Posts Tagged ‘Natural and legal rights’

Self-defense and possession of the tools thereof is a natural right of every individual

November 9, 2013

Self-defense is a natural right of every individual, and the right of a father and mother to protect their children. This is the basis for the right to bear arms, as having the means with which to defend yourself comes with the right to bear any weapon you need to defend yourself. The Bill of Rights is merely a list of explicit declaration of that right. THIS is the number One basis for the natural RIGHT to bear arms. SELF-DEFENSE means the right to defend yourself against BOTH other individuals (criminals) and other groups of criminals (governments, including your own).

The argument that the Second Amendment was to protect the right of governments to bear arms is a ridiculous argument. Consider it for a moment. Without the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution already says Congress even has the power to raise whole armies and to support them. So they needed an amendment to say the governments had the right to have an army? Are you kidding?

If the ACLU applied the same reasoning to the other first nine amendments, they would not bother, like they said about the Second.

If you apply the same reasoning to the First Amendment that Infringers of the Second say about gun control, they would say that only people with a government issued permit should be allowed to say anything (free speech), all religions would be illegal except for government-approved ones (an old Soviet law, that), and that only government-approved people, and that you could only use the Fifth to avoid incriminating yourself if you were a high government official.

–Trutherator

 

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

What’s Wrong With Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms”

September 29, 2013

Freedom and liberty are over-used words in 2013 English. But what matters in the concepts they cover, what is worth applying in the real world of interaction between humans, is contained in the non-aggression principle.

I like that phrase for that reason. And that’s the one I’m sticking to.

You might call it the idea that “freedom from aggression” is the freedom worth striving toward. But there are two people involved in the non-spiritual aspects of freedom. Freedom for one person requires respect for that freedom from others.

Self-defense is the enforcement mechanism for it, the best, in fact. As a matter of even more fact, any other mechanism for enforcing respect for the other person’s freedoms is a violation of freedom. (Contracting with security professionals counts as self-protection. Having the proper equipment for self-defense also counts).

The words “freedom” and “liberty” are so abused and twisted by Orwellian state propaganda shills that I prefer the N.A.P. Use that as the best non-ambiguous definition of freedom I can work with.

Roosevelt spoke about his “four freedoms”: freedoms of speech and worship, and “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear“. It is a crime against intelligence and dumbing-down historical episode that the last two self-contradictory items in the list were not hooted down as invitations to tyranny. They are not natural rights at all.

The only “freedom from fear” you’re going to get is a Huxley one, chemically induced or psychotic. If he meant freedom from aggression that would be a right, but not at the cost of fiefdom, even if the figurative lords of the manor change every so often.

The “freedom from want” is the worst one. It is a the demand for a license to steal, to feed someone or to solve their “lack” by plundering the neighbors’ cattle, property, harvests, animals, and even wives. (After all, why should an ugly cripple “want” for sex?)

Why the right to defend yourself includes defense against your government

June 10, 2013

Make no mistake: The INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms is not just a constitutional right, it is a NATURAL individual right that SOME of the Founders demanded be recognized along with the other NATURAL rights recognized in the Bill of Rights as a condition for ratification.

In other words, U.S. citizens to not get their right to bear arms from any constitution. They get it as a natural birth-right along with all the other individual human beings in the world, every one of them. Jews, Arabs, Gypsies, Armenians, handicapped, women, short men, tall men, ugly men and handsome, Cambodians, Chinese, ALL of us.

If a heavily armed local population is a danger to so-called “community safety”, then the INDIVIDUALS that have to live in such a population has an even stronger case for their individual right to bear arms and protect themselves, including, if necessary, forming militia to defend themselves against the Great Enlightened Overlords of the Great Enlightened United Nations and other Dictators’ Clubs who believe that they have to protect the community from itself.

The “leading democratic states” are exposing themselves today as ENEMIES of human rights protections and enemies of the “peaceful resolution” of conflicts. They pretend to work for the people while they are looting them by the force the guns of the armies of the law, confiscating the fruits of the labor of the people. If you don’t like it and speak out you will go to prison.

Bush, Obama, pick your bad guy. Here in the supposedly most “enlightened” ahem, “democratic state”, The USA, let’s see how safe we are. Let me count the ways in which we can feel safe without the means to defend ourselves against crime and tyranny:

The Patriot Act,

self-written search warrants,

warrantless seizures,

NDAA,

CISPA,

PIPA,

SOPA,

indefinite detention without charges,

suspension of habeas corpus,

whimsical kill lists,

presidential say-so kill orders,

DOJ propaganda telling law enforcement officers across the country to watch out for returning veterans, and Ron Paul supporters and constitutionalists,

enemies lists of conservatives getting harassment from IRS and federal gun-slinging agencies,

warnings against listening to anybody speaking against government,

one singer sentenced by a judge to psychiatry for speaking against music industry tycoons,

Bush caught on video saying he “will not tolerate” conspiracy theories,

MK Ultra,

Carnivore,

Echelon,

Total Information Awareness,

deliberate syphilis infections in Memphis and Guatemala,

“free speech zones” (meaning there are “no free speech zones”),

campaigns against “hate speech” (meaning speech they hate),

laws against speech by content (censorship),

laws against freely speaking about the health benefits of herbs, vitamins, supplements, alternative medicine,

historical massacres of Indians,

persecution of Mormons,

raids on peaceful small religious communities (East Texas) with “social workers” told to get children to denounce their parents,

Ruby Ridge,

Japanese detention camps,

Cross-burning and Jim Crow laws,

Massacre in middle Texas with tanks belching fire,

magic bullets and assassinations,

Watergate,

Whitewater,

Whitewater pardons,

Jim McDougal died after being denied his medicine,

Vince Foster,

Travelgate,

Filegate,

Benghazi denial of security requests, orders to stand down, coverup,

Fast and Furious,

Miss Arkansas announced fear for her life,

Unprosecuted Juanita Broaddrick rapes,

Unprosecuted rape denunciations by Miss Arkansas (denouncing her fear for her life causing her to previously say it was constitutional,

Paula Jones harrassment,

Abuses of the IRS, harassment of organizations of many different political philosophies,

Abuses by the IRS against common citizens,

IRS code passed by CONGRESS that presumes one is guilty if accused unless the accused can prove his innocence,

Massive privacy intrusions into email, web posts, voice calls, into Americans and others everywhere,

United States President George W. Bush shakes ...

United States President George W. Bush shakes hands with U.S. Senator Arlen Specter after signing H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 in the East Room of the White House (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Hundreds of federal agencies with armed agents,

Dred Scot,

A very massively historical bloody “civil war”,

Demonstrators against the draft shot down in cold blood on the orders of Abraham Lincoln,

Riots and looting history,

Drones,

Attacks against the right of self-defense with gun laws,
Goetz,

Attacks against children in “gun-free” zones..

Are we safe yet?

The Natural Family and “77 Non-Religious Reasons”

April 6, 2013

Do Cochran’s blog inspired a reaction:
http://gregoryccochran.com/2013/01/04/77-non-religious-reasons-to-support-traditional-marriage/

His blog was a reaction to the Ruth Institute’s list of “77 Non-religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage”:

One of the loudest advocates of same-sex marriage claims discrimination based on, so he says, 10,000 specific benefits that man-woman marriages get. Usually unspoken is the fact that those are *government-granted* “benefits. Why should *any* of us think government should give us permission to get married or to warp the land of marriage culture with it?

Marriage was always considered, including in pagan societies throughout history, as part of a natural family.

Same-sex marriage advocates always come back with this bogus “what is a family” anymore, and point at “non-traditional” families like mixed marriages (step-children all around, all that) as if the Ozzie and Harriet “ideal” is dead. That was even a Hillary Clinton reference circa 1992! But it’s not dead, she and other opponents of the NATURAL FAMILY, they just want to kill it.

Remind them that the supposedly new “non-traditional” families that *seem* successful are the ones that best emulate the *natural* family. Their own studies even show that the best adjusted kids are those that grew up in natural families, with a father and a mother. The worst thing that happened to especially the poor in America (not just black families) was the breakup of so many families.

It was in the Karl MarxCommunist Manifesto” after all. The main purpose behind this same-sex marriage noise is to push the idea that the children of any natural marriage belong to the state. The Powers That Be that have pushed almost the entire platform of the Communist Manifesto down our throats little by little and largely unnoticed, they HATE the natural family because it interferes with their indoctrination of the little ones.

Hillary Clinton once wrote a paper in college that denounced marriage as slavery. Some sharp reporter ought to ask her if she still believes that. (She’ll have to “kind of” renounce it, wink wink). I was a Communist youth myself, but facts, logic, truth have dragged me to where I am now. Marxists might call it slavery on a bad day, but they see no slavery in the fact that we are *forced* to labor for whoever commands the government du jour, for more than a third of our year, for them to decide who gets to have what.

So they are using the fact that Christians and others accepted the state taking over control of marriage as quite the Trojan Horse to try a Newspeak Dictionary tactic of making people forget the purpose of natural marriage, which has always been rearing children with the natural protection of the natural nuclear family of man, woman, and offspring.

Getting government back out of the business of controlling our lives by controlling marriage, and other collectivist ideas, is not an easy path, since state recognition has become in our minds apparently the definition of “legitimacy”.

Where Christian leaders have erred greatly was in using, or accepting, government license (control) over our lives in the first place. Mandating alcohol abstinence did not work at all, and other enforcement by the force of the gun of the law of religious doctrines will not work, other than for the protection of natural rights, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and yes, property (Thou shalt not steal).

Why Guns: Mexican Citizens Arrest the Police and Defend Their Town

April 2, 2013
Constitution Party (United States)

Constitution Party (United States) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Hundreds of Armed Vigilantes Seize Mexican Town, Arrest Local Police | TheBlaze.com:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/28/hundreds-of-armed-vigilantes-seize-mexican-town-arrest-local-police/

 

This is exactly why the people –individuals– have a natural right to the means of self-defense, not just a right to self-defense.

 

These people’s own government were oppressing them, robbing them of their natural rights, beginning with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right to be secure, as the language of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution says it, be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.

 

They arrested the whole lot of them, including the chief of police. We’ll see if they get a fair trial.

 

You think it can’t happen in the good ol’ USA? It already did once in Tennessee, where returning veterans stormed the election count and forced them to count the votes openly for a fair election. The crooks that had won by fraud in several elections of course lost in an overwhelming landslide.

 

 

Is America Socialist, Fascist, or Neither?

November 19, 2012
Quotations from Chairman Mao

Quotations from Chairman Mao (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Hitler won power with the National SOCIALIST Party. You don’t have to have full-blown government title of all production to BE a socialist that believes in government CONTROL. Control over the disposition of goods is *de facto* ownership, whether the property is hard or soft, durable or perishable, real or not real (real estate), and whether the Disinformation Media Cartel calls it leftist or rightist. America has a Communist Party but their platform to this day does not call for immediate total confiscation of all production. In fact they bragged that Richard Nixon had implemented their own platform!

The Nazi Party was considered leftist in many circles, but it was a fascist government, because fascism is a de-facto corporate-government partnership in government, with emphasis on BIG corporations and BIG government and lots of government control over economic resources.

Obama talks like a leftist, but note that among his biggest donors are from Goldman Sachs and other of the biggest banks, famous international currency hustler George Soros (some call him “swindler”), and other mega-bucks corporate types and did I mention Goldman Sachs? And the SEC guy who supervised the looting on Wall Street is his Treasury Secretary? And they blended very smoothly with the Marxist types he brought into the cabinet, including a guy who “agreed with Mao”, one who thinks profits are obscene, another whose most admired philosopher is Mao Tse-Tung (and for PR balance Mother Theresa).

Romney believes in this fascistic mutually beneficial arrangement between BIG corporations and BIG government, with payoffs for so-called “safety net” dependency for the poor to keep them from demanding economic freedom or even thinking about it. Comfortable serfdom, even the escaping Hebrews that had to flee the Pharoah’s army pined for the comforts of slavery.

The United States and Europe have de facto fascism, because certain very large corporations of persistent duration have merged into an often explicit, often implicit, dance of mutual back-scratching.

But the false label they carry is one of a variant of socialism. In America the media calls them “liberals”, but they are the ideological brethren of the Social-Democrat parties of Europe, the Partido SOCIALISTA Dominicana (Dominican Socialist Party) considers the American congressional counterparts as fellow thinkers, and to La Socialista Internacional they are considered fellow thinkers.

But Americans have a strong national cultural heritage of individuality and resistance to collectivist thinking, and European populations have a strong continental heritage of being told what to think, what to do, by their rulers.

The real choice is between more freedom and less freedom. “Left” and “right” have become subtle triggers for social engineers, Big Brother mind-benders to use to cubbyhole people’s thinking and to help them avoid looking at issues of LIBERTY.

The demagogue yells loudly about how much a “fascist” somebody is, or “divisive” but don’t look at the names their “party” hacks call the other guy and it becomes a matter of each set of fans yelling for their side against the other.

The declaration of rights in the Virginia Constitution, upon which part of the Declaration of Independence is based, reads that men have an inherent right as human beings to life, liberty, and the means to pursue –and keep- property, as read from the Wikipedia article from that document:

Articles 1-3 address the subject of rights and the relationship between government and the governed. Article 1 states that “all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights of which . . . they cannot deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety,” a statement later made internationally famous in the first paragraph of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, as “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

See, if you don’t respect private ownership and the freedom to engage freely in commerce in the exchange of goods and services to mutual increased benefit to the individuals who so decide, then you believe in restricting that freedom. You either believe in MORE freedom or LESS freedom, and it applies in economics as well as in free speech, free press, freedom of religion, freedom from arbitrary imprisonment, freedom to BE “secure” in your person, property, papers.

Poor people have as much natural right to access to a free market as big corporations, in fact they have MORE direct rights as individuals, because corporations or any other assembly or agreement among individuals, unions too, have ONLY any such rights as derive from their identity as agreements among INDIVIDUALS.

The INCOME TAX is a SOCIALIST tax, because it presumes that the government owns all your income, and it gets to decide how much you can keep. Think about what this would sound like if you applied it to FREE SPEECH or FREE PRESS.

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. – Proverbs 29:2

The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, – Luke 4:18

Abortion is not a civil right– But life is the first requirement for any rights at all

May 12, 2012
Members of Bound4LIFE in Washington, D.C. symb...

Members of Bound4LIFE in Washington, D.C. symbolically cover their mouths with red tape. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Life is the first and most basic civil and natural right, and without it the rest of them are null and void completely.

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,

Abortion is the first salvo in getting people to succumb to their own subjection to arbitrary autocratic rule, because it numbs people to the natural love of freedom we all have, the tendency toward individual human action.

It also set the stage for the hedonist culture changers to use government tools to make war on the Christianity. Christians opened the door for it by failing to continue the obvious progression toward more liberty after slavery was abolished, and instead used government action in voting and otherwise to establish more centralized power.

So at first the libertarian-small-“l” movement in the U.S. may have actually been majority atheist, although there has always been a significant number of Christians there too. Nick Gillepsie once said he figured there were about two-thirds of libertarians who are “pro-choice”, and one-third “pro-life”. A guess, he admitted.

But I would say that is heading toward a flip in place.

But one thing most would agree on. It would be a great leap of progress toward radically respecting individual freedoms again, natural rights, in this country, to nullify federal involvement altogether in the issue.

That way it becomes a battle of ideas, be they cultural, spiritual, economic, or otherwise, for the states, and the disparate cultures are not forced instead to battle for more power over the whole country.

If you’re pro-abortion, just remember this. Just like I told everyone who favored the Patriot Act way back in 2001, you should imagine that it’s not Bush in the White House, or now the Obama regime, but the worst possible character you can conceive of in the presidency.

Government is the biggest child abuser

February 9, 2012

Woman sues New York City for $900 trillion:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/08/new-york-woman-sues-city-for-00-trillion/?intcmp=obnetwork

Okay, sure, the amount is ridiculous but the abuse is not. The court found that the children were NOT being abused, the children were acing all their school courses, and told the state to give the children back to their mother where they belong!

Oh, they protested, she was mentally unstable. Says who? This mother with a last name that says she’s from another country was accused of having “hallucinations” like saying the FBI and Secret Service was trying to take her kids? Maybe she just doesn’t understand the different law enforcement departments we have in the U.S., government is government?

It just seems another abuse in the long list of them by state agencies against kids and against families, eagerly kidnapping them just because there are too few legislators and citizens standing up for our natural rights, constitutional law, and respect for fellow humans.