This video is congressional testimony offered by Congressman Mike Rogers. It provides a chilling example about what our government overlords leaders are attempting to thrust upon us. It is about four minutes long.


If Government Doesn't Like You, It Will Take Your Kids

The limits to state power are disappearing fast. In Dundee City, United Kingom, a family was required to convene before a panel of social workers. The social workers, I mean the 'anointed ones', decided that the parents of the children were a little over weight, and therefore a danger to their own children. So for the sake of the children, they were taken away from their parents by the government.

Don't worry, the following quote from a Dundee City Council spokesman, should ease your fears:

"Councils will always act with the welfare and safety of children in mind and there can be many reasons for action being taken"

That makes me feel better. I just hope the council never decides that my religious faith is a danger to my children. But that wouldn't happen right? I mean government officials can always be trusted to do the right thing!

Below is the text of the article. The link can be found here. I include the link in case it is lost in the future.

'Fat Family' Children Taken From Parents

12:01pm UK, Thursday October 22, 2009
Kirsty Donald, Sky News Online

Seven children, including a newborn baby, have been taken from their overweight parents and put into care because of concerns over their welfare.

'Fat family' from Dundee
Some of the children, who cannot be identified, also have weight problems
The family from Dundee was split up by social workers following a meeting of the Children's Panel.
The youngsters include a girl born earlier this week at the city's Ninewells Hospital and taken from the arms of her 23 stone mother shortly afterwards.
The 40-year-old woman and her 53-year-old husband, who weighs around 18 stone, have not been named to protect the identity of their children.
Two of their kids, aged three and four, were taken into care earlier this year.
Now the other five, including the newborn and a 13-year-old boy who is said to weigh 16 stone, have been taken from their parents.
The local authority insisted it was not its policy to remove children from their family home solely on the basis of weight problems.

Councils will always act with the welfare and safety of children in mind and there can be many reasons for action being taken.
Dundee City Council spokesman
But the family's solicitor Kathleen Price has previously claimed obesity was the main reason for the children being taken from their parents.
She said the couple had not been given a fair hearing and had been "victimized".
A spokesman for Dundee City Council said: "Any decision about a child's situation is given full and careful consideration.
"In many cases social workers will have been providing a high level of professional and caring support to a family for many years in a bid to keep them together.
"However, the welfare and safety of a child or children is the over-riding priority and in some cases, despite the strenuous efforts of the agencies providing this support, the best option is for them to be looked after away from their home.
"Councils will always act with the welfare and safety of children in mind and there can be many reasons for action being taken."



This video left me speechless. It was aired on C-SPAN back in 2007, but I seriously doubt any improvements have been made in the quality of elected officials since then.

John Murtha D-Penn is an insult to the democratic process. This person helps make laws that govern what you do in your life. If this does not make you angry, then you do not seriously care about the future of the United States of America.

Why anyone wants to give elected officials more power and authority is beyond me.


SOVEREIGNTY: The Lord, The State, and Parents

"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king; he will save us."

Isaiah 33:22

For all intents and purposes, parents are the governing power within a home to their children. Parents represent the state, the children represent the citizens. Parents establish rules, and enforce their violation. This type of government is obviously not a representative form of government. Children do not elect their parents. As they grow older, some families hold council to determine policy, but the ultimate legislative authority resides with the unelected parents. When laws are violated, parents are both the executive and judicial power.

John and Jane, parents in the Jones family make a rule that none of their children may be out after 10:00 pm (Legislative authority). Joe, the 16 year old young man sneaks out of the house one night and does not come home until 2 a.m. The parents discover Joe attempting to re-enter the home in clear violation of the established rule (Judicial authority). They immediately ground Joe, and take away several privileges he once had (Judicial authority). As the weeks pass, John and Jane ensure that Joe does not violate his sentence (Executive authority).

The universal struggle for parents is finding balance in their governance. Some parents might try the "less government" approach bordering on democracy or anarchy. Not wanting to offend their children, they have given them complete leeway in their actions. The kids can stay up as late as they want, watch whatever movies they want, play video games as late as they want, and basically do whatever they want. Most people would agree that such children would not grow up to be very productive or disciplined citizens. The fruits of such laissez-faire governance to the child might be lawlessness of the child’s soul or rebellion. On the other hand, some parents might try the tyrannical approach. The rules of the family are enforced through coercion or physical threats. Many activities the child desires to engage in are denied without explanation or debate or reason. The fruits of such domination will either be submission of the child’s soul or rebellion.

Parents are a sovereign power within the home. There are however, many commandments given by the Lord to aid parents in the rearing of children. Perhaps the most important of these commandments are the ones that establish a higher authority than parental authority. Children recognize the sovereign power of parental authority. Parents are physically stronger, and can enforce law. Parents are however imperfect and will make mistakes in their governance. This is where the Lord comes in. The Lord does not make mistakes in his governance, but his immediate power and authority is not as apparent to the child as parental sovereignty. The absolute sovereignty of the Lord can only be taught to a child through parental example. When parents make obeisance to a higher and perfect authority, the children see and recognize this. They see a parent, whom they know to have an immediate and powerful temporal authority, submit to an unseen and apparently lacking temporal authority. This higher power is not immediately seen or comprehended.

When the parent passes on a rule from the Lord, and the child knows the rule comes not from the parent, but from the guidance of the Lord, it will often be easier to accept. The sovereignty of the parent is recognized by the child, because the child knows the parent is submissive to guidance of the Lord. This is why family prayer and family scripture study are critical to the development of children. The immediate temporal authority of the parent is recognized, because that authority is submissive to the highest and perfect authority. The only way the fifth commandment can work is if children know who the Lord is. Man does not submit to authorities which he believes have no power. He cannot submit to authorities which in his mind do not exist.

Every seven years, the Lord commanded all people in Israel, believer and non believer, to gather together and have the Torah read to them. The Torah of course contains the Abrahamic Covenant, the Commandments, and the Law of Israel. The Lord in essence commanded everyone to hear the 'constitution' or law of the land.

"At the end of every seven years... thou shalt read this law before all Israel... . Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law: And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land ..."
Deuteronomy 21:10-13

The Law contained the boundaries placed upon man and upon the state. This commandment ensured that the children of the new generation would be familiar with those boundaries or restraints. It cemented in the minds of children (and all others) that the Lord is the supreme authority. Once the children of Israel began to neglect commandments such as these, they forgot the boundaries and restraints. They forgot the Lord, and the god of the state is always ready to take his place.

Parents who fail to recognize the higher authority, will rear children who fear man, not God. Children, who grow into adults fearing man and not God, will find themselves governed by man and not by God. Man fearing children will revere the state (or man). Man fearing children will either believe they are a law unto themselves or they will submit to whoever has a monopoly of brute force. They learned such from their man fearing parents.

God fearing children will grow into adults who submit to God and respect the state. The respect of the state will last only as long as the state submits to a higher authority. God fearing man will not tolerate state infringement upon the sovereignty of the Lord. God fearing man will follow the edicts of the state as the state defers to the sovereignty of the Lord. Once the state begins to infringe, it will seek to destroy its enemies and God fearing man will find himself an enemy of the state. Paul gave warning of such: "for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12. The greatest enemy of tyrannical government is the people's adherence to the God of Abraham.

The only way state authority can be restrained is by a moral and God fearing people. The most efficient way a moral and God fearing people can be created is by parental authority that submits to a higher power. Once this chain of creation is broken, it can only be restored by the teaching of the Gospel. Once parents of a society begin to neglect God in their family, with their fellow man, and in their civic duties, the god of the state will rise and supplant the authority of the Lord. The state will become the god of the people. Its temporal authority is immediately apparent and powerfully exercised. The Lord’s authority, by divine design, will not be fully exercised or implemented until the millennium and the Day of Judgment.

In recent years I have heard many people wonder why the Brethren do no speak about the Constitution or oppressive government as often as in the past. I believe it is because such a discussion would be fruitless unless parents first teach their children to fear the Lord. Children must be taught where their rights come from. They must be taught they are stewards of the Lord's property, not owners. They must be taught that if they do not love their fellow man as themselves, they will forfeit their temporal and eternal inheritance. Failure to teach these and other principles will ultimately result in tyranny for themselves or their posterity. The natural result of parents teaching their children to fear the Lord, is to not fear man. The natural result of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ is societies which fear the Lord and not man. Such actions will limit the power of the state. Man will not tolerate slavery or tyranny from the state when he knows he is created in the image of God and is ultimately subject to his authority.

“And it came to pass that when Moses had said these words, behold, Satan came tempting him, saying: Moses, son of man, worship me. And it came to pass that Moses looked upon Satan and said: Who art thou? For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory, that I should worship thee?”
Moses 1:12-13

The declaration of independence acknowledges God as the supreme authority, grantor, and enforcer of inalienable rights. The Constitution was designed to chain man's ability to infringe upon the absolute sovereignty of God. These restraining chains are only as strong as the obeisance man gives to God. God has place boundaries upon man; if those boundaries are crossed man will be governed by man and not by the Law or in other words the Lawgiver. For the state to operate properly and remain constrained, the highest sovereign must be recognized. No government, philosophy or political system can survive in sustained peace without holding as inviolate the absolute sovereignty of the God of Abraham.



My brother-in-law created this brilliant and poignant video. It is self explanatory.



On ABC's 20/20, John Stossel brillitantly discusses the reasons for increased health care costs. It is so simple, and so logical, it is maddening how this concept is never even considered. This is basic economics, but most people are ignorant to such important things.

Thanks to my brother-in-law for sending me this video.



In my endeavor to become a better person, I turn to the Word of God. Understanding the definition and meaning of words used within the scriptures is fundamental to achieving my goal. The third of the ten commandments dictates that one should not take the Lord's name in vain (Exodus 20:7). It is His property after all. While trying to comprehend this passage of scripture, I looked up the definition of the word 'vain'. The 1828 edition of Webster's dictionary defines the word 'vain' as: empty, worthless; having no substance, value or importance. My first thought upon reading this was: "That perfectly describes a federal reserve note."

In fact these words could very well be the most perfect definition of a federal reserve note! The word 'vain' and 'federal reserve note' are then practically synonymous. Both denote worthlessness, and lacking substance or intrinsic value. Then I came to my next thought.

Printing, "In God We Trust" on a federal reserve note could very well be a textbook example of taking the Lord's name in vain! The ramifications of this concept are incredibly damaging to those who advocate placing the sacred name of the Lord upon fake currency.


The merits of placing references to deity on currency is another debate. What should not be debatable to any of the three Abrahamic religions, is placing the name of God on something that is worthless, has no value, represents debt, usury, and facilitates war. The only type of currency that the phrase "In God We Trust" could be placed upon without taking the Holy name of the Lord in vain, is gold or silver coinage. After all, God indeed himself created these materials of intrinsic value, a feat the anointed Fed chairman can only feign doing in spite of his lofty seat in the marble temple in DC.

If you still support leaving "In God We Trust" on a federal reserve note, despite this explanation, then it is my responsibility to give warning that you are in violation of the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". Your god is the state, it is not the God of Abraham.

Regrettably, our society at large has placed its trust in a god. The actual phrase on the currency is technically correct. The people of our nation as a whole worship the financial system governed by the Federal Reserve. The people of the United States of America have placed their trust in the 'god' of the Federal Reserve. The God of Abraham is not represented on federal reserve notes, to suggest otherwise is blasphemy to the fullest extent of the word.

The God of Abraham gave warning to what would happen if another god was worshiped. As you read the following verses from Leviticus, does this not describe our current economic situation?

And your strength shall be spent in vain [as inflation destroys your wealth], for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits... I will also send wild beasts among you [bureaucrats, revenuers & regulators], which shall rob you of your children [as they debt finance their wars of empire], and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate [as the bustling market is regulated out of existence].

Leviticus 26:20, 22

These my friends, are the fruits of worshiping the god of the state and his son the Federal Reserve! Economic prosperity comes through placing trust in the currency God has made (silver and gold). Economic doom comes from placing trust in currency man has made (federal reserve notes).


Unalienable Rights, Freedom of Association, and Morality Laws

We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

~D&C 134:3
Thus according to scripture, peace can only be achieved in a society, when the following rights of individuals are universally upheld and protected.
  1. No law shall be established which infringes upon a human beings right to freedom of conscience.
  2. No law shall be established which infringes upon a human beings right and control of property.
  3. No law shall be established which infringes upon a human beings right to life.
For simplicity, I will refer to these rights in the remainder of this article as rules 1, 2, and 3. Rule 1 is freedom of conscience. Conscience is the individuals internal judgment of right and wrong.1
In order to achieve peace in society, the freedom to exercise the personal judgment of right or wrong must not be violated. Thus all individuals have the inalienable right to do any action which does not infringe upon the inalienable rights of others. This includes freedom of association.

To best explain the purpose and concept behind this article, the following law from the Virginia Statutory Code will be used as the primary example (this example can be easily replaced with numerous other situations):

Lewd and Lacivious Cohabitation 18.2-345, which states:
"If any persons, not married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or, whether married or not, be guilty of open and gross lewdness and lasciviousness, each of them shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor; and upon a repetition of the offense, and conviction thereof, each of them shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."
At first glance, this law appears to be in violation of rule 1. If an unmarried man and woman living together believe that cohabitation is not wrong (rule 1), then this law will violate rule 1. They are prohibited in their associations with one another. This law also appears to be in violation of rule 2. A woman owns the property she lives on. If her boyfriend decides to move in with her for economic and personal reasons, then this law would violate her right to control her own property. Any attempt by the local government to impose a fine on this couple, would be an initiatory aggression. The exception to the violation of both of these laws however, is when they were passed, and who agreed upon their creation.

Suppose ten people move to an isolated area to form a new city. As they set forth establishing rules and laws of interaction (i.e. making a contract), they all feel a law should be made against cohabitation. Under their right to freedom of association, they all agree on a law prohibiting cohabitation within their city limits and set forth penalties for violation of that law. The blue circle surrounding the ten people is a representation of their inalienable right to freedom of association. Since all parties agree upon the law there is no aggression, and their right to associate with like minded people is preserved. Under this scenario, none of the three rules has been broken.

A few years pass and Jack decides to buy a piece of property within the city. He was aware of the cohabitation law before he bought the property. By voluntarily moving within the city limits, he has freely entered the jurisdiction of the laws which govern it. Later, Jack's girlfriend Bertha decides to move in permanently. They are now in violation of the cities cohabitation law. They have initiated aggression and are in violation of the laws established by the will of the people who created them. They have violated the other ten city members right to freedom of association or freedom of conscience. Any action taken by the city to enforce the law would be retaliatory aggression, and would be justified.

Under the right to freedom of conscience however, Jack and Bertha have the inalienable right to advocate their position. Jack and Bertha initiate a campaign to change the hearts and minds of the townsfolk to abolish the cohabitation law. Jack persuades five of the other town members to his position, and they now have a majority of seven (10 original members plus Jack and Bertha). The town votes in favor of abolishing the law and Jack and Bertha can now live as they please. Whether morally right or not, this principle is backed by scripture:
Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

~ Mosiah 29:26-27
If Jack and Bertha are ever prohibited from advocating their position or from voting, such aggression would be initiatory against them. It would also be a violation of their right to freedom of conscience. Furthermore, only laws against behavior can be passed. If a law was created that granted the authority to arrest people who simply believed in cohabitation, such a law would be a violation of inalienable rights. This principle is also backed by scripture:
Now there was no law against a man's belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds...For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man's belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.
~ Alma 30:7,11
Now that the law against cohabitation has been abolished, the only way it can ever be reinstated is if all people agree. By the time the next election roles around, one member of the city has been advocating to the other members the downfalls of cohabitation in their city. The town holds a vote, but the majority are now if favor or reinstating the law against cohabitation! This action would now be a violation of Jack and Bertha's right to freedom of conscience. This is the introduction of a new law which violates freedom of conscience and property because they do not agree to in nor abide by its standard. This is a case of the majority infringing upon the rights of the minority.2

If Jack and Bertha decided to get married and vote along with the others to reinstate the law, there would not be any rights violation. They have the right to freely associate and create a society they would like to live in. If all members of a society agree (freedom of conscience) to enact laws regarding adultery, illegal drugs, polygamy, incestuous relationships, marriage, etc. then there is no violation of inalienable rights. Such a society has created a contract with one another (freedom of association) to live in a world according to the ideals they believe will bring the greatest happiness.

The strict punishments of the Law of Moses for example, would not be a violation of inalienable rights (i.e. the death penalty for breaking the Sabbath). In Deuteronomy 29, the congregation of Israel covenanted with the Lord to abide by the requirements of the Law Moses, or God's laws. They exercised their right to freely associate and abide by laws they best felt would secure their happiness. If a non-Israelite person moved into the jurisdiction of Mosaic Law, they would be obliged to adhere to that law, or they would be guilty of initiatory aggression against the law and those whom had chosen to freely associate according to that law.

The principle of unanimous consent to uphold morality laws is the only way morality laws can be created. Once lost by the voice of the people, they cannot be restored unless there is once again unanimous consent.3 If all people do not agree to a law that punishes a certain type of behavior, those who participate in said behavior will ultimately have their property taken through enforcement of the law. Such action would violate the freedom of conscience.


Webster 1828 Definition: Internal or self-knowledge, or judgment of right and wrong; or the faculty, power or principle within us, which decides on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of our own actions and affections, and instantly approves or condemns them. Merriam Webster defines conscience as: (1) the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good.

2 The actions taken by the Church, and the people of California regarding Proposition 8 are not an example of initiatory aggression but of retaliatory and just aggression. The initial definition of marriage that existed in California was created and upheld during the states formation. When a group of judges overturned the definition of marriage to include relationships of the same gender, it was initiatory aggression and unjust. It was a violation of the people's initial established right to freedom of association. The only just way this law can be changed is by a vote of the people or their representatives. The people of California justly retaliated against judges who had no jurisdiction to interfere with the right to freedom of association.

3 For examples of unanimous consent in the scriptures regarding the institution of new laws see Deuteronomy 29, 2 Kings 23, Mosiah 5:1-5, Mosiah 29:37-38. The principle of unanimous consent is also present in voting in the Church. President George Q. Cannon (counselor in the First Presidency) explained that the scriptures are the only source of official doctrine,
coupled with later revelation to the prophets that has been presented
to the Church and sustained:

"I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church." George Q.Cannon, "Comments," Millennial Star
42/46 (15 November 1880): 724. (10 October 1880, General Conference)


There are no rights if there are no laws; there are no laws if there is no enforcement. Part 1

Who or what is the enforcer of the unalienable human right to live? It is either man, or it is a supreme being. If it is man, then there is no unalienable human right to live.

What makes a right unalienable? If you have the right to live, then my life must be protected by a law. If it is protected by a law, then there must be a punishment or consequence for the violation of that law. In addition there must be a means to enforce the punishment or the consequence.

"How could there be a law save there was a punishment?" Alma 42:17

"If there was no law given - [for example, if the following law did not exist:] If a man murdered he should die - Would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?" Alma 42:19

Consider the following example:

Abel, Ben, and Cain move to the island called Leviathan to live in isolation. They agree on a set of standards by which they will live and interact with one another. One of the standards they put to law is that each person on the island has an inalienable right to live. Their law specifically states, "thou shalt not murder". Furthermore, they each agree that the punishment for the crime of murder is life imprisonment of the offender. A law has been established protecting human life, and a punishment has been affixed for its violation.

A few months pass, and Abel has been able to successfully grow a large and bountiful crop. Cain sees Abel's crops and decides to kill Abel so that he can take possession of them. Ben sees Cain kill Abel, and comes to enforce the punishment affixed to the law that was broken. Cain knows what Ben is coming to do and not wanting to be imprisoned, kills Ben.

Cain is left as the only human on the island of Leviathan, and now has possession of the whole of it and all there on. There is no one to enforce the law, "thou shalt not murder". There is no one to protect or enforce the unalienable human right to live. On this island, is there an unalienable human right to life? If there is no enforcement or punishment, there is no law; if there is no law there is no right.

The human right to life is as strong as the enforcer. The enforcement must be universal for every single individual or it is not an inalienable human right. An inalienable right can only be enforced by an omniscient supreme being. Unless mankind is able to enforce every violation of established human rights, there are no inalienable rights.

The existence of a Supreme and Just Being must be acknowledged in order to believe in the existence inalienable human rights. If the existence of a Supreme Being is not recognized, then there is no one on earth capable of enforcing the then whimsical notion of the human right to live. If God is not recognized as the source nor the supreme administrator of omniscient justice, then there is no enforcement to make the declaration "inalienable".

If there is no one to universally enforce, then there is no law (regardless of what people believe to the contrary), if there is no law, then there is no right. If there is no natural or inalienable right, then whoever has the monopoly of brute force determines your rights, your freedom, and your liberty. Such a declaration then is only a legal or bestowed right decided by the monopoly.

If the monopoly is benign, the people may not be oppressed. If the monopoly is tyrannical the people will suffer. Human beings do not have the capacity to universally enforce an inalienable right.

"But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God." Alma 42:22

So there are only two logical choices:

(1) God exists and will enforce all violations against the inalienable rights He has granted, or,

(2) There is no God, and thus there is no possibility of universal enforcement of the most basic human right, the right to live. All rights enjoyed by man are determined by whomever has the most power.

The second choice is what Thomas Hobbes believed, and called the "state of nature" in his book Leviathan. The second choice is a world without morals. A world that tries to maximize pleasure while reducing pain. A world where good is defined as what brings pleasure, and evil as what brings pain. A world that equates rights with desires.

In the Hobbesonian world, which is pervasive in our society, is the world in which people enter as they forsake God and deny Him as the author of the Law that will be enforced.

"Rights are simply equivalent to desires, so that "I have a right to do X" is merely another way of saying 'I have a desire to do X'".1

This perverted concept of rights equated to desires was also taught by a man name Korihor in approximately 76 B.C. He suggested that "every man conquer[s] according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime." (Alma 30:17) For Korihor, might makes right. There is no God, so the strongest man is the enforcer of all laws and rights. Human rights are thus protected by the will of the enforcer. So if you want your life protected, be sure to never make the enforcer angry.

Korihor argued that religious interference into the laws of the land violated the peoples rights (or desires) to do whatever they wanted. While arguing with authorities he stated "Ye lead away this people after the foolish [religious beliefs] of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them down, even as it were in bondage...that they durst not enjoy their rights and privileges".(Alma 30:27)

To Korihor, laws forbidding theft, adultery, and homosexuality violated people's rights, or in other words their desires. The first step for any tyrant to gain power, is to deny God and defy the universal laws that will be enforced. Korihor mocks the people's belief in a supreme being and their adherence to moral values that inhibit non believers from receiving government sanction for their base desires.

If individuals can be persuaded to separate God from their belief system, they can be decoyed into accepting the false concept that rights equal desires.

For Hobbes, Korihor, and their followers "it is the entire job of government to protect and maximize the expression of these individual rights/desires while simultaneously minimizing conflict with other rights/desires-bearing individuals...Hobbesian justice is therefore understood as a kind of inversion of the golden rule:...let others do what they want (as long as whatever they do is not directly hurting you), so that you may do whatever you want (as long as you are not directly hurting others)."2 How often do you here this in society today?

The LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver. - Isaiah 33:22. The Lord Almighty is the Enforcer of the human right to live. All murderers will be brought to justice by Justice himself. All victims of murder will have that which was taken restored through the resurrection.

Part 2 will define inalienable rights.

1 Wiker, Benjamin. Ten Books that Screwed Up the World And Five Others that Didn't Help. Grand Rapids: Regnery, 2008.

2 Ibid.



My apologies for not posting for quite awhile. After seeing all that has transpired, and is continuing to transpire within our government, I feel we have passed a point of no return. The blessings of freedom and government restraint are a fading memory. There is little evidence to suggest that we are a free people.

For example, each person in the United States of America who pays income tax, is a slave. If you think that statement is radical, consider the consequence of not paying income taxes. If you do not pay, you will find out who owns you.

There is no more private property in the United States of America. If you do not pay your property tax, you will find out very fast who actually owns your house.

We no longer have a representative government. We are becoming increasingly governed by men, instead of by law. History is filled with countless examples of the horrible things that can happen when we are governed by men and not law. This fact should send chills through your spine. If it does not, I hope the wool which covers your body is comfortable.

Representative Michelle Bachman, R Minnesota, details the current state of our gangster government. She gives a very powerful presentation on the floor of the House of Representatives [sic].



On April 15, 2009 there were over 700 "Tax Day Tea Parties" in memory of the Boston Tea Party, a large instigator of the American Revolution. The Government and the Media in our country do not understand why people would be upset by higher taxes. More and more people are despising big centralized government, and are being branded as right wing extremists. Remember, the United States of America began as a tax revolt. This video of a "report" by CNN of a "Tea Party" in Chicago, shows the disdain of those in the Ivory Tower for the common American. Instead of reporting, the so called reporter presumes to tell the demonstrators they are wrong, ignorant, and stupid.



I ran across this video the other day and just loved it. Judging by how old Charles Schumer looks, and the hairstyles of the other people, this has to come from the '80's. Either way, the woman testifying gives a wonderful testimony in front of a congressional committe detailing the true reason for the 2nd Amendment.


Capitalism Evil? Compared to What?

This is an interview between Phil Donahue and Milton Friedman in 1979. It is important to remember these points as we hear our current leaders and throngs of ignorant masses deploring capitalism. The truth of the matter is, the United States of American as a capitalist economic system has been eroding since long ago. All of our current economic problems are the result of government intervention into the free market. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.



Glen Back made quite a staggering presentation which showed our nations creation of money out of thin air. (See the YouTube video below). Unfortunately the large storm on the horizon does not alter the course of those in charge of monetary policy.

According to a recent L.A. Times article, over 65,000 factories have closed down in China, and 100,000 are expected to be closed by the end of the year. That is a lot of people without work!

Another incredible development in the world comes from a report issued by the United States Joint Forces Command, the report states that "in terms of worst-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico." [1] Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and is danger of sudden collapse! Mexico has been increasingly entrenched in a bloody drug war, with drug cartels coming out in near open rebellion against the government. These are some crazy times in the world!

[1] Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008), p. 40.



Not less than one day in office, and Obama has made some initial signs that he plans to repeal the Defense of Marriage act that was enacted by President Clinton. Obama plans to "extend more that 1,000 federal marriage benefits and adoption rights to homosexual couples."

The new www.whitehouse.gov website changed at exactly 12:01 pm yesterday, the moment Obama was sworn in. The site’s “Civil Rights” section lists a number of items long on the homosexual agenda, including expanding federal hate-crimes laws, repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military and extending the definition of workplace discrimination to include sexual orientation.

It should be pointed out that under hate crime laws, killing another person because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation is only worse because of your thoughts. For example: you would receive a punishment if you killed someone to steal their purse. But if you killed someone to steal their purse because they had homosexual desires, you should be punished more extensively.

So Obama wants to enact laws to expand the role of the "thought police". Isn't committing a crime against someone bad enough? What difference does it make what the person's race, gender, sexual orientation, or hairstyle is? Don't commit crimes against other people!

Based on the website, Obama plans to do the following:

1. Expand and increase the size of our military. (Guaranteeing America's involvement in future foreign wars).
2. Using government intervention to stimulate the economy and create jobs. (The government could achieve 100% employment today by paying anyone without a job to dig holes in the earth and then cover them back up.)
3. Use taxpayer funds to create nationalized computer health records for the health care industry. (If that was so critical to the health care industries success, they would have done it themselves.)
4. Use taxpayer funds to create universal pre-school in all states under the "0 to 5" plan. (The earlier the government can teach you that the state is god, the easier it will be to rule you as you grow up.)
5. Make math and science education a national priority. (Introduce tort reform so that lawyers don't make as much money for suing everyone for everything. If lawyers don't make as much people will start going to school again to become engineers instead.)
6. Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities by doubling main federal support for afterschool programs. (Soon you will not have to take care of your children at all! The government will do it for you!)
7. Use excessive taxpayer funds through income redistribution (aka communism) to invest in new sources of clean energy, tax credits for car purchases, and catalysts for private inventions. (Nearly all useful inventions that we use on a daily basis came from people who did not receive government grants, i.e. the airplane, television, computers, air conditioning, medicine before the government became involved, etc.)

The list of what Obama plans to due with monies acquired by the treasury department under coercion, is extensive. I invite you to see for yourself by visiting Obamas website at:


The plan he proposes is merely a more extensive use of socialism than George W. Bush. No matter what your political affiliation is, this plan is not sustainable. It might last Obama's presidency, and perhaps the next Presidents, but it will come crashing down.

I do not honestly believe that the standard of living for my two daughters is going to be better than mine when they are my age. Any hard working person in the future and today under this plan is going to have their wages seized from them so they can pay for people who work for the government digging "holes in the earth".

The freedoms won in the American Revolution in 1776 have been lost. The Founding Fathers of our nation revolted against the very system of tyrannical government under which we now live. The founders and creators of the Constitution rejected the very type of government under which we now live.



Here is a list of the 10 worst financial predictions made in 2008 as compiled by Peter Coy (who included himself as number 10 on the list) at Yahoo. You can find the original article by clicking here. I have added links to the names the author refers to for reference. Compare the financial predictions made by the so called experts with the advice given by spiritual experts at the end of the article.
Here are some of the worst predictions that were made about 2008. Savor them -- a crop like this doesn't come along every year.

1. "A very powerful and durable rally is in the works. But it may need another couple of days to lift off. Hold the fort and keep the faith!" -- Richard Band, editor, Profitable Investing Letter, Mar. 27, 2008

At the time of the prediction, the Dow Jones industrial average was at 12,300. By late December it was at 8,500.

2. AIG (NYSE:AIG - News) "could have huge gains in the second quarter." -- Bijan Moazami, analyst, Friedman, Billings, Ramsey, May 9, 2008

AIG wound up losing $5 billion in that quarter and $25 billion in the next. It was taken over in September by the U.S. government, which will spend or lend $150 billion to keep it afloat. (If you click on his name, it will link you to a recent Forbes listing which placed Bijan and the 3rd best insurance stock picker. My question is, who was last on the list, and what did they pick?)

3. "I think this is a case where Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE - News) and Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM - News) are fundamentally sound. They're not in danger of going under I think they are in good shape going forward." -- Barney Frank (D-Mass.), House Financial Services Committee chairman, July 14, 2008

Two months later, the government forced the mortgage giants into conservatorships and pledged to invest up to $100 billion in each.

4. "I'm not an economist but I do believe that we're growing." —President George W. Bush, in a July 15, 2008 press conference

Nope. Gross domestic product shrank at a 0.5% annual rate in the July-September quarter. On Dec. 1, the National Bureau of Economic Research declared that a recession had begun in December 2007.

5. "I think Bob Steel's the one guy I trust to turn this bank around, which is why I've told you on weakness to buy Wachovia." —Jim Cramer, CNBC commentator, Mar. 11, 2008

Two weeks later, Wachovia came within hours of failure as depositors fled. Steel eventually agreed to a takeover by Wells Fargo. Wachovia shares lost half their value from Sept. 15 to Dec. 29.

6. "Existing-Home Sales to Trend Up in 2008" -- Headline of a National Association of Realtors press release, Dec. 9, 2007

On Dec. 23, 2008, the group said November sales were running at an annual rate of 4.5 million -- down 11% from a year earlier -- in the worst housing slump since the Depression.

7. "I think you'll see (oil prices at) $150 a barrel by the end of the year" -- T. Boone Pickens, June 20, 2008

Oil was then around $135 a barrel. By late December it was below $40.

8. "I expect there will be some failures. I don't anticipate any serious problems of that sort among the large internationally active banks that make up a very substantial part of our banking system." -- Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve chairman, Feb. 28, 2008

In September, Washington Mutual became the largest financial institution in U.S. history to fail. Citigroup (NYSE:C - News) needed an even bigger rescue in November.

9. "In today's regulatory environment, it's virtually impossible to violate rules." -- Bernard Madoff, money manager, Oct. 20, 2007

About a year later, Madoff -- who once headed the Nasdaq Stock Market -- told investigators he had cost his investors $50 billion in an alleged Ponzi scheme.

10. "There's growing evidence that parts of the debt markets…are coming back to life." —Peter Coy and Mara Der Hovanesian, BusinessWeek, Oct. 1, 2007.
Here is some predictions made by Prophets and Apostles in these latter days.

"Now, brethren, I want to make it very clear that I am not prophesying, that I am not predicting years of famine in the future. But I am suggesting that the time has come to get our houses in order. So many of our people are living on the very edge of their incomes. In fact, some are living on borrowings.

We have witnessed in recent weeks wide and fearsome swings in the markets of the world. The economy is a fragile thing. A stumble in the economy in Jakarta or Moscow can immediately affect the entire world. It can eventually reach down to each of us as individuals. There is a portent of stormy weather ahead to which we had better give heed." Gordon B. Hinckley

“If there is any one thing that will bring peace and contentment into the human heart, and into the family, it is to live within our means. And if there is any one thing that is grinding and discouraging and disheartening, it is to have debts and obligations that one cannot meet” President Heber J. Grant (Gospel Standards, comp. G. Homer Durham [1941], 111).

"Pay the debt thou hast contracted with the [lender]. Release thyself from bondage." The LORD D&C 19:35

"Ours is such a wasteful generation. The disposal of garbage has become one of the great problems of our time. Part of that comes of wasteful extravagance. Our pioneer forebears lived by the motto: "Fix it up, Wear it out, Make it do, or Do without." President Heber J. Grant (University of Utah Institute of Religion Fireside, May 21, 1989.)

"Now, let's not be foolish and suppose that because the sun is shining today there won't be clouds tomorrow. The Lord has told us by revelation some of the things that are ahead of us, and we are living in the day when the fulfillment of those prophecies is at hand. We are startled, and yet there is nothing happening today that the prophets didn't foresee. God help us to keep our own houses in order and to keep our eyes fixed upon those who preside in this church and to follow their direction, and we won't be led astray.

Stay out of debt...Not only should we teach men to get out of debt but we should teach them likewise to stay out of debt." (Harold B. Lee, The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, edited by Clyde J. Williams [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996], 315.)

Question: Who would you have been better off listening to? The financial experts, or the spiritual experts?