What Makes A Law Immoral Or UnConstitutional?
What Makes A Law Immoral Or UnConstitutional? This question was raised in the comments of a post (login required) on Senator Fred S. Martin's Facebook page recently. The subject was the recent vote to expand Medicaid here in Idaho. The answer to this question can be found in the words of America's Founding Fathers on the subject of "The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God." "Since law is force, it should be restricted to the one purpose for which individuals may legitimately use force–to protect our natural rights," states Earl Taylor, Jr., of the National Center for Constitutional Studies. But what are "Natural Rights"? They are those rights given to every man and creature by their Creator, whether you believe that to be God or Nature. They are: life, liberty, and the right to property. Earl Taylor continues: "whenever a new bill comes before a legislative body, each member ought to ask himself.. "Do I have the right to use force against my neighbor to achieve this goal? Would I be willing to forcibly take his property, lock him in jail, or (in some cases) put him to death for failing to obey this law?" If a legislator isn't certain it would be just to do so, he should vote against the bill." According to George Washington, government is force, and, being force, what do they do? Deprive citizens of… life, liberty, and property. Did you notice that? Once a law is passed, we give the government the right to enforce that law at the end of a gun. Therefore, it is our duty to ensure that only just laws are passed! "Natural law was central to American thought even before the Revolution. For example, here's what Massachusetts patriot James Otis wrote in 1764 to oppose an unjust revenue act passed by the British Parliament: "The supreme power in a state is jus dicere [to declare the law only: jus dare [to give the law, strictly speaking, belongs alone to God.... There must be in every instance a higher authority, [namely,] God." On the topic of socialist schemes like Medicaid, then, how do we justify taking money from one citizen only to give it to another? God's law says that is theft! Does a man have the right to give his own money freely to another? Yes! That is God's way! The opportunity for charity, however, is removed when the government inserts itself and requires the giving. What's more, resentment is fueled, for the law is unjust. What, then, makes a law unConstitutional? Truly, it is the the same principles outlined above. Government is supposed to protect our life, liberty, and property, and indeed are sworn to do so. Yet, time and again, they pass legislation that does just the opposite! But what if, as in the instance of the Medicaid expansion bill, our representatives are asked to violate their sworn duty by the people? Well, what separates a Republic from a Democracy is principles! In a democracy, the people can do anything they like, as long as they can muster up a majority. If five people want the sixth's money, they can gang up on him to take it and redistribute it among themselves. Legal? Surely. Moral? Never. We are a country that is Constitutionally bound to govern ourselves by the laws of God, above all else, in the protection of the life, liberty, and property of every citizen, and our representatives are especially bound to make sure those protections are never violated, no matter how many people beg them to do so. We are not a democracy! I urge you to read the National Center for Constitutional Studies' article, "The Law of Nature and of Nature’s God," and familiarize yourself with the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. Then, send this article to your representatives. Let's remind them of Who they are ultimately accountable to, and of what their Constitutional duties are, so that we can all remain free. Sources: 1. "The Law of Nature and of Nature’s God," National Center for Constitutional Studies. https://nccs.net/blogs/articles/the-law-of-nature-and-of-nature-s-god 2. "Government Is Force," Sheldon Richman, FEE, September 16, 2011. https://fee.org/articles/government-is-force/
What Makes A Law Immoral Or UnConstitutional?
What Makes A Law Immoral Or UnConstitutional? This question was raised in the comments of a post (login required) on Senator Fred S. Martin's Facebook page recently. The subject was the recent vote to expand Medicaid here in Idaho. The answer to this question can be found in the words of America's Founding Fathers on the subject of "The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God." "Since law is force, it should be restricted to the one purpose for which individuals may legitimately use force–to protect our natural rights," states Earl Taylor, Jr., of the National Center for Constitutional Studies. But what are "Natural Rights"? They are those rights given to every man and creature by their Creator, whether you believe that to be God or Nature. They are: life, liberty, and the right to property. Earl Taylor continues: "whenever a new bill comes before a legislative body, each member ought to ask himself.. "Do I have the right to use force against my neighbor to achieve this goal? Would I be willing to forcibly take his property, lock him in jail, or (in some cases) put him to death for failing to obey this law?" If a legislator isn't certain it would be just to do so, he should vote against the bill." According to George Washington, government is force, and, being force, what do they do? Deprive citizens of… life, liberty, and property. Did you notice that? Once a law is passed, we give the government the right to enforce that law at the end of a gun. Therefore, it is our duty to ensure that only just laws are passed! "Natural law was central to American thought even before the Revolution. For example, here's what Massachusetts patriot James Otis wrote in 1764 to oppose an unjust revenue act passed by the British Parliament: "The supreme power in a state is jus dicere [to declare the law only: jus dare [to give the law, strictly speaking, belongs alone to God.... There must be in every instance a higher authority, [namely,] God." On the topic of socialist schemes like Medicaid, then, how do we justify taking money from one citizen only to give it to another? God's law says that is theft! Does a man have the right to give his own money freely to another? Yes! That is God's way! The opportunity for charity, however, is removed when the government inserts itself and requires the giving. What's more, resentment is fueled, for the law is unjust. What, then, makes a law unConstitutional? Truly, it is the the same principles outlined above. Government is supposed to protect our life, liberty, and property, and indeed are sworn to do so. Yet, time and again, they pass legislation that does just the opposite! But what if, as in the instance of the Medicaid expansion bill, our representatives are asked to violate their sworn duty by the people? Well, what separates a Republic from a Democracy is principles! In a democracy, the people can do anything they like, as long as they can muster up a majority. If five people want the sixth's money, they can gang up on him to take it and redistribute it among themselves. Legal? Surely. Moral? Never. We are a country that is Constitutionally bound to govern ourselves by the laws of God, above all else, in the protection of the life, liberty, and property of every citizen, and our representatives are especially bound to make sure those protections are never violated, no matter how many people beg them to do so. We are not a democracy! I urge you to read the National Center for Constitutional Studies' article, "The Law of Nature and of Nature’s God," and familiarize yourself with the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. Then, send this article to your representatives. Let's remind them of Who they are ultimately accountable to, and of what their Constitutional duties are, so that we can all remain free. Sources: 1. "The Law of Nature and of Nature’s God," National Center for Constitutional Studies. https://nccs.net/blogs/articles/the-law-of-nature-and-of-nature-s-god 2. "Government Is Force," Sheldon Richman, FEE, September 16, 2011. https://fee.org/articles/government-is-force/
An Open Letter From Idaho On The Second Amendment
There was a shooting at Rigby Middle School today. This is close to home for Defending Idaho, as our headquarters are located in Rexburg, just a few miles away. We have friends and relatives in Rigby. While we are as saddened by these events as anyone else, we cannot and do not support any efforts to violate, eradicate, or change the Second Amendment. Although it was suggested by President Biden last week that "no amendment to the Constitution is absolute," he–and many Americans–must be reminded that the Second Amendment is not the federal government granting us a right. On the contrary, it puts the federal government on notice that they have no authority over whether or not the people can bear arms. Period. Even if the President were to completely abolish the Second Amendment, as some voices are clamoring for, it would make no difference. The right of the people to defend themselves, up to and including the use of deadly force, is a natural right, granted us by God Himself, and it cannot be removed. Further, we retain unto ourselves the right to defend ourselves against tyrannical government. The book, The Bill of Rights and Beyond, published by the National Archives, contains the following quote on its opening page: “"An ancient fear of being disarmed and helpless before standing professional armies lies behind the Second and Third amendments. Aristotle said that decisions of a leader "backed by a standing army" would be different from those made by a leader "awed by the fear of an armed people." "” Where Idaho is concerned, it is one of the safest places to live, despite–or because of–the fact that it has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the country. Was a crime committed today? Yes, and we regret that people sometimes make poor decisions. It is necessary, however, that we accept risks if we are to remain free.
Mass Shootings Are Why PRINCIPLES Should Always Come First
Some members of our organization came here from a certain political party because we'd been told they were "on our side," and then we were betrayed. Well, it has happened again. Need To Know News highlights the treasonous act with the title, "GOP Congressmen Lindsey Graham and Dan Crenshaw Join Democrats in Call for Gun Control, Sell Out Their Conservative Base Following Mass Shootings." These kinds of "kneejerk reactions" are never actually as impulsive as we are led to believe. This is how the Hegelian Dialectic works. They have a preplanned action they wish to take. They cause an action or look for a convenient one, and then propose their original plan as the solution. Problem, Reaction, Solution. It's a handy little all-in-one tool of the conspiracy. People who stand on principles, however, don't abandon those principles at the first sign of trouble, or even the tenth. Why? Because principles are eternal! They are truths that do not fail to be true, no matter what happens! Do we protest against gravity when a kid falls out of a tree? No. But what if they die! How tragic! Now we really hate gravity! It has to go! Down with gravity! But alas, it is a principle that is always true, and therefore we are free, and accidents can happen. The right to bear arms stems from the Natural Law that all living creatures have the inherent right to defend themselves. Even the scriptures support this law: “And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. (Alma 43:47)” Can it be abused? Of course! As long as men are free to choose their own actions, all laws will be abused by some. But there is the simple point: we must remain free! Those who wish to remove our rights and usurp leadership of our country and the world, at large, understand this. They know what they are doing. They only get away with it to the extent that we, the people, do not. “"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803 (Source: https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers)” This ordeal is also a great example of why Ezra Taft Benson warned us that, although the Constitution will be saved, "it will not be saved in Washington"! We have the Second Amendment for a reason, and it ain't hunting!
UN Goals Unveiled: Building Inclusive Communities Through Education
The United Nations will be holding a conference in Utah at the end of this month, with a variety of what they call "Thematic Sessions" to be held. These are meetings designed to promote the UN's goals, each one focused around a specific theme, but also intertwined with other UN goals, as you will see. There is also a strong focus on youth for this conference, and the reason for that will also become apparent. The first we will be addressing is entitled, "Building Inclusive Communities Through Education." Here is the official description, taken from their website: “"The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) call for ensuring equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university. Rapid technological changes present opportunities and challenges, but the learning environment, the capacities of teachers and the quality of education have in many parts of the world not kept pace, and in others still need to catch up. New models in higher education are emerging as lawmakers and higher education professionals look for ways to address declining enrollment numbers, lack of diversity and skyrocketing tuition, as well as knowledge gaps in today’s rapidly evolving global workforce. Access for all to a quality education and learning opportunities – starting with children - will play a central role in increasing the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship to meet today’s global and local challenges."” The UN's language is always loaded with meaning and hidden context that is intended to go over the head of the casual listener or reader. One of the most basic underlying principles we see in language from the United Nations is the promotion of Socialism, which is present here in the very first sentence. Notice the keywords "equal access" and "all men and women." These are fun buzzwords right now that appeal to the desire to be "fair" and promote "equality." But how would this be possible without forcing those who "have" to pay for those who "have not"? Who gets to define those terms? How would it be enforced? As the UN has focused its goals on the entire world, only a world government could provide the necessary enforcement. How do we know that world collectivism is the goal of the UN? For starters, most of the countries in the UN have some form of Socialist government, which shows that this is the mindset they hold. They would not want for the world anything different than what they already provide for their own people. The UN also already has in place several schemes to redistribute the wealth of the world from so-called "wealthy" nations to those with less. The redistribution of wealth is a hallmark of Socialism, the goal being that all people are equal in poverty, with the government in control of the wealth and resources. Think Venezuela, China, North Korea, the Soviet Union, Cuba. Sound fun? In contrast, the equality of all mankind declared under the Constitution is that each one is born with a clean slate, able to make of his life what he will. Not an equality of things, but an equality of promise to be shaped by a person's choices. Are some nations more prosperous than others? Absolutely, and the current modus operandi is to try to make other nations feel guilty for their own successes, as if it were their fault somehow. Yet, those circumstances, in most cases, came about as a natural result of the choices of the people. No one holds responsibility for their choices but themselves. Of course, we can voluntarily provide assistance, as many do. There are doctors and dentists who provide free services. There are people inventing new ways to drill wells, grow crops more effectively, etc. Missionaries teaching English, and helping in myriad other ways. All of these people working of their own accord, providing helpful service by choice, with no threat of government violence required. A few of the UN's other overarching themes are also present here. We see the assertion that "declining enrollment numbers" at "higher education" institutions (ie, colleges) is somehow a threat that must be addressed. What are these people doing instead? Staying home and watching TV? Perhaps a few, but the rest are learning trades, writing books, getting degrees in Computer Science or programming, teaching dance, making neon signs, and a whole host of other things that can be done elsewhere. College is not the only option. We must also ask ourselves why people would be opting to avoid college. Could it be that there are so many other options that don't require one to start adult life tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt? Could it be that colleges have turned into horrendous indoctrination centers where students can get degrees in things like porn? Where Conservatism and religion are no longer welcome? Where free speech is proclaimed, and simultaneously denied? Could it be that the best students no longer are able to even get into many colleges due to ridiculous "diversity" policies that favor non-academic qualities, such as skin color or sexuality? On that note, you will notice that "lack of diversity" is thrown in there with all these other "atrocities," as though it is something of importance. This is done for several reasons. One is that the UN is anti-Christian. The deliberate promotion of diversity of sexuality, and the promotion of non-Christian religions, while at the same time declaring war on monogamy and Christianity, sends a clear signal. We must remember, however, that when all things are "true," nothing is true. And that is the point. Championing diversity also creates victims out of those in smaller groups, who clamor to government for "protection," and the government is all too happy to take away everyone's rights and freedoms in order to do so. This is at the core of the UN's "inclusive communities." Remember when you were free to choose who you associated with? Now, you'd better bake the cake, rent your house, and install a ramp of a certain length, size, color, and slope, or the government will step on your neck, steal your property, or imprison you, all in the name of diversity. There are UN goals to usurp your freedoms in the name of every so-called "marginalized" group that exists. The drive-by phrase "knowledge gaps in today’s rapidly evolving global workforce" suggests that there is a group of overseers looking to take your children and plug them into a prefabricated system, like so many cogs. Some places here in the United States, like California, have already embraced this system, and have implemented government-business partnerships that craft a child's education to meet the specific projected needs of their workforce. Is this what people send their children to school for? If they called each graduating class by its intended purpose, would they feel any different? "We'd like to congratulate the Boeing assembly line class of 2019!" This is the UN's goal for your children. The importance of public education in Socialist systems cannot be denied. It is even a plank of the Communist Manifesto. When the government chooses which kids learn, what they learn, and how they learn, what else is left? Can it be said that a free thought ever crossed a child's mind in such a system? This system not only tells kids how to think, it tells them what to think. "We've always been at war with Eastasia." Haven't we? Hardcore Socialists have always sought to remove all threats to the state, any who might challenge their authority, and this has historically pinpointed religion and the family as the foremost threats. The UN call for "a quality education and learning opportunities – starting with children" nicely frames their desire to remove children from their homes and put them into government schools where they can be indoctrinated. The push is to get kids out of the home as early as possible. This is already happening here in America, with preschools and even pre-preschools opening all over. The UN also has an ongoing agenda to set children up as adversaries against their parents and other adults, by telling them that it is unfair for adults to run things, for adults to get all the jobs, for only adults to vote. Why is this a priority for the UN? Remember when, during the 60's, the mantra of the Communists was "Don't trust anyone over 30"? Youth are ignorant and impressionable. Not ignorant as in stupid, but as in miseducated and inexperienced. They can be emotionally manipulated easily. They are, in actual Communist terminology, "useful idiots" who will work hard to bring about their own downfall, all the while thinking they are doing the world a service. A young man I know, just out of high school, actually posted on Facebook not long ago that "[he] would die for Agenda 21!" Mission accomplished. As you read the subject matter tags the UN was so good to include with this description, see if you can pair the phrases with their descriptions above: “"Join this session if you are interested in: the role of universities, communities and vocational institutes; continuing education; children in urban settings; access for marginalized students and communities; opportunities for youth; education in vulnerable settings; gender; technology for education."” We don't have the time or space to touch on everything in this short blurb, but we hope this was enough to get you thinking. Everything about the UN, from its agendas to its existence, is anti-American and unConstitutional! Instead of turning our children over to unaccountable globalists, why don't we teach them what is in the Constitution… and then go back to following it!
Religious Exemption Resource Roundup!
We know that many of you are looking for information about religious exemptions to the COVID "vaccine," so we have rounded up the following resources from around the internet in the hopes that you will find what helps you in your situation! We will add to this page as more resources are brought to our attention. Please note that every situation is different, so we cannot provide many specifics, but knowledge is the key! That's why we recommend you study these resources if you will attempt a legal recourse to a vaccine mandate. Know what you're getting yourself into, know what will be expected of you, know what they legally can and cannot do, so you are able to defend yourself! John Birch Society Robert Owens, a former lawyer, has the following advice: “At the end of the day, you have a right to enforce your religious exemption. There's nothing they can do about it…” He discusses what you can do "if you are denied or if you are given an unreasonable accommodation." Be aware that, in these cases, you will have to file a lawsuit, and that it will take several months, but that there are groups such as Liberty Counsel who may take your case if you can't find local representation. “You need to be ready now to have sort of a long-haul approach to it, but understand this: at the end of the day there's no question that you will prevail. In fact, even the Biden administration, when there was a secret recording of DOJ lawyers trying to advise the Biden administration on how to best bully and control Americans to give up their religious exemption rights, even they admitted at the end of the day those claims are going to be valid and there's nothing they can do about them.” It might cost you $15,000 to $200,000 to go through this process, but: “At the end of the day you're going to get all your money back, you're going to get your job restored, you're going to have all your fees paid, and you're going to have all your legal fees paid, as well.” We recommend you watch the following video, and read the article beneath it, where he shares even more useful information, examples, and advice: HAS YOUR RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION LETTER BEEN DENIED? | CONSTITUTION CORNER https://jbs.org/video/constitution-corner/has-your-religious-exemption-letter-been-denied-constitution-corner/ Vaccine Mandates: What Are My Options? https://thenewamerican.com/vaccine-mandates/ Liberty Counsel On their page, "LEGAL HELP FOR RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS FROM VACCINATIONS," they provide: • a Vaccine Exemption Guide Video • a legal help form • sample letters for requesting a religious exemption • a memo on the lawfulness of questioning religious beliefs • guides for proceeding if your request is denied, or approved but with unpaid leave • and more. Other Helpful Resources This "COVID-19 Vaccination Religious Exemption Form," from the city of Columbus, Ohio, will give you an idea of the types of questions you may be asked by your employer. PLEASE NOTE: This is a PDF download. You may find something interesting in "What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws," put out by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). You will specifically want to have a look at section K.12., entitled "Under Title VII, how should an employer respond to an employee who communicates that he or she is unable to be vaccinated for COVID-19 (or provide documentation or other confirmation of vaccination) because of a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance?" You will also want to read through "Section 12: Religious Discrimination," also put out by the EEOC. It provides legal guidance for employers and EEOC investigators as they navigate religious exemptions. If you would like something more formal from a religious organization, you may wish to submit a "Religious Exemption Letter Request" to the Evangelistic Ministries of Anita Martir Rivera. All it takes is an email and a small donation to her ministry. Finally, the MassCentral.com website has an article from August 23, 2021, entitled "Covid Vaccine Religious Exemption Documents are posted By GAB CEO," that includes several downloadable documents, including for active-duty military, Orthodox Christians, Catholics, and others. We at Defending Idaho wish you all the best as you navigate these crazy times! Above all, we remind you that, according to natural law, no one has the right to mandate you put anything harmful into your body, no matter what "the law" says! There is nothing from God or in the Constitution that authorizes such an act! We hope you can keep your jobs, but ultimately know that, whatever happens, if you will put your trust in God, everything will work out for your good and His name's glory!