It is well worthy of publication for the instruction of our citizens, being profound, sound, and short. Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights* and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him; and, no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third. When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions, and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right...."
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Mr. Jefferson seems to have an entirely different view of our Natural right. Than that which is expressed today....
Friday, January 26, 2007
"Ed Brown Is Only A Symptom"
"Open Murmurs, Government Silence, Disaffection Retrial: Possible
Peaceful Solution to the Brown Dilemma"
“Law represents the effort of man to organize society; governments, the efforts of selfishness to overthrow liberty.” - Henry Ward Beecher
"On January 12, Ed Brown of Plainfield, New Hampshire walked out of his federal criminal tax trial protesting what he claimed was the District Court’s unjust deprivation of his Rights to Due Process and a Fair Trial. He retreated to his rural home and publicly announced that he would resort to armed resistance if U.S. officials attempted to intercede or further deprive him his constitutionally protected Rights...."
"Unless the government can be forced, by some non-violent means (such as the retention of money) to recognize its constitutional obligation to respond to the People’s proper Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts, we can expect to see more people like Ed Brown willing to defend their Rights by violent means. Make no mistake: the government abhors opposition and will not voluntarily abandon its preference to act without accountability or constitutional restraint."
"Ed Brown’s case is not so much about tax evasion as it is about the failure of the government to respond to his Petitions for Redress of Grievances...."
Am very pleased to see that We The People Foundation has taken up interest in Ed Brown's case. Would be even more pleased to see quite a few others doing the same thing. For, Ed Brown's cause, for all intensive purposes, is the cause of all American people. Or, it damn well should be....
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Friday, January 19, 2007
Following are some excerpts from the kutv.com article as found from a link in commentary on Keep and Bear Arms.
"(CBS) CONCORD, N.H. A federal jury found Plainfield couple guilty of tax evasion Thursday. The husband wasn't in court for the verdict, because he has barricaded himself in his hilltop home, saying he is prepared for an armed standoff...."
..."I'm in my house," he said Wednesday morning by phone. "I won't leave it." ...
..."If somebody comes at your house with guns to arrest you and you've committed no crimes, what would you do," he asked.
"Most Americans," Brown told The Associated Press, "would cower and cringe and raise their hands and surrender like a good little slave."
..."I won't. Under no circumstances. I do not tolerate cowardness, oppression, bulliness, and I certainly don't tolerate a federal agency that has absolutely zero jurisdiction in my state, never mind in my county, in my town." ....
In the home on Tuesday, Brown told supporters and reporters he has weapons and has called for supporters to converge on his property to help him resist the tax charges.
"You attack my property, it's going to get really violent," Brown told the Concord Monitor on Tuesday. "I don't care who it is."
Applaud and admire the stance that Ed Brown has taken. And hope that there are quite a few American citizens that will stand up in support of him and his wife. We The People MUST stand up to the perverse edicts being issued by our usurping government(s). Am not totally familiar with all of the legal issues surrounding this case. But, I am well aware that most of our governments in the United States have grossly exceeded their Constitutional authority. And that it is not only our Right, but our duty to question supposed 'authority'. As well as to contest plainly unconstitutional wrongs being perpetrated by government. Especially one that was meant to be made of, by and for We The People.
May God bless and help Ed and his wife through this ordeal. And, I pray this situation doesn't become another travesty of justice such as Ruby Ridge or Waco. Hope that everyone will follow this ongoing event and rally behind what Mr. Brown is trying to accomplish. Which, I believe, is to stand up to an increasingly oppressive and tyrannical government. Our laws were meant to be made with the consent of We The People. And, I've discovered quite a few local, state and federal laws across this country. In which it would justly seem unreasonable that any Free (supposedly) people would consent to them. Hope that there are fellow citizens that will follow this case and that they will express their concern loudly. For that will make it more difficult on the perverse in our government whom desire to teach Mr. Brown a 'lesson' by a show of their (supposed) power.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Right to Keep and Bear Arms -
After The Fact
The following pages have had major updates as well -
“Agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature....”
Anyone reading even a small amount of the pages listed. Can come to no other conclusion than that our government has crossed the bounds Constitutionally placed on it. And that We The People are in extreme danger from our usurping government. We have, and are continuing to be, betrayed. Would strongly urge everyone to consider the inherent danger in having an all powerful government that refuses to abide by OUR Constitution. The only ones that can stop this are We The People. Parting thought; It is better if we can turn this around now, while there is still a chance at a peaceful solution. Than, if We The People have to battle for it, as the men that founded this nation did. The choice is upto each and every one of us.
If you don't feel the need to do it for yourself. Than I strongly urge that you consider the future that you want your children, or other loved ones, to have. There isn't much time, for the government is giving clear indications that they are increasing the speed of their tyranny and usurpation. And all branches appear to be in combination in the scheme. Which is truly terrifying. Especially when it's considered that the original intent was that they operate as a "check" on each other. And this, to ensure that they did not combine and subvert the whole purpose for which the government was instituted for - to SECURE the Blessings of Liberty.
Monday, January 08, 2007
"2. Those declaratory of the fundamental rights of the citizen: as that all men are by nature free and independent, 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; that the right to property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction; that the free exercise and enjoyment of relgious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed; that every man may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for theabuse of that right; that every man may bear arms for the defense of himself and of the state; that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, nor shall soldiers be quartered upon citizens in time of peace; and the like."
- Thomas M. Cooley, LL.D, [A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations Which Rest Upon The Legislative Power of the States of the American Union" 6th Edition, Little, Brown and Company 1890.] (Outline of Declaration of rights for the protection of individuals and minorities, expected from states when forming/amending a Constitution). Mr. Cooley was Dean of the University of Michigan's Law School, Michigan Supreme Court justice, and a nationally recognized scholar.
Addendum - The sentence "that the right to property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction" threw me. That is, until I remembered a quote from James Madison about property/rights;
"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
- National Gazette Essay, 27 March 1792
As well as a quote from 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. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature...."
- 'The Rights of the Colonists', Nov. 20, 1772.
The way Iread it, is that you can't possibly have, (or at least not for long anyways), one without the other.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, "...nor shall the rights of the people to keep and bear arms be infringed...", July 8, 1856
...That inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States and the organic act of said Territory has secured to the inhabitants thereof certain inalienable rights, of which they cannot be deprived by any legislative enactment. . . . nor shall the rights of the people to keep and bear arms be infringed....It was determined in the affirmative......I DON'T SEE THE MENTION OF 'MILITIA', DO YOU? Therefore, it is clearly considered by the 1856 Senate to be THE PERSONAL RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL inhabitant, isn't it? ...(Click the headline to read the rest of this important article).
We, the Delegates of the thirteen United Colonies in North America, have taken into our most serious consideration, a Proclamation issued from the Court of St. James's on the Twenty-Third day of August last. The name of Majesty is used to give it a sanction and influence; and, on that account, it becomes a matter of importance to wipe off, in the name of the people of these United Colonies, the aspersions which it is calculated to throw upon our cause; and to prevent, as far as possible, the undeserved punishments, which it is designed to prepare, for our friends. We are accused of "forgetting the allegiance which we owe to the power that has protected and sustained us." Why all this ambiguity and obscurity in what ought to be so plain and obvious, as that he who runs may read it? What allegiance is it that we forget? Allegiance to Parliament? We never owed--we never owned it. Allegiance to our King? Our words have ever avowed it,--our conduct has ever been consistent with it. We condemn, and with arms in our hands,--a resource which Freemen will never part with,--we oppose the claim and exercise of unconstitutional powers, to which neither the Crown nor Parliament were ever entitled. By the British Constitution, our best inheritance, rights, as well as duties, descend upon us: We cannot violate the latter by defending the former: We should act in diametrical opposition to both, if we permitted the claims of the British Parliament to be established, and the measures pursued in consequence of those claims to be carried into execution among us. Our sagacious ancestors provided mounds against the inundation of tyranny and lawless power on one side, as well as against that of faction and licentiousness on the other. On which side has the breach been made? Is it objected against us by the most inveterate and the most uncandid of our enemies, that we have opposed any of the just prerogatives of the Crown, or any legal exertion of those prerogatives? Why then are we accused of forgetting our allegiance? We have performed our duty: We have resisted in those cases, in which the right to resist is stipulated as expressly on our part, as the right to govern is, in other cases, stipulated on the part of the Crown. The breach of allegiance is removed from our resistance as far as tyranny is removed from legal government....
(Click on headline to read rest of this excellent article...)
Friday, January 05, 2007
Thursday, January 04, 2007
"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition 
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? LET THEM TAKE ARMS. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
- Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787 letter to William Stevens Smith. [Padover's Jefferson On Democracy.]
Monday, January 01, 2007
...It may be safely assumed, as an axiom in the government of States, that the greatest wrongs inflicted upon a people are caused by unjust and arbitrary legislation, or by the unrelenting decrees of despotic rulers, and that the timely revocation of injurious and oppressive measures is the greatest good that can be conferred upon a nation. The legislator or ruler who has the wisdom and magnanimity to retrace his steps, when convinced of error, will sooner or later be rewarded with the respect and gratitude of an intelligent and patriotic people.
Our own history--although embracing a period less than a century--affords abundant proof that most if not all of our domestic troubles are directly traceable to violations of the organic law and excessive legislation....
- Message to the U.S. House and Senate. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873. THURSDAY, December 10, 1868.]