Continued Call to Action

In 1765 the erroneous and egregious Stamp Act forced regulation on everyday activities such that the people actually came together in a manner not seen by the political leaders of the day.  They protested in mass.  This tax law provided that all legal documents, newspapers, mortgages, titles, deeds and so forth, had to be printed on stamped paper, which was to be sold by the British government.  What is happening in local governments today if you want to do something?

Now stamped paper is not what we are experiencing today but, we are seeing exchanges and other cost to act according to our rights being imposed and escalated. It is time to get educated on the Habitat Exchange, the increase in business licensing fees, permitting to include trimming the trees on your private property and thousands of other regulations that are more than the average citizen can begin to look into.

More incredulous is the full push from the just completed Rio Summit that is moving as fast as the former SR-71 to impose the UN driven Agenda 21 and ECLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) upon YOU!

It is important that each individual understands and questions their elected persons why international initiatives are being foisted upon We The People?  Your “Call To Action” is to get informed and get answers as to why your representatives are allowing international domination over your Life, Liberty and Property.

See the Links on Property Rights – Especially on Agenda 21 & ECLEI

Published in: on June 16, 2011 at 7:08 pm  Leave a Comment  

Mysteries of Government February 27th, 1769

In the days of the STUARTS, it was lookd upon by some men as a high degree of prophaness, for any subject to enquire into what was called the mysteries of government: James the first thundered his anathema against Dr. Cowel, for his daring presumption in treating of those mysteries, and forbad his subjects to read his books, or even to keep them in their houses. In those days passive obedience, non-resistance, the divine hereditary right of kings, and their being accountable to God alone, were doctrines generally taught, believd and practiced: But behold the sudden transition of human affairs! In the very next reign the people assumd the right of free enquiry, into the nature and end of government, and the conduct of those who were entrusted with it: Laud and Strafford were brot to the block; and after the horrors of a civil war, in which some of the best blood of the nation was spilt as water upon the ground, they finally called to account, arraignd, adjudgd, condemnd and even executed the monarch himself! and for a time held his son and heir in exile. The two sons of Charles the first, after the death of Oliver Cromwell, reigned in their turns; but by copying after their father, their administration of government was grievous to their subjects, and infamous abroad. Charles the second indeed reignd till he died; but his brother James was obligd to abdicate the throne, which made room for William the third, and his royal consort Mary, the daughter of the unfortunate James. This was the fate of a race of Kings, bigotted to the greatest degree to the doctrines of slavery and regardless of the natural, inherent, divinely hereditary and indefeasible rights of their subjects. At the revolution, the British constitution was again restord to its original principles, declared in the bill of rights; which was afterwards passd into a law, and stands as a bulwark to the natural rights of subjects. To vindicate these rights, says Mr. Blackstone, when actually violated or attackd, the subjects of England are entitled first to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law–next to the right of petitioning the King and parliament for redress of grievances and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence. These he calls auxiliary subordinate rights, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights of personal security, personal liberty and private property: And that of having arms for their defence he tells us is a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. How little do those persons attend to the rights of the constitution, if they know anything about them, who find fault with a late vote of this town, calling upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defence at any time; but more especially, when they had reason to fear, there would be a necessity of the means of self preservation against the violence of oppression. Every one knows that the exercise of the military power is forever dangerous to civil rights; and we have had recent instances of violences that have been offerd to private subjects, and the last week, even to a magistrate in the execution of his office! Such violences are no more than might have been expected from military troops: A power, which is apt enough at all times to take a wanton lead, even when in the midst of civil society; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary, to awe a spirit of rebellion, and preserve peace and good order. But there are some persons, who would, if possibly they could, perswade the people never to make use of their constitutional rights or terrify them from doing it. No wonder that a resolution of this town to keep arms for its own defence, should be represented as having at bottom a secret intention to oppose the landing of the Kings troops: when those very persons, who gave it this colouring, had before represented the people petitioning their Sovereign, as proceeding from a factious and rebellious spirit; and would now insinuate that there is an impropriety in their addressing even a plantation Governor upon public business. Such are the times we are fallen into!

The Unalienable Right of Property

The right to property is the most ancient of arguments beginning with the creation of mankind.  I learned early in my youth, during my studies of Scriptures, that God gifted mankind with the earth to be stewards over it.  While continuing my studies at Harvard and learning the details of the history of England and its Constitution, Property was a significant topic.  I studied the great philosopher of the day John Locke.  Locke well established that Property was extensible to not only land but to wages, effort, intellect or anything unique to an individuals person.

“Though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body had any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men. For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no Man but he can have a right to what that is once joyned to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others.”  Sec. 27. Of the Second Treatise of Government

You must remember that the King had broken our Charter for self-governance in Massachusetts and through Parliament, beginning after the French and Indian War in 1765, had instituted acts that affected our commerce, businesses, homes and liberty.  These acts of tyranny culminated in the “Intolerable Acts” of 1774.

As you may know, I presented the “The Natural Rights of the Colonist as Men in November 1772.  I clearly spoke to our natural rights and the right to defend these in the best manner possible.  I argue the point that; “…The Legislative has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people; nor can mortals assume a prerogative not only too high for men, but for angels, and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone.

“The Legislative cannot justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that justice is dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided by promulgated, standing, and known laws, and authorized independent judges”; that is, independent, as far as possible, of Prince and people. “There should be one rule of justice for rich and poor, for the favorite at court, and the countryman at the plough.”

“…The supreme power cannot justly take from any man any part of his property, without his consent in person or by his representative.”

Now I look into your present time in history and see that your properties, all the definitions of it, are in jeopardy!  The tyranny that I see is that Non Governmental Organization, Government Agencies, the Courts and foreign agencies/governments (The United Nations) are dictating how your Rights to your property are being diminished.  We rose up, we rose against what the King and Parliament did to us.  And yet, You, you sleep and tolerate the chains that will bind you.

I continued in the November 1772 writing with, “Now what liberty can there be where property is taken away without consent?  Can it be said with any color of truth and justice, that this continent of three thousand miles in length, and of a breadth as yet unexplored, in which, however, it is supposed there are five millions of people, has the least voice, vote, or influence in the British Parliament? Have they all together any more weight or power to return a single member to that House of Commons who have not inadvertently, but deliberately, assumed a power to dispose of their lives, liberties, and properties, than to choose an Emperor of China? Had the Colonists a right to return members to the British Parliament, it would only be hurtful; as, from their local situation and circumstances, it is impossible they should ever be truly and properly represented there. The inhabitants of this country, in all probability, in a few years, will be more numerous than those of Great Britain and Ireland together; yet it is absurdly expected by the promoters of the present measures that these, with their posterity to all generations, should be easy, while their property shall be disposed of by a House of Commons at three thousand miles’ distance from them, and who cannot be supposed to have the least care or concern for their real interest; who have not only no natural care for their interest, but must be in effect bribed against it, as every burden they lay on the Colonists is so much saved or gained to themselves. Hitherto, many of the Colonists have been free from quit rents; but if the breath of a British House of Commons can originate an act for taking away all our money, our lands will go next, or be subject to rack rents from haughty and relentless landlords, who will ride at ease, while we are trodden in the dirt. The Colonists have been branded with the odious names of traitors and rebels only for complaining of their grievances. How long such treatment will or ought to be borne, is submitted.”

I implore you Citizens and Countrymen do not let Agenda 21, ICLEI, Sustainability fool you and steal away your Rights.  You must fight these tyrannical policies and acts upon your person.  Otherwise, I can only say now what I wrote in my day and am most noted for saying, “Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say ‘what should be the reward of such sacrifices?’ Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”

“The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.”

%d bloggers like this: