Rally the Nation

[GregoryR]

This information contained in this document is intended to be non-denominational in nature in order that it can be adopted by a multitude of groups. As we seek to reach all good people in how we are to govern our society we must reflect correct principles. As people live correctly they will discover truth more readily. In order to oppose evil we must promote good. People who oppose truth do not want to hear the truth therefore this document will expose false truths and declare the reality and true nature of correct principles.

Preparing Society for the Future
In preparing our society to achieve the greatness of which it is capable let us learn from the past and espouse those ideals and practices which have proven their worth, which have elevated us beyond deceit, corruption, immorality, self-indulgence, greed, lovelessness, godlessness and apathy. Those who pretend that such goals and standards are but utopian drivel, lack the vision to realize that without embracing the qualities that ennoble the human race we are predetermining its course towards chaos and destruction.
These ideals are: honesty, integrity, virtue, charity, freedom, truth and justice.
Our present society continues to justify laws and norms that promote weakness and character degradation. It is time to move forward in a positive manner, to change the global false self-serving environment which has been thrust upon us and rise up and let our voices be heard above the controlled media, to have our schools and institutions of learning teach honest principles, to elect and support men and women of integrity that are not bought and paid for in advance, to eliminate the control of national and international organisations that seek to regulate our freedoms and enact laws that endorse principles that will allow us to realize our potential

“for the people, by the people and of the people, not for some of the people, by some of the people and of some of the people”

Topic #1 The Truth about homosexuality, pornography and sexual deviance
Homosexuality is wrong. It is a deviant practice much the same as pornography, promiscuity and other practises that degrade the sacred nature of human and marital relationships. It is a fact that the strongest of human and marital relationships are built on honesty, integrity and virtue. People have tried to justify these behaviours through freedom of choice. They are free to choose a deviant practice. It is still wrong. They claim that they were born that way, that they need rights to practice their deviant behaviour, that they have to promote their deviant behaviour and that all must accept their deviant behaviour. All of these claims lack honesty, integrity and virtue. Society should never support this type of behaviour as being anything other than what it is.

STATEMENT OF TOLERANCE: Love the person; do not support the deviant behaviour.

THE IDEA IS TO PRESENT A POLICY OR GUIDLINE STATEMENT THAT CAN BE ADOPTED BY ANY GOD FEARING PERSON. THESE CAN ACT AS GOALS OR POLITICAL OBJECTIVES. ESSENTIALLY SOUND COMMON SENSE SOLUTIONS BASED IN TRUTH THAT CAN NOT BE DEFEATED BY THE DEVIOUS FLIMSY ARGUEMENTS OF THE LAWYERS AND LEFT WING POLITICAL ACTIVISTS.

Topic # 2 Majority Rights
Topic # 3 Freedom as it was intended
Topic # 4 An Honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay
Topic # 5 How to be correct and not politically correct
Topic # 6 Education; the key to society

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO MAKE SUGGESTIONS FOR TOPICS, WRITE YOUR OWN STATEMENTS OR ADD IDEAS. THE END GOAL IS TO END UP WITH A POLITICAL DOCUMENT FOR THE PEOPLE.

[GregoryR]

Topic # 2 Majority Rights
The protection of minority rights to the exclusion and the depravation of majority rights has long been a problem of the current democratic system. Laws have been enacted by legislators that should be voted on by the people. It should be the responsibility of local law makers to enact these laws where the public can decide with-in their own communities. The power belongs closer to the people. Laws like the right to pray in school should belong to communities. The power structure needs to be reorganised to reflect this need. The federal government should have the least amount of power.

[tmac]

The concept of "Majority Rights" can be confusing and is often misunderstood, so I'll contribute the following excerpt to the discussion:

Mob-Rule Democracy Versus a Constitutional Republic
Few citizens understand that a democracy and a constitutional republic are not the same. Somewhere along the way, we the people of the United States have been hoodwinked into believing that our Founding Fathers wrote a constitution in order to establish a democracy. This is a gigantic error. Not even the Federalists argued for the establishment of a democracy. In reality, pure democracy—the will of the majority—is little more than mob rule. According to Benjamin Franklin “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

Democracy does not take into account fundamental inalienable, individual rights based on the laws of nature, which cannot and should not be infringed upon, no matter how big the majority. Truth is not determined by majority vote. The Constitution was written to ensure that basic fundamental rights are not violated, no matter what the majority may say.

The word Democracy is not written in any of our foundational documents. There had already been plenty of failed democracies throughout history by the time our nation was formed. It was not the intent of our Founding Fathers to put their lives at risk to start another one. The blood, sweat, tears, and sacrifice of fortunes that followed the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the writing and implementation of the Constitution were all about a new experiment—the experiment of a unique form of government based on the idea that “all men are created equal” and should be left to govern themselves. It was the intent of the Founders that the people retain an inviolable sovereignty and power over a government that was created to serve them—not vice versa—and that fundamental inalienable rights remain sacrosanct no matter what.

Exhaustive and strenuous effort went into the development of a system that would guarantee that those serving in government—especially those serving at the federal level—would not violate the rights of the citizens.

This was the first time in history that the norms of governance would be changed. Rulers had always governed people. Now, in America, the rulers themselves were to be governed by the people. The system was supposed to be replete with checks and balances so as to provide protections, keeping government off the backs of people and guaranteeing individual rights. The absolute and most vital of all rights to be protected was liberty, or, freedom of choice.

It is essential to understand that the intention of the Founding Fathers, even the most ardent Federalists, was to create a constitutional republic. This representative form of government, with its extremely limited powers, was to be confined within the parameters as expressly set forth by the supreme law of the land: the Constitution itself. It was intended that the Constitution be used to hold all levels and branches of government accountable to the people and to create inviolable protections for inalienable, individual rights, including life, liberty, and property.

It is important to understand the critical differences between a constitutional republic and a mob-rule democracy. In a pure democracy, everyone votes and the majority rules. Period. With this pack mentality, if the majority votes to have Larry for lunch, they do. There’s nothing to stop that. There’s no protection against tyranny of the majority in a democracy. Our Pilgrim ancestors tried pure democracy. They also tried having everything in common. Both systems proved unsuccessful. Pure democracy was extremely inefficient, and the community failed to thrive. But most important, there was nothing to stop the majority from violating the inalienable rights of individuals—which the majority did in some instances. Remember the Salem witch hunts? It wasn’t until the people changed to a representative form of government and embraced the concept of private property that the community began to prosper, individually and collectively. Even more important, history has proven that constitutional protections are necessary to preserve inalienable individual rights against tyranny of the majority.

Slippery Slope
Under the constitutional republic form of government established by our Founding Fathers, regardless of majority opinion to the contrary, inalienable rights would not be subject to infringement. Moreover, this also applied to the states, which were intended to maintain both separation, and a degree of sovereignty and independence, preventing either the federal government or a majority of the other states from imposing their will on individual or even a minority of the states.

Much of that changed during the Civil War and the debate over slavery. That debate resulted from some unfinished business left over from the language of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention. In earlier discussions related to those documents, considerable debate revolved around use of the phrase “pursuit of happiness” rather than “property” (which the phrase “pursuit of happiness” is generally interpreted to mean). In the end, the Founders reached an impasse regarding use of the word “property” because in some states at the time, the practical definition of that word included black slaves. Many of the Founders did not want the right to own slaves to be considered an inherent, inalienable right. They hoped that in time slavery would be undone on a state-by-state basis, and they did not want to create an obstacle in that corrective process. Ultimately, they settled on the phrase “pursuit of happiness” to avoid an endless and irresolvable debate over slavery at the time.

What most people do not realize today is that in order to correct the injustices of slavery, the president, Congress, and the federal government grossly exceeded their constitutional bounds during the Civil War. This fact has largely been swept under the rug. The rationale has always been that the end justified the means. Because slavery and the treatment of human beings were at issue, the government justified the bending of constitutional rules, and it still does—under the guise of something being best for the common good. But regardless of how just the cause, much of what was done by the federal government at that time was done outside of constitutional bounds. And what was done set an unlawful precedent that has been followed ever since. Today the federal government has completely forgotten that it is subject to constitutional limitations, and most people honestly believe that whatever the majority wants, goes. The way most citizens understand our government is that if most states want to tell North Dakota, for example, what it must do, they are entitled to do so.

How does such a government work in reality? In what ways is it actually applied? The list is long, but programs such as No Child Left Behind, mandatory health insurance, gun control, regulated property rights, federal environmental regulation, and immigration provide just a few examples.

Federal administrative regulations as well as direct acts of Congress usurp states’ and individuals’ rights and assume control. If, for example, the state of Wyoming says it wants to be responsible for managing its own natural resources, including wildlife and gray wolf populations within the state, it is no matter. Both Congress and other states believe they should be able to dictate, among other things, what Wyoming does and how such wolf populations are managed. Acting through Congress and the federal government, a majority of representatives from the rest of the states—who have little knowledge and no real stake in what happens in Wyoming—insist that they can tell Wyoming what to do with respect to gray wolves in the state.

A recent MSNBC article further illustrates this issue. The subject of the article was how Montana highway laws, including drunk driving and speeding laws, are evolving. According to the article, “Until 2005, when [Montana] came under heavy duress from the federal government, it was legal to drink and drive in many places. And a few years before that there wasn’t even a speed limit on major highways and in rural areas.”

While we adamantly oppose drinking and driving and certainly commend the Montana Legislature for addressing these issues, we hope it is doing so of its own volition and on its own terms without buckling and kowtowing to federal government pressure. We don’t believe it’s a federal issue. Why should the federal government be applying heavy duress to any state? That is like children disrespecting and applying duress to their parents. But obviously, the same thing is happening Arizona with respect to its new immigration law.

Mob Rule Applied to Arizona Immigration Law
What is happening in Arizona regarding the enforcement of immigration laws is relevant to this discussion. Based on the prevailing mob-rule mentality, everyone seems to think they should be able to tell Arizona what to do. First of all, compelling arguments have been made that federal immigration policy is unconstitutional in the first place, and yet one more example of a federal attempt to assume powers well beyond those specifically granted in Article I, Section 8. Beyond all the huffing, puffing, and bluffing, however, the federal government’s first reaction was, “Okay, then, it looks as though we’re going to have to cut off federal funding and really hit you where it hurts.” A number of other parties, who have no legitimate stake in the discussion, think they’re also entitled to pile on and help whip Arizona into shape. We’ve got things so upside down and backward that we don’t know which way is up.

We may not agree with Arizona. We may not like what they are doing there. We are entitled to have and express our opinions. We can all squawk all we want about it. But we’ve got to get away from thinking that the federal government, other states, the media, and other outsiders are entitled to push the individual states around and tell them what they can and can’t and should and shouldn’t do. Despite all the nonsense that has been knocked into our heads over the course of the past 150 years, the states are still entitled to some reasonable degree of self-determination. The states themselves are entitled to protection from mob rule and tyranny of the majority.

Inalienable rights are inalienable rights bestowed by our Creator in accordance with the laws of nature, and they are protected by the Constitution and the rule of law. If what Arizona has done violates individual liberties and the inalienable rights of people who are entitled to constitutional protection, then Arizona must be held accountable. But neither mob-rule democracy nor the heavy hand of the federal government provides proper checks or balances as outlined in our Constitution.

Inalienable rights are bestowed by our Creator and apply to everyone, but our Constitution protects the inalienable rights of U.S. citizens who have complied with the rule of law to attain that status and to be entitled to that protection. Exactly how the debate should end is beyond the scope of this discussion, but when the states, acting as a union, fail to take some kind of unified action on important issues such as immigration, why should the mob feel as though it’s got the right to dictate what other states can and can’t do? Instead, we the people and the states should be supporting Arizona in its exercise of the right of self-determination and state responsibility to do what it believes is in the best interests of the state.

While everyone may have an opinion, only those who live in Arizona, pay taxes there, vote there, and actually have to live with the consequences of whatever decisions the state makes have a real stake in the outcome. This is yet another example of the national mainstream media putting its spin on a local issue, stirring up controversy, and to a large degree completely misrepresenting what is actually going on.

Federal Supremacy
The federal government has supremacy only in those areas where the Constitution specifically gives it supremacy—not where it has unilaterally chosen to act. What the federal government and the president of the United States think should happen in Arizona or New York is irrelevant. These are not federal issues! Moreover, we need to quit thinking about a federal/state dichotomy. We need to start thinking in terms of we the people and of the states acting as individual states and as a union of states. Instead, the federal government has evolved into a completely disconnected entity with an agenda of its own that usually has nothing to do with what we the people and the states want, acting either individually or as a union. It is completely unaccountable to we the people and the states, as the parents and grandparents.

Relationships among the States
Though the federal government must be brought to heel, the states must likewise respect and take an arm’s-length approach with sister states—particularly when there is no dispute among them. Most issues are not the same as the situation with the Colorado River and the Colorado River Compact, for example, which govern what happens with the water that flows from Colorado and Wyoming to the Pacific Ocean and how it is allocated among the states along its path. Just as with Wyoming and its wolves, what difference does it make what people in Massachusetts, for example, think about the compact? What happens to snowmelt from the Colorado Rockies is not their issue. Colorado is not their state. When Colorado is dealing with issues that have nothing to do with the states acting as a union, Massachusetts, New York and other states that have no dog in the fight should keep their noses out. Subject to the rule of law and inalienable, individual rights bestowed by the laws of nature and protected by the Constitution, a state should have the right to do what it deems best—subject to the terms and conditions of its own constitution. And if everyone else in the country wants to do something else, great! Let them do it! But let’s stop drinking the poisoned Kool-Aid and thinking that everyone else is somehow entitled to tell Colorado, Wyoming, Arizona or Massachusetts what’s best and acting as though the federal government is the big enforcer. That is a huge part of the problem that has gotten us to the precarious spot we’re in. If this notion continues much further, nature will ultimately take its course, and eventually it won’t to turn out the same way it did last time.

This is yet another example of how our progressive / federalist democracy has evolved into something completely beyond the scope of anything even our most ardent Federalist forebears ever envisioned or intended. They were talking about a glass or two of federal dominion wine with dinner. We’re now drinking multiple bottles of federal-dominion port and democratic mob rule before breakfast! In the process, we’ve gotten ourselves into such a drunken stupor that we’ve lost all common sense, and we don’t even realize it.

Municipal Land-Use Ordinances
Local government land-use ordinances have come to serve as yet another vehicle for government to infringe on inalienable private property rights via “the will of the majority.” By this means, in many cases the urban majority seeks to impose its will on the rural minority, with little regard for private property rights.

Cities, towns, and communities across this country have been boiled like the proverbial frog, which was put in tepid water that was then gradually heated until the unwitting animal was finally cooked. Following the agenda and boilerplate paperwork handed to them, these local government entities have likewise gradually and many times unwittingly usurped inalienable, individual property rights—so slowly that both they and property owners have been unaware of what was happening. On that score, this next story is not unique.

Rosie McLayne and the New Zoning Ordinance
As a busy mother and a work-from-home paralegal for a large law firm, Rosie McLayne has a full schedule. Two days a week she commutes nearly over fifty miles from her rural home to her office in a large city; on the other days, she telecommutes and is perhaps even busier. An avid gardener and runner, the striking and amiable Rosie is also active in community theater. Although she never had much interest in politics, she is now a mainstay in community events. Despite the demands of her hectic schedule, when Rosie heard the local town council was considering adoption of a new zoning and land-use ordinance, she decided to attend the introductory meeting. After she attended a nearly vacant town meeting where the changes were proposed, she decided she wanted to know more. After carefully reading the proposed ordinance, Rosie was incensed.

The first thing she noticed was that not even a well-educated and experienced paralegal was capable of readily understanding the document. But the worst thing was that the ordinance stated that the ordinance itself was now the source of all property rights and that property owners could do nothing with their property except those things specifically listed as “permitted uses.” The ordinance sought to restrict almost all forms of production. It also sought to limit animal rights and to prohibit home business. In addition, it sought to elevate form over substance, prioritize appearances, create a special place for everything, and install a new board that could veto any construction that was not aesthetically pleasing or that was “out of character” with the surrounding neighborhood. In terms of heavy-handedness, it also made any violations of the ordinance criminal offenses with stiff sentences, including fines and jail time.

Rosie quickly alerted her neighbors, most of whom had heard nothing of the ordinance before she brought it to their attention.
After much debate and discussion, a small group of neighbors persuaded the town council to instruct the zoning board to postpone any recommendation for six months to allow town residents sufficient time to study and understand the proposed ordinance. Rosie, along with other proactive residents, then organized education workshops to thoroughly review the proposed ordinance and provide informed comments to the zoning board and town council. Their efforts resulted in over fifty written comments that objected on a number of grounds to the proposed ordinance.

As they debated the ordinance with the mayor and the zoning board chairman, the concerned neighbors argued that the ordinance violated the inherent and inalienable property rights of property owners. “But what about the town’s rights? What about the inherent, inalienable rights of the community? ” the zoning board chairman wanted to know. Rosie stood to respond. “Contrary to what you must think, government does not have inherent, inalienable rights,” she said. “Such rights are based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. They are gifts from God that existed before governments existed, before laws existed, before the Constitution existed, while governments and their laws are man-made entities. Any power and authority that governments have come from the people—and that is exactly the point: we have not given this government the authority to infringe upon our inherent, inalienable property rights.”

At that point Nick Romero, Rosie’s friend and insistent neighbor, took the floor and added, “The primary role and function of government is to protect and defend people’s inherent and inalienable God-given rights of life, liberty, and property! ”

“Regardless,” said the mayor, “this ordinance is what is best for the town. We know what is best, and it is our responsibility to make the law. As your elected representatives, it’s our decision to make. Besides, most of the people in this town don’t have any problem with this ordinance.”

This discussion started a long process that ultimately involved many discussions and heated exchanges over the course of the next three years. Based on general opposition to the ordinance, the council chamber was often packed when it was discussed. Based on the intense opposition to the ordinance, including from Rosie, Nick and their neighbors, the town council ultimately tried to out-wait the opposition. Finally, at the end of a quiet meeting when almost no one was in attendance, an one of the council members absent, a majority of the council passed the ordinance under the “unfinished business” item on the agenda. Further incensed by the council’s tactics, Rosie, and her group were not ready to give up. Rosie quickly researched and prepared the necessary paperwork to file a referendum petition based on applicable state law, to refer the new ordinance to a vote of the people. The small group of community members worked together to increase their numbers and gather the signatures of about 60 percent of the registered voters in the community (doubling the 30 percent legally required), requesting that the new ordinance be put to a vote of the people via a referendum election.

At this point, Rosie’s story and the issues she was confronting started converging with other situations in other communities around the state, including another community along the front range about 90 miles away. In that community, a wealthy doctor owned a large piece of hillside property that he intended to develop. The doctor had a clear understanding of how politics works; he didn’t live in the community and didn’t care what his neighbors thought, but he was on great terms with many members of the state assembly to whom he pledged generous campaign contributions. As part of his medical practice, he offered free screenings and other services to legislators, and he had developed a cozy relationship with many state lawmakers. When the residents of the town took the position that his development plans violated the existing land-use ordinance, he used all his connections to flex his political muscle through state legislators to coerce the local council to change its ordinance. This sparked outrage among neighbors and town residents, who quickly gathered more than enough signatures to challenge the change by referendum. Before the referendum could go to a vote, though, the doctor’s friends in the state assembly intervened to pass a new state law prohibiting any change to local land-use ordinances by initiative or referendum anywhere in the state.

With that new law in place (but on appeal to the state’s supreme court), Rosie and her neighbors filed their own referendum petition. Although both the land-use ordinance and the new state law should obviously be found unconstitutional and struck down, we have had enough experience in the system to know better than to take anything for granted.

[wiser2]

The US acts as a democracy, although legally and constitutionally we should be a constitutional republic. A major benefit of the government that was developed in the US in the late 1700's is that it was intended to be well balanced. The reality is that any oppressive party is a problem including: an international force, a federal government, a state government, a county, a city, an HOA, parents, neighbors, criminals. The key to good and successful government depends on 1) being well balanced (no one party able to be oppressive without being checked by other parties), and 2) seeking and obtaining the help of the One True God. 2) is important because it leads to protection of inalienable rights spoken of in the Declaration of Independence, as being the critical function of government.

Exactly how the debate should end is beyond the scope of this discussion, but when the states, acting as a union, fail to take some kind of unified action on important issues such as immigration, why should the mob feel as though it’s got the right to dictate what other states can and can’t do?

First you should be aware that the Constitution is a federal agreement, with all of the states being participants of that "supreme law". The Declaration of Independence suggests that all people (US Citizens, unborn babies, black slaves, and Mexican laborers) have a God given right/permit to exist and to work, and that a government that does not protect that should be removed by those who follow duty to God, and that God would help. The Constitution initially seems to have only made implicit reference to those facts, "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, ..., promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution..." But following the civil war, as people, states, and even the federal government had argued that the supreme law did not apply to the states or slaves, etc. (even when the law claimed application - like the 5th claiming people should have due process), the Constitution was amended to explicitly give US citizens the state right to citizenship, and the right to the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" at the state level. And, the states were then required to provide that protection to all people who fell under that state's law ("nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws"), thereby logically demanding the effects of state citizenship to all people.

The quick answer is that the law requires that we follow, and protect, the supreme law. In fact, many governmental officers around the land, including legislatures, judges, and police, have sworn to follow and support that law.

From a Christian standpoint, Christ taught the Golden Rule - treat others as you would like to be treated. People may be less aware, but he taught the implications of that rule/law - that he would actually believe and honor how they would like to be treated from their treatment of others: For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again (Mat. 7:1-2).

Is it our business if neighbor A oppresses neighbor B? Christ seemed to teach that it was the Good Samaritan's business. The reality is that if we don't stand up for our neighbor, the unborn baby, the black slave, the Mexican laborer, who will stand up for us when we need help? And, the reality is that

Natural law is another critical reason. The Declaration of Independence suggests that inalienable rights come via natural law, meaning that even massively powerful, oppressive governments will pay the natural consequences of violating natural law. One of the consequences: No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck. (Fredrick Douglass) How does that look in the modern day? It means that if you are an employer, that the governments at all levels scrutinize your every action to ensure that you use e-verify, etc. If you are an employee, you do not have the right to work, until the governments at all levels say that you are permitted. Your employer and bank, etc. provide detail reports about your activity to the governments. That liberty that the Constitution referenced is gone, traded for the opportunity to oppress the Mexican laborer. Was it worth it?

Also, it should be noted that the "union" did not fail to take action (you severely misrepresented this). It is likely that US immigration acts have never been more oppressive than today (requiring about 20 years and thousands of dollars to "legally" get through the process). And, it is explicitly against the law, as the 10th amendment removed all immigration power from the union, giving them instead to the states (with the constraint that the states do not discriminate against the people), except allowing the union to charge $10/immigrant.

Instead, we the people and the states should be supporting Arizona in its exercise of the right of self-determination and state responsibility to do what it believes is in the best interests of the state.

I believe that you have a very serious misunderstanding of natural law and inalienable rights. The reality is that we all have a responsibility to do what is right. Yes, we have the right to do what is right. We often even have the ability to do what is wrong. But in all cases, we do not get to choose the consequences of our actions, other than by changing our actions.

Apparently you miss the irony of your position. Let me rephrase it for you. Party A should support party B in its right of self-determination by being oppressive to party C? Obviously, you have mis-characterized Arizona's actions against immigrants, as self-determining, when in fact it has direct consequences to immigrants and indirect ones to the entire nation, if not world. Furthermore, why should party A not get involved with party B, if party B can get involved with party C?

[wiser2]

I submit to you that one of the most critical topics to freedom is Christ's statement, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32)

Our people seem to have taken a firm stand against this statement. For example, we view the revelation of health and identity information as a serious one. Or military and commercial "secrets". Is it possible to be free while taking this stand?

I noticed that even this site promotes rules of civility, rather than an adherence to truth. Is that good or bad?

How does this stand relate to secret combinations and our ability to protect ourselves from them?

[tmac]

Wiser2, I understand your point(s). I merely posted a quote with material that seemed applicable to the discussion, and would serve as food for thought. But I am curious about where you live, and your direct experience with immigration issues in the border states. Is simply desiring to have people who are not citizens of the U.S. abide by applicable laws, and adhere to the established process of gaining access to this country oppressive? I realize that laws can be oppressive. But is it oppressive to simply desire to have people comply with the law, and to take measures to protect the lives, liberty and property of those are constitutionally entitled to protection of those inalienable rights as citizens of the U.S. against those who have no such Constitutional protection, and in all too many cases are increasingly infringing on those rights?

The point isn't that illegal immigrants do not have the same God-given inalienable individual rights as all human beings. The point is that the U.S. Constitution and other U.S. laws apply to those who are covered by them, and entitled to such application and/or protection. Although every human being on the face of the Earth is subject to the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, they are not all subject to, or entitled to the protection of applicable U.S. laws and Constitution. Maybe you missed this point:

Inalienable rights are bestowed by our Creator and apply to everyone, but our Constitution protects the inalienable rights of U.S. citizens who have complied with the rule of law to attain that status and to be entitled to that protection.

You have suggested that I may have a serious misunderstanding of the laws of nature and nature's God. I don't know how you can automatically draw that conclusion from the material that I have simply copied and pasted into the discussion. On the other hand, your reasoning and arguments have demonstrated that you do seem to have a good understanding of those laws, but I'm not sure that you have a solid understanding of how to reconcile those laws with Constitutional principles, and how to bridge the gap between theory and reality when it comes to applying those principles in real life, and who is entitled to applicable and protection of same, as a matter of legal right.

[wiser2]

But I am curious about where you live, and your direct experience with immigration issues in the border states.

I grew up as a poor, white boy in Eastern Washington. It is an irrigated agricultural area. My family was often treated similarly to the other "Manuel" laborers. I currently live in the Denver area.

Is simply desiring to have people who are not citizens of the U.S. abide by applicable laws, and adhere to the established process of gaining access to this country oppressive?

Combined with the current "laws", which are oppressive, yes. Obviously desiring the following of just laws would be good. My understanding is that the process requires about 20 years and many thousands of dollars. In general, those with money get preference.

God permits people to exist and to work. If I decided that the 3rd letter of your name was not acceptable, and denied you the ability to exist and work in the US, would you consider that oppressive? If you change the condition slightly, like the letter of the city you were born in, would that help make it less oppressive? Can you imagine a government that controls existing and working, that its not oppressive? To me, that is the definition of an oppressive government. I believe that the people should permit the government to operate, and that the government has way overstepped its bounds by "permitting" me to exist or work, etc.

That is the "big government" approach. Well, I reject it. I believe the solution is to constrain the government (enforce little), not the people.

Your use of "simply" removes the ability of many good people from being able to exist. It is by no means simple, or just, or legal. And when you are stuck under its oppression, it is very difficult.

Also, do you "simply" desire to oppress the Mexicans, or would you have me oppressed by making me a criminal for hiring people outside of e-verify, or to follow my Savior by helping people with work, use of my house and car, etc? And when Christ comes, will I be harboring a criminal if I don't turn Him in?

But is it oppressive to simply desire to have people comply with the law, and to take measures to protect the lives, liberty and property of those are constitutionally entitled to protection of those inalienable rights as citizens of the U.S. against those who have no such Constitutional protection, and in all too many cases are increasingly infringing on those rights?

The problem with this question is that the deck is unfairly, falsely stacked. Very little of what you claim here is actually the case, beginning with "to simply desire" to "the law". The law constrains the federal government from immigration control. Our governments are not protecting us by oppressing us. Liberty is what I am hoping to have protected. The government uses similar arguments that you use to justify the oppression of Mexicans, to take my property (taxes, child support, fines, etc.) The Constitution protects all people (ie. 5th and 14th amendments), and intends to further justice (preamble). It is not fair that you represent otherwise. It is not moral or fair that you imply there should be a distinction between the protected and those not. Among other things, the implication of your argument is that your unborn baby or unborn grandchild should not be protected, as they are not citizens. That is not the kind of world I want to support. Many have argued that slaves, women, babies, Mormons, the majority white males, and immigrants do not qualify as people. Hitler argued that Jews did not either. It is an argument that has a very expensive cost in life and property. It is not a protective argument. I reject that argument. I challenge you to quote the Constitution where it would indicate that any of those parties are not "protected".

Focus on the cases where the infringing is occurring, then you will have a valid, legal, moral point. I suspect that in most cases, the infringing is done by our people and our government, not the immigrants. For example, we pass laws that steal money from people and give it to special programs. It is not fair to blame the immigrants for our bad governing, or for our ignorance.

Your use "inalienable rights" in the context of pitting one party against another illustrates a big misunderstanding of 'inalienable rights". They are inalienable in the sense that natural law provides a consequence to their violation, in a way that no one can not get around. They are also fairly distributed. So, nothing supports those rights in one party without supporting them for all, as the natural consequence of taking them from the one party is the destruction of the party. God actively enforces those rights. So a violation necessarily incurs His action against you. Hitler's Germany is a good example. The result was that most of the German army died with the Jews. And the surviving Germans suffered.

The point isn't that illegal immigrants do not have the same God-given inalienable individual rights as all human beings. The point is that the U.S. Constitution and other U.S. laws apply to those who are covered by them, and entitled to such application and/or protection.

Right, the point is that the implication of inalienable rights is that there are natural consequences for violating those rights. So, as you and our government choose to violate them, the seed of our destruction is planted, and the just loss of our rights occurs, thereby not protecting rights but destroying them.

You have suggested that I may have a serious misunderstanding of the laws of nature and nature's God. I don't know how you can automatically draw that conclusion from the material that I have simply copied and pasted into the discussion.

A misunderstanding of natural law and inalienable rights. Because, you used the words, but contradicted the implication of those words. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, as the alternative is that you understand but purposely mislead.

[tmac]

Good points Wiser2. I agree with you in many respects. But I don't have the time or inclination to debate all the finer points. All people do have an inalienable God-given right to exist and work. That does not mean that the laws of nature grant and guarantee an inalienable right to exist and work in the United States. If a person attempts to make that statement, then they must be prepared to say that all human beings have an inalienable right to exist and work in the United States, which is obviously not the case. You are right that there are consequences for violating the laws of nature, but the laws of nature do not grant or guarantee everyone the right or ability to live and work in the U.S. Quite the contrary. Does Canada have the right to limit and govern my ability, as a U.S. citizen to travel, live and/or work in Canada? What about Mexico? Does Arizona have the inherent right to protect its borders? Or is it subject to the tyranny of the majority of other states who do not experience the same challenges it does? Once we proceed beyond total self-governance to the point that governments are created, those governments start adopting constitutions and passing laws that, among other things, protect their borders and favor their own citizens over other citizens, in a myriad of ways Is that a violation of the laws of nature? The only way to change that is to go back to total self-governance, law of the jungle, and survival of the fittest. Is that what you propose?

[wiser2]

All people do have an inalienable God-given right to exist and work. That does not mean that the laws of nature grant and guarantee an inalienable right to exist and work in the United States.

Yes that is exactly what it means. To review, inalienable, means that they can not be removed - not by anyone, including an oppressive country. God-given means that God helps to enforce the rights, beyond natural consequences. While the US people may claim that a person does not have the right to exist or work anywhere they have power to stop them, God sees it differently, and has issued a permit - to exist and work in the US. Here is one example of that written permit (2 Nephi 1: )

... there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord. Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring.

I believe the big picture described by Christ in 3 Nephi 20-22 is relevant to our discussion. In summary, Christ says that He used the gentiles to scatter, scourge, and bring the gospel to His people, the remnant of Jacob. That after the gospel is brought to the land, that He will bring gather His people back to this land. At that time, the gentiles will be punished for not repenting of the scattering. It will be like a lion among sheep. "And behold, I am he who doeth it." Then he will rid the land of oppression and establish peace.

The point Christ makes in 3 Nephi is that the Hispanics and the gentiles that realize the evil of oppressing His people, have a right to be here. The rest do not, and will be destroyed because of their selfishness. "... then if they shall harden their hearts against me I will return their iniquities upon their own heads, saith the Father." (3 Nephi 20:28)

So, we have established that there is an unremovable, God-given right to exist and to work in the US. We have previously established that there is a legal right to exist and to work in the US. This legal right is established in the Declaration of Independence, and the 10th and 14th amendments. To review, the 14th amendment gives state citizenship and US citizenship rights, at the state level, to residents of a state. It them demands that all people affected by the state's laws, be so protected.

It is becoming more clear to me just how badly "inalenable rights" are not understood. I believe the following scriptures help clarify:

We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. (D&C 134:2)

Let all the saints rejoice, therefore, and be exceedingly glad; for Israel's God is their God, and he will mete out a just recompense of reward upon the heads of all their oppressors. (D&C 127:3)

Fear God and give glory to him, for the hour of his judgment is come; And worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters— ... O Lord, thou shalt come down to make thy name known to thine adversaries, and all nations shall tremble at thy presence— When thou doest terrible things, things they look not for; (D&C 133:38-43)

I will gather all nations and bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat (which means 'the Lord judges'); then I will enter into judgement against them concerning My inheritance, My people Israel, for they scattered My people among the nations and divided up My land. (Joel 3:2)

Does Canada have the right to limit and govern my ability, as a U.S. citizen to travel, live and/or work in Canada? What about Mexico? Does Arizona have the inherent right to protect its borders? Or is it subject to the tyranny of the majority of other states who do not experience the same challenges it does?

The essence of inalienable rights is that no one has the right to remove them, not Canada, Mexico, nor Arizona. So, yes, people have the right to exist and to work, and it can't be removed. Your question about Arizona being subject to tyranny is not fair, and technically not relevant. In the context of inalienable rights, the Declaration of Independence indicates that man not only has the right, but the duty to remove oppressive governments. So, if Arizona chooses to be oppressive, everyone has the 'duty' to oppose them. And God will support that opposition. I believe the Declaration of Independence is correct, and you will notice that it is very much in unity with Christ's specific teachings and scripture.

In English, tyranny descibes the discrimination and oppression that the US exhibits toward immigrants. It does not describe the actions of demanding that people be fair. It is not fair to claim it is tyranny, when in fact it opposes tyranny.

Setting bigotted nationalism aside, does Arizona face problems due to its border and immigration? Yes. Unfortunately, I believe the real problems are seldom even spoken of, and even less dealt with because people spend so much energy opposing immigration, instead of those problems. Problems including drugs, crime, and growth. So, Arizona does not have the right to protect its borders from truth or God, although it may be able to, today. It does have the right to protect itself from actual evil.

I am curious. What distinction did you envision "inalienable rights" would have from "rights", if it is not to have those rights in whatever country, like the US?

Once we proceed beyond total self-governance to the point that governments are created, those governments start adopting constitutions and passing laws that, among other things, protect their borders and favor their own citizens over other citizens, in a myriad of ways Is that a violation of the laws of nature? The only way to change that is to go back to total self-governance, law of the jungle, and survival of the fittest. Is that what you propose?

As favoritism, discrimination, and oppression progress, the consequence indicated in D&C 134:2 will increase - loss of peace. Eventually, God will ensure that such a government is destroyed. I believe that our day is an especially bad time to be a bad government, because Jesus Christ is establishing His Kingdom on earth, with vengeance.

You made a big logical leap in the wrong direction claiming that the law of the jungle is the only way to change oppression. Rather, it is the natural progression/consequence of the choice to oppress. We could avoid these problems by practicing the Golden Rule - allow others to exist as you would like to exist. Intellectually very simple, yet so few understand.

One thing that may be warping the logic - private property. From the Lord's view, and natural law, God created everything and owns everything. Sometimes, we are allowed use of His property as a stewardship, with the conditional responsibility that it be used to build His kingdom. As that property is used instead to harm His Kingdom, the condition is not met, and the right to the property is lost.

[tmac]

Again Wiser2, many excellent points. As a matter of principle, I agree with you in many respects. Unfortunately, essentially all governments, and many laws, are oppressive, and limit human beings in one way or another. In a theoretical, ideal world no one would need to be limited in any way, and the principles you articulate would be reality. In the real world in which we currently live, however, unfortunately, that is not the case.

There are many discussions on this forum and elsewhere about an agenda to create a New World Order and One World Government, etc., and about how bad those things would be. But the reality is, when Christ returns, we will have a new world order and a one world government, and all the principles you discuss as if they are possible now will then be applicable. That is something we can look forward to. Until that happens, though, it's just a theoretical discussion.

[wiser2]

In a theoretical, ideal world no one would need to be limited in any way, and the principles you articulate would be reality. In the real world in which we currently live, however, unfortunately, that is not the case.

The point of natural law, is that it occurs independent of theory, whether or not you acknowledge it. I am quite sure that the Soviet Union, Hitler, and king George before them, believed that they were not accountable to natural law. They were.

There are many discussions on this forum and elsewhere about an agenda to create a New World Order and One World Government, etc., and about how bad those things would be. But the reality is, when Christ returns, we will have a new world order and a one world government, and all the principles you discuss as if they are possible now will then be applicable. That is something we can look forward to. Until that happens, though, it's just a theoretical discussion.

May I introduce you to "the American Experiment". It was implemented 235 years ago. From http://www.heritage.org/research/commen ... experiment, Helle Dale states (quoting Thomas Jefferson):

"The flames kindled on the 4th of July, 1776, have spread across too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume the engines and all who work them." The self-evident truth that "all men are created equal; endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" remains the powerful philosophical and moral foundation of a successful foreign policy no less than it is the foundation of the American republic itself. Yet, as we are seeing today, the advance of freedom and democracy is not a straight path, but one that also sustains setbacks.
...
As Mr. Reagan stated at Yorktown in 1981, "Our Declaration of Independence has been copied by emerging nations around the globe, its themes adopted in places many of us have never heard of. Here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights. We the people declared that the government is created by the people for their own convenience." As powerful as that message is, it has to receive constant reinforcement from those who remain convinced of its promise.

No, it is not "just a theoretical discussion", and not just for the future, but for the past, now, and for the future.

[tmac]

Wiser2, looks like this is pretty much a two-way conversation. And with all due respect, but with your condescending attitude and approach, you can have it completely to yourself. . . . Enjoy!

[thornicus]

The Declaration is nothing more than that. It was a letter written and signed by the founding fathers telling King George why the colonies were getting ready to give England the boot. It was not a legal document, and it did not establish the rule of law in this country. It would have made more sense for you to quote the Federalist Papers. Our government has a literal and moral obligation to protect its citizens from foreign invasion, which in my opinion include illegal immigrants. I find it hard to believe that there are people out there that believe that people who gained entry to this country illegally have the same rights under the constitution as its citizens. Illegal immigrants are a drain on the resources of "Joe Taxpayer" they receive benefits they are not entitled to, and don't have to pay the taxes for them, look at the bind California is in because of Illegal immigration. I have no problem with people coming to this country, we are a country of immigrants, but what is wrong with doing it the legal way? And furthermore there is such a thing as states rights for a reason, the boarder states are the ones on the front lines of the immigration battle. They are the ones who are trying to stem the tide of the gangs, drugs, and those who who do this nations citizens harm. So if they need to pass laws to protect their citizens from harm done to them by illegals, because the Federal Government will not enforce existing laws, then I say good on them. In my opinion this is nothing more than a fight over political power, as there are many illegal immigrants that are allowed to vote in this country, so the people who have the most to gain from their presence will turn their backs on the law. We are a nation of laws, and when we turn our backs on those laws what does that make us? Criminals. If things are so bad in their country, then why don't they right those wrongs and make their country a better place. America started with nothing, and with the grace of God, made itself the best country in the world to live in.