A message from a Mexican to The USA

[Gdjjr]

3. Also, worth noting, if you want to have this type of discussion, part of it should be discussing what might have happened if we had NOT had the high levels of immigration. Assuming the results we got, were the best possible results is just not valid.

What do you call that? Or your question about 1 billion Chinese?

 

[Gdjjr]

you tell me what's his grand plan ?

Reading is good for you.

And blaming trump for the militarization of the police is super lame and shows a biased and ignorance beyond belief

And I want you to show where anyone did as you claim above.
FYI, I've been posting Police State articles a long time- but, again, they have to be read.

I'll be nice and provide you with a source I get them from- but you have to read. I know it's difficult, but, remember, nothing worth having is easy- that includes knowledge- his articles usually have links (which require more reading) to verify his assertions.

You're welcome.

 

[Jitss617]

I’m ready

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

A lot of older commies and national socialist still masquerade as middle of the roaders and libertarians .....they never broke the old habit

You want to let one billion chinese move here?

That is a straw man argument. If a billion anyone wanted to move here they would have already

iF we adopt his beliefs system, ie that the government does not have the power to limit people's movement into the country,

how many foreigners, do you think would move here, then?


And do you want that?

No wonder why he denys it lol
Without cutting off the billions in benifits they get and hammering employers theyll never stop

Cut off all social service for illegals ...many will self deport many will never bother to come ....it really is that simple to make a big dent in the illegal problem

Why do they think europe is also being over run ...almost instant benifits

It's a bad troll or he could be an older lefty

Older lefties Commies and national socialist ...some were really good at wrapping themselves in the flag,constitution, and then proceed to pass them selves off in the middle of the road.....its just like thier usual it's no big deal argument in drag
And it's not even aimed at us ...its always aimed at the normies...for a reason .
And why they ignore facts coming from us ...it really is an old leftie tactic

You'll hear the same shit outta some libertarians to
Guys like this turn millions of upon millions of americans off to libertarians
what's to talk about if they dont even wanna acknowledge a simple fact anyway ...

 

[Correll]

3. Also, worth noting, if you want to have this type of discussion, part of it should be discussing what might have happened if we had NOT had the high levels of immigration. Assuming the results we got, were the best possible results is just not valid.

What do you call that? Or your question about 1 billion Chinese?

Not a punishment, if that is what you mean.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

you tell me what's his grand plan ?

Reading is good for you.

And blaming trump for the militarization of the police is super lame and shows a biased and ignorance beyond belief

And I want you to show where anyone did as you claim above.
FYI, I've been posting Police State articles a long time- but, again, they have to be read.

I'll be nice and provide you with a source I get them from- but you have to read. I know it's difficult, but, remember, nothing worth having is easy- that includes knowledge- his articles usually have links (which require more reading) to verify his assertions.

You're welcome.

You're not the only one whose been around Cato when they first stole I cant remember the guys name it was 2 decades before hand
Who was the guy who started the police watch news feed Cato stole it and ruined it? They would do a weekly release ...


I read a lot of articles here ...I do skip comments when they're dancing around issues cause they're simply full of shit

You're welcome

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You want to let one billion chinese move here?

Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.

His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.


Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.

Did anyone ever tell you that you are dishonest?

Sure. All the time.


Of course, generally, they say something like that, but rarely back it up, with like say,


telling what part of their stated position I "lied" about.

Well I proved that you lied. See my previous post.

Says the man that provided no clarification on his position.

Here's the real deal:

I've been IN this discussion for decades now. With the anti-Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters - whatever you want to call them, they go on the attack like you did. Nobody asks questions nor for clarifications. It has been easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than a truth that was never told before. The first fact that you should know, going in, I am a constitutionalist. That being said, I'm going to start with three presuppositions. You tell me where you think I get it wrong:

1) Without a wall and without federal immigration laws, the founders / framers built the greatest nation in the annals of history

2) The terminology Make America Great Again means, at some point, America WAS great

3) During this period of becoming great there was not a wall around America; the Chinese came here to work and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered; the foreigners you fear did not pose a threat (otherwise we could not have built the Republic we have.)

Let's find out where you think I'm wrong from a factual point of view.

1. Laws were passed to limit chinese immigration.

2. The foreigners did pose a threat, steps were taken to deal with it.

3. Also, worth noting, if you want to have this type of discussion, part of it should be discussing what might have happened if we had NOT had the high levels of immigration. Assuming the results we got, were the best possible results is just not valid.

1) The first governing document of the New World was the Mayflower Compact in 1630. The first laws restricting Chinese immigration were in 1882 almost a century after the ratification of the United States Constitution. Okay so, we'll put the Chinese immigration ban back in place

2) What "threat" did the foreigners pose that you are reference to and when?

3) You final response is more of an attempt to try and be dishonest by answering questions that haven't been asked and trying to preempt any honest discussion. I don't think that foreigners coming to the United States did anything to promote the growth of the nation. It helped industrialize it, but we'd be fine to not have the level of technology we have today. I think you want to derail the discussion before it starts. Presume nothing. I'm not who or what you think I am. But I digress.

Do you know the exact reason that the Chinese were excluded from coming into the United States?

In your opinion, WHO was the government trying to protect?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So what's your plan ...ya said ya had a plan

He presented it earlier in this thread- reading simple English is not supposed to be difficult.

Ya mean I gotta look for it i didnt read all his post ... flat out denying illegals get benefits is kinda dishonest ...when you dont acknowledge a fact and avoid it like the plauge while using a simplistic leftist taking point ....illegals dont get benifits it's illegal

you tell me what's his grand plan ?

And blaming trump for the militarization of the police is super lame and shows a biased and ignorance beyond belief

You don't read much and what you do read, you don't understand. I've not said ANY of what you claim. Two things: The mind is like a parachute; it only works when it's open and
"He who answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is a shame and folly unto him." Proverbs 18 : 13

I have worked in this field for four decades. That cannot be reduced to a few simple posts of three or four paragraphs - which (if you actually read this thread) is the limit of over half the anti-Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters that criticize me can handle.

Your bias against the Constitution; you're closed mind; your refusal to admit that you don't have all the answers is keeping you from participating in this thread in a constructive manner. Think about that.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

A lot of older commies and national socialist still masquerade as middle of the roaders and libertarians .....they never broke the old habit

You want to let one billion chinese move here?

That is a straw man argument. If a billion anyone wanted to move here they would have already

iF we adopt his beliefs system, ie that the government does not have the power to limit people's movement into the country,

how many foreigners, do you think would move here, then?


And do you want that?

No wonder why he denys it lol
Without cutting off the billions in benifits they get and hammering employers theyll never stop

Cut off all social service for illegals ...many will self deport many will never bother to come ....it really is that simple to make a big dent in the illegal problem

Why do they think europe is also being over run ...almost instant benifits

It's a bad troll or he could be an older lefty

Older lefties Commies and national socialist ...some were really good at wrapping themselves in the flag,constitution, and then proceed to pass them selves off in the middle of the road.....its just like thier usual it's no big deal argument in drag
And it's not even aimed at us ...its always aimed at the normies...for a reason .
And why they ignore facts coming from us ...it really is an old leftie tactic

You'll hear the same shit outta some libertarians to
Guys like this turn millions of upon millions of americans off to libertarians
what's to talk about if they dont even wanna acknowledge a simple fact anyway ...

If you believe the B.S. you're posting about me, you should sue your brains for non-support. I've been tolerant of your bullshit to a point, but even I have limits. There is not a swinging dick on the face of this earth that really believes that I am left wing, socialist, communist or anything close. The scars on my body are constant reminders of the price I've paid for fighting the people you associate me with. The fact that your education level becomes obvious when you misspell words like denies tells me that I should strive to be more tolerant of your ignorance.

LONG before your dumb ass came along, I was manning the border. Long before you ever thought about this topic I was ghost writing articles for Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr (US Army) in the late 1970s and 1980s. Mohr was the first American captured during the Korean Conflict. He was beaten, tortured and sentenced to death, only to escape and go on to fight and then write Army manuals on brainwashing techniques and psychopolitics. Mohr was on the Speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society and he was a co-founder of the Militia of Georgia - as was I.

Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s Mohr was keeping up with undocumented foreigners on the border and he was convinced, based on reports and intel that we were getting, that the Soviets had specially trained Cubans in Mexico, sneaking into the United States and starting sleeper cells, ready to take America down. There were the allegations of helicopters from Mexico flying over Brownsville, Texas and estimates of two million undocumented foreigners entering the United States per year. It's been four decades of me analyzing what I've read and poring over mountains of material I collected in think tanks over that time so that I know what is factual and what is outright bullshit. And I'll tell you right now, there was a time when people KNEW the extent of both my commitment to this country and the base of knowledge from which I worked. You don't. I can tell every poster right now, you don't know when a globalist, communist or lefty (you couldn't spell that one right either) puts crap in your head that you've been too ignorant to verify. So, without searching the Internet for hours, who do you think the lefties rely on for tactics and then reference where what I write takes you back to left wing propaganda? In other words, cite the sources for your allegations.

 

[Correll]

You want to let one billion chinese move here?

Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.

His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.


Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.

Did anyone ever tell you that you are dishonest?

Sure. All the time.


Of course, generally, they say something like that, but rarely back it up, with like say,


telling what part of their stated position I "lied" about.

Well I proved that you lied. See my previous post.

Says the man that provided no clarification on his position.

Here's the real deal:

I've been IN this discussion for decades now. With the anti-Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters - whatever you want to call them, they go on the attack like you did. Nobody asks questions nor for clarifications. It has been easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than a truth that was never told before. The first fact that you should know, going in, I am a constitutionalist. That being said, I'm going to start with three presuppositions. You tell me where you think I get it wrong:

1) Without a wall and without federal immigration laws, the founders / framers built the greatest nation in the annals of history

2) The terminology Make America Great Again means, at some point, America WAS great

3) During this period of becoming great there was not a wall around America; the Chinese came here to work and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered; the foreigners you fear did not pose a threat (otherwise we could not have built the Republic we have.)

Let's find out where you think I'm wrong from a factual point of view.

1. Laws were passed to limit chinese immigration.

2. The foreigners did pose a threat, steps were taken to deal with it.

3. Also, worth noting, if you want to have this type of discussion, part of it should be discussing what might have happened if we had NOT had the high levels of immigration. Assuming the results we got, were the best possible results is just not valid.

1) The first governing document of the New World was the Mayflower Compact in 1630. The first laws restricting Chinese immigration were in 1882 almost a century after the ratification of the United States Constitution. Okay so, we'll put the Chinese immigration ban back in place

2) What "threat" did the foreigners pose that you are reference to and when?

3) You final response is more of an attempt to try and be dishonest by answering questions that haven't been asked and trying to preempt any honest discussion. I don't think that foreigners coming to the United States did anything to promote the growth of the nation. It helped industrialize it, but we'd be fine to not have the level of technology we have today. I think you want to derail the discussion before it starts. Presume nothing. I'm not who or what you think I am. But I digress.

Do you know the exact reason that the Chinese were excluded from coming into the United States?

In your opinion, WHO was the government trying to protect?

So, in 1631, where the pilgrims were a few score of people starving and freezing and in danger of being wiped out from possibly hostile locals, AND, few if any chinamen, knew of their existence or location, or had any possibly way of reaching them,


since at that time, as they were struggling to live from day to day, since at that time, they did not pass laws against immigration into tiny, tiny community,


that is part of your argument as to unlimited movement being part of the package of God Given Rights?


With all due respect, that is not a convincing argument.

 

[Marion Morrison]

You want to let one billion chinese move here?

Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.

His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.


Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.

Did anyone ever tell you that you are dishonest?

Sure. All the time.


Of course, generally, they say something like that, but rarely back it up, with like say,


telling what part of their stated position I "lied" about.

Well I proved that you lied. See my previous post.

Says the man that provided no clarification on his position.

Here's the real deal:

I've been IN this discussion for decades now. With the anti-Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters - whatever you want to call them, they go on the attack like you did. Nobody asks questions nor for clarifications. It has been easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than a truth that was never told before. The first fact that you should know, going in, I am a constitutionalist. That being said, I'm going to start with three presuppositions. You tell me where you think I get it wrong:

1) Without a wall and without federal immigration laws, the founders / framers built the greatest nation in the annals of history

2) The terminology Make America Great Again means, at some point, America WAS great

3) During this period of becoming great there was not a wall around America; the Chinese came here to work and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered; the foreigners you fear did not pose a threat (otherwise we could not have built the Republic we have.)

Let's find out where you think I'm wrong from a factual point of view.

1. Laws were passed to limit chinese immigration.

2. The foreigners did pose a threat, steps were taken to deal with it.

3. Also, worth noting, if you want to have this type of discussion, part of it should be discussing what might have happened if we had NOT had the high levels of immigration. Assuming the results we got, were the best possible results is just not valid.

1) The first governing document of the New World was the Mayflower Compact in 1630. The first laws restricting Chinese immigration were in 1882 almost a century after the ratification of the United States Constitution. Okay so, we'll put the Chinese immigration ban back in place

2) What "threat" did the foreigners pose that you are reference to and when?

3) You final response is more of an attempt to try and be dishonest by answering questions that haven't been asked and trying to preempt any honest discussion. I don't think that foreigners coming to the United States did anything to promote the growth of the nation. It helped industrialize it, but we'd be fine to not have the level of technology we have today. I think you want to derail the discussion before it starts. Presume nothing. I'm not who or what you think I am. But I digress.

Do you know the exact reason that the Chinese were excluded from coming into the United States?

In your opinion, WHO was the government trying to protect?

So, in 1631, where the pilgrims were a few score of people starving and freezing and in danger of being wiped out from possibly hostile locals, AND, few if any chinamen, knew of their existence or location, or had any possibly way of reaching them,


since at that time, as they were struggling to live from day to day, since at that time, they did not pass laws against immigration into tiny, tiny community,


that is part of your argument as to unlimited movement being part of the package of God Given Rights?


With all due respect, that is not a convincing argument.

My ancestors didn't even come in that way.
They came in the 1st or 2nd wave after Columbus.
I tell you what the rule was:
Either you made it, or you didn't. My people made it. Probably due to hard-headedness or something.

Oh yeah, and willingness to clear swaths of acres and plant intelligently.

And at times hunt for food to feed everybody.

Also fishing.. MMmm, fishing.

My cousin may have some 6-foot Canadian Moose Elk thing protruding from his wall, but I know deep down, he really likes to fish.

-A cracker that knows how it really is.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The preamble to the Declaration of Independence is not even the majority portion of the Declaration. You cannot even begin to cogently discuss such a document without an understanding of its entirety. So stop. It doesn't apply to the world.

Today's Intolerable Acts would be a complaint and demand that the border be closed and all invaders expelled.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Not that the anti-Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters will read this, but none of them have a clue as to where I stand, personally, on this issue.

Presuming that America was a great nation, then there were some uncomfortable truths that the anti - Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters have to come to grips with. Most of their arguments have revolved around this mantra that they don't care whether you're black, white, Muslim, etc. - you can come to America provided you do so "legally." It annoys me to no end that they have NO idea what they are advocating for. They have a very narrow objective - get rid of people they call "illegal aliens" and I vehemently object to that kind of language because those bigots cannot fathom the value of the idea of a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty. Then again, none of them have had their Rights ignored and their life at stake over some political issue. They are not educated enough to understand the 14th Amendment's wording that ALL PERSONS are entitled to the "equal protection of the laws." Common sense flies over the heads of people like this. For if the foreigner is an illegal alien, absent Due Process, then each and every one of those critics on this thread are domestic terrorists / enemy combatants (presumed guilty) because the critics made this a legal v. illegal issue.

The admonitions of the founders / framers are lost on the anti - Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters. Outside of a very narrow objective, they cannot tell you with any clarity about the America they envision for the future. If they can, they are too scared, embarrassed, or dishonest to discuss it civilly. One thing they can't see: they are not in charge and what they wish on others, they are wishing on themselves.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The preamble to the Declaration of Independence is not even the majority portion of the Declaration. You cannot even begin to cogently discuss such a document without an understanding of its entirety. So stop. It doesn't apply to the world.

Today's Intolerable Acts would be a complaint and demand that the border be closed and all invaders expelled.

The Preamble is what it is. A preamble is an introduction. You might be right, but now is the time to lay your cards on the table. I'm challenging the Anti- - Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters to lay their cards on the table. I'm willing to lay all mine on the table - no deflections, no name calling, no trying to tell the other guy what he is, just lay your cards on the table. I'll even throw in a freebie for good faith.

Tipsycatlover may have a point. The Declaration of Independence, despite its talk of all men being created equal does talk about the "ravages of the savages." Thomas Jefferson was, at the very least a closet negrophilist. His arch enemy, Alexander Hamilton used to kill Indians as if they were rodents that didn't warrant any consideration.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind. It was all about the Intolerable Acts. It was a document that said This is what you did and now we're leaving you.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds that have connected them with one another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature's God entitle them...

This is a declaration of the equality of nations. Not of men. The United States declares it will be separate from the nation of the Crown and intends to be its equal. Men are created equal so we recognize no king to have authority over us.

It has nothing to do with removing our borders and allowing a tidal wave of humanity to swamp us. If Jefferson and Hamilton were alive today they would open the border to hunting. Pay a bounty. Hmmm that means taking something to prove the worth of the bounty. What would be a good Trophy? ? I know. A scalp! That's something the founders would approve of.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You want to let one billion chinese move here?

Straw man worse case scenario arguments are, well, straw man arguments.

His position is that we as a people, have no right to control, who enters our territory.


Considering the likely results of a policy, is not a strawman argument.

Did anyone ever tell you that you are dishonest?

Sure. All the time.


Of course, generally, they say something like that, but rarely back it up, with like say,


telling what part of their stated position I "lied" about.

Well I proved that you lied. See my previous post.

Says the man that provided no clarification on his position.

Here's the real deal:

I've been IN this discussion for decades now. With the anti-Liberty / POLICE STATE / MAGA supporters - whatever you want to call them, they go on the attack like you did. Nobody asks questions nor for clarifications. It has been easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than a truth that was never told before. The first fact that you should know, going in, I am a constitutionalist. That being said, I'm going to start with three presuppositions. You tell me where you think I get it wrong:

1) Without a wall and without federal immigration laws, the founders / framers built the greatest nation in the annals of history

2) The terminology Make America Great Again means, at some point, America WAS great

3) During this period of becoming great there was not a wall around America; the Chinese came here to work and take advantage of opportunities willingly offered; the foreigners you fear did not pose a threat (otherwise we could not have built the Republic we have.)

Let's find out where you think I'm wrong from a factual point of view.

1. Laws were passed to limit chinese immigration.

2. The foreigners did pose a threat, steps were taken to deal with it.

3. Also, worth noting, if you want to have this type of discussion, part of it should be discussing what might have happened if we had NOT had the high levels of immigration. Assuming the results we got, were the best possible results is just not valid.

1) The first governing document of the New World was the Mayflower Compact in 1630. The first laws restricting Chinese immigration were in 1882 almost a century after the ratification of the United States Constitution. Okay so, we'll put the Chinese immigration ban back in place

2) What "threat" did the foreigners pose that you are reference to and when?

3) You final response is more of an attempt to try and be dishonest by answering questions that haven't been asked and trying to preempt any honest discussion. I don't think that foreigners coming to the United States did anything to promote the growth of the nation. It helped industrialize it, but we'd be fine to not have the level of technology we have today. I think you want to derail the discussion before it starts. Presume nothing. I'm not who or what you think I am. But I digress.

Do you know the exact reason that the Chinese were excluded from coming into the United States?

In your opinion, WHO was the government trying to protect?

So, in 1631, where the pilgrims were a few score of people starving and freezing and in danger of being wiped out from possibly hostile locals, AND, few if any chinamen, knew of their existence or location, or had any possibly way of reaching them,


since at that time, as they were struggling to live from day to day, since at that time, they did not pass laws against immigration into tiny, tiny community,


that is part of your argument as to unlimited movement being part of the package of God Given Rights?


With all due respect, that is not a convincing argument.

I've made NO argument. You started with the Chinese people. So, are we talking Chinese or immigration? I offer you an opportunity to have an honest and civil discussion based upon not doing what you just did. So, you don't have anything save of straw man arguments, B.S. allegations that a drunk monkey couldn't believe if he could understand what you said, and attempts to put words into my mouth? You are desperate.

But, for those with a tad bit more IQ than Correll, there were some laws in place in the early colonies that would lead to immigration laws. Correll is in the dark and is waiting for me to say something he can criticize because past the objective of fighting so - called "illegal aliens," he doesn't have a plan, an ultimate goal, or a vision of what America would be if he were in charge. I don't have that problem. But, I know his arguments because I was there, in the think tank, that pioneered them. I know which arguments are factual and which were political. Correll realizes that I can point out the flaws in his thinking, but he cannot find a chink in the armor of someone who does not spew left or right wing swill.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind. It was all about the Intolerable Acts. It was a document that said This is what you did and now we're leaving you.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds that have connected them with one another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature's God entitle them...

This is a declaration of the equality of nations. Not of men. The United States declares it will be separate from the nation of the Crown and intends to be its equal. Men are created equal so we recognize no king to have authority over us.

It has nothing to do with removing our borders and allowing a tidal wave of humanity to swamp us. If Jefferson and Hamilton were alive today they would open the border to hunting. Pay a bounty. Hmmm that means taking something to prove the worth of the bounty. What would be a good Trophy? ? I know. A scalp! That's something the founders would approve of.

You flunked history. Hamilton would have a field day, but you didn't know Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence is about one thing that could sum up America in one word: Liberty. Let's start you off with some history at a level you can start learning from:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003U661UE/?tag=usmb-20

Don't be ashamed to watch it. I used to watch it with the foster kids I took in a few years back, and enjoy it until I played it one too many times.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Declaration of Independence was not about equality or the equality of all mankind. It was all about the Intolerable Acts. It was a document that said This is what you did and now we're leaving you.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds that have connected them with one another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature's God entitle them...

This is a declaration of the equality of nations. Not of men. The United States declares it will be separate from the nation of the Crown and intends to be its equal. Men are created equal so we recognize no king to have authority over us.

It has nothing to do with removing our borders and allowing a tidal wave of humanity to swamp us. If Jefferson and Hamilton were alive today they would open the border to hunting. Pay a bounty. Hmmm that means taking something to prove the worth of the bounty. What would be a good Trophy? ? I know. A scalp! That's something the founders would approve of.

You flunked history. Hamilton would have a field day, but you didn't know Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence is about one thing that could sum up America in one word: Liberty. Let's start you off with some history at a level you can start learning from:

Robot Check

Don't be ashamed to watch it. I used to watch it with the foster kids I took in a few years back, and enjoy it until I played it one too many times.

I knew Jefferson Personally.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Liberty and equality are mutually exclusive. Liberty is the product of freedom. Equality is the product of tyranny.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Are these people for real??? Even as recently as the Heller v. D.c. decision, the United States Supreme Court admitted that our Rights were codified into law... but, codified by what?

The Bill of Rights

The Relationship Between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - Independence Institute

I'm sometimes asked about the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Their connection is not difficult to understand. The Declaration is a statement based on natural law. Natural law consists of fundamental principles of justice and right. Monotheists see...

i2i.org

Individual Rights- The Declaration of Independence & the Bil

Individual Rights- The Declaration of Independence & the Bill of Rights Resources Used Caroline Neal 4th Period http://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/citizenship-rights-and-resonsibilities

prezi.com