Inalienable vs. Unalienable Rights

http://appeal2heaven.com/2009/04/29/inalienable-vs-unalienable-rights/

Inalienable Rights are defined as: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.
According to Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Unalienable Rights are defined as: [Rights which are] incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

This is a fairly important philosophical distinction that has been lost through the evolution of language. It is highly important to understand that when the two words did hold separate meanings, the Declaration committee of the Continental Congress opted to use the word, “unalienable,” in the final draft of the Declaration of Independence, over Jefferson’s original wording which included, ‘inalienable.’

Without getting too deep into meta-ethics, it’s clear that the committee supported the idea that human rights, or Natural Rights, where inherent to all people and could not be transferred, even by those having the rights. Most importantly – these rights where not created by governments – but rather, where acknowledged to already pre-exist and supersede government.

Obama Gives Interpol Free Hand in U.S.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obama-gives-Interpol-free-hand-in-U_S_-8697583-80291137.html

There are multiple reasons why this Obama decision is so deeply disturbing. First, the Obama order reverses a 1983 Reagan administration decision in order to grant Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization, two key privileges. First, Obama has granted Interpol the ability to operate within the territorial limits of the United States without being subject to the same constitutional restraints that apply to all domestic law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. Second, Obama has exempted Interpol's domestic facilities -- including its office within the U.S. Department of Justice -- from search and seizure by U.S. authorities and from disclosure of archived documents in response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by U.S. citizens. Think very carefully about what you just read: Obama has given an international law enforcement organization that is accountable to no other national authority the ability to operate as it pleases within our own borders, and he has freed it from the most basic measure of official transparency and accountability, the FOIA.

Broken Vows of Government Representatives

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/tiger_and_the_political_cheeta.html

Unlike Woods, some prominent politicians who've violated their marriage vows have refused to relinquish their office after being exposed, treating it as a personal entitlement rather than a privilege. Unlike Washington, they imagine that their private immorality has no impact on national morality and the integrity of their constitutional oath.

Maybe it's time to ask candidates for public office if they promise to resign immediately if they breach their marriage vows. If a politician's spouse can't trust him or her to forsake all others, how can we trust their vow to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic," to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same," and "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office"?

All that is at stake is our life, liberty, and property.

Pelosi Endorses ‘Global’ Tax on Stocks, Bonds, and other Financial Transactions

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58099

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) endorsed the idea of a “global” tax on stock trades and other financial transactions, saying the estimated $150 billion in annual revenue from such a tax could be used to help fund more stimulus spending.

“I think there would be a market for it among the American people to say that we are all participating in the economic prosperity of our country, and we are all pitching in to continue that prosperity,” said Pelosi.

What a socialist idea. Since when is it my job to contribute to the economic prosperity of our country? That's not my duty as a citizen, nor should it be. She has it completely backwards. You don't force people to be stewards of their country, because people don't want to do that. They want to take care of themselves and their own. The best way to allow them to do that is for the government to get out of the way. The end result is that by individuals pursuing their own selfish interest, the economy as a whole benefits because it is a positive sum game. When you take from one and give it to another, as she calls it: chipping in, it's a zero sum game because one has to lose in order for another to gain.

Enumerated Powers Act, H.R. 2458

http://johnshadegg.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=13333
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1359

The Enumerated Powers Act, H.R. 2458, requires that all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted. This measure will force a continual re-examination of the role of the national government, and will fundamentally alter the ever-expanding reach of the federal government.

Respecting the Tenth Amendment, which reserves all powers not granted to the national government to the states, or the people, will ensure that the Constitution continues to truly guide our nation.

Obama on Redistribution of Wealth

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that"

MA Pandemic Bill Allows Health Authorities to Enter Homes, Detain Without Warrant

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108604

A "pandemic response bill" currently making its way through the Massachusetts state legislature would allow authorities to forcefully quarantine citizens in the event of a health emergency, compel health providers to vaccinate citizens, authorize forceful entry into private dwellings and destruction of citizen property and impose fines on citizens for noncompliance.

If citizens refuse to comply with isolation or quarantine orders in the event of a health emergency, they may be imprisoned for up to 30 days and fined $1,000 per day that the violation continues.

Lest we forget the 4th amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Judge: Afghanistan Detainess Can Use U.S. Courts

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/terror_detainees/2009/04/02/198926.html

Where exactly in the Constitution does it say that people who have never set foot in the United States and who were captured in military operations in foreign countries have the same rights as US citizens?

Don't Tread on Me!

Missouri MIAC Strategic Report - The Modern Militia Movement

As seen on Glenn Beck

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13290698/The-Modern-Militia-MovementMissouri-MIAC-Strategic-Report-20Feb09-

"Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of form Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr."

It's my Constitutional right to support any candidate I so please and to display any type of flag I so desire! What makes America IS the diversity of beliefs and ideas. Squelch that and you have nothing left. If this is what they think a terrorist is now, sign me up!

Wiki article on the history of the flag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag

I think I'm going to buy a t-shirt with that flag on it and if I can't find one I'll make one myself through those online shirt-making sites.