[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'll end my posting on this thread by re-iterating that I admire the woman in the video for reminding the feds that it's not up to them to choose whether ot not to grant our liberties to those with whom they disagree.

She is wrong. We are no longer governed by a constitutionally limited central power nor do we any longer possess unalienable rights. The federal administrative state has legally unlimited power to do as it wishes so long as it twists the meanings of clauses in the Constitution, which it doesn't follow anyway. And the basis of this progressive state is that all rights are granted by the government. And those who disagree with or threaten to undo the administrative state, especially those who wish to revert to a previous constitutional republic, are enemies of the state, and can be dealt with as such.

These career politicians need to be reminded that any authority they have comes from us...not the other way around. These liberties are not bestowed upon us by empty suits in Washington, they are bestowed upon us by a higher power.

No. Whatever authority, right, well being that we possess is granted by government authorities and expert bureaucrats. It is we who have the empty suits, and it is the government who will provide them. Notions of a "higher power" than government are retrograde and silly.

It's not for politicians to decide who has the right to petition the government and who doesn't.

Of course politicians have that power as they have collectively granted it to themselves. As the purveyors of government, it is they who grant rights.

If we want to say that all groups who engage in the political process are ineligible for this tax status, fine. But the feds can't bestow favorable status on groups with which they agree, and deny that status to groups with which they disagree.

This administrative hybrid of Federal Government absolutely can bestow favor on those who support it. That is only "natural." And it is only right that it deny status to those who would destroy it.

Paul S, I'm sure you can agree with that. The fight these people in DC are fighting is your fight too. The freedoms they demand are your freedoms too.

Do not be so sure. Far more people agree with the administrative state than you might think. Probably a majority, wittingly or unwittingly. It is the new "baseline" that Spence refers to but does not define. It has replaced the old, "outdated", constitutional baseline. The "functional" freedoms which are granted by government are far more convenient than the legal freedoms protected by the Constitution. The Constitutional individual freedoms are prescribed by an onerous individual responsibility. The collective freedoms granted and prescribed by government are attached only with the responsibility of acceding to that government. Life is less complex, "freer", when lived by government dictate and responsibility. The freedoms fought for by tea-partiers are not so favored by as many Americans as you would wish.

And not all tea partiers are birthers

But they are an enemy of the State.