when one puts themselves into the position of allowing or not allowing the actions of others, then why is it not righteous for others to allow or not allow your own actions? if you are to them as many other people who inhabit the street and they are the same to you, under who's elections will you carry out these orders? under who's force will they be made to obey?

The word “right” is an abstract thought and proved by nothing.

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.

More power to you. If you can get enough support to propose a constitutional amendment so much the better. Until then, the law of the land is against you.

Aw but the crazies are getting crazier and this may be an opportune time for some stiffer regulations by the states. There is alot of crap going on right now that will push things to a head and it will be my time to shine if they continue on their self destructive way.

But I may be misrepresenting my real view of this because I am actually a fan of having a gun for personal protection but I have seen too many who have no business with a gun being given the rights to have one. So I am conflicted.

If there were stiffer regulations in the beginning of who could have a gun then I would be all for those who qualify to have one.

So until those stiffer regs come into play I guess I will have to fight for the banning of them and hope to meet somewhere in the middle, know what I mean???

Clearly the founders of this country would disagree with you.



However, rights are not granted by the government. It is the duty of every American to protect them from being taken by the government, at any cost. The only people who have rights are the people who are willing to die to defend those rights.

Sure. You just described how pretty much most of our political process works in this Country.

That last statement is not true at all. Children should not have to die for their rights. Elderly should not have to die to get their rights. Pregnant women should not have to die to get their rights. Disabled Americans should not have to die to get their rights.

Rights should be given to all equally and with crazies out there with guns these rights are not given equally.

The word “right” is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The word means no more than: Give me what I want in order that thereby I may have a proof that I am stronger than you.

They wouldn't, but someone would have to be willing to die to protect their rights.



Rights aren't given by anyone to anyone. They are inherent. They can only be surrendered.

So those without the withall to defend their "inherit" rights just have to live with what rights they can sneak and have?? Or what rights others say they can have? What?

Aw but the crazies are getting crazier and this may be an opportune time for some stiffer regulations by the states. There is alot of crap going on right now that will push things to a head and it will be my time to shine if they continue on their self destructive way.

But I may be misrepresenting my real view of this because I am actually a fan of having a gun for personal protection but I have seen too many who have no business with a gun being given the rights to have one. So I am conflicted.

If there were stiffer regulations in the beginning of who could have a gun then I would be all for those who qualify to have one.

So until those stiffer regs come into play I guess I will have to fight for the banning of them and hope to meet somewhere in the middle, know what I mean???

Pres Hussein does not represent us. He represents his slice of the population, and is trying to silence, intimidate, and whatever else he can do to control everyone. Even he knows that we want him gone, no matter how. He is trying to take away our rights and leave us with a deficit we could perhaps never recover from. It is a show of power from the little people that the lying fat cat isn't going to push us around. While he tries to strip away what it is to BE American, people who have already seen through him are voicing it.

STATES SEND WARNING TO FEDS



States say feds will not usurp powers guaranteed to them by 9th, 10th Amendments



By Pat Shannan



More than 20 states have passed recent resolutions in defiance of the central government’s intrusion into their liberties and governing powers, with all including a demand to obey the Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth Amendments. New Hampshire has issued what may be the harshest “Don’t Tread on Me” caveat of all.

Citing its own state constitution, the New Hampshire Legislature has issued its recent resolution “affirming states’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles” and reminding any Washington interventionists of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the U.S. Constitution as well as Part 1, Article 7 of their own state document that declares “. . . that the people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto . . .”

It continued: “Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring: that the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people,’ therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and . . .

“That any act by the Congress of the United States, executive order of the president of the United States of America or judicial order by the judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several states or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

“I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the states without the consent of the legislature of that state.

“II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

“III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

“IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

“V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

“VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and “That should any such act of Congress become law or executive order or judicial order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several states individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the states seeking to form a government.”

Ever since Vermont threatened secession and others of the 20-plus have issued lesser threatening notices of intentions, all have made it clear that they are not happy with the current situation, and the action of all indicates that the New World Order may have a bigger problem on its hands than it initially considered.

The 21 states so far that have either introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments or are about to do so include: Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, Pennsylvania, Maine, Nevada, Kansas, Indiana, Idaho, Georgia, Colorado, California, Arkansas, Alabama, Alaska, and, of course, New Hampshire.

In another defiance of unconstitutional federal controls, governors are telling Washington bureaucrats that, under the 10th Amendment, they cannot dictate spending or other actions to the states. (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”)

“We are telling the federal government that we are a sovereign state,” said Arizona state representative Judy Burges, who is leading an effort in her state to pass a resolution called “Sovereignty: the 10th Amendment.”

Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon (R) introduced a resolution he said would enable his state to “reclaim the 10th Amendment right to reject any and all acts of Congress that go beyond its enumerated powers in violation
of the 10th Amendment.”

Republican governors Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Rick Perry of Texas expressed reservations about accepting stimulus funds because they are concerned that the federal government will dictate how it is spent.

The federal government extracts money from their taxpayers, sends a bit of it back and then dictates how it is spent, they argue.

Pat Shannan is a corresponding editor of American Free Press. He is also the author of several videos and books including One in a Million: An IRS Travesty and I Rode With Tupper, detailing Shannan’s experiences with Tupper Saussy when the American dissident was on the run in the 1960s.

(Issue # 11, March 16, 2009)

Send this page to a friend!

Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - <span>645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003</span>

Aside from what Mainstream media reports, please, show us statistics or other facts to substantiate your claim, the crazies are getting crazier. Or is this just hearsay?

Well and considering that I would be forbidden from using mainstream media, who the right wingers have deemed the unforgiving word "liberal", I will just say look around you. It is obvious there are a certain element in this society who have such hatred and vengence in their hearts that they will forgo all caution in pursuit of their goal of complete and utter chaos as long as they can unseat what they consider to be abomination.

If you cannot see it, then I cannot help you.

What planet is this happening on?

I have it on good authority that most of them are loyal viewers of faux news. Just kidding. *runs*

Well and considering that I would be forbidden from using mainstream media, who the right wingers have deemed the unforgiving word "liberal", I will just say look around you. It is obvious there are a certain element in this society who have such hatred and vengence in their hearts that they will forgo all caution in pursuit of their goal of complete and utter chaos as long as they can unseat what they consider to be abomination. I use a simpler word, crazy, because it is in my eyes.

If you cannot see it, then I cannot help you.