Socialism in America: Grasshoppers and Greenhouses

Imagine with me, an early spring morning in a meadow. You can feel the breeze dancing along your face. The sun is sparkling, birds above you serenade their mother earth, and the smell of flowers is beginning to blossom all around you. As you look about, you can see two trees standing a way off. One is hidden by the walls of a greenhouse, and the other stands off another twenty yards or so. The tree in the greenhouse is a gorgeous silver oak, well cared for and healthy. This tree is under the constant care of an old gardener. The greenhouse provides the perfect climate for the tree. This tree has all the water and nutrients provided by the kind old man. It is well pruned, with soft, beautiful bark.

The other tree has never been cared for in it’s life. As you walk toward it, you can see the gnarled branches and scarred bark of the old sycamore. It cannot even compete with the beauty of the Oak. But you can see that this tree has succeeded in its quest for survival and strength. Through all the winds and rains, scorching and freezing, this Sycamore has grown by its own might. Though it is not physically appealing, it is strong and self-reliant. While the Oak in all it’s beauty is totally dependent on the old man.

As you stand there, the days begin to go by. Spring turns to summer, into Autumn, and now at last it is winter. The Oak is hidden away from the storm in comfortable protection by the gardener, while the Sycamore is fighting for it’s life. It is just like all the winters before. Each sheet of snow brings added strength to the old tree, as the Oak sits in it’s happy warmth, not heeding the weather at all.

But that was the same day the gardener died.

There is a type of freedom that comes from being self-reliant. Being able to produce and own your property and use it as you choose is a beautiful concept. Thomas Jefferson wrote it into the Declaration of Independence. He called it the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Which he originally wrote as the right to property. Being self-reliant and owning ones own property are ways of living happy lives. Sadly, America no longer protects our rights to freely pursue our own enterprises.

In painful contrast to the beauty capitalism offers, Americans now experience more of the ugly economic system we know as socialism. Socialism is defined by the merriam-webster dictionary as “a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism.” Allow me to direct your attention to a list discussed in congress in 1963. This was a list of “current communist goals” to make America into a socialist economy which, by definition, allows for communism to enter the government. The list, found in the Appendix to the Congressional Record, January 10th, 1963, comprises 45 goals to make America socialist. Out of 45 things proposed by communists to replace that beautiful system with socialism, the only one which has not come to pass is the dismantling of the FBI. In the last 51 years our nation has become exactly what socialists wanted it to become, if not directly by the government, then indirectly by the attitudes of the people.

Some of my listeners may not be convinced that simply a “socialist attitude” is a dangerous thing. Allow me to share a parody of Aesop’s fable of the ant and the grasshopper:

An ant had spent all summer working hard to prepare for the winter. He built his home and filled it with stores of food. Meanwhile, his friend the grasshopper just played the months away, never preparing for cold.

When winter came, all the grasshoppers had no food. So they elected a leader who would take care of them. This leader took half of what the ants had prepared, and redistributed it to all the grasshoppers. No one starved that winter.

The next summer, as the ant watched the grasshopper play, he decided that he would go play as well. After all, the government would take care of him. But almost everyone else thought the same thing. When winter came, there was not enough food, and everyone starved.

This is a way of thinking that stems from socialist ideas, and it obviously doesn’t bode well for the ants or the grasshoppers. Winston Churchill made this point in October of 1945 in the debate, Demobilisation, in which he said the following, and I quote; “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” It is imperative that people learn what is happening around them, so they will know what to do when the time comes. The way we can prepare for the political winter on the horizon is by education. It is by teaching the citizen that it is the citizen’s job to keep his country in check. To teach that in a free republic, it is the people’s job to insure the government does not overstep its bounds. But most people don’t maintain that control. Let me tell you about the 2012 presidential election.

In November of 2012 The United States Census Bureau published a statistical election report. This report detailed the eligible voter number with the number who actually voted for president. The results are depressing to say the least. Out of an estimated 319,154,900 citizens only 181,918,293 voted. That is a total of 57 percent. Almost half the people who claim the privileges of being American did not vote for the leader of their nation. According to information also supplied by the United States Census Bureau, if we were to rearrange the population, moving those who voted into the most populated states, and those who did not vote into the less populous, in the 2012 election, 39 entire states worth of people did not vote for their president. They didn't care about their rights, or their liberties. They just played all summer and waited for the gardener to care for them.

We each have an inalienable responsibility to defend our unalienable rights. It is not the grasshoppers job to feed us. We have not been guardians of our liberty! We stand at a crossroads. What we do now will determine the freedom and happiness of our posterity. If we continue the path we have begun, we will, in just a few short years, have to look our children in the eyes and tell them why we didn't fight for them.  It’s a very dark future, but there is a way to right our wrongs.

Consider the American Revolution. There was a great amount of complacency and a feeling of indifference towards England pervaded.  But there was a man by the name of Thomas Paine. He believed that if we would be free, that we must stand up and separate from Great Britain. But did he stand idly by? No, he wrote out the cause for which he so earnestly believed. People were ready to listen to him, and when he published his pamphlet, Common Sense, it became an all-time bestseller in one month. He educated the masses on his vision, and only several months following his pamphlet’s publication, the Declaration of Independence was signed, bringing his vision to fruition.

Like Paine had the power to change the course of history, each of us carries the potential to change the path toward socialism down which our country is heading. But simply because we can change doesn't cut it. These flaws which we have permitted to slip into our nation must be fixed if we wish to posses the happiness found in being self-reliant. We not only can educate, but we must! The first step is not just to tell others, but to act ourselves. We must be the ones to change. It is our roots which must grow deep to make our trees strong. Prepare for the winter to come. The grasshoppers have entered the White House. I urge you to reach out, and like Thomas Paine, build up yourself, and build up those around you. Socialism has taken root in America, and it is time to cut down that tree.

Secession: Is It Constitutional?

Is it constitutional for states to secede from the United States? Many have argued for and against it, but no real clear answer has appeared. To explore this topic, we must first define secession. In the political science section of the Colombia Encyclopedia, it defines secession as: “formal withdrawal from an association by a group discontented with the actions or decisions of that association.” 

We have to realize that there is a difference between revolution and secession. Secession is defined as peaceful or formal withdrawal, whereas revolution is when you have to fight to be independent. Revolution is what happened to America when they broke away from Britain, and revolution is what happened during the Civil War after the Confederacy tried to secede. The circumstance of secession is different from the circumstances during colonial times. Before America broke off from Great Britain, they tried to change the corrupt government, but were not given representation to do so. That is why it was necessary for them to break from Britain. America didn’t secede from Great Britain, because their break off wasn’t peaceful. It was revolution. The same thing happened during the Civil War. We have to realize that just because mankind has a certain right doesn’t mean that right will be protected. It doesn’t really matter if secession is a God-given right to states, because if a nation is so corrupt that a state wants to secede, then that nation will not let that state secede, and revolution will happen. It is the job of governments to keep their people happy. 

Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution states: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” It goes on to state many more powers that are not granted to the states, but to the Federal Government alone. All are powers regulated by a federal government. Some have argued that if it was constitutional for states to secede, the Constitution wouldn’t be so bold on what states couldn’t do. Anti-secessionists argue that by mentioning these powers, the Founders were trying to say that it was illegal for states to secede. The argument has come up that the Constitution doesn’t specifically mention secession, and because of this, there is no reason to assume that it is constitutional for states to secede; that the Constitution simply doesn’t give them that power. 

Another argument that anti-secessionists have brought up comes from Article 7 of the Constitution. It states, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.” Before colonies became states and joined the United States, they had to enter into an agreement to become a part of the union by ratifying the Constitution. The people of the United States can leave whenever they want and move to Canada or Mexico or whatever other country or place they desire to reside in. However, many have argued that the states are bound to stay a part of the Union because they ratified the Constitution. 

With this argument comes a quote by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase (it’s long, but it’s all very significant to the point he’s trying to make): “The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? ... When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.” 

What is the truth? It’s hard to say, but I’m not sure if these arguments are completely valid. Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution mentions powers not given to states, but these are all powers that are meant to be given to a federal government. The argument doesn’t make sense because if a state seceded, it would become a federal government in and of itself, and therefore it would have rights to exercise powers that are meant for a federal government. It is very difficult to know whether or not secession is constitutional because it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so that is a bit of a mystery. It’s also very hard to decipher unalienable rights of states, because the circumstance of state rights is different from that of human rights. 

The Declaration of Independence states: “…that when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government…it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” 

Is secession constitutional? That is a question that I do not have the answer to. However, the question “can states secede?” isn’t as important as the question “should states secede?” I strongly believe that this nation was meant to stay together. In the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution, the Founders were trying to make it clear that they wanted to create a nation that fixed itself, not a nation that broke itself into pieces. Secessionists have argued that the Founders believed in the right to secession because they made the states sovereign. On the other hand, I think the reason why the Founders invested so much power in the states and the people was so that when the government became corrupt, the people could fix it. Because the people and the states in the United States are sovereign, the Founders didn’t want them to be able to break off from America—rather, to fix America when it became corrupt. These are the principles that our nation was founded on. 

Fifty-five men came together at Independence Hall in the summer of 1787 to create something that had never before been created—a nation that lasted. They came to create a nation that would stand the test of time; a nation with a government that was not corrupt and not oppressive that would allow for it to last for hundreds of years. That is exactly what they accomplished: they created a chosen nation that has remained intact up until even today. During Civil War times, Lincoln was trying to keep together a nation that was being broken apart. He said a lot about secession, and I don’t know what he believed as far as that goes, but I do know that it was his mission to keep this nation together, and that’s what he did. 

As we see America crumbling and the Constitution being stepped on, there’s one thing we have to remember: united we will stand, and divided we will fall. This is God’s chosen nation. This land is a free land. We can’t just escape America’s problems. We are here to fix them.

The Theory of Thymos: Plato’s Prediction

People are strange. Throughout all the ages of man, armies have wasted their lives going to war over things as frivolous as an apple as well as many who kill themselves and others in the name of a divine being that they have never even seen. At the same time, many heroes have given their lives in protecting liberty and standing up for justice and freedom. What could cause people to make decisions such as these? The ancient Greeks believed that there was a part within each of us that caused us to make irrational decisions like these. This was called Thymos. Plato wrote extensively on the topic. He said that all forms of society are born from this philosophy of Thymos, and I agree. Upon examination we can find that political initiative, the life blood of a free society, flows from the attributes of Thymos. Likewise, if we do not control this place within, we will develop a weaker more tyrannical society.

The Thymos that dwells within each of us is the seat of our passions. It has been defined as that area of the soul where feelings of pride, indignation, greed, and shame as well as those of kindness, charity, empathy, courage, and nobility are located and ruled. The Thymos is a force of progression. It is not content with where it is now. It wants to grow, to become greater. If left unchecked, it will even push a person to dominate or enslave another. It also drives many people, especially men, to seek glory in what they do and a legacy for others to remember them by. This is an essential part of a human being.

Plato compared the human soul to a chariot with the charioteer and two horses. The first horse is called Eros. This horse was not well bred, hard to control, and is represented as a black horse. The second is Thymos, of royal breed, but rather prideful and difficult. He is a white horse. The charioteer’s name is Logos. He is the master of these horses and has the potential to control them, or to destroy the whole chariot by his lack of control. The meaning of these three Greek words are Appetite (Eros), Passion (Thymos), and Logic or Reason (Logos). Combined, these three function to make us each who we are. To find the key to understanding Plato’s idea of the soul (and how Thymos works into it), we must look at the other two parts of the chariot.

Plato's Analogy of the Soul

Thymos is the part of our soul which allows us growth. However, depending on which of the other two agents it listens to will determine whether it grows to a healthy and strong Thymos or becomes a deformed and weak force for evil. When Thymos begins to act like Eros (or we allow our passions to become dependent on our carnal appetites), it will grow weak and unhealthy. In contrast, the Godly capacity each of us has to reason and think for ourselves allows us to subjugate both our passions and our appetites to work as a team. When we master all three of these fundamentals of the soul, we exhibit pure greatness. Men in this station will often demand respect, and are they very dignified. When this state of being is achieved, we receive a greater sense of what we feel is right and wrong, our understanding of justness (the primitive form of justice) quickens, and we begin to get a sense of what we want the world around us to become.

This sense of justness brings with it a need for action. When people with strong Thymos see unjustness being exhibited towards themselves and to those with whom they are associated, they cannot help but stand up for that. When there are enough people who rise to fight this unjustness, no matter what the price, there will be a change in the society to match the new active majority’s view of justness. This massive-scale change is exactly what took place in America with the Civil Rights movement. This now becomes the new law of justice, and it will remain so until a new active majority overrules that in the name of their perception of “justness,” ad infinitum. This is the key to political action. A persons natural sense of what is “just” and what is not. But this is not always a positive, improving concept. When the active majority decides that what is “just” is not in fact true or eternal “justice,” then the society is headed for a dark period.

The first way that a Thymos can become twisted is if it is allowed to fall into step with Eros; our appetites were not meant to control our passions. This occurs when reason steps aside and is not firm in its control of Thymos. Thymos then begins to see the “freedom” of following ones basest instincts. When one totally logical person loses his or her passions to things like eating, sleeping, and amusement, they become totally immoral and selfish. This is just the opposite of what is necessary for a freedom reform. The sense of “justness” caused in this type of person will change as fast as their animal instincts will. If the active majority consists of these people, they will have an extremely unstable foundation.

Another way a Thymos can become socially destructive is when you feed it but don’t control it. By hooking that beast to your chariot unbridled, you are asking for destruction. This type of Thymos is like a unkept fire. It will only grow and consume everything around it. When this type of Thymos develops inside of someone, they lose all the positive attributes that used to be a part of it. All that is left is pride, indignation, and greed. This person, when insulted or not recognized as much as they would like, will lash out in indignation because of their pride, or the shame they feel because of the truth shown them. They won’t only fight back, they will begin to rally others around them, lighting others on fire as well. As this begins to happen, greed sets in and those people begin to seek for power. This is much like what happened in the French Revolution. People with this mindset will have a very oppressive idea of “justness” and they will normally use force to instagate their idea of justice.

The last dangerous type of Thymos is actually not dangerous in and of itself. Its presence makes it so that the other two types can function, making this, in my opinion, the most lethal of the three. This is a domesticated Thymos. Thymotic behavior is essential for liberty and freedom because it invites all to stand up for what they believe. It is this same behavior that caused early Americans to fight for liberty. When that behavior is removed, you have complacency and apathy. This is why the “active” part of any majority is the part that has the power. A person who doesn’t stand for anything will fall for everything. These people might not agree with their immoral leaders, but they won’t do anything about it. When one of those flaming groups of powerseekers begins their quest, these people won’t care what’s happening (as it won’t hurt them). They will be caught in the fire and throw their lives away for a selfish tyrant and a cause to which they don’t even understand or really care about. This is the kind of Thymos that is destroying America as we speak.

Thymos was something greatly understood by ancient peoples throughout the world. It was the source of many great political changes like the Magna Charta, Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. But when not harnessed appropriately it has also led to some of the worst moments of history, times like the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Communist movement. We can see the need to awaken those who don’t have any passion, and to stand up for the true sense of eternal justice. Some have been pushing their personal idea of “justness” upon what we thought was true “justice.” In truth, this process has been in motion for years. We are at a crossroads of freedom and bondage predicted by Plato. I swear that I will take up the reigns of my chariot and guide my passions and appetites down a road towards freedom. I can only hope that you will join with me in this Race for Liberty.

See Plato’s Phaedrus and The Republic for details and sources.

Where Is Your Allegiance?

Every day, students across the country are pledging their allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Little do they often know, however, what the words they are speaking mean. Here are the words to the pledge of allegiance: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

            First of all, I want to stress how important words really are; especially words that come out of our mouths. Our words make up who we are—they are a testimony and reflection of our character and our beliefs. Words make up the vast majority of the communication we have with others. Words can raise people up or tear them down to the ground. Words can change the world for the better or for the worse. Words can have a lasting imprint of the hearts and minds of individuals. Just look back at the past and you’ll see the evidence of the power of words. Leaders of this world—Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King Jr., Charles Dickens, and Jesus Christ, just to name a few—have influenced thousands of people throughout world history through their words. What we say has a much higher importance than we think it does.

            Since what we say matters, it is significant that we pay close attention to our words and know what they mean. So, what does the pledge of allegiance really mean? Not only are you speaking words when you put your hand over your heart, but you are pledging loyalty and devotion to everything that the stars and stripes stand for. Think about the words. “I pledge allegiance to the flag…and to the republic for which it stands.” What is the republic that is being referred to? Most people would say the United States of America. However, what is the United States of America? Are you pledging your allegiance to the country you live in today and its government officials? Are you pledging your allegiance to some fictional American utopia where everything is perfect? Or are you pledging allegiance to the republic for which that flag stands for and the principles of that republic which are laid out in its founding documents?

Kids do it every day, not even realizing what it means

            One thing that is important to remember is this: perhaps the United States cannot even be referred to as a republic anymore. It is evident that by the hour we are becoming more and more socialist because of our education system, government-funded programs, the way this country is run, and the corrupt leaders of this nation. God isn’t even allowed in schools. Kids in schools aren’t taught about the founding fathers and the constitution anymore. The president of the United States is gaining more and more power. The government is taking from the rich and giving to the poor; thousands are living on food stamps and government funds. This is not the American Republic. This is not the American dream. We were once a republic, that’s for sure, but we are far from that today.

            So, how can you be pledging your allegiance to your country when your country is not a republic? You can’t say that you’re pledging allegiance to a republic and then turn around and say that you’re pledging your allegiance to the United States. It’s important to remember that we were once “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” but we have fallen away from that somewhere along the way, and that is our ultimate goal: to become again what we once were.

            When I say those words, I’m pledging my allegiance to a republic, not to the United States. No, I’m pledging my allegiance to the real America: the America that was built upon a sure foundation of eternal principles; compiled together in an inspired document by patriotic, God-fearing men who desired to show the world and generations after them what true freedom means. I’m pledging my allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and the principles that are found in that document. I’m pledging my allegiance to my country—the essence of the United States of America; the land of the free, the home of the brave, and the land of opportunity. America isn’t a nation ruled by Barack Obama and his cabinet. America is a republic of the people, by the people, for the people; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Technological Advancements: Are We Really Advancing?

Jerusalem, Egypt, Rome. These were three of the most abundant and advanced empires in the history of the world. However, they all met their downfall; many of them more than once. Do you remember Pompeii? This city was one of the richest of the empire of Rome. Yet, it was destroyed in a matter of hours by a nearby “mountain,” which would have never been expected to erupt. Yet even after this volcanic eruption, the people came back to the city. Why would you come back to a city of desolation? They came for their gold, their jewels, and their precious things. After coming back, these people were killed almost instantly by the pyroclastic flow of Mount Vesuvius. This story captures the image of just how reliant these people were on material possessions.
There is another nation that has been considered (and probably is) the most technologically advanced and abundant nation in the history of mankind. That nation is theUnited States of America. This nation is the greatest nation in the whole world. However, it may be safe to say that we are on our way down. Disaster may one day strike, and we will have nothing. We will suffer because of the materialism of our society. Nevertheless, our society may not be as reliant on material possessions as it is on technology.
Technology is great. The technology that we have today in America is amazing. Our society is more advanced than Rome could have ever dreamed of. We have the telephone. We can communicate with people who are thousands of miles away. We have television. We have the internet. We can watch things that are happening thousands of miles away with just the click of a mouse or the push of a button at the exact moment that those things are happening. There is so much good happening with technology. It helps the world out somuch, and there are many Americans who know how to limit their time on technology. However, technology is way too overused and abused.

In order to really advance this world, the next generation
must learn to rely less on technology

The bottom line is this: Americans are too reliant today on technology. This reliance is applicable to many forms of technology; for example, television. The New York Daily News reported in 2012 that the average American watches 34 hours of television a week. That’s almost 5 hours of TV each day. The phone is another huge problem. The Pew Research Internet Project reported that, as of January of 2014, over 90% of Americans have cell phones, and that shouldn’t be a surprising stat. Also, according to a study done by the Entertainment Software Association in 2013, 58% of Americans play video games regularly. How much more time can you waste? Americans are so reliant on technology, and they depend on it for their information, communication, and entertainment.
This reliance is especially true for the youth of today; for my generation. Everybody has their I-pods, their cell phones, and their internet access. These are great tools that could be used for so much good, but instead they are addictive. If you take a teenager’s phone away, they are not going to be happy, and they are not going to know how to function, because they spend so much time texting, browsing the internet, and playing worthless games. The worst part of all of this is that it is happening at a younger and younger age. It pains me to see six-year-olds with their touch screen phones, playing games and wasting time when they could be socially interacting with their peers and their family. A lot of parents are no help to this cause. Many of them, in fact, are quite the opposite—they give technologic devices to these kids to keep them entertained, so that they won’t be bothered and they won’t have to deal with problems that the kids have.
With this reliance on technology, there comes another problem: immorality. This is the most dangerous of all problems within a nation. Pornography is one of the biggest issues. The Department of Women’s Services and Resources at BYU reported that the pornography industry, which is driven by technology and the internet, makes over 57 billion dollars each year; 12 billion coming from the United States. 12% of the total websites on the internet are dedicated to pornography. This is a huge problem. Immorality is the single most influential factor in the downfall of an empire. This was true with Rome, Jerusalem, Egypt, and so many others. Wickedness brings natural disasters upon people. That is why Mount Vesuviuserupted: God must punish those who ignore His laws and value material possessions over His commands.
So what really matters? Once disaster strikes and technology is no longer available, what is left? The youth of today, in order to survive in times of crisis, must value more and be more reliant upon things like skills, talents, and education; things that they will always have and things that will bless others. They need to be able to find entertainment, information, and ways of communication without relying on technology. This is what matters. In order to value these things more, the youth of today need to spend less time with technology, and they need to spend more time face-to-face with other people; improving their relationships with them more than improving their relationships with their screens.
We have technology because the United States is so great. People forget why this nation is so great. We are great because God is with us, and God will not be with those who violate His laws. In order to avoid Rome, we need to limit our technology and influence others to limit their use. I’m not saying, by any means, that we must abolish our use of technology altogether. These devices can be used for so much good if we use them the right way at the right times. We just need to make sure that we are doing that. Only then can this nation continue to be the great nation that it has been throughout its history. As author Aldous Huxely once wrote, “Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards.” We can’t let this happen.

Should It Be the Government's Job to Try to Keep People Healthy?

The majority of Americans would agree that health has value. It is also evident that what we put into our bodies affects our health; that is, food, fluids, etc. One thing is sure: many Americans are not where they should be in terms of health. Health is essential to life, so the majority of individuals would agree that health is valuable.
What is the reason for government? There are many arguments for purposes or roles of government, and one of them is definitely this: to protect its people’s unalienable (or God-given) rights.
In 1776, Thomas Jefferson was drafting the Declaration of Independence. This document would include a list of things that King George did that injured the colonies, a statement declaring independence from Great Britain, and many fundamental governmental principles that this nation was founded on. As Jefferson was writing the document’s first draft, he originally penned these words: “men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and property." This word didn’t end up in the final Declaration, but Jefferson and many others would agree that property is a fundamental God-given right. John Locke even said so.
How does the principle of the unalienable right to property apply to our bodies? Our bodies are the ultimate element of our property; one of God’s great gifts to us. God has given us freedom to do what we please with our bodies, so we should be able to decide what we put into our bodies. These are self-evident truths. The government is here to secure our rights, not to infringe upon them. The power to tell us what to put into our bodies derives not from the government, but from God. Since God has given us each agency to do what we want with our bodies, the government should not be controlling what we eat.
In John Stossel’s Fox News hour, “Myths, Lies, and Complete Stupidity,” he shows multiple examples of ways that the government is infringing on our right to choose what we eat. For example, the mayor of New York City has outlawed drinking cups 32 oz. or larger from businesses that he can control. This is outrageous! First of all, this is restraining the right of the people to partake of what they desire. This is an unalienable right that should not be taken away from any person in the land of opportunity.
Of course, just as all other rights are, this right only goes so far that it does not infringe on the rights of others. Many substances cause individuals to do things that they wouldn’t normally do without those substances. For this reason, many drugs and other substances are outlawed in theUnited States, and this is how it should be. The government has a duty to secure the rights of all of its citizens, not just the rights of a few. A right is not a right if it takes freedom away from another. The government has a duty to outlaw certain substances in order to secure the rights of the sum of its people.

Thomas Jefferson originally penned the
words, "Life, Liberty, and Property" when he
was writing the Declaration of Independence

 The second reason why the New York mayor’s plan is outrageous is this: it hardly makes a positive influence on the people that it affects. Instead of just buying one cup, people have to use two, or they must find another means to drink as much as they previously were. People still drink the same amount of fluid that they’ve always been drinking, and for this reason, this law is only a nuisance. It only makes life harder for individuals and companies.
Finally, this law is outrageous because it infringes on the rights of companies and entities that it affects. Companies should have the right to sell whatever size of substance that they think is most efficient. If that means that companies are selling ten gallon cups, let it be. Once again, government is construed to secure the rights of the people, not to tell the people how they need to live their lives.
Much has been done by the government to infringe on the rights of the people, and it is the people’s job to stop this and keep it from happening, just like the Declaration of Independence states: “…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” We need to get this country back to the principles that it was founded on. Health is good, but freedom is better.
It is self-evident, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, that our Creator has endowed us with the unalienable right to property. It is our choice to do what we want with our property as long as we aren’t hurting others. It is okay for the government to promote health, but it is not right for the government to try to keep people healthy. And that’s a self-evident truth.

Welcome to America Farm, Comrades!

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." George Orwell - Animal Farm

  Anybody who has read Animal Farm by George Orwell, will surely remember this statement found in the last chapter. We all remember reading those words and thinking, "More equal? How can one animal be more equal than another?" And after thinking it over for a moment or so we continued reading the book. And as we closed the book we then pondered that line again, but this time in context. We find ourselves asking, “More equal? Is it actually possible for one animal to be more equal than another?" and then the thought, "Could one group of humans be more equal than another?" Later I was reading it again, looking for the path that lead to this Unequal Equality, what I found stunned me. The government control of education, the complacent working class, and the use of a common enemy were the major things that caused Animal Farm to turn from it's vision of plenty, into the hideous Manor Farm. Those three things struck me because of their similarities to modern America.

  "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." (George Orwell, 1984), Orwell alluded to this idea in Animal Farm as the pigs would change the past to fit how they wanted the future to be. The process of changing the past was simple-control what the animals learn and you will control how they view the world, past and present. All that was required to generate those results was for the government to take control of the education. Similarly, Washington has been taking more and more ownership over our lives, especially education. The Common Core initiative, for example, is removing all local authority on education. Those in favor of the program would tell you that it is a purely optional program, state to state. But our Federal Government saw that as an opportunity to gain more control over education. After all, it's much easier to brainwash a nation when one group of bureaucrats determines what the entire nation's minds are filled with. It is scary to watch Orwell's prophecy of 1984 and the allegory of Animal Farm taking shape in our own government. The even scarier part is to see the brainwashed masses sitting idle as their government slowly but surely steals away their liberties, one pail of milk and one innocent puppy at a time.

  The key to keeping a society brainwashed is to keep them from asking questions. That way, when Napoleon comes in the night and steals the milk to put in the pigs mash nobody asks, or even wonders. If they do ask questions about it, Squealer quickly has a press conference to clear up the matter, dismissing all suspicion. And because pigs control the way people think, that is accepted as the sure truth. Likewise, when a bunch of cronies on Wall Street need help because of their errors, and people start asking questions (as we saw with Occupy Wall Street) the government stands up and blames the Economy. Because we don't think anymore, everyone accepts that as the sure truth. Back in Animal Farm we see the animals doing what they're told, because the pigs know better than everyone else. Comparing this to America, we've seen our Nation forming an Aristocracy, and because the politicians are so much smarter than we are, we neglect our responsibility to control them, and they run rampant. The worst example in Animal Farm is when Napoleon deceives the uneducated. He blamed everything and anything that went wrong, on the infamous terrorist, Snowball!

  In 2001 several hijacked planes shook the way we see the world. The terrorists were at fault then and the "terrorists" are at fault for most everything now. Back at the farm, the sudden destruction of the windmill was deemed Snowball's fault, and then "Snowball" was blamed for just about everything else. Now, I am not saying that 9/11 was not the terrorists fault, nor am I saying that many other things are not their fault. But I am saying that in both America and in Animal Farm the current leaders, Bush and Napoleon, used their common enemies to their advantage. Napoleon immediately heightened security, and cracked down on all those who may have been in league with Snowball. He used this increase of security to cover and justify many very un-Animalist actions. In striking similarity, Bush heightened out national security with the Patriot Act. That security has not been used as we were told it was intended to be, and has been used more to spy on and keep it's own citizens in line than anything else. Since then our government has done even more un-Constitutional things in the name of security and to protect us from "the terrorists". We only have to look to Orwell to see what we are to expect to come from that.

  Orwell had vision. He understood the natural human mind, and did us all a favor by writing a fairy-story to show not only what had happened in the past, but what would surely happen again if we are not careful. Because of our lack to maintain local control of education, there is a sharp decrease in our nations thinking and questioning ability. As a result our nation has become more complacent and stupid than ever before. Now our government is using our common enemy the "terrorists" to pave the way for our demise.Comrades, even as we speak, our government is becoming more equal than the rest of us. Washington has moved into the Manor and the Presidency is putting on Mr. Jones' clothes.

Kansas House Bill 2453

Is Kansas House Bill 2453 a good policy? Why have so many states considered legislation similar to it?

        If a murderer came up to you and asked you for money so that he could go kill somebody, would you give him the money? Of course not! Would it be right for the government to have power to force you to give them money? No!

        This is obviously a very extreme example, but the same principle applies to Kansas House Bill 2453. This bill would allow businesses to refuse service to a people because they are gay or lesbian. Is this bill a good policy? It may not seem like one, but let me give you the whole story first.

        Kansas House Bill 2453 is meant to protect the religious freedom of businesses, business owners, and employees. It states that no business or person will be forced to serve another. I think that the biggest problem with this bill not being passed is the people being denied their rights. One of the most basic unalienable rights that each person is endowed with is the liberty of conscience or religion. You have a right to choose right (or wrong). You have a right to refrain from doing wrong. Included in this right is the right to refrain from supporting others in their wrong decisions, because to many people, supporting someone else in doing wrong is doing wrong.

This right is the most important right to mankind. This agency to choose right or wrong was endowed to each person by their Creator, and it cannot be taken away by any man. However, just like any other right, this right can only go so far as to not infringe upon the rights of others. You can choose wrong, but if you’re hurting someone else by choosing wrong, then that person’s right to choose right is being infringed upon. Gay marriage is wrong. That is truth. The Bible says it, and God has declared it from the creation of the world. Adam and Eve were not Adam and Steve. People can be gay if they want, but they can’t be infringing on other people’s rights by being gay. Let me give you a few examples to illustrate what I am trying to say.

The LA Times reported in 2014 that a New Mexico photography company was fined thousands of dollars for “discriminating” when they refused to shoot a lesbian wedding.[1] This is absurd! Any reasonable person can surely see that. Keep in mind that these are private businesses. Private businesses should be able to serve whoever they desire, and they should be able to refuse service to any person that they want. The government should not regulate that.

The biggest problem here is the ignorance of Americans on what is morally right

Another instance of this happened in December of 2013 when ABC News reported[2]that an administrative law judge ruled that a Colorado baker that refused to make a cake for a gay couple (a cake that would not have manikins of a man and a woman on the top, but manikins of a man and a man) broke the law, and would have to face fines for refusing these gays. Yet another instance of this happened in Oregon, when a bakery was forced to relocate because it refused to serve a lesbian couple.[3]

Come on, really? This is just ridiculous. The blame for this problem needs to go to the ignorance of Americans. Kansas House Bill 2453 never passed. It was shot down by the Kansas Senate. However, many other states have considered legislation similar to it. Why is this even important? To tell you the truth, I can’t thing of a more significant subject to discuss. Many people in this world view choosing the right and exercising their right to conscience or religion more important than their very lives. If our lives aren’t important, then tell me something that is. This subject is soimportant.

That is the very reason why so many other states have considered legislation similar to this one. CNN reported in 2014 that seven other states—Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Mississippi,Oklahoma, Idaho, and Arizona, respectively—have considered legislation similar to Kansas House Bill 2453.[4] However, none of these considerations have done anything. No other bills with this same policy have been passed save one, and that bill came from Arizona.

This bill that was passed in Arizona would allow businesses to discriminate against virtually anybody from gays to red t-shirt wearers. This may seem extreme, but really, a business should be able to serve and refrain from serving whoever they desire. If you own your own business, you should be able to refrain from serving people with red t-shirts if you so desire. I don’t see why you would want to do that, but you should be able to. Even the Arizona bill, though, never went into effect because of the ignorance of politicians. The governor of Arizona vetoed the bill shortly after it was passed, saying that it was “poorly worded, and could result in unintended and negative consequences.”[5]Unbelievable.

This policy has been considered by so many other states because it is such an issue right now. There are a lot more gays and lesbians right now in the world because of the wickedness of the world right now and the influence of wrong. This is a corrupt world. Also, many circumstances have taken place to get people interested in this topic. Some examples of this have already been mentioned, but there are more. Consider Utah, for example. Just recently, a federal judge came in and overturned amendment 3 of the Utah Constitution, which states that marriage shall be defined as between a man and a woman. This appeal is currently on hold, so it is up in the air right now. People are picking sides, and many are choosing the side that is morally incorrect.

How can we fix this problem? So much of this country has already been led astray. Is it even possible to eliminate the problem? Perhaps not fully, but we can do something, just like so many people before us have. We need to fight for our rights and defend our religious freedom, not physically, but through our words and our ideas. We need a revolution; not a bloody one but one of thoughts and ideas.

---

[1] Paresh, Dave. “What's behind Arizona plan to let businesses refuse to serve gays?” LA Times.February 22, 2014. <http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/22/nation/la-na-nn-arizona-gays-sb-1062-20140222#ixzz2uHqip2nH>

[2] Fields, Liz. “Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings.” ABC News.December 7, 2013. <http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/story?id=21136505>

[3] Hallowell, Billy. “Baker Who Lost Shop After Refusing Gay Couple’s Wedding Cake Has Surprise Reaction to Ongoing Attacks: ‘My Eternal Home Is What Matters’.” The Blaze. September 5, 2013. <http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/05/burn-in-hell-you-racist-pigs-christian-baker-who-refused-to-make-lesbian-couples-wedding-cake-details-creepy-alleged-break-in-ongoing-challenges/>

[4] Whitaker, Matthew C. “Arizona's shameful 'right to discriminate' bill.” CNN News. February 22, 2014. <http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/22/opinion/whitaker-arizona-law/>

[5] Serwer, Adam. “States fight to push anti-gay bills. But will they pass?” MSN News. February 20, 2014. <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/states-push-anti-gay-bills-will-they-pass>