Unamerican people need to leave America

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note the bolded sections and how each part is a direct reference to the US and the people of the US.

I wish to post something from my blog at www.omnimetaversal.wordpress.com... that I feel exemplifies what it is to be American in this new era:

You know, I’m proud to be an American… not in the huge pickup truck with the lift kit, mud flaps and 17 patriotic bumper stickers type of way, but more in the sense that I truly understand the social impact that this nation has had on the entire world. No one will ever be able to convince me that America is anything less than the greatest marvel in all of history and the most incredible project ever undertaken by mankind. Despite this great nation’s inefficiencies, notorious crassness and propensity for scandals, it has largely been a success in terms of fulfilling the vision that our founding fathers had when they created this great state of all states.

America is the equivalent of a global reunion- after mankind has scattered himself over thousands upon thousands of years to create societies that span every corner of this globe, this nation above and beyond all other nations is the meeting point for all people of the world to congregate. Beyond being a global hub, the United States is a microcosm of the planet Earth itself: This great and bountiful nation has every terrain that is native to this planet and every last race, culture and nationality has come here to coalesce to create something that is beyond any spectacle. And there are undeniable racial and ethnic tensions here, but one cannot expect all of mankind to meet back in one spot after thousands of years apart from his brethren to just pick up right where he left off. It’s going to take time and effort to relieve the tensions, but this nation is the nation where it is being done.

Don’t get me wrong, many other nations, including many South American and European countries have some incredible diversity, but their brand of cultural diversity simply doesn’t rival the sheer immensity of this nation’s as well as the monumental vision that this nation’s founding fathers held in their hearts to be fulfilled. A walk through any one of our major cities’ downtown areas is the sociological equivalent of a nature trek through the lush and luxuriant Amazon basin. So when I say that I am proud to be an American, it’s not out of ethnocentrism because I don’t consider there to be a dominant ethnicity in this great nation- what I’m truly saying is that I am proud to be a member of the human race.

America is the flagship, the standard of a WORLD nation, and will be the benchmark for all nations to come. Perhaps growing up mixed race in a city of millions facilitated raising my view to already see all of this in large scope. I feel that I epitomize what it is to be an American because I see my physical features reflected in all varieties of people here. In addition, I see myself as a reflection of the social, cultural and political amalgamation that is this great nation.

In generations to come, I have no doubt that most of the negative notions and criticisms that the global media has towards America will be erased when the true beauty of this nation has been fully unveiled with the passage of time, the beauty that is the creation of the first place in mankind’s recorded history that all people from all corners of planet Earth gathered en masse to create the greatest society hitherto known…

There may be others to surpass it in the future, but my heart bleeds for this pioneer state in which mankind reunited with all of his long lost brethren to try to create a society of acceptance and prosperity for all. Whether or not this is ever fully attained is beside the point… the point is that it happened here, that America opened the door for all future global unification. I am proud to be an American=I am proud to be a member of the human race.

Irrespective of differing views and race relations here, this is the greatest project in all of history. All of humankind will see and understand the full magnitude of the development of this...

glorious nation one day, I have no doubt in my heart that it will.

“Imagine all the people living life in peace. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope someday you’ll join us, and the world will be as one.” -John Lennon

Originally posted by Jenna

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note the bolded sections and how each part is a direct reference to the US and the people of the US.

Is this supposed to somehow support your contention that Natural and inalienable Rights have been granted by Constitution, or that somehow they only relate to citizens of The United States of America? You have all ready conceded that one need not be a citizen of the U.S. in order to enjoy their rights within the U.S., and all your bolding notwithstanding, all you have accomplished by posting the Preamble is make the O.P.'s case.

At no point in this Preamble, nor anywhere else in the Constitution does it deign to grant Rights. The Preamble makes clear who established the government that has been mandated with protecting those Rights. The Preamble further makes clear why We the People of The United States have come together in order to form a more perfect Union, and that would be all the reasons you chose not bold. One of the passages you conspicuously avoided bolding was this:

and secure the Blessings of Liberty

Each and every word should be given significance, a legal standard you are clearly ignoring in order to push your dubious agenda, and by the use of "secure the Blessings of Liberty" it is clear that what is being secured, could not possibly be granted by that which follows.

I will continue to say it as often as it is necessary, the only possible way a tyrant can find legitimacy is when the People are willing to consent to such legitimacy, and tyrants can not find such legitimate power when the People are fully aware that the Rights they possess, need no grant by some form of government. When People understand this, all the yammering on about "granting of Rights" is understood for what it is, an advocacy of tyranny.

Originally posted by Jenna

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note the bolded sections and how each part is a direct reference to the US and the people of the US.

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.

Note that the Declaration of Independence came BEFORE the Constitution. And that the Constitution for the US Government only REITERATES not enumerates, or grants, or bestows, our Natural (Common Law) rights as >>>FREE

Originally posted by mryanbrown
Note that the Declaration of Independence came BEFORE the Constitution. And that the Constitution for the US Government only REITERATES not enumerates, or grants, or bestows, our Natural (Common Law) rights as >>>FREE

I see a lot of people in the U.S. who have no clue that freedom comes with some responsibility,most people actually.

Most people I meet remind me of children who never were forced to grow up,who think it is their right to do anything they want without having any regard to how it effects those around them.

I think cars should be equipped with transponders,to sense the speed zone and not allow the car to exceed that speed,but govt.should not be allowed to use it for other purposes which interfere with someones movement against the driver's will.

I think that cameras would be a good alternative to police cars rushing around at speed to apprehend a careening,erratically operated vehicle,or to lend witness to a crime,but govt. should not be allowed to use it for any purpose other than referring to a complaint from someone.

If you don't hurt anyone,you committed no crime,most crimes today are victimless crimes.
The only thing injured is the violator by the state for disregarding their codes and regulations,the state gains from the infraction,ALWAYS.

Freedom of speech would imply that you can express any idea you want,but little bitty babies gave rise to hate crime legislation.
If you find a statement offensive,racist,whatever....
Deal with it,or ignore it,but no,somebody gets fed to the system for nothing if no one was injured.
Don't even mention getting your feelings hurt,it happens all the time,it always has.

Our government is un-american in the way it treats it's population,but most people here don't act very american anyway,they get what they deserve I guess.
Go cry about that and see where it gets you.

I have grown weary of this subject over the years.

No offense intended.

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by mryanbrown
Note that the Declaration of Independence came BEFORE the Constitution. And that the Constitution for the US Government only REITERATES not enumerates, or grants, or bestows, our Natural (Common Law) rights as >>>FREE

Originally posted by mryanbrown
You can't have the United States of America / USC laws without the Declaration of Independence. It's where the Constitution establishes which rights it can not interfere with.

No law was ever supposed to conflict with the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence is a letter detailing the grievances the colonies had with England and the British Crown. It's not where our laws come from nor is it the basis for them. It did what it's called, declared our independence from England and the King and declared the colonies as free and independent states. It was never intended to be the source of our countries laws, that's where the Constitution comes in.

The United States is a concept. An ideology amongst States, and the States are the free people.

The US started as a concept yes. A concept that the colonies did not have to follow the laws handed down by the King and could declare themselves to be independent.

The free people with unalienable rights that must not be interfered with.

Whose version of unalienable rights are you speaking of?

I'm sorry. I know it's difficult to unlearn countless years of propaganda, ignorant dogma, and false assumptions. Especially when the majority of it is continuously and blatantly forced upon us by our own government.

But it's simple.

Please, don't do the condescending thing. It's unbecoming and hardly fosters civil discussion.

But if so, you can not discredit or refuse to acknowledge the Declaration of Independence's authority.

The Declaration of Independence has no legal authority for me to discredit or refuse to acknowledge. It was a very well written letter that remains important in our nations history, and I'm very glad it was written, but again it is not the basis of our laws.

It is what freed all men from tyrannical government. And enumerated our God given, unalienable natural rights under common law. Which of course is the system of law the Constitution is founded on.

Incorrect. It did not free all men from tyrannical government. It stated the belief of the colonies that they had the right to be free of the King and his tyranny, the reasons why they believed they had that right, and declared that they were free of him and England from that point forward. The only things enumerated and deemed unalienable rights were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We seem to have differing definitions of what common law actually is. Common law does not in any way have anything to do with natural rights.

Source
Common law is the system of deciding cases that originated in England and which was later adopted in the U.S.. Common law is based on precedent (legal principles developed in earlier case law) instead of statutory laws. It is the traditional law of an area or region created by judges when deciding individual disputes or cases. Common law changes over time.

The Constitution never changes unless voted on and agreed to by Congress. Common law on the other hand changes frequently.

Both of which clearly state that these rights are unalienable, present with all men. And no one may ever pass law to interfere with that. Whether they are fraudulent 14th Amendment 'US citizens' or lawful 'state Citizens'.

The Constitution does not clearly state anything as being unalienable anywhere. No laws can ever be passed that contradict what is laid forth in the Constitution. Any un-Constitutional laws are null and void. The same can not be said of the Declaration of Independence.

I will ask again, whose version of natural rights and natural law are you speaking of?

Originally posted by Jenna
The Constitution, on the other hand, is and clearly states in the Preamble that it was written by the people of the United States for the people of the United States.

Seems it is now my turn to nit pick. You are mixing what Abraham Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg Address with the Preamble.

..and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
- Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address

The Preamble reads as following:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

No where in there does it clearly state that it was by the People, for the People. Now, if you are referring to the first sentance, whereas it states "We the People of the United States", I believe this is a declaration similar to what you are thinking, but rather a way of establishing the concept that the formation of the Union between the States derives from the People as a whole.

Similar, but not a clear statement as you have presumed.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Seems it is now my turn to nit pick. You are mixing what Abraham Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg Address with the Preamble.

Nope, sure didn't. I quoted it in the very first post on this page, and you've even quoted it yourself. I'll bold it here the way I did in that post.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We the people of the United States [...] for the United States. Clear as day. Three clear references to the US and the people in it.


Edit: Changed "page 14" to "this page". Wasn't sure if it would go to the next page when posting, but since it didn't the page number isn't necessary.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by Jenna]

Originally posted by Jenna
Incorrect. It did not free all men from tyrannical government. It stated the belief of the colonies that they had the right to be free of the King and his tyranny, the reasons why they believed they had that right, and declared that they were free of him and England from that point forward. The only things enumerated and deemed unalienable rights were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

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 seems like a blatantly self-evident statement. No where in that statement do they mention the king. They never state in any fashion that they wish to replace one form of rule for another. They wanted government to have a neutral party for disputes. Not to dictate the terms of someones every moment.

Should they have made it more clear than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Perhaps, life, freedom, and the ability to make a life for yourself and be independent?

This will sound sexist. But I don't believe a woman really appreciates the stance the men were taking when they mentioned "pursuit of happiness". It wasn't the ability to have fun, and legally approved recreational time.

It was stating that a man had the right to go out and find unused land, to use it for crops, to drink its waters, to use it's earth and make a home. To provide for ones self free of any bondage.

Many have lost sight of the fact we are in forced servitude. We are in bondage. In order to have water to drink, food to eat, shelter to survive the elements. We must work, for someone. You are either an employee below someone, an employer reporting to someone, and a business owner liable to someone.

You are no longer free to pursuit happiness. Most importantly, you are not free.

So I apologize for sounding condescending. I was likening my experience, and falsely assumed you could reach the same evident conclusions in time also. I was raised on the propaganda, I believed in it. I wanted to join the military like my family before me.

Then I realized as one day I hope you will. That the government was never created to rule over us. It was created to work for us, to ensure no ones rights were interfered with. It's very simple.

How does my driving interfere with your rights? It doesn't. (Licenses unlawful)
How does a medical cannabis patient interfere with your rights? They don't. (Regulation unlawful)
How does a man owning a gun interfere with your rights? It doesn't. (Permits unlawful)

Someone causing an accident while driving, interferes with your rights. (Government can interfere)
Someone medicating in your personal space violates your rights. (Government can interfere)
Someone shoots you or at you interferes with your rights. (Government can interfere)

Common/Natural law has a simple premise said a million ways.

Do no harm, cause no loss. And as long as you follow that, government is not meant to interfere with you. Otherwise it is tyranny. It is forced control over your life. Which is NOT life, and liberty, and prevents the pursuit of happiness.

Check out - John Harris, Schaeffer Cox, Rob Mernard, etc.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by mryanbrown]

Originally posted by mryanbrown
That seems like a blatantly self-evident statement. No where in that statement do they mention the king. They never state in any fashion that they wish to replace one form of rule for another. They wanted government to have a neutral party for disputes. Not to dictate the terms of someones every moment.

The document that statement comes from is a document written declaring the actions of the King to be those of a tyrant and the people of the colonies to be free of said tyrant. You can't pull one statement from a document and ignore the context in which it was written.

Otherwise I can pull the sentence "We are in bondage." from your post and later claim that you were speaking literally and that you and others with you were bound and gagged while someone else typed for you. (I'm assuming that's not the case, and feel safe in that assumption.) Context is important, particularly when pulling statements from documents written decades ago.

This will sound sexist. But I don't believe a woman really appreciates the stance the men were taking when they mentioned "pursuit of happiness". It wasn't the ability to have fun, and legally approved recreational time.

You're right. That does sound extremely sexist. Rather than go on a rant that would likely be dismissed as the ravings of a mad feminist, I'll ignore the sexism.

So I apologize for sounding condescending. I was likening my experience, and falsely assumed you could reach the same evident conclusions in time also. I was raised on the propaganda, I believed in it. I wanted to join the military like my family before me.

Then I realized as one day I hope you will. That the government was never created to rule over us. It was created to work for us, to ensure no ones rights were interfered with. It's very simple.

How do you do that? You managed to be condescending while apologizing for being condescending... I'm in awe of your skill, actually. Not every day I see it pulled off quite that well.

You assume that I do not realize that the government works for the people, or was intended to anyway. You also assume that if I don't follow the same path you did then I cannot reach the same conclusion any other way. On both counts you are completely incorrect in your assumptions. I've had many a discussion on this site and off about the governments proper place and have explained to many a person that they are supposed to be our employees, and that it's not supposed to be the other way around.

What I'm wondering now is whether you made these assumptions because in your mind a woman couldn't understand such difficult concepts, or because no one who hasn't followed your exact path could. Either way you wouldn't be the first to falsely assume you know what my level of understanding is on any given subject. Nor are you the first to tell me that a woman wouldn't understand something. Sadly you likely won't be the last either. On the bright side, at least you didn't tell me that I should "know my place". Let this be a lesson in how wrong assumptions often are.

Common/Natural law has a simple premise said a million ways.

Common law and natural law are not in any way, shape or form the same thing. Not even close. Not by a mile. Never in this lifetime will they ever be the same thing. How did you come up with the notion that they are?

You've ignored me twice so I'll ask again. Whose version of natural law are you going by?

Check out - John Harris, Schaeffer Cox, Rob Mernard, etc.

Can't recall hearing of any of them, or if I have I've forgotten their names, so I will.

reply to post by mryanbrown


"No law was ever supposed to conflict with the Declaration of Independence. The United States is a concept. An ideology amongst States, and the States are the free people. "

Good. Then, by your definition of freedom, the inalienable rights of all & the States being the free people, there should be no problem with secession. (I think you might ought to check this out with the community organizers before you agree, though)

Surely it is not being proposed here that the founders of the United States and the framers of the Constitution were thinking "globally". Otherwise, what would have even been the point? And why should they seek independence from King George if that was their mindset?

There's only one natural law. There is no nation that coined it, no nation that perfected it. It is inherent within everyone.

Do no harm, cause no loss. It covers everything.

@Dogs x3...

Yes states may secede. New ones may also be formed by people not wishing to secede. That's the right of the people to establish new contracts amongst themselves on how they wish to conduct government amongst one another.

(You don't have to be in the Union) (Ask Texas) (States are sovereign) (more parenthesis to prove my point about authority being derived from the sovereign people to conduct government amongst themselves, not to rule themselves)

The document that statement comes from is a document written declaring the actions of the King to be those of a tyrant and the people of the colonies to be free of said tyrant. You can't pull one statement from a document and ignore the context in which it was written.

Honestly can't believe I have to ask this...

Why in ANY GODS NAME YOU MAY BELIEVE IN would they declare independence (yeah just from the king, *this is me pfffffting*), enumerate GOD GIVEN, UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

To turn right around and establish a government to replace what the king was doing?

EDIT: AND THEN NOT GRANT THEMSELVES THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION...

The letter was directed at the king. I never disputed that. The truth of it, was for every man world wide. And doubly goes for our own government.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by mryanbrown]

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Did you happen to miss the part about insure domestic tranquility?
I am just curious.

reply to post by mryanbrown


"The truth of it, was for every man world wide. And doubly goes for our own government."

They declared the right to freedom for every man worldwide?


If that were....cr*p, true/ what they were thinking/ etc- wouldn't that have been just a bit of a reach?

I want someone to point out the part to me where it invites everyone, everywhere to come to the new world and that they will always be welcome here, with open arms.

& THEN, having said that- what was the deal with the Spanish-American War, the War of 1812 and the Mexican American War when Mexico attacked Texas in 1846, which was after the US annexed Texas? What happened to our "welcome to America, Global Brothers" in all that?

NEWSFLASH: Cinco de Mayo, which celebrated widely in Texas & the Southwest "seeks limited celebration inside Mexico". (per Wikipedia) The French, incidentally, went after Mexico because they reneged making interest payments to countries that Mexico owed money to. (HooBoy, the bankers are gonna LOVE this!)

[edit on 5-5-2010 by DogsDogsDogs]

reply to post by SpectreDC


OK, I'll take the bait and agree with you to a point. These inalienable rights, though God given, necessarily had to be secured by the blood of patriots and the blood of tyrants. In other words they are not defended easily and require commitment and sacrifice.

So let's throw open the borders, but under the following conditions. Absolutely no handouts shall be provided to you. Use your God given talents to make your own way. You will not be given free health care, pay for it yourself or buy insurance. You will not be given jobs at lower wages, just because you are not an official citizen. In other words compete fairly with other 'Americans' for jobs. You will pay taxes and any money sent to foreign bank accounts will be taxed at the same outrageous level the rest of us 'citizens' pay.

If you commit a crime, expect to be treated poorly. Bring back the gallows pole. If you can't speak English don't expect to be coddled in your own language. Use your brain to learn the language of the land. If you want to become a citizen learn our laws and our customs. If you want to live in a ghetto and export your third world culture and values to America, please leave now.

I say swing the borders wide open to anyone who actually loves America and wants to be an American, for good or for ill, and who is willing to sacrifice for the ideals that made America great. Unfortunately the vast majority of illegals do not qualify. Many of them hate America and the ideals that you have espoused and want to suck it dry prior to taking over and remaking it in the image of their broken third world cultures. the recent Pakistani terrorist immigrant is a case in point.

That's right not all cultures or ideals or religions are of equal value. Discrimination is good. Like discriminating between good and evil, or discriminating between habits that improve a culture or habits that destroy a culture. However I agree with you. Anyone who actually loves America, is willing to sacrifice for this country and contribute should be welcomed. Everyone else please leave now.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
There's only one natural law. There is no nation that coined it, no nation that perfected it. It is inherent within everyone.

Do no harm, cause no loss. It covers everything.

Sounds closer to the golden rule to me than any natural law I've ever heard of. So I'll ask again. Whose definition are you using? The definition changes depending on whose interpretation you are using, and yes it is important that the distinction be made. The answer you've given is a cop-out and leads me to believe that you're just using the term without understanding it. Seeing as how I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, I'd like to believe that's not the case.

Why in ANY GODS NAME YOU MAY BELIEVE IN would they declare independence (yeah just from the king, *this is me pfffffting*), enumerate GOD GIVEN, UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

To turn right around and establish a government to replace what the king was doing?

I don't believe in one. "For the love of all that's holy" will work as an alternative phrase if you'd like one, but the one you used is fine with me. As for why they named unalienable rights, context, context, context.

Declaration of Independence
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. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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.

--Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Your answer is right there. They listed these unalienable rights and then transitioned to how the King was violating those rights. That was their reasoning for declaring independence from England and the King. They believed those rights were unalienable, the King was abusing those rights and behaving like a tyrant, therefore it was their duty to overthrow him and institute a new government.

The new government was not intended to replace the king as a tyrant. It was intended to be a Republic that served the people. Unfortunately, Congress has forgotten that simple fact.


Edit: Broke up the wall-o-text. That may have been all one paragraph in the Declaration, but it doesn't make for easy reading here.

[edit on 5-5-2010 by Jenna]

So, in quoting the Declaration of Independence, you are essentially saying that it is time to over through our government. For it states that any time that a "Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it [in this case, our government] and to institute new Government...". ? Right?
You are referring to the law in Arizona and the opinions related too, that, in fact, mirror our federal laws on illegal immigration and the laws that forbid illegal entry into this country. Right?
I agree with you to those ends. Our government is impeding on the unalienable rights of the world we live in. It is either time to abolish all these laws or institute new Government. That or accept the laws of immigration. I am of partial Mexican heritage myself, but all legal. I think going back to the time when Colorado became part of America.
Entry into this country can be done legally. So, change the laws or abide by them. Those are really the only two options here.

Sorry, I did post this without reading any of the responses. So, if this has been said or if I am missing the point of the OP, please disregard.