None of these Rights are absolute...NONE of them

Sen. Durbin, makes it quite clear that he doesn't think any of our Rights are actually Rights, but merely things that he and his fellow goons can restrict and take away at will.
So, because some idiots elect him, he thinks he can decide what Rights I should be permitted to be allowed to have. Which Rights are not Absolute? NONE of them?

To quote from the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson has a differing view.

"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."

Let's look to Jefferson's contemporary Noah Webster for the definition of the word "unalienable".

UNA'LIENABLE, a. Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.

So Dick, you tyrannical fool, you are wrong. And you sit there like you are some kind of scholer in Constitutional matters? Idiot. All of our Rights are Absolute. The only thing restricting them is this, again from Thomas Jefferson:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

You can skip to minute 5:30 to see what I am talking about. Why isn't this one part of the conversation going viral? Why aren't people freaking out over this idiot's comment?
I guess I will be the start.

   

Jeffrey Tucker

Tune in today to 660 KFAR and listen in to hear special guest Jeffrey Tucker in the first hour of our program!!!

More on gay marraige, and the State

So - Separation of State & Marriage. Sounds good to me.

This is from the comment section of the last post. And I agree, mostly. But more to the point, all separation from the State, and ultimately the end of the State, is much more desirable.
When the conservatives brought the State into being an arbiter of marriage, they got what they asked for. You would think that they would see the fallacy of their desire, and cut the tie from the State and marriage.
But no. And why would they? When you get a State marriage license, you get benefits from the federal government!! And from State governments!! Who doesn't want that?
But at what cost?
They have now given the State the Authority to decide what the definition of marriage can be. Just for some measly tax benefits. Instead of trying to get tax benefits from the loving State, they should have fought taxes in the first place.
But no, let our god be the State, our well being, and the well being of our children, are it's #1 priority. Even better, let the State take care of our children, so we can use our time in a more productive way.
As far as deciding what marriage ought to be, haven't we seen yet that the State is a non-existent entity?
You will never drive down the street and say to your child, "look!!! there is the State"!!
The "State" is merely other human beings, who people have chosen to rule over them, and grant them the power by consent to decide for them that which is proper or not. People no different than themselves.
And yet, when these people make decisions they don't like, they howl and cry foul!!!!
If you are going to be upset at the decisions the State may make, then why did you bend your knee to let them make any decision for you at all?
 At what point did you not know that which is right, and that which is wrong? At what point did you need someone to tell you?
The State will of course want to sanctify gay marriage, it will give it more power. And if you look at it from the State's point of view, how can it deny gay marriage? Why would it?

Whether or not the State allows gays to get a marriage license, it has no bearing on me. I see the State as a entity of pure evil, and no one has been able to show me otherwise. So what do I expect the State to aspire after?
Why do "Christians" get all upset with this issue? And why do they promise their fealty to the State if the State will just see things their way this time? "We will be good serfs and bow to your authority over marriage if you will just keep "Those" people out of the club." 
I don't have a marriage license. I did not ask the State for it's permission to marry. It was, and is, none of the States business. So if gays convince the State to sanctify their marriage, it won't bother me, I reject the State, I reject it's sanctification, I reject to it's very existence.
Let evil do what evil will do, and simply reject it.

Reject the State, and withdraw your consent from it.

Gay marraige

I tortured myself today, and forced myself to listen to Sean Hannity, to listen to what he was saying about the gay marriage debate before the US supreme court.
The whole theme made me sick. Mr. Small government, is so afraid of this that he wants, and is advocating, BIG government. "The government needs to regulate", "The government should have a say in who can be married", "It's in the governments best interest to decide what kinds of marriages should be allowed".

No doubt Sean. But is it in our best interest?

 "What next, will we allow"...blah blah blah.

Stupid conservatives, do you realize what you are saying, what you are advocating? Don't you see in your zeal to deny same sex marriage, sanctified by the State, that you are ultimately giving the State the power to decide on ANY marriage? One of the arguments for the same sex marriage advocates was that the "Right to marriage" was a Constitutional Right. Sean says "no it is not!!"

Marriage isn't a Right? You really want the State's involvement in this? Are you such a fool?

I hope I am not the only one to see how stupid this is.

While I do not think that getting married is a Constitutional Right, I do think it is a Right that man has given by God, sanctified by Him. Constitution be hanged.
What business is it for a third party, namely the State, to be involved with it?!

As a Christian, I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle.

But I also do not think the State should be in the business of marriage. Advocating for the State to regulate marriage is so stupid and ANTI Liberty, I don't know how else to explain it.

If you don't want homosexuals to be permitted to get a marriage license, and that's all this is about anyway, getting State sanctification for it, then you should be fighting against the State claiming the right to be involved with marriage period!!!
If the State didn't have the authority, no let's not say it has that, the POWER to regulate marriage, this issue would be mute, over, done.
Marriage licenses were originally issued because conservatives didn't want whites marrying blacks. Is that the legacy you wish to continue to fight for?!

The proper argument is this, the State has no business granting or refusing marriage, and granting the benefits that it gives to a married couple with It's marriage license.

Take away the States involvement in marriage, and the bogus "benefits" the States license creates, and this whole issue is over.

Wake up!

Patriot's Lament January 19, 2013: Being Conservative and Representation Tax

In this episode we talk about where the current NEO-CONS came from, the so called conservative wing of the Republican party. We also discuss whether the colonist of America would consider whether or not we have taxation without representation today in America.

Despite what you have been taught...

This is not the Tree of Liberty...

Thanks Jim!

The four signs of a collapsing state

From Jeff Tuckers Laissez Faire Club:

Control of education allows the political class to inculcate a sense of civic obligation and duty, set the parameters of approved thought, and keep revolutionary ideas from entering into the culture. If you can get the kids at a young age and train them, all the better. This is why every state the world over has worked to secure its control over education. The goal is not to make everyone smart but rather to make everyone obedient.
Control of communication reinforces this tendency to properly filter the ideas that people hold. This is why censorship is one of the first and long-lasting functions of government. It is not to protect you and me against hearing or seeing things that would corrupt our hearts and souls. The idea is to maintain a firm grip over what people believe about the political system and to keep outlying ideas underground and at the margins of society.
Money comes next. Historically, this is one of the earliest institutions that the state seeks to monopolize. Only in the 20th century has the excuse been to keep unemployment down or keep the banking and financial systems stable. The real reason is, as Hoppe explains, to provide a funding source for government that doesn’t require taxation. Taxes make people mad. Devaluation and inflation flies under cover of night.
Finally, there is the need to monopolize the provision of security, which means controlling courts, police, and justice. The idea here is to be able to tell the population that the government is keeping everyone safe. If government is not there, terrible things will happen: monsters will take over.

Read the rest here.

Thanks to Jim for sending this to me!!

IMF in action

I wonder when the US State will decide to do the same thing here? Hope you have been listening to people in the know, because they have been warning you.
Thanks to Jim for sending this to me.

Cyprus bailout, coming to a nation near you?

Patriot's Lament January 12, 2013: Coming for Guns and Stand Up for Vets

In this episode we talk more about the state "coming for our guns", and about soldiers with PTSD. We talk about Rights, and whether or not one can even give up their Rights voluntarily, and read John Lockes view on the State trying to infringe on them.

Patriot's Lament January 5, 2013: Fundamental Problem and Legitimacy Through Uniforms

In this program we ask if our Right to keep Arms has actually become a stumbling block to our Liberty. Have we done nothing because we fall back on our Arms, though we have never used them? We also talk about how even the most worthless person becomes a god when he puts on a costume,(uniform) and can get away with whatever he pleases because of the supposed legitimacy of the State.

Our Enemy, The State

I know I have used this headline before, but, read the story and you will more than likely agree, it's the correct heading.
From Will Grigg's Pro Libertate:

Police Chief Ed Flynn of Milwaukee believes that his department is at war with the gun-owning public. In his February 27 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Flynn claimed that “in the last 20 years we’ve been in an arms race” with private citizens who supposedly out-gun the police. 

Flynn testified in support of a proposed federal ban on so-called assault weapons. But in the past he has made it clear that he considers a Mundane carrying a firearm of any kind is an unlawful enemy combatant subject to detention and forcible disarmament. 

“My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away, and then decide whether you have a right to carry it,” Flynn said a few years ago in response to a statement from Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen recognizing that residents of the state have a right to carry firearms openly. 

Grigg goes on to quote the great Albert Jay Nock; ""Everyone knows that the State claims and exercises [a] monopoly of crime ... and that it makes this monopoly as strict as it can…. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants, whether the property of citizen or of alien.... Of all the crimes that are committed for gain or revenge, there is not one that we have not seen it commit – murder, mayhem, arson, robbery, fraud, criminal collusion and connivance."

Read the whole article here. http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2013/02/ed-flynn-milwaukee-crime-lord-citizen.html

 

Patriot's Lament November 17, 2012: Cox Fallout

Here is the full version of this episode, thanks to Randy for giving us a copy that he had recorded.