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?
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?
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.
Austrian state gov’t to pay out 30 million euros to victims of COVID jab injuries, restrictions
My favorite part of this is that "the COVID injections will not be advertized anymore." Somebody needs to sue the Idaho government to stop pushing this now-completely-debunked nonsense. I'm still seeing ads on YouTube!