Friday, August 31, 2012

You have to choose which hill to die on, in Middleton?

You have to choose which hill to die on!?


Why is it every football season I have an elevated heart rate and the fear of arrest just for attending my son’s football games?


When I was clueless about law and the destruction of my rights, just an ignorant sheep, like so many oblivious to the concept, It never bothered me to continue to give money to a government entity, obeying arbitrary laws and signs because I was conditioned and believed government was instituted for our benefit, life was simple and I do believe I was happier then, ignorance is bliss, remember?


Something happened about four years ago and I’m still not sure if it was a blessing or a curse because now that I know the way things should be, I find myself fighting against the world that doesn’t even realize that it operates unlawfully while I attempt to adhere to it the written law as it was intended and actually and ironically criminalized for it! What a dilemma!


The issues I have been fighting vary in severity but nonetheless are incremental restrictions on the rights of the people at the most basic level and they don’t even realize it, in this they label me ridiculous, frivolous or just told I was wasting my time and effort, stating I needed to choose my battles and what hill I am going to die on? Since when has challenging today’s legal system become a “Hill to die on?”


Have we really been conditioned to believe that our rights are whatever ANY government says they are? If this is true, what does our history and written rule of law have to say about this? Was not government created BY the people and for the people to protect their rights? Was not congress and the legislature given the limited power to write law? Why today does EVERY government entity have the power to make laws and why do they write laws that restrict the rights of the people when it is so diametrically opposed to its creation, making our government, in fact, unlawful while they blame us, while we adhere to the law as the criminal?


So, as I see it, people, the inherent power, create government to protect their rights, limits government by specific and enumerated written limitations as not to usurp the rights of the people but instead today, the government that the people created has taken that power without authority, to restrict the rights of the people at an ever increasing expense?

Think about this!


 If you or I were to adhere to a written law and we stepped outside of the law, we would be unlawful and punished but somehow a government that swore and oath to us, to limit it, to function in “good behavior” and acknowledging its limitations when it acts outside of its limitation is not acting unlawful? Why?


Take a minor issue for example, speeding tickets. If you tell someone you were going to challenge a speeding ticket, your credibility would be reduced to about zero, trust me, I know. You would be considered a trouble maker and divisive, Really?


The next typical response from the one you spoke to is to go to the extreme to make their point, the typical “So you just think everyone should just go 90 mph?” (Why they all choose 90, I’m not sure). Why did they go to such extreme? Is it a defensive mechanism and an effort to prevent them from exposing their ignorance of the law or an attempt to show mine? Who is right, one’s opinion or written law?


Is going to such an extreme plausible, sure it is, but they missed the point. Just because I stated I was fighting a speeding ticket they assumed that I am an anarchist that thinks that there shouldn’t be any restrictions which is again, a poor and inaccurate presumption.


What if there were laws on the books that proved that what I was fighting was legitimate and that I had enough evidence to prove my innocence, with the written law? It would get thrown out do to popular opinion, otherwise known as a democracy, or mob rule, in a full abandonment of the written law adhering to the rule of opinions instead. Is that what we pledge to, is that what our officers take an oath to, is that what our Founding fathers died for, our military men, to abandon the original intent of our written rule of law and allow opinions to trump the freedom protected to the minority, HARDLY!


Take seatbelts as another example, I despise the law that forcefully tells the people what to do in their car and quite frankly they have no jurisdiction or authority to enforce such laws but some of intent of these laws are not bad laws at all, which is still not the issue. The question is or should be at every instance, is it lawful? The answer is no. Why? Because government is to protect the RIGHTS of the people, peace officers were created to “Keep the Peace” and to be available when summoned, not to create revenue for the state and stop people for frivolous infractions, when in reality no crime had been committed due to lack of evidence of the crime or infraction has been committed because no contract had been violated, not to mention that speed limits according to our own laws state that they only apply to commercial vehicles!


This topic can from here can go a variety of different ways to make my point and is more complex than I intend on going in this post, but the point is that even though imposed “laws” may sound like good laws, they in reality are not laws at all and in many cases either against the Supreme law of the land, the US constitution and even in our own statutes and supported and defended by supreme court cases!


Are you freer than you were 50 years ago? 20 years? 5 Years ago? NO?

Why? Wasn’t government created to protect the rights of the people? If you fail to protect and maintain your home or your children what happens, in your home, things begin to break down, severe disrepair, and eventually destruction, your children, they get sick, get hurt, or run away or  die.


The essence of every human is personal property, his life, his breathe, his kids, his animals, his home, cars and  collections, his society and form of government and maintenance of all personal property is crucial to its survival so that it may be passed down.


Am I to be condemned for my desire to maintain my personal property and pass it of as a legacy for future generations or shall one be more to be condemned for their failure to do so?

Who is the real criminal, the one that adheres to the written law or the one that adheres to random arbitrary opinions? If you choose wrong, the maintenance of your child’s future is at stake! Shall I be arrested for carrying a water thermos or outside food and drink to a school event or for video recording my sons football game from the sidelines both which do not breach the peace? Really? If this is so, where does it stop? Without limitations on your government, they can never be stopped!


It has been stated that I am an “Alarmist” that I treat every issue, no matter how small the same and that in this I also lose credibility. (seems I may not have any left by now). I guess the only thing that I could say is this…


“I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not a cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write with moderation. NO! NO! Tell a man who’s house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of a ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from a fire into which it has fallen;- but urge me not to use moderation in a case like the present. I am in earnest-I will no equivocate- I will not excuse- I will not retreat a single inch- and I will be heard. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection from the dead”


William Lloyd Garrison “To the public” from the Inaugural  editorial 1 January 1831 The Liberator



No comments: