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/

Idaho has a problem. Our representatives lack principles. Let's look at some current evidence. Recently, voters passed Proposition 2, which seeks to expand Medicaid in our state. The problem? Like all socialist schemes, it forcibly takes money from all taxpayers, and redistributes it to those the state deems worthy. Yesterday, "The House Health & Welfare Committee… voted 7-5 to reject a proposed bill… to repeal" it. I don't have the right to force you to spend your money on my own pet projects, nor should you be allowed to force me to spend my money on yours. That's a pretty straightforward principle. Some proponents of Medicaid claim that they aren't for "redistributing wealth," they're just for "helping those in need," i.e., charity. Well, chalk another one up for principles! It isn't charity if you are forced to do it! There may even be some Idahoans who need their money even more than Medicare recipients, and who may not be deemed "qualified," and yet the state will still mercilessly rob them at gunpoint. How's that for charity? Another example: A few days ago, "Marsy's Law" (2018-HJR 8) passed the Idaho Senate, and is now being considered by the House. The problem? This same law has already been passed in other states and has been used to take guns away from citizens who were merely accused of something. You read that right, accused. No crimes were committed, and the guns were taken away without warning, before there was any sort of hearing, and without any crime having been committed! We are a nation that was founded on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." A straightforward and true principle, for obvious reasons. Plus, Article 1, Section 11, of the Idaho Constitution, closes with the following line: "Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony." No one should have their Second Amendment rights taken away unless they have been found guilty of committing a felony. That's already the law, and it is another straightforward principle! Yet, dozens of Idaho lawmakers failed to see the hypocrisy and voted to approve HJR-8. Along with many other Idaho citizens, I sent a request to my representatives that they sign a pledge never to sign a so-called "Red Flag Law", such as Marsy's Law. Because this is based on a very straightforward principle, I didn't see why anyone should have a problem signing such a pledge. However, I received a response from Representative Rod Furniss stating that he felt it was his duty to consider every law that came across his desk. Really? Is there nothing on which we can take a stand based merely on principle? He later shared his opposition to signing this pledge on his Facebook page, and said that he was open to "facts and logic" that might change his mind. I provided the requested facts and logic but received no response. For the record, even Idaho's branch of the ACLU is against this law. The reasons for opposing these laws are very clear me, and I hope to you, as well. So, why don't our representatives get it? Sources: 1. 'House Health & Welfare rejects 2 bills to overturn voters, repeal Medicaid expansion,' idahopress.com, Betsy Russell, Feb 21, 2019. https://www.idahopress.com/eyeonboise/house-health-welfare-rejects-bills-to-overturn-voters-repeal-medicaid/article_1420f9cc-ae9b-59b8-98b7-295ba7e00daf.html?fbclid=IwAR0aG44AxNZwd41F-6mItn-gxdhqjfa1SiNX6HuJRp3wDDGtm6XoVFKeBhI 2. 'Marsy's Law passes Idaho Senate, heads to House,' idahonews.com, Scott Logan, undated, posted Feb 18, 2019. https://idahonews.com/news/local/marsys-law-passes-idaho-senate-heads-to-house 3. Article 1, Section 11, Idaho State Constitution. https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idconst/arti/sect11/ 4. '2018- HJR 8 MARSY'S LAW', www.acluidaho.org. https://www.acluidaho.org/en/legislation/2018-hjr-8-marsys-law

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!

Some recent articles by the Idaho Freedom Foundation have really provoked the ire of some in Boise by questioning socialist policies and practices at BSU. We urge you to visit their site, as there are several articles touching this subject. We agree with the IFF on these issues, and welcome the opportunity to point out one of the ways the conspiracy works, as made clear in the Idaho Press response, "More on 'Dreamers' and scholarships…", which includes a handy outline of the process. In short, if they can technically justify something, that makes it okay. I recommend reading the Idaho Press article to see the legal wrangling for yourself. This is where the intersection of lawyers and judges begins to bring us the corruption described in Alma 10, in the Book of Mormon. One of the primary issues in this discussion is that "illegal alien students (DACA students)" are receiving "Idaho resident tuition rates and Opportunity Scholarship dollars." As pointed out in the Idaho Press article, “Under federal law, DACA students are considered ‘lawfully present’ in Idaho." That is the letter of the law. The spirit of the law, however, is that publicly funded education belongs to those who have paid for it. It just makes sense. Don't get me wrong. I am not a supporter of public education in any way. We homeschool our children, and thank God every day for inspiring us to do so, back before "condom races" were a thing. But, that's middle school. This is college, which gets much worse. But I digress. Principles are what matter. Period. These scholarships were put in place under the principle that they would be made available to qualified residents who helped fund it, or whose families helped fund it, with their tax dollars. Now, we get school administrators shoveling our dollars out the door in the name of "social justice," trying to right phantasmic wrongs that our country's leftists imagine up. Do yourself a favor, Idaho. Take a stand. Demand that BSU–and every other educational institution in your state–cut the crap. Read the articles at IFF, and you will have a much better idea of what is going on, and what needs to be ended. "Social justice" is not 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!

Why on earth would citizens NOT simply trust their leaders, and instead choose to do their own research? It's almost like we've learned that leaders, sometimes, can't be trusted… Trust, but verify (Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify Masks: The Science Is NOT Settled (Defending Idaho) https://defendingidaho.org/articles/32/masks-the-science-is-not-settled Video Update 2020-12-02 EXAMINING REPORTED CORONAVIRUS DEATHS (Defending Idaho) https://defendingidaho.org/articles/35/video-update-2020-12-02-examining-reported-coronavirus-deaths Lies, Big Lies, and COVID-19 (Defending Idaho) https://defendingidaho.org/articles/26/lies-big-lies-and-covid-19 Kary Mullis, the Inventor of the PCR Test, Explains Why Its Results Are Meaningless (Need To Know News) https://needtoknow.news/2020/12/kary-mullis-the-inventor-of-the-pcr-test-explains-why-its-results-are-meaningless Team of Experts Finds Flaws and Conflicts of Interest in PCR Test for Covid-19 (Need To Know News) https://needtoknow.news/2020/12/20252/ Event 201 (Center For Health Security) https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/ Your Guide to The Great Reset (Corbett Report) https://www.corbettreport.com/your-guide-to-the-great-reset/ Interview 1600 – James Corbett Explains The Great Reset on The Highwire  (Corbett Report) https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1600-james-corbett-explains-the-great-reset-on-the-highwire/

The fake "pandemic" was never about your health, and always about furthering Agenda 2030 goals, especially the financial aspect. Pay attention to what your local representatives are doing! This is YOUR money they are spreading around! Check the list here to see if your mayor is publicly participating: https://www.mayorsforagi.org/

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!

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)

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!

Do people notice hypocrisy any more? When, for instance, millionaire Bernie Sanders trots around the world in his private jet pimping Socialism and chastising the rest of us for causing climate change… does anyone bat an eye? Ditto for Al Gore and many others. What's missing is critical thinking, a skill no longer taught in government indoctrination centers. What they do teach under that name is a form of "social justice" thinking and "values clarification" that is nothing more than humanistic brainwashing. In today's article we will learn about peace, love, and respect from the UN. What could go wrong? “"Peace is necessary for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and is a specific goal in itself. This session will focus on the interface between peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG 16) and Safe, Resilient, Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11).The last decade has been marked by increasing skepticism regarding the viability and effectiveness of multilateral approaches to peacebuilding. The Peaceful Societies Thematic Session will discuss how civil society organizations are integrating objective measures to achieve an inclusive and sustainable culture of peaceful coexistence in their local activities while respecting the integrity of nation states’ sovereign rights. Attend this thematic session if you are interested in: Human rights, Gender-based violence, Human trafficking, Family valued [sic], community building and inter-cultural understanding through arts and sports, Refugees and migrants, Arms flows, Access to information, Corruption"” Buzz Buzz Buzz Once again, we must separate fact from fiction, and rhetoric from reality. In this Thematic Session description, as in all the others, fine language and emotional buzzwords are used to appeal to the non-critical thinker. But that's not us. Let's take this thing apart, shall we? Let's start with the overall goal. The UN claims to be able to do something that has never been done in the history of the earth: bring peace to the world. On a similar note, here in Idaho we have signs all along the highway, with a picture of a seatbelt, proclaiming the slogan "Towards Zero Deaths." When I first saw these, I mentioned to my wife that "zero deaths" sounds like such a noble goal, but it is completely impossible without taking away our freedoms, because there is no freedom without risk! Likewise, there can never be absolute peace in the world without brainwashing a la 1984, and/or an absolute dictatorship that has removed all freedoms. This is the "peace" promised by Communism. Real world examples include China, North Korea, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, and Cuba. You murder everyone who could theoretically pose a threat, and then keep everyone else under your boot. Hooray for peace! The Definition Of A Nation In this description, they also complain about "increasing skepticism regarding the viability and effectiveness of multilateral approaches to peacebuilding." Multilateral, according to my dictionary, is defined as something "agreed upon or participated in by three or more parties, especially the governments of different countries". To understand why this is a concern, we must understand what a country is. At its most basic, we could use the definition espoused by radio host Michael Savage, who says that a country is defined by its "borders, language, and culture." This makes sense because at some point in time a group of people claimed an area of land, ie, established borders, in order to have a distinct culture. Over time their language became distinct, as well. And so you have a country. "We will no longer be governed by you," they said to their country of origin. "We will govern ourselves, instead!" This makes sense, as well, because a group only has the right to govern themselves, not anyone else. Each country has distinct borders, language, and culture, so their laws makes sense to them, but people in other areas may not understand why things are the way they are. They want to have things a different way. That's fine. Everyone should have the right to choose their own laws and leaders. Of course, many countries have NOT chosen their laws or leaders, but have instead had these things forced upon them, and this includes most of the countries in the United Nations. The same ones that want to "multilaterally" approach "peacebuilding." Now do you see the problem? If everyone minded their own business, we would all be much happier. “"Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the President of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to “uplift” their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their peoples or even to defend them against their enemies. This point was made clear by the wise father of our country, George Washington: "I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one had a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under them selves; and that if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration.""   –Excerpt from United States Foreign Policy, by Ezra Taft Benson” I'm looking at you, America! A TSA/CPS Agent's Dream Job Of course, the United Nations also meddles everywhere, and that's just one point of irony. The other is that this Thematic Session is supposedly devoted to "Recovering from Conflict and Nurturing Peace" while the UN is anything but neutral when there is a conflict, and they bring anything but peace to the areas they infest! Taking another page out of 1984, the UN troops are referred to as "peacekeepers." But did you know that there is horrendous and widespread sexual abuse of women and children whenever they bring their "peace" into town? Here is an article from 2006 on the UN's own website, one from 2016 specifically mentioning "child rape" and discussing the 99 "allegations" from the year before (2015), and one from 2017 that points out that the "145 cases of [reported] sexual exploitation and abuse involving peacekeepers in 2016" came from "across all UN staff, not just peacekeepers." Well, that's comforting. This article, also from 2017, discusses many specific incidents, including "When at least 134 Sri Lankan peacekeepers were implicated in a child sex ring." This 2018 article informs us that "Few UN personnel have faced jail (the current number stands at 30), with even fewer being fined, demoted or removed from office." Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. This is apparently how the UN "nurtures peace" in areas that are "recovering from conflict." Did I mention that we are talking about THE RAPE OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN? Just wanted to throw that out there, as you ponder how seriously this is being taken by the UN. The articles linked to above are not exclusive, and this issue unfortunately did not begin in 2006. This Human Rights Watch article from 2016 is the first of these to mention that "Exploitation and abuse by UN peacekeepers and personnel has been reported since the 1990s."  From the first 2017 article, above, we learn: “"The international body has also been accused of burying cases and failing to act promptly or transparently to incidents perpetrated by its troops."” Well, duh! It's the same problem with police in America, or the KGB in the Soviet Union! They see themselves as the top of the food chain! Who's going to stop them, other cops? Ha! Safeguarding Our Future We've all heard that "when the wicked rule the people mourn," (D&C 98:9, Prov. 29:2), but what should be of greater concern to us is the warning in the Book of Mormon that "ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood." (Mosiah 29:21) Who will you turn to when you are abused by a tyrannical world government? Where will you go? "The shedding of much blood," indeed. Oh, and in case you were wondering, "An AP investigation earlier this year found around 2,000 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse have been registered between 2005-2017." So there's really no reason people should be concerned about UN involvement in their area, is there? Notice that this number does not include anything from the 1990's up to 2005, nor explain why. We'll leave that to your imagination. Usurpation Of Delegated Authority Because a nation's borders keep their people safe, they are one of the top concerns of that nation's government. In America, this is one of the few Constitutional powers of the federal government–to protect our shared borders. Why would a nation care about the security of another nation's borders? It has nothing to do with them, especially when "protecting borders" means sending your own men and women to die. Yet, "The United Nations Charter gives the United Nations Security Council the power and responsibility to take collective action to maintain international peace and security." (United Nations peacekeeping", Wikipedia) This is the sovereign right of a nation, remember? If the UN was not already a de facto world government, why would they be involved? And why would nations let them? Yes, our birthright has been sold, America, and unfortunately we aren't the only ones. By now you should have a pretty good idea of the utter absurdity and hypocrisy of the United Nations condescending to tell the world how it might "have peace" and "recover from conflicts." As the John Birch Society has long urged, it's time to "Get the UN out of the US and get the US out of the UN!" We have a Constitution so that we can govern ourselves. UPDATE (2019-08-21): Please listen to the Defending Utah episode above! Ben touches on many other reasons the UN is not an entity of peace!

"MORE TESTS, MORE TESTS, MORE TESTS! TESTS FOR EVERYONE!" Governor Little virtually screamed, as he unveiled his recent strategy that "lays out five priority groups for testing". An act that aims to increase current COVID-19 testing in Idaho nearly ten times its current rate. “We have an impressive team of very capable local clinical and laboratory and research experts from across the state helping us navigate this crisis, and I sincerely appreciate their help,” the governor said, according to a recent Idaho Press article. But don't worry, we Idahoans won't have to pay all of the associated costs. We'll be getting $55 million in imaginary dollars the Federal Reserve conjured up and tacked onto the nation's enormous deficit, with interest. That's okay, though, because it's debt your kids will have to pay, not you. With somewhere around a 0.029% rate of cases per capita shortly after the lockdown was mandated, as reported by the Idaho Statesman website, and the fact that this number hasn't changed substantially ever since, we have to wonder what universe the governor lives in when he refers to this as a "crisis". But don't worry, the governor is taking a "data-driven approach" to this "pandemic," according to the official Idaho Rebounds website. That makes it sound like our leaders are weighing scientific facts and on-the-ground realities to justify their egregious violations of our civil liberties. But are they? And, if so, just what is this data, and where is it coming from? Most of us were taught in government indoctrination centers (ie, public schools) that we should pick our sources of information carefully, and then we were given a short list of "reliable" sources, including the daily news, because presumably they only provide verifiable facts. The video above demonstrates just one instance where multiple newscasters, from multiple well-known news agencies including CBS, FOX, and ABC, simply parrot a script that has been provided to them, complete with fill-in-the-blanks for the names of their local communities. (Please watch the video now, if you haven't already.) This sometimes takes the form of catch-phrases, as well, such as "data-driven approach," carefully-chosen for its allusion to, and illusion of, being fact-led. Here, for example, is a screenshot from a recent email from the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma: [choctaw-screenshot.jpg] Sound familiar? A quick internet search reveals that identical phraseology is being used by governors and others across the country. This raises eyebrows, but is, of course, not definitive proof of anything. For now, we'll take it as evidence of possible collusion. Part of the problem, as we questioned earlier, is just what this "data" is that is driving the governor's approach. Since this all began with UN data, they seem like logical suspects. Is there a connection? Indeed, there is. ICLEI is "a global network of more than 1,750 local and regional governments committed to sustainable urban development." They take, as their sole influence, United Nations goals and guidelines. Constitutional? Not on your life. Treason? Absolutely, if Americans were to participate. Are they? Well, the official site for the United States used to publish a list of who their members were. They removed this list on July 3, 2017, after a public backlash when citizens discovered that their community leaders were leading them down the path to socialism and global governance. Today, they list only the communities. This list includes Boise and Moscow. Since it is obvious that the "pandemic" is false (see the many links and videos here), why keep up false pretenses? The answer to that question becomes obvious when you look at what it is being used to justify: increased surveillance (including drones, robotic dogs *, snitching on neighbors, and cellphone tracking), mandatory vaccination (also here), the shutdown of churches, fewer people driving their automobiles, and more. Oh, and let's not forget the opportunity to implement a long-lusted-after biometric database, which has already been implemented in other countries, like India, made drastically easier with a simple cotton swab up the nose. That mandatory vaccination article is super important! Go back and read it! That list just happens to also outline some of the things the United Nations have been attempting to put in place globally. Their stated intention, in fact, was to have had these goals in place by the year 2000, which obviously didn't happen. A new boogeyman was needed, one that would allow their minions an excuse to bypass the objections of those they were elected to represent. They found it. Zak Doffman, cybersecurity contributor for Forbes, put it this way: “As I reported last week, as the tracking landscape in Europe and the U.S. began to change: “Everything about coronavirus is unprecedented. Our leaders talk about “the invisible enemy” and being on a war footing. The technology at their disposal will create a huge conflict within each of us. We want our governments to do all they can, but at some point we will make privacy compromises as never before.”” We know this smacks of "conspiracy theory," but they said they would do these things, and now they are doing them. This is no longer a theory. It is reality. FOOTNOTES: * "But those robotic dogs are in Singapore, not America!" you might argue. True, but you paid for them. They were created by Boston Dynamics, which is funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which belongs to the Department of Defense, which gets its funds from your taxes. Seem a little odd?

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.

Where do we begin with this story? For starters, there will always be "rich people" and "poor people" in capitalism, because true capitalism allows people to make their own choices and benefit from their own actions. What this man is advocating is not capitalism, it's socialism. Oh, and climate change is a fraud. But I am willing to bet he already knows that.