The Principles of Liberty - Principle 9

By Charity Angel

To Protect Man's Rights, God has Revealed Certain Principles of Divine Law

Rights could not remain unalienable unless they were protected as enforceable rights under a code of divine law.

William Blackstone said, " These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the Creator Himself in all His dispensations conforms." Among these principles are living honestly, not hurting others and giving everyone their due.

Blackstone also said that it was necessary for God to disclose these laws by direct revelation. He stated that they could only be found in the Holy Scriptures. That they are part of the original law of Nature.

This divine pattern of law for human happiness requires a recognition of God's supremacy over all things. The name of God is to be held in reverence. Every oath taken in His name honored, otherwise the name of God is taken in vain. These principles will be commonly recognized as the ten commandments.

Divine law endows mankind with unalienable duties as well as unalienable rights. Thomas Jefferson said, "Man has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." There are two kinds of duties, public and private. Public duties include public morality and are generally enforced under local or state ordinances by the police power of the state. Private duties are between individuals and The Creator. The only enforcement agency is self-discipline. Our, Unalienable duties both public and private are an inherent part of natural law. Each individual has the responsibility to respect the unalienable rights of others.

There are many public and private duties, to list just a few; Honor the Creator, Do not take life except in self-defense, do not steal or destroy the property of others, deal honestly with everyone, honor parents and elderly, parents and elders are to provide for and teach the children, Support law and order and keep the peace, Don't covet, Help the needy, sick, injured and disabled, perform your contracts with God and man and there are many more.

The Creator revealed a Divine Law of Criminal Justice. It is called justice through reparation. It was practiced by the ancient Israelites and the Anglo-Saxons. A number of states have begun to adopt this system, which requires the judge to consult with the victim before passing sentence.

What if a law is passed that is contrary to God's law?

Among the Anglo-Saxons and the ancient Israelites, the law of God was considered sacred and not subject to change by legislative bodies. They did not make new laws, they continually restored the old ones.

John Locke said, "The law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The laws that they do make for men must be conformable to the law of nature, to the will of God."

How can the people be protected from autocratic authority of their rulers? Where does the source of Sovereign Authority lie? Stay tuned for principle 10.

Charity Angel is an author,singer, political activist, small business owner, and an online business coach. Find more of her thoughts Here. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Charity_Angel http://www.ws.myinitialpendant.com

The Principles of Liberty - Principle 8

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights"

The Founders did not believe that the basic rights of mankind originated from any social compact, king, emperor, or governmental authority. Those rights, they believed, came directly and exclusively from God. Therefore they were to remain sacred and inviolate.

We may do something ourselves to forfeit the unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, but no one can take those rights from us without being subjected to God's justice. This is what makes certain rights unalienable. They are inherent rights given to us by the Creator. That is why they are called natural rights.

We have other rights that are called vested rights, which are created by the community, state or the nation for our protection or well-being. However, these can be changed whenever the law makers feel like it. These would be things like areas that are off-limits for hunting, or the right to travel on the public highway. But, the government could not pass a law to destroy all life under the age of two or lock up everyone that is of a certain race, religion, hair color and so on. They cannot destroy the right to life or the right to liberty. A person could lose their liberty due to misbehavior, but not because they have a certain eye color, hair color, or religion.

Besides the right to life, liberty and property, we have many more unalienable rights. If you want to know what those are, read the book, "The 5000 Year Leap."

How do we know that our rights are God Given? It is because they are already present when we are born, no one says that we have now been granted the right to live, it is apparent to anyone that we have a right to our own life. Society has laws that prevent the taking of it, because it is not within the right or power of another to trample on rights that were not granted by mankind, but by the Creator.

Charity Angel is an author,singer, political activist, small business owner, and an online business coach. Find more of her thoughts Here. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Charity_Angel http://www.pippoproducts.com/education/index.html

America - Would Our Ancestors Recognize It?

I am glad that my beloved late grandfather is no longer around to see America-the country he once loved. He was a naval officer that served his country during WWII as a pilot. As children, my grandparents didn't rely on government subsidies to survive. They worked in fields, grew their own food, made their own clothing, and solved their own problems. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Americans rose up against a common enemy: the axis powers of Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan.

If you look at old pictures from the WWII era, you will see dirty faced American men and women standing side-by-side with their sleeves rolled up in some filthy factory. At the time, those people were considered your average hard-working Americans. They beat the sun out of bed and went to work. If you take a close look at the photographs, you will see many of them were lean, strong and walked with their heads held high. It was definitely American ingenuity at its finest. Unfortunately, we no longer live in the same America my grandfather once knew.

America has become the unwanted houseguest that sleeps on the sofa and raids your refrigerator. We are the despised meddling neighbor that has 911 on speed dial. We are the preacher that neglects his own family for his congregation. Long gone is the reputation of Americans known as producers. The world now looks at Americans as a nation of whining consumers. We ship our jobs overseas and depend on foreign oil like a crack addict depends on his dealer.

There is barely any resemblance between our America and the one my grandfather knew. America has become a society of fat, rude, obnoxious, and lazy people who file lawsuits whenever someone hurts their feelings. We kill, maim, destroy, lie, cheat, and steal for personal gain. And when caught, we blame it on our parents because no one hugged us as children. We are a nation of blameless people who never accept responsibility for anything. We blame our problems on everyone else except for the person in the mirror.

The recent passing of "Obamacare" proves my point about America. Since when did we decide that we need the government to subsidize our health care? Although some people think this is a great moment in history, they are only looking through rose colored glasses. I don't think it has settled in that working taxpayers will be forced to pay for it. And when this happens, the doctors and health insurance will then be forced to raise their prices to keep up with the growing population.

Some people don't have insurance because they can't afford it. Health insurance is as much of a right as a driver's license. So what's next? Will the government start mandating that everyone drives an odorless green car? And if you don't own one, will you be forced to buy one?

Health insurance has just become another freedom we have relinquished back to the government. We are on the heels of becoming a Socialist nation like England and Canada-Nations that reward success and hard work with more taxes. What people forget is that once you start relinquishing your freedoms, you eventually become China or Cuba.

Don't be surprised when the government starts regulating what type of home you can buy or what you can name your children. Our politicians have put us in debt with the Red Chinese, a communist nation that laughs at our failing economy. It's because the Chinese know that our foolishness is their gain. Sadly, the America our ancestors and founding fathers once knew has gone M.I.A

William Greene has a B.S. degree from I.W.U. and has made a career of working with the public. He has over 10 years experience in social services, including casework. William works with people of different nationalities and education levels. He operates a social dating website titled http://www.socialhearts.com. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=William_S_Greene

The Law Revisited - Part II

In part II of "The Law Revisited" we will look at the faulty assumption that all laws are in and of themselves just and good. To continue in that example, we will look at the issue of making anything "universal" no matter how good those intentions are.

The Fate of Non-Conformists

If you even state that you think these institutions may have become immoral, it will be loudly proclaimed that "You are a loose cannon, a utopian, a theorist, a rebel; you wish to destroy the foundations of society."

And so help you God if you should posture on morality or political science because then there will be official organizations which will go to the government and protest in this line of thinking: "We can't teach science from a free trade point of view (i.e, liberty, property and fairness) like we have been. We need to teach science exclusively from the position of the facts and laws that restrict and regulate industry (i.e, laws contrary to liberty, property and fairness). We need to make sure that our professors do everything they can to avoid speaking against the laws that are in place now."*

*General Council of Manufacturers, Agriculture, and Commerce, May 6, 1850. (Wording modified)

So for example if a law approves of slavery, monopoly, opression or theft in any way whatsoever, it can never be mentioned. After all how do you point out something like that without causing people to begin to disrespect such a law? On top of that, all notions of morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view that it is a just law simply because it is a law.

The other side effect of this gross distortion is that it overemphasizes the importance of political passions and conflicts. Really just politics in general is given too much importance.

There are thousands of ways to prove this. But I will simply limit the illustration to that of universal suffrage since that seems to be on everyone's mind lately.

Who Shall Judge?

Rousseau's followers -- who think themselves to be very intellectually advanced but as far as I'm concerned are about two thousand years behind -- will certainly disagree with me. But universal suffrage -- in the strictest sense of the word -- isn't one of those sacred teachings that one cannot doubt or examine without having committed some sort of crime. In fact there are some good objections to it.

For starters, the word universal is very misleading. For example, there are 36 million people in France. So for voting to be universal there should be 36 million voters, right? But even the most inclusive system only gives that ability to about 9 million. So that means that three out of four people don't have the right to vote. Even better, the other three are denied that right by the fourth who says that the others don't have the capacity to vote and therefore is justified in denying others the ability to vote.

So then really what is being said is that voting is universal for all of those that are capable of voting. That raises an important question: Who is capable? Are minors, women, the mentally ill and people who have committed major crimes the only ones to be excluded?

The Reason Why Voting Is Restricted

When you look closer it becomes more clear why someone would want to base the right of voting on someone's capacity or incapacity. That motive is that the elector or voter doesn't just affect himself but everyone else as well.

The most permissive and restrictive systems are identical in this aspect. The only way they differ is in their definition of what incapacity is. It isn't a difference of principle but of degree.

So lets assume that the republicans of our current Greek and Roman schools are correct and that the right to vote comes at birth. If that is the case than it isn't just to prevent women and children from exercising that right. So why are they prevented? Because it assumed that they are incapable of doing so. But why is incapacity a motive to exclude? Because the voter isn't the only one who lives with the consequences of his vote. Each vote affects the entire community and the people in the community have every right to insist on protection in regard to such actions that affect the community's very existence and welfare.

The Answer Is to Restrict the Law

I know what objections will be made to this. But this isn't the time or place to go into all of that. I'm simply trying to point out this conflict over universal suffrage (much like many other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would be utterly insignificant if the law had simply lmited itself to doing what it was supposed to do.

If the law simply limited itself to protecting all people, freedoms and properties; if it just stayed as nothing more than the collective right to legal self defense; if the law were the safeguard and the punisher of any form of oppression and plunder -- would citizens even need to argue abou the extent of franchisement?

If this was the situation, would it be likely that the more people who have the right to vote, the greater the danger to the supreme good and public peace would become? Would those excluded refuse to wait peacefully until the day they are granted the right to vote? Is it likely that those privileged would jealously defend that privilege?

If the law simply did what it was supposed to then everyone would have the same interest in the law. And based on that, doesn't it stand to reason that those who did vote would certainly not be a burden to those that could not vote?

The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder

But on the other hand, let's imagine that the law begins to seize property from one person and gives it to someone else. It takes wealth from all and gives it to a select few -- be they farmers, manufacturers, ship owners, artists or comedians. And all of this is done under the guise of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement. Under such conditions, surely everyone would want to seize hold of the law and understandably so.

Those that are excluded will demand the right to vote and would rather overthrow society than to do without. Even beggars and vagrants will then try to prove to you that they too have the right to vote. They will say:

"We cant' buy wine, tobacco, or salt without being taxed. And part of those taxes that we're forced to pay is given to men that are wealthier than we are. Other people use the law to increase prices on bread, meat, iron or cloth. So since everyone can apparently use the law to profit for themselves, we want to do the same. We demand from relief programs from the government which is our own version of plunder. And in order to do this we should be made voters and legislators so that we can promote beggary on a large scale for our own socio-economic class since you've organized protection on a similar scale for your own class. But don't you dare pretend like you'll work for us and then simply give us, like Mr. Mimerel suggested, 600,000 franks to shut us up like you would throw a bone to a dog to gnaw on. We have other claims. Besides, we want to have our own special bargains like the other classes have done for themselves."

And what can you say to answer that argument!

Perverted Law Causes Conflict

As long as we admit that the law can be de-railed from it's true purpose -- that it can violate instead of protect property -- then everyone will want to join in lawmaking for either self protection or to steal for themselves as well. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. Equally vicious fighting will occur not only outside of the Legislature but inside as well. If you know this then you really don't need to study what goes on in French and English legislature; understanding the situation is the same as knowing the answer.

Do we really need to prove that such a distortion of the law a source of unending hatred and discord; that it destroys society? If you really need proof, look at the United States (1850). No other country in the world keeps the law in it's proper place as well as they: the safeguarding of everyone's liberty and property. As a result, there doesn't seem to be a country where societal order rests more firmly. However, even in the United States, there are two issues -- and only two -- that have always been potentially dangerous to the public peace.

Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder

What are these two issues? They are slavery and taxes. These are the only two issues where in spite of the general character of the United States, the law has engaged in plunder.

Slavery is a legal violation of liberty and the protective tariff a legal violation of property.

It is amazing that this dual legal crime - an unfortunate carry over from the Old World - is the only issue which can and may ruin the Union. It is unfathomable to think that at the very core of a society this exists: The law has become the very instrument of injustice. And if this has dire consequences to the United States - where it only exists in regard to slavery and tariffs - what will happen to Europe where the corruption of law has become a principle; a system?

Two Kinds of Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert [politician and writer] borrowing from a thought contained in a famous speech by Mr. Carlier, has said: "We must make war against socialism." According to Charle's Dupin's definition of socialism, he means "We must make war against plunder."

But which kind of plunder? There are two kinds: legal and illegal.

I don't think that illegal plunder such as theft or scamming -- which is already defined and punished -- can really be classified as socialism. This isn't the kind of plunder that systematically threatens the fabric of society. Besides, fighting that type of plunder didn't wait for these men to start it. That war has been fought since the beginning of time. Long before the Revolution of February 1848 -- before socialism was ever devised -- France had provided police, judges, gendarmes, prisons, dungeons, and scaffolds whose job was to fight against illegal plunder. The law has always fought against this and I believe it always should have this mindset against plunder.

The Law Defends Plunder

But the law doesn't always do this, in fact some times it defends and participates in plunder. As a result, those that benefit aren't subjected to the shame, danger, and scruple that they would be subjected to otherwise. Sometimes the law even places the entire legal system at the service of the plunderer and as a result treats the victim as a criminal when he tries to defend himself. In otherwords, there is such a thing as legal plunder and it should be rather obvious that this is what Mr. de Montalembert was referring to.

This may only be an isolated problem among the laws of the people. If that is the case, the best thing to do is eliminate it with a minimum of speeches and condemnations -- regardless of the protests by those with vested interests.

How to Identify Legal Plunder

So how does one identify legal plunder? Easily. See if the law takes what rightfully belongs to one person and gives it to someone else that it doesn't belong to. See if the law benefits one person at the expense of another by doing what a private citizen would be called a criminal for doing.

Once you find that law, get rid of it immediately because it is not only evil but is a breeding ground for even more evil. If it isn't done away with quickly -- even if it's just an isolated incident -- it will spread and multiply and become a system.

Obviously the beneficiary of this law will complain bitterly and defend his "rights". He will say that the state is under obligation to protect his industry and even propagate it; that such a process helps the state because his industry can pay more to the poor working class.

Don't listen to this garbage. By accepting such arguments, legal plunder will develop into an entire system. It has already happened. The current delusion is to make everyone richer at the expense of everybody else; to make plunder apply to everyone under the guise of regulating it.

Legal Plunder Has Many Names

There are no shortage of ways to commit legal plunder. As such there are an innumerable amount of plans which regulate it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, ad nauseum. All of these -- with their unified purpose of legal plunder -- constitute socialism.

Now, by this definition, socialism is a body of doctrine so what can you attack it with other than doctrine? If you believe socialistic doctrine to be untrue, asinine, and evil then refute it. The more untrue, idiotic and evil it is the easier it is to refute. More than anything, if you want to be strong, then get rid of every shred of socialism that has crept into your legal system. This is far easier said than done.

Socialism Is Legal Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of wanting to fight socialism with nothing but brute force. He should be exonerated from this accusation, since he clearly said: "The war that we must fight against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor, and justice."

But why doesn't he see that he has placed himself in a vicious circle? Use the law to oppose socialism? Socialism relies on the law to survive. Socialists want to commit legal, not illegal plunder. They, like all other monopolists, want to use the law as their own weapon. Once they have the law on their side, how can it be used against them? When the law helps plunder, it isn't afraid of the legal system anymore. in fact it will probably call on that system for help.

To prevent this, you would ban socialism from participating in lawmaking? You would prevent socialists from becoming legislators? I predict that you will never succeed as long as legal plunder is still the legislatures main order of operation. It is illogical -- actually, it's just ludicrous -- to think otherwise.

The Choice Before Us

The question of legal plunder needs to be absolutely settled are there are only three options to do so with:

1. The few plunder the many.

2. Everybody plunders everybody.

3. Nobody plunders anybody.

So the choice is either limited, universal, or no plunder The law can only follow one at a time.

Limited legal plunder: This was what was happening when voting was restricted. One could go back to this and prevent socialism from invading.

Universal legal plunder: This has been a threat since voting was extended to everybody. The new voting class has decided to make law on the same premises that their oppressors used against them when voting was restricted.

No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until I die I will proclaim this principle with every last bit of strength left in my lungs (which unfortunately is far from adequate).*

*Translator's note: At the time this was written, Mr. Bastiat knew that he was dying of tuberculosis. Within a year, he was dead.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Ben_Pinkston http://www.ws.myinitialpendant.com The Law

Change Agents Toward a New American Dream

America will never be what she was on July 4, 1776! Furthermore, America should never be what she is on April 7, 2010. The dreams and visions our Founding Fathers had for America is all but forgotten by most of the world. They have been lost in the rhetoric of the past. What we need today is a 21st Century dream for a New America that will be fueled by what we have learned in our past experiences. What we need is a New America that can dream again.

In comparing July 4, 1776 with April 7, 2010, we can glean many lessons that time has taught us. We can know what works and what does not work. We can discard the things that have not worked. We can renew the things that have worked. We can teach the workable things to our children and children's children. We can refuse to be sidetracked by self-serving special interest groups.

America is bleeding from the beatings she has received from her enemies and professed friends. It is time to bandage up her wounds and stand her up on her feet. It is time to unite our forces that will pump new life into her. It is time to let America dream again. It is time to let America bless the world again.

There are many agents that are working toward renewing "The American Dream." The following are a few grassroots agents that are working night and day to lift America up to new heights she has never experienced before. There are many more that are not listed in this article.

The Tea Party and 9-12 movements. These groups have done much to spring us into action. America is being awakened. People are beginning to get involved. God is raising up a new breed of leadership that will uphold our religious and domestic rights that are listed in our founding documents and our Holy Book, The Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

The Oath Keepers and Militia movements. These change agents stand ready to defend our beloved America against enemies, domestic and foreign, that seek to enslave us. They have determined America will breathe the invigorating air of life, liberty and justice for all her citizens.

The Patriots and Minutemen movements. These change agents are doing their part to educate and equip America to remain under her God-given freedoms.

The Christ-centered, Bible-based churches and the May Day movements. These change agents are calling on Americans everywhere to turn their eyes on Jesus. They are calling for a 2 Chronicles 7:14 day of prayers of repentance on May 1, 2010 at the Lincoln Memorial and throughout the nation. This is the most powerful of all change agents that will position America so she can dream again.

The Creation-Science and Christ-centered groups in secular colleges. There are many of these that God is using to turn America back to God.

We are on the edge of the greatest movement of change agents America has experienced for decades. When all these grassroots groups converge together under the mighty hand of our Lord God of Glory, America will be freed to dream again. She will be freed to breathe in the life changing air of a renewed commitment to God and her liberated citizens.

Here are some principles to keep in mind as things get heated up:

1.Do not panic. God is in control and will have the last word.
2.Do not surrender to the enemy. Keep the faith. Keep the hope. Keep the love.
3.Fit in with the group you feel most adapted to. Do what you can. Keep committed.
4.Do not get violent. If you live by the sword you will die by the sword. This is no time to lose your cool and play the fool. The process of peace and goodwill will win over strife and confusion.
5.Keep focused. The reason for the battle is to create a New America that can dream again.
6.Do all you can to be a peacemaker. As the vision gets brighter, many of our enemies will become our friends.
7.Keep your faith in God. God is our friend. He wants us to have a New America that can rejoice in Him. He is getting us ready to form a new covenant with Himself and our fellow Americans. The joy of the Lord is our strength. It is His glory that will return very soon. We are "more than conquerors through Him Who loved us and gave Himself for us." We are on the winner's side. Let the party begin!

Howard E. Wright's book, Deceitful Masters, would be a great help to you. If you are ready for the truth as it is in Christ Jesus that will give you a richer, fuller life, Howard E. Wright's Deceitful Masters book is for you. The cover pages tell it all. It is very unique. There is nothing like it on the market. You will learn from it how to live this new life in Christ Jesus. If you are hungering for more of God in your life, you are invited to get your copy through his http://www.DeceitfulMasters.comwebsite or http://Amazon.com today. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Howard_E_Wright http://www.pippoproducts.com/careers/index.html

Prison Facts That We Need to Know

Life in prison has changed drastically in the past twenty-five years. In 1986, mandatory minimums for drug crimes were put into law. Arrest rates in general have risen even though prison funding has not risen in concert and crime rates have dropped. Prisons are more crowded, availability to educational programs is being lowered because of financial crises, and inmate on inmate violence is increasing.

Prisons are defined as either state or federal. Generally, life in federal prison is better than life in state prison. Federal prisons have more white-collar criminals and fewer violent criminals so are less dangerous. Federal prisons have better funding and tend to have better accommodations. In the past, there was less over-crowding; however, even federal prisons are facing overcrowding and violence is rising.

The Federal correctional system has four levels of inmates and facilities. Federal Prison Camps, or minimum security facilities, are similar to college dormitories. There are no bars on the windows and movement within the camp is not restricted. In some cases, there is no fence and inmates could even walk off the camp if they chose. Low Security Federal Correctional Institutions have fences and dormitory-style rooms. Medium Security Federal Correctional Institutions often are surrounded by electronic double fences, cells, and higher monitoring of inmates. High security prisons, or United States Penitentiaries, have perimeter walls or reinforced fences, cells, the highest staff-to-inmate ratio, and highly restricted inmate movement. State prisons have similar levels. Specifics vary by state.

Federal administrative facilities are special prisons dedicated to inmates with special needs, such as Federal Medical Centers, or to special programs or administrative needs, such as Federal Transfer Centers and Federal Detention Centers. A variety of levels of inmates may be housed within these different prisons.

Medium and high or maximum level inmates are often housed in different parts of the same facility. These have more inmates and more who have been convicted of violent crimes. More inmates there are serving long or life sentences, factors that add to inmate on inmate violence.

On arrival to a prison, convicts are registered into the prison system and receive a registration number. After an orientation, convicts are assigned a counselor or case manager who manages a team of inmates. The counselor or case manager is responsible for overseeing that the inmate is progressing as he or she should. They make sure inmates are paying restitution and court-ordered financial obligations, that they are cooperating with any drug abuse programs, and are receiving necessary medical care. Additionally, they make sure the inmate is advancing his or her education if necessary. Inmates are often not allowed to leave prison if they have not earned a high school degree, so GED courses and diplomas are available in prison.

Inmates can also work toward technical certificates and college degrees. There are famous cases of inmates earning law degrees in prison and representing themselves to get their convictions overturned. Prisons may offer college courses and degrees themselves. If not, inmates might be able to receive materials from outside prisons through courses paid for by their family. In New York, inmates' access to educational grants has been cut drastically. The majority of inmates cannot afford to pay for college courses so have little hope of earning a college degree.

Without the opportunity to earn a secondary degree, the work an inmate does in prison can become more important for his or her success after release. The counselors try to assign inmates jobs in positions that fit the skills they might already have. Inmates work to support the functioning of the facility such as in the electrical shop, the plumbing shop, or the library. They might do custodial work, kitchen work, or laundry. Some work in Correctional Industries, creating goods or providing services that are sold to civilians. This provides them a chance to earn skills useful upon reentry and to pay whatever financial responsibilities they have. Jobs are for two to seven hours during the day, five days a week. Inmates make between $0.15 and $1.50 an hour.

With the money inmates earn, they can shop at the commissary to buy food, clothing and supplies. Inmates usually bring one outfit to prison, but they might not be allowed to wear it. The commissary sells t-shirts, sweatshirts and sweatpants for inmates to wear.

The commissary offers little meals that can be heated in a microwave. The food served in prison, especially in state prison, is notoriously bad. The biggest complaints are that it is bland and, occasionally, unidentifiable. Due to overcrowding and general increased violence, some facilities serve meals in cells to prevent fights in the dining halls. This leads to food being cold when it is supposed to be hot and hot when it is supposed to be cold. The commissary offers welcome alternatives.

Inmates can receive visitors including family and friends that have been approved by the facility's staff. One-and-a-half to three days each week are allotted to each prisoner for visits on a rotating schedule. Higher security prisons offer more time for visits since sentences are usually longer.

As the quality of life in federal prisons has gone down, some inmates look to special state prisons that offer trailers housed outside of the actual prison building for conjugal and family visits.

Prisoners can call their families for varying amounts of time. Federal prisons allow inmates 300 minutes of call time per month. A limited number of prisons offer access to the Internet and email.

Time allotted to spend outside the convicts' cells varies from unlimited to fifteen minutes depending on the level of security. Minimum-security camps can offer unrestricted access to the outdoor prison areas. Maximum-security prisons might designate only a few minutes for inmates to spend outdoors. Outside, there is usually some fitness facility and equipment.

Indoors, there are fitness facilities, as well, where inmates can engage in sports including basketball, touch football and weightlifting. Sports can become incredibly important for prisoners. ESPN reported on McNeil State Correctional Facility, a medium security prison in Washington State that was known for playing against teams of civilians and consistently winning.

When not allowed outside, prisoners can listen to radios and watch television in the television room. State prisons allow prisoners to keep televisions in their cells. Prisoners, of course, can read and write in their cells. Since multiple inmates are housed in small cells, there is little possibility for doing other things. Even these activities are only possible with the consent of one's roommates.

Marty Craigs is an expert on prisons and related topics. His expertise extends beyond prisons into industry-specific information, including topics such as torx security screws, products, and other hardware. Visit http://www.securityscrew.com/ to learn more about security, tamper resistant, and tamper proof screws and read about other security products. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Martin_Craigs http://www.pippoproducts.com/gardening/index.html

Reagan responds to Obama and his supporters

The Principles of Liberty - Principle 7

"The Proper role of Government is to Protect Equal Rights, Not Provide Equal Things."

During the days of the Founders in Europe, it was popular for people to proclaim that the role of government was to take from the 'haves' and give to the 'have nots' so that all might be truly 'equal'. However, the founders knew that this proposition contained a major fallacy.

People cannot delegate to government the power to do anything that they could not do themselves. We have the right to protect our life and property, therefore, we have the ability to delegate our protection to government through a police force, which would protect the lives and property of all the people.

Let's suppose that there is a kind-hearted man that saw that one neighbor had two cars, while another neighbor had none. What would happen if the kind man went to the neighbor with two cars, took one, and then generously gave it to the neighbor that had none? He would be arrested for theft of course! No matter how genuinely he cared about his neighbor with none, he has no right to steal from the neighbor with abundance and give it to another. The neighbor with abundance still has the right to their property. Of course, the prosperous neighbor could choose to donate the care to the neighbor in need, but it would be his decision, and not that of the kind-hearted neighbor who wanted to rob from the rich to give to the poor.

Governments can sometimes commit 'legal' crimes. Let's say that the kind-hearted man asks the mayor and city council to give one of the cars from the prosperous neighbor to the man with none, does that make it anymore right? Of course not! And it is worse, because now, not only did the man lose his property, but now he also lost his right to appeal because the government did it. The Founders warned that anytime a government is allowed to start taking the possessions of others to start equalizing the distribution of goods, then the government thereafter will have been given the power to take away the right to enjoy life, liberty and property from ANY of the people.

Those who receive from this idea generally think that this is a just system. But what happens when government starts taking also from those that are poor? Then they will claim their right to their property, but the government will then say,"Now we decide who has rights in things." When the government was given the power to rob from the rich and give to the poor it immediately nullifies the principle of guaranteed equal rights, it opens the floodgates for government to meddle with everyone's rights.

When Communists seized power in Hungary, the peasants were delighted at first when the government seized the large farms from their owners, and then gave it to the peasants. But then later, the government seized 3/4 of the peasant land to create government communal farms, of course the peasants screamed about their property rights, but it was too late. If they continued to protest, they lost their liberty and in several instances their lives.

The Founders made sure that we could protect our freedom to prosper by protecting the rights of ALL people. There was no penalty for getting rich. The people would not be locked into the poverty level as they had in other nations. There would be some that would have more than others, but the entire nation could prosper. It was believed that man had an instinct to succeed and by having the freedom to prosper, the whole people would prosper together. People were encouraged to store up and save for a time when things were not prosperous, or to help their neighbors when they hit on rough times. Hard work, thrift and frugality were the key words for the American Ethic.

The Founders made these European theories unconstitutional. America became the most prosperous and most educated nation in the world, and consequently, the most generous. Samuel Adams said, "The utopian schemes of leveling (redistribution of wealth), and a community of goods (central ownership of all the means of production and distribution), are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. (These ideas) are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government, unconstitutional."

Yet, there are still those who insist that compassion for the poor requires the Federal Government becoming involved and taking from the 'haves' and giving to the 'have nots'. Benjamin Franklin had been one of the 'have nots' and having experienced these welfare programs of 'counter-productive compassion', he wrote an entire essay on the subject. He called the programs a great evil in not only the way in which it operates, but also because it encourages idleness.

Franklin wrote: "To relieve the misfortune of our fellow creatures is concurring with the deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and caution against, as well as necessary consequences of, Idleness and extravagance? Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm then good."

The Founders all had deep feelings about helping the poor and less fortunate, but they had guidelines, a calculated compassion:

1. Do not help the needy completely, simply help them help themselves.
2. Give the poor the satisfaction of earned achievement instead of rewarding without achievement.
3. Allow the poor to climb the 'appreciation ladder', from tents to cabins, cabins to cottages, cottages to comfortable homes.
4. Where emergency help is provided, do not prolong it to where it becomes habitual.
5. Strictly enforce fixed responsibility.

First the individual is responsible for himself, the second level is the family, then the church, next the community, finally the country and in a disaster or emergency, the state. Under no circumstances is the Federal Government to become involved in welfare. The Founders felt that this would corrupt the government and the poor. There is NO constitutional authority for the federal government to participate in charity or welfare.

The Founders did this to protect the people from abuse by an overly-aggressive government.

What can we do to keep the government in check? We can be good neighbors, love them, care about them, and work within our communities to find solutions and solve their problems. We need to return to helping each other help ourselves and not letting their be a need to turn to government. We can support community organizations that serve those in need in our communities through donating goods, services, time, talents and money. Additionally, we can raise our voices to change the way that things are being done now. Undo the government programs at a planned rate while replacing them with community action by the people.

Charity Angel is an author,singer, political activist, small business owner, and an online business coach. Find more of her thoughts Here. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Charity_Angel http://www.ws.myinitialpendant.com

The Law Revisited - Part I

The law has been utterly corrupted! Not only that, but those sworn to uphold the law have been defiled as well! I'm telling you right now that the law has not just been derailed from it's original purpose but has completely changed course! Now the law has become the weapon of choice for greed! Rather than punishing crime, the law has become a willing participant in the very evils it was designed to punish!

If this is true, it is most serious and I have a moral obligation to warn my countrymen of it.

Life Is a Gift from God

God gave us a gift which all others derive from. That gift is life: physical, intellectual and moral life.

But life is not self maintaining. God has given us the duty of preserving, developing and perfecting it. In order to succeed in this, we have been a given amazing facutlies and He has given us in the a variety of natural resources. By using our faculties with these natural resources we can turn these resources into products which we can then use. This process is vital to life proceeding as it should.

Life, senses, production-- in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. Despite the most creative politicians, these gifts predate all human laws and surpass them.

Life, liberty, and property don't exist because a bunch of politicians made laws about them. Not at all! In fact it was because of the fact that life, liberty and property existed that men had to make laws to protect them.

What Is Law?

So then, what is the law? The law is simply the organization of individuals to ensure their right to legal defense.

All of us have the natural right - given to us by God - to protect ourselves, our liberty and our property. These rights are fundamental to life and the protection of any one of these is dependant on the protection of the other two. After all, what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then naturally a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force that would always protect these rights. And so the principle of collective right -- the reason it even exists and is lawful -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Therefore since an individual cannot legally use force against the person, liberty, or property of someone else, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who would then argue that force exists to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no one person can legally use force to violate someone else's rights, doesn't it make sense that the same principle applies to a collective force which is essentially a group of individuals?

If this is true then it doesn't get any more obvious than this: The law is the organization of man's natural right to legal defense. It's a substitute of a collective force in place of individual forces. And this common force is only to do what the individual has a legal right to do: protect themselves, their liberty and their property; and to maintain the rights of the individual thus ensuring the reign of justice and peace over all.

A Just and Enduring Government

As far as I'm concerned, a nation grounded in such a premise would have a prevailing sense of order among it's citizens in thought and deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable -- whatever its political form might be.

In such a situation everyone would know that they are personally responsible for all of their successes and downfalls. Nobody would have any complaints with the government so long as this person was respected, he wasn't forced to work, and his earnings were safeguarded from all unjust attacks. When he succeeded he wouldn't have to thank the government and when he failed he had nobody to blame but himself. After all a farmer can't blame the government for bad weather can he? The only way that the government would be involved would be in the protection of the rights of the individual.

Even better, if the state would stay out of things, we could pursue our own interests in a perfectly logical way. The poor wouldn't be asking to become literate before getting food. And we certainly wouldn't see people un-necessarily being relocated from rural areas to populate cites or vice versae. Nor would we see these huge displacements of money, work and population which is no doubt caused by legislative decisions and not by individual choice.

When the state creates such situations and displacements, the very sources of our livelihood are no longer certain and in fact unstable. Even more so, all this does is burden government with even more responsibilities.

The Complete Perversion of the Law

Unfortunately though law never regulates itself to only do what it's supposed to do. And when it goes beyond it's proper role, it isn't in a trivial manner. It is much worse than that; the law has begun to act in outright rebellion against it's sole task. The law has sought to destroy it's goals: It is used to obliterate the very justice it was meant to uphold; it restricts and destroys the rights it was meant to protect. The collective force has been given to corrupt men who desire nothing more - and with no consequence to them - to take advantage of the person, autonomy and property of everyone else. Theft has become a "right" in order to allow them to continue in their theft and has in turn condemned the act of lawful defense which in turn would make it punishable to defend ones self against this theft.

How did this happen? And what are the consequences.

It happened because of two things: stupid greed and pseudo-philanthropy. Let us begin by analyzing the first cause.

A Fatal Tendency of Mankind

Everyone wishes to preserve their life and improve it. And if people were free and unrestricted in such endeavors by the use of his faculties and assets, then such social progress would be unending, uninhibited and unfailing.

However, there is also a negative tendency to thrive at the expense of others whenever possible. This isn't just some irresponsible statement nor is it made with an attitude of despair and cynicism. History shows over and over again that this is true: unending war, mass migrations, religious persecution, universal slavery, unethical business, and monopolies. Such a desire is part of man's nature - his basic, natural, insatiable urge that compels him to fulfill his dreams in the least painful way possible.

Property and Plunder

Man can only satisfy his desires by working for them; by continually striving to the best of his abilities in conjunction with his natural resources. This process is where property originated.

It is also true however that his wants can be satisfied by stealing and using the fruits of someone else's labor. This is the origin of plunder.

Because man naturally wants to avoid pain - and work is itself pain - then clearly man will attempt to steal whenever theft is the easier option. This is very obvious in history. And when these conditions are present neither religion or morality will stop it.

So when does theft end? Logically, it stops when theft is more dangerous and painful than work.

It should be obvious then that law's proper role is to use it's power to stop this tendency to steal rather than work. Every aspect of law should safeguard one's property and punish theft.

Generally speaking though, one man or a class of men make the laws. Since law wouldn't be able to function without the sanction and support of a dominant force, this force has to be entrusted to those who create legisilation.

This fact, combined with the man's fatal tendency to be satisfied with the least amount of effort explains why the law invariably becomes corrupt. It should be easy to see now how the law changes from punishing injustice to becoming the unstoppable arbiter of injustice. And why a legislator uses the law to destroy to some extent among the people, their autonomy by slavery, their freedom by oppression and their property by theft. This is done only for the benefit of the legislator and is proportional to his degree of power. This is done solely for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

Victims of Lawful Plunder

Naturally, man will rebel when they are victims of injustice. So when theft is orchestrated by law to profit those who make the law, those victims of legal plunder will try to become lawmakers themselves through either pacifistic or revolutionary methods. Depending on how enlightened these victims are, they will take one of two courses of action once they gain power: they will either try to crush legal plunder or they will try to benefit from it themselves.

Woe to the nation when those victims of legal plunder choose to pursue the latter option once they have legislative power!

Until then, the few steal from the many simply because the power to make laws is limited to few. But then let us assume that the power of law making becomes available to all men. Then those men will seek to make such theft apply to all men in order to balance things out. So rather than trying to fix these social injustices, the simply make them apply to everyone. The moment these victimized classes achieve power, they will develop a retributive system against other social classes. They won't end legal plunder. (That would require more enlightenment than they actually have.) No, instead they decide to imitate their own oppressors by doing the very same thing that they felt was an injustice to them.

It is as though before justice could rule that everyone would have to suffer cruel retribution - some for being evil and some for being stupid.

The Results of Legal Plunder

You couldn't hope to introduce a greater evil to society than changing the law into a tool for stealing from others.

What are results of such corruption? It would require volumes to describe them all. So let us simply focus on the most obvious results.

For starters, it destroys society's conscience of what the difference between justice and injustice is.

Society can't exist without a certain degree of respect for the law. The easiest way to do this is to make respectable laws. However when law and morality oppose each other a citizen has only the cruel choice of abandoning his own sense of morality or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are equally consequential, and how could a person choose between them? The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so vitally important that people equate law and justice without any dissimilarity. We all have a natural tendency to assume that something legal is also right. This is prevelant that many people come to the wrong conclusion that things are right simply because the law says so. So, in order to make people think that theft is perfectly fine, all that needs to happen is for the law to say endorse it. It is this very reason that there are not only defenders of slavery, restrictions and monopolies that profit from these institutions but also from those that are the victims of such institutions as well.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Ben_Pinkston http://www.pippoproducts.com/linkexchange.html

The Future Space Wars - Book Review

Star Wars, Star Trek, and Battle Star Galactica were once considered science fiction. However, the way that things are going now it looks like the world's militaries are moving into space, and wish to use their technologies to battle their enemies. The future of space wars will soon be upon us. Many science fiction writers have written about this, but now with laser systems, satellite killing missiles, and the advancement of space programs, it would be almost impossible to stop.

If this is a topic that scares the hell out of you, join the club. However, we shouldn't hide our heads in the sand, as this is something we must discuss. If you'd like to discuss this topic and think about it, then I'd like to recommend a very good book to you, it will definitely give you a little bit of background and history of how we got to where we are today. This is a book that I personally own, and one I'd like to recommend to you, the name of the book is;

"War in Space" by James Canan 1982

This book takes us through the Cold War including; the Missile Gap, SALT I and SALT II, and Apollo, the SOYUZ test Project, as well as the invention of the ICBM missile, the subsequent scares, and Skylab. It explains the Cold War days with submarines with Polaris missiles, and a land-based MX missile system.

He describes future man-made lightning and lasers, which we now see have been created by United States scientists in the military-industrial complex. And he talks about charged particle beams, directed energy, and lasers; one shot one kill. There are chapters on the The 1978 Deuterum Floride Laser, "TALON GOLD" Project, "Lasers in space" initiatives, PAVE PAWS project, and the space track project.

He describes the RASV reusable aerospace vehicle. He also tells how the Russians encoded data from their space program. He explains the "SEESAW" project. Apparently, the author's summation of things to come, were right on target. FYI; Today we have Chinese shooting down satellites and some of their generals stating "of course, we are going to have to put weapons in space to protect our country." Yah, what else will they be used for? Please consider all this.

Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes a strong national defense. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow http://www.pippoproducts.com/software/index.html

Nostradamus - Obama One-Term President

Barack Obama may have won the 2008 election, but the real winner in the presidential lottery was none other than "Michel de Notredame," who gained newfound respect among the ranks of hardcore skeptics by prophesying the first black president, uncannily describing him as the "white and black of the two intermixed."

The Seer Extraordinaire was able to accomplish, nearly five centuries ago, what modern-day political pundits were unable to do even five short years ago. In so doing, Nostradamus turned die-hard doubters into true believers. The same ones who used to thumb their noses at his predictions are now thumbing through his quatrains, in search of further enlightenment, as in this prophetic verse:

"The great empire each year shall have more strife,
One above all others will the power obtain:
But short will be his reign and life,
Two years on stormy seas will he be able to sustain." - Nostradamus

What it says, in a nutshell, is that Barack Obama is destined be a one-term president. It is not hard to fathom why.

On his hyper-extended campaign trail, Barack made more promises than any mere mortal could ever possibly hope to keep. Now, he is seen as going back on his word, in effect, breaking his contract with America.

For instance, on the stump, he vowed to quickly shut down the "Gitmo Gulag." But, as it turns out, storming the American Bastille is a task more easily said than done.

He also pledged to end the Pentagon's precipitous preemptions and return the troops immediately. But, in the case of Iraq, he not only deferred the draw-down by several years, he has authorized a permanent occupation force to remain behind indefinitely, if not longer.

As for Afghanistan, he has already committed additional ground forces to that potential powder keg. Our continued presence on sacred soil only serves to further infuriate and embolden our sworn "Axis of Oil" enemies.

Even Vice President Joe Biden freely admits that President Obama is certain to be tested. A 9/11 event, Heaven forbid, would convince soccer moms that a Democratic president is not up to the task of protecting the homeland, driving the final nail into his campaign coffers.

Nostradamus used his prodigious prophetic powers to read the political tea leaves, but it does not require a crystal ball to read the writing on the wailing wall. Given the dire straits that he inherited, voters were more than willing to give their Anointed One a honeymoon in the White House. But if Barack Obama fails to deliver on his copious campaign promises, it is highly doubtful that they will deign to grant their Second Coming a second honeymoon in the Oval Office.

http://www.augustnoble.com Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=August_Noble http://www.ws.myinitialpendant.com