BREAKING DOWN HEALTH CARE COSTS

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 gOD WE TRUST

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.

Footnotes

¹ 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.

GANGSTER GOVERNMENT

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].