Christian School Raided Based on Internet Rumor Forced to Promote Gay Lifestyle
Join Defending Idaho's own Rod Klingler as he discusses truth and freedom with Ben McClintock and Micah Turner, of Defending Utah! Don't forget to subscribe to our Spreaker channel or visit our Podcast page for future episodes!
UN Goals Unveiled: Peaceful Societies–Recovering from Conflict and Nurturing Peace
Do people notice hypocrisy any more? When, for instance, millionaire Bernie Sanders trots around the world in his private jet pimping Socialism and chastising the rest of us for causing climate change… does anyone bat an eye? Ditto for Al Gore and many others. What's missing is critical thinking, a skill no longer taught in government indoctrination centers. What they do teach under that name is a form of "social justice" thinking and "values clarification" that is nothing more than humanistic brainwashing. In today's article we will learn about peace, love, and respect from the UN. What could go wrong? “"Peace is necessary for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and is a specific goal in itself. This session will focus on the interface between peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG 16) and Safe, Resilient, Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11).The last decade has been marked by increasing skepticism regarding the viability and effectiveness of multilateral approaches to peacebuilding. The Peaceful Societies Thematic Session will discuss how civil society organizations are integrating objective measures to achieve an inclusive and sustainable culture of peaceful coexistence in their local activities while respecting the integrity of nation states’ sovereign rights. Attend this thematic session if you are interested in: Human rights, Gender-based violence, Human trafficking, Family valued [sic], community building and inter-cultural understanding through arts and sports, Refugees and migrants, Arms flows, Access to information, Corruption"” Buzz Buzz Buzz Once again, we must separate fact from fiction, and rhetoric from reality. In this Thematic Session description, as in all the others, fine language and emotional buzzwords are used to appeal to the non-critical thinker. But that's not us. Let's take this thing apart, shall we? Let's start with the overall goal. The UN claims to be able to do something that has never been done in the history of the earth: bring peace to the world. On a similar note, here in Idaho we have signs all along the highway, with a picture of a seatbelt, proclaiming the slogan "Towards Zero Deaths." When I first saw these, I mentioned to my wife that "zero deaths" sounds like such a noble goal, but it is completely impossible without taking away our freedoms, because there is no freedom without risk! Likewise, there can never be absolute peace in the world without brainwashing a la 1984, and/or an absolute dictatorship that has removed all freedoms. This is the "peace" promised by Communism. Real world examples include China, North Korea, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, and Cuba. You murder everyone who could theoretically pose a threat, and then keep everyone else under your boot. Hooray for peace! The Definition Of A Nation In this description, they also complain about "increasing skepticism regarding the viability and effectiveness of multilateral approaches to peacebuilding." Multilateral, according to my dictionary, is defined as something "agreed upon or participated in by three or more parties, especially the governments of different countries". To understand why this is a concern, we must understand what a country is. At its most basic, we could use the definition espoused by radio host Michael Savage, who says that a country is defined by its "borders, language, and culture." This makes sense because at some point in time a group of people claimed an area of land, ie, established borders, in order to have a distinct culture. Over time their language became distinct, as well. And so you have a country. "We will no longer be governed by you," they said to their country of origin. "We will govern ourselves, instead!" This makes sense, as well, because a group only has the right to govern themselves, not anyone else. Each country has distinct borders, language, and culture, so their laws makes sense to them, but people in other areas may not understand why things are the way they are. They want to have things a different way. That's fine. Everyone should have the right to choose their own laws and leaders. Of course, many countries have NOT chosen their laws or leaders, but have instead had these things forced upon them, and this includes most of the countries in the United Nations. The same ones that want to "multilaterally" approach "peacebuilding." Now do you see the problem? If everyone minded their own business, we would all be much happier. “"Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the President of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to “uplift” their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their peoples or even to defend them against their enemies. This point was made clear by the wise father of our country, George Washington: "I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one had a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under them selves; and that if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration."" –Excerpt from United States Foreign Policy, by Ezra Taft Benson” I'm looking at you, America! A TSA/CPS Agent's Dream Job Of course, the United Nations also meddles everywhere, and that's just one point of irony. The other is that this Thematic Session is supposedly devoted to "Recovering from Conflict and Nurturing Peace" while the UN is anything but neutral when there is a conflict, and they bring anything but peace to the areas they infest! Taking another page out of 1984, the UN troops are referred to as "peacekeepers." But did you know that there is horrendous and widespread sexual abuse of women and children whenever they bring their "peace" into town? Here is an article from 2006 on the UN's own website, one from 2016 specifically mentioning "child rape" and discussing the 99 "allegations" from the year before (2015), and one from 2017 that points out that the "145 cases of [reported] sexual exploitation and abuse involving peacekeepers in 2016" came from "across all UN staff, not just peacekeepers." Well, that's comforting. This article, also from 2017, discusses many specific incidents, including "When at least 134 Sri Lankan peacekeepers were implicated in a child sex ring." This 2018 article informs us that "Few UN personnel have faced jail (the current number stands at 30), with even fewer being fined, demoted or removed from office." Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. This is apparently how the UN "nurtures peace" in areas that are "recovering from conflict." Did I mention that we are talking about THE RAPE OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN? Just wanted to throw that out there, as you ponder how seriously this is being taken by the UN. The articles linked to above are not exclusive, and this issue unfortunately did not begin in 2006. This Human Rights Watch article from 2016 is the first of these to mention that "Exploitation and abuse by UN peacekeepers and personnel has been reported since the 1990s." From the first 2017 article, above, we learn: “"The international body has also been accused of burying cases and failing to act promptly or transparently to incidents perpetrated by its troops."” Well, duh! It's the same problem with police in America, or the KGB in the Soviet Union! They see themselves as the top of the food chain! Who's going to stop them, other cops? Ha! Safeguarding Our Future We've all heard that "when the wicked rule the people mourn," (D&C 98:9, Prov. 29:2), but what should be of greater concern to us is the warning in the Book of Mormon that "ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood." (Mosiah 29:21) Who will you turn to when you are abused by a tyrannical world government? Where will you go? "The shedding of much blood," indeed. Oh, and in case you were wondering, "An AP investigation earlier this year found around 2,000 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse have been registered between 2005-2017." So there's really no reason people should be concerned about UN involvement in their area, is there? Notice that this number does not include anything from the 1990's up to 2005, nor explain why. We'll leave that to your imagination. Usurpation Of Delegated Authority Because a nation's borders keep their people safe, they are one of the top concerns of that nation's government. In America, this is one of the few Constitutional powers of the federal government–to protect our shared borders. Why would a nation care about the security of another nation's borders? It has nothing to do with them, especially when "protecting borders" means sending your own men and women to die. Yet, "The United Nations Charter gives the United Nations Security Council the power and responsibility to take collective action to maintain international peace and security." (United Nations peacekeeping", Wikipedia) This is the sovereign right of a nation, remember? If the UN was not already a de facto world government, why would they be involved? And why would nations let them? Yes, our birthright has been sold, America, and unfortunately we aren't the only ones. By now you should have a pretty good idea of the utter absurdity and hypocrisy of the United Nations condescending to tell the world how it might "have peace" and "recover from conflicts." As the John Birch Society has long urged, it's time to "Get the UN out of the US and get the US out of the UN!" We have a Constitution so that we can govern ourselves. UPDATE (2019-08-21): Please listen to the Defending Utah episode above! Ben touches on many other reasons the UN is not an entity of peace!
The Name's Bond. School Bond.
Citizens across Idaho are facing upcoming votes to address proposed bonds, most of them school bonds. We have been impressed with the amount of public discourse around these, and specifically with some who have clearly thought it through, crunched numbers, and so forth, but what we have not been impressed with, however, is the lack of discussion about principles. This is actually the only discussion that needs to be had, since a proposition that clearly violates true principles is not a proposal to be taken seriously. To begin with, we must clearly understand that voting in a bond means going into debt and paying it back through future taxation. Those are two enormous red flags right out of the gate. On the Dave Ramsey website, we read: “What’s the legal definition of debt? “Debt is a financial liability or obligation owed by one person, the debtor, to another, the creditor.” In other words, debt is when someone borrows money (a debtor) and is responsible for paying back the person or company who loaned them that money (the creditor or lender). ” As we mentioned, in the case of bonds, the repayment comes in the form of future taxation. This is nefarious in several ways. One could easily vote in a bond and then move out of the area, thereby using the force of law to commit someone else to pay off the debt. The rising generation that becomes old enough to pay taxes also gets saddled with debt they had no say in. This is immoral. Others are also unfairly saddled with debts earmarked for public schools, including those who homeschool, or who have no children in school. For homeschooling parents, the injustice is multiplied by the fact that they are forced to help pay for a service they do not use, and that spends wastefully its ever-increasing budget, while they themselves give their children an inarguably better education at a mere fraction of the cost. "But education! We have to have schools! If we don't force everyone to pay for public schools, kids will be dumb because there is nowhere else on planet Earth where anyone could possibly get an education! Won't somebody think of the children?!?" These are the types of comments that get thrown around when you start advocating true principles. You will notice that they boil down to the following: 1. "My way is the best and only way!" This is clearly a falsehood. In our day, there are innumerable ways to get an education. Apprenticeship is one way into a lucrative career, and requires little to no money down. Oh! Ever heard of the internet? It's this neat place where you can literally learn anything for nothing or next to nothing. Colleges and kind people offer free or inexpensive courses and materials. There are low-fee things like coding boot camps, and master courses. The real problem these people have with this approach? There is no one to force things like critical race theory and gay porn on your kindergartener. 2. "Everyone else has to pay for what I want! Especially since it is in the "public's best interest!"" This is one of the underlying principles of Socialism, and quite clearly violates the Constitution, no matter who espouses it. (Looking at you, every president of the United States for the past 90 years…) Ezra Taft Benson himself addressed the immorality inherent in this approach in his amazing work, The Proper Role Of Government, when he said: “[N]ow we come to the moment of truth. Suppose pioneer “A” wants another horse for his wagon, He doesn’t have the money to buy one, but since pioneer “B” has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor’s good fortune, Is he entitled to take his neighbor’s horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer “B” wishes to keep his property, pioneer “A” has no just claim to it. If “A” has no proper power to take “B’s” property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that “B” give his extra horse to “A”, they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago: ““For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another.””” This leads us to the correct approach to anything one might feel inclined to make everyone else pay for: "If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question." In other words, when you want a new school building, you start collecting funds from those who want it, and are willing and able to pitch in. When you have enough money, you pay for it! That's it! On the website for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we read: “Since the early days of the Church, the Lord’s prophets have repeatedly warned against the bondage of debt… Discipline yourself in your purchases, avoiding debt to the extent you can. In most cases, you can avoid debt by managing your resources wisely.” Can we not, as the Church itself exemplifies, save up the money and spend it when we have it? Would that not be wisdom? Last year, Defending Idaho published a resource page on Education that pointed out the following: “Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have no excuse when it comes to public education. They were warned and forewarned by their leaders for decades to send their children to faithful teachers, and not people of the world, and that they should pay for their children's tuitions themselves. Why? They gave six reasons:[1] 1. Taxes were not necessary… Brigham Young said to a group of parents, “Do not say you cannot school them, for you can. There is not a family in this community but we will take and school their children if they are not able to do it themselves.” 2. Taxing took away the opportunity of freely giving and, consequently, its attendant blessings. 3. Taxes create both waste and abuse. 4. Those disbursing taxes often assume undue authority to enforce compliance to additional or unrelated regulations. 5. Taxes foster indolence and recipients of public tax money frequently demonstrate dependency upon the state. 6. Parents and local community members have greater interest in their children and in their educational situation than does the government. Somewhat intertwined with the fourth principle, it is known that the closer parents are to the education of their children, the more viable and important it becomes.” Think of the wisdom in each of these statements. #6 alone would have kept trash like critical race theory out of our schools from the beginning! Now, go forth and vote, applying true principles at every turn, and you will find yourself freer by the year! As a rule, always vote no on higher taxes, including bonds, even when they are for "good" things. True principles demand it! Sources: Debt. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/debt?lang=eng, accessed 2022-02-17. Education. Defending Idaho, https://defendingidaho.org/education, accessed 2022-02-17. The Proper Role Of Government. Latter-day Conservative, https://www.latterdayconservative.com/ezra-taft-benson/the-proper-role-of-government/, accessed 2022-02-17. What Is Debt? Ramsey Solutions, https://www.ramseysolutions.com/debt/debt-definition, accessed 2022-02-17.
You Are GUILTY
A terrible precedent has been set in America, and it needs to die a quick death. It is the presumption of guilt. We used to be a country that believed in the foundational principle of presumptive innocence. As in "innocent until proven guilty." This important principle is at the very root of the three pillars of our Constitutional society: life, liberty, and property (also referred to as "the pursuit of happiness"). Without the presumption of innocence, these three can be taken from us for any reason. Sadly, we are now a country that practices and allows the presumption of guilt. CPS Know anyone who has had CPS (Child "Protective" Services) called on them? How did that go for them? It usually happens like this: 1. Someone calls CPS. There is no step 2. In the eyes of the state, you are now a criminal, and must prove your innocence through a series of long, drawn out, invasive interrogations, court visits, and usually the loss of your children for any period of time, up to and including permanently. Hopefully you have the time and money to endure this experience before your children are doled out to foster care, or worse. (But that doesn't really happen, right?) Why is this a problem? Do you hate children? Not at all, but to protect innocent citizens from heinous government overreach, the burden of proof must be on the accuser. That is why, under Constitutional law, a warrant must be obtained, and it cannot be obtained on hearsay. People can be nasty to each other, and lies roll easily off the tongue. In Idaho alone, over 80% of CPS cases are fraudulent! But those > 80% go through the same experience as the < 20% who are guilty. But that's just one situation where we are presumed guilty. Let's look at some others. Homeschooling At a recent Harvard event, a professor Elizabeth Bartholet suggested that the state should assume authority over our children, and take that authority from parents. Why? Because, she asserts, we should presume parents are ignorant child abusers. It is an unbelievable statement, so feel free to read the link. Fair warning: you will come out of that article with fewer IQ points than when you went in. Once again, guilt should be presumed. The price? The ability to raise our children as we see fit. Instead, they must be indoctrinated by the state like all the other good little kiddies in public school. You know, the ones who are learning about deviant sex acts and idolizing Communists. Black Lives Matter The very concept of "Systemic racism" presumes guilt on the part of all "White" people, and apparently justifies assaults on innocent victims, and the destruction of their personal property. Wait, that sounds familiar… Oh yeah, we said it earlier: "Without the presumption of innocence, all three [life, liberty, and property] can be taken from us for any reason." All while the police are "standing by." Chad Daybell & Lori Vallow…? Because this principle is so vital to our freedom, it is important that we apply it consistently, even in unpopular situations. In the oldest Idaho Statesman article we could find mentioning Daybell, dated Dec. 20, 2019, we learn that they were under investigation for the following reasons: • "Rexburg Police tried to conduct a welfare check on Joshua Vallow, Lori Vallow’s adopted 7-year-old special-needs son" at the request of "[r]elatives outside of Idaho". • And "the parents… repeatedly lied about the whereabouts of the children." When did it become the purview of the police to check on the whereabouts of our children? Is it any of their business? Are we required by law to tell them when asked? Is this any different than the CPS visits mentioned above? The answers, as far as we can tell, are Never, No, No, and No. Please correct us if we are mistaken. The fact that they performed the checkup visit, and then attempted to verify that the kids were with their relatives, demonstrates a presumption of guilt. The article states that the police returned with a warrant the following day, which is curious since no evidence of wrongdoing was mentioned, just the suspicions of family members. The couple themselves said the "allegations" were "speculation and rumor", which shows that there was not previous evidence. According to that article: “The couple is also connected to two active death investigations involving both of their former spouses — one in Fremont County and another in Maricopa County, Arizona. However, authorities in both jurisdictions say Chad and Lori are not persons of interest or suspects in those cases. No charges have been filed against Chad or Lori in Idaho or Arizona. So far, Rexburg Police have only indicated they want to talk with the couple to ensure the children are OK.” Suspicions and hearsay are not legal qualifications for an investigation, let alone the subsequent taxpayer expense to fly to Hawaii to apprehend Lori Vallow, dig up yards, and whatever else has been involved. Lucky for the police, their "belief" (as it is called in the Statesman article) may have turned out to be correct in this case. But what if it wasn't? Would we support this form of legal abuse if they were innocent? What if they are? We don't actually know at this point. And if they are guilty, does that excuse the presumption of guilt, and all that that entails?