"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their Constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
by:
Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President
Date:
1st Inaugral Address March 4, 1861
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
that is bullshit
 -- Anonymous     
  •  
    A pretty ironic quote considering the source. Of course, politics is all about saying one thing and doing another.
     -- Bryan Morton, Stuart, FL     
  •  
    Surprising that any one would think a Constitutional right is Bulls**t.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  •  
    It's no wonder that Anonymous is anonymous. With chidish responses like that, I'd remain anonymous to.
     -- jim k, austin     
  •  
     -- Pedro Borrero, Yauco, Puerto Rico      
    Lincoln was a scoundrel. But no matter what he was this quote is right on. We should not take the last provision off the table.
     -- Cogitator     
  •  
    Though Lincoln's actions were diametrically opposed to his quote here, it does not alter the absolute correctness thereof. If this government (local to federal) is of, by, and for We The People sovereigns then, We have and shall retain the right to change it by what ever means necessary. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes: and accordingly all experience hath shewn 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." (Declaration of Independence)
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    Waffler is going to hate this one, lol! I gave it 4 stars, cause i don't believe Lincoln actually believed what he said.
     -- Chris, Durham     
  •  
    Right On!
     -- James Hatfield, Independence,Mo     
  •  
    We can judge Lincoln by the past and can easily deduce that he was a hypocrite and a scoundrel. However, the causes of the War Between the States have been analyzed by thousands and thousands of people -- and still they do not entirely agree. This statement while true is apparently more difficult to live under than one might think. There were a great number of unseen forces at work to 'divide and conquer' the United States, and I think Lincoln saw them. I believe he did act out of good faith even if it did backfire on him. If he could have lived up to these words, the conflict would have come from another quarter, no doubt. The first free republic in a thousand years still ignored the 3 million slaves in America -- and as long as that went unresolved, a cause would be used to end it. The Civil War emancipated the slaves but set the stage for the loss of sovereignty and the adoption of 'national' government. We are still fooling ourselves just as we did with slavery by turning us all into subjects to a de facto nationalist ruling class -- a nation of carpet baggers. Thanks, Mike, for that great quote from the Declaration of Independence.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    Lincoln should have heeded his own words as he was the one who violated his oath of office to uphold and protect the Constitution. He declared marshal law and murdered hundreds of thousands of Americans, north and south. I cannot think of a president more in violation of his oath than Lincoln. I think the quote by John Quincey Adams clearly states what should take place if a State wants to separate. After all, where do you think the Bill of Rights came from and what was the mind set of the States that wanted it passed? Not one State in 1789 agreed to Lincoln's interpretation of a Union. While this quote from Lincoln is the truth, he is the most egregious of violators to it's very essence. Most people in this country never wanted the war of Lincoln aggression, they were forced into it by gunpoint or media propaganda. I am teaching my children the truth about Lincoln and to others in my community. Deo Vindice
     -- Dan Gonzales, Royal Palm Beach     
  •  
    Great quote from one of the greatest men in history.
     -- warren, olathe     
  • 1
  •  
    I believe that Lincoln was one of the finest human beings that ever lived. That said, although I abhor the reason that the South wanted to separate from the union, they had every right to do so.They just did n't have the power to see it through. The North had no right to prevent their separation. As regrettable as it would have been, we should have parted as friends, and hope for a happy future between us. And I am born and raised, and still living in the North, Northerner. I just believe that everyone has the right to choose their own government, and dissolve a union with one that no longer serves them and their interests.
     -- Ken, Milford Pa     
  • 1
  •  
    Chris how can you be so shallow and naive. I love this quote and agree with it completely. We revolt and overthrow our government to a greater or lesser degree every election day. We vote on every member of the peoples house every two years, and 1/3 of the senate. We vote to keep or throw out the President every four years. What would prefer a revovling door ala Argentina style. It is interesting that Lincoln said this at his inauguration in which he was celebrating the revolutionary ascendance of a brand new polictical party - the Republicans. We all know or based on the thought processes of some commentators to these pages I hedge that statement, and say that some may know that the Constitution can be amended any time the people desire, and elections are truly revolts. No where in this quote is mention made of the use of force and I am sure Lincoln did not intend to imply any. Ken we have discussed soverignity on this site many times. I have concluded that it means "absolute authority". One should give it up very cautiously because once you give it up you can get it back except by force. The colonies by joining the union gave up absolute authority soverignity to the Union. The only way a state can leave is if the Union the Soverigen says so. The southern states tried to take it back by force but were unsucessful. Again as some of us may know the Constitution was written to form "a more perfect union", the previous effort of the Aricles being felt by all to be weak and ineffective. What is more perfect about a Union that anyone can walk out of at anytime for any reason.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Waffler, you really make me shake my head while smiling out loud. Your half truths, lies, attempts to rewrite history, new definitions, etc. only work with the most shallow and disingenuous individuals that are proud of their ignorance. The sovereignty issue has been discussed here on this blog almost to ad nauseam and, you've been proven wrong over and over and over again by Founder's comments, legal dictionaries, historical usage, law, etc., etc., etc. Do have to admire the persistence though. If you give up sovereignty to an intangible ethos then the intangible ethos is the sovereign; which means such intangible ethos (government) is the sovereign with absolute authority making void the concept of inalienable rights and an existence of a government of, by, and for the people (the sovereign is absolute with inherent right) We The People are reduced to licensed bond servants of the sovereign intangible ethos incapable of having a representative republic. It does not matter how many times we completely change the managers, employees, etc. of the sovereign intangible ethos, they (each and every - any and all) are only there to serve their ruler. It is either We The People sovereigns with united and structured representatives; or, it is a democratic oligarchy with all associated to the government (no matter how associated, by vote, appointment, hire, etc.) being servants and representatives of the government. How many Supreme Court decisions do I have to show that We The People have no rights, inalienable or otherwise,including the right of protection, from the current de facto despots. If the people revolted today, it would not be from the representative republic defined by the Constitution, it would be from an unlawful despot.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    Mike get a grip man. I just reread your post. T. Jefferson was talking about colonial government with no representation. That was the despotism. As I mentioned earlier about all the hell we do in this country is vote and take polls every other minute. So you can't blame anything on anybody but yourself and your friends whom you have been unable (either through lack of skills on your part or because your basic thesis or philosophy is wrong) to convince of the rightness of you views. Sorry but your wrongheadedness or dismal skills does not give you the right to resort to fire power, at least in my opinion.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Waffler, you're absolutely right, my wrongheadedness or dismal skills does not give me the right to resort to fire power to dismember or overthrow the government. I do believe that this country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. As per my first post quoting the Declaration of Independence, I believe that also. Either, We The People are sovereigns, making the country belong to me, thee, We, etc.; or, if instead of delegating our authority We give it up, as you suggest, the country then belongs to the alien intangible ethos that holds uniquely such sovereignty that me, thee, We, etc. can't get back. I used to win continually in court on Constitutional issues. Now those same arguments and understandings are not even accepted in court anymore. That's not wrongheadedness or dismal skills, that's the de facto despot removing the last vestiges of a Constitutional government. The despot now claims and enforces absolute sovereignty as was given up by the once sovereign individual. The herein quote makes clear certain remedies to such scenario.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    Not many agree with you Mike especially since they vote and are poll by public opinion. Only if you believe that those things are rig and fraudulent does your harangue hold true.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Ironically, most people on this blog agree with Mike. The voting populace has been educated in the language of modern day sophists who have re-written history. The founding fathers were not demigods who knew all things, but they were men of reason and understanding who looked back through the corridors of history to see what worked and what didn't -- they saw, as did Machiavelli, that Republics (voting and non-voting) have lasted for over 500 years; whereas Democracies (mobocracy) have no longer life history than 200 years. Sadly, the overwhelming majority of todays graduating students have no understanding in the ideas, world, evolution of thought, and true obstacles that our founders faced wherein they decided to give us the government they did. We are simply living in the fallout of such lack of education -- just because the majority votes for something, doesn't mean that it is the way it was originally intended to be. Don't be a fool.
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  •  
    Too many Americans, due to their own self/party-identification, are so tenacious in promoting their own propaganda that no one actually stops to think of the legitimately of their program. The Republicans want this, and the Democrats counter; the Democrats want this, and the Republicans counter -- ironically, the ideas that each group purport only vary in the road traveled to get to the same destination: Tyranny. Republican voters seldom stop to ask whether or not they can legitimately "make" a law, just as the Democrat voters seldom stop to ask the same question -- our country's overall propaganda, it seems, is more interested in voting against the other party than in voting upon principle. If you actually read peer reviewed papers of several wonderful professors around the US, you would know that this is a very real concern among many in academia. Why do Republics historically last longer than Democracies? Because of the reasoned adherence to a set of laws, philosophies, and understandings wherein the mob (whatever party is the largest at the time) may not simply pass legislation to screw with the minority (who may become tomorrow's majority) -- it creates a "rule book", if you will, of ideas, philosophies, and laws the majority must follow and never infringe upon. This basic idea has been carried out in various forms throughout history, and has proven much more concrete in overcoming monthly mobocratic/sensationalist movements. Read your history, don't be a fool.
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  •  
    I haven't participated in proving or disproving polls or the vote so, my opinion is just that, (not worth much) an opinion. Opinions are like anal cavities, every one has one. There is credible evidence piling up against electronic voting without a tangible back up. During the revolutionary war, the majority were content with despotic treatment, treachery, tyranny and all representation being that of the foreign sovereign. Those that loved liberty, freedom, and personal responsibility were not the favorite folks. (not opinion - history) The founders set up a government that was not based on opinion or polls. The founders set up a government based on law. And so, Waffler, thanks for the recognition. You have hit on the main difference between you and me. I, being sovereign, believe that the representative republic, that was defined by the Constitution, was the most perfect form of government I've been able to find. You, as having given up your sovereignty, loving wealth greater than liberty, crouching down to lick the hand that feeds you, love the life of an ignorant slave. Again, it doesn't matter how many times the government changes people (by vote, hire, or otherwise), each new person either represents We The People (if The People are sovereign) or, the representatives represent the intangible foreign ethos.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    I don't give a crap who agrees with who. I admit Logan that most on this site agree with Mike, but never forget that this is a very, very, very small site. I was referrring to the universe of public opinion polls, public sentiment and voting by which, whether the dictatorial types like you and Mike, wish to acknowledge it or not govern this country. Now I fuly understand that public opinion and democracy are concepts that are just to fragile and nuanced for your dictatorial brains to appreciate or understand. (Mike says I should look for guindance from Logan and Archer, And Logan says Mike is, well the cats meow.) Mike claims to have been a constitutional lawyer and Logan hobnobs with big shots from the EuroUnion. Archer well his mind has been fried by studying central banking. Logan your lack of faith in the individual as stated above from someone who states he is so supportive of the individual is well confusing to say the least. The bottom line is you guys are all intellectual frauds. After arguing for months about the Republic vs Democracy issue Logan admit well yes we are a majority ruled society and Mike wrote seemingly begrudingly that well yes we are a democracy. First of all what takes you guys so long to be honest and why do you backslide back into your same lame positions. It almost seems that you are on somes payroll to take the BS positions that you take.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    I like you Waffler. Never a dull moment, eh? I've never denied that we're not run by the voice of the people, or that we conduct our affairs by the majority's consent. Nice fallacy there though. I've denied, all along, that this alone is the whole story. We do run things by majority vote, but also hold that there are some things that the majority cannot infringe (make compact between neighbor and neighbor) -- specifically, when it violates the individual's inalienable rights. I trust the people explicitly, and wish they could have their freedom -- but, like Patrick Henry -- I know of no other way to guide my future but by looking into the past. As I look through history I see that it is the disposition of almost all men that as they gain a little power, they immediately begin to work towards tyranny and usurpation; it's just something strange that happens to men in power. I trust my neighbor to work towards his own self-interest in lawful order, but when I entrust him with protecting the exercise of my liberty -- well then, I hold him on a very, Very, VERY tight leash.
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  •  
    I like every body Logan but I don't like your name dropping or attempt at pulling rank based on some claim of academic relationships. If you think for a moment you would know that the Founders (God bless them) did not intend for the new government to be a Republic as you try to describe it with natural, or enlightenment, or God Given rules and regulations that would last a thousand years. They intended that it be a fluid and even revolutionary society. Jefferson spoke of a new revolution every generation. And Lincoln was quoted the other day of speaking of revolution, and this quote from his first Inauguaral Address. The revolution I think he was speaking of was the Republican Revolution that brought him to power. The French as you know have had several republics in between monarchies. So if your idea of US Government is the Roman model or some kind of set in stone republic, get over it that is not what we have nor is it what was intended. You denied that we are a democracy which I define as majority rule. The exact statement was "the US is a republic not a democracy". I accept your explanation above and feel that you have never actually understood democracy correctly or very well. I was taught that democracy includes the rights of minorities, I don't know where it was that you have heard differently.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Where is there protection of the minority in a mere majority rule system of government, unless it is just mere "trust" of the minority that such benevolence of the majority will continue? In absolute majority rule systems of government (true Democracies), there are no "inalienable" rights. Why? Because if you claim the majority gives rights, then you claim a system of government wherein the majority can legitimately take them away. If rights do not come from the majority, then where do they come from? If there is no "rule book" (laws, ideas, philosophies, etc.) for the majority to follow, then ANYTHING is possible in such systems. These systems only claim alienable rights -- So I pose you the questions: How do you purport inalienable rights within a Democracy? If the only legitimacy of government is majority vote (excluding an outside codex of laws) then you claim that the majority can legitimately rape, murder, or plunder whomever it wants. How do you overcome the disdain that our founders had for "Democracies" and their relentless observance in making us a "Republic"? Where do you find that our founders wished for Democracies? Can you provide as many sources from our founders for Democracies that I can for Republics to support your theory? Why did Machiavelli say that Democracies cannot endure for longer than 200 years, while many Republics consistently have lived for longer than 500? I'd ask you the ratio question again, but I don't think I'll ever get an answer out of you, because it would destroy your whole premise.
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  •  
    I propose a referendum to oust the present government - when a Presidents rating fall below 30% the people MUST ACT - but we don't - we love our warm comfortable armchairs - I see another person who was just about to provided evidence (Anthrax) rather conveniently committed suicide - when will we WAKE-UP
     -- RobertSRQ     
  •  
    Who guarantees your inalienable rights? What force or power can maintain your rights? The majority only. Even when the majority wishes to do something against minority rights, it sits down and ponders and says "No this is not right" and becomes circumspect in its actions. Inalienable rights is a human concept guaranteed by no one except humans. Democracy I agree Logan is a treacherous thing but it is all that we have. Decomcracy and common sense. Sorry.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Waffler, the majority does not guarantee or maintain our inalienable rights -- one man in a jury of twelve can guarantee your rights. It is the LAW that protects our rights, and the People guarantee them whether individually or collectively. The majority sometimes makes a wise choice, often not. As you have said many times, while we have the right to defend our rights individually even through the use of arms, appealling to the law and the courts is the proper form when not faced with imminent danger to life and limb. The Law is BLIND to the passions of the majority. The majority did not give slaves their freedom -- the slaves rebelled over and over, and eventually had to fight for it. Yes, Freedom is ultimately maintained by FORCE -- but the majority does not automatically constitute the majority force -- one man with his finger on 'the button' can wield more force than the entire population of Nagasaki. We are either a nation of laws or of men. I choose Law. Yes, democracy is a treacherous thing (you have finally got that right) BUT it is not the only thing (only Churchill would disagree, but England is neither a Democracy nor a Republic but a monarchy) -- the United States government is not a democracy but a balance of powers. The only thing that can be voted on is how to spend the Treasury. No majority can vote away rights -- they can make unconstitutional laws, and those laws can be repealed through proper due process. But if we are denied appeal, redress, and due process, the People (whether individually or collectively) may cancel their compact and start again. Sorry.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    Archer do all humans have inalienable rights? I would hope you would answer yes. Have humans lost their inalienable rights? I hope you would answer yes. The colonists for one, people under Soviet or Nazi oppresion for two other examples and of course numerous dictators and despots. So inalienable rights certainly can be alienated and have been. Which definitionally means that they are not inalienable at all. They can only be restored and maintained by a vigilant democracy wherein all are or at least most are aware of the fragility and sacredness of the thing. Archer do you believe that their is difference between the term "the people" and the term "the majority". Was the Declaration and the Constitution put into force by "the law" "the people" or the "majority"? I would respectively suggest that it was the majority of both the continental congress and the costitutional convention representing the majority of the people extant in the colonies. Without these majorities the freedom of the colonies nor their more perfect union would ever exist.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Do you have the right to breathe? Do you have the right to live? Who says so? Who are you? Why are you here? In order to understand the enlightened view that 'all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights' you have to understand that this is a declaration that is 'self-evident' as per the Laws of Nature. Read The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine if you want an excellent answer to your questions. The Declaration of Independence puts the issues plainly before all people in the world. Either our lives are ours or someone else's to command. The goal of the Founders was to establish a government that was in harmony with the Laws of Nature as they best understood them. Waffler confuses 'power' with 'right' and his arguments usually favor those with power as having the right. Yes, all humans have inalienable rights. NO, they have not lost them -- that is what 'inalienable' means. Slaves have rights whether they are being respected or not. If you agree that Soviets and Nazis do not respect the rights of mankind, then we are in agreement -- and therefore we shouldn't be trying to implement their forms of government, i.e. communism and nationalist socialist democracy (that's the translation of N.A.Z.I.). Liberty is the ideal to which all civilization aspires -- it is the natural state of mankind. Of course, so is the responsibility of providing for oneself. 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence does not a majority make -- but it works because American government is not nor has it ever been a democracy. Does freedom need to be defended? YES! Why? Because there are those that wish YOUR labors and properties to serve them. Does might make right? No. Do a million ignorances add up to one truth? No. America is a greater country than you give it credit, Waffler -- and the People deserve more credit, too. I am quite tired of hearing how much wiser you and your 'party' is than a simple individual trying to make his way in the world. The only dictatorial powers the individual demands is that of his own conscience and will. When a majority or collective impose their will (whether for beneficent purposes or not), it is dictatorship via democracy. Public opinion (all the powers-that-be need to control a democracy) is then treated as gospel. The fact remains, that Truth reigns, Natural Law is ultimate, and we either act in harmony with it or pay the consequences. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that followed were born of these fundamental truths. Remember, each state is sovereign as is each individual within it. From there all the rest rolls UP, not down. The Declaration of Independence is not law, it is a declaration -- it is what the signers stood for. I would say we have yet to actually live by this declaration completely -- there has been progress but also a lot of hypocrisy left to address. The Constitution is but a compact between sovereign states which were also formed by compacts of the sovereign citizens. The American people were FREED from the rule of the British Crown because of the brave men and women who fought off those who aimed to keep them enslaved -- and we call them patriots today, and they were a tiny minority of the populace at large. Those that make a stand for Liberty, make that stand for everyone -- even better when the cause is just. Even if they had lost that fight, it would not have changed the Declaration of the rights of man one iota. Beware, Waffler, your arguments are exactly those of the Tories and the Nazis. It is time to wake up and join the human race, not rule it.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    Historically it has been minorites that have taken away inalienable rights. It has been individuals from Kings, to Dictators. King George to Stalin and Hitler, Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah etcetera. Where the people can vote rights are protected and dictatorial society is ended. The Tories and the Nazis were more like you Archer in that they disrespected the rights of the majority of the people. The Nazi party was a small little party of gutter politicians. Main stream politicians, majorities, and free speech were eliminated. The worship of the strong man and propaganda insued. Such is always the case with minority tyrants.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Waffler, I began to write another "book" to counter-act your stupidity, but it's not worth my time tonight. You are an ignorant fool, and your entire premise of logic, (un)reason, and rhetoric is one counteracting fallacy after another. You are a traitorous hack to this beautiful country and to the ideas that made her great. Get an education, go to school. Stop talking about things you have no clue about. I'd be more than happy to have intelligent debate with you, but I realize that until you gain your education, this is an impossible endeavor.
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  •  
    Logan I see you as a would be gutter politcian strong man. Please don't give up I love taking you and your ilk on.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Waffler, as I have tried to point out, you confuse 'power' with 'rights.' A King is not "a minority," he IS the majority with everyone else at his command. The King (or council with the same power) does not respect the Rights of Man -- he rules by force. To simply substitute a King with 'majority rule' is still one set of people commanding another. This is not the American way -- it is not the nation that was founded by a free people. When you understand the concept of individual freedom (not to be confused with unlimited power), you will see how this translates into the sovereignty of the individual. A collection or association of sovereigns may contract among themselves how they might better manage the commonwealth to their collective benefit -- not to rule each other! They have to come to an agreement, and there are certain things which are off-limits or else the deal is off. Why? Because freemen continue to act within their sovereign capacity -- AND are 100% accountable for their actions. The attack on sovereignty, upon Liberty itself, is the shift from personal responsibility to corporate dependence -- that is to say, we expect others in the association to provide for us what we would have had to provide for ourselves individually. When we waive our responsibilities, we waive our rights -- we even become to believe that it is our 'right' to be taken care of, that it is our 'right' to a portion of the Treasury or a portion of our neighbors' wealth, that our 'rights' to life, liberty, and property are via the collective to take care of us, defend us, and give us the property we deserve. This is the road to despotism, whether by tyrant or majority rule. In a world where most of us know nothing of raising our food, building our homes, taking care of ourselves, it is natural that we call upon institutions to provide for us. Only when we make the shift from being at the effect of life to being responsibile for it can we make the leap from dependence to independence. We know, Waffler, that you like "taking us on" but you might actually try letting some of this in. You obvioulsy have benefited from this system of dependence and control -- most likely you were an 'enabler' of this system in your working life, so I do not expect you to see the other side (you sound like a tax collector). Just know that your benefits were at another's expense -- you most likely did not produce anything tangible but TOOK tangible things in return. I expect you will defend that system, but it was not what this nation was founded upon. Selfish, selfish, selfish.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    Very well stated, Archer, thank you.
     -- Logan, Memphis, TN     
  •  
    I am a constitutionalist and am a student of history. From what I can tell, our country has been taken over by international interests (Queen, bankers/Rothschild s-Rockefeller, Pope alliances) working through our own Intelligence Agencies (CIA, FBI, etc.) representing a very old battle that has been fought since the beginning of time before the tower of Babel. Simply put, whether there is control by 1 person at the top (God, King, Despot) or the person at the bottom (the slave, serf, plebeian, or modern citizen), the age old fight is going to continue until the slaves/citizens learn about protecting themselves on a regular basis with weapons and information and never leave that to someone else. Our modern predicament is one where the Intelligence Agencies have extremely advanced weapons, methods of communication, technology, etc. i.e. power, and have no intention of giving it over to anyone unless the new power has more power. What will that take? First, at least 10% of Americans knowing see the military and political coup that has overtaken America, the future plans of the "Shadow Gov" (N. American Union, Biochips, etc.) and be extremely outspoken and organized to inform the rest through media (mainstream publications) or the sheeple in the middle won't buy it and won't support any change. So until the people in the know are willing to become active enough to win the mainstream thought-zeitgeist, we are lost as a country and the forces of Enlil, the ancient blood lines, those that were born to rule, will prevail. Enough talk about Republican and Democratic parties, this is about who owns me. Do I think that God (Enlil/Yahweh) owns me or do I own myself and can rule myself. As long as I am a slave to ANYONE, this experiment, this revolt against our MASTERS, will fail. Please think much grander and not be sucked into parties or theologies, this is about not needing to be ruled and not needing to worship anyone else for my survival. I encourage everyone to read up on ancient Sumeria and the gods that walked among them and how those gods turned into our present gods and how we are still being controlled by their influence and following (Molloch-money, Enlil-Yahweh = white is right, man over woman, etc.) Look deep, study the ancient works and see how this is still being played out today. The CIA with their trillion dollar drug trade profits, NASA, DARPA, NRO, NSA with their ET mind control and weapons tech... The list goes on and on. What can we offer them that they don't already have, except, freedom from their masters? We need to break the Godspell and break the grip that the overlords have on good common people to achieve true freedom. All my best to those that care enough to engage in the battle for the truth. Drew
     -- Drew Healer, Raleigh     
  •  
    Dead on, but it falls on deaf ears since we have become a herd of sheep.
     -- tom cassidy, arcadia     
  •  
    This is a great quote from a great man, who prehaps had to make very hard decisions to the best of his personal ability. And bravo to Drew Healer. You are absolutly right about your historical findings and connections. i'm pleased that you are sharing them. I too study these things and am a constitutionalist or a libertarian depending on who you ask. There is only one piece of the puzzle you may have missed. (The power hungry rulers have been careful to make sure we miss it) The Creator of the world, Father of Jesus Christ is not for nor has ever been for any of these evil alliances. He abhors the ancient sumerian ET "gods". They are the fallen angels who sought to rule and destroy us with all the banker/elitist bloodline/pope methods. The pope does NOT represent this God. This Heavenly Father has always been there with those who support truth, freedom and liberty. He gave us FREE WILL to govern ourselves, we own ourselves, and God is there to support us in this. Anything short of this freedom is forbidden by The Father of Jesus. I invite you to study also what Jesus taught about the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. It is a very different government than the awfull net of lies and tyranny we have today. Most don't even know about it because the current powers that be will do anything to hide or distort truth which will free the people from their grip. I applaud anyone hungry for truth. Keep searching and spreading!
     -- Amy, Lancaster, PA     
  •  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2022 Liberty-Tree.ca