Quote:

At this moment, the future of Liberty is at stake.

Indeed. I am old enough to remember Nakita Khruschev (sp??) bringing his hammer & sicle-marked shovel to the U.N. and proclaiming "We WILL BURY you!"

Nakita, you almost have buried us....perhaps not in the ways you thought, but with the oppressive weight of Socialism and destructive tax rates.

The District Court in Alaska orders Canidate Joe Miller to turn over his personel records for voters to look at. The District Court in D.C. refuses to hear the pending case by Atty. Phillip Berg asking for the records of one Barry Soetoro,aka Barack Obama, Barry Obama. Any guess as to why? My guess is they want him to stay in office. The documented admission by the Kenyen Govt. acknowledging his birth in Kenya, and possesing his birth records, seems to be far fetched right? Hopefully when the Congress changes hands we will get some answers.

That the 2010 election is so critical to the continued life of the republic, we must be reminded the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

I see the illegal alien prez in his last speech...(Oh that it would be his "last" speech!) mentioned " by our Creator"......You think maybe the "Creator" is pleased that the lowly one mentioned his holy name? The ignorance displayed by people whose time is but a drop in the bucket compared with eternity..is amazing....its whats called in Vegas...."a sucker bet", bet everything you are, everything you have , and everything you will ever have, that man is the ultimate and there is no God.....wow...no other word seems to say it all, but plain old STUPID!!!!

"Creator" was compromise language meant to include those who believed in a god, deists (which many Founders were) and those who did not believe in any sort of god (which also includes several Founders). Those who do not believe in a deity can read the phrase to mean "endowed at birth, by virtue of being human".

A belief in god is not necessary to support of the principles upon which our great nation was founded, and the Framers knew this. That's why they wisely created a secular government. This is not only good for government, but good for believers.

Sadly, too many conservatives these days conflate their religious faith with their political conservatism. This has the effect of handing the Left plenty of ammo. It would be much better to stick to the real founding principles of limited government with strictly enumerated powers, minimal taxation, and constitutional, republicanism. Those of you with faith will win protection for it, and won't be alienating the millions of us who believe in the constitution but not a god.

Mark is so true, this Tuesday is the first major battle. The next may come soon after, since control of the Senate may be close. However, 10 additional Senators are in States that permit recall by their citizens without reason; such as Feinstein (CA), Udall (CO), Landreau (LA), Levin (MI), Stabenow (MI), Lautenberg (NJ), Menendez (NJ), Dorgan (ND), Mrekley (OR), and Kohl (WI).

Since we are the faction energetically mobilized, we can effect even greater restoration of a Constitutional Republic in special elections.

This may be our next front. For now we must focus on November 2.

Numquam renuntiabit! Numquam deditionem!

Patrick

In reference to article "Rights Endowed by Whom?" Mark Alexander;

I read and hear much about a "great awakening" that is expected and hoped for on Nov 2, 2010.

Before continuing, let me say that I am in full agreement with everything that I have read or heard that is part of the "Tea Party" platform.

However, a caveat that I feel must be understood is that while it would be great to turn this ship around, but if it is only a political reversal, it will be of no lasting value.

While it might buy us some time, which is fine, but until the people of the U.S.A. realize that it is against the one who "endowed us with these rights and liberties," until we as individual citizens confess that we have sinned against a loving and Holy God, then I'm afraid that a little time is all that we will gain in the upcoming elections.

II Chronicles 7:14 & Nehemiah 9:33

Thank You

Wade Simmons

This is all so true, however, this attitude by the left toward God and individual rights is nothing new. My question is, why did it take so long for all of you to start paying attention? Did you all think maybe if you did nothing all these past years, it might just go away?

I only hope and pray that it's not business as usual after Nov 2. John Boehner as Speaker of the House? Same old same old. We need to keep their feet to the fire!

In addition to Obama removing the Creator from the Declaration, the Declaration says our rights are "UNALIENABLE" NOT inalienable. The difference is significant. Unalienable cannot be sold and transferred, inalienable cannot be surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. The rights are God given and we do not have authority to give them up or for government to take them.

I'm always struck by that poster "Tyranny vs Liberty"...it's something that commands your attendion. Whoever designed it certainly captured the utter chaos and confusion of the left, compared to the simple, quiet basic truths that our country was founded upon. As a Christian, I know where confusion and chaos comes from, and it's not from God.

With regard to your Tyranny v. Liberty poster, thank you for having the collors correct. For all elections in my lifetime, until 1992, Red States were Democrat and Blue States were Republican. Intentionally (I submit), these were reversed during the 1992 campaign by all major news outlets simultaneously. I've been on a (quixotic, I admit) crusade to get them changed back since then.

It is absolutely proper that the left be associated with red, which is precisely why they were intentionally reversed, in the hope that the switch would go unnoticed. It was unnoticed by most, but not all. There is a reason the term "Pinko" was created!

Do you have any idea how racist is sounds every time you refer to our president as Barack HUSSEIN Obama? With the clear emphasis on HUSSEIN? The only other time we have paid any attention at all to a president's middle name or initials was in the case of the George Bushes where the middle initials [W or HW] were important discriminators between the two different presidents.

Craig, only one Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin, was a deist, but not for life. Franklin, raised an Anglican Christian, toyed with many philosophical theories, including deism. But, later in life, he repudiated deism as an unreasonable assumption and spent his last years faithfully attending the Anglican Church.

Barack Obama is the first president since Woodrow Wilson to so openly mock our Founding Documents. Leaving the word "creator" from his reading of this line from the Declaration of Independence was certainly no accident.

Please help to get out the vote next week. It is the most important election in decades.

I fail to see the outrage with respect to the fact that Mr. Obama will not use the term Creator in his continued perversion of the Declaration of Independence. I would expect nothing less.

"Dems national committee and candidates doing rob calls, mailers, and advertising for 3rd party Tea Party or Conservative candidates to take votes away from Republicans" in hopes of splitting the Republican vote." Fox News

Apparently the Democrat Communists have a read on the Conservative pulse and know the dissention is strongly against the traditional Republican Party. As well, apparently they know many will vote for 3rd party candidates ensuring many Democrat victories around the country.

And apparently, they read blogs like to Patriot, and other Conservative posts and welcome, and even more persuade, the many readers to vote for the 3rd party conservative candidates to assist the socialists win.

You got to give them credit; they are a devious lot and will do anything to win. Apparently they are succeeding too as evidence by some of the recent polls!

I just hope many of us do not cut off our noses to spite our faces.

Personally, I am going for the lesser of the two evils this time around, to at the very least, give the Conservative tea Party Movement time to mature in the coming years.

But I suppose we shall see how many of us decide to allow continued Socialist majorities out of spite.

A much needed essay concerning our only foundation for freedom. The word, 'inalienable' is correct meaning; "cannot be altered; unchangeable". The word 'unalienable', used today, was never in the dictionary, used in the original documents nor in my early years. I'm 82.

Words have mean; they are important. When I wrote you about this a couple of years ago, you responded with an impertient, "check the dictionary." Well, I did. The word is 'inalienable'. What have I missed? When was it changed? Thanks for your work.

In response to James J Kolvalcin:

The following is the definition of racism:

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

Can you please explain to me how referring to President Obama by his full name, including his middle name Hussein, in any way relates to this word? By constantly throwing around this word to denigrate people of whose opinion you differ with, you remove the power of the word itself. Where actual racism exists, it should be addressed. Your post undermines legitimate attempts to address a very serious issue.

Jefferson was presenting a rational that would enable the States to seperate from Great Britain. He employed extravagant rhetoric. If there were unalienable rights it would mean that We the People could not take them away. But in fact there is nothing in our Constitution that prevents us, We The People, from granting or taking away any right. Even the example that Jefferson uses, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (Originally Life, Liberty and Property which was returned to when framing the Constitution), is followed by the phrase "except by due process of law". In other words these rights can be taken away. Rights are granted by We The People. I don't know what your definition of unalienable is, but according to the dictioary our rights don't qualify.

Mark, I am a Latin-illiterate! Could you, please, translate your motto for me one more time? My guess is "forever vigilant,strong, ???, and loyal". Am I close? Stoney

Not only is he defining his perspective on the Creator, he is also using "inalienable" instead of... "their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" as in the Declaration of Indepence. Which is right? His "inalienable" or Declaration's "unalienable"????

"Editor's Reply:

That "over-used 'Left vs. Right' poster" poster is the product of our creative director's genius, and if it gets sent around the Internet, more power to it! As for John Lennon and his "give peace a chance" jingle, we are sending you a handful of our "Give War a Chance" bumper stickers FREE OF CHARGE!

It is very ignorant of you to assume that I could not support war, in some form, just because I support someone who preached that we give peace a chance. You also failed to respond about the Coexist sticker. And you really aren't sending me any bumper stickers because you do not have my information.

I would expect a more professional response from The Patriot Post instead of treating me like a liberal hippie. I might discontinue my subscription - a subscription which I have read hundreds of issues of; a subscription which I find helpful in supporting certain principles I hold true. Childishness is not one of those principles.

What is at stake is liberty for sure but more so whether the American people are ready to endure the "new plantation" that the Liberals want to install in this great country of ours. The voters will get what they deserve depending on who they vote for. Unfortunately, some of us will have to suffer along side these ill-informed, mis-guided and basically 'stupid' voters!

REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER - TAKE OUT THE TRASH

Craig--you might want to go back and reread your history of the founders and take a Constitution class to get up to speed on what is what. > not true, may two or three. Get a copy of Essential Liberty and read through those thoughts of the founders, then take a look at the Federalist papers. You might change your mind about some of your thoughts. Also look up the word Unalienable (not inalienable)in a Daniel Webster 1890's version to find the true meaning of this word. The founders used specific words and capitalized certain ones for emphasis. In newer version of our Deceleration "they" have changed some of the words and de-capitalized others, (found on an on line version)while others have even been omitted, like the word Creator, Men , Happiness, Safety, unalignable Rights. Tell me why is that Craig?

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. -George Washington

Jim Cotter,

You are correct that our "unalienable" rights can be taken away "by due process of law." Otherwise, there could not be a death penalty.

However, you are completely wrong about the source of our unalienable rights. Are you saying that "We the People" granted me life? Really?? Where were you when I was conceived and born? Certainly you do not put yourself in the judgement seat granting life to this worthy soul but denying it to another? And no collection of "We the People" is worthy enough to pass such judgements either.

Opps Correction fat delete finger got in the way--> ""not true, may two or three"". This was supposed to say it is not true that MANY were Deists, and only two or three were Deists.

Re: John Lennon. Wasn't he one of the group, who wrote and sang "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"??

Robert Gibbs reminds me of Baghdad Bob when we invaded Irag. Here he was on television telling everyone how well their troops were doing and that our troops would never enter Baghdad as in the background, we could smoke rising from the battles as our troops were already in Baghdad.

"Editor's Reply:

That "over-used 'Left vs. Right' poster" poster is the product of our creative director's genius, ..."

Wow. You are praising someone in a ranking position without analyzing the contents of his work with respect to external input (my comments). Sounds like someone ignorantly worshiping Obama, without looking at what he is actually doing and how it will affect the country and its people. It doesn't take a great deal of effort to scour Google for a few dozen images and throw them into Photoshop to make the above poster.

Additionally:

Every person is capable of being a "prodigy" or "genius" (I hate those words) in any subject or focus - it just depends on how and what external stimuli are applied to you, and, if you are sufficiently cognitive (e.g., not a young child), how you choose to react to those stimuli (except if you are limited by physical or mental genetic defects).

I arrived at the above view because firstly, this is how I think of myself - unlimited by anything, really. If I considered myself and a select few others labeled as more intelligent or gifted as geniuses, that would be egocentric and selfish to the rest of the people in the world. I extend this view on to everyone. It is very difficult to get people who don't see themselves this way to see the immense potential within everyone.

A lost battle is a battle one thinks

one has lost.---Jean-Paul Satre (1905-1980)

If Obama made a pledge at all it would be with his fingers crossed, like when he pleged to up hold the Consitution.

10/28/10

Our CREATOR gave his only and innocent son as a lamb

to a pack of wolves to unknowingly save themselves.

An to eventually learn how to gain everlasting life,

By learning and live by the TEN DO'S & DON'T'S He

would write in stone.But Apparently,We have surely

forgotten,and need to be Reminded.

The Unidted States Government agrees unequivocally

on these three points. The Declaration if Independence says so

1) there is a Creator

2) Said Creator granted all men unalienable rights

3) The sole purpose of government is to protect these rights

Next Tuesday is GARBAGE day---TAKE OUT THE TRASH---Get out and VOTE.

It is patently obvious that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights have been under assault since their inception and adoption. The enemies of this Republic never rest, and their zeal seemingly has no bounds. The Framers realized this and incorporated safeguards against one branch of government becoming despotic over the other two. The Founders never claimed perfection, but they did give us the best form of government that the world has ever had. They knew that there were certain "rights" that had not, could not be bestowed by man, because man at his core is corrupt and corrupts everything he receives. These rights were endowed to us by our Creator, not government.

Recognizing there is a natural law, which is opposed and conflicts with Darwin's unnatural law of evolution (survival of the fittest), the Framers gave to this nation something that was unique, something that had been in existence for millennia, but was now codified as part of our Constitution: the right of the individual above the tyrany of a capricious government.

It is interesting to note the simularities between the Bill of Rights and the Ten Commandments. When Moses received the Law from God on Mt. Sinai, it was simple, concise, and understandable by even the simplest of minds. The first four deal with man's relationship to God, His worship and service. The first amendment protects this God-given right for us. The state will not tell us how to serve or worship the Creator, nor will it exclude religion from government (this is an absurd impossibility).

The other six deal with man's relationship and responsibility to man. It is not right to dishonor the parent, because the parent has the "right" to respect from the child who has derived his/her life from the parent. "Thou shalt not kill" protects the most basic of rights- life (the Declaration of Independence); hence the second amendment which allows a means of protecting that right. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" protects the right of the family to live unmolested from outside influences. "Thou shalt not steal" protects the individual's property rights, whether from individual or government (Amendments IV-V). "Thou shalt not bear false witness" safeguards the individual's right against false accusations (Amendment VI). "Thou shalt not covet" again establishes the individual's right to property from church and state (Amendment IX-X).

The Ten Commandments have all but been outlawed from public view by groups seeking to not only divest themselves and us from any accountability to our Creator, but they are working on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as well. Behind every message, there is a spirit; behind every messenger, there is a spirit. It is either the spirit of liberty by rule of law impartially enforced, or the spirit of anarchy whereby certain ones, no longer constrained by law, become a law unto themselves, and begin to violate without restraint, the rights of their fellow man.

Laws are a necessity, and laws without penalties are worthless protections from those who deem themselves above law.

Robert Gibbs reminds me of Baghdad Bob when we invaded Irag. Here he was on television telling everyone how well their troops were doing and that our troops would never enter Baghdad as in the background, we could smoke rising from the battles as our troops were already in Baghdad.

The reason Obama withholds "Creator" from his speeches is his religion, he is a Muslim, his creator is Muhammad. If Obama was honest, which I know he is not, he would declare openly that his faith derives from the Quran and not the Bible. When he eventually writes his memoir this will be admitted. BTW, in my 30 something years of voting I can never remember a sitting President campaigning this much during a mid-term, perhaps it is the current 24/7 news cycle, or the still passionate love affair of the MSM which makes it appear so, either way, I can't wait until he goes away.

Having made the same mistake on three separate occasions, any reasonable person would have to conclude that the President does not believe that the rights in question were endowed by our Creator. It's simple as that. He does not believe it! How this man ever got to where he is today is simply unbelievable. I never dreamed that I would see within my lifetime a president who does not like America. I pray that the real "change" that he alluded to during his campaign will come on Election Day.

The declaration stated that we are created equal so no one could claim the divine right of a king's rule, i.e. King George. We are equal in the eyes of God who is no respecter of persons because we have all fallen short of His glory.

"A wise man's heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man's heart directs him toward the left."

Ecclesiastes 10:2

(NASB)

ENOUGH SAID!

Editor:

Thanks for the kind reply. Yes, "natural law" is clearly a founding principle. It does not require the existence of, or belief in, a god.

What I said should in no way, of course, be construed as a defense of Obama. I'm reasonably sure that the only god he believes in is himself.

Adam:

Capitalization (and, for that matter, commas) in that era was used for emphasis or speaking rhythm. It doesn't carry much syntactic weight. Conjecture as to why "they" have made edits to the Declaration (which is just fine as written, thank you) would be outside the scope of what I'm trying to say, which is simply not to confuse religion with politics. Keeping them separate was a good idea to the Framers, and it still is.

CRAIG-

WELL SAID, BOTH YOUR COMMENTS--

IT IS HARD FOR THE MAJORITY OF CONSERVATIVES TO GET THAT A LOT OF ATHEISTS ARE CONSERVATIVES.

THE REASON THEY ARE IS THAT THEY BELIEVE IN REASON ABOVE ALL.

THIS IS A COMPLIMENT TO THE CONSERVATIVE AGENDA.

BELIEF, (OR NOT), IN GOD, ABORTION, GAY RIGHTS, ETC ARE NONE OF OUR BUSINESS, AND SHOULD NOT BE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED.

THE TEA PARTY PEOPLE WANT SMALLER GOVT, LESS GOVT OVERALL, AND A FREER CAPITALISM, AND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

PERFECT!!!

HAVE NOT SEEN THE PART ABOUT TELLING PEOPLE THEY CAN'T HAVE AN ABORTION, THAT THEY MUST BELIEVE IN GOD, (OR THEY MUST SURELY BE TERRIBLE HUMAN BEINGS), THAT GAYS ARE EVIL. ETC

JUST MAKES US LOOK LIKE THEY ARE--(LIKE WE WANT TO CONTROL PEOPLE'S LIVES).

GIVE ME LIBERTY.

IN ALL THINGS.

BELIEF IN GOD IS NOT NECESSARY TO A MORAL LIFE.

DID YOU ALL SEE THE TREMENDOUS RESPONSE TO WM. MURCHISON'S ANTI ATHEIST COLUMN A MONTH OR SO AGO?

AND ALL CONSERVATIVES-

HMMMMMM

Brian:

Your conception was granted to you by your parents. Your birth was not a right but a decision your parents made. There are some prospective parents who decide not to let their child come to term. You'd have a hard time explaining to an aborted fetus that its right to life is unalienable. And it is we the people who determine, among other things, the abortion laws. Imam Rauf, the promoter of the lower Manhattan Cultural center, says that Muslim law is superior to ours because the Muslim judges answer explicitly to God while our judges only explicitly answer to the Constitution and our statutes. In other word the Muslim's rights come directly from God. You really ought to think about whether or not you want to live under that system of law.

You concluded your article with,

Our Declaration of Independence concludes, "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." (I suspect Obama would omit "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.")

I suspect you are correct. I also suspect that no one in Congress would pledge to each other their lives, fortunes, or sacred honor for any of Mr. Obama's doctrines. (Which nmakes me wonder: How many in any of our branches of Government would consider their honor "sacred"?)

Alexander's Essay of this week, 10/28/10, was excellent. I agree that, even though I was immediately frightened when Obama won the election for President, I can definitely see how, even in this, God is still the Creator and the Ruler over all things, and as you said, the election in 2008 really woke up the heart of America all across the country, to finally realize that we were long overdue for standing up for our rights and liberties as they were being taken from us little by little. I found a quote by James Madison that says, "There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." We've all read at some point what John Adams cautioned, that "A Constitution of government once changed from freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." We need to keep that factual statement before us constantly to keep us keeping on, fighting for our freedoms.

Hearing Robert Gibberish's explanation of President Obama's serial omission of reference "by their Creator" by explaining that "the President believes in the Declaration of Independence" brought this verse to mind.

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. - James 2:19 KJV

I have no doubt that in the context of the Scripture, Mr. Obama "believes in the Declaration of Independence." It speaks volumes, at least to me, that Mr. Obama refrained from making a personal explanation, instead, relying on his professional shill.

I wonder how Mr. Obama feels when he reads "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." No doubt, he trembles, as the Biblical demons, when he considers the tsunami approaching next Tuesday.

"Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...", "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God"...

The accepted legal philosophy at our founding and for the most part uncontested until the late 19th century was that the Law existed to protect the rights of life, liberty, and real ownership of property against "all comers from both sectors-public and private regardless of civic ratios--minority or majority. Natural Law was understood to derive from the perfect moral law given to man by the Perfect Lawgiver either directly "Scripture" or generally in "nature". Now that the US has adopted a philosophy of legal positivism, the premise that a man made law must be weighed against the clear principles of the Divine (from Scripture or nature) has passed. Thus we live in the legal era of "rule of men" rather than "rule of Law". google "blackstone, locke, aquinas, natural law" for more info.

eric nelson

The Constitution is an example of "positive law" as opposed to God's law or nature's law. It is specific in stating that This Constitution and the laws...made in pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme law of the land. That means that there can be no higher law. Yes it is man made law, that is made by we the people. Positive law is not "rule of men" it is the epitomy of "Rule of law". If we had judges who could trump the Constitution by enforcing their definition of God's law or nature's law, that would be an example of rule by men.

The Creator in our Declaration of Independence refers to the Biblical God as Thomas Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address makes clear. Thomas Jefferson was not a Deist because no Deist would refer to or believe in the God of Israel.

“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power…" Thomas Jefferson

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau2.asp

I believe John Locke laid the groundwork for unalienable human rights and Natural Law. You will notice that Natural Law is derived without conflict from both reason and our Creator.

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's.” John Locke

http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111locke1.html

If God does not exist then by default our so-called human rights must come from other men - from those men comprising government who take the place of God. Government-derived "human rights" invariably destroy God-given human rights - when men-gods create "human rights" they are by human nature reversible and not unalienable. When God created man with three unalienable human rights they are by God's nature - and man's nature as created in His image - unalienable. It is irrational to believe that a man's rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (labored for property) come from a group of other men. It is irrational to believe that a man's right to speak freely without fear comes from a group of other men. Additionally, history shows us that "human rights" provided by government (other men) are not only reversible they are unequal - benefiting some groups (the Marxist governing class and the proletariat class) while oppressing others (the middle class). Our Founding Fathers were wise enough, like John Locke, to realize that if God does not exist then unalienable human rights is a meaningless concept.

"The proletariat (lazy, tax-eating, non-disabled poor) will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital (property) from the bourgeoisie (laboring, tax-paying middle class), to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state (Marxist Government)… Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic (unequal) inroads on the rights of property. You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible… There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality." Karl Marx

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/adamss.html

When this Country elected our current president it was a day shows we are making progress towards all being created equal. The down side still in question is citizenship. The requirements are clear however the birth place is still in question.

If found to be an alien what would the results from all the changes and supposed improvements to our country be. I suggest that a total break down in our system of trust in our elected officials would lead to a disaster of the likes of the Atomic Bomb dropped in WW 2 and the recovery just as painful & costly. Not only has the people in power trampled our rights but they have almost destroyed the greatness of The United States by their actions.

Hopefully Nov 2nd will turn this around and we can once again get ontract to being a true World Power that will put the values of Life Liberty and The Persuit OF Happiness where the People of the World can obtain these thing.

If God does not exist then man is an animal - only an animal - made in the image of what - evolved pond scum? If man is only an animal then his/her value is finite and therefore measurable. If God does not exist some individuals through natural selection will end up with much greater value and therefore superior rights - Plato's "Philosopher Kings." Most people will end up with inferior value and inferior rights - Plato's obedient serfs. If God does not exist there will be unequal human value and unequal human rights.

If man is made in the image of God then man is not just an animal - man has a soul - man is a hybrid of animal and Spirit. If God exists and man is made in His image then his/her value is infinite and therefore all people are of equal value with three equal unalienable rights - life, liberty and the fruit of their labor in pursuit of happiness.

In his "Two Treatises of Government," John Locke posited that all men are born with three instincts: for life, liberty and property. Locke argued that men who cannot claim the third, lose the other two. Medieval Europe's kings and their lords owned their peasants: their serfs, their chattel. There was no such thing among the peasants as private ownership -- not their crops, farm animals, tools, homes, wives, children. Because the peasants did not own property, they couldn't lay claim to their freedom; because they weren't free, they couldn't determine the scope and direction of their lives. Because they didn't own, they were owned.

When Jefferson wrote the Founding Documents, he borrowed from Locke almost verbatim and changed "life, liberty and property" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The substitution was intentional for Jefferson meant that in this Experimental Republic, men would be encouraged to own and to amass personal property and the more property that they could lay claim to, the happier they would be. For the first time in History, a Nation was founded on the proposition that government has a single Prime Function: to protect the acquisition of personal property. Freedom becomes a natural corollary. Jefferson knew that once men become habituated to ownership, they become difficult to control.

As far as Jefferson was concerned, a government becomes evil -- and must be "replaced with one to the people's liking" -- in proportion as it ceases to honor and to defend the right of each person to own his or her property.

(It's interesting that the Constitution mentions only one tangible property by name: guns.)

Without defining it, Jefferson clearly meant for America to become Capitalistic based on "enlightened self-interest." No other Nation can lay claim to that most singular Founding Principle. Personal wealth precedes freedom. To pursue ownership is to be happy. Free men are happy because they are owners. Men become increasingly free as they amass personal wealth.

Obama's hatred of private ownership, his "collective salvation," his penchant that we must be ruled by "fairness," is a return to Medieval Europe. He believes that America must become Collective. To be collective is to be enslaved -- and that can happen in proportion as he is able to abolish personal property. What he hasn't said is that he desires -- pants after -- a return to Medieval Europe with himself as Regent, supported by his coterie of sycophantic nobles, dispensing favors -- allocating property -- as he sees fit.

This mid-term election will determine whether or not Americans and our progeny will be allowed to use the personal pronoun, "mine."

FOR THE RECORD: MacMillan Modern Dictionary 2nd edition c1945. INALIENABLE -inalienable, adj. not capable of being alienated or transferred. UNALIENABLE- unalienable, adj. inalienable; that can not be taken away, surrendered or assigned. END. Both words mean the same thing, they are exact synonyms or each other. The 1st definition of unalienable is inalienable. The printed definition in this dictionary of inalienable does not say unalienable because of alphabetical order. Some Leftist is trying to modify the meaning to suit a false argument, do not be deceived. There are other examples in English of similar words that are spelled the same, mean the same, but may be pronounced differently: neither, either. Or spelled differently but is the same: color, colour- center, centre. And More Examples...

Rifleman,

By faith I believe our instincts for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness come from God and are therefore the natural equal rights of all people. Sigmund Freud correctly noted that happy people are those that consistently work and play creatively and have love in their lives – Freud observed that depressed people are those who invariably fail at work and in their personal relationships. I believe therefore that our God-given instinct for happiness boils down to our instinct for creativity which encompasses both love and work (and the fruit of labor). We have natural God-given instincts for life, liberty and creativity because we are made in God's image - God lives - God is free - God is the Great Creator. Our three God-given instincts are our three God-given unalienable rights.

Friedrich Nietzsche believed otherwise; he said man only has in instinct for power - a "will to power" over other men – because there is no God – because man is an animal only and not made in God’s image. Such a view of animal-only human nature leads to a belief that man’s basic instinct is to dominate other men – just as an animal’s basic instinct is to dominate other animals. With this view of human nature men are not created with equal (infinite) value, nor do they all possess three natural God-given instincts and rights - because some men have evolved through natural selection with superior value and therefore superior rights – as in Animal Farm some are “More Equal Than Others.” Friedrich Nietzsche was the anti-John Locke - the anti-Thomas Jefferson.

Doctor Cherry. Right on. Great posts. Hope your scalpel is a sharp as your pen. Well written.

When a Liberal speaks of 'endowed rights', I begin to hear voices reciting the old childhood argument, "My Rights are Bigger than Your Rights".

Obama's not the only one who seems to think the Declaration's wording needs some "tweaking."

However, the recent report from Hillary Clinton's State Department to the UN Human Rights Commission (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/146379.pdf) makes the same paraphrase, right in the introduction to the document:

"all are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights..." (You'll note too, the politically-correct omission of the word "men.")