The Declaration of Independence
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate 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; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of 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.
read the rest here.
_____________________________________________________________________
Dallas News
12:00 AM CDT on Friday, October 22, 2010
WASHINGTON – Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership.
In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas pastor, said a violent uprising "is not the first option," but it is "on the table." That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County GOP, who called the remarks "inappropriate."
Broden, a first-time candidate, is challenging veteran incumbent Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson in Dallas' heavily Democratic 30th Congressional District. Johnson's campaign declined to comment on Broden.
In the interview, Brad Watson, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort Worth in which he described the nation's government as tyrannical.
"We have a constitutional remedy," Broden said then. "And the Framers say if that don't work, revolution." Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive government is to "alter it or abolish it."
"If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary," Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain's King George III.
Watson asked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current government. "The option is on the table. I don't think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms," Broden said, without elaborating. "However, it is not the first option."
Jonathan Neerman, head of the Dallas County Republican Party, said he's never heard Broden or other local Republican candidates advocate violence against the government.
"It is a disappointing, isolated incident," Neerman said. He said he plans to discuss the matter with Broden's campaign. Ken Emanuelson, a Broden supporter and leading tea party organizer in Dallas, said he did not disagree with the "philosophical point" that people had the right to resist a tyrannical government. But, he said, "Do I see our government today anywhere close to that point? No, I don't."
Emanuelson said he's occasionally heard people call for direct action against the government, but that they typically do not get involved in electoral politics.
That Broden is "engaged in the election and running for office shows he's got faith in the system as it is," Emanuelson said.
Other statements Also in the interview, Broden backed away from other controversial statements he has made at rallies and on cable news appearances. In
June 2009, he described the economic crash in the housing, banking and automotive industries as "contrived" and a "set up" by the Obama
administration.
Asked Thursday about the validity of these, Broden said they were "authentic crises facing this nation." Broden also retreated from other remarks last year that chided Americans for not being more outraged over government intrusion, comparing them to Jews "walking into the furnaces" under the Nazi regime in Germany.
"They are our enemies, and we must resist them," he said of government leaders. Broden said Thursday that he wasn't trying to compare President Barack Obama to Hitler and he mistakenly linked the U.S. in 2010 to Nazi Germany.
In the uphill campaign against Johnson, Broden has sought to capitalize on her misuse of scholarship funds from the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, a nonprofit entity.
In late August, The Dallas Morning News reported that Johnson provided 23 scholarships over five years to two of her grandsons, two children of her nephew, and two children of her top aide in Dallas. None of those recipients were eligible under the foundation's anti-nepotism rules or residency requirements. She has repaid the foundation more than $31,000.
Replies
They did this to Carl Paladino in his debate on homosexual ( I refuse to use 'gay') marraige, (his answer was against BTW) knowing full well his religious posistion on this and that the others in the debate were all pro-homosexual marraige. They demanded a 'yes or no' answer while Paladino was explaining his position...kept interupting him while he was saying that he is for the civil rights of all,\ but marraige is a sacrament between a man and a woman.
As for revolution, even to violent overthrow, it's NOT my first choice, but if this bunch continues to block all other avenues; Patrick Henry had it right: "But as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
But NOT the kind of passive led off to the gas chambers kind of death, as happened to so many during WWII, and as Obama and friends want to do to so many of us, especially the elderly and disabled, the kind of death that comes when standing up and FIGHTING for what's right!
THATS WHAT IS SAY.....NO GAS TO GET HOME, NO GAS TO FEND FOR OURSELVES, THATS OBAMA WAY OF CONTROL.....G A S ............WE MUST START NOW TO KEEP OUR FREEDOM,
LIBERTY.......I REALLY THINK WE ARE SITTING DUCKS, SO ARE THE SERVICE MEN & WOMEN..
MAY GOD BE WITH US........
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next