Rights Supremacy

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by erasure

Where did you find the connection here, I am sorry, between the "right to life" and "absolute ownership of the private property?"

If you cannot absolutely own the land you're on, nor exclude others from it, nor own the fruits of that land, your "right to life" will be at risk.

If you need permission of another, to live, own, work, trade, etc, you're not free.

Originally Posted by erasure

And where these "Creator endowed rights" came from? I mean where is the proof that certain rights are "endowed" by Creator personally?

Where? The Creator.
Where stated? In the Declaration of Independence, wherein Thomas Jefferson said they were "self evident."
I concur.

Originally Posted by erasure

I can understand somewhat the reference to "God" himself, when it comes to the "Divine right of kings" because we can find the traces of it in the bible.
But when it comes to Republicans "Creator endowed rights," - they are as much "endowed" as of those "Socialists" in Europe, or even Communists if you wish.

Vast difference between Creator endowed rights that a government secures
-and-
government granted "rights" (privileges) that it can grant or withdraw at will, regardless of its form (monarchy, oligarchy, socialist, communist, totalitarian police state, etc).

Originally Posted by erasure

So no, things don't add up in your post, sorry.

We're all victims of the world's greatest propaganda ministry, so that's no surprise.
Not 1 in 100,000 American can accurately define the republican form, it source and origin.

“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the Rights of mankind.”
- - - Thomas Jefferson
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

“I firmly believe that the benevolent Creator designed the republican Form of Government for Man.”
- - - Samuel Adams;
Statement of (14 April 1785), quoted in The Writings of Samuel Adams (1904) edited by Harry A. Cushing
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_Adams

“Republicanism is not the phantom of a deluded imagination. On the contrary, laws, under no form of government, are better supported, liberty and property better secured, or happiness more effectually dispensed to mankind.”
- - - George Washington (1732-1799) Father of the Country, 1st President of the United States
http://founders.archives.gov/documen.../05-17-02-0282

"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)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln

As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, endowed by our Creator, 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 endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).

. . .
Did something change from 1776 to now?
. . .

“If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.”
- - - Calvin Coolidge, Speech on the Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (1926)
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge

. . .
Nope. No change.
People still have Creator endowed rights to life, to liberty (natural and personal), to absolute ownership of private property (upon which they can pursue happiness without need of permission of another), etc.
. . .

SOURCE - a place, person, or thing from which something comes or can be obtained.

ORIGIN - the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived.

The "source" of the republican form is the CREATOR, and the "origin" is the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

However, by consent of the governed, those endowed rights can be waived / surrendered in exchange for government privileges (political and civil liberties). What most Americans experience is the consequence of consenting to the constitutionally limited indirect democratic socialist form in operation since 1933 (the start of the "State of Emergency").

We know this by observation.
Citizens have mandatory civic duties that abrogate endowed rights to life, liberty and property ownership.
Enumerated Socialists (via FICA) have even more duties.
(Ex: Obamacare is a recent abomination that was ruled "constitutional". Of course, it can only apply to consenting socialists, who can be "punished" for failure to buy private insurance. Unnumbered Americans are not subject to said law because it would be involuntary servitude.)

Of course, participation in FICA is 100% voluntary.

“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one...”
- - - The Social Security Administration

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ScottSSNLetter.pdf

You can write to the SocSecAdmin and get your own personalized reply letter.

Call your local representative about the official procedure to withdraw from FICA. See if you get put on hold and "Hotel California" keeps playing in the background. Strange, isn't it?
[j/k]

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by erasure

I am not talking about the 'hypocrisy" here, I actually DO NOT believe that "all men are created equal" judging by what I see in the world. Some are definitely born "more equal" than other, and this goes across the class lines and racial lines alike.
So I don't think that these men who wrote the"Declaration of Independence" were even hypocrites - they were genuinely thinking in terms of their own racial group.

Incorrect assumption.
FYI - the "equality" they were referring to was in respect to the legal view that there were "nobility" and there were "commoners" - a condition of birth and parentage.
Thus, no one is born "noble" according to the Declaration, and cannot have "more" privileges that trump already endowed rights.

Ironically, since no one can be born "higher" than equal, all Americans who possess domains (domiciles, not residences) have sovereign status and are the social equals of all other monarchs on earth.
• It is the reason why Americans do not bow nor kneel to other monarchs.
• It is the reason why Americans can marry foreign nobility or monarchs without violating their local laws banning marriage to "commoners."
• It is the reason why Americans could absolutely own land and even inflict capital punishment upon trespassers.
• It is the reason why the vulgar taunt : "Kiss my royal American @rse" is technically and legally accurate.
• It is the reason why no American can accept a title of nobility from a foreign monarch without losing his birthright.
• It is the reason why Americans were once regarded with the highest esteem wherever they journeyed.
• Even the lands she “conquered” raised their subject people from ‘subjugation to a sovereign’ to ‘sovereign people.’ (unless they consented to be subjects again)

That modern Americans do not have any knowledge of their sovereignty is obvious. But it wasn't always so.

An example of the lost knowledge of our forefathers comes from “The Devil’s Dictionary”, by Ambrose Bierce, a collection of humorous definitions, originally published in a weekly paper starting in 1881.
.................................................. ...............
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
.................................................. ...............
His audience knew what an “American sovereign” was, to understand the joke.

[jetgraphics]

. . . . . . . YOUR ENDOWMENT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . OF
RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, POWERS, IMMUNITIES

:-:-: A Brief Reference :-:-:

> Natural rights (i.e., life, and to defend that life, etc.)
> Natural liberty (dominion over one’s person and private property)
> Personal liberty (right to travel upon public highways and waterways, and exercise other liberties)
> Absolute ownership (of self, labor, fruits of one’s labor, private property, and that which one lawfully acquires)
> Inherent powers (not derived from anyone, implicit power of a parent over one’s child)
> Immunities (absent consent, government cannot govern you, nor trespass your rights, privacy, etc.)

= = = = <<>> = = = =

*** Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, Americans have Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure.***
*** Under the republican form of government, Americans are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves.***
*** By your consent to be governed, you may aspire to public service and govern / rule others who also consented to be governed. But in exchange for the privilege, you waive your endowments and accept mandatory civic duties.***

= = = = <<>> = = = =

● In America, if you have endowed rights, liberties and powers, you’re under the republican form of government. (“people”)
● If instead of endowed rights, you have "constitutional rights" (privileges and immunities), and mandatory civic duties, you’re under the constitutionally limited indirect democracy that serves the people in the republican form of government - by your consent. (“citizen”)
● If you have socialist obligations (in exchange for “entitlements”), you’ve volunteered into the socialist democratic form, via FICA - again, by your consent. (“enumerated human resource”)

= = = = <<>> = = = =

If you're sovereign, under the republican form, served by government, what more do you want?

But if you want to rule another, under the democratic form, that requires your own submission, so sit down, shut up, pay and obey.

And if you wish public charity (entitlements), you have inadvertently descended to a status criminal (pauper and vagrant /aka/ “resident”) and have embrace an excepted status, guilty until proven innocent.

= = = = = = = = = =
I prefer the republican form of government, where the people are sovereigns, and the government is their servant. I like it when government secures endowed rights, but only governs those who consent.

But if folks want the democratic form of government, where the people are subjects and the government rules them, who am I to say they can't.

That's what is great about America - FREE CHOICE.