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.

HITLER & THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

clipped from www.the-tribulation-network.com o understand the appeal, the absolute, mesmerizing, and intoxicating drive behind Hitler's success, one must go beyond the inequities of the Versailles Treaty and delve into the mysterious association that Herr Hitler placed upon the Christian religion. Don't think that Adolf was way off into some cultic, overtly demonic world of fantasy and influence. True, the occult most assuredly was deeply engaged in his thinking and outlook—but the use of legitimate Christian imagery was his forte. He both understood the need to mobilize the masses and the religion that alone could sway their fidelity to his cause. What you are about to read will shock many of you--will utterly cause you to have a spiritual seizure; "We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. GERMANY'S WORST NIGHTMARE COULD BE AMERICA'S

"required reading" for every pastor and Christian layman in America.

clipped from www.chuckbaldwinlive.com If the reader has not already done so, I again urge you to read the book, Hitler's Cross, which was written by Erwin Lutzer and published by Moody Press. This book should be "required reading" for every pastor and Christian layman in America. In his book, Lutzer focuses on the attitudes and actions of Germany's pastors and churches during the rise and reign of the Third Reich. It is a masterpiece. When Ron Paul was asked about Mike Huckabee's overt usage of a cross for a campaign advertisement, he quoted Sinclair Lewis as saying, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." More than any other Republican Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee carries his Big Government machinations on a cross. I strongly recommend that readers take a look at Selwyn Duke's excellent exposé on Mike Huckabee at http://www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwyn79.htm What they never would have surrendered to a professing agnostic, they gladly surrendered to a professing Christian.

Most Gun Owners Are Ignorant

clipped from www.lewrockwell.com by Michael Gaddy by Michael Gaddy At least fifty hours a week I work behind a gun counter doing my best to outfit honest Americans with the means to defend themselves when this atrocity we call government finally crosses the line, follows the dictates of history and declares war against its own citizens. Many, if not all, are totally ignorant of the positions and/or previous voting records of Republican candidates for president on Second Amendment issues. They automatically assume because the candidate is a Republican, he/she supports the Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms. How could anyone who truly believes in their God-given right to own a firearm and use it in defense of their lives and the lives of their loved ones not know about the greatest champion of the Constitution in the U.S. Congress? Gun owners can educate themselves on the candidates, gather the courage to support the only real Patriot in the race, or kiss the right to keep and bear arms goodbye.

"Real Photograph" of Man in G. Washington's Continental Army

Many interesting tidbits here.

clipped from unitedcats.wordpress.com I’ve written about the first photograph of a human being, here is another old photograph that has historical significance in an obscure way. The fine gentleman above is Conrad Heyer, this picture was taken circa 1852. He was approximately 103 when photographed, having been born in 1749. He was reportedly the first white child born in Waldoboro, Maine, then a German immigrant community. He served in the Continental Army under George Washington during the Revolutionary War, crossing the Delaware with him and fighting in other major battles. He eventually bought a farm and retired to Waldoboro, where he happily regaled visitors with tales of his Revolutionary War exploits until his dying day. By being born in 1749, he may very well be the earliest born human being ever photographed. The world population was under eight hundred million in 1749

Fighting Terrorism since 1492

clipped from unitedcats.wordpress.com There’s certainly been a lot of concern the last few years about the suspension of civil liberties in the USA and the direction the country is heading. And there have been some disturbing incidents, some people are genuinely concerned that the USA is turning into a police state. What does it really mean when people when people are threatened with machine guns for wearing jewelry or arrested for reading the Constitution? It means we are living in interesting times, that’s for sure. Does it mean we are turning into a police state? Well, not really. Yet. I do have some concerns, though I must note that I have had concerns since the Ruby Ridge and Waco massacres. And just in general the “law and order” mentality that has pervaded the country since 9/11 is a little scary. For six years now our police agencies have been hunting for terrorists under every bush with this “we’re protecting America and anyone who disagrees with our methods is the enemy” attitude. a few recent incidents

Is rebelling against rebellion rebellion?

DHS = Dept. Homeland inSecurity

clipped from www.worldnetdaily.com TESTING THE FAITH Obey? Bible says yes, if government's 'good' 'No civil rulers should be followed if orders inconsistent with God's' Posted: August 26, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com Columnist Chuck Baldwin wrote unbelievingly that, "in order to convince American citizens to surrender their firearms to the government during a time of martial law, DHS is enlisting the assistance of America's pastors. According to the DHS, my job as a church pastor, is to tell my congregation that, according to Romans 13, they must surrender their firearms when the government asks them to do so." "Let me address the issue bluntly: "Properly understood, Romans 13 teaches that each and every government official (including the President of the United States and all those under him) must submit to the U.S. Constitution," he said.