Can The Government Punish Legal Behavior?

"Once the government breaks the rules and conducts a mixed war on one or more citizens without probable cause, it loses its right to expect the citizens to continue to obey the government's wishes. The citizen(s) are entitled, in fact have a duty, to do whatever is necessary to control the government and force the government to obey the law. The U.S. Declaration of Independence elaborates quite thoroughly about that."

Remember, “Morality is a political question enforced at the ballot box, not a legal question subject to police power.”

“If we accept the idea that "The end justifies the means," then we will cease to be a nation of laws and become a nation of opportunistic power. If we allow the government to ignore the requirement that it have probable cause, then anyone can be convicted of anything. Just find something he did that's embarrassing though legal, attack him with such overwhelming power that he cannot make well thought choices of action”

clipped from www.1215.org CAN THE GOVERNMENT INTERFERE WITH OR PUNISH LEGAL BEHAVIOR? If a citizen is doing nothing illegal, however good or bad it may be, can the government properly declare a $40,000,000 mixed war [1] on him? Or is the government now authorized to not only enforce the law, but also to enforce the bureaucrat-in-charge's concept of morality? Can the government go beyond enforcing the law, and also apply police power to morality? A CITIZEN IS ENTITLED TO TAKE ANY REASONABLE ACTION TO PROTECT HIS RIGHTS FROM BEING TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT It is a well established point of the law of jurisdiction that if one is doing nothing illegal, regardless of what the activity is, the government may not interfere. If a policeman should decide to *illegally* arrest a citizen, the citizen is entitled to use whatever reasonable force necessary to preserve his liberty, even if the force is lethal. Recently that point was reaffirmed at Ruby Ridge, where Mr Weaver killed a U.S. Marshal who was trying to arrest him.