Sebastian at Valley Forge. If it had been up to him, he would have advocated Washington's preemptive surrender before the British discovered they didn't like what the colonists were saying.
Herschel Smith: Don’t bicker, says Sebastian. Banish the term state’s rights. Perhaps he thinks we can vote our way out of the mess we’re in. And the best way to do that is to elect politicians who will slow the train as it heads over the cliff, rather than turning or stopping the train altogether. None of this matters anyway, since the GOP has already banished the term state’s rights from its vocabulary. They are all statists, which is why they lost the last election. If you want to lose the patriot vote, saying out loud that you’re banishing the term state’s rights is the surest way to ignominious defeat since no one will show up at the polls. But at least it would be honest.
3 comments:
I understand the states rights argument. Indeed, that subject is enshrined within our constitution plainly. However, I DESPISE those who make the mistake of turning Second Amendment issues into tenth amendment issues. This is a stark a mistake, as much a lie, as claiming that arms' rights are a fourth amendment issue.
If the Founders thought, while framing the confines of government called our Constitution, that addressing the right to arms was addressed in the fourth or the tenth, they wouldn't have adopted the second, as it would have been meaningless redundancy. No, they set arms and the rights we own to them aside as a topic all its own, this because of import. There was to be NO mistaking arms as something the fourth controlled or the tenth controlled. indeed, they crafted it so NEITHER could be hijacked to create exactly what has been created - the false premise that those other parameters control.
When that very thing was done in a race based fashion, states claiming authority to ban blacks from their right to arms, the "discrepency" was dealth with by that thing we call the 14th amendment. Now, absent judicial chicanery the self evident factor would have been enough, alongside people just admitting the reality that ummmm yeah, one man cannot OWN another man.
Regardless of that, it is true that states have rights. It is also true that states have powers. The same is true when it comes to the federal government. But NONE of that truth has anything to do with - and more importantly does not dispel that the right to arms is OUTSIDE those governmental rights and powers.
Therefore, those claiming states rights are right and proper to do so, providing doing so is not some justification for state level GUN CONTROL (permission slips included). Doing so amounts to nothing more than portending a false premise intended to justify VIOLATING the Framing Document of this Nation - And quite frankly, that translates to treason if intentional. SO what determines "intentional"? Simple. If explained to them in the terms I just did, A squared plus be squared equals c squared, and they STILL press forth with that false premise......then treason exists. They are then KNOWINGLY intending to violate the Constitution - while KNOWING that is exactly what they are doing. Once told, there is no more remaining excuse that "I didn't know".
Enough. Time to TELL THE TRUTH. Also, it is time to ACCEPT TRUTH
The truth comes out in the comments section. He wants to get rid of states rights because when blacks hear that term they think KKK.
I got news for him, collectivists have the black vote sewn up fairly well. You can never out-pander collectivists.
Here's an idea: come to the realization that both Dems/Reps are going down the same globalist road and break with the two-party paradigm...Reading this Sebastian fellows full article I came across an awful lot of things that tells me he is either a fool or a well trained shill. As soon as I see someone use the term "civil rights" as opposed to using the term "God given rights" I smell a rat.
Post a Comment