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/
Civil rights group outraged after Canadian province looks to introduce ‘unexplained wealth’ seizure law
So here's the thing: who's to say that you had no "legitimate source of funds", and why is it anyone else's business? A couple thoughts: first, laws like this make people "guilty until proven innocent", which means you are always presumed to be a criminal. Second, thank God we live in the United States, where we have the Constitutional protections of life, liberty, and property, right? Wrong. Do you know "civil asset forfeiture" is? When is your property not YOUR property? When the government says so. Which means you don't have private property.
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 Is The Proper Role of Government? Part 1
We live in a day when federal, state, and even local, governments interfere in nearly everything we do. Want to build another home on your 18 acres? Only if Big Brother says so. Want to park on the street or grow a garden in your front yard? Only if Big Brother says so. Want to travel by plane? Only if Big Brother says you can, and hasn't put you on a secret watch list, and only if you aren't carrying anything on Big Brother's blacklist. ("Four ounces of shampoo?!? Only terrorists travel with such paraphernalia!") It's too bad America's citizens don't understand the proper role of government. Thankfully, former Secretary of Agriculture (and Apostle for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at the time), Ezra Taft Benson, outlined the exact principles we need to know to keep from becoming slaves to government! In this podcast, our buddies over at Defending Utah discuss the first four of the fifteen principles laid out by Benson, in his excellent work, The Proper Role of Government: One: ““NO PEOPLE CAN MAINTAIN FREEDOM UNLESS THEIR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS ARE FOUNDED UPON FAITH IN GOD AND BELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF MORAL LAW.” ” Two: ““GOD HAS ENDOWED MEN WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS AS SET FORTH IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THAT NO LEGISLATURE AND NO MAJORITY, HOWEVER GREAT, MAY MORALLY LIMIT OR DESTROY THESE; THAT THE SOLE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY AND ANYTHING MORE THAN THIS IS USURPATION AND OPPRESSION.” ” Three: ““THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WAS PREPARED AND ADOPTED BY MEN ACTING UNDER INSPIRATION FROM ALMIGHTY GOD; THAT IT IS A SOLEMN COMPACT BETWEEN THE PEOPLES OF THE STATES OF THIS NATION WHICH ALL OFFICERS OF GOVERNMENT ARE UNDER DUTY TO OBEY; THAT THE ETERNAL MORAL LAWS EXPRESSED THEREIN MUST BE ADHERED TO OR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY WILL PERISH.” ” Four: ““I BELIEVE IT A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR GOVERNMENT TO DEPRIVE THE INDIVIDUAL OF EITHER LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY EXCEPT FOR THESE PURPOSES: (A) PUNISH CRIME AND PROVIDE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; (B) PROTECT THE RIGHT AND CONTROL OF PRIVATE PROPERTY; (C) WAGE DEFENSIVE WAR AND PROVIDE FOR THE NATION’S DEFENSE; (D) COMPEL EACH ONE WHO ENJOYS THE PROTECTION OF GOVERNMENT TO BEAR HIS FAIR SHARE OF THE BURDEN OF PERFORMING THE ABOVE FUNCTIONS.” ” You can see Ezra Taft Benson deliver The Proper Role of Government, himself, in the video above!
What Is The Proper Role of Government? Part 2
The guys over at Defending Utah discuss principles five through eight of Ezra Taft Benson's powerful speech, The Proper Role Of Government, in this podcast episode. Do our current government officials obey these principles? Five: ““I HOLD THAT THE CONSTITUTION DENIES GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO TAKE FROM THE INDIVIDUAL EITHER HIS LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH MORAL LAW; THAT THE SAME MORAL LAW WHICH GOVERNS THE ACTIONS OF MEN WHEN ACTING ALONE IS ALSO APPLICABLE WHEN THEY ACT IN CONCERT WITH OTHERS; THAT NO CITIZEN OR GROUP OF CITIZENS HAS ANY RIGHT TO DIRECT THEIR AGENT, THE GOVERNMENT, TO PERFORM ANY ACT WHICH WOULD BE EVIL OR OFFENSIVE TO THE CONSCIENCE IF THAT CITIZEN WERE PERFORMING THE ACT HIMSELF OUTSIDE THE FRAMEWORK OF GOVERNMENT.” ” Six: ““I AM HEREBY RESOLVED THAT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL THE FREEDOMS GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS BE INFRINGED. IN PARTICULAR I AM OPPOSED TO ANY ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DENY THE PEOPLE THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, TO WORSHIP AND PRAY WHEN AND WHERE THEY CHOOSE, OR TO OWN AND CONTROL PRIVATE PROPERTY.” ” Seven: ““I CONSIDER OURSELVES AT WAR WITH INTERNATIONAL COMMUNISM WHICH IS COMMITTED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR GOVERNMENT, OUR RIGHT OF PROPERTY, AND OUR FREEDOM; THAT IT IS TREASON AS DEFINED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO THIS IMPLACABLE ENEMY.” ” Eight: ““I AM UNALTERABLY OPPOSED TO SOCIALISM, EITHER IN WHOLE OR IN PART, AND REGARD IT AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATION OF POWER AND A DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR GOVERNMENT TO OWN OR OPERATE THE MEANS OF PRODUCING AND DISTRIBUTING GOODS AND SERVICES IN COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, OR TO REGIMENT OWNERS IN THE LEGITIMATE USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.” ” You can watch Ezra Taft Benson deliver this speech, himself, in the video above!
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!