On the Fourth of July I am here to remind you of what our forefathers fought for and against.
First they fought against “Taxation without Representation“. This was a rallying cry for the revolutionary’s. “No taxation without representation” began as a slogan in the period 1763–1776 that summarized a primary grievance of the American colonists in the thirteen American colonies.
Not all of you that are against the ban are smokers, but to the ones that are this should be a rallying cry for you. As a smoker you are not being represented. They have tried to claim that the tax is to cover the added health cost inflicted by the smokers on the health system, this week I have proven that false. The fact is your tax money is being used to fund the very activist that are against you,and the rest is put in the general fund, would you call that being represented?
For the business owner and the property owner,
On September 17, the Congress declares its opposition to the Coercive Acts, saying they are “not to be obeyed,” and also promotes the formation of local militia units. On October 14, a Declaration and Resolves is adopted that opposes the Coercive Acts, the Quebec Act, and other measure taken by the British that undermine self-rule. The rights of the colonists are asserted, including the rights to “life, liberty and property.” On October 20, the Congress adopts the Continental Association in which delegates agree to a boycott of English imports, effect an embargo of exports to Britain, and discontinue the slave trade.
Funny “Life,Liberty and Property”, these were the things that were important to them. The first two are easily understandable but the last very few people understand. It would be very easy for ban proponents to say ah yes but they are just words, but property rights were more than just words as a matter of fact property is mentioned it two of the ten Constitutional amendments called the bill of rights. They made the Federal government the binding force for the nation, the states the binding force for the communities but the individual property owner the ruler of his domain. Now the ban proponents say that because the public is invited in that it is not private property and that it is perfectly acceptable for the government to stop a property owner from using a legal product on their property but I quote from the Fifth amendment,”nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Now the Supreme court has already ruled that a property owner does not lose this protection just because the public is invited in.
Held: There has been no dedication of petitioner’s privately owned and operated shopping center to public use so as to entitle respondents to exercise First Amendment rights therein that are unrelated to the center’s operations, and petitioner’s property did not lose its private character and its right to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment merely because the public is generally invited to use it for the purpose of doing business with petitioner’s tenants.
So on this Fourth remember what our forefathers fought for and what we still need to fight for!