Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Inalienable RIGHTS--PROPERTY-Life-Liberty-bho Land (PROPERTY) Grab...

bho and his Socialist-Progressive supporters want to take more of our land...

The original wording for the Declaration of Independence was:
...they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and PROPERTY...

The Founders knew that the sovereigns -Royals-could take anyone's property at will...
Let's concentrate on the word INALINABLE!!!

Now I go to Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary...I trust Noah--He was educated before the re-written history and actually used 27 lexicons to write his work...that's 27 folks-a brilliant man!!!!......

Alienate,v.t.[L. alieno]
l. To transfer title, property, or right to another; as, to alienate lands, or sovereignty.

Alienable, a. That may be sold or transferred to another; as land is alienable...

Inalienable, a. [Fr. ; in and alienable, from L. alieno, alienus]
Unalienable; that cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another. The dominions of a king are inalienable. All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable....

My friends-those in government today- really believe that they are -ROYAL-
NO-they are NOT-We have NO KING BUT KING JESUS!!! the motto of the U.S. Revolution!! 1776!!!

The land grabs started with T. Roosevelt-Carter stole more than any other President--
Now- bho and his Socialist Progressive supporters want to take more private and state land...

bho-PROPERTY Grab

12 comments:

Lowrence said...

I recently came across your blog. I was very much impressed and Great post, i like this post.

I have added your blog in my favorite Blogs and web site at

So If you could provide me a link to my blog, it will be much more useful for all user. It would be great pleasure if you can add this link http://nappilesbyan.blogspot.com/ in your blog so that it can benefit our visitors.

Hope you would add my blog...

BB-Idaho said...

The original wording in the Declaration was:
"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."
...can't seem to find 'property'
in there?

Carlos Echevarria said...

@ Carol, good to see you back, have you been on vacation? Best Regards from chilly Miami (where is Nobel Prize winner Al "Spotted Owl" Gore when you need him? our coldest winter in 30 yrs!)

christian soldier said...

BB-I- Property was the original wording-had to be changed because of the slavery issue-slaves were considered 'property'--compromise made to 'pursuit of happiness'...

CE-just extremely busy w/ classes and producing great art :-)

L-can't seem to access a site for you...am I pressing the wrong keys--:-)

BB-Idaho said...

CS, I can't track that in Jefferson's original document, but certainly the inalienable phrase with regard to property appears in John Locke. The only documented info as regards
slavery vs property rights appears
subsequent to 1789. But I'll take your word for it. Now as for government land, it was fairly (or unfairly if you have Indian blood)
bought and paid for' like the Louisiana Territory from France, Gadsden Purchase from Mexico, etc. Much of the good government land was sold in parcels to individual Americans in our westward immigration. So, things like Yellowstone, Yosemite, Glacier and even large tracts of National Forest and Bureau of Lands
acreages never belonged to any individual..some say they belonged to All Americans. On the other hand, abuse of 'emminent domain'
is, I think a legitimate gripe.
Say, for example Walmart wants to put a superstore smack in the center of the battle of Gettysburg.
They grease the skids with the locals (hey, we pay lots of taxes, bring business, etc) and get the
land they want by governemnt fiat.
Or state highway commissions (or the TVA in the 30s and Oak Ridge in the 40s)..simply declaring that land is needed by the government and buying out the locals. Legally, they are required to pay a fair market price, but still it is taking an individual's property, sometimes against his will. We got a battle going on out this way where they want to relocate an improved highway right through some beautiful rural homes.
So you got a point CS.

Z said...

I hate it when they destroy beauty for nasty big box stores, particularly.
I have the distinction of living nowhere remotely near a WalMart, but we've got the rest creeping into Santa Monica, etc.
Thank goodness we didn't have ROOM for anything that big and The People's Communist Republic of Santa Monica actually HAS done plenty of good by not bowing to the $$$ (on this, not everything)

Pastorius said...

Great post, Carol.

Do you have a reference for the "We have no King but Jesus" quote?

MK said...

If leftists like obama had their way, you'd be owing money in taxes from the day you are born, taxed all through your working life and then taxed further once you're dead too.

Whether it be via taxation, higher prices or land-grabs, one way or another they want as much of yours as they can get.

William Stout said...

Private property is the foundation for the capitalist system. This is why it is under constant assualt by the left. Once your private property rights have been negated, your liberty goes next.

christian soldier said...

Pasto-I highly recommend the books:
_The Light and the Glory_ Peter Marshal& David Manuel...
_The Myth of Separation_ by David Barton...
_The Re-Writing of American History _ by Catherine Miland (sp)
TO NOTE:
Samuel Adams in his Committee of Correspondence letters signed all the letters with no King but King Jesus...
I'll look for other references and post on it...

christian soldier said...

Thank you all for commenting on this issue-it precedes and is one of the foundations 'stones' for the Bill of Rights ....
C-CS

Z-man said...

Obama was never big on the Constitution anyway if you listen carefully to some of the interviews cited by Glenn Beck. I see some houses that are practically on cliffs now that weren't that way originally because some developer wants to build the umpteenth shopping mall, think they care if Fido jumps over the fence to his death? The people have no rights, that's nice in theory but I'm wondering if we even have a Constitution anymore.