Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Women make up half of this country, and just about any woman knows how they are paid less than men, and are treated differently than men.
They also know one party thinks that's OK and doesn't need to be acknowledged, and the other wants to do something about it.
As for the OP: Trump is fear-mongering to a small subset of the populous. The overwhelming majority of Americans have said they won't stand silent while Trump scapegoats and persecutes an entire religion. I bet many of them recall how Hitler rose to power and say "never again". Those same people also recognize the threat that Radical Islam is, and have rational ways to address it. Not to declare war on a religion that makes up almost a quarter of the global population, but is being hijacked by less than 1% of the world population.
Fight the good fight, defeat radical Islam. Don't recruit a quarter of the world as your enemy when they currently are not.
Remember the Declaration of Independence? It's the source of the republican form (no connection with the republican party).
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they 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."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
What are natural rights that government was instituted to SECURE?
NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324
" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or NATURAL RIGHTS, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum , Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are NATURAL RIGHTS for the enjoyment of which an excise [tax] cannot be imposed."
- - - Redfield vs Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819.
Your natural and sacred right to life, liberty and absolutely own private property was an endowment of your Creator - not a grant from government. Nor are those rights dependent upon government - especially one instituted to help secure those rights from predators.
. . .
“ It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.
[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]
Make no mistake!
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to life.
• But citizens have no inalienable (endowed) right to life.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to natural and personal liberty.
• But citizens have only civil and political liberty.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to absolutely own private property (upon which you can pursue happiness without permission of a superior).
• But citizens have no private property, absolutely owned... a portion can be claimed by the government.
But aren't we all "born citizens?"
NO.
Because mandatory civic duties are NOT involuntary servitude.
The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc."
In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".
Now let’s think hard. Someone who is drafted into active duty is compelled to train, fight, and if need be, to die, on command. That is certainly a violation of one’s inalienable rights to life, liberty and private property. Yet the Supreme court ruled that the duty is NOT involuntary servitude nor a violation of the 13th amendment which prohibits involuntary servitude.
The ONLY possible resolution is that CITIZENSHIP is a voluntary assertion, granting consent to be governed.
IF you've consented to be a citizen, you have NO ENDOWED RIGHTS.
Zip. Nada. Bumpkiss. Empty Set. Nought.
Citizens only have government granted civil and political liberties (aka "rights").
So which is it?
Either we have endowed rights to life, liberty and absolute ownership
-OR-
We are born subject citizens, obligated to fund, serve and die on command of government.
Questions to ponder - - -
1. Can governments instituted to secure endowed rights and only govern by consent, have the power to impose citizenship, thus consent, to eradicate endowed rights?
2. Can endowed rights to life, liberty and absolute ownership be stripped away and replaced by government privileges of civil and political liberty, at birth?
3. Can mandatory civic duties that abrogate endowed rights be imposed by government that is not sovereign, but servant to the sovereign people?
4. Can the sovereign people, their endowed natural rights, and absolute ownership of private property under the republican form be transformed into subjects of government with inferior “human rights,” qualified ownership of estate, and under the democratic form of government, without their consent?
Under the republican form, the people are sovereigns, not subjects.
No other form of government preserves liberty to the extent that the republican form does.
. . .
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are SOVEREIGNS WITHOUT SUBJECTS, and have none to govern but themselves.
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns."
- - - Justice John Jay in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793))
Justice John Jay says government is an agent for the sovereign people, not sovereign over them. They govern themselves (unless they consent otherwise).
In no other nation are the people sovereigns over their government. All other people are subjects of their sovereign governments. Only America has a republican form of government. Were you ever asked if you wanted to leave the republican form for the democratic form of government? Or were you tricked into volunteering, like millions of others?
You might inquire about that with "your" public servants.
I thought liberals were for the majority, the 99%. Liberals continuously deride Republicans for pandering to the 1%, yet with this latest Donald Trump blitzkrieg, liberals are doing exactly that. Are you guys aware that Muslims constitute only 0.9% of the population in this country? Do you all really think you'll tip the scales by pandering to the 0.9%, many of whom probably agree with Trump?
The fact that you think the idea of banning entrance to the USA on the basis of religion is abhorrent to only Muslims says all that needs to said about your critical thinking skills.
Not going to waste any more time attempting to reason with the unreasonable.
Do Republicans think they are going to win by vilifying a portion of the country through fear mongering? Oh no, this small group of Americans are gonna take over this country and force us to live by Sharia Law.
"Do Republicans think they are going to win by vilifying a portion of the country through fear mongering?"
How many MORE people need to be killed by radical Muslims in the U.S. BEFORE you change your position?
"Do Republicans think they are going to win by vilifying a portion of the country through fear mongering?"
How many MORE people need to be killed by radical Muslims in the U.S. BEFORE you change your position?
I was wondering that too....is it 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000, 10,000,000, 100,000,000. Liberals, is there a number of kills that is unacceptable even to you?
As an analogy,iIllegal aliens, their anchors and their supporters are slowly taking over this country. Cancer grows unless treated. What part of that aren't liberals getting?
I love it...it's a losing strategy. The Jewish (though they are doing their best to toss them aside, the Jews are refusing to leave no matter how hard the Dems try to toss them away) and black vote, they own, the Hispanic vote they have a decided advantage, they are losing a once large majority of Asian voters and are trying to throw away any white voters that are not Communist traitors. If the Islamists pull off a substantial attack (which they want to do), the Dems won't have any power in the US after next election.
Communist traitors... I laughed a little, I will say that.
As for the Jewish vote, how are Democrats trying to toss it? Is it because Republicans are more in favor of Israel why Democrats think a two state solution with Palestine and Israel is preferable? Because that's hardly tossing the Jewish vote. Not every Jew comes from Israel and many probably don't have intentions of ever going. Not everyone votes on what group they are a part of either. Maybe some Jews just agree that a safety net is a good thing for those who need? Do you ask yourself "how can this candidate help my race or religion every time you vote?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
"Do Republicans think they are going to win by vilifying a portion of the country through fear mongering?"
How many MORE people need to be killed by radical Muslims in the U.S. BEFORE you change your position?
My view on radical Islam is probably consistent with yours. I however do not believe in judging a person for a crime someone else committed.
The left is pandering to the ideals upon which the the nation was founded.
No the left is pandering to what the think will get them votes. They're very selective about "the ideals upon which the the nation was founded" and which ones they're willing to support.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,358,694 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by BirchBarlow
I thought liberals were for the majority, the 99%. Liberals continuously deride Republicans for pandering to the 1%, yet with this latest Donald Trump blitzkrieg, liberals are doing exactly that. Are you guys aware that Muslims constitute only 0.9% of the population in this country? Do you all really think you'll tip the scales by pandering to the 0.9%, many of whom probably agree with Trump?
Are you aware silly things like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights aren't written to apply only to specified segments of the population?
Women make up half of this country, and just about any woman knows how they are paid less than men, and are treated differently than men.
It appears women are paid less than men on a broad basis. When you compare apples and apples, same job, same employer, same experience and performance, not so much.
Generally speaking, women do not continuously participate in the workforce to the extent that men do. This is one of several factors that impact the labor participation rate.
A woman who reenters the workforce at say age 50, after raising a family for 25 years, is not likely to be compensated the same as a man who has been continuously employed. The woman is more likely to land in an entry level position, regardless of profession.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
