In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
WHEN in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to desolve the political bands (of The British Monarchy – my emphasis) which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the seperate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 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.
BRITISH MONARCHY’S MOVEMENT FOR A NEW WORLD ENTROPY
Co-Construct The Modus Operandi For Society To Be Ruled Under ==> Monarchy Serfdom aka; Dictatorship aka; Communism ==> So as to Dictate Life based upon Economics OWING ALL TO THE ROYAL PAIN IN THE ASS -> The British Monarchy
Paul Krugman A New Keynesian Economist : This Is A Smoke Screen For Creating Failure And Then Crying Out For Centralized Control aka; British Monarchy. This type of Economics is pure propaganda for George Soros To co-construct FAILURE - thus producing complete knowledge to Hedge Against aka; Investing 'short' money against what is being made to fail. In short, this is called Pump/Dump Economics an Illegal Insider Trading Economic Smoke Screen personified by Paul Krugman and exploited by British Agent George Soros.
Yesterday, on ABC’s “This Week,” New York Timescolumnist Paul Krugman addressed the subject of escalating health care costs. He said, “Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.”
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:
It was not necessary for Paul Krugman to “clarify” what he meant yesterday, but he took the opportunity to do so anyway on his blog. He wrote that “health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for—not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care.” Indeed, he is calling for death panels. In fact, he even characterized his comments on “This Week” by saying that “the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on ‘death panels and sales taxes.'” (My emphasis.)
Krugman has written 19 columns mentioning “death panels,” almost all of them in a mocking tone. He has spoken of the “death panel smear”; the “death panel lie”; and the “death panel people” as being part of “the lunatic fringe.” Similarly, there was a New York Times
editorial in September that took to task “the cynical demagoguing about ‘death panels.'” Two weeks ago Times
columnist Maureen Dowd
blasted those who engaged in “their loopy rants on death panels,” and one week ago Times
columnist Frank Rich talked about “fictions like ‘death panels.'”
So it turns out that all along Krugman’s ridicule was just a smoke screen: he’s wanted death panels from the get-go. Whether he speaks for the editorial board, Dowd and Rich is not certain, but it’s time for them to stop the antics and tell the public what they really believe. Krugman has. Catholics, especially the bishops, would love to see them all come clean.
Unalienable Rights – Absolute Rights – Natural Rights
The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.
By the “absolute rights” of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the “absolute rights” of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect. People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123).
Chancellor Kent (2 Kent, Comm. 1) defines the “absolute rights” of individuals as the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and inalienable, and it may be stated as a legal axiom [A principle that is not disputed; a maxim] that since the great laboring masses of our country have little or no property but their labor, and the free right to employ it to their own best interests and advantage, it must be considered that the constitutional inhibition against all invasion of property without due process of law was as fully intended to embrace and protect that property as any of the accumulations it may have gained. In re Jacobs (N. Y.) 33 Hun, 374, 378.
EXERCISE YOUR UNALIENABLE RIGHTS WITH RESPECT FOR OTHERS
AND NEVER LET GOVERNMENT DEPRIVE YOU OF THEM!
Transcript of the entire Declaration of Independence
Learn the fate of the signatories
The 13 Colonies