A CLEAN SWEEP

We say: that we believe that all men should be able to do as they please; just as long as they do not infringe on the rights of another person, including property rights. We have received some flack about that statement. So let us look at just what freedom really is.

Some one once said that "Freedom is not free, free men are not equal, and equal men are not free." You can see the wisdom of such a statement. Freedom is not free. All men have a responsibly; to fight for their freedom. A just war will be blessed by God. What then is a just war? A just war, where men are fighting to have the right to worship God, not as they please but as God pleases. God is not pleased when you worship and bow down to idols or any false god.

We have not been involved in a just war since the Revolutionary war and the War of 1812. We won those wars against overwhelming odds; which proves that God was with us in those wars. For many years after those wars we were loyal to God in our lives. I don't mean to say that all people were; but enough people were loyal to God to please Him. Preachers, in The Revolutionary War, preached on Sunday; then grabbed their guns and went out to fight the enemy. The people went on to build a great nation that honored God. God was pleased with us and blessed all that we did.

Let us get back to the meaning of freedom to do as we please as long as we do not harm anyone else. To be free is to accept a huge responsibility. Many of the laws in the New Republic were based on the laws that God gave to Moses and Israel. These were just laws and they were fair.

The first five Commandments of God were dealing with mans relationship to God; but the last five were dealing with mans relationship to man.

6. Honor thy father and thy mother.

7. Thou shalt not kill.

8.Thou shalt not commit adultery.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

10. Thou shalt not covet.

There were many other just laws that God gave to Moses. Laws that was right for any people. Today, many of our laws are laws for special interest groups. Most of them violate the U.S. Constitution therefore they are illegal and should not be enforced. In a court of law the jury has the right to decide if a crime has been committed, not that a law has been broken; because all broken laws are not crimes. If the law is against the Constitution, then is an illegal law and should not be enforced and a jury should acquit the person on trial, since no crime has been committed. The government lawyers and the corrupt judges do all they can to hide this fact from the people, they are supposed to serve. Most of what the government does is illegal.

Let us say that you shoot a person; while protecting your own person: that is not a crime. You may have broken some law; but you have not committed a crime. Let us say that you allow your dog to bite some person, you have committed a crime by not controlling your dog; but you may not have broken any law. When the woman spilled hot coffee, she bought at Macdonald's Restaurant, and burned herself; Macdonald's had not committed a crime. The woman sued them and won; but MacDonald’s did not commit a crime against that woman. People expect coffee to be hot when they buy it. It is not illegal to sell hot coffee therefore no crime was committed by Macdonald's. Such a case never should have gone to court. It is legal to sell cigarettes; but it is wrong to sell cigarettes, because they are harmful to people. Many food items are harmful to people, yet they are sold every day, a person must look out for their own health, the government will not do that for you. The government pretends to look out for you, but their main interest is in looking out for the super rich that bank roll their elections. It is the fault of the cigarette company if some body dies of lung cancer, but since it is legal to sell cigarettes, the cigarettes companies should not be held to blame. People know smoking is harmful; but choose to smoke anyway therefore they are to blame for their freedom of choice to smoke. It is not legal to sell dope; but no one ever sues the dope pushers. The Attorneys General should sue the dope pushers for the damage that they do in selling dope? They don’t; because they are probably on the payroll of the dope dealers. No one ever sues the liquor companies. Why? because people want to keep drinking. We, personally, think smoking and drinking is wrong and we have not smoked or drank since we were teenagers. The Constitution gives the states the right to control such items as liquor and cigarettes, that are harmful to people. Since it is not illegal to smoke or drink a person should be free to smoke and drink; but then he must not expect the state to care for him when he is sick. That is what freedom is all about one must pay for their own mistakes and not look or expect that someone else will pay for them. If one harms himself: he has only himself to blame. We buy very little processed foods; because most of them have additives that are harmful to ones health. We drive 75 miles, one way, once every month to buy our meat in a store that sells meat that has not been fed any thing to make them grow bigger. They do not graze the animals on grass where pesticides have been sprayed. We look out for our own health, we do not expect the government do that for us. That is freedom.

You can see that the law has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. You can do harm to a person without breaking any law. You can lie and ruin a person’s life, especially if you own a newspaper. If you lie, you may not have broken any law; but if your lie injures any person, you have violated that person’s rights, whether there is a written law or not. Liable laws are among the hardest to prosecute. When you lie about a person, you have committed a crime against that person. When you commit adultery, you have committed a crime against the partner you are involved with, even if you did not break a written law. The golden rules, says, "Do unto others; as you would have them do unto you." Many people get upset at the crimes others commit against them; while they are, themselves, doing the same thing to others.

So our ideas about true freedom are proper. You should be able to do as you please as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. If we all lived by this rule, all would be well in the country.

Lester Maddox was a hardnosed segregationist, in Georgia, he felt that he had a right to choose his friends, even his customers, we agree, that is freedom. Then he was elected governor of Georgia. Then he said he was not free to do that any more. He was the governor of all the people and he was obligated to treat all people the same, again we agree with him. The government is not free to treat one person any better than another, all should be treated the same by the government, but a person can discriminate against a person without breaking any law. We should not discriminate against another person and I have never done that in my life.

One time we signed up with AT&T long distance; the reason being that they gave us $85.00 to do so. Another company called us and wanted us to change to their system for less money. We said that AT&T gave us money to use their service. They said that doesn't matter you can still switch. We said no we cannot do that we gave our word to them. We will change sometime in the future; because they charged us for something that the other companies do not charge for and they did not tell us they would do that. You see we had the right to change; but it would have been wrong to do so at that time.

When you get ready to do anything, you need to ask, "Is it right?" Is it something I would want a person to do to me? If you have to ask that question it is probably not the right thing to do. But that is what freedom is all about, the freedom to do or not to do anything. If it will harm another person in any way it is a crime, even if there is no written law against it. It is hard to believe that there may be something that is not against some law. Still that is the rule to live by. We could have peace on earth, if all men would live that way.

Because all other men do not have the same morals you have, is no excuse for you to live like they do. The "Golden Rule" is still the best rule to live by: that truly is freedom.

Men should not smoke; because sooner or later they are going to become a burden on someone else and that is not right. Men should not drink for the same reason. Drunk drivers kill more people than guns therefore a man should not drink and drive. If he does he should be punished for endangering the life and property of others. People should not be homosexuals for the same reason, since most of them die before they are fifty and need much care, putting a burden on someone else. Sure they are free to be homosexuals; but they are harming the persons that they have sex with, and those that have to pay and take care of them when they are dying with aids. That is one reason why they should not be homosexuals. The same is true of the smoker, the drinker, or the dope user. Because they will sooner or later need help, therefore taking away the freedom of the people that has to take care of them. We know smokers, drinkers, dope users, and homosexuals live shorter lives than the rest of society; therefore people should not engage in these practices.

Women have children out of wedlock. Sure they are free to do so; but it is wrong, if the rest of us have to take care of them with financial help. They made not have broken any written law, but they have committed a crime against God and those that have to pay their way just the same. In a free society, one must be free to take responsibility for their actions. The rest of us should not have to pay for their mistakes. Remember, if you play with fire you will get burnt.

Remember then, man should be free to do as he pleases, just as long as he does not harm any one else, that is total freedom.

I hope this clears up the idea of freedom. Most people are afraid of total freedom. They want the government there, in case they fall and need help. The government is ready to aid all the misfits in the world, while it is extremely difficult for a person; who has always taken care of themselves to get any help from the government. They feel that you have always taken care of yourself. If they refuse to help, you will find a way to get by on your own. Most people like that will get by if left to do so by the government.

In closing I want to say that man should not break the laws of God. I know that he is free to do so; because God made him a free moral agent: but God will judge him for breaking God's holy laws. Notice I said God will judge him for breaking His holy laws. Man does not go to Hell for breaking these laws. Man goes to Hell for one reason only, refusing to accept Christ as his Saviour. That is the only sin that will condemn a man to Hell. We all deserve to go to hell; but one who accepts Christ as Saviour and is covered with the blood of Christ will escape Hell. Once in Hell a man is then judged for all the sins that he committed while here on earth. You can come to Christ and escape this judgment; only if you come to Christ and accept Him as your substitute. GOD BLESS YOU AND A-MEN.

Let us add this to this essay: When a jury is convened to try a man, they have the power to rule as they please. They are there to decide if any crime has been convicted, not if a law has been broken. The law may very well be against the Constitutional rights of the person on trial. It is not a crime to break a law that is in itself illegal. A jury has the power to rule that a man is innocent in such a case.

Another rule of law: that very few people are aware of is the fact that the courts cannot pass legislation. Let us take the case of Roe vs. Wade. When the Supreme Court ruled in this case, the media immediately said it was the law of the land. That was false; it was the law in that one case only. Each case must go to the appeals court on its own merits. If the court rules in favor, as they did in Roe vs. Wade, that ruling only applies to Roe vs. Wade, and does not become the law of the land. All cases must be appealed to the courts for a ruling. THAT IS THE LAW, but our corrupt courts do not enforce the law.

The courts do not have the power to stop all prayer. If you want prayer stopped in your school, you must go to court. Each case must be settled, while one case does not affect another case. If the courts rules that prayer is not allowed in the Tim Buck Too schools, the rule applies only to that city, and not to all schools. Each case is a separate case. The media lies here by telling you that prayer has been outlawed all over the country that is a bald-faced lie.

American Tyranny Has Come Gradually

Charley Reese
of The Sentinel Staff

Published in The Orlando Sentinel on February 28, 1999.

James Bovard, the American government's most unfavorite journalist, has done all who value liberty a great service. He has meticulously
documented freedom's demise in America and set it all in its proper philosophical framework.

An intelligent reader of Freedom in Chains, the Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen (St. Martin's Press) will have no doubt felt
that American liberty is now more myth than reality and that the U.S. Government is drifting inexorably toward an authoritarian state.

It is the documentation - the specific cases, the specific rulings, the specific statements - that create the menacing mosaic of a state with
an insatiable appetite for more power.

"To blindly trust government is to automatically vest it with excessive power. To distrust government is simply to trust

humanity - to trust in the ability of average people to peacefully, productively coexist without some official policing their every move.

The State is merely another human institution - less creative than Microsoft, less reliable than Federal Express, less responsible than

the average farmer husbanding his land, and less prudent than the average citizen spending his own paycheck." So Bovard writes in his

last chapter.

That should give you the flavor of the book. I will leave the rest to you and simply add my own comments to reinforce his theme.

Truly, freedom is the capacity to make decisions in the absence of coercion. Because every law, by its nature and regardless of its
subject, commands us to do something or not do something, it follows like a river down a hill that freedom is diminished law by
law, regulation by regulation, for each one eliminates a decision we could have made ourselves.

American tyranny has come gradually, like a slowly rising river. Each of us does not realize the danger until the water comes in
our door. Until then, it is merely someone else's problem and a problem that we fool ourselves into thinking won't reach us.

The big problem I see for those of us who care about freedom is that we are not organized. Rather we are separate, little groups concerned
mainly about one particular subject, whether it's freedom to own firearms or property rights or press rights or religious rights. Half
the time we don't even communicate, and in some cases we oppose each other.

Many newspapers pieces about the First Amendment, actually lead the campaign against the Second Amendment. Urban folks, mostly renters
or mortgage payers, tend to be unsympathetic to the encroachment on property rights, which, at the present, mainly hits large property
owners such as farmers or developers.

On the other hand, statistic - those ideologically driven to increase the power of the state to the point at which no individual freedom
is left -tend to be united and organized. I don't know how it will end. Many Americans, it seems to me, prefer security to freedom. There is, after all, a rough and raw side to freedom, for it means assuming personal responsibility for income, home, safety and health. It means the discipline to plan and to forego the immediate pleasure for the more distant payoff. It means hard work and a frugal habit. It means the courage to risk failure, to risk loss
and the endurance to survive them. It isn't easy.

You could say freedom is like a wild mustang that is difficult to mount and to ride and that lots of folks prefer the comfort of a carriage
drawn by government-broke horses.