. An ounce of gold today is worth roughly the same as in 1980.


Logged

LibertyforLife

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
Re: A Conditional "Maybe"
« Reply #27 on: October 30, 2007, 10:56:05 am »

I personally, do not belong to the "state" or the "country" and considering that "government" isn't willing to follow its own "laws" I don't feel the need or want to follow them either. Perhaps this will lead me to "jail", but I honestly would rather be a just man in "jail" then an unjust man lying, stealing, and murdering to/from my neighbor.

The whole issue of the "constitution" in my mind is void of any meaning because itself violates its own provisions on which it was based. 'All men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness'. If this is true, then the 4th violates the rights of life, liberty, and property, by allowing another so-called 'equal man' in taking of these rights by 'due process'. A process forced apon them under the threat of violence.

It violates logic to say that this 'government' is established 'in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity', when in order to fulfill these so called purposes it must take from the 'governed'. If something is supposed to protect your so-called rights, then it wouldn't be the first one to take them from you.

I think the purpose to which "government"s are established are not even relevant because the entire concept, "government", the root word meaning 'control', in and of itself is contradictory to the purposes to which they are established. That people are indoctrinated to believe that they live in a "country", that they live in a "state", that they are a "citizen", that should give their life for "their" "country", are all effectively against the concept of liberty and at the very least a threat apon liberty itself to continue to propagandize the idea of this "United States of America" concept is to me, absurd.

Of course, people will disagree with me emotionally, not logically, because their entire reality is built on the foundation that we are a "nation" created by the blood of "patriots" who valued "liberty" so highly that they would go to "war" against their brothers to separate themselves from those ties that bind, only to establish a no so different form of control, where by the illusion of freedom, justice, and liberty, must be maintained, for if the people ever found out the truth of the matter, they would revolt against the men and women who control their lives so fast that there would be no stopping them.

Instead, we instill in our children and ourselves, that we have to follow these "laws" made by men and women who are nothing more then kings and queens given the illusion of "fairness" because we get to "elect" our kings and queens, and is based on a system that is no different then that from wince this "nation" was birthed from.

I generally refrain from debating issues of the "constitution" because its just a piece of paper, it has no effect on anyone because it is not a contract, nor is it any more relevant then when it was written. You believe that the men and women D/B/A "government" are required to follow it, but you can not show any lawful or legal basis on why. None of these men or women have entered into a binding contract with anyone. They 'swear to uphold and defend the "constitutions"' but at the very most it is just a promise, with no lawful or legal binding. You continue to believe because that is all you've ever known or been taught.

You can not free your mind from the prison that is the "United States of America". You are willing to defend the idea, the concept of its existence, to the point as to ignore fact when it stares at you in the face, when the curtain is pulled and the man behind it says, 'ignore the man behind the curtain', and you do what you are told. I was indoctrinated in the same schools you were, I was taught the same things you were, I listen to those around me crying out loud that we are the best of the best because of where we live and the rights and freedoms we have.

Unlike you, however, I have taken the red pill and I see how far this rabbit hole goes, how far it continues to go, and I've learned that reality doesn't exist as we are taught it does. Something as simple as the principles of liberty if viewed from a logical basis, would alone shatter your reality, but you need your reality, you need to believe there is something more.

The principles of liberty, as I understand them, are that all men(I use the word in its general sense which includes the female gender), regardless of place of birth, are created equal, they remain equal until one grants them authority over them by their own consent without the use of force. That all men, regardless of place of birth, have the right to life, that from this right to life you have the right to liberty, and that when you combine your right to life and your right to liberty, a third right is created, and that is the right of property.

These are the basic rights that all men created have. That these rights are equal to ever other man's right, that no one may infringe on your right and you may not infringe on another's right. When the right of one infringes on another, they shall consensually resolve the infringement based on what is best for each of them in their own opinions. If they can not resolve them, then one may use force to protect their rights.

You have given your rights up, you have sold your rights in exchange for a bowl of soup, this is why your "government" treats you as property, because you are just that. You willingly send your own children into slavery because "that's what a good citizen does". Do you even know what a "citizen" is? One who owes a duty of allegiance(that is you are obligated to do that which you are told to do) to another in return for a duty of protection. The one you owe your allegiance to, has told you to your face it has no duty to protect you, yet you hold your duty of allegiance.

Liberty is freedom, freedom is a absence of restraint. You are told, you are free, you need only look to the dictionary to understand what words mean to find out, you have been lied to. You are no more free then the slaves were to their white masters. You have been propagandized, and you continue to spread the propaganda. Like all slaves who don't know any better, you continue to toil and mill about doing what your told to do, when your told to do it, without questioning why.

Some of us have escaped the plantation. We need you because our numbers are much smaller then our masters. We need to rise up and shout, we are free, free at last. Stop teaching the idea of "state", of "nation", of "country", stop enabling others in believing you are free, when you are most certainly not.

I apologize for the long post. Please forgive me, for I sinned, I have tried to open your eyes to reality.
Logged
Live free or die!

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: A Conditional "Maybe"
« Reply #28 on: October 30, 2007, 01:03:38 pm »

Let me open your eyes...
this is the law that binds our representatives D/B/A Government...

US Con. Amend. 14 Sec. 3
'No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.'

To live outside that which is government is to live by natural law... not man made.
Natural Law has no rights of life, liberty, nor property... it is defined simply... SURVIVAL OF THE FITEST.
Where force is the primary means of attainment of any and all other privileges.
Logged

LibertyforLife

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
Re: A Conditional "Maybe"
« Reply #29 on: October 31, 2007, 01:45:25 pm »

LOL! It sure does do a great job binding them, doesn't it? If they don't respect the law, then why do you continue to allow them to rule over you. You are nothing but a slave, unwilling to lift a hand to save yourself because the law says you can not. You can not harm your master, the law says so. You can not harm your master's enforcer, the law says so. You can not force you master to change, the law says so.

Good luck with that whole 'constitution' thing, its almost over.

Quote
To live outside that which is control is to live by natural law... not man made.
(emphasis and change mine)

The Creator created us, formed us, gave is reason and logic, something that no beast has yet to show existence of. The Creator's law is Natural Law, from that law is the right to life, for that is what was given to us first. From this right all others are derived, without this right, there exists no other rights. The Creator in virtually every religion teaches it is WRONG to kill your brother. That is where the RIGHT to LIFE comes from, from the Creator and from it's Natural Law.

Survival of the fittest comes from observation of the beasts, which are different then man. Man does not desire naturally to kill his brother. Only when tempted with power does he conspire to kill his brother. Who granted him this power to kill your brother, you did. You are as guilty as your brother is for killing him.

Where the Creator has granted something, only he has the authority to take it away. You are obligated to protect your gift from the Creator, and there are only two ways to protect it, by reason, or by force. When reason fails, then force must be used, and the Creator will punish those who violate the gift it has given.

Go in peace and in love.
Logged
Live free or die!
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
 

anything