Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
Rise To Liberty
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Of all rights enjoyed by American Citizens, Liberty is the most fundamental of all.
In order to exercise any right, we must evidently posses the liberty to do so.
It is therefore prudent that Liberty be most adamantly defended by all individuals on every occasion.
The loss of Liberty to any degree means the erosion of Liberty on every level.
“The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less informed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding.”
James Madison FEDERALIST PAPER #44 January 25, 1788
It may at times seem that there justifiable reasons for suspending the rights of some citizens, but in truth the very act that allows the rights of a few to be suspended to any degree, creates legal precedence to suspend the rights of other citizens for other reasons until it becomes possible to suspend the rights of all the people for any reason.
The constitution provides for the suspension of certain rights of citizens during a time of incarceration. Other than this period of incarceration Martial Law is the only other provision for the suspension of rights and this provision provides for a far less restrictive power than that of incarceration.
The usurpation of rights is not a new concept. Madison said in Federal #44 that,” There being no such intermediate body between the State legislatures and the people interested in watching the conduct of the former, violations of the State constitutions are more likely to remain unnoticed and unredressed. “
Therefore there remain only two possible remedies to correct this usurpation of power by states. The most prudent is intervention by the Federal Courts. The second being that the people stay informed and vote cautiously when electing state representatives. This latter is a more perfect way, though probably less timely and less likely to be achieved.
We as individuals tend not to notice violations of Liberty unless it affects our own exercise of Liberty.
Thus, we are likely to have allowed the violations of rights of many others believing that these restrictions on Liberty are justified and lawful solely because we trust those elected to represent us to protect the rights of all citizens equally.
Today we are becoming more informed, we have more technology and more means of obtaining information though it is often buried deep under layers of misinformation and requires personal research to discover the reality of the truth.
This is evidenced by the advent of DNA science. Since DNA has been available 311 DNA exoneration's have occurred.
How is it possible to convict an innocent person of a crime that they obviously did not commit? This is evident that our Criminal Judicial system is broken badly. Denial of the crucial flaws and the risk to the Liberty of every American is too great for us to simply ignore.
Imagine how many people have been incarcerated “falsely convicted”in cases where there was no DNA to evaluate.
The most basic of rights guaranteed to American Citizens, “Liberty “ is at stake.
It is easy to make excuses and claims that these people who were convicted were probably guilty of some other crime , they just didn't get caught. Self justifications such as this do nothing to correct the problems that face our children and grand-children and certainly do nothing to correct the problems with our system. These are flaws that were not originally designed into our system. These are flaws that were forced into our system by corrupt people who hold the intention of capturing our Democracy and changing it as they will.
The hard cold truth is that, if we allow even one person to be convicted of a crime that they did not commit, then we allow a practice to exist that places the Liberty of every single Citizen in the United States in jeopardy.
Don't wait until it is your Liberty that is at risk before you start demanding a change.
Political pressure is not a valid reason to secure a conviction. Nor is fear. If we convict out of fear or make laws to restrict liberties out of fear, then we have to understand that everyone is afraid of something. So, what then? We just start restricting the liberties of anyone that may possibly commit a crime in the future?
What then happens to proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
For example, a family has been robbed at gunpoint by a young man wearing a black hoodie.
Should we place all young men who wear black hoodies under liberty restrictions or all young men who have ever worn a black hoodie? Though in reality, it has of late happened in to many instances to recount.
Yes, this is a bit far fetched, but it is an intentional exaggeration. The truth is that similar things are happening right now.
We must be careful when we allow the liberties of any citizen to be restricted in any way. We must take the time to be positive that we have the right person before we even start a criminal proceeding, much less demand a conviction.
The erosion of liberty in the United States is a problem that will be very difficult to return from.
There has long been an argument over state rights. Some arguments extend to the point that some people believe that states have ultimate rights and some states have made such claims under vague Amendments of the US Constitution.
For example states claim they have the right to usurp individual liberties of individuals and this power they claim comes from the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, the people far to often do not know what their constitution says nor that these rights claimed by the states actually do not exist other than in practice and are prohibited by principle.
The tenth amendment says, “The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people .” “Or to the People”, is a very key part of this amendment.
What then are states rights and what are individual rights? How do we separate the rights of individuals and the rights of the state? The test is a very simple one.
If the state can exercise this right it is a state right, if an individual can exercise this right it is an individual right. More simply put, if the state can do it, it is a state right. If a person can do it, it is an individual right.
So who has the greater rights? The government or those governed?
This question is answered in may different places. Most famously in the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. “
Certain rights apparently are derived from the Creator and not from the state. It would be prudent then to observe that those rights derived from the Creator can only be restricted in the most dire of situations and with very strict qualifications of when and how these rights can be restricted as well as to what degree.
The tenth amendment of the United states Constitution guarantees the people to be free from injustice by the powers of the state. It guarantees that the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness of the People is beyond any compelling interest of any state because these rights are not derived from the state and are not merely privileges granted by the state to the People but are the foundation of Freedom in the United States and endowed on individuals by the Creator, a much higher power than the state.
Liberty is a right that many have fought and died to defend. The mere idea of losing Liberty has induced the hearts of many to outright rebellion.
Patrick Henry was so adamant about his feelings that he said, “ 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! “
He in fact had much to say about Liberty that we should be paying close attention to even now. He said, The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. “
He also said, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately,nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! “
So then what is this thing that we call Liberty? We sing about it, we defend it, we even die for it, but do we fully know what it is?
It is defined as this by dictionary definition:
1. : the quality or state of being free:
a: the power to do as one pleases
b: freedom from physical restraint
c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e: the power of choice
Over the last few decades the Liberty of the People has been assaulted by governmental restrictions that have no basis in constitution or common sense application.
Have the People become possessions of a Tyrannical Government, or does the government belong to the people still? The answer to this question is simple.
“
The Declaration Of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. “
Do we still have the power to exercise our Liberty at will or do we no longer have the rights guaranteed by Liberty? Is our Liberty free from arbitrary or despotic control?
Are all citizens treated as possible criminals because of the actions of others? And where is the Liberty in that?
Should we discard our Liberty for a little security and then give up our Liberty all together because of living in a constant state of fear?
Remember that the exercise of all other rights protected by our constitution hinge solely on having the Liberty to exercise those rights.
The rights that we enjoy as a free nation are stacked on a foundation of Liberty. If the Corner stone is removed, the result is that all other rights collapse as well.
No matter where you are from, what country you live in or what religion you practice, if you are seeking Freedom from any thing, the only means to obtain that freedom is through "Liberty".
We allow politicians to control our government based on guidelines set up by their party, obviously guidelines that have nothing to do with our best interests.
The conflicting ideas of the two ruling parties is example enough that they are neither getting their ideas from the constitution, but rather from a corrupted party platform that has long since out lived it's usefulness.
Unless we as individuals take responsibility for the actions of our government, then it will run aground and be destroyed. Many would like to see this, but this we must not allow to happen.
We hear that we have a two party system, yet that too is a deception. The Democratic and Republican parties both were born from a single party. The Democratic Republican Party. It was the second political party in the United States, and was organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791-93, to oppose the Federalist Party run by Alexander Hamilton.
The party selected its presidential candidates in a caucus of members of Congress. They included Thomas Jefferson (nominated 1796; elected 1800-1, 1804), James Madison (1808, 1812), and James Monroe (1816, 1820). By 1824, the caucus system had practically collapsed. After 1800, the party dominated Congress and most state governments outside New England. By 1824, the party was split 4 ways and lacked a center, as the First Party System collapsed. The emergence of the Second Party System in the 1830s saw a realignment of old factions. One remnant followed Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren into the new Democratic Party by 1828. That party still exists. Another remnant led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay formed the National Republicans in 1828; it morphed into the Whig Party by 1835.[1]
So as we see here, the idea of two primary parties is in its own reality, a fiction.
We are deceived by politicians on every hand.
Some would say that the two parties have evolved, but when neither take a solid stance on every Liberty guaranteed to the American People, it would be more accurate to say that they have both devolved.
The evidence of the usurpation of the Rights of Americans by those in power is evidenced by these facts.
The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Yet, in cases where the rights of citizens to Liberty have been violated and the only recourse is a civil petition, the courts summarily deny pro-se litigants simply because they are not capable of presenting the facts in the way that an attorney would.
This means that only those who have the financial ability to pay for an attorney can expect to be able to exercise their right to redress. This simple fact reduces justice to a commodity. A commodity on enjoyed by those who possess the financial means to do so.
This is a process that was established by politicians who were intent on keeping issues out of court that they could not control.
They will use every means to stanch the voice of the People. They will try to destroy good names, reputations, hopes, dreams and even life to achieve their own means.
They do this all in the name of the people . The same people which they debase by their actions.
We have to two options and only two option.
We can Rise To Liberty, or kneel to corruption.
I choose to Rise To Liberty !
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Of all rights enjoyed by American Citizens, Liberty is the most fundamental of all.
In order to exercise any right, we must evidently posses the liberty to do so.
It is therefore prudent that Liberty be most adamantly defended by all individuals on every occasion.
The loss of Liberty to any degree means the erosion of Liberty on every level.
“The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less informed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding.”
James Madison FEDERALIST PAPER #44 January 25, 1788
It may at times seem that there justifiable reasons for suspending the rights of some citizens, but in truth the very act that allows the rights of a few to be suspended to any degree, creates legal precedence to suspend the rights of other citizens for other reasons until it becomes possible to suspend the rights of all the people for any reason.
The constitution provides for the suspension of certain rights of citizens during a time of incarceration. Other than this period of incarceration Martial Law is the only other provision for the suspension of rights and this provision provides for a far less restrictive power than that of incarceration.
The usurpation of rights is not a new concept. Madison said in Federal #44 that,” There being no such intermediate body between the State legislatures and the people interested in watching the conduct of the former, violations of the State constitutions are more likely to remain unnoticed and unredressed. “
Therefore there remain only two possible remedies to correct this usurpation of power by states. The most prudent is intervention by the Federal Courts. The second being that the people stay informed and vote cautiously when electing state representatives. This latter is a more perfect way, though probably less timely and less likely to be achieved.
We as individuals tend not to notice violations of Liberty unless it affects our own exercise of Liberty.
Thus, we are likely to have allowed the violations of rights of many others believing that these restrictions on Liberty are justified and lawful solely because we trust those elected to represent us to protect the rights of all citizens equally.
Today we are becoming more informed, we have more technology and more means of obtaining information though it is often buried deep under layers of misinformation and requires personal research to discover the reality of the truth.
This is evidenced by the advent of DNA science. Since DNA has been available 311 DNA exoneration's have occurred.
How is it possible to convict an innocent person of a crime that they obviously did not commit? This is evident that our Criminal Judicial system is broken badly. Denial of the crucial flaws and the risk to the Liberty of every American is too great for us to simply ignore.
Imagine how many people have been incarcerated “falsely convicted”in cases where there was no DNA to evaluate.
The most basic of rights guaranteed to American Citizens, “Liberty “ is at stake.
It is easy to make excuses and claims that these people who were convicted were probably guilty of some other crime , they just didn't get caught. Self justifications such as this do nothing to correct the problems that face our children and grand-children and certainly do nothing to correct the problems with our system. These are flaws that were not originally designed into our system. These are flaws that were forced into our system by corrupt people who hold the intention of capturing our Democracy and changing it as they will.
The hard cold truth is that, if we allow even one person to be convicted of a crime that they did not commit, then we allow a practice to exist that places the Liberty of every single Citizen in the United States in jeopardy.
Don't wait until it is your Liberty that is at risk before you start demanding a change.
Political pressure is not a valid reason to secure a conviction. Nor is fear. If we convict out of fear or make laws to restrict liberties out of fear, then we have to understand that everyone is afraid of something. So, what then? We just start restricting the liberties of anyone that may possibly commit a crime in the future?
What then happens to proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
For example, a family has been robbed at gunpoint by a young man wearing a black hoodie.
Should we place all young men who wear black hoodies under liberty restrictions or all young men who have ever worn a black hoodie? Though in reality, it has of late happened in to many instances to recount.
Yes, this is a bit far fetched, but it is an intentional exaggeration. The truth is that similar things are happening right now.
We must be careful when we allow the liberties of any citizen to be restricted in any way. We must take the time to be positive that we have the right person before we even start a criminal proceeding, much less demand a conviction.
The erosion of liberty in the United States is a problem that will be very difficult to return from.
There has long been an argument over state rights. Some arguments extend to the point that some people believe that states have ultimate rights and some states have made such claims under vague Amendments of the US Constitution.
For example states claim they have the right to usurp individual liberties of individuals and this power they claim comes from the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, the people far to often do not know what their constitution says nor that these rights claimed by the states actually do not exist other than in practice and are prohibited by principle.
The tenth amendment says, “The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people .” “Or to the People”, is a very key part of this amendment.
What then are states rights and what are individual rights? How do we separate the rights of individuals and the rights of the state? The test is a very simple one.
If the state can exercise this right it is a state right, if an individual can exercise this right it is an individual right. More simply put, if the state can do it, it is a state right. If a person can do it, it is an individual right.
So who has the greater rights? The government or those governed?
This question is answered in may different places. Most famously in the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. “
Certain rights apparently are derived from the Creator and not from the state. It would be prudent then to observe that those rights derived from the Creator can only be restricted in the most dire of situations and with very strict qualifications of when and how these rights can be restricted as well as to what degree.
The tenth amendment of the United states Constitution guarantees the people to be free from injustice by the powers of the state. It guarantees that the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness of the People is beyond any compelling interest of any state because these rights are not derived from the state and are not merely privileges granted by the state to the People but are the foundation of Freedom in the United States and endowed on individuals by the Creator, a much higher power than the state.
Liberty is a right that many have fought and died to defend. The mere idea of losing Liberty has induced the hearts of many to outright rebellion.
Patrick Henry was so adamant about his feelings that he said, “ 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! “
He in fact had much to say about Liberty that we should be paying close attention to even now. He said, The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. “
He also said, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately,nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! “
So then what is this thing that we call Liberty? We sing about it, we defend it, we even die for it, but do we fully know what it is?
It is defined as this by dictionary definition:
1. : the quality or state of being free:
a: the power to do as one pleases
b: freedom from physical restraint
c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e: the power of choice
Over the last few decades the Liberty of the People has been assaulted by governmental restrictions that have no basis in constitution or common sense application.
Have the People become possessions of a Tyrannical Government, or does the government belong to the people still? The answer to this question is simple.
“
The Declaration Of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. “
Do we still have the power to exercise our Liberty at will or do we no longer have the rights guaranteed by Liberty? Is our Liberty free from arbitrary or despotic control?
Are all citizens treated as possible criminals because of the actions of others? And where is the Liberty in that?
Should we discard our Liberty for a little security and then give up our Liberty all together because of living in a constant state of fear?
Remember that the exercise of all other rights protected by our constitution hinge solely on having the Liberty to exercise those rights.
The rights that we enjoy as a free nation are stacked on a foundation of Liberty. If the Corner stone is removed, the result is that all other rights collapse as well.
No matter where you are from, what country you live in or what religion you practice, if you are seeking Freedom from any thing, the only means to obtain that freedom is through "Liberty".
We allow politicians to control our government based on guidelines set up by their party, obviously guidelines that have nothing to do with our best interests.
The conflicting ideas of the two ruling parties is example enough that they are neither getting their ideas from the constitution, but rather from a corrupted party platform that has long since out lived it's usefulness.
Unless we as individuals take responsibility for the actions of our government, then it will run aground and be destroyed. Many would like to see this, but this we must not allow to happen.
We hear that we have a two party system, yet that too is a deception. The Democratic and Republican parties both were born from a single party. The Democratic Republican Party. It was the second political party in the United States, and was organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791-93, to oppose the Federalist Party run by Alexander Hamilton.
The party selected its presidential candidates in a caucus of members of Congress. They included Thomas Jefferson (nominated 1796; elected 1800-1, 1804), James Madison (1808, 1812), and James Monroe (1816, 1820). By 1824, the caucus system had practically collapsed. After 1800, the party dominated Congress and most state governments outside New England. By 1824, the party was split 4 ways and lacked a center, as the First Party System collapsed. The emergence of the Second Party System in the 1830s saw a realignment of old factions. One remnant followed Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren into the new Democratic Party by 1828. That party still exists. Another remnant led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay formed the National Republicans in 1828; it morphed into the Whig Party by 1835.[1]
So as we see here, the idea of two primary parties is in its own reality, a fiction.
We are deceived by politicians on every hand.
Some would say that the two parties have evolved, but when neither take a solid stance on every Liberty guaranteed to the American People, it would be more accurate to say that they have both devolved.
The evidence of the usurpation of the Rights of Americans by those in power is evidenced by these facts.
The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Yet, in cases where the rights of citizens to Liberty have been violated and the only recourse is a civil petition, the courts summarily deny pro-se litigants simply because they are not capable of presenting the facts in the way that an attorney would.
This means that only those who have the financial ability to pay for an attorney can expect to be able to exercise their right to redress. This simple fact reduces justice to a commodity. A commodity on enjoyed by those who possess the financial means to do so.
This is a process that was established by politicians who were intent on keeping issues out of court that they could not control.
They will use every means to stanch the voice of the People. They will try to destroy good names, reputations, hopes, dreams and even life to achieve their own means.
They do this all in the name of the people . The same people which they debase by their actions.
We have to two options and only two option.
We can Rise To Liberty, or kneel to corruption.
I choose to Rise To Liberty !
Also ... the history teacher in me forces me to point out that the Federalist papers - although experts have pretty much identified the authors - were written incognito - therefore no particular paper should or can be attributed to any one author.
The Bill of Rights for instance was penned by supposedly by Patrick Henry at the insistence of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.
The body of the constitution was taken from the Great Law of the Haudenosaunee, reworded a bit to suit the framers ideas. The mixture of beliefs in those who framed the constitution ranged from Christian, Buddhist and several other religions to atheism. Several were agnostics and remained so until death.
Though I believe that all understood a common belief in a greater and higher power, though understood differently by many of them. I suggest that that is why the word Creator was used rather than God.
The South still does not accept the second constitution as valid. They being the staunch "states rights"group tend to ignore two facts. One that the Articles of Confederation were rescinded and that the Confederacy lost the Civil War. I guess they didn't get the memo.