Harvard Professor Preaches Historical Revisionism to Idaho Politicians, No One Notices
According to the March 8th Legislative Update email from Idaho's District 35, "Dr. David Moss, a professor at Harvard University’s Business School, visited Idaho’s Capitol last week to present his lecture on the U.S. Constitution." Sound promising? Think again! “As the guest of The McClure Center, Dr. Moss gave a presentation in the Lincoln Auditorium entitled, “Bringing History to Life: Creating the U.S. Constitution.” Dr. Moss is the author of Democracy: A Case Study, which is an in-depth study on the history of American democracy.” It's nice that some of our lawmakers took time out of their busy schedules to attend such a presentation, but no one seemed to notice that the entire premise was fundamentally flawed. If they had instead studied the Constitution, and the lengthy elaborations provided by the Founding Fathers themselves, they might have remembered that the United States is a republic and not a democracy! A republic provides for checks and balances outlined in the Constitution itself, the word of God, and the laws of nature, while a democracy, according to Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, "is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." The very idea of democracy should be offensive to liberty-loving Americans, for all one must do to legalize theft is convince the majority that they will benefit from it! Idahoans, unfortunately, are happy with their free lunch, as the wolves in the majority recently voted to plunder the other 40% to expand Medicaid, an already-offensive scheme. Some time in the past, frightened majority voters in idaho gave up their liberties to make themselves feel safer, in the form of mandatory vehicle insurance. Liberty-loving Americans have taken a stand in recent years against the government forcing them to purchase a healthcare product. How is this any different? It is theft, pure and simple. We now face further government encroachment with House Bill 95, which allows the DMV to refuse to register your vehicle, thereby revoking your God-given, natural, right to travel, unless you provide proof of insurance. Don't get me wrong, insurance is a nifty convenience that most of us are willing to pay for "peace of mind" that our expenses will be covered in the event of an accident. But by what principle do we command our neighbor to do likewise? “Keep in mind that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they themselves have. They cannot give that which they do not possess. In a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement by another. Indeed, the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was being spent defending themselves, their property, and their liberty. For man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attack and theft. When he joins together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff, government is born. The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only that which they had a right to do for themselves—nothing more. But 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.” The worst part about this professor's revisionist history is that it is "being introduced to high schools as part of the High School Case Method Project, which the professor oversees at Harvard Business School. At the Capitol, Dr. Moss met with 20 Idaho teachers who are using his high school curriculum in their schools." Translation: our children will be the next generation to believe that "majority rules" is enshrined in the Constitution. It is time for Idaho citizens to stand up for the principles that made this country great! Let us collectively reject democracy and socialism, nullify existing bad laws, and enjoy our own lives, liberty, and property! Sources: 1. Democracy quote from Ben Franklin courtesy of GoodReads. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7718791-democracy-is-two-wolves-and-a-lamb-voting-on-what 2. HOUSE BILL 95, legislature.idaho.gov. https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2019/legislation/H0095/ 3. "The Proper Role of Government," Ezra Taft Benson. (Latter-day Conservative) https://www.latterdayconservative.com/ezra-taft-benson/the-proper-role-of-government/ Image Credits: 1. Sheep photo by Keven Law, Los Angeles, USA. (Wikimedia Commons)
Oroville Declares COVID Independence
News flash! No declaration necessary! The whole of the United States is a Constitutional Republic!
Harvard Professor Preaches Historical Revisionism to Idaho Politicians, No One Notices
According to the March 8th Legislative Update email from Idaho's District 35, "Dr. David Moss, a professor at Harvard University’s Business School, visited Idaho’s Capitol last week to present his lecture on the U.S. Constitution." Sound promising? Think again! “As the guest of The McClure Center, Dr. Moss gave a presentation in the Lincoln Auditorium entitled, “Bringing History to Life: Creating the U.S. Constitution.” Dr. Moss is the author of Democracy: A Case Study, which is an in-depth study on the history of American democracy.” It's nice that some of our lawmakers took time out of their busy schedules to attend such a presentation, but no one seemed to notice that the entire premise was fundamentally flawed. If they had instead studied the Constitution, and the lengthy elaborations provided by the Founding Fathers themselves, they might have remembered that the United States is a republic and not a democracy! A republic provides for checks and balances outlined in the Constitution itself, the word of God, and the laws of nature, while a democracy, according to Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, "is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." The very idea of democracy should be offensive to liberty-loving Americans, for all one must do to legalize theft is convince the majority that they will benefit from it! Idahoans, unfortunately, are happy with their free lunch, as the wolves in the majority recently voted to plunder the other 40% to expand Medicaid, an already-offensive scheme. Some time in the past, frightened majority voters in idaho gave up their liberties to make themselves feel safer, in the form of mandatory vehicle insurance. Liberty-loving Americans have taken a stand in recent years against the government forcing them to purchase a healthcare product. How is this any different? It is theft, pure and simple. We now face further government encroachment with House Bill 95, which allows the DMV to refuse to register your vehicle, thereby revoking your God-given, natural, right to travel, unless you provide proof of insurance. Don't get me wrong, insurance is a nifty convenience that most of us are willing to pay for "peace of mind" that our expenses will be covered in the event of an accident. But by what principle do we command our neighbor to do likewise? “Keep in mind that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they themselves have. They cannot give that which they do not possess. In a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement by another. Indeed, the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was being spent defending themselves, their property, and their liberty. For man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attack and theft. When he joins together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff, government is born. The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only that which they had a right to do for themselves—nothing more. But 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.” The worst part about this professor's revisionist history is that it is "being introduced to high schools as part of the High School Case Method Project, which the professor oversees at Harvard Business School. At the Capitol, Dr. Moss met with 20 Idaho teachers who are using his high school curriculum in their schools." Translation: our children will be the next generation to believe that "majority rules" is enshrined in the Constitution. It is time for Idaho citizens to stand up for the principles that made this country great! Let us collectively reject democracy and socialism, nullify existing bad laws, and enjoy our own lives, liberty, and property! Sources: 1. Democracy quote from Ben Franklin courtesy of GoodReads. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7718791-democracy-is-two-wolves-and-a-lamb-voting-on-what 2. HOUSE BILL 95, legislature.idaho.gov. https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2019/legislation/H0095/ 3. "The Proper Role of Government," Ezra Taft Benson. (Latter-day Conservative) https://www.latterdayconservative.com/ezra-taft-benson/the-proper-role-of-government/ Image Credits: 1. Sheep photo by Keven Law, Los Angeles, USA. (Wikimedia Commons)
Masks: The Science Is NOT Settled
There are many scientific articles BOTH saying masks are helpful and NOT helpful. The CDC itself has flip-flopped on this issue since the beginning of this so-called "pandemic", with Dr. Fauci contradicting himself at times. Since this issue has been a question for almost a hundred years, there have been dozens and dozens of studies done on this subject on population samples both large and small. The science is clearly NOT settled! While I had originally intended to provide lists both for and against here, I will instead direct you to the following articles, which have already done the hard work for me. An Evidence Based Scientific Analysis of Why Masks are Ineffective, Unnecessary, and Harmful [1] This extremely thorough and well-documented article was written by Dr. Jim Meehan, MD, an ophthalmologist and preventive medicine specialist with over 20 years of experience and advanced training in immunology, inflammation, and infectious disease, and who has personally performed well over 10,000 surgical procedures. Masking Ourselves To Death: A New Essay By Mark Crispin Miller, PHD [2] Mark Crispin Miller, a professor at NYU, casts a light on our current circumstances, and points out the hypocrisy at every turn. Very long and well-written. Language warning for some of the quotations contained in this article. This article is highly-documented, particularly to sources like the New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, and Clinical Infectious Diseases magazine. Even Some Liberals Get It In "The Coronavirus and the Right’s Scientific Counterrevolution," an article from the decidedly Leftist, pro-mask website, The New Republic, there is an admission that shifting guidelines about mask-wearing has had nothing to do with research, or evidence, or any other set of facts, but was instead about shifting opinions. “"As for the effectiveness of widespread mask usage in slowing the transmission of respiratory viruses, effectively nothing about this evidence had changed since the start of the pandemic. The evidence remains now what it was then: partial and conditional. It draws from either idealized laboratory conditions, or past outbreaks of other viruses in which randomized controls were not possible. In a rapidly shifting crisis like the present pandemic, it’s exceedingly difficult to establish even general correlations, much less firm causation. In other words, the U.S. mask advisory changed not because of what the evidence plainly dictated; rather, it was because experts’ judgment of the existing evidence had shifted. And the judgment itself was not mainly scientific—it was a prudential assessment of how the evidence should guide action." [3]” Masks Are Medical Devices It is unlawful and unhealthy to prescribe the same medical device to all people without proper medical consultation. The risks associated with this one-size-fits-all approach have been demonstrated in many instances, very few of which have been publicly disseminated via mainstream media. You've probably heard this argument before, but not from a surgeon. Well, here you go! "I'm an ophthalmic surgeon. I specialize in ocular immunology, inflammation, and infectious disease. I’ve performed over 10,000 surgical procedures wearing a surgical mask. I have suffered the detrimental effects that masks caused to my mental and physical function during long surgeries. Because most of the surgeries I performed were microscopic procedures that required fine motor skills, I changed my mask frequently to prevent the detrimental effects of arterial deoxygenation." [1] Mark Crispin Miller, PHD, in his article above [2], provides links to little-publicized articles about multiple people passing out, even dying, from improper mask wearing. Beliefs Are Not Science I will leave you with the following quote, as food for thought: “"The universal use of unscientific face coverings is closer to medieval superstition than it is to science." – Dr. Martin Kulldorff (Harvard Medical School professor) [4]” SOURCES [1] https://www.meehanmd.com/blog/2020-10-10-an-evidence-based-scientific-analysis-of-why-masks-are-ineffective-unnecessary-and-harmful/ [2] https://truthbarrier.com/masking-ourselves-to-death-new-essay-by-mark-crispin-miller-phd/ [3] The Coronavirus and the Right’s Scientific Counterrevolution, The New Republic https://newrepublic.com/article/158058/coronavirus-conservative-experts-scientific-counterrevolution [4] As quoted in "Fire Fauci!' - Trump Rally Explodes Over Coronavirus Doom And Gloomer," RonPaulLibertyReport (YouTube) https://youtu.be/0NfVMc_pFQ4?t=986
Oroville Declares COVID Independence
News flash! No declaration necessary! The whole of the United States is a Constitutional Republic!
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/
Proper Government, Principle 1, An In-Depth Analysis
Principle One: ““NO PEOPLE CAN MAINTAIN FREEDOM UNLESS THEIR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS ARE FOUNDED UPON FAITH IN GOD AND BELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF MORAL LAW.”” "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." You've read this quote from John Adams before, but have you read the complete letter from which it is taken? While the quote above does stand on its own quite well, the complete text gives further insight into what this Founding Father wanted us to know, and leads us into a discussion of this principle: Original text: “From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798 To the Officers of the first Brigade of the third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts Quincy October 11. 1798 Gentlemen I have received from Major General Hull and Brigadier General Walker your unanimous Address from Lexington, animated with a martial Spirit and expressed with a military Dignity, becoming your Characters and the memorable Plains, in which it was adopted. While our Country remains untainted with the Principles and manners, which are now producing desolation in so many Parts of the World: while the [sic; she?] continues Sincere and incapable of insidious and impious Policy: We shall have the Strongest Reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned Us by Providence. But should the People of America, once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour[,] frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World. Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition[,] Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other[.] An Address so unanimous and firm from the officers commanding two thousand Eight hundred Men, consisting of such substantial Citizens as are able and willing at their own Expence, compleatly to arm, And cloath themselves in handsome Uniforms does honor to that Division of the Militia which has done so much honor to their Country. Oaths, in this Country, are as yet universally considered as Sacred Obligations. That which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable Spot is an ample Pledge of your sincerity, and devotion to your Country and its Government. John Adams (Source: archive.gov)” In order to better understand the language of Adams' day, let's define some terms. Some of them may seem familiar, but the meanings have changed over time, so we will consult Webster's 1828 Dictionary. Ambition “A desire of preferment, or of honor; a desire of excellence or superiority” [NOTE: Webster says this word is "used in a good sense", but it is obvious from context that this was not Adams' intention. Rather, he appears to have meant ambition similar to that of the Pharisees, who "love[d] the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues" (Matthew 23:6).] Avarice “An inordinate desire of gaining and possessing wealth; covetousness; greediness or insatiable desire of gain.” Candor “Openness of heart; frankness; ingenuousness of mind; a disposition to treat subjects with fairness; freedom from tricks or disguise; sincerity.” Desolation “destruction; ruin; waste” Extravagance “Excess of affection, passion or appetite… Excess in expenditures of property; the expending of money without necessity, or beyond what is reasonable or proper… In general, any excess or wandering from prescribed limits” Gallantry “Splendor of appearance… Vicious love or pretensions to love; civilities paid to females for the purpose of winning favors; hence, lewdness; debauchery.” Impious “Irreverent towards God; proceeding from or manifesting a contempt for the Supreme Being; tending to dishonor God or his laws, and bring them into contempt.” Iniquity “Injustice; unrighteousness” Insidious “deceitful; sly; treacherous” Insolence “Pride or haughtiness manifested in contemptuous and overbearing treatment of others; petulant contempt; impudence.” Martial “Pertaining to war” Militia “The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.” Moderation “Restraint of violent passions or indulgence of appetite… Calmness of mind” Rapine “The act of plundering; the seizing and carrying away of things by force… Violence” Simulation “The act of feigning to be that which is not; the assumption of a deceitful appearance or character… the assuming of a false character… hypocrisy.” Venerable “Worthy of veneration or reverence; deserving of honor and respect” We also need to recall that the Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought in April 1775, and effectively started the Revolutionary War. Lexington and Concord are towns in Massachusetts. With a better understanding of the language and history, let's rewrite it in modern language: “Gentlemen, I received the letter Major General Hull and Brigadier General Walker sent me from Lexington, on your behalf. It was filled with an honorable military spirit that was truly representative of you, as well as Lexington, itself. While certain attitudes and policies are destroying other parts of the world, the United States remains untainted. Indeed, our country is sincere, and would not enact such deceitful, treacherous, and blasphemous policies. We should rejoice in the fact that God blessed us with such a country. But if our people ever become the same brand of hypocrites, lying to each other and to the foreign nations they interact with, pretending to practice justice and restraint while they are actually sinful, living in excess, and if they ever become prideful and thieving, this will become the worst place in the world to live. This is because no government has the power to stop their people when they are wicked and immoral. Greediness, power-seeking, revenge-seeking, and self-serving immorality, would destroy our Constitution, as a whale would destroy a net. Our Constitution will only work for us as long as our people have morals and serve God. It is useless otherwise. Your division of the Militia is honorably represented by such a firm, united, letter, from these officers who command 2800 of America's best citizens, who are willing and able to arm and handsomely uniform themselves at their own expense, and you do honor to your country. We still hold oaths sacred in this country. The oath you have taken to defend our country, and to which you have recommitted yourselves there in Lexington, truly signifies your sincerity and devotion to our country and government. John Adams” Truly, our country was blessed to have a restrained government in its earliest days, but we have become everything the Founding Fathers warned us not to become. By 'we' I do not mean individuals, of course, for there are some righteous among us, but I mean American culture, the general attitudes and practices of our day, and especially our leaders. You will recall that Ezra Taft Benson's first principle specifies that our "political institutions" must be founded on faith in God and belief in moral law. Can you even use the words hypocrite, liar, immoral, prideful, or thieving, without describing nearly every person or practice in our government today? The phrases "lolita express," "civil forfeiture," and "millionaire socialist" are perfect illustrations of some of these things. Without a belief in moral law, you end up with the "Law of Thelema", which says, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". This is a Satanic doctrine that leads people to do horrifying things because they do not believe there will be eternal consequences for their actions. Understanding that we will be held accountable for our actions keeps us humble, and causes us to seek equity in all we do, for, as the scriptures clearly indicate, we will receive from God only what we have given to others. Prophets also have warned us against who we have become, precisely because our land was a gift to righteous men, with the specific promise of God's guidance and protection as long as we remained moral and God-fearing: “"And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them." –Ether 2:8, Book of Mormon” “"Behold, it is expedient that much should be done among this people, because of the hardness of their hearts, and the deafness of their ears, and the blindness of their minds, and the stiffness of their necks; nevertheless, God is exceedingly merciful unto them, and has not as yet swept them off from the face of the land." –Jarom 1:3, Book of Mormon” Just like the Nephites, we only exist as a country because of God's mercy. But our destruction is imminent if we do not change–repent both personally and as a country, and return to the Constitution–before it is too late. Even then, your personal standing with God hangs in the balance based on what you do, right now, in the fight for freedom. “"There is no excuse that can compensate for the loss of liberty." –Ezra Taft Benson, Our Immediate Responsibility. BYU Devotional, October 25, 1966. (Audio | Text)” “"“Don’t you have faith in America?” say others. But America is made up of people – and only righteous patriotic people work to preserve their freedom. The American people’s blessings are conditioned on righteousness and nothing else." –Ezra Taft Benson, Our Immediate Responsibility.” ““Some may say, “I have faith the Lord will turn [our enemies] away.” What ground have we to hope this? Have I any good reason to say to my Father in heaven, “fight my battles,” when he has given me the sword to wield, the arm and the brain that I can fight for myself? Can I ask Him to fight my battles and sit quietly down waiting for Him to do so? I cannot. I can pray the people to harken to wisdom, to listen to counsel; but to ask God to do for me that which I can do for myself is preposterous to my mind.” –Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 12:241.” “"We know, as do no other people, that the Constitution of the United States is inspired – established by men whom the Lord raised up for that very purpose. We cannot – we must not – shirk our sacred responsibility to rise up in defense of our God-given freedom." –Ezra Taft Benson, Our Immediate Responsibility.” “We have been warned again and again and again. The Lords spokesman has consistently raised his voice of warning about the loss of our freedom. Now he that has ears, let him hear, and ye who praise the Lord, learn to also follow His spokesman. I know not what course others may take, but as for me and my house, we will strive to walk with the Prophet. And the Prophet has said that: “No greater immediate responsibility rests upon the members of the church, upon all citizens of this republic and of neighboring republics than to protect the freedom vouchsafe by the Constitution of the United States.” (The Instructor, August 1953.) In this mighty struggle each of you has a part. Be on the right side. Stand up and be counted. If you get discouraged, remember the words of Edward Everett Hale, when he said: “I am only one, but I am one. I can’t do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, that I ought to do, And what I ought to do, By the grace of God, I shall do!” –Ezra Taft Benson, Our Immediate Responsibility.” “"Alexander Hamilton, a soldier turned statesman… wrote that “it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force” (The Federalist, no. 1, p. 33)." –As quoted by David B. Haight in Ethics and Honesty, October 1987 General Conference”
UN Goals Unveiled: Climate Change–Cities and Communities in Action
Today we will analyze the upcoming UN Conference's "Thematic Session," entitled "Climate Change–Cities and Communities in Action". While this topic can raise some "heated" debate, if you'll pardon the expression, it is apparent that this issue is more emotional than factual, like most UN-driven issues. Let's examine the official description of this session and then analyze its contents. “"As outlined in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other reports elaborated over the years by the scientific community, as well as public and private sector entities, climate change with its associated risks is among the defining issues of our time, the impact of which is global in scope and unprecedented in scale and is already disrupting communities and livelihoods, especially of those living in poverty. However, there is a growing recognition that affordable, scalable solutions are currently available that will enable us all to leapfrog to more green, clean, resilient economies in the long run. Cities and communities, underpinned by strong advocacy from civil society are acting on reducing emissions and on development for resiliency, with innovative strategies for carbon neutrality and resilient infrastructure; transportation and energy systems decarbonisation, zero emissions buildings; innovative financing mechanisms and behaviour change among consumers, producers and policymakers. With the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Action Summit 2019 taking place in September 2019, this session will be an opportunity to boost ambition and accelerate action to implement the Paris Agreement, with a focus on local action and the role of youth."” We begin with the frightening tale of how "the impact of [climate change] is global in scope and unprecedented in scale and is already disrupting communities and livelihoods". Oh, the terror! Of course, since it is "global" in scale, the only solution is global governance. A historical fact that is not taught in government indoctrination centers (ie, public schools) is that the United Nations started out as the League of Nations, which presented itself as the solution to worldwide wars immediately after World War I, which it was responsible for creating. (Remember the Hegelian Dialectic? "Problem-Reaction-Solution" You cause the problem and then offer yourself as the solution.) They believed that if they caused a situation horrific enough, people would clamor to give up their freedom in order for the League of Nations to save them. After all, we can't have a "world war" anymore if there is a "world government," can we? When this plan failed, they started World War II and presented themselves again as the solution, now rebranded as the United Nations. While they haven't ever "officially" been declared the world's government, they do, in fact, act like it, and even the United States government bows to their authority. What's important to comprehend, however, is their primary methodology: scare tactics, whether real or imagined. For decades, they have tried one thing after another–overpopulation, a new ice age, imaginary holes in the sky, global warming, and now the ambiguous "climate change"–never actually able to get people whipped up into enough of a frenzy that they would finally give up their liberties. Until now. The opening statement also assumes the high position of carrying the authority of the IPCC and other experts and, of course, years worth of reports. You can just see them piling up all over the offices at the UN. No wonder they're in such a hurry! This, ladies and gentlemen, is a logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority." What makes this sort of argument particularly egregious is that it is most effective when used against the young, precisely where the "climate change" doctrine is preached. Those of us who hold our doubts about so-called "human-induced climate change" are old enough to think critically about the matter, and expect the facts to bear out. Children, on the other hand, are taught from birth that they should respect authority figures and, particularly in public school, never to question the "experts." (If you don't already understand that this is by design, I encourage you to stop reading this article and immediately download a free copy of "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" by Charlot Iserbyt!) If you get nonsense into their heads early enough, they will never question it. Especially if you can get immoral "experts" to lie, fudge numbers, and otherwise manipulate data for political purposes. Of course, it is also necessary to demonize and vilify those who disagree, even if they are NASA scientists and other actual climate scientists, so you can pretend that there is an "overwhelming consensus." See also here and here. For a former climate scientist's discussion on the effect of "climate catastrophe" on children, I recommend "Child prophets and proselytizers of climate catastrophe" by Judith Curry. Also note that there is never substantive media coverage of those scientists who oppose the agenda, even when they are among the IPCC itself: “"But two members of the committee, Peter Lilley (Conservative) and Graham Stringer (Labour), disagreed with the other nine. They accused their fellow MPs of not holding the IPCC critically to account. “As scientists by training, we do not dispute the science of the greenhouse effect – nor did any of our witnesses,” they said in a statement. “However, there remain great uncertainties about how much warming a given increase in greenhouse gases will cause, how much damage any temperature increase will cause and the best balance between adaptation to versus prevention of global warming.” The two MPs say that the underlying technical report of the IPCC acknowledges many uncertainties, but these have been omitted from the critical Summary for Policymakers, presented to politicians." – Politicizing the IPCC report, by Judith Curry.” Next in the description you will notice that we must "leapfrog to more green, clean, resilient economies." If you remember the game of leapfrog, you will recall that each player must jump over the one in front of them. That is the UN's demand, as well. There is never a request for gradual change; it is always something that must be forced on everyone immediately. This is followed by a call for "carbon neutrality," a ridiculous phrase if there ever was one. I point you to the essay, "Carbon is not the enemy", by the journal Nature, as well as Dr. Judith Curry's discussion of this and other essays on the topic. We could go into much more discussion of this brief description, but the facts should be clear already: "climate change" is unscientific nonsense that is being force-fed to our children in order to be used by the United Nations as an excuse to take control of every facet of our lives. See if you can identify the real agendas behind the buzzwords for this "thematic session": “"Join us for this Thematic Session if you care for matters such as: Low carbon pathways and per capita footprint; Transport and mobility transformation, Renewable energy, Fiscal incentives for green tech, Coastal communities, Climate-smart food production, Land use, land-change and forestry"” Among the list of speakers for this session are Jackie Biskupski, the lesbian Mayor of Salt Lake City, Selina Neirok Leem, a Youth Delegate from The Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Olumide Idowu, Co-Founder of a non-profit known as Climate Wednesday. We encourage you to visit the Climate Wednesday website to see if you can identify the calls for global government intervention. We leave you with this thought, for your consideration: “"Satan will take control of the world by claiming ownership of her resources." –Professor Hugh Nibley” And the United Nations will claim ownership by virtue of "saving the planet."
The World’s Most Powerful Spy Agency Is Targeting You
We've been warning about this for years! The coming control grid is no joke. They've been putting the pieces in place slowly, over many years. In fact, the level of surveillance they currently have is hard to fathom. What do you think they put in all those data centers?