Soccer and illegal immigration

Over the weekend the US men's soccer team played Mexico in an international Gold Cup final in Los Angeles and lost, 4-2.

To add insult to injury, the crowd was pro-Mexican The awards ceremony was in Spanish. And, the US team and anthem were booed all around.

Is there anyone in Washington DC who understands and cares about the gravity and urgency of our nation's illegal immigration problem?

Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution says, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion...." How are we doing on that?

Our borders and immigration laws must immediately be vigorously enforced! Mine the borders if necessary!

Absolutely no citizenship, legal-resident status, amnesty, or guest-worker status for anyone who has ever crossed our borders illegally!

Terminate the nation's "anchor baby" scam now!

Ban taxpayer-funded education, health-care, benefits, and entitlements for illegal immigrants!

English must be established as the nation's official language of the nation and all government functions, publications and websites (except tourism and very few State Department functions) must be only in English!

Establish federal felony criminal penalties for any person -- including federal, state, and local government officials -- or organization which offers sanctuary to illegal immigrants.

The federal government must cooperate with -- not sue -- state and local governments to identify and deport all who have invaded our borders!

Again: Is there anyone in Washington DC who understands and cares about the gravity and urgency of our nation's illegal immigration problem?

Most cops are good, but....

A few days ago, Emily Good was witnessing a traffic stop in Rochester, New York. She videotaped the work of three police officers in that incident. She was arrested for that egregious act! Her video is below.

It appears to me that the camerawoman did absolutely nothing wrong. The Rochester, NY officer, on the other hand, was way out of line. If he's not doing anything wrong, he should have no fear of being recorded or photographed while doing his job. To claim that he felt unsafe with her standing behind him is nothing more than a pretense to impose undue control over a bystander.

In order to to be able preserve their own lives in a hostile occupation, police candidates are typically selected and trained to have a certain level of assertiveness and to make snap life-and-death decisions. Unfortunately, in far too many individuals, this assertiveness grows to the point where they believe they are the law rather than law enforcers. In this case, the arresting officer believes his unreasonable "police order" is the law and that the camerawoman therefore needs to be jailed.

But, it gets better: The second video below is from a Rochester, New York, neighborhood meeting in support of Emily Good, the woman arrested for videotaping a traffic stop from her front yard. Rochester police sent four squad cars to ticket the cars of meeting attendees who parked more than 12 inches from the curb! Yes, they even brought a ruler. Coincidence? I doubt it. This clearly is police harassment and intimidation of the subjects of the Duke of Rochester (mayor)!

Emily Good should, and probably will, receive a nice settlement from the city at the expense of the cities' taxpayers. The taxpayers and other citizens of Rochester must express their outrage by holding their elected officials accountable for this incident at the next city council meeting and at the next election.

All officers involved in this ongoing incident (like most police officers; law-enforcement supervisors; local, state and federal elected officials; and judges) need thorough remedial training in the rights of the people as guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions (which they have sworn to honor). They each need to carefully consider the objectives of Oath Keepers and understand why the organizers of Oath Keepers feel their organization is necessary in the "land of the free and the home of the brave".

In addition to training in the Constitution, the officer who arrested Emily Good, those officers present who did not protest the arrest, and those officers who ticketed cars for being 1/2 inch too far from the curb must all be given a few weeks off without pay so they can have time to consider their attitude toward the rights of the people and the proper purpose of law. They each owe the camerawoman a very sincere personal apology and flowers.

If police are to ever earn the respect and cooperation of the people they are supposed to serve, they must do a lot better than this.

Stalin must be proud.

Democrat plan to lower energy prices

Environmentalists are people who don't know science, don't care about economics, and won't do the math.

SWAT teams from the Department of Education?

SWAT teams from the Department of Education (DOE)? (This story is a must-read! You won't hear or see it in the mainstream news.) The Department of Education conducting armed no-knock raids?

We have over 57 federal law-enforcement agencies, and now, of all people, the Department of Education has guns and SWAT teams?

Is this really the police state we want?

SWAT teams should be used only in cases that are sufficiently critical to public safety that each officer involved is willing to give his own life to protect public safety. Instead, we're using SWAT teams tens of thousands of times per year in this country for relatively minor things such as to grab a few ounces of pot as evidence -- and people are dying for those few ounces of pot!

In fact, just last month, the home of Jose Guerena, an honorably discharged Marine and war veteran, was the object of a typical SWAT raid. Guerena correctly responded to the chaos of his door being kicked in by grabbing his gun for self-defense and the defense of his family. He never took a shot, probably because he recognized the intruders as police officers. There is no report that he even pointed his rifle at the intruders! Nevertheless, he was gunned down by 71 shots from Pima County Arizona SWAT officers. Why the raid on his home? Undisclosed persons suspected he might be involved in drug trafficking. No evidence of criminal activity was found during the raid. If it isn't worth dying over, it isn't worth shooting over.

In the case linked at the top of this blog entry, a DOE SWAT team invaded a home to seek (unsuccessfully) evidence of student-loan fraud on the part of the home owner's ex-wife! Somebody could have died in that senseless raid! If it isn't worth dying over, it isn't worth shooting over.

Is this really the police state we want?

We gotta get some smarter voters -- voters who vote on character, principles, and knowledge rather than party labels, skin color, and "entitlements". There is no other blood-free way to regain control of the federal government.

Orrin Hatch and his flag amendment

Utah's senior senator, Orrin Hatch, has again brought up his desire for a constitutional amendment to protect the flag.

That seems fine on the surface. But, the flag is simply a piece of cloth. A precious symbol, yes, but a piece of cloth nevertheless.

A constitutional amendment to protect the flag is simply another amendment to a document that nobody in Washington pays any attention to. It is the Constitution that needs protecting -- not the flag!

If Hatch wants show he is serious about keeping his job, he needs to do a better job of protecting the Constitution from presidents and presidential appointees.

He needs to do a better job of reversing the growth of government.

He needs to stop and repeal all legislation that violates the Constitution - and he has voted for plenty of unconstitutional legislation and anti-Constitution presidential appointees in 35+ years.

He needs to stop denigrating Republican voters who vote for constitutionalist candidates over Republican-party-machine candidates. (Shouldn't all political candidates be consitutionalists?)

After Senator Hatch get that important stuff done, he can start fussing over symbolic things.

Hatch has had 6 terms in the Senate to do all these things. It's interesting that he has only begun to even pay lip service to the Constitution since the ouster of Senator Bob Bennett -- because he is afraid of his constituents. Hatch seems to care about the principles that are important to constitutionalist voters only when he afraid of losing power.

His bringing up the flag amendment again only shows how badly we need Orrin Hatch to retire.

Congressman Don Young Urges Producing American Energy & Opening ANWR

A British politician warns us about our transformation into Europe

Overturn Kentucky v King and restore our Fourth Amendment rights!

The recent US Supreme Court ruling in Kentucky v. King in essence revokes Americans' Fourth Amendment rights by allowing law enforcement to enter citizens' private property without a warrant.

Regarding this outrageous ruling, Judge Andrew Napolitano said:

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to be left alone. It requires that the government can only come on to private property without the consent of the occupant if it has a search warrant. And search warrants may only be issued by judges, and judges may only issue search warrants after they have found probable cause of a crime on the property.

This new ruling compromises Americans' Constitutional rights by removing certain restrictions on government agents entering a residence without first obtaining a warrant. This constitutes one of the greatest threats to the American rights and liberties since King George III. We fought a war (beating the most powerful nation on Earth) over this sort of government behavior!

The Supreme Court has only compounded the current and egregious anti-Fourth-Amendment practices of asset forfeiture and extremely dangerous no-knock warrants (no-knock police raids have grown in use from 2,000 to 3,000 raids a year in the mid-1980s, to 70,000 to 80,000 annually, says Peter Kraska, a professor of criminal justice at Eastern Kentucky University who tracks the issue).

We are law-abiding citizens. We do not want criminal activity to run rampant in our communities. But, more importantly, we also do not want government authorities to wield police-state power over responsible citizens. That is why we cherish the protections the nation's founders wisely built into the Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment protects our privacy rights and our private property from unwarranted searches and seizures. Congress and the President must enact immediate legislation that will supersede the Supreme Court ruling in Kentucky v. King and to protect all responsible Americans from asset forfeiture and no-knock police raids.

Chastity: What are the limits?

"Courtship is a wonderful period. It should be a sacred one. That is the time in which you choose your mate. Young men, your success in life depends upon that choice. Choose prayerfully the one who inspires you to your best and always remember that no man injures the thing he loves. . The seeds of a happy marriage are sown in youth. Happiness does not begin at the altar; it begins during the period of youth and courtship." — David O. McKay (Ensign, Jan 1974, p 36)

Every study of the subject has shown that living together before marriage is not good. In each case, they found:
• higher divorce rate - up to 46% higher
• lower quality of life - rates of depression and abuse are at least three times higher for unmarried couples than married ones
• cohabitation does not lead to marriage - only 21% were still together after only five years, even if they got married during that time
• commitment sidetracked - men said they were less likely to get married when they can simply live with a woman and enjoy the same benefits, then walk away with no liabilities.
— "The National Marriage Project" by Rutgers University

"No pressure, no diamonds." — Thomas Carlyle

Entitlement

"The language Congress uses to describe their spending is corrupt beyond redemption. Think about the term entitlement. If one American is entitled to something he didn't earn, where in the world does Congress get the money? It's not Santa or the Tooth Fairy. The only way Congress can give one American a dollar is to first take it from another American. Therefore, an entitlement is a congressionally given right for one American to live at the expense of another. In other words, Congress forcibly uses one American to serve the purposes of another American. As such, it differs in degree, but not kind, from that uglier part of our history where black people were forcibly used to serve the purposes of their slave masters." — Walter E Williams, Economist, 1 Jun 2011

Nobody can say it any better than that.

Memorial Day

Since the United States ended the draft in 1972, Americans, in general, have lost touch with the cost of freedom -- military service. Before then, a majority of America's young men spent time in one of the nation's armed forces. Today, less than 1 percent of American families shoulder the burden of fear and sacrifice of military service, and they shoulder it for the entire nation. Here is the natural result:




A couple of years ago, on or about Veterans' Day, our bishop asked all veterans to stand and be recognized. Of a congregation of some 400, only about a half dozen stood. A generation ago, at least half the men would have been on their feet along with some of the women.

I think that our nation has paid a very dear price by isolating itself from those who wear the uniform. Few know or understand the toll on those who serve and especially on their families. Additionally, because few Americans share the burden, today's servicemen spend a far portion of their service in actual combat than any armed force in history.

All Americans can think about is barbecues, car races, and Memorial Day sales. I hear people greet each other with, "Happy Memorial Day." To those of who have served and to those of us who have lost family and friend to war, it's not a happy day. It's a solemn and sacred day.

In memory of my fallen brothers and sisters in arms and the families they left:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stuart Mill

Our debt to the heroic men and valiant women in the service of our country can never be repaid. They have earned our undying gratitude; American will never forget their sacrifice. - President Harry S. Truman

They fought together as brothers-in-arms, they died together, and now they sleep side by side. To them we have a solemn obligation. - Admiral Chester Nimitz

They hover as a cloud of witnesses above this Nation. – Henry Ward Beecher

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. – John 15:13

On this Memorial Day, I highly recommend reading Six Seconds to Live and Ask me about my son’s sacrifice.

Thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Guardsmen have been killed in the War on Terror. The Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund honors the bravery and dedication exhibited by Americans in our Armed Forces who have sacrificed life or limb defending our country by providing educational scholarships to their children. Please support the The Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund.

The people of WalMart

Why don't I get to see people like these at the Walmart where I live?

The measure of a presidential candidate

A far-too-common flaw in those who seek political office is that they spend too much time talking and not enough time listening. I expect that of a liberal, since they rarely are interested in facts and other forms of truth. But this failure to listen also afflicts those who pretend to be conservatives (ie Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, etc.). These "conservatives" typically show up at a TEA Party rally or an NRA Annual Meeting just in time for their turn to speak, then vanish. They never stick around long enough to hear what other speakers are saying, let alone what the audience has to say. Consequently, all they know about issues is what their handlers feed them. Romney is probably the most guilty of this behavior of any politician I've personally listened to. And it shows.

In predicting a general apostasy from the Church, the Apostle Paul wrote

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. — 2 Timothy 4:3-4

It seems to me that Romney and most other politicians expect the masses to have "itching ears" when it comes to politics just as they do with the Gospel. It appears that Romney, like Obama, finds plenty of "itching ears" in his audiences.

Some friends and relatives are annoyed by the fact that I do not support Mitt Romney for president. These sheeple support him for one reason: they are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) as is Romney and as am I. I, on the other hand, find that a candidate's status as a member of any church is immaterial for political office.

...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. — US Constitution, Article VI

I cannot support or vote for a former LDS bishop and stake president (LDS lay positions in which Romney once served) whose record on moral issues (marriage, abortion, homosexuality, etc) is inconsistent with the standards of his church, the will of God, the will of the majority of the People, and even the values expressed his party's platform.

Mormons who support Mitt Romney for president need to stop and consider the adverse attention his political baggage imposes on the Church. I don't think the Evangelical concerns about Romney are as much about the Mormon faith itself as it is about his personal betrayal of essential Christian moral principles. One must wonder how much that betrayal harms the image of the Church.

Perhaps key to his chances of winning the Whitehouse, Romney's history on moral and big-government issues so closely parallels Obama's, most voters may see no reason not to vote for the incumbent! In fact, I believe that had Romney won the 2008 election, we'd still have ObamaCare, but with a different name. (I assume Romney might have been a bit better for the economy, though, and we might not have new Supreme Court Justices quite as radical as Sotomayor and Kagan.)

Romney's stated (but not demonstrated) stand on some of the more controversial issues (abortion, gun control, homosexual marriage) has shifted in his effort to pander to conservative Republicans. Nevertheless, he continues espouse big-government, anti-liberty, anti-self-reliance ideas such as carbon taxes, government-mandated health care, gun-control, government subsidies, and man-made global warming. His willingness to fall for (or endorse) the global-warming scam is troubling.

About a year ago, Connor Boyack wrote:

The label of “flip-flopper” may very well be appropriate, but an analysis of Romney’s positions across the board and over time lend more support to the critique that he is rather like a political chameleon, changing himself to blend in with whatever environment he happens to be in. Indeed, to determine Romney’s political affiliation at any given moment, one need only determine to which audience he is addressing himself in hopes of winning a popular vote. Thus, his foundation-less platform has morphed as he courted voters first in Massachusetts, then later across the nation.

I will not vote for or support a candidate based on his religious affiliation (especially if his actions are grossly incompatible with the moral stands taught by his religion) any more than I will for the color of his skin or his political party affiliation. These three criteria are invalid measures of a candidate. Any voter who thinks they are valid measures is part of the problem and should be ashamed.

Instead, I vote based on principles found in the word of God as revealed though His prophets and in the nation's founding documents. I expect political leaders to be similarly guided by principles -- not by "itching ears."

Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual - or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. — Samuel Adams (Boston Gazette, 1781)

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all. — John F. Kennedy

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. — Thomas Jefferson

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. — John Quincy Adams

Americanism is a question of principles, of idealism, of character: it is not a matter of birthplace or creed or line of descent. — Theodore Roosevelt

Mitt Romney is the worst kind of politician. He has absolutely no foundation based on principle. This chameleon tailors his message based on what is politically expedient. Some argue that he is the only person who can beat Obama. Pundits claim that independent voters will only respond to a pandering "moderate" like Mitt Romney. They said the same thing about their favorite "conservative" John McCain. How did that work out? Independent voters, like Conservatives, don't want a weak-kneed panderer, they want someone who is guided by principle even if they don't always agree with them (ie Ronald Reagan)!

Although he can speak coherently without a teleprompter, Mitt Romney does not measure up.

Everyone wants to vote for the best and most qualified man, but he never runs for office. — Will Rogers

Hell, I never vote for anybody, I always vote against. — WC Fields

Walgreens betrays an employee and its customers

Walgreens has chosen to terminate Pharmacist Jeremy Hoven after he fired his handgun to foil an armed robbery and a potentially deadly hostage situation at the store. He was fully and legally justified in his actions. Unfortunately those actions apparently annoyed his employer, Walgreens.

I respect property rights. I respect the right of Walgreens to establish whatever policy it chooses with regard to its property.

However, Walgreens has a hoplophobic anti-self-defense policy and Walgreens fails to provide adequate armed security to take the place of self-defense. I therefore consider Walgreens stores to be an unsafe place to spend my money and time.

Think about this Walgreens management: If Jeremy Hoven were still working at the Benton Town­ship Walgreens, those two wannabe armed robbers would be very unlikely to return to that store. Since Hoven has been terminated, that store has been widely publicized as an easy target!

Until Jeremy Hoven is restored to his job with full back pay and an award for his heroism and Walgreens' anti-gun policies are rescinded nationwide, I will exercise my right to no longer patronize Walgreens' unsafe stores, including the new Walgreens in Cedar City, Utah.

I am sharing my concerns with my readers and other friends and family.

Civil Asset Forfeiture is Unconstitutional and Evil

Civil asset forfeiture is government seizure of property or cash owned by individuals who are only charged with a crime. Law enforcement agents can seize a piece of property if they merely suspect it was used in a crime, whereas its owner must prove innocence to get it back. It doesn't even matter that no crime actually occurred! Asset forfeitures total over $2 billion a year in property. Roughly 80% of the people who lose property to seizures are never charged with a crime. All of them have to sue the government to get their property back.

This is an egregious inversion of justice and a gross violation of the Bill of Rights. Congress and each state legislature must immediately:

• Require full Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment protection for all federal proceedings against owners of personal property.
• Permit seizures of criminal profits only upon criminal conviction of its owner.
• Permit seizures of legally-owned property only if its owner is convicted of a crime, to pay for fines, court costs, or restitution.
• Withhold federal funds to all state and local law enforcement agencies that engage in civil asset forfeiture.
• Enforce the 14th Amendment's requirement that "no person shall be deprived of...property, without due process of law" by allowing victims of state and local seizures to contest forfeitures in federal court.

Courts have failed to protect the property of persons who have never been convicted or even charged. Law enforcement agencies have even taken exploited asset forfeiture for profit and to fund/equip their departments. Congress must ensure civil asset forfeiture is immediately abolished.

Asset forfeiture is a mockery of the Bill of Rights. There is no presumption of innocence, no need to prove you guilty (or even charge you with a crime), no right to a jury trial, no right to confront your accuser, no right to a court-appointed attorney (even if the government has just stolen all your money), and no right to compensation for the property that's been taken. -- Harry Browne (1933-2006)

Goodwin Liu is an enemy to the Constitution

Perhaps the most important role for a legislator, president, or judge is to know and strictly follow the US Constitution. For this reason, the Constitution requires that all federal judges be confirmed by the US Senate. The Senate's job is to ensure that presidential nominees, especially judges, intimately know and consistently follow the Constitution.

As far as has been disclosed to the People, Senators do not take an oath to any political ideology, political party, party leader, king, president, or even the desires of constituents! They take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" (ie most Obama nominees).

Goodwin Liu has been nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am satisfied that he is not fit for that position because of his anti-Constitution history.

• Liu believes in a "living Constitution." In other words, the Constitution means whatever he wants it to mean. He said, "I think that [originalism is] nice in theory, but the reality is...the job of courts really involves...an awareness of the evolving norms and social understandings of our country." Liu also wrote: "For too long, liberals, progressives and moderates have been defensive about how the Constitution should be interpreted." Anyone who has read and studied the US Constitution knows that it has a built-in mechanism for adaptation -- an amendment process. There is nothing in there that authorizes any judge to do the amending!
• He finds it "difficult to grasp" that foreign law should not be used to interpret the US Constitution.
• Liu would impose homosexual marriage. He submitted an amicus brief in favor of gay marriage and called the majority of California voters a "narrow and ultimately temporary majority."
• He would create a "Constitutional" right to welfare and consequently a right to the earnings of hard-working taxpayers. He believes that "judicial recognition of welfare rights depends on socially situated modes of reasoning...."
• Liu is so soft on crime that he is opposed by a bi-partisan majority (42 of 58) of California DAs (District Attorneys). The DAs cite: "[Liu's] views on criminal law, capital punishment, and the role of the federal courts...[as cause for] the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate to reject this nomination."
• He was highly critical of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. For example, Liu believes that "because [Roberts] would sit with life tenure" Senators should inquire about specifics on their views of so called "gay rights," "abortion rights," "the environment, "home grown marijuana," "environmental laws," "affirmative action," professional associations, and a host of other issues which are properly addressed by the People through their elected representatives -- not by judges. I counter that by demanding that "because [Liu] would sit with life tenure" Senators should inquire about specifics on his views of the "Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land," who has authority and responsibility to amend the Constitution, and whether those who don't work have a right to the fruits of the labors of the workers.

Liu clearly is a radical activist who wants to move the courts and our country in the wrong direction -- further away from the Constitution and toward judicial tyranny.

Every Senator has a sworn obligation to take every possible step to ensure that Goodwin Liu is never confirmed for any federal judgeship. Every Senator has a sworn obligation to demand that the president henceforth nominate only persons who know and follow the Constitution for judicial and administrative positions.

I consider a vote for Liu is the same as a vote against the Constitution.

"He who does not punish evil commands it to be done." — Leonardo da Vinci

What are rights?

By our very endowment as children of an Eternal Father, we have had implanted within our souls the urgency to be free. It is natural for us to want to be accountable for our own fates, because there is a whispering within us confirming that this accountability is absolutely essential to the attainment of our eternal destiny. — Dean L. Larsen (Ensign, May 1980)

The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. — John F. Kennedy

All men are, or ought to be free, possessing unalienable rights, and the high and noble qualifications of the laws of nature and of self-preservation, to think, and act, and say as they please, while they maintain a due respect to the rights and privileges of all other creatures, infringing upon none. — Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:156)

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate. — Thomas Jefferson (Rights of British America, 1774)

It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights – the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery – hay and a barn for human cattle. — Alexis de Tocqueville

For several decades, Americans have had a distorted understanding of rights and privileges. This distortion is often deliberate. Here are some clarifications:

Rights
▪ In most countries, rights are considered to be permissions and gifts granted by the government. There are many in the US who share this belief.
▪ On the other hand, our nation’s founders believed that rights are freedoms given to us by God because we are His children and because we are created in His image. They expressed this belief in the Declaration of Independence: "....that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
▪ The Declaration of Independence goes on to say that "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...." Note that the nation is founded to protect God-given rights -- not to grant them nor to restrict them.
▪ Rights are freedoms we’re entitled to based on our citizenship.
▪ Rights include whatever one is not prohibited to do or have.
▪ Rights possessed by one person do not come at a cost to any other person. (I do not have a right to demand you to pay any of my bills – including health care -- directly or through taxation. My right to swing my arm ends at the tip of your nose.)
▪ If you have to ask permission, it's not a right it's a privilege.
▪ Rights can be forfeited due to criminal acts.
▪ Rights can be forfeited if not exercised.
▪ Rights can be taken if we elect politicians who restrict our rights.
▪ Examples of rights: freedom of speech, freedom or religion, freedom to bear arms, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, right to privacy, property rights.

Privileges
▪ A privilege is an immunity or benefit granted to, and enjoyed by, a person beyond the advantages of other people under certain conditions.
▪ Privileges are acts we are allowed to do and things we are allowed to possess.
▪ Privileges are extra benefits given to a person or group.
▪ Privileges must be earned or gifted or purchased.
▪ Privileges often come at a cost to others such as teenager driving a parent’s car or driving on a highway paid for at taxpayer expense.
▪ Privileges can be lost due to abuse by self or others.
▪ Privileges can be lost if not exercised.
▪ Privileges can be lost if we elect politicians who restrict our privileges.
▪ Examples of privileges: driving a car, hunting, building a house, engaging in occupations which require licensing such as medicine or law.
▪ Over time, we the people have allowed (sometimes demanded) government to convert some rights to privileges. For example, in times past, anyone could start and run a business or build a house. Today, one must first obtain government permission (a license) and comply with certain laws. In many jurisdictions, owning a firearm is no longer a right. Instead, one must first obtain government permission (a license). Possession of certain types of firearms and accessories (ie machine guns) requires government permission (a license).

Responsibility
▪ Responsibility means accountability.
▪ Responsibility means accepting consequences for one's own actions or inaction.
▪ Responsibility is a duty to control one's own life and behavior.
▪ Responsibility means not blaming others for one’s own failures.
▪ Responsibility means making good decisions.
▪ Responsibility means not expecting or demanding that they are entitled to be a burden upon other persons or on any organization, including the government.
▪ Responsibility means selflessly, voluntarily, and cheerfully helping those who truly need our help (D&C 42:30-31) while rejecting the idea that they can default that responsibility to others or to government. The more selfish a person is, the more that person tends to expect the government to take care of the needy. Jesus gave that responsibility to individuals -- not to the Caesar (the government).
▪ Responsibility means we use our rights and privileges wisely and without infringing the rights and privileges of others. For example, our right of free speech includes the responsibility to not lie. Our privilege to drive or to run a business includes the responsibility to obey the laws related to those activities. Our privilege to hunt does not include a right or privilege to waste game or to be cruel.

Ethics
▪ Ethical behavior is doing what is right and fair and safe.
▪ Being ethical means respecting the rights, privileges, needs, and feelings of others.
▪ Being ethical means obeying laws. Some acts are legal, but still morally wrong and therefore unethical.
▪ Being ethical means being consistent with agreed or culturally-established principles of correct moral conduct.

How well people understand these concepts affects how they vote and how they behave. It affects how they expect and allow government to behave and treat our rights.

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee. — Hosea 4:6

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all. — John F. Kennedy

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. — Thomas Jefferson

Less than half the people in our republic pay all the income taxes in this nation. The rest of the people simply consume the services (free health care, food stamps, housing subsidies, etc.) funded by the rest. These people have no "skin in the game" when judging the ethical fitness of politicians and dependency-enabling programs they legislate. They (and the big-government politicians they vote for) call these services "entitlements" as if non-producers and under-producers are entitled to the fruits of the labors of others. Expecting others to involuntarily pay the bills (healthcare, housing, food, etc.) of non-producers, especially through government programs, conflicts with the teaching of Jesus (D&C 42:42). Doing so robs the recipient of his soul and the taxpayer of the blessings of charity.

The poor have been used as human shields behind which the expanding welfare state can advance. The goal is not to keep the poor from starving but to create dependency, because dependency translates into votes for politicians who play Santa Claus. We have all heard the old saying about how giving a man a fish feeds him for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Independence makes for a healthier society, but dependency is what gets votes for politicians. For politicians, giving a man a fish every day of his life is the way to keep getting his vote. 'Entitlement' is just a fancy word for dependency." --economist Thomas Sowell

The people and their representatives must come to understand the differences between rights and privileges and responsibilities and the differences between charity and government "entitlements" (handouts). Only when they do so will the needy rise out of multi-generation dependence on the dole -- which they erroneously view as their right.

The language Congress uses to describe their spending is corrupt beyond redemption. Think about the term entitlement. If one American is entitled to something he didn't earn, where in the world does Congress get the money? It's not Santa or the Tooth Fairy. The only way Congress can give one American a dollar is to first take it from another American. Therefore, an entitlement is a congressionally given right for one American to live at the expense of another. In other words, Congress forcibly uses one American to serve the purposes of another American. As such, it differs in degree, but not kind, from that uglier part of our history where black people were forcibly used to serve the purposes of their slave masters. — Walter E Williams, Economist

Americans, in general, are generous people -- the most charitable on Earth -- a direct result of our founders' understanding of, and efforts to protect, our rights as well as our Judeo-Christian heritage. Americans are being deprived of the opportunity to be as charitable and they could be due to the fact that far too much of the fruits of their labors are diverted by force (taxation) to provide for intentional non-producers, intentional underachievers, and the bureaucracies that support their slothfulness. That is what happens when rights are infringed and privileges become rights.

Meme Busters: Osama Bin Laden Edition

Anyone who has to announce to the world that he made a "gutsy call" didn't.

It takes absolutely no unusual courage to, in wartime, kill an enemy by proxy from the comfort of one of the most secure buildings on Earth -- with his entire staff urging him to make a decision!

Armed pilots vs hijackers

Last weekend, a Yemeni man shrieking "Allahu akbar!" at the top of his lungs more than 30 times rushed the cockpit door twice intending to take down American Airlines Flight 1561 and kill everyone on board.

Despite a massive transportation and homeland security apparatus which defies the 4th Amendment, Rageh Ahmed Mohammed al-Murisi was able to board and attack a US airliner! He had no keys, no luggage, $47 cash, two curious posted checks totaling $13,000, and a trove of expired and current state IDs from New York and California. He is young, male, brought no family with him, had no job or other discernible income, and hails from the terror-coddling nation of Yemen whose citizens warrant increased scrutiny by DHS.

Meanwhile, 90-year-old American grandmothers get virtual strip searches and Miss USA gets gropped!

Secretary Janet "The System Worked" Napolitano's "security" failed again. (Nobody knows why she hasn't yet been fired in disgrace.) Only the heroes of Flight 1561 who refused to sit silent learned the proper 9/11 lesson and brought al-Murisi down. The only effective homeland security begins and ends with a culture of self-defense.

Part of that self-defense is armed pilots: Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDOs). There have been many calls for enhancing the FFDO program. So far, most of these calls appear to have been ignored. I am convinced that the most urgent FFDO program enhancement is international carry of the FFDO's firearm. Congress and the Whitehouse must establish immediate worldwide carry for FFDOs completely unencumbered by bureaucratic and political red tape either by US or foreign governments. There is no room for compromise! Until that happens, all flights in US airspace and all flights flown by US carriers and all flights carrying even one US citizen must have inflight protection by US Air Marshalls.

Jewish law on self-defense

Rabbi Dovid Bendory at Picatinny Army Arsenal, May 5, 2011: