Posts Tagged ‘Liberty’

Is it time for a new declaration of liberty?

In Childrens Rights, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Family Court Reform, Freedom, National Parents Day, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers on June 26, 2009 at 9:25 pm

Is it time for a new declaration of liberty?.

Michael Farris launches declaration to unite believers in freedom, morality
Posted: June 02, 2009
8:35 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Socialist solutions to America’s struggles have been sweeping through the country virtually unchecked recently, from trillion-dollar federal bailouts to government control of the auto industry to calls for Uncle Sam to dig deeper into health care.

Meanwhile, those who would stand in opposition have been in disarray, as Republicans, conservatives, constitutionalists and capitalists of all colors haven’t yet decided whether they can agree to agree with one another.

Out of that disarray has stepped Michael Farris, chancellor of Patrick Henry College and chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, who believes there do exist a core set of principles that liberty-loving Americans can unite behind to stop the swell of socialism.

Michael Farris

Michael Farris

Through WND, Farris is announcing an invitation to “the citizens of this country that believe in the Constitution, who believe in traditional morality and virtue, who believe in a free America and reject the concepts of socialism and the secularist moral view” to unite in signing a newly drafted Declaration of the Principles of Liberty.

“Freedom is the ability to make your own decisions,” Farris told WND, “but socialism inherently takes away private decision making. When the president can decide who is the chair or CEO of General Motors, that’s socialism. America was founded on the principle that Americans can make their own decisions; the government can’t tell us what to do. Socialism erases that line and invades the private decision making of companies, of families, of everyone.”

Now, says Farris, “Socialism faces an ardent new foe” – not Farris himself, but the combined grassroots voices of Americans he hopes will rally behind the Declaration of the Principles of Liberty.

“A powerful voice for socialism has arisen in our nation. The government is here to provide for your every need,” begins the declaration. “America must decide whether it wants to pursue the path of freedom or the path of socialism. Let us be clear. These are two separate paths, and, in the long run, no nation can be free if it pursues the path of socialism.

“But where is the voice for freedom? No political leader has yet clearly rallied the millions of Americans who still believe in liberty,” asserts the declaration. “Then let the voice arise from the people themselves.”

Add your voice by reading and signing the Declaration of the Principles of Liberty

Farris told WND he was inspired to become the “draftsman” of the declaration after hundreds of people asked him what could be done in light of the nation’s direction. He was further convinced that a core set of “first principles” was needed after working with conservative leaders in an effort to discern the positions of the presidential candidates prior to the last election.

“What I found in the process – to my shock – was not where candidates stood, but that the arguments made by some social conservative leaders showed that we didn’t believe the same things or know what we stood for,” Farris told WND. “After the election, I attended meetings
with leadership of the Republican Party, leadership in the House and other conservative leaders, and I continue to believe that if there’s going to be revitalization for the conservative movement, we first and foremost have to know what we believe in.”

To that end, the declaration affirms a list of 10 core principles – among them the right to life, freedom of religion and conscience, the right to bear arms, economic freedom, limited government and others – that Farris believes can define and build a conservative coalition.

“We hope and believe that all Americans of good faith can embrace these ideals,” states the declaration. “We invite all to examine the history of this great nation and test these ideas with a long-range view. We believe that the facts reveal that the goals of freedom and justice that we all seek have been best served whenever our nation adheres to these ideals.”

The purpose behind the petition

“I simply came away [from meetings in Washington, D.C.] with the conviction that conservatism’s leaders had not clearly stated our convictions and beliefs,” Farris told WND. “I have given up any hope that anything like a comprehensive state of principles is going to come from on high; it’s going to have to come from the grassroots.”

The Declaration of the Principles of Liberty, Farris said, therefore has two components, one that addresses building a groundswell dedicated to freedom in future generations, and one that helps the current generation be discerning in the here and now.

“First, I hope people will take this declaration home and start talking to their children,” Farris said. “We cannot sustain a free nation if children are not taught the principles of freedom.

“I guarantee our children are not going to be taught the principles of liberty, self-government and virtue in the public schools or through the mass media,” Farris continued. “It’s going to have to be a grassroots effort to articulate, defend and teach the principles of freedom.”

Farris told WND the second purpose of the declaration is to give people a mirror they can hold up to leaders, to equip voters to ask pointed and pertinent questions of political candidates to discern their actual positions.

“Right now, [politicians] get away with platitudes,” Farris said. “They’ll talk about ‘a culture of life’ without defining what they mean by that. But people need to know what their stand is on protecting human life from conception to natural death.

“The declaration is written with the kind of precision that allows you to ask candidates pointed questions and find out where they really stand,” he continued. “No more glowing generalities that just about anyone could endorse. If Bill Clinton can say he believes in ‘a culture of life’, for example, then that’s not a precise enough phrase to separate issues.

“I hope one of the real uses of this declaration is as a standard to compare candidates,” Farris said.

Not everyone Farris hopes to unite, however, may necessarily agree with every phrase in the declaration, a point Farris addressed in his interview with WND.

“We’ve got to be wise enough to recognize that we’re building a conservative coalition,” Farris said, “so even if you’re a person who doesn’t have any children, standing up for parental rights is still an important part of the coalition. Even if you don’t choose to own guns, you need to recognize that the Second Amendment community is an important part of the conservative coalition, and the principles related to that are important to the country.

“The left is very good at organization around the doctrine of ‘first principles,'” Farris explained. “The unions support the feminists who support the gay community and so forth. But what do unions have to do with feminism? I was once on television show with the head of a mine workers union, and he was talking about importance of the Equal Rights Amendment. And I said, ‘What are you doing? I know your union members; I got a lot of their votes when I ran for lieutenant governor, and they don’t believe in feminism.’ The answer was: Feminism is an important part of the coalition.

“The left understands that and they work together, and so the right needs to do the same thing,” Farris said. “We must not just find the least common denominator, but describe a whole set of first principles and get the whole coalition together who believe in these things.”

The eventual goal, Farris explained, is to empower everyday Americans to take their organizations, political parties and nation back from those leaders who don’t represent the people’s values.

“I’m hoping this becomes a grassroots, viral campaign to promote these principles to millions of Americans and that millions of Americans will sign this pledge,” Farris said. “If I’m able to tell the leadership in Washington that hundreds of thousands or millions of people have signed these petitions, they’re going to have to start paying attention to these ideas, stop giving lip service to conservatism and stop simply being a more ‘conservative’ form of socialist.”

Is it the U.S. Government’s responsibility to protect and uphold its citizen’s constitutional Rights?

In children legal status, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, family court, Family Rights, fathers rights, Freedom, judicial corruption, Liberty, mothers rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parents rights on May 4, 2009 at 1:00 pm

By Wolfeman77346
Aug 13 2008

Although government promotes itself endlessly as our indispensable “protector” and principle guardian of our Constitutional Rights, it’s not true.

Nevertheless, that self-promotion has effectively conditioned most Americans to believe our Constitutional Rights are respected and vigorously protected by government and public servants. Unfortunately, only a few people realize that government does not automatically protect our Rights, that our inclination to trust government is dangerously misguided, and that our ignorance of our Rights encourages government to abuse those Rights.

The relationship between any government and its citizens is, and has always been, at best, ADVERSARIAL: individual Rights are inversely proportional to government power. The more power the government has, the fewer Rights you have. Government can’t grow in size or power except at the cost of our individual Rights and freedom.

The founding fathers also realized that all governments seek to expand their powers and are therefore driven to diminish their citizen’s Rights. Hence, the Constitution was written to both limit government and maximize our individual Rights.

In truth, the American Constitution is essentially an anti-government document.

The Constitution’s principle purpose is not simply to specify our individual Rights, but to shield us from the single organization that will always pose the greatest threat to those Rights: our own government. That’s why we have three branches of government, checks and balances, elections every two years, the opportunity to call constitutional conventions, the Right to jury trials, and the Right to keep and bear arms – each political mechanism was designed to empower the public to restrict government and thereby to protect the people against government’s inevitable urge to tyranny.

If the principle enemy of any people is their own government, and if the principle defender of the American people is the American Constitution, then it follows that the first enemy of our government is our Constitution. Government understands this conflict, but tries to conceal it from the public by claiming to be the only interpreter and protector of the Constitution.

But if only the government interprets the Constitution, then those interpretations are typically biased to empower government — the Constitution’s archenemy — at the expense of the people.

Given the conflict between government and our Constitution, it follows that:

1) The government is not interested in protecting the Constitution;

2) Although the government uses the Constitution to legitimize itself, it’s principle interest is in DESTROYING the Constitution; and

3) That the only party able to truly protect and defend YOUR Rights is YOU.

Sound far-fetched? It’s not. Even the courts agree.

The individual Rights guaranteed by our Constitution can be compromised or ignored by our government.

For example, in US. vs.Johnson (76 Fed Supp. 538), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,

“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It’s benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person.” McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral persuasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. . . . He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.”

Note the verdict’s confrontational language: “fighting”, “combat”, and most surprising, “belligerent”. Did you ever expect to ever read a Federal Court condemn citizens for being “passive” or “ignorant”? Did you ever expect to see a verdict that encouraged citizens to be “belligerent” IN COURT…?

Better go back and re-read that extraordinary verdict. And read it again. And commit it to memory, for it succinctly describes the essence of the American legal system.

The court ruled that the Constitutional Right against self-incrimination is NOT automatically guaranteed to any citizen by any government branch or official. Moreover, despite the government’s usual propaganda, this Right is NOT available to all persons: It is not available to the “passive”, the “ignorant”, or the “indifferent”. Nor can this Right be claimed by an attorney on behalf of his client.

The Right against self-incrimination is available only to the knowledgeable, “belligerent claimant”, to the individual willing to engage in “sustained combat” to FIGHT for his RIGHT.

Government is obligated to recognize your Constitutional Right against self-incrimination only if you fight for that right. Our courts are free to ignore this Right for any citizen who is

1) Ignorant of his Right and/or

2) Lacks the courage to fight for his Right. Therefore, anyone who trusts the courts (or even his own lawyer) to protect his Constitutional Right against self-incrimination is a fool and may pay a fool’s price.

If one of our Constitutional Rights is only available to citizens who are both knowledgeable and belligerent, how are the balances of our Rights any different?

They’re not.

Fundamentally, if you don’t know your Rights, the court is under no obligation to inform you, or to protect your Rights. Even if you know your Rights, but lack the guts to fight for them, again, the court is not obligated to protect you. If you are superior to the Government, then why SHOULD they be obligated to inform their Master? Ignorance of the law is NO EXCUSE! In the same respect, if the executive or legislative branch violates the Constitution, it is our duty to fight to restore the limitations provided by the constitution.

In fact, your ignorance or passivity legally empowers your adversary to exploit you in court. If the opposing side tries to railroad you and ignore your Constitutional Rights, the judge is not obligated to protect your Rights. This is particularly true in cases where your opponent is the government (a District Attorney, for example, or the I.R.S.). This is seen repeatedly when the sheep are led into our courts, sheared, bled, and butchered under the kindly gaze of the presiding judge.

That’s the way our courts really are: The ignorant and the passive can be routinely railroaded and abused without ever understanding that the cause for their abuse is their own ignorance or cowardice.

Our cowardice and fear of the courts typically entices us to “play nice” with the judge. But that’s exactly the wrong strategy because by “playing nice”, we become accomplices in our own destruction. By not objecting and defying the courts, we implicitly approve, validate, and accept whatever injustice the court cares to dispense on our lives. By not fighting, we give the government license to destroy us.

The key to a successful defense of our Rights is not to kiss up to the judge with yes-your-honor’s, no-your-honor’s, and pray-the-court’s, but to stand up and belligerently defy the system.

Given that the government does not defend our Rights, what’s a reasonable person to do?

Clearly, we must do SOMETHING, for as Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” But apathy isn’t simply a function of cowardice or indifference; “apathy” is a synonym for “ignorance”.

Ignorance makes the public more “manageable” in the courts and in confrontations with the government. Insofar as government naturally seeks to expand its powers at the expense of the citizen’s Rights, government has a vested interest in the public’s ignorance and consequent apathy. The interest in expanding its powers encourages the government to provide little, no, or even false, education on what our Rights should be.

So first, you must learn your Constitutional Rights. If you don’t know what your Rights are, you can’t “fight” for them.

Second, given the reality of American education, you can’t rely on the state to teach you anything other than basic vocational training. Therefore, you must study your rights, learn about law, history and EDUCATE YOURSELF.

Third, teach your friends and neighbors. It’s not enough to know YOUR Rights. You must also know and respect your neighbor’s. Like-wise, your neighbor must learn to know and respect his, and you’re Rights, too. Our chances of compelling government to concede our Rights are hugely improved when the general public also understands and respects those Rights.

Fourth, knowledge alone is not enough: once you know your Rights, find the courage to fight for them. Courage (“belligerence”) is the final requirement to secure your Rights. Fight for YOUR Rights, and more, learn to respect others, no matter how seemingly bizarre, who also fight for THEIR Rights. Make no mistake — anyone who’s fighting for HIS Rights, is also fighting for YOURS. He’s entitled to your respect.

Fifth, don’t trust the government. Recognize the true nature of a citizen’s relationship to government is ADVERSARIAL.

All governments naturally seek to expand their powers at the cost of their citizen’s Rights, both nationally and internationally. This has been true since time began and will not change in this life. You have what they want: personal power (and as consequence, freedom from government authority). Trusting the government has already enslaved us. It is up to us to break these bonds and restore true liberty and freedom.

The most effective tyrannies begin by luring their subjects with carrots. Only later, after the people are addicted to government and weak, will they use the stick to compel public obedience.

America thrived for nearly two centuries based on the Constitution’s mandate of limited government/maximum freedom. But limited government demands personal self-reliance. As government has grown in size with the carrots of welfare, entitlements, and special interest programs, the public has become increasingly dependent of the government, and the nation has declined.

This is America, boys and girls. It’s more than a piece of land; it’s a political miracle — the only nation in the world with an anti-government Constitution. But this miracle is conditional and dependant on the knowledge, courage, and self-reliance of its citizens. Freedom will not flourish in a nation of ignorant fools and irresponsible weaklings. To live free takes knowledge, nerve, and personal responsibility.

From http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/911242

http://familyrights.us / bin / white_papers-articles / gov_not_protecting_rights.html