“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”

Self-evident:  meaning what?  That it’s obvious?  That it’s an observation of reality?

Self-evident is objective observation.
   
It is a fact that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights; essentially no legality to impose a lien upon our inherent rights.  

However, I have some questions regarding this word ‘creator’.

Who decides which creator? 

Is not self-righteousness that which a person deems right for self?
 
If it is right for self does it imply that it has to be right for everyone else?

If it is right for everyone else, then they have no say or self-exploration of the topic?  

If you have decided the definition of creator for everyone, is this freedom or control of the conscious mind of an individual?

If a man disagrees with your definition of creator, what does that stir within you?

Why is this topic so important? 

Why must this topic be part of government?   Why must it be part of politics?

I posit to you that until society, especially those in politics, stop defining for others that which they have decided for self, there is no freedom.   We will do nothing more than spin our wheels; each feigning their control as freedom.

People want a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ established so they can stand on a platform of righteousness instead of a platform of freedom; instead of a platform of consent.  Why do you think that is?

Is shared suffering the motivation behind those who define life for others and seek control, “if I have to live by these precepts, rules and regulations which I suffer through, then so do you.”

If you do not want to control the definition of ‘creator’ for others, why bring it into politics?

If you “feel” that it is fine for others to believe as they do, then why does it matter how a person defines ‘creator’?

If you uphold free market principles of value leading to choice, why would you care what choice an individual makes?

Why would a person self-inflict victimization upon himself through someone else’s definitions or opinions?   Do you not think you have a choice?  If you don’t have choice, what do you call that?

Do you seek outside yourself validation and the need for others to agree with you in order to live your life?

“We were founded as a Christian nation”.  Yes, and as a slave nation; a nation of discrimination; a nation of suffrage, yet we don’t seem to have issue self-evaluating and self-correction toward freedom in these areas?

What is it that drives within you the need for everyone to agree with you regarding your definition of creator? 

Why is it that you seek to control others? 

And when you cannot control their minds, you want to use government as the weapon to silence the opposition, appear like a victim and avoid personal responsibility? 

Why do you claim others want to silence you, but then your behavior seeks to silence your opposition?

If you uphold free market principles; free choice, freedom of the individual, then the individual will decide the value of something and place his self-interest, is that not freedom?

If you decide that government needs to favor your definition of creator; your beliefs of the world; your ownership of the nation, then explain again, how is it you’re different than the other guy who seeks control, just through different means?

All interest is self-interest.

There is no action taken by the individual that is not in his own self-interest.

Why so much emotional demagoguery regarding such a statement? The reason is because those who rail against it don’t like the fact that they are revealed for their subterfuge actions.

The FACT is that every move you make is taken in your own self-interest, whatever that interest may be.

The individual who gives to charity does so for what reasons?

The individual who runs for office does so for what reasons?

The individual who goes to a restaurant for dinner does so for what reasons?

The individual who takes action in any capacity, speaks words of any kind, does so in his own self-interest.

He is trying to accomplish something; he is trying to express something; he is trying to achieve something.

What is that something? 

That is the revelation to be unmasked.

And when you’ve asked the first level of “self-interest”, ask the next level of self-interest. And when you’ve asked the next level of self-interest, ask the deeper level of self-interest.

Understanding “all interest is self-interest” unmasks the individual in life for either their choices toward freedom of self and others, or their choices toward control of self and others.

What is the self-interest of the politician who proposes a bill? 

Then, what is the self-interest of the politician who chooses his words to advocate for that bill?

What is the self-interest of the politician who votes on the bill?

If you’re not asking yourself, “what is the self-interest of the person I disagree with”, it’s only because you don’t want to be unmasked for your own self-interest. If you had the courage to face your self-interest, you’d question it and you’d question it often.   If your self-interest was freedom, what care would you have that it be revealed?

Most people don’t question their self-interest because it doesn’t put them in a very “good” light. It reveals the nature of who they truly are.  It reveals their controlling nature, not a propensity toward freedom.

What is the self-interest of the mother who votes for Obama because she won’t be productive in society and has made choices to have 2 children for whom she cannot afford to raise on her own?  

What is the self-interest of liberals who decry social injustice and attempt to distort facts in order to manipulate Americans?

What is the self-interest of conservatives when they claim ownership of values?

If you’re not asking yourself, “what is this person’s self-interest?”, you likely are doing so because you don’t want to know what your own self-interests are.

What are you afraid of knowing? What are you afraid of seeing? What are you afraid of revealing? 

The fact is, to those who understand this inherent aspect of nature and life, already know what your self-interest is by the choices you make and the outcomes of those choices.    It’s like being Superman with x-ray vision; we see the scam that is a sham and we’re on to your game.

All interest is self-interest. 

What do your choices reflect about your self-interests?

And what is your self-interest in response to this post?

Character is the nature of who you are and how you develop it is through the millions of choices you will make throughout your lifetime.

Integrity is a reflection of character. Through these millions of choices what emerges is the observation of self and from others that your choices are made without pre-judgment and upholding of freedom, free choice, self-reliance, and self-governance.

Republicans are masters of self-evaluation toward self-correction; this is a great thing.   Democrats are almost incapable of such. This is an advantage.

Republicans being open to the idea that no subject or situation is ever resolved to an extent that it cannot be revisited at a later date, is a brilliant approach.   Democrats love to live in self-righteousness. They start from a position of being “right” and therefore every opposition is simply because you’re inept, stupid, ill-equipped to understand, sub-standard, bigoted, racist, misogynistic, dumb, and astro turf.

From this position, Democrats stand on the unbalanced beam of self-righteousness, use “social justice” as credential, then manipulate with language to convince those who want to be manipulated.

The question before Republicans: do you want to be manipulated?

Every candidate who jumps into a race from this point forward needs to assimilate freedom, free choice, the development of personal responsibility, speak to limited government and safety of this nation. If he, or she, cannot, then reconsider your vote for that individual.

Sob stories or stories to tug at your heart strings; fear mongering of our “fate as a nation” is nothing more than manipulation. 

If a candidate truly upholds freedom and all the precepts that follow, then all such concerns would naturally resolve themselves. Your children need not worry about their future if they’re living in freedom. 

To state, “I have concern for our future where a life of freedom is no longer” speaks to everyone, irrespective of any hyphenated label they wish apply to themselves.   It’s universal.

Don’t let politicians get away with this manipulation. Call them out on it. Don’t let politicians use your family, children, elderly, husbands, wives, military or anyone else to extort your vote.

If a candidate is or was a small business owner, great, speak to that with respect to understanding a FREE market system where choice, competition, obligation to personal responsibility and consent are paramount.

If a candidate understands the scientific method (and he should!) then let him speak to how he understands what it means when politicians try and thrust junk science on us strictly for political and financial gain.

Sympathy, empathy, personal experience: these are not synonyms for legislation.

Freedom is a reason for legislation.

Individual choice is a reason for legislation.

Unleashing markets from the chains of regulation is about freedom which is a reason for legislation.

Getting government out of everything is a reason for legislation because it’s about freedom.

You get the picture here? I know you do. Now our candidates and politicians need to.

They will tell you that only 30,000 people out of 670,000 people in a district actually voted; that they need to “negotiate” for votes (this is euphemism for granting favors for votes). My question to them: what is your message that isn’t getting through to the other 670,000 voters?  Why can’t you motivate them?

If you ignore a larger piece of the pie for the minority, isn’t that what liberals do? They want to manipulate the larger group for favor of a minority group?

Are you so attached to an outcome that it blinds you to the simple message for freedom, free choice, independence, self-reliance, and self-governance? 

We know all candidates want to win – that’s a “duh” moment. However, a candidate who is attached to the outcome has a personal agenda that isn’t about freedom and advancing freedom for his fellow Americans.   If your motivations are anything other than freedom, you’re a fraud.   Out of freedom is the byproduct of every personal concern that EVERY AMERICAN has to live free.

And while we’re on the subject of integrity, don’t fall for the “with all due respect” line. If an individual is developing integrity through character & personal choices, that person would naturally have self-respect. As a result, it wouldn’t occur to him to speak about others in ways that were “disrespectful”. There’s a difference between speaking to reality and coddling the feelings of others.  

If it’s not in your nature to have self-respect, then you may want to self-evaluate whether or not you should open your mouth to begin with. 

Growing up, my mom always liked to tell us, “It is wiser to remain silent and thought a fool, then to speak and remove all doubt”. She read it somewhere and never missed an opportunity to utilize it. 

I miss that woman. J

What is limited government?

Does government being limited mean that only your personal agenda is supported and enforced?

Or does it mean that government is limited to managing the safety of our nation, upholding contracts between parties, enforcing the unbridled dissemination of information to Americans in order to advance and encourage personal responsibility and little else?

If Republicans REALLY uphold limited government, then that limit has to extend even to the strongest of "social issues" that affect them.

Here's why: limited government means government out of all these issues so that free markets, creative and innovative solutions can spring forth where communities can address a list of priorities rather than government becoming the nanny for your specific concern.  

Using government to advance your personal agenda is not limiting government, but expanding it.  Get government out of it all and we will all put our collective heads together and come up with some great ideas that government will NEVER come up with.

If Republicans want to stand for limited government, personal responsibility and safety of the nation they'll find a whole lot more people voting (R).

It doesn't mean anyone is telling you to give up your principles in life, to the contrary.  

It means getting government out of favoring your principles over another American's principles. It means government staying neutral in all issues of a subjective nature. And isn't that what this pluralistic nation is really all about - acknowledge the freedom of all while favoring none?

If the focus is on the idea that you live your life at no cost to another without his consent, then laws will be enacted which will give consequence to the man who makes the choice in antithesis.

Life is subjective – in the eye of the beholder. How could we possibly think government could favor and enforce every American’s version of how life should be lived?

It can’t and freedom compels that it doesn’t.   Government need only uphold our Constitution and Americans will figure out the rest.

In all of life we do one of two things: we move toward something or we move away from it.

Every time you want or demand that a personal social issue of concern be managed or forced by government, you’ve moved away from freedom and into the hands of control.

If Republicans, along the spectrum, really uphold free markets, then they should have confidence that they can manage their principles and social issues of concern without government interference; that they will create innovative solutions toward their goals.

If Republicans stand by the integrity and character of limited government, personal responsibility (which includes, of course, fiscal, as well) and safety of this nation – they will find an overwhelming number of Americans over time joining the cause for freedom.

Recently on Glenn Beck’s program he made another ownership statement regarding where our rights come from. His argument is that liberals say there is no god which then leaves the issue of rights coming from government and not god.

This issue continues to be a source of contention to people who want ownership; having ownership then invokes control. How do we know that? Because in America we want our Constitution to uphold our ownership of property so that we can control how we manage it, what we do to it, and how we live in it – our comfort and security.

The same can be said about the ownership of self. We want our Constitution to uphold the ownership of self so that we don’t have government telling us what health care to buy, what food to eat, what exercise to participate in, what school to attend, et.al.

A “Right” is intrinsic – it exists within you and cannot be taken away from you – your thoughts, your faith, your speech. Only through government can your rights be limited, but even then, in the privacy of your mind you can say anything you want, think anything you want, pray to whoever you want and government cannot stop you.

What difference does it make where our rights come from?

Some say their deity, others just say nature itself.

If you personally believe your rights come from your specific deity, who would infringe on your freedom to believe such.

If you personally believe your rights come from nature, who would infringe on your freedom to believe such.

The only reason a person demands that others believe as he believes, is to control.

We complain about government trying to control us, yet we engage in similar behavior when we attempt to own something that does not belong to us – an individual’s rights; the individual’s conscious mind to decide for self.

The only rights we need care about are individual rights by which a person can make his way in this world without government interference.

The only laws we need care about are the ones this nation creates which protect self and society from those who would infringe on the freedom of someone trying to make his way in this world.

We don’t have a right to comfort just because we have distaste for someone’s choices.

Live your life at no cost to others without their consent. If they didn’t consent, don’t make the choice.

If you insist that rights only come from your deity; that laws are only from your deity and demand others be in abeyance to such, then you have abandoned the birth of our nation in freedom.

You’ve abandoned freedom of the conscious mind to decide for self in understanding that, “we hold these truths to be self-evident”.

Consider two very important pieces of observation: the Declaration speaks only to the terminology of “Creator” – a term that is universal for each individual conscious mind to decide for self.

Second, since the Declaration of Independence isn’t our rule of law, but the Constitution is, even upon the addition of the Bill of Rights, it never invoked the word God, gave no reference to, and placed no subjective ideology above any other within its writings. Freedom of religion to decide for self. Not that the nation would not necessarily have its citizens enjoying their personal religions, but the freedom to choose that religion if desired.

If, as some would like to project our founders “intentions” were of religion, would we not have advanced our understanding of individual freedom at this given time, to realize, as we did with slavery, suffrage, and other issues, that each must have the freedom to decide for self irrespective of government. That each must have ownership of self to decide. That each must respect the inherent right of another to decide for self.

Government cannot be involved in religion as it cannot be involved in anything where an individual must decide for self. Otherwise it’s nothing but another form of control. Government makes a mess of everything it tries to control no matter what the intention.

Limited government, personal responsibility, safety of our nation – these are issues which unite us all.

How a person acquires his integrity and character is of no concern to me or you, only that he does.

If each developed personal responsibility toward owning his choices, only makes choices for which he has the ability to respond, then only makes those choices at a cost to no one else except those who consent, the byproduct is integrity and character through the upholding of freedom, to self and others.

If you want government involved in social issues, consider why that is?  What personal agenda are you attempting to thrust onto society for your comfort?

Free Market solutions can manage social issues which concern all of us, while upholding individual freedom. 

Asking government to be involved in social issues is asking for favor and entitlement; social issues are not the role of government.

Milton Friedman once said that the only reason we have as much freedom as we do now is because of the inefficiency of government.

If you think government should or will solve social issues, you're a RINO - you are motivated by personal agenda at a cost of individual freedoms to others.  Society doesn't exist for you or I. 

Personal comfort is not a right. 

Sympathy, empathy, personal experiences are not synonyms for legislation.