Alea Iacta Est.

We each of us, have our own journeys, our own trials, our own inner barriers which must be overcome. Tonight, perhaps, the true depth of those trials of conscience hit home.

When a man crosses his Rubicon, and the battles are inevitable, when a man looks into his heart and realizes the dangers that lie in believing, but still chooses to believe, that time, that moment, changes something in him.

The battle will be long, but win or lose, worth it.

I salute you all, of whom I have grown so proud.

Would that I had years to spend with the future, with learning and speaking with each of you, but that is not to be. Each moment of our lives, we sit, and wait, but for what do we wait? Do we wait for a savior to come, to rescue each of us? Is it not said that God helps those who help themselves?

I may not be able to communicate for quite some time. The die, after all, is cast, the game begun, for better, or for worse, for truth or ill. The challenge must be thrown down to achieve a better tomorrow. It is not done in haste, and never could be, but to be true to myself, I could never turn my back on this challenge, not when it has been presented me in such trappings.
I love my nation, my fellow citizens, too much to turn my back on the suffering there.
And so the die is cast... and for better or worse, the game will be played, the Rubicon crossed, and I cannot look back.

People may ask what I mean by saying things such as this, but the law must be tried. There are laws, and there are foundations to law. When the law expands outwards from its foundations, beyond the scope for which it was proposed, the law itself is doomed to fall. It is the duty of men, especially men of conviction and men of conscience, to try the law in the venues available to them, afore more precipitous action is taken. It is my intent, my duty, and my obligation to break the law, in order to uphold the more foundational law.

The doctrine of stare decisis is a curious thing, once a belief that the doctrine must not always be relied upon, but only where based from the foundational principles, to become 'settled law' which must not be examined today. However, today I intend to unsettle the law, to rip up the flagstones and determine if the foundation is still sound.

I intend to break a law, a federal law, and a state law that cannot exist under the constitution. In the Idaho State Constitution, as in many constitutions within the States, there are certain inalienable rights. These rights are supported by others, and by specific limitations placed not only upon the governments, but upon the people. The Constitution states that the federal government must guarantee a republican form of government to the states. This republican form of government was guaranteed to attempt to preserve the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and to guard that great and arduous task, we preserved the preexisting right to keep and bear arms, under the Magna Carta, and the rights under the writs of William and Mary of Orange.

These rights were enshrined long before the constitution to all, regardless of race, of class, and intended to end tyranny. Slavery itself was in debate, as the end goal of tyranny itself.
If you have rights, inalienable rights, and you are denied the exercise of those rights, do you still have them?

There is a phrase written in many state constitutions, in varying forms, and with varying measures, it reads as: . All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights--among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
It occurs in varying forms, in one case stating the fruits of their labors, in another happiness, or in another going so far as to state the right to keep and bear arms as being directly reserved to the people as an inalienable right.

Such it was considered, after all, in the beginning, and that right to self-defense even got the soldiers in Rowe's Wharf's massacre an innocent verdict, for reasons of self-defense.
The trials of Zenger, Throckmorton, and Bushell are nearly forgotten now, but they also bear a strong and striking purpose in the foundation of the nation. They were talked about as to the nature of the jury, and the very nature of sedition. The greatest defense against sedition is the truth, as it was with Zenger, and Throckmorton.

And the truth is that the American People, and their congressmen and senators, their executives and judges, have for decades, nearly a century, been lied to.

The Federalist Papers are not merely one view of the constitution, they were the view of the constitution by the founders of the constitution, those very federalists, and in response to strong attacks by the antifederalists. The antifederalists brought up opposition to the constitutional plan, problems that may lie within aspects of the plan, and flaws that were perceived, the federalists explained how the plan itself was intended to work to prevent such problems.
They are an explanation of the purpose, the intent, and the meaning of the Constitution itself.
Until a man is willing to stand up for his rights, they are not rights. Until he is willing to insist upon them, they cannot be so called. Until he is willing to exercise them in his own defense, no matter what the law may say, they do not exist.

Men fear the government, but so too the government fears its citizens. Why else would there be so active, so prominent, an attempt to remove the rights of the citizens that were enshrined for their own defense?

And not just defense against the 'Indians' or against each other, but against tyranny from all sources?

If tyranny is allowed to exist, men will ever be only tyrants or slaves. When the law can levy its burden upon one man more heavily than another, or act upon the rights of a group, it can be used to the advantage of others, and the detriment of any group.

So I break the law to sustain the law. I have accepted in full that burden, and do so actively, knowingly, and with the only remorse being for the necessity.

When a nation has fallen so far that the only recourses are trying the law upon your own person, or rebellion, where do we stand?

Give me six lines written by the most honourable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him.

— Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642)

In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.

— Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

– Samuel Adams

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.

– Samuel Adams.

If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.

– Samuel Adams

All might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they should.

– Samuel Adams

Driven from every other corner of the earth, freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience, direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.

– Samuel Adams

Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety

to us, as in our own hands?

– Patrick Henry
The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.

– John Quincy Adams

The power of the legislative being derived from the people by a positive voluntary grant and institution, can be no other than what that positive grant conveyed, which being only to make laws, and not to make legislators, the legislative can have no power to transfer their authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.

– John Locke

[F]or nothing is to be accounted hostile force, but where it leaves not the remedy of such an appeal; and it is such force alone, that puts him that uses it into a state of war, and makes it lawful to resist him. A man with a sword in his hand demands my purse in the high-way, when perhaps I have not twelve pence in my pocket: this man I may lawfully kill. To another I deliver 100 pounds to hold only whilst I alight, which he refuses to restore me, when I am got up again, but draws his sword to defend the possession of it by force, if I endeavour to retake it. The mischief this man does me is a hundred, or possibly a thousand times more than the other perhaps intended me (whom I killed before he really did me any); and yet I might lawfully kill the one, and cannot so much as hurt the other lawfully. The reason whereof is plain; because the one using force, which threatened my life, I could not have time to appeal to the law to secure it: and when it was gone, it was too late to appeal. The law could not restore life to my dead carcass: the loss was irreparable; which to prevent, the law of nature gave me a right to destroy him, who had put himself into a state of war with me, and threatened my destruction. But in the other case, my life not being in danger, I may have the benefit of appealing to the law, and have reparation for my 100 pounds that way.

– John Locke

There is no further recourse through the voting booth. False and designing men have arranged to make those electronic polls far more easy to rig than even paper ballots, or votes counted 'in secret' behind a screen by the touch of a hand upon another. There is no oversight, and no recourse there. Indeed, the courts themselves may no longer be a recourse. As of this moment men can be dragged from the streets, arrested, and made to disappear, for supposed crimes, dragged beyond the walls of the nation, tortured into compliance and tried for the crimes they 'admit to' to end the torture.

And if they happen to die, it was for the good of the nation.

From your past you'll see the patterns that are coming to your future, in the present. Courage, patriotism, it's all well and good when it's just ideals, but so few are willing to stand up to the law, to stand up for things simply because.. it is the right thing to do. They worry about family, selves, jail time. But injustice is injustice, and I cannot remain free so long as an injust act remains. No man can be free that does not equally strive for the freedom of others. I'd considered running away, leaving this nation and its laws behind, but I cannot be so cowardly, after all, it is rank and arrant cowardice to flee when others make war against you.

Usurpation of the rule of law, destruction of its level and equity, decimation of the court and judicial systems, all are symptoms of the real problem. We do not, many of us, know our rights, or our limitations in a republic. The truth is the greatest power is in us ourselves. We are the masters of our future, so long as we do not deny that right to self-mastery to any other. The rulers forget that the greatest duty is to the people, not to their own power base or the lobbyists or anything else. The duty of the Representatives are to their constituents, and the duty of the senate is to the states, and if they fail at that duty, then they must be removed, and tried. Every ruler is bound in mastery to his people he rules. He is made a servant in chains of propriety, and shackles of service... as Cincinnatus once said, the more I lead, the more I serve.

When you look out the window, you dont' see the real tyranny, it lies hidden. They come in the night, the nacht und nebel, the night and fog. They take away people and they are never heard from again, nor seen, nor spoken of. It is as though they no longer exist.

Such placement of the rule of law under the thumb of the civil magistrate, the legislator, or the executive is naught but treason. Does it matter what they call it, if your right to a fair and speedy trial is gone, your right to a public hearing, gone, your right to hear the accusations against you... gone? If they refuse under national security to reveal the charges and evidence against you, can you defend yourself?

If the law does not apply equally, to kings and emperors as well as serfs and prisoners, if it levies its load more firmly upon the back of any one man than any other, society suffers, bleeds, and dies.

I've applied for help from the ACLU, from the Rutherford Institute, from the Cato institute. I have no money for attorneys, nor means by which to fight this through a civil suit. I have little enough of anything, and if the only asset I have is my life, then that is the asset I shall spend. I've grown to love life again, but what they are offering is not life... it is a never-ending slavery, torture, and subjugation.

Think about this... what happens when a man cannot leave his state without the rules changing, and when he arrives to a new state... they can change the punishment as they see fit, without ever seeing the evidence, the case, the punishment, the crime, or even the judge and jury's notes? Is that just? Can it not be extended however to regulate any other crime, and are you innocent of all crimes? I'm quite certain in that volume of federal codes there is some felony of which you are guilty... and therefore your rights are as empty as my own.

But the law must be tried, before it is set aside to repair and restore the constitution. Failure in this measure is not an option. The law must be tried to the best knowledge of man, and wholly and solely on constitutional issues. No defense attorney in the world is willing to do such.

As of this moment, this is my last recourse.

And if this recourse fails, the final recourse, the one to be avoided at all costs, save when there is no other occurs. Restoration of that constitution by rebellion.
How much more precious than a pence is your life, and rights? How much more valuable can it be than the very things that allow you to be free, that maintain that freedom? Indeed, at this date I cannot guarantee, as I have said, that I shall not simply disappear, a victim of extraordinary rendition. However, if such happens, the recourse is ended.

Under the law, in Idaho, I no longer have a recourse for the restoration of rights, and therefore, the only recourse I have is to challenge the law upon my own body.
May God have mercy upon my soul, and upon those who still yet refuse to help me.

"To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government.

– William Blackstone

"It is not only permitted, but it is also equitable and just to slay tyrants. For he who receives the sword deserves to perish by the sword.But 'receives' is to be understood to pertain to he who has rashly usurped that which is not his, now he who receives what he uses from the power of God. He who receives power from God serves the laws and is the slave of justice and right. He who usurps power suppresses justice and places the laws beneath his will. Therefore, justice is deservedly armed against those who disarm the law, and the public power treats harshly those who endeavour to put aside the public hand. And, although there are many forms of high treason, none is of them is so serious as that which is executed against the body of justice itself. Tyranny is, therefore, not only a public crime, but if this can happen, it is more than public. For if all prosecutors may be allowed in the case of high treason, how much more are they allowed when there is oppression of laws which should themselves command emperors? Surely no one will avenge a public enemy, and whoever does not prosecute him transgresses against himself and against the whole body of the earthly republic."

-- John of Salisbury: Policratus

"If the king ceases to govern the kingdom, and begins to act as a tyrant, to destroy justice, to overthrow peace, and to break his faith, the man who has taken the oath is free from it, and the people are entitled to depose the king and to set up another, inasmuch as he has broken the principle upon which their mutual obligation depended."

-- Manegold

Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of "emergency". It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And "emergency" became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains

. — Herbert Hoover.

Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other.

– John Locke

If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

– Samuel Adams

Ye darkeners of counsel, who would make the property, lives, and religion of millions depend on the evasive interpretations of musty parchments; who would send us to antiquated charters of uncertain and contradictory meaning, to prove that the present generation are not bound to be victims to cruel and unforgiving despotism,--tell us whether our pious and generous ancestors bequeathed to us the miserable privilege of having the rewards of our honesty, industry, the fruits of those fields which they purchased and bled for, wrested from us at the will of men over whom we have no check. Did they contract for us that, with folded arms, we should expect that justice and mercy from brutal and inflamed invaders which have been denied to our supplications at the foot of the throne? Were we to hear our character as a people ridiculed with indifference? Did they promise for us that our meekness and patience should be insulted, our coasts harassed, our towns demolished and plundered, and our wives and offspring exposed to nakedness, hunger, and death, without our feeling the resentment of men, and exerting those powers of self-preservation which God has given us?

-- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776

Who among you, my countrymen, that is a father, would take the authority to make your child a slave simply because you had nourished him in his infancy?

It is a strange species of generosity which requires a return infinitely more valuable than anything it could have bestowed; that demands as a reward for the defense of our property a surrender of those inestimable privileges to the arbitrary will of vindictive tyrants, which alone gives value to that very property.

-- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776

When the spirit of liberty which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin, and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us! —remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of our countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood, and hunt us from the face of the earth? If we 1ove wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude, than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

-- Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776

Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, "Come, come, we shall be friends again, for all this." But examine the passions and feelings of mankind, Bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me, whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you cannot do all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connection with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honour, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then I ask, Hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and still can shake hands with the murderers, then you are unworthy of the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant.
This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but trying them by those feelings and affections which nature justifies, and without which, we should be incapable of discharging the social duties of life, or enjoying the felicities of it. I mean not to exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some fixed object. It is not in the power of Britain or of Europe to conquer America, if she do not conquer herself by delay and timidity. The present winter is worth an age if rightly employed, but if lost or neglected, the whole continent will partake of the misfortune; and there is no punishment which that man will not deserve, be he who, or what, or where he will, that may be the means of sacrificing a season so precious and useful.

-- Thomas Paine, Common Sense.
Read more!

Martial law and you.

Friends, I come to you in mourning... Martial law is here, by definition and in truth. I don't know how much longer I will be allowed to write this blog, it does not really matter. There is a great deal more you need to know.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gJd63da5mM0wM8hDw0VkfJjebZbg
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27989275/

Heretofore, this blog has been a set of observations, each proceeding from things I've seen, things I've understood, dug through, and looked through in history.

Let me elucidate: Under martial law, the constitution is suspended, and you have no rights.

It is equally martial law if they do not call it such. It is equally martial law if they simply take your rights away and never tell you... and we are in a state of war. We are slaves to a tyrannical government, a government that was implemented and designed in the interests of a nation being governed by the people, and that government being limited from restricting the rights of others. Our liberties, our freedoms, all of them were founded prior to the government, and extended throughout that period, with the understanding that said government could not, and had no power to infringe upon those rights, those liberties which they guard, and the freedoms and immunities which pre-existed the government itself. The only means by which the government could assume tyrannical power was by its military, which was to be opposed by the militia. The Federalist 26 directly addressed this subject.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed26.htm

"Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community REQUIRE TIME to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.

If such suppositions could even be reasonably made, still the concealment of the design, for any duration, would be impracticable. It would be announced, by the very circumstance of augmenting the army to so great an extent in time of profound peace. What colorable reason could be assigned, in a country so situated, for such vast augmentations of the military force? It is impossible that the people could be long deceived; and the destruction of the project, and of the projectors, would quickly follow the discovery."

This is, by its very nature, a definition of the right, and the duty, under the Constitution to secede, and/or dissolve the original contract. The rights and immunities under the constitution were not established via the constitution, or the government, they pre-existed the government.

See the Boston Journal of the Times, April 13, 1769

"Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.^"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-20

If, as the government argues, the second amendment was to preserve the militia to the states, how does it excuse the seizure of the National Guard to the Federal Government's control?

The nation has violated the contract which created it, a civil contract bound in tradition, and common law.

At this date, common law falls... and all men are transformed into slaves.

A strong statement? Perhaps. Look, however, at the definition of slavery in the 1956 anti-slavery compact, signed in 1957 by the US government...

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/slavetrade.htm#wp1034251


Article 1

Each of the States Parties to this Convention shall take all practicable and necessary legislative and other measures to bring about progressively and as soon as possible the complete abolition or abandonment of the following institutions and practices, where they still exist and whether or not they are covered by the definition of slavery contained in article 1 of the Slavery Convention signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926:

( a ) Debt bondage, that is to say, the status or condition arising from a pledge by a debtor of his personal services or of those of a person under his control as security for a debt, if the value of those services as reasonably assessed is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt or the length and nature of those services are not respectively limited and defined;

( b ) Serfdom, that is to say, the condition or status of a tenant who is by law, custom or agreement bound to live and labour on land belonging to another person and to render some determinate service to such other person, whether for reward or not, and is not free to change his status;

( c ) Any institution or practice whereby:

(i) A woman, without the right to refuse, is promised or given in marriage on payment of a consideration in money or in kind to her parents, guardian, family or any other person or group; or

(ii) The husband of a woman, his family, or his clan, has the right to transfer her to another person for value received or otherwise; or

(iii) A woman on the death of her husband is liable to be inherited by another person;

( d ) Any institution or practice whereby a child or young person under the age of 18 years, is delivered by either or both of his natural parents or by his guardian to another person, whether for reward or not, with a view to the exploitation of the child or young person or of his labour.


Article 7

For the purposes of the present Convention:

( a ) "Slavery" means, as defined in the Slavery Convention of 1926, the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised, and "slave" means a person in such condition or status;

( b ) "A person of servile status" means a person in the condition or status resulting from any of the institutions or practices mentioned in article 1 of this Convention;


Compare this to the federal reserve, a system of debt bondage by which we, as the American Citizens, are placed in a condition of debt bondage, subject to the seizure of our real property, goods, chattel, and person for the failure to pay a debt created not by our own actions, but by the policies of a government that appears inimical to our national and personal wellbeing. Our capital paid in taxes is not applied to the principle, nor the interest of the debt, but used in the creation of further debt. Should we fail to pay the taxes, paid in company scrip, redeemable only with the company itself, we face prison time and loss of all putative assets.

Is this not slavery? Do we not need a passport to leave our country, and to return? Do we not require, by law, the permission of our nation to leave and return, and our return can be barred for any or no reason, as can our leaving.

We can be transported across the seas for prison or trials, without representation.

At this point, within each and every possible measure, we are slaves, and the Federal government is in violation of every possible section of the Declaration of Independence's grievances.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gJd63da5mM0wM8hDw0VkfJjebZbg
And now they move in the troops? Perhaps our nation has forgotten the statements of Patrick Henry:

"Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

We are a nation of patriots, a nation of men and women engaged in the most arduous struggle of all, that struggle for liberty, for freedom from the unjust and impositional government that arbitrarily changes the law, changes the punishments of men, and changes and destroys the rule of law in the mindless seeking of power.

If we mean to be free, if we mean to maintain that freedom for which our forefathers fought and died, we must be true patriots. The war is... already begun, a war created against the citizens of the several states, a war fought on the financial front, on the power of a few men choosing to seize and assert control over a nation by deception and fraud.

We are not taught of our freedoms, nor of the foundations. We are not taught to look at those who are most despised to see how they are treated, nor are we shown, by that, what our government's innermost nature is.

The troops are come, and are training to come to your door, and to remove your means of resistance, and we still sit here idle and prattle on about this and that, as though any of it matters without our freedoms and our rights.

Our rights guard our freedoms... if rights are not equal for all, they exist for none. Any class asserted to be 'less worthy of rights' is easily expanded. Any class of persons deemed to be 'problematic' ultimately leads to an 'ultimate solution'.

If we have learned nothing from the past, should we not at least have learned that it is our most despised people that betoken our own ultimate fate?

But then... we would have to look at ourselves... and realize that we too are slaves, and we strike out at the least liked because they are unprotected, using them as the whipping boy of a government gone mad.

Ask yourselves, gentlemen and ladies, whence the powers they seized came? Ask yourselves what it means to be free... and measure it against a world that would throw you aside in an instant for the seeking of power...

Then ask yourselves what you can do about it. It is laid out in law, in tradition, and in the very arguments used to pass the Constitution, and enforcing the creation of the Bill of Rights.

Then ask yourselves if you can still sit idle, and allow those rights to be torn away from others. it matters not who they are torn from, we are as evil for sitting idly by and doing nothing as for doing the tearing ourselves.

And then look deep into your heart and ask yourself if your comfortable conditions are really comfortable, or just an illusion.

All of your stuff, all of your money, everything... is a sham. It's smoke and mirrors, created by a press and political system.. that intends, and has the power to take it away from you at a whim, and on suspicion, not via due process, not via trial by jury, but on suspicion without any possibility of court action or representation.

Is it so comfortable now?
Read more!

Why I fight

My objection lies not in the registry, but in the ex-post-facto application of new rules, regulations, and punishment to the registry. However, at the same time, tracking all those who have different registry requirements as the laws change would be prohibitive for law enforcement, and thus unenforceable.

To extend this, the problem lies in the fact that it is a blanket law, and a blanket registry, not fully subject to the judiciary and jury, which is a direct denial of specific legal rights.

The way I see it, there are specific guarantees under human rights issues, as well as civil rights. We get so caught up in civil rights that we only see the amendments to the Constitution, rather than the codicils that were built in under common law. In addition, we tend to blind ourselves to the histories and natures of the constitutional argument.

That's ignoring the parallels to a certain European country in the 1930s-1940s, which it has gotten to be a losing argument to bring up, regardless of how accurate your information is.

Thing is, these rights are not granted by the constitution. They never could be. Just as those powers could not be grasped by the government save for the acquiescence of the people. Further, the permission of the people had to be that of all of the people. The Several guarantees, under the constitution, were for the equal treatment of all people, and the recognition of those rights.

These rights were recognized as innate rights, just as those we term as 'civil' rights were at the time of the Constitution. Such was the nature of the original constitution, that not all those rights could be listed, and it would be silly to list the right to walk down the street, or the right to wear a hat. It would be equally silly to list the right to breathe, or the right to seek housing and food.

This is the nature of substantiative due process, it deals with the 'substance' of the law, as compared to procedural due process which deals with the 'procedure' of the law.

We've lost so much in the knowledge of what our rights are.... that I feel it's time to enumerate the most important.

We have the right to freedom of expression.. and the corresponding duty to temper that right where it might affect others. (libel, and slander, and the 'fire in the theater' example)

We have the right to travel without limitation or restriction, upon public roads and highways, without regard to legal status, color, race, religion, or any other separation.

We have the right to freedom of association, and freedom of speech and thought. You cannot be jailed, nor tried simply for your associations, though your actions regarding those associations can be, and are culpable.

You have the right to freedom of belief and religion, insofar as that right does not attack the rights and freedoms of others (I.e. you can speak, promote your religion, but you cannot attack others religions using it, nor can you use it to quell free speech, quell the due process of law, nor destroy any other right with it, including life, liberty, or property)

You have the right to question the government, (and even the duty to do so) and the right to petition for the redress of grievances against that government. (So long as that redress is proportional to the injustice involved within the grievance)

You have the right to trial by jury, including the right to jury nullification, according to the Zenger and Bushell trials, and the Federalist Papers. Further, this right extends to the argument of law in front of the jury, though the argument of evidence may be done out of sight, due to the exclusion arguments automatically revealing that which is to be excluded from the jury.

Links to Jury Nullification:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed83.htm
[quote]It will add great weight to this remark, in relation to prize causes, to mention that the method of determining them has been thought worthy of particular regulation in various treaties between different powers of Europe, and that, pursuant to such treaties, they are determinable in Great Britain, in the last resort, before the king himself, in his privy council, where the fact, as well as the law, undergoes a re-examination.[/quote]
[quote]This is jurisdiction of both fact and law; nor is it even possible to separate them. Though the common-law courts of this State ascertain disputed facts by a jury, yet they unquestionably have jurisdiction of both fact and law; and accordingly when the former is agreed in the pleadings, they have no recourse to a jury, but proceed at once to judgment[/quote]
[url]http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html[/url]

You have the right to equal treatment under the law: I.e. the right to not have targeted legislation. This right is upheld in all cases of law, including federal, state, local, and county law. This right is of two parts... selective legislation, and selective enforcement. If one passes a law attacking a particular class of individuals (I.e. attacking college freshmen, for instance) it is selective legislation. If the attack is a selective enforcement, it is going after a selected class, without going after an equally dangerous or more dangerous class that is friendly toward the enforcing agency.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed57.htm

We have the right to free travel, including interstate, and international travel, according to international law and treaty. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (strongly authored and influenced by Elanor Roosevelt) guarantees this right, and further, it is part of the reason for the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. (New York and a nearby state were in a tiff a the time, and using tariffs and limitations on travel as economic weapons. This also occurred at the beginning of the Civil War, limitations on economic travel and effective tariffs on the goods in the Southern States.)

You have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, and declared guilty by a jury of your peers. This ensures the full application of the jury, and full argument before the jury. In a criminal case, there must be an absolute certanty that the person is guilty, and that the law is valid, prior to the presentation of a punishment for an act against society.

You have the right to work toward a home, or other property, and no man has the right to deny you such. Economic reasons may prevent it, our own actions may prevent it, but nobody can take that for which you have worked, save by due process of law, and the full application of that law.

You have the right to security of your possessions, your person, and your family. No person can take away your home (via Civil Forfeiture), nor can they take away a family member save for crimes done by that family member.

You have the right to be judged on your own actions, and not those of any other person. Guilt by association is not a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Further, if any class is judged guilty until proven innocent, the entirety of jurisprudence falls. We have the right to ague our innocence, as well as to remain absolutely silent, as often anything we say is used against us in a court of law... even if it is absolutely truthful.

You have the right to privacy (though our 'loving' congress has been doing everything they can to remove this right). This right was, and is guaranteed, under the searches and seizure clauses of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This right to privacy was enshrined largely because of the Magna Carta, and the British habit of marching into homes, ransacking them, inspecting everything there to look for crimes, and in some cases creating them for civil forfeiture, as well as for criminal charges.

You have the right to vote. For no reason was this right to be removed from any citizen, save the reason of commission of treason against the Federal Government. No person could be denied this by Federal Law.

You have the right to protect yourself. You have the right to defend yourself, your home, and your community, and this right goes one step further into a duty to do the above.

You have the right to state that an action done to you was wrong, and more, to remonstrate for the remediation of that wrong.

You have the right to enjoy public places, without limitation, so long as you do so lawfully and do not remove the rights of others.

You have the right to remain free of the harassment of others. No man has a right to harass.

You have the right to prevent self-incrimination, and the commitant right to not name those who would incriminate you in a criminal trial.

You have, further, the right to contract, and the enforcement of that contract as a civil statute, for the redress of grievances done under contract, tort, or escrow law.

You have the right to restitution for properties seized under Eminent Domain, and restitution equivalent to the fair market value of that land.

You have the traditional right to request to speak on the floor of the Congress, though this has been limited in recent years.

You have the right to the restoration of those 'civil' rights at the end of the term of your sentence, as, up until 1933, all rights were restored automatically at the end of one's sentence. (Another Omnibus Crime Act)

You have the right to self-determination. This right is limited in that such self-determination must not remove the same from others. In other words, murder is verboten, simply because of the recognition of the rights of others.

You further have the right to make choices as will determine your health and future prosperity, and the right to suffer by those decisions should they be wrong.

You have the right to do whatever you want... so long as you accept society's right to stop you if that steps on the rights of others.

You have the right to make economic decisions, and bear the burden of poor choices.

Up until the credit companies lobbied congress, you also had the right to bankruptcy, every seven years, to clear out extortionate debt.

You had the right to not be charged money for being loaned money, (usury)

All these rights, and not an exhaustive list.

For instance, most do not realize that they have the right to challenge the law as presented by the police, and as presented by the prosecutor.

We have the right to express reservations against a contract, as well as to not be placed under duress in the contract.

We have the right to protect ourselves from extortion. This includes extortion under the color of law.

I could go on for hours. All these rights were once recognized, they were thought so innate that no man even bothered listing them.

Our rights end where another's begins. Some rights are commingled with other's rights. Some extend and increase the rights of others, and of ourselves, some of those rights limit our rights, and those of others.

But they are rights, independent of the government, independent of anything but your existence as a human being.

The place where society comes in, is in the recognition of those rights of others, and the embrasure of them, in order to complete, and preserve, the rights of all.

This is the nature of wisdom. It is personal responsibility, for one's own actions, and the several and collective responsibility for those with whom you choose to group.

And that's what we've forgotten. We do not need the laws as they stand, so long as we remember that the rights of others are just as important as our own. It is the purpose of law to remind us of the rights of others. It is the balance of justice, wherein the proper punishment is levied, and mercy, wherein the facts and law of the case are tried, and mitigating factors associated. These are the sides of the balance of justice... and justice must be balanced with mercy, and part of that mercy is rehabilitation, and the opportunity for such.

So long as there is any class of persons, that are subject to unequal treatment under the law, these rights cannot be recognized.

That is why I argue for the repeal of laws, and the restoration of rights for all persons, not just offenders. It's giving back personal responsibility to the citizens of the country. Giving them back the right to try, dream, climb, fall, and suffer for their actions... but also the right to have an end to their mistakes. it is the right to be free, and the right to live, love, experience... and be human.
Read more!