All men created equal means no Counts, no Barons, no Dukes and no Kings. It was the idea behind the revolution, that a man calling himself king has no divine right to rule us. And they do not.
Do you support the concept of our representative constitutional republic and the equality and natural rights of man?
>You are saying the idea behind the revolution was not a rejection of hereditary rule and that is absolutely incorrect.
No! I am saying that the revolution was the rejection of EUROPEAN CLAIMS of hereditary rule.
>That is not a deficiency in definition except upon your own part.
To claim that ALL hereditary claims are invalid necessarily means that you have NO inheritance from your parents. [E.G. the “Inheritance Tax” _should_ be 100%.]
>All men created equal means no Counts, no Barons, no Dukes and no Kings.
No, it does not. It means that ALL men have the same rights under the Law. (I.E. ‘Murder’ does not become A-OK when a king does it [see Nathan’s confrontation of David regarding Bathsheba/Uriah].)
>It was the idea behind the revolution, that a man calling himself king has no divine right to rule us. And they do not.
Tell that to Jesus when He comes back.
>Do you support the concept of our representative constitutional republic and the equality and natural rights of man?
Yes, I do; that is why I took an oath to defend that Constitution against Enemies Foreign and Domestic. However, I _DO NOT_ think that “Democracy” [or Republic] is the best form of government for all people regardless of society. [Consider Germany, which has always excelled under a King/Emperor/strong-paternal-figure.] Putting the former argument into the personal realm: as a child grounding me from TV wasn’t a big deal, books on the other hand were [contrary to MANY of today’s kids].