In every man's life there are times for changes, times for rediscovery of who you are, what you want, what you percieve, what you believe. Every man is tried, every man is found wanting... but every man must try, and every man must want.

We are a people of passions, of juxtapositions, of wisdom and ignorance, hope and despair, love and hate, all mixed within our blood and marrow in a power that cannot be denied.

But we are also a people of judgement... and mercy. It is mercy that makes us human, hope that gives mercy the power to become such, and wisdom that combats the ignorance that makes men mad.

We only see what we see. We only judge by what we see, what we perceive, and what we feel about ourselves... and it is madness to assume what you see, and judge are the truth.

The following videos are those of a man... a man who was a prisoner, twenty years, for breaking a windowpane, to steal a loaf of bread to feed his family. Ten years, for the theft, and ten for attempting to escape the hard labor. He was released on parole, and nobody would help him, none would give him a place to stay, even overnight. None would allow him to work, for the felon's mark upon his chest and the papers in his hand.



Looking at the grace given by the priest... and after the theft...



A man had lifted a cart off of another, and was identified by Javert as Jean Valjean.. and the mayor, the real Valjean, was faced with a choice to destroy all he'd worked for, or let an innocent man go to prison in his place.



Just before this, Fantine is dying... and has charged Valjean to save her daughter from the owners of an inn she left them with.



It is a story of grace, of redemption, of the pursuit of the law. It is a story of two men, and the society they lived in, at diametric opposites, but inextricably linked.

It is a story of judgment. The villains in this piece are not who they seem... for the law seeks to merely uphold the law, the criminal seeks a new life... and the clash between law and mercy holds all in its grasp.

The people caught in conditions without hope, the loss of the beloved voice of the people... it all circles round and about into a story that cannot be ignored. It, in its own way, is a story of morals... and of the damage that can be done in the judgment of society.

And of the costs of attempting to reach for freedom.... For all freedoms there is a cost, paid in blood. Paid in lives, in hopes, in dreams... but is then freedom not worth it? There are no lives without it, no hope, no dreams. Freedom is the source of hopes, and dreams.

Freedom is worth any cost.










In the sewers, Valjean carries the wounded Marius... and as Marius sleeps, Valjean prays.




At the end, Javert comes to some realizations, as well.. his pursuit of Valjean has become the purpose of his life... and he has realized that his pursuit is injust.




Though it may cost me all I have, though it may cost me my life... it cannot cost me my eternal soul to fight for freedom. Though my life is stained and soiled, and I cannot change what has occurred, I can work for the future, for the freedom of all men. From tyranny, from hate, from injustice. That is the course of life... and even if I fall, I will die a Free man, for I die by the means of my own choosing, not by those who would make me a slave. This is my oath, to all that is holy, that I will, on my honor, strive to make the world a place for freedom, for justice, for mercy, for honor... or die in the attempt.


Read more!

The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments
From the New York Packet.
Friday, February 8, 1788.
Alexander Hamilton or James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full development of this important idea, I will hazard a few general observations, which may perhaps place it in a clearer light, and enable us to form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the convention.

In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.

It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal.

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.

But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department?

If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution it will be found that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test.

There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view.

First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.

Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE.

PUBLIUS.

Not much I can add to this. In conjunction, however, with the statements in Federalist 57...

will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

There can be neither discriminatory law, nor targeted law, at the federal level, but only law that covers all humans in their care equally, without regard for their gender, thoughts, perceptions, disability, social status, or criminal status. Any crimes meted by the government, require a government police force, which is denied under the Constitution.

Those powers respectively are reserved to the states and the people. If the Federal Government chooses not to adhere to its own rules, it must be reminded of the nature of the constitution on which it is founded, and the purposes behind it. By thus doing, it has lost its basis for its power, and the power in fact, as it is no longer a duly constituted government.
Read more!

An open letter to the ACLU.

I am not normally one to write thus. I would not normally suggest that my writing is important enough to be spread far and wide. This, however, has gone too far, and in proportion to the magnitude of the problem, ought to be the power to spread the truth.

Gentlemen, I come before you, a man powerless under the law, seeking the redress of grievances done by the legislators of the country, and by the executive power, that impermissibly infringes upon both human rights, and civil rights.

I write this, knowing that what I am to say is true, but it is a view that few will look at, however, I know that you will understand.

There are two varieties of court in the country, civil or escrow court (as it was termed in the days of the founding of the Constitution) and criminal court. One tries actions between individuals, for the remediation of grievances under contract law. The other, provides punishments due prisoners for wrongs done against society.

The Adam Walsh act claims to be a civil matter.. but it provides punishment more consistent with a criminal code. Further, it impermissibly co-mingles the civil and the criminal justice system, without the protections granted under the Criminal Justice system for criminal offenses.

Under the Federalist Papers 83, this separation was discussed as a necessary guarantee of freedom. However, this act also has other, perhaps unintended consequences.

The Adam Walsh act creates a unique situation. On one hand, it attempts to protect society, on the other, it places a vulnerable population, which, in general has had both its capability of self-protection removed, and in many cases the right to vote, in a position where they are vulnerable to vigilantes. Further, it places limits on where such people can live, advertises their location, making them more vulnerable to attacks, financial fraud, and property damage, and further creates situations where friends, neighbors, and family members (including children) are endangered without recourse to law.

Our constitution guarantees certain rights, and recognizes that other rights exist, from the state of humanity itself. Among these rights were the right to life, to liberty, to property, and to security.

Removing these rights by writ is prohibited, under Article 1, Section 9 of the US consittution, as well as Article 1, Section 10. There is no power granted to the legislature to remove rights, for any group of people, or for all persons, by writ. Such a power was specifically prohibited, and discussed in detail in the Federalist papers. The federalist 48 was specific in the reasons behind the limitations to the congressional powers on this subject, as was the Federalist 83.

The legislative department derives a superiority in our governments from other circumstances. Its constitutional powers being at once more extensive, and less susceptible of precise limits, it can, with the greater facility, mask, under complicated and indirect measures, the encroachments which it makes on the co-ordinate departments. It is not unfrequently a question of real nicety in legislative bodies, whether the operation of a particular measure will, or will not, extend beyond the legislative sphere. On the other side, the executive power being restrained within a narrower compass, and being more simple in its nature, and the judiciary being described by landmarks still less uncertain, projects of usurpation by either of these departments would immediately betray and defeat themselves. Nor is this all: as the legislative department alone has access to the pockets of the people, and has in some constitutions full discretion, and in all a prevailing influence, over the pecuniary rewards of those who fill the other departments, a dependence is thus created in the latter, which gives still greater facility to encroachments of the former.

The first example is that of Virginia, a State which, as we have seen, has expressly declared in its constitution, that the three great departments ought not to be intermixed. The authority in support of it is Mr. Jefferson, who, besides his other advantages for remarking the operation of the government, was himself the chief magistrate of it. In order to convey fully the ideas with which his experience had impressed him on this subject, it will be necessary to quote a passage of some length from his very interesting "Notes on the State of Virginia," p. 195. "All the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands, is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation, that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it, turn their eyes on the republic of Venice. As little will it avail us, that they are chosen by ourselves. An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. For this reason, that convention which passed the ordinance of government, laid its foundation on this basis, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be separate and distinct, so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time. BUT NO BARRIER WAS PROVIDED BETWEEN THESE SEVERAL POWERS. The judiciary and the executive members were left dependent on the legislative for their subsistence in office, and some of them for their continuance in it. If, therefore, the legislature assumes executive and judiciary powers, no opposition is likely to be made; nor, if made, can be effectual; because in that case they may put their proceedings into the form of acts of Assembly, which will render them obligatory on the other branches. They have accordingly, IN MANY instances, DECIDED RIGHTS which should have been left to JUDICIARY CONTROVERSY, and THE DIRECTION OF THE EXECUTIVE, DURING THE WHOLE TIME OF THEIR SESSION, IS BECOMING HABITUAL AND FAMILIAR. (Federalist 48)

I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.

Such will be the relation between the House of Representatives and their constituents. Duty, gratitude, interest, ambition itself, are the chords by which they will be bound to fidelity and sympathy with the great mass of the people. It is possible that these may all be insufficient to control the caprice and wickedness of man. But are they not all that government will admit, and that human prudence can devise? Are they not the genuine and the characteristic means by which republican government provides for the liberty and happiness of the people? Are they not the identical means on which every State government in the Union relies for the attainment of these important ends? What then are we to understand by the objection which this paper has combated? What are we to say to the men who profess the most flaming zeal for republican government, yet boldly impeach the fundamental principle of it; who pretend to be champions for the right and the capacity of the people to choose their own rulers, yet maintain that they will prefer those only who will immediately and infallibly betray the trust committed to them?

Were the objection to be read by one who had not seen the mode prescribed by the Constitution for the choice of representatives, he could suppose nothing less than that some unreasonable qualification of property was annexed to the right of suffrage; or that the right of eligibility was limited to persons of particular families or fortunes; or at least that the mode prescribed by the State constitutions was in some respect or other, very grossly departed from. We have seen how far such a supposition would err, as to the two first points. Nor would it, in fact, be less erroneous as to the last. The only difference discoverable between the two cases is, that each representative of the United States will be elected by five or six thousand citizens; whilst in the individual States, the election of a representative is left to about as many hundreds. Will it be pretended that this difference is sufficient to justify an attachment to the State governments, and an abhorrence to the federal government? If this be the point on which the objection turns, it deserves to be examined. (Federalist 57)

The supreme court has said that the constitution and the history thereof are silent on the matter of civil law and ex post facto, therefore it is allowed.. I'd argue the following (written regarding the right to jury in civil trials) as evidence against this.



With regard to civil causes, subtleties almost too contemptible for refutation have been employed to countenance the surmise that a thing which is only NOT PROVIDED FOR, is entirely ABOLISHED. Every man of discernment must at once perceive the wide difference between SILENCE and ABOLITION. But as the inventors of this fallacy have attempted to support it by certain LEGAL MAXIMS of interpretation, which they have perverted from their true meaning, it may not be wholly useless to explore the ground they have taken.

The maxims on which they rely are of this nature: "A specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals"; or, "The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another." Hence, say they, as the Constitution has established the trial by jury in criminal cases, and is silent in respect to civil, this silence is an implied prohibition of trial by jury in regard to the latter. (Federalist 83)

Further, I would argue that such a law would be utterly nonsensical under the common law tradition of civil suits. Civil law at the time was contract, tort, property, or escrow law, regarding private individuals, and private matters, in direct contrast to the common law criminal law which dealt with wrongs against the society.

Under civil law no punishment could be meted, not even a moment in prison could be assessed. All judgments were remedial, and such judgments could only occur in explicit or implied contract.

No civil law, further, could be imposed upon any person. Civil code, as well, was an alien issue, the first civil code (a predecessor of the Code Napoleon) coming in with the Louisiana Purchase. (currently still the basis of Louisiana code).

Criminal law, however, is quite the opposite. Criminal law is imposed by its very nature, and punitive, by providing for unique imprisonment and loss of freedom, liberties, and rights.

How then is mandatory registration on pain of incarceration civil? How is it thus legal to restrict the rights of men, not for what they do, but for what they may, someday, perhaps do?

There are three aspects to any criminal law, first that the law must be clear. The second test is one of fairness. The third test is one of assumption of innocence. In primus, is the law clear? It establishes a large number of punishments, increases minimum sentences.. but also leaves the interpretation and application of the law, rather than being codified, in the hands of the Attorney General of the United States. This is a strike against clarity, and the separation of powers.

The second test, fairness, is a subjective test. But according to this test, is it 'fair' or 'reasonable' to expose a population to danger, simply because one believes they may reoffend? Is this just or reasonable? When divested of their ability to protect themselves, labeled and demonized, how is it reasonable to expose them to those to whom they have been labeled as demons? When it has been judged by the Supreme Court that there is no protected property interest in police protection, and that they are in truth there to simply catch criminals and incarcerate, the police in many cases will not protect those thus labeled.. and further in most cases cannot.


"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect
individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty
is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection
of the general public." (Lynch v. NC Dept. Justice)

". . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."--Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

Cases known supporting this:
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (HOW) 396,15 L.Ed., 433 (1856)
Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1882)
Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)
Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill App 2d 460 (1968)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr 5 (1975)
Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup. Ct. Penn. 1981)
Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197,185 Cal. Rptr. 252,649
P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983)
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (S.Ct. Ala. 1985)
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
Marshall v. Winston, 389 S.E. 2nd 902 (Va. 1990)

After these things, it becomes plain that there is a protected interest, a substantiative due process interest, in abolishing this law. Further, it may well be that abolishment may come too late. Due to the decision to distribute the data over the Internet, to use the vernacular, the 'genie is out of the bottle'. There is no way to put the knowledge held there back away, nor to delete it from all archives, especially that of those who would willingly put it to malicious use.

After these things, we must ask, and remonstrate for injunctive relief. By the right to redress of grievances, as well, we must insist upon the restoration of our rights, the abolition of this law, and further, the restoration of our ability to protect ourselves, as the government cannot protect us.

We must seek injunctive relief not only for ourselves, but for our families, our children, our friends, and our loved ones. This law does not simply apply to the offender, it applies to those around the offender. The innocents who are bullied, targeted, and harmed, not because of their own actions, but because of a governmental backlash of hatred, control, and intolerance.
Should this state continue, we will be ended, and so will the lives of others who count on us. No right can be removed from any person without causing that right to become a privilege in the eyes of the government. Banishment, disarmament, concentration, and limitations on free speech and association are the tools of tyranny.

The current law stands as a legislative bill of pains and penalties, insofar as they have judged that offenders are guilty of the possibility of a new crime, therefor they must pay. They must register, they must obey restrictions on their livelihood, their location, their communication, their families, their friends, and be legislated further by whim and writ, to limit their rights without recourse to due process of law. Should they refuse, they should be imprisoned.

Wherein is this American? Wherein does the United States gain such power, that the congress can ignore the very foundation of their grant of power?

No, the congress has no such power granted in the Constitution, nor does the states. Article 1, section 9 specifically prohibits attainder and ex post facto legislation. Article 1, section 10 specifically prohibits the same to the states.

It is time to end this. The persons labeled 'sex offenders' according to the GOVERNMENT'S OWN STATISTICS have a lower reoffense rate for any crime, as well as a low reoffense rate for sexual crimes. The lies must end. If you do not believe me, do the research yourself. Go to the department of justice. Go to the departments of correction. The numbers are there, and available, if you look. Look at the studies, and metastudies. Learn and understand, and think!

The actions of few, should not destroy the rights of all.


Tried By Conscience.

Feel free to repost this. Spread it. Share it. The truth must know no ending.
Read more!

What is it to be free?

I look outside this morning. The sun is rising, barely glimmering over the hilltops, the air smoky from wildfires. The sound of traffic nearby, rushes, people travelling by without seeing, wthout hearing, blind and dumb in their motions, without knowing the strings that make them a puppet.

What is it to be free? Oddly, it's to know a responsibility, a greater responsibility than to just y ourself, but to everyone. It's to know that your people, your life, are as great as your own. Even the 'least' of people is a person, and.. there but for the grace of God go I.

I'm fighting still. I've very little left to fight with. The pain of late increases, but it doesn't matter, really. What matters is the cause. Perhaps I tilt at windmills, thinking them to be giants, but still I fight. I must fight.

Who, after all, is the more courageous? Is it he who fights, or he who stands back and laughs? Believing windmills to be giants, does it not take more courage to defy the mocking laughter than to join it?

I will die a free man. I do not know about others, but the spirit cannot be conquered, so long as there is still courage. The heart cannot be crushed, so long as there is life, and hope can never be extinguished save by my own hand.

So what is freedom? It's more than the simple trappings we so often accept, more than the ability for life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Fredom is the ability to dare, the ability to fail. It's calling up the fire inside, the fire of inspiration, to defy all that comes against you.

It's the freedom to love, to be loved.. the ability to try, and fail. It's the ability to climb and fall, hope and fear, without the intervention of a government beyond what is absolutely necessary. Freedom to speak, think, believe, associate, are all part of the core. Freedom to live, to have a home, to not be driven from that home, to have that home secure from searches, and not have it taken from you by a government. Freedom allows you to live and love, and to pay the price if you've made a mistake.. but also to be redeemed at the end of the day, and the end of the judgment.

Freedom is the heaviest price, the greatest burden, and the greatest gift anyone may have. Freedom forces us to look within ourselves, at our failures, at our frailties, at our greatest weaknesses, and then to overcome them. It forces us to overcome all bounds to freedom, to fight and die for something larger than ourselves, something greater than what we are.

And it forces us to realize our own mortality. I long right now to be in the forest, listening to the rustling of trees, the whisper of the wind... to feel the cool rain on my face, hear the thunder rumbling overhead, and gaze out over a land that is free...

But what really is freedom?

It's the ability to make mistakes... the ability to be responsible for your actions, the ability to reach, fumble, and fall. The government would have us believe that freedom is dangerous... it is. But at least freedom is our own mistakes, and not those of an overreaching, and overgrasping myopic tyrant.

Government is really, in many ways, a toddler.. trying to control the world. It cannot know all the issues, but it can try to control them... and what means has it to control? Only restriction, only the destruction of freedom. Ultimately, the unrestricted government caring for you can only bring you to chains and slavery. It is the nature of governments. They expand and expand, find every possible way to gain more power... and the only powers they gain come at the costs of your liberties, which, as was said by the founding fathers, are made by the hand of God and bestowed upon the person.

When restriction and restriction and restriction come onto the people... when do you stop being free? The answer... you don't. You can either choose to follow the restrictions of your master, or to defy them. Your freedom never truly wavers.

The question becomes, ultimately, if the exercise of that freedom is worth more than the sanctions that can be placed upon you, the punishments that can be meted out. For my part.. if life is a prison, then perhaps it is time to speak out against it... and the harder they press me not to speak.

It is a legal fiction that freedoms can be taken.. they can only be ceded.. and then only by choice.

You see... if any law is a civil regulation... it can only be by choice that it is implemented.. and only by choice that it is followed. Legal fictions be damned, civil law is only consentual law. There can be no civil law that is imposed on another.
Read more!