Over the past year I’ve come to two realizations that are driving some important actions in my life that will manifest themselves in the months and years ahead.

The first is that the federal government is beyond repair. This country is so deep in debt, so far astray from the Constitution, so uneducated on the principles of liberty, so controlled by centralized power and corrupt deals, and so unwilling to take the steps to reverse course, that its future is looking increasingly grim. Whether the future brings a crisis event such as a monetary collapse or military attack, or whether we simply will be gradually subjected to yet further federal tyranny, the direction has long been consistent and unrelenting. The United States of America is headed in the direction of disaster. I think this general observation is pretty much indisputable.

The second realization is that my time and energy are largely wasted when focused on trying to help fix it. For every good bill that passes through Congress—after expending significant time, money, and political capital—hundreds of bad ones fly through with little notice and even less controversy. It’s like trying to build a dam in the Mississippi river one twig at a time. Any progress that is made is quickly swept away in the overpowering and rapid current heading exactly where you don’t want it to go.

Still, those successes—few in number though they be—should be praised. We should also, I think, continue to try and elect pro-liberty candidates who are crazy enough to be willing to jump into the federal fray and attempt to solve some of the myriad problems which exist. One need only talk to a handful of congressional aides and federal employees, though, before realizing that the establishment against which such elected officials are opposed is immensely powerful and incredibly difficult to tweak even in the slightest degree. The chance of such candidates making much of a difference is unfortunately slim.

When I say that I’ve given up on the federal government, I’m not suggesting that I will become completely disengaged from or indifferent to what occurs. It’s not as if this government is not continually taxing me, sending my neighbors to die in faraway lands, claiming control over nearly aspect of my life, and overpowering the state government which theoretically stands between us. We all are intimately affected by the federal government, and so I will remain interested in and opposed to most of what they currently do.

Giving up on them means, rather, that I won’t be focusing my energies primarily on changing things at the federal level. The odds are in the house’s favor, after all, and if you happen to win a hand, a security detail intimidatingly stands behind you as you cheer your small victory, simply to remind you who is in control. Still supporting others who choose to deal directly with our problems at the federal level, I now spend most of my time and energy at the state level.

I do so for one specific reason: if we are to gain any victories in substantially restraining the federal government, they will be realized through state-based opposition, rather than trying to get the federal government to restrain itself. Token victories and small successes are not enough to actually turn the tide of federal tyranny. The best hope that exists in our current system is to work through the state governments to reject unconstitutional legislative and bureaucratic mandates from the national government. Asking the feds to please play nicely and follow the rules has rarely, if ever, worked; the states must be utilized, as they were intended, to “erect barriers at the constitutional line,” as Thomas Jefferson wrote.

This is no easy task. It requires a legislature, a governor, and an attorney general with spines sufficiently strong to take a stand and deal with the consequences. It requires a people who are informed of their individual rights, the Constitution, and the principles of moral government. But these are things that are much more manageable at the state level. Communicating with, persuading, pressuring, and/or replacing somebody in state government is far more achievable and realistic than working to do the same at the federal level.

Working at the state level is necessary not only to more effectively ensure that the federal government is appropriately restrained, but also to improve the internal affairs of the state. Utah and every other state has plenty of laws on the books which are absolutely anti-liberty and must be repealed. Something about cleansing the inner vessel comes to mind.

If this country is to be spared from the consequences of its current course, it will be done from the bottom up, not the top down. The federal government will not voluntarily nor willingly surrender the power it has acquired over the past century, even if there exists within its ranks a few principled patriots trying to stack their twigs in the rushing river. With apologies to Ghandi, I believe that we must be the change we want to see in our government. And we can manifest that change far more effectively at the local and state levels than we can by gravitating to the federal level and becoming easily lost in the fray. The tide is both more shallow and weak in the state, and therefore one’s efforts to build a dam to restrain the river of regulations is more likely to be successful.

This isn’t a defeatist attitude. Rather, it is a recognition of how and where practical solutions and feasible outcomes might actually be achieved. I applaud (though question the sanity of) those who have more hope and optimism for fixing the national government. I simply do not share that view nor think it realistic. I will, at times, support or oppose a candidate for federal office, or advocate for or against a bill. But where my goal is to effect change and increase individual liberty for myself and those around me, I feel that my time and energy is best spent at a more local level.

In 1840, Virginia statesman Abel Upshur penned a response to Judge Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Upshur’s writings contain many passionate and persuasive arguments for what today is generally referred to as “state’s rights.” Some of his words are eerily prescient and directly relate to the thoughts I’ve expressed here:

So far as (the federal) government is concerned, I venture to predict that it will become absolute and irresponsible, precisely in proportion as the rights of the States shall cease to be respected, and their authority to interpose for the correction of federal abuses shall be denied and overthrown. It should be the object of every patriot in the United States to encourage a high respect for the State governments. The people should be taught to regard them as their greatest interest, and as the first objects of their duty and affection. Maintained in their just rights and powers, they form the true balance-wheel, the only effectual check on federal encroachments.
…
The danger is, not that the States will interpose too often, but that they will rather submit to federal usurpations, than incur the risk of embarrassing that government, by any attempts to check and control it.

That danger has become our reality. It is a reality I will be working to change in the coming years. Expect good things to come.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Federal Farmers, Then and Now
• Federal Justification of Tyranny
• Rights Precede and Supercede the Government

On Thursday, Barack Obama’s re-election campaign released an advertising campaign titled “The Life of Julia,” in which 12 snapshots of a fictional woman’s life are used to demonstrate how Obama’s policies would help her, and how Mitt Romney’s policies would hurt her.

At age 3, “Julia” enrolls in Head Start, which Obama has expanded but Romney wants to scale back. At age 18, she qualifies for up to $10,000 under Obama’s American Opportunity Tax Credit, which Romney wants to let expire. As she ages, she takes advantage of Obama’s preferred health care plan, capped student loan payments, free birth control and medical screenings, government business loans and welfare programs — all things that Obama claims Romney either wants to reduce or eliminate.

In short, Julia is an irresponsible woman dependent upon an increasingly large nanny state, and how dare anybody prevent her from getting the money and services she thinks she deserves. Obama’s campaign messaging, then, celebrates the entitlement society the president is helping to foment. Sadly, that message may be enough to win him the support he needs.

Consider a recent story out of Valencia College in Florida. Professor Jack Chambless asked his students to write an essay about what the “American Dream” meant to them. Students were asked to write the essay on the spot to better capture their initial and sincere impressions, and had about 10 minutes to write. The results were sobering.

According to Chambless, over 80% of the class believed that the “American Dream” entailed the government providing things for them to live comfortably, such as free tuition and health care, down payment assistance on a home, money for retirement and free vacations. Students also thought that the American Dream meant that the government should “give them a job.”

Whether it’s a fictional Julia or a very real John, Jenny, Jake or any number of other voters who embrace this entitlement mentality, the nanny state Obama is championing has become wildly popular. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, 48.5% of Americans live in a household that receives some form of government aid. The government which Obama currently presides over has become, as the French economist Frédéric Bastiat once prophetically stated, “the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”

Indeed, the popularity of government services and benefits has radically transformed this nation. In the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “The citizen of the United States is taught from his earliest infancy to rely on his own exertions in order to resist the evils and difficulties of life; he looks upon social authority with an eye of mistrust and anxiety and he only claims its assistance when he is quite unable to shift without it.” That America is no more. As Obama’s advertising campaign demonstrates, a large segment of society now looks upon social authority not with an eye of mistrust, but with an open, expectant hand. No longer are children taught to rely upon their own exertions, but as the example of 3-year-old Julia shows, they are taught to praise and participate in government programs allegedly designed to help them succeed.

In the end, the “Julia” campaign amounts to little more than propaganda, since a few small snapshots of a person’s life can’t tell an accurate story of the government’s impact on that person’s life.

The campaign points out how Julia benefits from various government services, but notably fails to mention the other side of the story. Of course, somebody has to pay for those benefits; the nanny state, as Bastiat also said, “is not a breast that fills itself with milk.” In other words, the money has to come from somewhere.

Thus we might consider the fictional “Sam” who, to fund the services Julia enjoys while also providing for his own family, must work two jobs, thereby missing quality family time and otherwise enjoying his life. Perhaps Sam loses one of those jobs because increasing government regulations has led his former employer to cut costs, and he was one of the casualties. Maybe Sam himself is compelled to depend on government handouts because Obama’s economic policies have helped foster an environment in which it is difficult for Sam to succeed on his own. Both Julia and Sam then receive what must be taken from an ever-decreasing pool of people forced to fund the programs championed in Obama’s campaign.

If Chambless’ students are at all indicative of a significant segment of the electorate, the “Julia” campaign will ultimately be a success. One student’s essay stated that “As human beings, we are not really responsible for our own acts, and so we need government to control those who don’t care about others.” We’re to believe, of course, that Obama and those who champion the nanny state do care about others.

Therein lies the fatal conceit. While they may care about “Julia,” they clearly don’t care about “Sam.”

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• My Letter to a Senator Hatch Re-Election Campaign Staffer

At last night’s debate amongst Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Orrin Hatch (and to which he is seeking re-election for a seventh term), a question was asked of the three candidates present regarding the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

In his remarks, Senator Hatch dismissed any concern that the powers purportedly granted to the President under that bill were unconstitutional and worrisome. “Habeas corpus hasn’t been done away with,” he said. “And I have to say, some of the worries that some of the far right conservatives have are misplaced. I assure you, nobody’s going to be mistreated under the NDAA.” Just seconds later he restated his point once more to emphasize his position: “I can assure you that habeas corpus is not done away with—that’s a constitutional principle we have abided by.”

This position is not an uncommon one; many of the NDAA’s supporters have offered a justification for their vote that amounts to little more than “trust me!” Mitt Romney, who has endorsed Senator Hatch for re-election, essentially said that very thing when asked in a recent debate about whether he would have signed the bill into law as President. After noting that he would have signed it, Romney emphasized the importance of having this type of tool available—the indefinite detention of anyone suspected of being or supporting a terrorist in any capacity. To apparently ameliorate the concerns of the critics, Romney offered this response:

And I recognize, I recognize that in a setting where they are enemy combatants and on our own soil, that could possibly be abused. There are a lot of things I think this president does wrong, lots of them, but I don’t think he is going to abuse this power and I that if I were president I would not abuse this power. And I can also tell you that in my view you have to choose people who you believe have sufficient character not to abuse the power of the presidency and to make sure that we do not violate our constitutional principles.

Both Hatch and Romney are saying that the concerns regarding the power to indefinitely detain are misguided, because we should trust our leaders not to abuse those powers. Romney, often critical of Obama, says that he doesn’t think Obama would abuse the power. And we’re also supposed to be reassured that a President Romney would not abuse them either. Of course, this issue is not specific only to the NDAA; Senator Hatch similarly dismissed constitutional concerns regarding the PATRIOT Act, for example, by simply decreeing that it “has not eroded any of the rights we hold dear as Americans”—a patently absurd allegation that has no basis in fact.

The idea that Americans should simply trust elected officials (and faceless bureaucrats) with significant political power is not only stupid—it’s downright un-American.

On the floor of the House of Representatives in 1812, John Randolph tore to pieces Mitt Romney’s call for “character” in a powerful presidency as some supposed restraint on that supreme power:

The people of this country, if ever they lose their liberties, will do it by sacrificing some great principle of government to temporary passion. There are certain great principles, which if they are not held inviolable, at all seasons, our liberty is gone. If we give them up, it is perfectly immaterial what is the character of our sovereign; whether he be King or President, elective or hereditary — it is perfectly immaterial what is his character — we shall be slaves — it is not an elective government which will preserve us.

Thomas Jefferson also spoke to this idea of trusting politicians to do the right thing. Drafting the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Jefferson declared that that state was determined “to submit to undelegated and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth.” Taking on the “trust” issue directly, Jefferson wrote:

It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power… our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go.
…
In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

Numerous other quotes could be summoned in support of this idea, but these suffice to demonstrate the absolute repugnance at the very thought of trusting politicians with powers not delegated in the Constitution. Confidence in politicians makes men slaves, as Representative Randolph noted; the deferral of any “necessary” power to the government is a misguided idea that should be restrained by the “chains of the Constitution.”

One should never give his friend a power that he wouldn’t want his enemy to have. By granting illegitimate and tyrannical authority to a politician that one trusts—even if that person is worthy of that trust—a precedent is set that opens up that power for use (and expansion) by any future politician. Even if a President Romney were to have the “character” not to indefinitely detain American citizens (something that violates numerous constitutional clauses), who is to say how that power would be used by his successor?

Daniel Webster, another liberty-minded patriot from the founding era, echoed the sentiment of his contemporaries which completely contradicts the servile statements made by men like Hatch and Romney. He said:

Human beings, we may be assured, will generally exercise power when they can get it; and they will exercise it most undoubtedly, in popular governments, under pretenses of public safety or high public interest. It may be very possible that good intentions do really sometimes exist when constitutional restraints are disregarded. There are men, in all ages, who mean to exercise power usefully—but who mean to exercise it. They mean to govern well—but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters—but they mean to be masters.

Americans must ask themselves whether or not they want “masters” at all. More importantly, they must consider whether they are currently slaves in a system where rather than having a government chained down by the Constitution, they have themselves become chained down by an unrestrained government. Determining how best to break free from those shackles first requires noticing that they even exist; “None are more hopelessly enslaved,” said Goethe, “than those who falsely believe they are free.”

Hatch, Romney, and too many other politicians who ask for our confidence in them, and the system they want to be a part of, ask for trust and power rather than jealousy and restraint. Fool Americans once and turn us into chained-down slaves, shame on you. Fool Americans twice and as our “masters” ask for our ongoing trust…

Shame on us.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Constitutional Literalism
• Of Plenary Powers and Constitutional Conservatism
• Proposition 8: The Allegedly Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment

Christian conservatives and constitutionalists alike employ a variety of arguments to defend their support for the state. While many of these defenses are misguided and easily rebutted, others are more popular and persist despite any attempts to point out their flaws. One such argument claims that because people are unrighteous, the government must do for them what they will not do for themselves.

Those who advance this argument often point to some common examples to support their claim. Because people do not give enough to charity, the welfare system is needed to take care of those unable to provide for themselves. Because children whose families are poor or who live in remote areas would otherwise not have access to a school, a public education system must be financed by taxpayers to provide education for all. Because drug use is prevalent, regulations and prohibitions are needed to criminalize the production and consumption of these illicit substances. The list is lengthy, and each justification is based on the core idea behind this argument: widespread immorality and irresponsibility implicitly authorizes the government’s attempts to enforce a standard of morality that people would otherwise abandon.

The diagnosis made by these individuals is not inaccurate; morality and responsibility have been in decline over the past several decades, and now are either ignored or routinely denigrated in the public square. But is their proposed remedy worthy of support? Does the decline in morality and responsibility justify the government’s intervention as a last-ditch effort to counteract society’s moral decay?

Speaking recently on this subject, Elder D. Todd Christofferson, an Apostle and leader in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is thought by some to have suggested exactly that. Like the proponents of the pro-state argument above, Elder Christofferson made a correct diagnosis:

The societies in which many of us live have for more than a generation failed to foster moral discipline. They have taught that truth is relative and that everyone decides for himself or herself what is right. Concepts such as sin and wrong have been condemned as “value judgments.” As the Lord describes it, “Every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god” (D&C 1:16).

From this determination of what is wrong, Elder Christofferson notes that, “As a consequence, self-discipline has eroded and societies are left to try to maintain order and civility by compulsion. The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments.”

On the surface, this observation appears to offer support for the scenario previously described. If understood this way, it would in fact seem to justify the state’s use of compulsion and control to foster moral discipline. In other words, because so much of society has embraced immorality and irresponsibility, external influences are needed to shore up the moral deficiencies of the people.

Elder Christofferson continued his remarks by citing commentary from the prolific conservative columnist Walter Williams. “Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior,” Williams wrote. He continued: “At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.”

Those attempting to justify statism because of moral decay may have found superficial wiggle room in the initial words from Elder Christofferson, but his inclusion of this commentary begins to suggest that the opposite is in fact the better course. An institutionalized criminalization of social evils may be a defense against them, as Williams observed, but this obvious development of government control and compulsion does not become inherently justified merely because it is “the last desperate line” for a civilized society. Necessity does not confer morality.

Elder Christofferson’s continuing remarks further explode the idea that immorality justifies statist interventions that otherwise would be readily recognized as wrongful and unjust. Noting that under a statist approach to enforcing moral discipline “there could never be enough rules so finely crafted as to anticipate and cover every situation,” he argued that “this approach leads to diminished freedom for everyone” (emphasis added). In other words, this embrace of statism to uphold some arbitrary societal standard is not ideal. In fact, it breeds bondage.

Where the proponents of statist restraints on society ultimately fail is in conflating descriptions with prescriptions. Simply because something is observed to happen does not mean that that thing should happen, or that its happening is morally acceptable. The description in this case is the unsurprising development of increasing government intervention as society’s standards decrease. But simply because that description generally holds true, it does not imply that it is itself the prescription for what should happen. In other words, because the power of the state tends to increase as people become immoral and irresponsible, it does not therefore follow that we should accept that increase as the right or best mechanism of counteracting that moral failure.

This idea was also included in Elder Christofferson’s address. Citing the words of the Catholic Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, he said: “We would not accept the yoke of Christ; so now we must tremble at the yoke of Caesar.” Caesar’s reign was not morally justified by the people’s rejection of Christ as their leader, but it is unsurprising that a depraved and wicked people would become overpowered by a centralized authoritarian state—in many ways, openly welcoming and attempting to morally justify that state’s “yoke.”

The way to promote moral discipline is not to empower the state as the enforcer of morality and virtue, but rather to counteract evil through education and persuasion. The intervention of the state is not only immoral itself (not operating with any legitimately delegated authority), but often simply breeds further immorality rather than suppressing it as it initially attempted to supposedly do. (Consider the results and side effects of the “war on drugs” as one of myriad examples.) A related quote by President J. Reuben Clark demonstrates the proper method of encouraging moral discipline:

For America has a destiny—a destiny to conquer the world—not by force of arms, not by purchase and favor, for these conquests wash away, but by high purpose, by unselfish effort, by uplifting achieve- ment, by a course of Christian living; a conquest that shall leave every nation free to move out to its own destiny; a conquest that shall bring, through the workings of our own example, the blessings of freedom and liberty to every people, without restraint or imposition or compulsion from us; a conquest that shall weld the whole earth together in one great brotherhood in a reign of mutual patience, forbearance, and charity, in a reign of peace to which we shall lead all others by the persuasion of our own righteous example.

The compulsion of the state is antithetical to the persuasion which must be used to promulgate the principles of Christianity and its related laws of morality and virtue. When society begins to morally decay, those who turn to the state advocate for an immoral act itself—the use of coercion against an individual who has sinned or shirked their responsibility, but who has not violated the rights of another person. They therefore perpetuate the very thing they claim to be trying to stop, and in so doing become hypocrites.

The state can only legitimately exist to secure to each individual their natural and unalienable rights. Encouraging and enforcing a moral standard is a topic which must legitimately be left to families, churches, and other non-governmental institutions. Elder Christofferson observed that “In the end, it is only an internal moral compass in each individual that can effectively deal with the root causes as well as the symptoms of societal decay.” Those who instead attempt to justify statism as a back-stop to that societal decay must re-calibrate their own internal moral compass so as not to promote immorality in the name of fighting immorality.

(Parenthetically, this topic is the subject of my next book, due out in November.)

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Federal Justification of Tyranny

Oral arguments over the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will wrap up Wednesday. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in June. In the meantime, conservatives, constitutionalists and libertarians will anxiously await the Supreme Court’s decision, hoping that the justices find the mandate unconstitutional. They should be hoping for the opposite.

To be clear, the mandate is absolutely unconstitutional. The commerce clause was never intended to allow the federal government to micromanage every aspect of commerce (it was intended to allow Congress to “make regular” commerce between the states by prohibiting tariff wars between them), and the power to tax does not carry with it the power to compel a purchase that otherwise would not have occurred.

Constitutionally minded individuals generally agree with that argument, and therefore want the Supreme Court to rule against the mandate. This is understandable, and a nearly universal opinion amongst this group. But in the long run, the goal of upholding the Constitution and promoting conservatism or libertarianism would actually be better served by the court declaring that the mandate is constitutional.

Too many Americans today wrongly believe that the U.S. Supreme Court is the sole and final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional. Questions of a law’s constitutionality thus become held hostage to the opinions and preferences of a small, elite group of lawyers dressed in black robes who are expected to keep the rest of the federal government in check — as if in a battle between the states and the federal government, a branch of that very federal government would be completely free of any conflict of interest.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, held an opposing view. Writing in his Report of 1800 regarding the Virginia Resolutions passed two years prior, he explained that even the Supreme Court’s power must be checked by the states:

The [1798] resolution supposed that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution [the states], to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another; by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.

In other words, Madison saw the states (being parties to the constitutional compact) as having the authority and ability to determine a law’s constitutionality and take appropriate action based upon whatever decision they make. While the Supreme Court could hopefully be of help in checking Congress and enforcing the terms of the Constitution, Madison knew that it could not be relied upon to perform this task in every case.

Numerous other statesmen from the founding era concurred with this view, recognizing that the Supreme Court would not necessarily be comprised of infallible constitutional experts, and that the judges themselves might be the instruments of tyranny in upholding federal powers that were not authorized by the Constitution. They therefore advocated, in unison with Madison, a state-based remedy.

In an 1820 letter, for example, Thomas Jefferson rebuffed the notion that the Supreme Court’s judges should be the “ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions.” He wrote that it is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.”

If the court upholds the constitutionality of the individual mandate in June, conservatives and libertarians will loudly and justifiably protest the result. This anger, however, will lead many of them to explore alternatives in pursuit of upholding the Constitution and fighting the federal government. In that endeavor, they might soon learn that there are other effective ways to challenge the federal government’s encroachment upon the powers of the people.

This is not a radical or untested suggestion. Indeed, it is one which has been implemented quite often over the years and in different states. Two dozen states objected to the REAL ID Act of 2005, uniting to oppose the federal government’s unfunded mandate and unconstitutional intrusion into people’s privacy. As a result, the federal government backed off. Numerous states reject the federal prohibition of marijuana and allow their citizens to purchase and ingest marijuana for medicinal purposes. Some states have also opposed the federal government’s commerce power regarding the regulation of food, guns and health care.

Indeed, one of the reasons the Supreme Court ended up entertaining the challenge to the individual mandate is that the Utah Legislature passed a bill two weeks before Obamacare was enacted exempting the state from its implementation. Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed that bill into law a day before President Obama signed the federal bill, which gave the state standing in federal court to challenge its constitutionality — standing extended to the 25 other states also in opposition.

Hoping that a few lawyers-turned-judges will uphold the Constitution is an exercise in futility and misplaced priorities. While it does occur from time to time, the Supreme Court tends to enable the federal government’s usurpation of powers. A ruling in favor of the individual mandate would help spark a strong resurgence of interposition and nullification by the states, which are much better equipped to provide a check against the federal government’s unconstitutional actions.

Spencer Roane, a Virginia judge who would have been appointed chief justice of the Supreme Court by Thomas Jefferson had John Adams not chosen John Marshall in the final hours of his presidency, once observed that “the Supreme Court may be a perfectly impartial tribunal to decide between two states, but cannot be considered in that point of view when the contest lies between the United States and one of its members.”

He was right. The individuals and states challenging the constitutionality of any law, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, should consider this implicit conflict of interest and encourage the states to fulfill the role of constitutional arbiters that many of the nation’s founders envisioned them fulfilling.

Jefferson once argued that government officials should be bound down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. Some believe that a few judges, as part of the federal government, can adequately bind the legislators and bureaucrats within that same government. This is horribly misguided: questions of constitutionality should ultimately be decided by the many, not the few.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Constitutional Literalism
• Highland’s Justified Food Freedom Ordinance

Double standards are found everywhere in the words and actions of the political class. One of the most striking examples comes from the religious right which likes to claim that it is “pro-life” while usually also being in favor of war. This hypocritical position renders meaningless their claim to supporting life—you cannot be pro-life without also opposing war.

One of the GOP’s most ardent advocates of military might is Senator John McCain, who in an attempt to frame himself as a pro-life candidate declared on the campaign trail of his 2008 presidential bid that “for 24 years, I’ve fought for the rights of the unborn.” Rick Santorum’s spokesman says that the former Senator “was always a solid pro-life vote, wrote and passed pro-life legislation, and consistently received the highest rankings from pro-life groups.” These and many other supporters of military intervention abroad claim to be among the most ardent defenders of life.

George Bush, his father before him, Mitt Romney (the current version, not the Massachusetts one), Jim DeMint, and any other rising or current star in the conservative Republican field adopts the rhetoric that the supposedly pro-life ideology requires. One of this group’s leading figures, Ronald Reagan, summarized the entire pro-life message this way: “We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life—the unborn—without diminishing the value of all human life.”

To be consistent, Reagan’s quote cannot simply be applied to unborn. Rather, it must apply to all categories of human life, not just the babies-to-be that rightly receive so much attention. But it seems that many in the pro-life crowd would amend Reagan’s words to say “American life” rather than “human life.”

In other words, they myopically value only the lives of their own countrymen, giving little to no thought for the lives of the foreign, faceless masses they need not be worried about. Should the life of an American be valued more than that of, say, someone in Afghanistan? Should a pro-life person add qualifiers to convey that they’re not really in favor of every life?

The outright fraud of the pro-life claim by advocates of war is exposed when pondering the results of the interventions these politicians support: millions displaced, hundreds of thousands of innocent dead, untold starvation, sickness, and destruction. It is logically impossible to support the cause of such fiendish butchery and still be thought to support life.

Ignoring these heartbreaking problems—and with them, the rest of the non-American world—does not diminish the claim that those who support war are not pro-life. Think of the lives destroyed domestically through war: dead and maimed soldiers, failed marriages, fatherless children, PTSD, suicide, and a lengthy list of other consequences of war wreak havoc on the lives of soldiers and their loved ones. Life is damaged and destroyed through war. To support and protect life, then, requires opposing war.

As with any rule, there are exceptions; sometimes war is absolutely necessary. This (ideally rare) exception, however, does not justify the non-defensive, unconstitutional, perpetual, and costly wars being waged abroad by the American government at present. Yes, a few thousand innocent Americans tragically died on 9/11. No, their deaths do not justify killing other innocent individuals—especially magnitudes of order more.

If we genuinely care about life, then we cannot regard our own life as having any more worth than the life of another individual. Each innocent person’s life is of equal value and worth protecting. The pro-life crowd will not legitimately earn its self-imposed title until it consistently opposes unjust and unnecessary wars, thereby supporting not just the life of the unborn, or of the American, but all life.

This group has a compelling opportunity to correct their hypocrisy and become legitimately pro-life. Last week, 16 innocent and unarmed Afghanis were brutally slaughtered in their homes by an American soldier. Imagine the outcry from conservative Republicans if a gun-toting Muslim invaded the homes of a quiet suburban neighborhood and massacred an equal number of Americans!

Unfortunately, relative silence is all that can now be heard. The event is being covered by the media, sure, but it has not generated the controversy and protests that would occur in the opposite scenario just described. This specific circumstance illustrates the double standard prevalent in the pro-life movement. Perhaps if 16 mothers decided to coordinate the abortion of their babies weeks before their due dates, the pro-lifers would be called to arms, demand justice, and flood the media with sound bytes expressing the need to support life. That such a situation has not occurred with the Afghanis murdered at the hand of an American is quite telling.

Being pro-life means just that—it does not mean only being pro-unborn life or pro-American life. The Declaration of Independence notes that all men are created equal, that they all are endowed with unalienable rights, and that they all have the right to their own life. There is no footnote or exemption for individuals living half a world away; categorizing people as “collateral damage” does not diminish their rights nor justify their death.

To be truly pro-life, then, one must oppose the wars that unjustly harm or end the lives of innocent individuals. Mother Teresa, a vocal supporter of life, noted that in every abortion “there are two victims: a dead baby and a dead conscience.”

So, too, with war.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• A Pervasive Disregard for Life
• Immoral Means, Moral Ends

In the wake of a massive scandal rocking the young LDS Church and the city of Nauvoo its members largely inhabited, John C. Bennett resigned his position as Mayor (and was excommunicated from the Church). At a city council meeting two days later, the prophet Joseph Smith was overwhelmingly elected by the council to replace Bennett.

Just three days into his tenure as Mayor, Joseph read an article in the Quincy Whig announcing an assassination attempt on the life of former Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs. Based on mere rumor alone, the paper speculated that the Mormons, and specifically Joseph, may have been instrumental in the shooting. Joseph vehemently denied involvement, yet realized that his enemies would take advantage of such a situation to try and thwart God’s work.

Just over a week later, on July 5, 1842, in anticipation of such enemies seeking to arrest and extradite Joseph to another city or state (where those unfriendly to the Mormons would eagerly convict him), the Nauvoo city council passed an ordinance to protect him. Titled “An Ordinance In Relation to Writs of Habeas Corpus,” the council’s newly-adopted ordinance stated that “no citizen of this city shall be taken out of the city by writs without the privilege of investigation before the municipal court.” In other words, the officers of Nauvoo were pre-emptively nullifying any attempt to impose “justice” on Joseph or others elsewhere without first being reviewed by them, giving all their citizens “the right of trial in this city.” Mayor Joseph Smith quickly signed the ordinance which says the following in full:

Be it, and it is hereby ordained by the city council of the city of Nauvoo, that no citizen of this city shall be taken out of the city by any writs without the privilege of investigation before the municipal court, and the benefit of a writ of habeas corpus, as granted in the 17th section of the Charter of this city. Be it understood that this ordinance is enacted for the protection of the citizens of this city, that they may in all cases have the right of trial in this city, and not be subjected to illegal process by their enemies.

A “writ” is merely an official mandate by a legal authority, and a “writ of habeas corpus” is one which demands that a prisoner be released from an unlawful detention when insufficient cause of evidence exists to hold him. Habeas corpus allows a prisoner to have his case reviewed by a judge to determine if the executive authority is holding him with just cause. With their ordinance, the Nauvoo city council was simply mandating that any orders from other jurisdictions relating to anybody within Nauvoo must first be reviewed by its own court.

The foresight of this action was impressive, as the assumed power to review all such writs was used many times over the following two years, as Joseph’s enemies tried to arrest and extradite him on several occasions. One such enemy was ex-governor Boggs who had recovered from gunshots to the head and neck. Claiming in an affidavit that Orrin Porter Rockwell was responsible for the assassination attempt and that Joseph was an “accessory before the fact,” Boggs urged Missouri’s governor to demand that Thomas Carlin, the governor of Illinois, deliver up both men for extradition. Carlin agreed, and on August 8, 1842, a deputy sheriff from a neighboring county entered Nauvoo to arrest Rockwell and Smith.

Following the instructions and authority of the council’s ordinance previously mentioned, the Nauvoo municipal court issued a writ of habeas corpus demanding that the deputy sheriff bring his prisoners, who had not resisted arrest, before that tribunal. He refused to comply with the court’s order, however, arguing that they had no jurisdiction over him. He opted instead to leave the prisoners with a Nauvoo marshal while returning to Adams County for orders from the governor regarding what to do next. Both men were allowed to go free, and Joseph spent the next three months evading law enforcement officers.

Less than three weeks after the arrest of her husband, and while he was hiding from the Governor’s agents, Emma Smith wrote to Governor Carlin to defend her husband and ask that his rights be protected and due process be served. She further argued that the Nauvoo court’s writ of habeas corpus should be heeded, thus allowing a review of the allegations and evidence against Joseph by a friendly judge in the city over which Joseph presided both religiously and governmentally. The relevant portion of Carlin’s reply, written on September 7, 1842, reads:

I doubt not your candor when you say you do not desire me “to swerve from my duty as executive in the least,” and all you ask is to he allowed the privileges and advantages guaranteed to you by the Constitution and laws. You then refer me to the 11th Section of the Charter of the city of Nauvoo, and claim for Mr. Smith the right to be heard by the Municipal Court of said city, under a writ of habeas corpus emanating from said court, when he was held in custody under an executive warrant.

The Charter of the city of Nauvoo is not before me at this time; but I have examined both the Charters and city ordinances upon the subject and must express my surprise at the extraordinary assumption of power by the board of aldermen as contained in said ordinance! From my recollection of the Charter it authorizes the Municipal Court to issue writs of habeas corpus in all cases of imprisonment or custody arising from the authority of the ordinances of said city, but that the power was granted, or intended to be granted, to release persons held in custody under the authority of writs issued by the courts or the executive of the state, is most absurd and ridiculous; and to attempt to exercise it is a gross usurpation of power that cannot be tolerated.

I have always expected and desired that Mr. Smith should avail himself of the benefits of the laws of this state, and, of course, that he would be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus issued by the Circuit Court, and entitled to a hearing before said court; but to claim the right of a hearing before the Municipal Court of the city of Nauvoo is a burlesque upon the city Charter itself.

Clearly, the officers of government in other locales objected to Nauvoo’s claim of authority over arrests and extraditions ordered against its citizens. Carlin’s interpretation of the City Charter is not unique—many have likewise concluded that Nauvoo had no such power. Yet the City Council was indeed granted authority, under the charter, to pass any laws not in conflict with the constitutions of the United States or Illinois, effectively exempting the city officers from adhering to Illinois state (statutory) law when drafting city ordinances. Nauvoo is thus properly seen as a sort of state within a state, enjoying codified authority which included the municipal court’s power to issue writs of habeas corpus. It’s little wonder that Joseph called Nauvoo’s charter “one of the most liberal charters, with the most plenary powers ever conferred by a legislative assembly on free citizens”

With all the legal troubles he faced because of his enemies—including 48 criminal cases in which Joseph was the defendant (he was convicted in none of them)—Joseph availed himself of the writ of habeas corpus on numerous occasions.

One example occurred on June 23, 1843, when the sheriff of Jackson County, Missouri, and the constable of Carthage, Illinois, entered Nauvoo pretending to be Mormon elders wanting to visit the prophet. Finding their target, against whom had been issued a writ for “treason against Missouri,” both men pressed their pistols into Joseph’s chest to apprehend him—without having shown Joseph the writ ordering his capture or serving any process. Joseph’s journal records what happened next:

They then hurried me off, put me in a wagon without serving any process, and were for hurrying me off without letting me see or bid farewell to my family or friends or oven allowing me time to get my hat or clothes, or even suffer my wife or children to bring them to me. I then said, “Gentlemen, if you have any legal process, I wish to obtain a writ of habeas corpus,” and was answered,– “G— d— you, you shan’t have one.” They still continued their punching me on both sides with their pistols.

This abuse turned his skin “black for about eighteen inches in circumference on each side,” Joseph later recorded. As he was being carried away, Joseph saw a man passing by and cried out to him “These men are kidnapping me, and I wish a writ of habeas corpus to deliver myself out of their hands.” His description of their lack of legal process as “kidnapping,” despite being officers of government, shows how Joseph regarded their supposed authority. His request for habeas corpus having been denied, the prophet pressed for legal representation. The reply was like before: “G— d— you, you shan’t have counsel: one word more, G— d— you, and I’ll shoot you.”

Word of this abuse got out quickly, and the local townspeople where the officers were staying with Joseph for the night demanded better treatment and legal process. Eventually Joseph was able to get the writ of habeas corpus he desired (though not in Nauvoo’s court). On the way to court, news of Joseph’s arrival had spread throughout the town and a crowd had gathered to hear Joseph preach. His kidnappers ordered the crowd to disperse, prompting one elderly man to confront the Jackson County sheriff and thunder:

You damned infernal puke, we’ll learn you to come here and interrupt gentlemen. Sit down there, (pointing to a very low chair,) and sit still. Don’t open your head till General Smith gets through talking. If you never learned manners in Missouri, we’ll teach you that gentlemen are not to be imposed upon by a nigger-driver. You cannot kidnap men here, if you do in Missouri; and if you attempt it here, there’s a committee in this grove that will sit on your case; and, sir, it is the highest tribunal in the United States, as from its decision there is no appeal.

Joseph preached on the subject of marriage for an hour and a half, and simply records thereafter: “My freedom commenced from that hour.” Joseph returned to Nauvoo, escorted by the Jackson County sheriff, who had become a prisoner of the Lee County sheriff as a result of his unlawful actions. The company returned to Nauvoo with much fanfare, and a feast was arranged at Joseph’s home, at which the Jackson County sheriff was guest of honor, sitting at the head of a table with roughly 50 people attending.

Nauvoo’s court immediately assembled to review the events—Joseph notified them that “the writ of habeas corpus granted by the Master in Chancery at Dixon was made returnable to the nearest court having jurisdiction; and you are that court.” The court began to review the evidence from all parties, and as the evening wore on, the court adjourned until the following morning. Joseph preached to the public in Nauvoo that evening on the issue of habeas corpus:

It is not so much my object to tell of my afflictions, trials and troubles as to speak of the writ of habeas corpus, so that the minds of all may be corrected. It has been asserted by the great and wise men, lawyers and others, that our municipal powers and legal tribunals are not to be sanctioned by the authorities of the state; and accordingly they want to make it lawful to drag away innocent men from their families and friends, and have them put to death by ungodly men for their religion:

Relative to our city charter, courts, right of habeas corpus, etc., I wish you to know and publish that we have all power; and if any man from this time forth says anything to the contrary, cast it into his teeth.

There is a secret in this. If there is not power in our charter and courts, then there is not power in the state of Illinois, nor in the congress or constitution of the United States; for the United States gave unto Illinois her constitution or charter, and Illinois gave unto Nauvoo her charters, ceding unto us our vested rights, which she has no right or power to take from us. All the power there was in Illinois she gave to Nauvoo; and any man that says to the contrary is a fool.

In another portion of his address, the prophet stated:

The constitution of the United States declares that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be denied…. If these powers are dangerous, then the constitution of the United States and of this state are dangerous; but they are not dangerous to good men: they are only so to bad men who are breakers of the laws. So with the laws of the country, and so with the ordinances of Nauvoo: they are dangerous to mobs, but not to good men who wish to keep the laws.

And finally:

You speak of lawyers. I am a lawyer too; but the Almighty God has taught me the principle of law; and the true meaning and intent of the writ of habeas corpus is to defend the innocent and investigate the subject. Go behind the writ and if the form of one that is issued against an innocent man is right, he should [nevertheless] not be dragged to another state, and there be put to death, or be in jeopardy of life and limb, because of prejudice, when he is innocent. The benefits of the constitution and laws are alike for all; and the great Eloheim has given me the privilege of having the benefits of the constitution and the writ of habeas corpus; and I am bold to ask for that privilege this day, and I ask in the name of Jesus Christ, and all that is sacred, that I may have your lives and all your energies to carry out the freedom which is chartered to us. Will you all help me? If so make it manifest by raising the right hand (There was a unanimous response, a perfect sea of hands being elevated). Here is truly a committee of the whole.

The following day, on July 1, the Nauvoo municipal court resumed its hearing and decided that Joseph “be discharged from the said arrest and imprisonment complained of in said petition, and that the said Smith be discharged for want of substance in the warrant upon which he was arrested, as well as upon the merits of said case, and that he go hence without delay.” As was the case with previous arrests and kidnappings, Joseph was once again a free man.

Joseph Smith rightly loved the writ of habeas corpus. He had been made to suffer time and time again due to false accusations and trumped up charges, and thus took great comfort in the opportunity to stand before a judge and defend himself from his accusers. Half a year after this event, he initiated an independent presidential campaign. Explaining his reason for doing so, Joseph noted the need to ensure that the law protect and defend the innocent, as he had to do for himself so many times before:

I would not have suffered my name to have been used by my friends on anywise as President of the United States, or candidate for that office, if I and my friends could have had the privilege of enjoying our religious and civil rights as American citizens, even those rights which the Constitution guarantees unto all her citizens alike. But this as a people we have been denied from the beginning. Persecution has rolled upon our heads from time to time, from portions of the United States, like peals of thunder, because of our religion; and no portion of the Government as yet has stepped forward for our relief. And in view of these things, I feel it to be my right and privilege to obtain what influence and power I can, lawfully, in the United States, for the protection of injured innocence.

Pondering the foregoing information, a clear contrast emerges with the first Mormon presidential candidate, Joseph Smith, and the latest one, Mitt Romney. Whereas the former was a champion of the Constitution and upheld individual liberty (in word and in deed—numerous deeds, even), the latter has made himself an enemy of both things.

The 2012 NDAA authorizes the President of the United States to indefinitely detain an American citizen without due process if suspected of being or aiding a terrorist. On the judgment and order of a single man, then, this “law” now allows for the legalized kidnapping of citizens with no opportunity for habeas corpus.

Recall that Joseph himself was accused on numerous occasions of engaging in activity which today would readily be deemed “terrorism,” including the assassination attempt on Boggs’ life. Further, the writs against him were signed by the judgment and order of a single man, such as the Governor, who in every case was later proven to have his information wrong, whether he acted in ignorance or with malicious intent. Imagine, then, what Joseph Smith’s life would be like if similar activities occurred today, under the NDAA. Without habeas corpus, Joseph Smith (or any other innocent individual) could be locked up with no recourse against his government-employed kidnappers.

What does Mitt Romney have to do with this? In a recent debate for Republican presidential candidates, Romney was asked if he would have signed the NDAA if he were President. “Yes, I would have,” he responded. One can only imagine the awkward conversation that might ensue between Romney and the founding prophet of his church once Romney dies and finds an opportunity to talk to Joseph. Extending him the benefit of doubt, one might presume that Romney’s support of such an offensive and constitutionally repugnant government edict stems not from malicious intent, but profound ignorance. Either way, the position he has readily embraced is at odds with the protections of law that Joseph Smith repeatedly enjoyed.

When those two officers kidnapped Joseph Smith, they refused to allow him a writ of habeas corpus to challenge their arrest. “G— d— you, you shan’t have one,” they told Joseph. This situation is eerily reminiscent of a statement made on the Senate floor by Senator Lindsey Graham, a sponsor and staunch supporter of the NDAA and the relevant provisions denying habeas corpus to American citizens suspected of terrorism. “It is not unfair,” said Graham, “to hold American citizens as long as it takes to find intelligence… When they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up! you don’t get a lawyer!’”

This is the sentiment behind those who support the NDAA, a list which includes Mitt Romney. We need not speculate as to what Joseph Smith might think of the NDAA and its supporters like Romney, for he is already on record: “Deny me the writ of habeas corpus, and I will fight with gun, sword, cannon, whirlwind, and thunder…” Good luck with that, Brother Romney.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Should Mormons vote for Mitt Romney?
• Joseph Kony: A Monster to Destroy?

Once the U.S. Constitution was signed and sent to the various states for consideration in 1787, a passionate and sometimes heated debate immediately began. Writing together under the pseudonym “Publius,” the arguments advanced by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay were widely published and later compiled into “The Federalist.” This group is well known, especially since their opinions ultimately carried the day, and their writings are considered by many to be an indispensable exposition of the Constitution.

Not as well known are the opposing arguments of the loosely connected group known as the “Anti-Federalists,” who similarly penned essays to persuade the public, but in opposition to the proposed Constitution. Despite having not achieved their goal, they are often given much credit and praise for having demanded the Bill of Rights that was passed soon after the Constitution’s ratification.

One of the more prominent Anti-Federalists, also writing under a pseudonym (and whose identity is unknown), was “Federal Farmer.” He was acknowledged by his intellectual opponents as the “most plausible” Anti-Federalist, and two centuries now having passed since his advocacy against the Constitution, he appears nearly prophetic in the warnings he offered.

Federal Farmer’s primary argument was that the general government created under the Constitution would ultimately erode the sovereignty of the states, gradually replacing their autonomy with its increasingly centralized control. Two centuries later, that’s an extremely accurate prediction.

He further argued in his writings that this centralization of power would prove destructive to the liberties of each individual, who would be subjected to the tyrannical mandates of a distant executive authority. Again, another accurate prediction.

Ironically, a compelling example of the very things Federal Farmer warned his contemporaries would inevitably occur comes in the form of other federal farmers. These are not the intellectual statesmen fighting for individual liberty, but rather actual farmers. Why federal, then?

Many of today’s farmers are directly dependent upon the federal government, receiving taxpayer dollars simply to be farmers – a situation not authorized in any way by the Constitution.

The Farm Service Agency, part of the USDA and thus a part of the federal government, has given out 15,000 loans to beginning farmers and ranchers, totaling roughly $1.5 billion per year. This agency offers a variety of financial and educational resources to new farmers, enticing them to try their hand at growing a crop, while having the reassuring security of federal loan guarantees, subsidies, and other financial assistance to make it worth their while.

But whose money is used to shell out billions of dollars to these farmers? Yours and mine.

And with what constitutional authority does the federal government engage in this wealth redistribution program? None. In pursuit of this program, then, a powerful federal government taxes some of us to offer programs and benefits to others, despite not having been constitutionally authorized to do so.

The very things that Federal Farmer warned would happen, while readily evident in a variety of circumstances and settings today, are exemplified in the federal government’s attempt to create new farmers.

One might reasonably conclude that the Federal Farmer of yesteryear would not look so favorably upon today’s “federal farmers” who are dependent upon the government which he warned would become as large, oppressive, and unrestrained as it now has.

Read more: The Davis Clipper – Federal Farmers then and now

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Why I Have (Largely) Given Up on the Federal Government
• Federal Justification of Tyranny
• Food Safety Advocates Have Read the Law Wrong

In just three days, the half-hour video produced by Invisible Children to highlight a Ugandan warmonger oppressing little kids has reached over 12 million people. (Edit: in less than a week, it has been viewed 70 million times.)

Many of those millions are now loudly parroting the message advanced by the video’s creators: the federal government is needed to intervene and help take out this monster once and for all. The narrator claims that in order to find Joseph Kony, the ring leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army, “the Ugandan army needs the technology and training” which must be offered by the United States government.

Due in large part to the activism of this same organization, Barack Obama deployed 100 combat-equipped soldiers in 2010 to help regional forces capture or kill Kony and senior leaders of the band of rebels. In a letter explaining his action, Obama stated that “deploying these U.S. Armed Forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.”

While it is laughable to claim that killing a bad guy half a world away who poses absolutely no threat to America would further the “national security interests” of the United States of America, one thing the intervention certainly does is further America’s “foreign policy” which has for decades entailed one intervention after another.

Invisible Children wildly celebrated this feather in its cap, though likely seeing it as just the beginning. Thus, the video. The idea is to further generate awareness, and then encourage activism, ultimately applying pressure on politicians in Congress to maintain and increase the troops on the ground. As the narrator further exhorts, “if the government doesn’t believe that people care about arresting Kony, the mission will be cancelled.”

The conflation of caring about Kony’s arrest and supporting the federal government’s involvement in that process saturates much of what Invisible Children does. In doing so, they readily admit that the use of military forces to capture and/or kill Kony would be a war waged “not for self defense,” says the narrator, “but because it was right.”

This is a subtle though dangerous connection, one where the “right thing” is almost universally agreed upon, but where the means to achieve that end is rightly problematic to some. Keep in mind what the narrator said: the use of the military to pursue Kony would not be an action done in self defense. Even so, they claim, it would be “right.” But something cannot be right unless done in the right way. Stopping a bully at school is the right thing to do; stopping him with a shotgun is not. Helping an unemployed neighbor pay his bills is the right thing to do; funding that “charity” with the money you stole from another neighbor is not. Fighting back in defense against an aggressor is the right thing to do; chasing that aggressor back to his home land and then bombing his loved ones and countrymen is not.

Stopping Kony is the right thing to do. To that end, Invisible Children’s efforts to generate awareness are definitely praiseworthy, as are any efforts to encourage individuals to donate their time and resources to bringing about that goal. Where they cross the line is believing and advocating that the military of the United States government should be involved.

In the early 1820s, several European countries were attempting to re-establish control over South America, jockeying for power by clashing with each other militarily. There was significant support in the united States of America for lending military and financial support to the various independence movements throughout South America. (Sound familiar? This same story has repeated itself dozens of times in the past two centuries.) In response, then-Secretary of State (and future President) John Quincy Adams stated the following in an Independence Day address before the House of Representatives:

America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart….

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet on her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power.

She might become the dictatress of the world; she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….

Her glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

History has repeatedly proven the folly of America’s deviation from this policy. This government has on numerous occasions involved itself beyond the point of extrication, under the guise of destroying monsters and assisting foreign independence.

This has application to many interventions, including the one which seeks to bring Kony to justice. Joseph Kony is a monster. But he is one of many. If and when captured or killed, another will rise to take his place. And even now, there are hundreds of other warlords and evil men inflicting their nefarious designs on the individuals they have dominated. America was not founded to be the policeman of the world, nor do there exist sufficient financial resources and moral authority to do so.

Truth be told, America has itself become a monster by violating the very principles and practices outlined in Adams’ speech. Recall that in his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ taught his followers a lesson of hypocrisy and priority—one which has direct application to this situation:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Kony is capturing and killing innocent people. So is the federal government. Fancy videos and emotion-fueled activism show the horrors of what this Kony has done half a world a way, but where is the outcry and galvanized opposition to what our own government is doing half a world away? Where is the concern for the sanctions and blockades imposed on nations which create suffering, starvation, and death as a punishment for innocent people who have done no harm? Where are the throngs of teenagers clamoring for the government to stop dropping bombs on cities they can’t even pronounce? Why are there not well-funded educational campaigns raising awareness of the torture, intervention, war profiteering, and destruction inflicted upon foreign people by Americans in military costumes?

That story is not popular, nor is there a single scapegoat as easily vilified as there is with the Lord’s Resistance Army and Joseph Kony. It’s comfortable for us to see monsters in distant lands and support their extermination, while coming to terms with the monsters who infest our own government is neither comfortable nor convenient. Thus Invisible Children casts a bright spotlight on Kony’s “mote” while the “beam” in America remains in relative darkness. In focusing on Kony while refusing to hold our own government to account, we become hypocrites who do not see clearly.

The video’s narrator affirms that “arresting Joseph Kony will prove that the world we live in has new rules.” In contrast, opposing, removing from power, and holding to account (through impeachment and criminal charges) those responsible for our interventionist, immoral, and offensive foreign policy—one which causes the death and displacement of millions of "invisible children"—would prove that the world we live in has reaffirmed the old rules of justice and morality, and that America’s motto once again is, as Adams said, “Freedom, Independence, Peace.”

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Joseph Smith, Habeas Corpus, Mitt Romney, and the 2012 NDAA

Glenn,

You are a complicated man, you know that?

I know many people who think you are the embodiment of deception, seeking to lead an otherwise truth-seeking people off a cliff. To such people, I often stand up for you, noting that you do say some great things from time to time, and have, for example, referred many people to read good books by men far smarter than you or I. You’re not all bad, I say, though emphatically emphasizing that I disagree with you on many things.

Many things.

I try and give you the benefit of the doubt. As you often say, you’re learning as you go along, and progressing towards a libertarian viewpoint. Just the other day, as you have in the past, you told one of your guests that you consider yourself libertarian. So I think to myself: “okay, he’s slowly waking up, maybe he’ll continue to improve over time.”

But good heavens, Glenn. You’re so inconsistent! For example, you’ve recognized that Ron Paul is the closest thing we’ve got to the founding fathers, and then you encourage people not to support him. Then you about-face and suggest he’s what we need, only to then attack him a few days later.

Flip-flopping Mitt Romney? He’s got nothing on you.

But hey, I get that you have a hard time with consistently applying a principle. Many people do. No sweat. All is forgiven. I don’t listen to you, and I encourage others to steer clear, but you’re welcome to continue your self-contradicting tirades all you like, so long as you have the breath to do so. I prefer to keep my distance from you, as I don’t consider you a reliable source of analysis and truth. In short, I ignore you.

This morning, however, you said something that cannot stand without a rebuttal. You attacked Ron Paul, which isn’t a surprise, but you brought our mutual religion (yours and mine, not mine and Dr. Paul’s) into the picture.

Here’s the four minute audio clip:

http://www.connorboyack.com/drop/gb_ronpaul.mp3

And now, the rebuttal.

Glenn, you stay true to form by within this very clip saying something reasonable and agreeable, before you spout some nonsense. In talking about the voting patterns of some Catholics voting for Santorum and some Mormons voting for Romney on the basis of their shared religion, you said: “Don’t vote for the guy who holds the card of your church. Vote for the guy whose principles you agree with….” This is fine, and I agree. Get past the labels, and support others on the basis of their policies, not their church membership.

It seems that in suggesting that we vote based on principles, that you were insinuating that we should vote for somebody who espouses the principles that are part of our church, and not necessarily the guy who “holds the card” of membership in that church. In other words, Catholics should vote for the candidate who best espouses principles compatible with their faith (which may not be Santorum), Mormons should vote for the guy who comes closest to the principles of their faith (which may not be Romney), etc.

With that as your lead-in, you then launched an attack on the idea that some Mormons support Ron Paul, apparently flabbergasted that a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might believe that this man best espouses the principles of our faith.

Mitt Romney just won in Arizona, getting 93% of the Mormon vote (based on exit polling) compared to Ron Paul getting a puny 3%. And yet the fact that Ron Paul attracted so few Mormon votes sent you into a near-apoplectic fit.

“Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait… Ron Paul?! Help me get my arms around this,” you pleaded. “How do you, if you’re somebody who is abiding by the principles taught by the [LDS] Church, how are you going for Ron Paul?”

Seriously, Glenn?

I have to assume here that you didn’t read the copy of my book (endorsed by Ron Paul, by the way) which I sent to your producer, who confirmed that you had received it. Had you read it, you would have gotten your answer. (Though I’m not entirely sure that your question is sincere.)

But that’s okay. You’re a busy man. I get it. So let me quickly spell it out for you.

Members of the LDS Church are often taught that the Constitution was an inspired document created by men raised up by God for that very purpose. Our scriptures command us to support good, honest, and wise men for public office, and to uphold the Constitution. Only Ron Paul has consistently abided by his oath of office to support and defend this document, consistently voting against bills that violate its provisions. No other candidate can claim this constitutional fidelity.

Church leaders have been no less emphatic in suggesting the need for Latter-day Saints to uphold the Constitution. Our founding prophet, Joseph Smith, called the Constitution a “glorious standard” and a “heavenly banner” by which we should stand. Ezra Taft Benson, a prophet whom you’ve quoted on your program, taught that Mormons “must be vigilant in doing our part to preserve the Constitution and safeguard the way of life it makes possible.” Another, Spencer W. Kimball, said that each member of the church “should sustain, honor, and obey” the Constitution.

Countless other quotes exist, all affirming the same idea: Mormons should support the Constitution. It is on this basis that some members of the LDS Church object to the candidacies of the non-Paul presidential contenders. Each has consistently and repeatedly voted and advocated for unconstitutional policies.

The other candidates want to “fix” and prop up unconstitutional federal welfare schemes, but Ron Paul wants to allow people to opt out, and push the programs down to the state level as is required by the Constitution.

The other candidates have said that they would have signed the recent National Defense Authorization Act which authorizes the President to indefinitely detain American citizens, but Ron Paul rightly called it an “egregious distortion of justice that Americans have always ridiculed in so many dictatorships overseas.”

The other candidates want to send our soldiers into more immoral, unjust, offensive wars without any constitutional declaration, but Ron Paul abides by the specific, war-related provisions of the Constitution and understands the Christian just war theory.

The other candidates want to maintain and increasingly empower the torture-enabling detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, and elsewhere, escalate our current wars, and lead us into another with Iran—saying, as Romney has about our supposed enemies, that “we go anywhere they are, and we kill them”—but Ron Paul instead suggested that we consider applying the golden rule, as taught by Jesus Christ, to our foreign policy.

The other candidates have supported unconstitutional bailouts which violate the law of the harvest, while Ron Paul, after voting against TARP, said that such bailouts are “exactly the wrong thing to do.”

The other candidates have supported the unconstitutional intervention of government into the economy in the form of “stimulus packages” while Ron Paul has consistently argued that “it makes no sense whatsoever.”

On these benchmarks alone, the other candidates fail in contrast to Ron Paul, the self-described (and generally recognized) “champion of the Constitution.” I agree with your previous point, that we should judge a candidate based on principle, not religion. Doing so yields one clear answer: Constitution-loving Mormons, along with those of all or no faith, should vote for Ron Paul.

But in your predictable smear (you’ve made a name for yourself of helping torpedo good candidates just prior to elections), you did list a few specific objections—ones which you apparently feel disqualify Ron Paul from being the candidate who most closely matches the principles of your fellow Mormons.

You stated that the legalization of prostitution and drugs, and “not standing up for Israel,” were the gross sins of Representative Ron Paul. Are you kidding me? Are you that much of a fool, Glenn, that you believe that these objections of yours to Ron Paul, the closest thing we’ve got to a founding father, are sufficient to speculate as to why any God-fearing Mormon would ever consider voting for the guy?

You’ve hit a new low.

First off, there is a difference between legalizing something and decriminalizing it. Second, Ron Paul as President would have no power to decriminalize drugs or prostitution around the country. He would only be able to encourage federal legislation which he could sign, that would correctly (and constitutionally) leave the issue to the states. So, again, another point for Ron Paul.

Then there’s your Israel fetish. You think that Ron Paul is “not standing up for Israel.” Allow me to clarify. When Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, and almost the entire Congress voted in support of a resolution condemning the act, who was one of the very few Republicans who stood up and said Israel should not have to answer to America for how she defends herself? Ron Paul. Keep in mind that this was the Reagan party, with some of the most hawkish anti-Communists and the staunchest Christian conservatives. Was Ron Paul not standing up for Israel then, Glenn?

Ron Paul strongly supports Israel’s right to self-determination. As President, he would be the only one who would seek to eliminate the billions of dollars in aid sent by our government to Israel’s enemies. He believes and repeatedly says that we should be friendly with and supportive of Israel, but that we should not be their master. Only he advocates that we should “refuse any arms sales that would undermine Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region.”

Ron Paul is very supportive of Israel, and rightly recognizes that they have sufficient military strength to deal with their enemies. Guess who agrees with Ron Paul? Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Glenn, you’re wrong. You’re contradicting yourself. You’re saying things that simply aren’t true.

In fact, there are plenty of reasons why a faithful Mormon might vote for Ron Paul. Open the copy of Latter-day Liberty sitting on your bookshelf, and you might realize why Ron Paul endorsed a book written by a Mormon, which helps fellow Church members (including you) understand why the very principles of liberty that Ron Paul happens to support are so compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

“How do you, if you’re somebody who is abiding by the principles taught by the [LDS] Church, how are you going for Ron Paul?” you asked. If you’re really interested in learning the answer to your question, read the book. It shouldn’t be too hard for a Mormon and self-described libertarian such as yourself to put two and two together. If you’ve got sincere questions, I’m happy to answer.

Until then, stop saying stupid things. Please?

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Should Mormons vote for Mitt Romney?
• Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul
• My Letter to a Senator Hatch Re-Election Campaign Staffer

Political scientists often analyze the youth vote in order to spot possible future political trends. Having very recently aged out of this 18- to 29-year-old demographic (“millennial voters,” as they’re called), I believe I understand fairly well how many in the rising generation feel, and why they vote the way they do.

Of course, when speaking of millions of people in this way, one can only draw general conclusions that are riddled with exceptions. Still, trends do exist and point to underlying motives for why so many youth support a certain candidate or issue.

Four years ago, this voting segment overwhelming chose Obama over McCain in the general election, flocking to a candidate who railed against the secrecy, torture, tyranny, and moral bankruptcy of the Bush administration’s foreign policy and attacks on civil liberties. They were offered “change” and bought into it, recognizing that McCain was openly advocating a continuation of Bush’s policies, and not foreseeing that Obama would basically do the same once in office.

Yet that’s exactly what Obama has done, violating his promises to end the wars and stop torture, instead advancing the Bush doctrine he criticized while taking it 10 steps further by unilaterally assassinating American citizens and embracing new powers to indefinitely detain others. Persistent unemployment, endless and increased warfare, bailouts and stimuli compounding upon one another, and a staggering reversal on many of Obama’s important promises of “change” have led many young voters to look elsewhere. While he claims to be “inspired” by the youth who swept him into office, many of those former supporters are now looking elsewhere to find real and lasting change.

Three-quarters of youth voters want federal spending reduced; the rising generation would like to keep their paychecks and not be endlessly taxed to fund programs and policies that are flawed and doomed to fail. They’re sick of bailing out banks, subsidizing businesses, and paying into an entitlement system that will implode before they are old enough to use it themselves.

A majority of young voters want the wars to end, and the anti-war candidate they previously supported has only perpetuated and increased them. They are the ones being split apart from their families to live and die half a world away for a cause they neither understand nor believe in. Young Americans have their lives ahead of them, and are sick of seeing friends and family buried six feet underground prematurely. They want peace, and war only when necessary. They want to sacrifice neither life nor limb for oil, war profiteering, and a neo-imperialistic foreign policy.

Young voters want to be left alone, free from Internet censorship, business regulation, a failed war on drugs, and a nanny state presuming to protect them from themselves. They want the government to mind its own business while leaving them free to worry about theirs. Young voters recently left the care and oversight of their parents — they don’t want the government to simply replace that role and keep them in a state of juvenile subservience.

The rising generation has been witness to the past decade of fearmongering and lies from both major parties, and has thus become increasingly independent and libertarian in response to such rampant corruption and hypocrisy. They fail to find much consistency and principled leadership in the halls of government, and therefore develop strong anti-government undertones in their political ideology. Young voters tend to know a liar when they see one — and they see them often.

All of this and more can perhaps begin to explain why the oldest man running for the office of president is garnering such strong support from the youngest of voters. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has offered a plan to substantially reduce spending, by $1 trillion in the first year. He’s the only one advocating that the troops come home and the wars be stopped, much to the delight of many of the young people living and fighting overseas. He wants to get government out of both the bedroom and the boardroom, reducing its size and scope to a relatively small, constitutional footprint. And in Ron Paul, young voters see three decades of consistency, an adherence to principle, and even if they disagree with him on a few issues, they sense that he can be trusted.

To be sure, a very large number of young voters support other candidates, including the incumbent, Barack Obama. The youth vote is slipping away from his grasp, however, with only 49% approving of his presidency, down 23 points from February 2009. As the issues important to young Americans consolidate into firm political opinions and then into voting behavior, it is likely that an increasingly disproportional percentage will favor Ron Paul in contrast to the other pro-war, interventionist, big-government candidates, including the incumbent. If denied the nomination, Ron Paul’s young base will likely either stay home or support a third-party candidacy; they’re willing to apply their idealism to make the status quo suffer, even if just a little. (Most pundits recognize, though, that this voting behavior in the aggregate would be very detrimental to the GOP’s electoral chances.)

Candidate Barack Obama knew what many young voters wanted, and he spoke their language: the rule of law, the end of unjust wars, and a respect for the civil liberties that had steadily been eroded by the Bush administration since 9/11. While he has done an about-face on those issues, they are issues that are still (if not more) important than they were four years ago. Candidates for the 2012 presidential election would be wise to sincerely modify their positions as necessary to gain the support of the demographic whose blood and treasure is so often wasted when the status quo carries the day.

Put simply, young people yearn for the freedom to determine their own futures. Unfortunately, few politicians seem willing to afford them the luxury.

Trey Grayson, the director of Harvard University’s Institute of Politics, wisely commented on the youth vote as follows: “Those campaigns that don’t adapt to what the millennial generation wants to see in candidates are going to have a hard time winning.”

He should know. He lost in the 2010 Republican primary to now-Senator Rand Paul, who won the youth vote.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul
• The Primary Election Post-Mortem

In October 1946, a high-ranking leader of a large Christian church in America rose to the podium in a tabernacle, during a large conference in which were assembled 7,000 church members, with thousands more listening via radio transmission, and a million more receiving the messages in the weeks and months ahead. His message was scathing—a castigating rebuke of the use of atom bombs just over a year previous:

And the worst of this atomic bomb tragedy is not that not only did the people of the United States not rise up in protest against this savagery, not only did it not shock us to read of this wholesale destruction of men, women, and children, and cripples, but that it actually drew from the nation at large a general approval of this fiendish butchery.

Thus we in America are now deliberately searching out and developing the most savage, murderous means of exterminating peoples that Satan can plant in our minds. We do it not only shamelessly, but with a boast. God will not forgive us for this.

If we are to avoid extermination, if the world is not to be wiped out, we must find some way to curb the fiendish ingenuity of men who have apparently no fear of God, man, or the devil, and who are willing to plot and plan and invent instrumentalities that will wipe out all the flesh of the earth. And, as one American citizen of one hundred thirty millions, as one in one billion population of the world, I protest with all of the energy I possess against this fiendish activity, and as an American citizen, I call upon our government and its agencies to see that these unholy experimentations are stopped, and that somehow we get into the minds of our war-minded general staff and its satellites, and into the general staffs of all the world, a proper respect for human life.¹

This man was J. Reuben Clark, a counselor to the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), and thus a member of the Church’s highest-ranking body. A lawyer by training and a diplomat and statesman by experience, Clark was an ardent advocate of peace.

Seven years prior—one month after the outbreak of World War II—Clark said the following in another church conference:

Nothing is more unrighteous, more unholy, more un-Godly than man-declared mass slaughter of his fellowman for an unrighteous cause… The law declared at Sinai was “Thou shalt not kill,” and in the Garden of Gethsemane: “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” With these divine commands deep-embodied in our spiritual consciousness, we can look with no degree of allowance upon the sin of unholy war, and a war to make conquest or to keep conquest already made is such a war.²

In advocating for peace, Clark was thus anti-war. In 1947, fourteen years before Eisenhower nicknamed the Military-Industrial Complex and called America’s attention to it, Clark was pointing out to his Mormon audience its many evils:

Popular feeling is being flogged into a support of this plan [to wage more war]. The press, the movies, the radio, the rostrum, all are deliberately used to build this terrible aim in our hearts. Enormous sums are expended by the military in propaganda, to scare us civilians into a blind following of their insanity. Often this propagandizing is crudely done, at other times it is carried on with great craft and cunning. We are to be made so jittery with fear that we shall follow with eyes shut where they lead.³

He continued, noting that all of this is done “in the face of the divine command: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’”⁴ Many will no doubt recall the reception received by Ron Paul in a South Carolina debate when he suggested this very thing—an institutional adherence to the Golden Rule. The vociferous denigration of this moral principle by the audience was responded to by Clark in his day with the following rhetorical question: “Are we Christians? We act like pagans.”⁵

Unlike fellow Mormon Mitt Romney, who incessantly declares that he “will not apologize for America,” one of Clark’s biographers wrote:

[Clark] exempted no nation from the condemnation of having been a party to the introduction of “barbarous” methods of warfare. The world, he wrote, had “gone back a half a millennium in its conduct of international relations in time of war…” And then, lest his countrymen smugly blame this relapse on others, he added that “no nation has to bear a greater blame for this than our own.”⁶

Clark was a dedicated non-interventionist, and preached the foreign policy of Washington and Jefferson on many occasions. Praising the “great doctrine of American neutrality,” he stated:

I am a confirmed isolationist, a political isolationist, first, I am sure, by political instinct, next, from experience, observation, and patriotism, and lastly, because, while isolated, we built the most powerful nation in the world, a nation that provided most of prosperity to all its citizens, . . . most of popular education, most of freedom, most of peace, most of blessing by example to other nations, . . . of any nation, past or present, on the face of this earth. I stand for the possession of, and exercise by our nation of a full, complete, and unimpaired sovereignty that will be consistent with our membership in the Society of Nations.

In so declaring I have no diffidence, no apology, no shame. On the contrary, I have a great pride in the fact that I stand where the Revolutionary Fathers stood, who fought for, and gained our independence. . . .

I am pro-Constitution, pro-Government, as it was established under the Constitution, pro-free institutions, as they have been developed under and through the Constitution, pro-liberty, pro-freedom, pro-full and complete independence and sovereignty, pro-local self-government, and pro-everything else that has made us the free country we had grown to be in the first 130 years of our national existence.

It necessarily follows that I am anti-internationalist, anti-interventionist, anti-meddlesome-busybodiness in our international affairs. In the domestic field, I am anti-socialist, anti-Communist, anti-Welfare State. . . .

As I proceed, some will say, “Oh, he is talking about the past; but this is a new world, new conditions, new problems,” and so on. To this I will content myself with answering—human nature does not change; in its basic elements it now is as it was at the dawn of history, as our present tragic plight shows. Even savages inflict no greater inhumanities than are going on in the world today.

In the mad thrusting of ourselves, with a batch of curative political nostrums, into the turmoil and tragedy of today’s world, we are like a physician called in to treat a virulent case of smallpox, and whose treatment consists in getting into bed with his patient. That is not the way to cure smallpox.⁷

As the second world war broke out across Europe, Clark said, again in a large church conference, that America’s entrance “would be an appalling prostitution of our heritage.”⁸ His consistent excoriation of unjust, immoral warfare, both at the pulpit and in secular settings, was accompanied by a Christian-based promotion of persuasion and peace. For example, in 1944:

For America has a destiny—a destiny to conquer the world—not by force of arms, not by purchase and favor, for these conquests wash away, but by high purpose, by unselfish effort, by uplifting achievement, by a course of Christian living; a conquest that shall leave every nation free to move out to its own destiny; a conquest that shall bring, through the workings of our own example, the blessings of freedom and liberty to every people, without restraint or imposition or compulsion from us; a conquest that shall weld the whole earth together in one great brotherhood in a reign of mutual patience, forbearance, and charity, in a reign of peace to which we shall lead all others by the persuasion of our own righteous example.⁹

In 1973, a new law school was founded at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah—one of the leading universities in America, which is owned by the LDS Church. It was named after J. Reuben Clark, Jr. At its founding, students then enrolled in the law school, along with their future counterparts, were counseled as follows: “Every time you hear or read the name of your school you can be reminded of the great man whose life you can emulate to your profit.”

Clark’s biographer writes that “the avoidance of war… was one of J. Reuben Clark’s great political objectives…”¹⁰ To emulate such a man suggests, then, that Mormons should likewise be non-interventionist advocates of peace. In the scriptures used by members of the LDS Church, the following related commandment from God is found—one which in many ways serves as a fitting slogan of the life of J. Reuben Clark, Jr.: “Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace…”

Clark’s criticism of the government’s “fiendish butchery,” his support of a non-interventionist foreign policy, and his Christian-based advocacy of peace through persuasion is something every individual would do well to emulate, Mormon or not.

——

Footnotes:

¹ In Conference Report, October 1946, 89.
² Ray C. Hillam, ed., J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Diplomat and Statesman (Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1973), 120.
³ “Slipping from Our Old Moorings,” in David H. Yarn, Jr., ed., J. Reuben Clark Selected Papers, vol. 5 (Provo: Brigham Young University, 1987), 161.
⁴ Ibid, 162.
⁵ Hillam, Clark, 204.
⁶ Ibid, 203.
⁷ Ibid, 22.
⁸ Ibid, 133.
⁹ Ibid, 210.
¹⁰ Ibid, 120.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Prayers for Peace, Free Principles, and Protection
• Mormon Pioneers and their Modern-day Counterparts
• A Mormon People in Need of Reform

The Declaration of Independence affirms and clarifies the origin of our individual rights. Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration’s primary author, wrote that we “are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Thus, these rights – amongst which are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – both precede any instituted government, and supercede whatever laws it may pass in violation of them.

More than a mere game of semantics, understanding the source of our rights is paramount to understanding what government may legitimately do. Do we enjoy our liberty at the good graces of government, or does the government only exist to protect our pre-existing rights? The answer to this, while thankfully obvious to some, has significant implications for everything the government does (supposedly) in our name.

The main purpose of individuals establishing governments, as the philosopher John Locke observed, “is the preservation of their property.” Prior to any government, individuals have the moral authority to repel any aggressor, and protect their lives, liberties, and property from attack. This individual authority can therefore be delegated to an organization, such as a government, whose officers can defend the individuals within that organization.

To be legitimate, then, any government action must be predicated upon an individual right which has been properly delegated to that government. Military and police powers become easily reconciled, as they are based upon the individual right to self-defense. But so much of what government does falls outside this narrow scope.

Does an individual have an inherent right to take money from his neighbor to keep his business afloat? He does not, and therefore government bailouts of private business have no moral justification. Does an individual have an inherent right to use violence against his neighbor for growing and consuming a marijuana plant? He does not, and therefore the war on drugs has no moral justification. Does an individual have an inherent right to compel his neighbors to help fund his child’s education, and his aging mother’s health care needs? He does not, and therefore government education and welfare programs likewise have no moral justification.

The pattern is clear, and becomes quite useful to analyze whether any government action is morally valid. One must simply ask: would I be justified in doing this to my neighbor tomorrow, if the government were to be dissolved today?

Supporters of illegitimate government authority claim that there exists some “social contract” which justifies government powers that the individuals who comprise it do not possess – a contract which has never been signed, nor its terms even disclosed! Some also believe that because a majority of voters approve the powers, they become valid. This wrongly supposes that a majority of neighbors can decide that their immoral actions upon the dissenting minority become magically moral by their simply having said so.

The French economist and philosopher Frédéric Bastiat rightly said that “if the very purpose of law is the protection of individual rights, then law may not be used… to accomplish what individuals have no right to do.” While it’s easy to point to low-hanging, corrupt fruit on the tree of government, it’s time to pull up the roots and realize how diseased the entire tree has become.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Individuals as Government Guinea Pigs
• The Addictive Drug that Government Will Never Prohibit
• Why I Have (Largely) Given Up on the Federal Government

If one pattern can be deduced from the manner by which governments have historically operated, it is that supposedly noble intentions often lead to a violation of liberty; desired and intended consequences ultimately give way to undesirable and unintended consequences. It is how America first crept, and now is running, towards becoming a police state.

In a 1783 speech in the House of Commons, the English Prime Minister William Pitt correctly observed that “necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” Thus, to pinpoint possible infringements of liberty, one need only take account of arguments advanced by those who claim a certain law to be necessary. While clearly not universally applicable, the general rule is enough to prove Pitt prophetic.

The Transportation Security Administration is one example where this argument is used. It is claimed by this federal agency and its supporters that terrorists need to be stopped before they can attack Americans on our soil, and that therefore the TSA needs to inspect passengers and their belongings before boarding a plane. This, of course, is done in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allegedly guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” which may only be legitimately curtailed with a warrant, given “upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This institutional violation of this essential right can, of course, be avoided by not flying. (For now, at least—the TSA’s tentacles are stretching outwards to other modes of transportation.) A person driving a vehicle who encounters a random police checkpoint is afforded no such option to opt-out, for if you were to turn around or try to avoid the checkpoint, police would not only go after you, but likely would feel that they had “probable cause” to search you and your vehicle for your act of defiance.

Tens of thousands of innocent Americans are detained each month at police checkpoints which consider individuals to be guilty before proven or assumed to be innocent. Instituted primarily and supposedly to target drunk drivers, these checkpoints have expended significantly over the years to justify the arrogation of intrusive police powers over citizens.

It happens in Utah. And while the Fourth Amendment applies to the federal government (setting aside the troublesome incorporation doctrine), Utah’s own Constitution contains the same exact text (with minor punctuation modernization)!

Yet the police continue to detain drivers, with no probable cause or suspicion. Over Labor Day weekend a few months ago, Utah Highway Patrol officers put in an estimated 1,000 hours of overtime to help conduct a number of checkpoints. In two of those checkpoints, officers stopped 1,000 drivers and found not a single case of somebody driving under the influence. Police are quick to claim that this is a “success” which shows that their methods are working, but this completely disregards the fact that 1,000 drivers have had their rights violated (even if such people find it to be an acceptable inconvenience).

Supporters of sobriety checkpoints point to Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided in a 6-3 vote that somewhere in the Constitution there exists something called a “DUI Exception.” This ruling overturned that of the lower Michigan Court which concluded that checkpoints were unconstitutional. Plaintiffs in the case argued that general searches with no suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment because they have no individual, reasonable suspicion. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, rejected such privacy concerns and rubber-stamped the status quo. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist declared:

For the purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, the choice among reasonable alternatives remains with the government officials who have a unique understanding of, and a responsibility for, limited public resources.

Thus, due to limited resources and a “unique” understanding of them, police were given a “choice among reasonable alternatives” to hunt down drunk drivers, despite any privacy rights of those who were not drunk, nor were ever suspected of being drunk. In the dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens stated:

On the degree to which the sobriety checkpoint seizures advance the public interest … the Court’s position is wholly indefensible…. The evidence in this case indicates that sobriety check points result in the arrest of a fraction of one percent of the drivers who are stopped, but there is absolutely no evidence that this figure represents an increase over the number of arrests that would have been made by using the same law enforcement resources in conventional patrols.
…
A Michigan officer who questions a motorist [seized] at a sobriety checkpoint has virtually unlimited discretion to [prolong the detention of] the driver on the basis of the slightest suspicion…. [The] Court’s decision … appears to give no weight to the citizen’s interest in freedom from suspicionless unannounced investigatory seizures.

The Court further declared that since the checkpoints were equally intrusive on all detained drivers, no one individual could legitimately complain about their intrusiveness. This, of course, is a complete reversal and violation of the Fourth Amendment which guarantees the right to be left alone to all people with only specific exemptions, rather than justifying the restriction of that right in general cases where the imposition may be small, and the “public safety” interest deemed sufficiently important.

Despite there now existing an “exemption” for DUI checkpoints, justified by a few black-robed lawyers, the policy must still also comply with state law. Eleven states currently prohibit sobriety checkpoints. In that list is included Michigan, since after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court felt strongly enough about the issue to declare that regardless of the superior court’s ruling, their state’s Constitution still made such checkpoints illegal within Michigan’s boundaries.

It’s time to add Utah to that list.

HB140, sponsored by Rep. David Butterfield, would do just that. This bill would amend the existing law relating to vehicle checkpoints by codifying the following repeal of the existing practice:

All law enforcement agencies in this state, including state, local, and college or university law enforcement agencies, are prohibited from implementing or conducting administrative traffic checkpoints, except as provided in Section 77-23-103.

The referenced section would allow for checkpoints when officers are acting in accordance with a warrant, when there is probable cause to arrest or search, or when they are acting under emergency circumstances, etc. In other words, it would rightly restrict the practice only to cases in which a specific case of justice was legitimately being pursued.

Those who will oppose this effort include the law enforcement community and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who want to use all methods at their potential disposal to protect the so-called “public safety.” But these groups in many cases neither recognize nor respect the rights of individuals being repealed in the process. Focusing on an end goal with little regard for the means of achieving it is highly problematic, to say the least.

If “necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom,” as Pitt noted, then “public safety” is the pretext for each incremental step towards a police state. Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote that “they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” is wise and well known. By clamoring for “public safety” while disregarding the rights of individuals to be free from unreasonable and general searches and seizures, we creep ever more closely to an authoritarian state which codifies government-granted freedoms, rather than recognizing and protecting individual rights.

There is a wide chasm between prosecuting and punishing drunk drivers, and creating and enforcing laws which presume that all drivers may be treated by police as a possible drunk driver. Sobriety checkpoints operate under the implicit (if unspoken) belief that it is more preferable to annoy people than to actually protect them.

Utah has an opportunity to join the increasing number of states which recognize that checkpoints are a violation of one’s right to be free from search and seizure without probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Please contact your legislators today and encourage them to support HB140.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Food Safety Advocates Have Read the Law Wrong
• Of Soft Hearts and Social Safety Nets
• Nullification: A Necessary Power for State Sovereignty

In what quickly became one of the most popular opinion articles recently written for The Washington Post, Carrie Sheffield, a former member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, lists her many grievances with the church of which she once was a part. Her title, “A Mormon church in need of reform,” makes clear her thesis and end goal.

I understand the grievances she shared, and know many who feel much like Ms. Sheffield. I’ve seen many an “amen!” in social media in recent days as sympathetic former members of the Church, and many heading in that direction, have circulated this article far and wide. Despite that understanding, I believe that this article is misguided and unproductive.

In addressing her remarks, I’ll first respond to a few specific and problematic portions, and later offer more general commentary.

Sheffield first draws the reader in by couching the Mormon question in terms of the current political climate. She draws this connection to conclude that “the church isn’t exactly welcoming of outsiders.” To support this statement, she writes:

Mormons account for 57 percent of Utah residents yet some 91 percent of Utah state legislators self-identify as Mormons. The state that’s home to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has elected only two non-Mormon governors in nearly 116 years and has sent just one non-Mormon to Congress in the past five decades.

Because Mormons are disproportionately elected to political positions, Sheffield believes that the LDS church is not welcoming of outsiders—also claiming in the next paragraph that the church has a “distrust of outsiders.” How such a conclusion can reasonably be made is beyond me. It’s like claiming that Americans are sexist because Congress is comprised of mostly men. Perhaps this perceived imbalance can be attributed to the fact that members of the Church are consistently counseled to become involved in civic matters, or perhaps it simply means that a high percentage of non-members trust their Mormon neighbors and consider them worthy of public office. Sheffield’s twisting of logic to arrive at such an assertion does not stop here, but permeates the remainder of her piece.

Sheffield then seeks to succinctly dismantle the pro-family aura that surrounds members of the faith. “Yes, Mormons love families,” she writes. “But the family-values facade applies only if you stay in the fold. Former Mormons know the family estrangement and bigotry that often come with questioning or leaving the church.” It is the height of arrogance, in this author’s opinion, to claim that Mormons’ love of family is merely a “facade.” Sheffield is essentially arguing that this family shtick is a mere ruse which masks a less credible and flowery reality underneath. Mormons are not perfect, and therefore our families are not perfect. Some are violent, others are short-tempered, and many (myself included) have not yet internalized the counsel to love unconditionally. So while in some select cases there may in fact be a family “facade” which hides an uninviting and unforgiving environment, Sheffield’s qualification-free generality should be rejected as far too broad.

In the next few paragraphs, she discusses her personal problems as she attempted to reconcile her beliefs with what she perceived to be conflicting historical and scientific data with which she was presented. This she does under the allegation that the LDS Church “values unquestioning obedience over critical thinking.” Again, a generality—one which is true in some cases, but certainly not all (or even most). Elder L. Tom Perry summarizes a host of other teachings by church leaders: “We have never been encouraged to be blindly obedient; it is an intelligent obedience that characterizes members of the Church.” That intelligence comes in part by intense study and questioning, seeking “out of the best books words of wisdom” (D&C 88:118). Mormons are neither commanded nor counseled to avoid difficult questions. While Sheffield may have encountered some members and leaders of the church who could not satisfactorily answer her questions, her anecdotal experience (even though many others have experienced likewise) does not imply a institutional preference of “unquestioning obedience over critical thinking.” This simply is untrue.

Sheffield claims that the Church “stifles efforts to openly question church pronouncements, labeling such behavior as satanic.” I have never once encountered such an effort, nor the corresponding “labeling.” While obedience is encouraged, both institutionally and culturally, reasonable dissent is not considered satanic. Even with the Church’s involvement in Proposition 8—a large stumbling block for many moderate members of the Church—the First Presidency noted that members “may become involved”—compliance was not required, nor were those who disagreed with the proposition deemed to be on Satan’s side.

So as not to drag this on too long, I’ll comment on one final detail. In her conclusion, Sheffield expresses her hope that increased media scrutiny on the Church “will help break down the church’s fundamentalist trappings: secrecy about its finances, anti-women doctrine and homophobia, to start.” This critical casting of essential doctrines (setting aside the finances issue) as something “fundamentalist” (and thus anachronistic and strange) illustrates much of the standard “ex-Mormon bias” that permeates Sheffield’s opinion piece. It reminds me of the following quote by Elder Neal A. Maxwell:

Church members will live in this wheat-and-tares situation until the Millennium. Some real tares even masquerade as wheat, including the few eager individuals who lecture the rest of us about Church doctrines in which they no longer believe. They criticize the use of Church resources to which they no longer contribute. They condescendingly seek to counsel the Brethren whom they no longer sustain. Confrontive, except of themselves of course, they leave the Church, but they cannot leave the Church alone (see Ensign, Nov. 1980, 14). Like the throng on the ramparts of the ‘great and spacious building,’ they are intensely and busily preoccupied, pointing fingers of scorn at the steadfast iron-rodders (1 Ne. 8:26-28, 33).

This leads me to my general observations about Sheffield’s scorn-ridden article. As I noted at the outset, some of the concerns raised by this woman are understandable. Knowing others who have left the faith, I can sympathize with some of the negative feelings and behaviors of which they’ve unnecessarily been a victim. It’s a very real problem, and one which needs correction. In that simple sentence, Sheffield would agree with me.

Yet we diverge drastically in our diagnoses and prescriptions. Ms. Sheffield points her ire at the institution from which she recently separated, claiming that the problem is the “church” along with its teachings, mandates, and practices. She therefore concludes, as noted in her title, that the church needs reform.

I beg to differ. In reviewing some of the valid complaints and concerns Sheffield lists, I see the problem as an individual, and not institutional one. In other words, it is not the leaders of the church and the organization they manage which is root cause of what Sheffield objected to. It is us.

Critics such as Sheffield often object that they were not taught correct church history growing up, with all its warts and bruises. They claim that the Church offers only a sanitized, approved version which is far from reality. While I generally agree, I again differ in the conclusions drawn from this circumstance. Where critics see nefarious collusion and an attempt to win converts by hiding a supposedly troubled past, I see a global church having to craft its curriculum to the lowest common denominator such that the constant wave of new converts can come to understand and implement gospel basics.

Paul’s counsel of milk before meat applies here. He told the Saints in Corinth: “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able” (1 Corinthians 3:2). In other words, he had to set aside the more complex issues in order to get the basics down first. For a Church continually recruiting new people, a consistent offering of milk therefore becomes necessary.

But what of the more seasoned members of the Church—those of us which grew up in the faith, and have long been accustomed to a diet of milk? Should we not be given opportunities within the organized curriculum of the Church to chew on meat? As is common with growing in years and moving around, I have attended various wards. In most of them, Sunday School was an underwhelming experience; while the teacher would often do their best to prepare, the questions were dry and the presentation not too intellectually nor spiritually stimulating. Participation, in my experience, has often been low—the same few people raise their hands, while the rest stare at their iPhones or scriptures. Sometimes an energetic discussion will break out, but often the class is very basic. Whether this can be attributed to time constraints in class, lack of preparation on the part of the teacher and/or students, or otherwise, this has been my general experience (albeit with welcome and exciting exceptions from the norm). I share this to suggest that again, it’s not the “church’s” fault, but ours. Critics want Church leaders to provide platters of juicy, tender doctrinal and historical sirloin, but I personally feel that most members are not ready for it. And with people in class who are definitely at the milk level, would it really be fair to impose such a diet upon them? Thus I believe that the meatier subjects should not be hidden or avoided, but relegated largely to personal study and more appropriate venues for their discussion.

But the prevailing argument in Sheffield’s post appears to be not that the Church is wrong doctrinally, but that its members do not handle with compassion and love those who end up disagreeing and leaving. What Church leader has ever advocated treating such people with derision and alienation? None. We as members are counseled to love, forgive, understand—to do just as Christ would. Thus, Sheffield’s call for institutional reform is misguided. She should instead be calling for individual reform. Ironically enough, that’s exactly what Christ did, and what his Church does.

I said earlier that I find this opinion piece both misguided and unproductive. I believe it is misguided because it takes otherwise legitimate concerns, saturates them with critical ex-Mormon bias, and then misses the mark on where correction is truly needed. I believe it is unproductive because rather than generating discussion that will help resolve the listed concerns in the future and help both sides come to better understanding and compassion, Sheffield’s work serves only to put Mormons further on the defensive, or lead them to dismiss her diatribe as the angry rantings of an apostate. This is unfortunate.

I know many people who are in Sheffield’s shoes, or are at least growing into them. This is a very real concern, and one which should be addressed directly, in my view. Yes, the Church as an institution can improve, respond, and offer direct counsel or programs that may better deal with these circumstances. But the onus is (and always has been) on us as individual members of the Church to study, learn, grow, love, embrace, and welcome.

President Uchtdorf recently taught:

Developing Christlike attributes in our lives is not an easy task, especially when we move away from generalities and abstractions and begin to deal with real life. The test comes in practicing what we proclaim. The reality check comes when Christlike attributes need to become visible in our lives—as husband or wife, as father or mother, as son or daughter, in our friendships, in our employment, in our business, and in our recreation.

In her experiences shared, Ms. Sheffield evidently encountered many members who had not yet sufficiently developed these attributes, and who perhaps were not practicing what they proclaimed. We each have this personal challenge, and a higher bar of behavior to which we must aspire. We’re not perfect, nor should perfection be demanded of us in the short term. We are, and ever have been, a Mormon people in need of reform.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• A Mormon Leader’s Promotion of Peace
• Mormon Pioneers and their Modern-day Counterparts

One quote, however, really stuck out to me. It’s from a 1978 speech by President Spencer W. Kimball, given to regional representatives of the Church. In it, he clarifies why leaders of the Church have grown more silent on political matters as the organization’s global reach grew. This is a subject I’ve discussed before, and for which there has been plenty of speculation and insight.

Pres. Kimball’s statement, however, addresses the issue head on. For those who are concerned about a lack of prophetic political pulpit-pounding in recent years, this makes clear that it’s our responsibility as members to be involved and engaged, and not the Church’s job, which exists primarily to do missionary work and spread the gospel.

Here’s the quote:

In September of 1968, the First Presidency reminded members of the Church of “their obligations as members of the communities in which they live and as citizens of the nation.” The First Presidency counseled members of the Church as follows:

“The growing world-wide responsibilities of the Church make it inadvisable for the Church to seek to respond to all the various and complex issues involved in the mounting problems of the many cities and communities in which members live. But this complexity does not absolve members as individuals from filling their responsibilities as citizens in their own communities.

“We urge our members to do their civic duty and to assume their responsibilities as individual citizens in seeking solutions to the problems which beset our cities and communities.

“With our wide ranging mission, so far as mankind is concerned, Church members cannot ignore the many practical problems that require solution if our families are to live in an environment conducive to spirituality.

“Where solutions to these practical problems require cooperative action with those not of our faith, members should not be reticent in doing their part in joining and leading in those efforts where they can make an individual contribution to those causes which are consistent with the standards of the Church.

“Individual Church members cannot, of course, represent or commit the Church, but should, nevertheless, be ‘anxiously engaged’ in good causes, using the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ as their constant guide.”

The First Presidency and the Twelve wish to reaffirm this important statement of 1968. We believe this is the wise course to pursue, wherein Church members are urged to do their duties as citizens. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot be committed, as an institution, except on those issues which are determined by the First Presidency and Twelve to be of such a nature that the Church should take an official position concerning them.

We believe that to do otherwise would involve the Church, formally and officially, on a sufficient number of issues that the result would be to divert the Church from its basic mission of teaching the restored gospel of the Lord to the world.

We earnestly hope Church members will feel their individual responsibilities keenly and pursue them wisely.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul
• Latter-day Liberty, the Manuscript
• The Justified Breaking of Unjust Laws

From notables to neighbors, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints members prefer Dr. Paul

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign announced today new members of its “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul” nationwide coalition. Included among the new additions are prominent author Connor Boyack, and two Ron Paul campaign staff working in western states.

Focusing on a large western-states voting bloc, the continued use of coalitions will build capacity in a manner that proved pivotal to the 12-term Congressman from Texas’s top-tier finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The launch of “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul” reveals a voter segment not monopolized by any particular candidate. Voters of an LDS background are in fact investigating the limited-government message of Dr. Paul and turning toward his candidacy. Their support and that of many other affinity groups proves Ron Paul can win the votes required be the Republican nominee for the presidency.

Connor Boyack is author of Latter-day Liberty: A Gospel Approach to Government and Politics. Latter-day Liberty explores the fundamental aspect of liberty in the good news of the Gospel, what it is and what role it plays in our lives. The book has been featured with Mr. Boyack on national TV, including on “Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano.”

Offering a personal endorsement, Mr. Boyack is also state coordinator for the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. He is a political economist and web developer by trade, and a Brigham Young University graduate residing in Utah with his wife and two children.

“As Latter-day Saints (Mormons), we strongly support the Constitution and revere the founding fathers of this country. We are commanded in our scripture to seek out and support good, honest, and wise men for public office – those who will support and defend the Constitution. In the 2012 presidential campaign, only one candidate clearly meets these criteria,” said Mr. Boyack.

Continuing, Mr. Boyack described his support for Dr. Paul saying, “Rep. Ron Paul has been a consistent champion of the Constitution and the principles of liberty, placing himself in similar esteem with Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and other principled statesmen of the founding generation. He, more than any other candidate, has repeatedly demonstrated an unwavering, consistent commitment to keeping his sacred oath of office. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would do well to seriously study the public record and personal life of Ron Paul, and take advantage of the wonderful opportunity we have to support for President our very own modern founding father.”

Also joining the national steering committee are two Ron Paul campaign staff members, Michelle Jenson of Tendoy, Idaho and Dustin Petersen of Quincy, Washington.

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Michele Jenson stated, “There is only one clear choice for President of the United States and that is Dr. Ron Paul. Throughout my life, I have morally and spiritually convicted to pick honorable men and women to represent my values, and am encouraged to choose candidates who uphold and protect the Constitution.”

“In my view the only candidate who lives by these divinely-inspired principles and values is Ron Paul. In fact, the conviction of my faith has led me to dedicate my time to Ron Paul, doing all I can to step forward and preserve the Constitution as it hangs by a narrow thread,” added Ms. Jenson.

“As Members of the LDS Church we are taught to support candidates who uphold the Constitution of the United States. Without question, I know that Congressman Paul best represents that counsel. No one has fought more courageously for our Constitutional Freedoms,” stated Dustin Petersen, a BYU-Idaho Senior and who served a Mission in Ecuador.

As a function of today’s announcement, Messrs. Boyack and Petersen and Ms. Jenson are now national advisory board members of the “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul” nationwide coalition.

As a first basic step, those wanting to join the “Latter-day Saints for Ron Paul” nationwide coalition should visit the official page by clicking here. They should also send an email to Chris Kuper, National Coalitions Liaison, at hq.coalitions@ronpaul2012.com.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Latter-day Saints and Liberty: Church Priorities vs. Member Responsibilities
• Should Mormons vote for Mitt Romney?