Godfather89
01-10-2009, 11:06 AM
As we can all see the government is getting bigger and stronger with each passing day, while the people lose the very liberties and prosperity they had. As this continues the economy will worsen and people will become desperate. We know Obama's Plans concerning a "Civilian Defense Force" one that is "just as strong and just as well-funded as our military." We know a few of those details in which Obama seeks to have this done by forcibly taking the youth of this country ages 18 to 25 and "defending" this country whether it be by civil unrest or "terrorism." I for one no longer believe in our state and will refuse such demands from the state. As you can imagine when this time comes, I will most likely be arrested and put on trial for refusing to follow through with orders. I have a written defense prepared and advise you all to have one as well when this time comes. When you read this, see yourself as if in a courtroom in front of a jury of you peers making your case, delivering the truth to them.
I. Introduction
The state has told me to join in a service to protect this country; however, I have declined such an order on the basis of three premises. The first is that the state has revoked my right to life and by doing so has infringed upon my civil liberties. The second is that I will not infringe upon the people's rights of self-preservation and survival for all I can see any involuntary, compulsory or universal service is our government using its power, which has been derived from the people, against the people of this country. Finally, the third premise is that I will not defend a failed status quo and refuse the very change that this country truly needs being that this state no longer upholds the very virtues that the people deserve. The overall conclusion based on these three premises will be addressed at the end of this case. But let it be made known that the statements made in this written argument are controversial, I invoke my constitutional first amendment right to protect me from any form of punishment based on the arguments made herein because popular speech needs no protection it is the unpopular speech that needs protecting.
II. Premise #1
The Government, The American Government at least, has only one purpose to protect the rights of the American Citizen. Those rights are stated clear in our declaration of independence. Those rights are "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If the government is expected to protect the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it cannot negate these rights. However, the reality of the situation is that the state is negating my right to life by forcing me to join a compulsory service that I believe will not only endanger my life but the lives of others. Since government is forcing me to take part in a universal service that I believe is a threat to liberty as well as my life than it suggests in a very heavy manner that the state thinks it can determine my life. However, it is apparent that my freedom lies in it being my birth right and that the state has no right to determine what will happen to my life because, my right to life is unalienable. Therefore, I hereby express my right to life by refusing to join in this universal, compulsory, or involuntary service.
III. Premise #2
Government is designed for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of people. These rights are unalienable and are defined clearly both in our Declaration of Independence as well as our Bill of Rights. As The Economic situation deteriorates innocent people will turn desperate to feed and supply themselves as well as their families in order to survive. Government being known as the user of brute force will follow only such extremism in turn. Government is to blame for our economic mess, and now people are being forced to live hand to mouth just to survive more so than ever before. Yet, the same creators of this economic mess now purpose a solution to have a defense force for the homeland which only puts more pressure on an already stressed people. I will not carry out a solution purposed by the same troublemakers because, I firmly believe that:
1. I will be infridging upon the rights of others right to life.
2. The only person more concerned with self-preservation is themselves, and that if government really wishes to "help the people" as it claims it does than gun laws should be greatly loosened so as to allow the innocent to defend themselves from the guilty. If the government does not loosen gun laws so the innocent may protect themselves from the guilty, than people will be under the impression that the real guilty party is the state itself.
Of course, the right to own a gun and the effects therein should not be infringed upon by government. To add to this I believe very strongly that this is going to become a tax on an already stressed people, the costs of this involuntary, compulsory, or universal service by far outweigh the benefits. As far as I can see the service the government is forcing me to take part in is simply nothing more than government swindling any hope for prosperity under the guise of taking care of the people.
I. Introduction
The state has told me to join in a service to protect this country; however, I have declined such an order on the basis of three premises. The first is that the state has revoked my right to life and by doing so has infringed upon my civil liberties. The second is that I will not infringe upon the people's rights of self-preservation and survival for all I can see any involuntary, compulsory or universal service is our government using its power, which has been derived from the people, against the people of this country. Finally, the third premise is that I will not defend a failed status quo and refuse the very change that this country truly needs being that this state no longer upholds the very virtues that the people deserve. The overall conclusion based on these three premises will be addressed at the end of this case. But let it be made known that the statements made in this written argument are controversial, I invoke my constitutional first amendment right to protect me from any form of punishment based on the arguments made herein because popular speech needs no protection it is the unpopular speech that needs protecting.
II. Premise #1
The Government, The American Government at least, has only one purpose to protect the rights of the American Citizen. Those rights are stated clear in our declaration of independence. Those rights are "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If the government is expected to protect the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it cannot negate these rights. However, the reality of the situation is that the state is negating my right to life by forcing me to join a compulsory service that I believe will not only endanger my life but the lives of others. Since government is forcing me to take part in a universal service that I believe is a threat to liberty as well as my life than it suggests in a very heavy manner that the state thinks it can determine my life. However, it is apparent that my freedom lies in it being my birth right and that the state has no right to determine what will happen to my life because, my right to life is unalienable. Therefore, I hereby express my right to life by refusing to join in this universal, compulsory, or involuntary service.
III. Premise #2
Government is designed for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of people. These rights are unalienable and are defined clearly both in our Declaration of Independence as well as our Bill of Rights. As The Economic situation deteriorates innocent people will turn desperate to feed and supply themselves as well as their families in order to survive. Government being known as the user of brute force will follow only such extremism in turn. Government is to blame for our economic mess, and now people are being forced to live hand to mouth just to survive more so than ever before. Yet, the same creators of this economic mess now purpose a solution to have a defense force for the homeland which only puts more pressure on an already stressed people. I will not carry out a solution purposed by the same troublemakers because, I firmly believe that:
1. I will be infridging upon the rights of others right to life.
2. The only person more concerned with self-preservation is themselves, and that if government really wishes to "help the people" as it claims it does than gun laws should be greatly loosened so as to allow the innocent to defend themselves from the guilty. If the government does not loosen gun laws so the innocent may protect themselves from the guilty, than people will be under the impression that the real guilty party is the state itself.
Of course, the right to own a gun and the effects therein should not be infringed upon by government. To add to this I believe very strongly that this is going to become a tax on an already stressed people, the costs of this involuntary, compulsory, or universal service by far outweigh the benefits. As far as I can see the service the government is forcing me to take part in is simply nothing more than government swindling any hope for prosperity under the guise of taking care of the people.