Recently I entered an essay contest. Please read my essay, like it, and then share it with others. One of the ways that I can win this contest is by getting the most likes. My husband is still looking for work, so this would be a great way that people can help. All it takes it a little bit of your time.
http://libertasutah.org/essay/a-free-and-prosperous-utah/
Thanks for your help!!
Showing posts with label Principles of Liberty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Principles of Liberty. Show all posts
The 28 Principles of LIberty: Principle 18
"The Unalienable Rights of the People are Most Likely to be Preserved if the Principles of Government are Set Forth in a Written Constitution."
The one weakness of the Anglo-Saxon common law, was that it was unwritten. Due to the fact that the whole people were aware of the principles, they seemed to be indifferent to writing them down. According to Dr. Colin Rhys Lovell, this was customary until they converted to Christianity. Prior to that, it was unwritten and considered immutable.
It was the Norman conquest that taught the Anglo-Saxons in England a bitter lesson. A majority of their treasured rights disappeared through the flood of blood and oppression. They did regain them very slowly over a period of time, a few centuries, and gradually were written down. In A.D. 1215, King John virtually had a sword held to his throat, due to the national crisis, and signed the Magna Charta, which set forth the traditional rights of the freemen as well as the feudal barons who had been serving under King John.
During that same century, the model parliament came into being which compelled the King to acknowledge that principle of no taxation without representation. Later, in 1628, Charles I was pressured into signing the People's Petition of Rights and the English Bill of Rights was signed in 1689 by William and Mary.
Through the centuries, the British have tried to manage the political affairs with no written constitution and relied on these few documents as a source of reference. They did prove very helpful to the Founders, but they felt that the structure of government should be structured in a more permanent and comprehensive form. So, the tradition if a written constitution in modern times is completely American in principle and practice.
The first written charter for America was the Mayflower Compact of 1620. If became more comprehensive when Thomas Hooker and his associates adopted the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut in 1639. The charter makes no reference to the British Government nor the Crown, but the source of its authority as "We, the people."
Montesquieu said that the writing of a statute or a charter is "oftentimes better regulated by many than by a single person." The Founders agreed with this idea and considered it wise to filter it through the wisdom and experience of many delegates assembled in a convention rather then leaving it to the genius of some individual.
James Madison stated, "It is not a little remarkable that in every case reported by ancient history in which government has been established with deliberation and consent, the task of framing it has not been committed to an assembly of men, but has been performed by some individual citizen of preeminent wisdom and approved integrity. Minos, we learn, was the primitive founder of the government of Crete, as Zaleucus was of that of the Locrians. Theseus first, and after him Draco and Solon, instituted the government of Athens. Lycurgus was the lawgiver of Sparta. The foundation of the original government of Rome was laid by Romulus, and the work completed by two of his elective successors, Numa and Tullius Hostilius. On the abolition of royalty the consular administration was substituted by Brutus, who stepped forward with a project for such reform, which, he alleged, had been prepared by Servius Tullius, and to which his address ontained the assent and ratification of the senate and people. This remark is applicable to confederate governments also. Amphictyon, we are told, was the author of that which bore his name. The Achaean league received its first birth from Achaeus, and its second from Aratus."
It is always difficult to operate through a committee, a group, or a convention as the Founding Fathers did. The final product was far stronger then any individual alone could have written it. And time has also proven the incredible value have having a written document for reference, a standard, rather then relying on a few scattered statutes as the fundamental law of the land.
The 28 Principles of Liberty are adapted from W. Cleon Skousen's Book 'The 5000 Year Leap' and are brought to you by Fragrant Smoke.
It was the Norman conquest that taught the Anglo-Saxons in England a bitter lesson. A majority of their treasured rights disappeared through the flood of blood and oppression. They did regain them very slowly over a period of time, a few centuries, and gradually were written down. In A.D. 1215, King John virtually had a sword held to his throat, due to the national crisis, and signed the Magna Charta, which set forth the traditional rights of the freemen as well as the feudal barons who had been serving under King John.
During that same century, the model parliament came into being which compelled the King to acknowledge that principle of no taxation without representation. Later, in 1628, Charles I was pressured into signing the People's Petition of Rights and the English Bill of Rights was signed in 1689 by William and Mary.
Through the centuries, the British have tried to manage the political affairs with no written constitution and relied on these few documents as a source of reference. They did prove very helpful to the Founders, but they felt that the structure of government should be structured in a more permanent and comprehensive form. So, the tradition if a written constitution in modern times is completely American in principle and practice.
The first written charter for America was the Mayflower Compact of 1620. If became more comprehensive when Thomas Hooker and his associates adopted the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut in 1639. The charter makes no reference to the British Government nor the Crown, but the source of its authority as "We, the people."
Montesquieu said that the writing of a statute or a charter is "oftentimes better regulated by many than by a single person." The Founders agreed with this idea and considered it wise to filter it through the wisdom and experience of many delegates assembled in a convention rather then leaving it to the genius of some individual.
James Madison stated, "It is not a little remarkable that in every case reported by ancient history in which government has been established with deliberation and consent, the task of framing it has not been committed to an assembly of men, but has been performed by some individual citizen of preeminent wisdom and approved integrity. Minos, we learn, was the primitive founder of the government of Crete, as Zaleucus was of that of the Locrians. Theseus first, and after him Draco and Solon, instituted the government of Athens. Lycurgus was the lawgiver of Sparta. The foundation of the original government of Rome was laid by Romulus, and the work completed by two of his elective successors, Numa and Tullius Hostilius. On the abolition of royalty the consular administration was substituted by Brutus, who stepped forward with a project for such reform, which, he alleged, had been prepared by Servius Tullius, and to which his address ontained the assent and ratification of the senate and people. This remark is applicable to confederate governments also. Amphictyon, we are told, was the author of that which bore his name. The Achaean league received its first birth from Achaeus, and its second from Aratus."
It is always difficult to operate through a committee, a group, or a convention as the Founding Fathers did. The final product was far stronger then any individual alone could have written it. And time has also proven the incredible value have having a written document for reference, a standard, rather then relying on a few scattered statutes as the fundamental law of the land.
The 28 Principles of Liberty are adapted from W. Cleon Skousen's Book 'The 5000 Year Leap' and are brought to you by Fragrant Smoke.
The NorthWest Ordinance
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being
necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and
the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
May Religion and Morality continue to spread throughout our land, that we may once again have good government, happiness, and true knowledge.
necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and
the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
May Religion and Morality continue to spread throughout our land, that we may once again have good government, happiness, and true knowledge.
The 28 Principles of Liberty: Principle 12
“The United States of America Shall be a Republic.”
When you recite the pledge of allegiance, you state the very government structure that was the Founder’s favorite theme. “And to the REPUBLIC for which it (the flag) stands.” There are several reasons why the Founders wanted a republican form of government verses a democracy. A democracy requires the full participation of the masses of the people in the legislative processes of the government. This has never worked because the people are too occupied or distracted by their daily tasks, that they do not take the time necessary to properly research and study the issues, participate in extensive hearings each time a vote is taken. The Greeks tried to use democracy many times at all levels of government, only to have it end in tyranny each time.
A democracy becomes less and less efficient as the population increases. A republic governs through elected representatives and can be expanded indefinitely. James Madison wrote: “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in the lives as they have been violent in their deaths…. A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
Madison also pointed out that an expanding country like the United States could not possibly confine itself to the limitations of a democracy, but must rely upon a representative or republican form of government to protect the interests of its people. To make his position even more clearly, Madison gave this definition of a republic: “We may define a republic to be…a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.”
During the early 1900’s a war of ideology began and the word democracy was one of the victims of it. The average American will throw around the word democracy to describe our traditional Constitutional republic. It was the Founders hope that we, as their descendants, would maintain a clear distinction between the two. This war began in New York in 1905 when 100 people met together to create the ISS, the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. Sixty chapters were established from coast to coast on college and university campuses. One of the directors explained that the ISS was set up to “throw light on the world-wide movement of industrial democracy known as socialism.”
Socialism is defined as government ownership or control of all the means of production, for example, farms, factories, mines, natural resources, and industries, as well as the means of transportation, communications and the instruments of commerce. This is not democracy in the classical sense at all, clearly; however it is the antithesis of the free-market economy of a republic.
They had a really catchy slogan at that time that caught the attention of 100’s of men and women who later went on to be big names in government, press, radio, television and motion pictures. “Production for use, not for profit,” was the phrase of the day.
Due to the negative connotations that were associated with the word socialism and socialist, the ISS changed their name to “The League for Industrial Democracy.” This way they could give the appearance to the people that as everything became nationalized by the government, that it would then be the property of ‘all the people’. There were movements at the time that tried to stop this ideology from reaching the minds of the people. Even the U.S. Army had a training manual that defined the differences between a democracy and a republic. Despite the efforts of many, the press and school books pushed forward and continually identified the United States as a democracy. President Wilson added to this confusion when he was promoting World War I to ‘make the world safe for democracy.’ President Wilson was surrounded by many of the very first recruits of the ISS, and it appears that they encouraged the adoption of this slogan, which has continued today in the message to ‘spread democracy around the globe.’
A review of the roster of the early ISS members will reveal that by the 1930’s the more brilliant young leaders of the movement from WWI had risen to some of the most prestigious positions in politics, press, publishing houses, radio, academic circles, teacher-training colleges, the National Council of Churches, and just about every major center of opinion molding influence. However, they were not all united in what they desired for The United States. Some wanted the people to consent to socialism, become democratic socialism, others wanted a mixed system with some socialism and some free-enterprise, and some were not happy with it at all and started to return to the principles of the founding fathers, and a few were drunken with the idea of power by force and violence and became leaders of the Communist Party movement. However, all of them still refer to the U.S. as a democracy.
Following World War II, something happened. All of the socialist, communist nations were on the verge of collapse despite the fact that the U.S. had spent tens of billions of dollars to prop them up. Many of them had poor reputations because of the violence, torture and starvation tactics that they had used against their own people. So socialism lost its luster, but many of the American people continued to refer to their Constitutional republic as a democracy. And eventually are likely to call the United States a ‘democratic republic’ as they lean more and more to the thinking of the founders, which was a term used by the followers of Thomas Jefferson.
Samuel Adams pointed out that the founders tried to make socialism unconstitutional. Therefore, to adopt socialism, respect and support for traditional constitutional government would have to be eroded and then emasculated. It would not surprise anyone to learn, that those that wanted to have democracy identified as the American system, also were anxious to have Americans believe that their traditional Constitution was outdated, or even worse obsolete.
When W. Cleon Skousen was in his college days, it was popular in political science to point out that the Constitution was written some two centuries ago by people who were 95% farmers. Now, they say that we live in an industrial society and that the needs of the people can no longer be accommodated under the system provided by the U.S. Constitution. Not only did certain teachers teach this, but U.S. senators also proclaimed it. Occasionally, even the president would say it. Is there any validity to these statements? Principle 13 will address this question.
The 28 Principles of Liberty are written by Charity Angel, and are adapted from W. Cleon Skousen’s book “The Five Thousand Year Leap 
” Learn more about the 28 principles of liberty at http://theprinciplesofliberty.com/
” Learn more about the 28 principles of liberty at http://theprinciplesofliberty.com/
Educate Yourself!! Buy Your US Constitution Study Suite NOW!!
The 28 Principles of Liberty: Principle #10
"The God-given Right to Govern is Vested in the Sovereign Authority of the Whole People."
In 1890 John Locke published two famous essays on 'The original extent" and "End of Civil Government". In the second essay he wrote: "In all lawful governments, the designation of the persons who are to bare rule being as natural and necessary a part as the form of the government itself, and that which had its establishment ORIGINALLY FROM THE PEOPLE... all commonwealths , therefore, with the form of government established, have rules also of appointing and conveying the right to those who are to have any share in the public authority; and whoever gets into the exercise of any part of the power by other ways then what the laws of the community have prescribed have not right to be obeyed, though the form of the commonwealth be still preserved, since he is not the person the laws have appointed, and, consequently, not the person the people have consented to. Nor can such usurper, or any deriving from him, ever have a title til the people are both at liberty to consent and have actually consented, to allow and confirm in him the power he hath till then usurped."
There was definitely no room in the philosophy of the American Founding Fathers for the right of kings. They knew that rulers are the servants of the people and that all authority rested with the people to appoint or remove their rulers. They stressed that this had been the case from the beginning for the Anglo-Saxons.
Their leader, the chief, was only one among equals, the entire body of the freemen would gather together to discuss the issues of the day. The body could remove him and they had selected him. His position to garner respect, however, his opinion carried no more weight then any other freemen.
In the Federalist Papers Number 22 page 152 Alexander Hamilton states that the empire ought to rest on the basis of the consent of the people. This was also expressed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in its proclamation of January 23, 1776: "It is a maxim that in every government, there must exist, somewhere, a supreme, sovereign, absolute, and uncontrollable power; but this power resides always in the body of the people; and it never was, or can be, delegated to one man, or a few; the great Creator has never given to men a right to vest others with authority over them, unlimited either in duration or degree."
Even if it is acknowledged that the People are divinely endowed with the sovereign power to govern, what happens if elected officials usurp the authority of the people to impose a dictatorship or some form of abusive government on them?
Principle 11 will reveal the fundamental principle on which the Founders based The Declaration of Independence.
Educate Yourself!! Buy Your US Constitution Study Suite NOW!!
Virtuous and Religious Families Protect Liberty
The Family: The Hope for The Future of Nations
By Elder Russell M. Nelson
of the Quorum of the Twelve
Published: Wednesday, Aug. 12, 2009
My wife, Wendy, and I express profound gratitude and respect for each participant at this Congress. You have been actively and tirelessly engaged in the defense of marriage and the promotion of families. We commend you, we thank you, and we pray for you!
As do you, I care deeply about the family. Not only do I care deeply about the worth of the family to God and to all of God's children, but I have experienced the strength that comes into the lives of a man and woman who cherish each other as husband and wife and who love their children.
My deceased wife, Dantzel, and I were blessed with nine daughters and a son. Our great joys of family life are real; our sorrows have been heart-wrenching. I know what it is to lose a daughter from cancer and to walk from her funeral carrying her two young sons in my arms. I have also felt the joy when our son-in-law married a wonderful woman who once again completed their family circle.
I know what it is to see a daughter suffer through a divorce. I have seen the pain and upheaval that ensued, and have also been grateful for the remarkable man she later married, who has again completed that family circle.
After 59 years of marriage, my dear wife, Dantzel, died of a sudden rhythm shift of the heart. Ironically, my professional life as a heart surgeon included intensive research in the very malady that claimed her life. Even so, I could not resuscitate her. I know about a widower's silent loneliness.
I also know what it is to be blessed again by my Heavenly Father in marrying a second time, also to a woman of compassion and generosity of spirit, who has once again completed my family circle. Nothing, absolutely nothing, compares with the companionship between a husband and a wife. And nothing, absolutely nothing, can provide the joy and growth that come from happy children who make a family circle. Throughout my life, I have answered to many titles, including doctor, captain, professor, and elder. But the titles I revere most are those of husband, father, and grandfather.
I am pleased to follow Wendy in speaking to this world congress on "The Family: The Hope for the Future of Nations." That topic is timely. On all sides, the family is under attack. Many wonder if the institution is no longer needed. Our response is certain. If there is any hope for the future of nations, that hope resides in the family. Our children are our wealth; our children are our strength; our children are indeed our future!
You are well aware of the ominous statistics. In the past 50 years, the birthrate has dropped in nearly every nation of the world. In the nations of Europe the birthrate has dropped from the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman to the present rate of 1.5.1 Nations that cannot maintain their populations could even disappear, along with their culture and heritage. Data from the United States show similar worrisome trends. In 1960, minor children formed half of the population; now they constitute only 30 percent.2 Predictions are that by the year 2025, single-person households will outnumber families with children.3
What would happen to the future of nations if the next generation failed to appear in significant numbers? The answer is alarming! Yes, we would be poorer economically, but even poorer spiritually.
Spiritual concerns are of great importance. Spiritually, we need children as much as they need us. They are our spiritual wealth. Children teach us the joy of building goodness that will outlive our own. They teach us the joy of loving someone more than self. That love lifts one to give from the abundance of one's own life to help a child. I know what it is to see my dear sister, Enid, donate a kidney for her daughter, Sally, otherwise doomed to an early demise. Now 16 years later, they are emotionally closer and stronger, physically and spiritually.
In the twilight of life—in the declining years that can be so difficult—those individuals who had made an earlier self-centered choice not to have children, will be alone and unloved. They missed the point of the Psalmist who said: "As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
"Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them."4
Dear friends, future happiness and even the future of nations is linked to children. Families with children need to be re-enthroned as the fundamental unit of society. We simply must value children more than we do! Without a new generation to replace the old, there is no wealth; without families, there is no future.
Children come from the union of a man and a woman. The happiest and most secure children come from happy and secure marriages of fathers and mothers. History and contemporary studies have shown that marriage of a husband and a wife, with both contributing their distinctive natural traits to the family, provides the ideal context within which to rear productive, compassionate, and moral individuals.5
In 2006, the parliament of France courageously rejected same-gender marriage precisely so that children would not "suffer as a result of situations imposed on them by adults. The interest of the child must outweigh the exercise of freedom by adults . . . whatever life choices are made by the parents."6
Any attempt to broaden the definition of marriage to encompass a contractual relationship between adults outside of the traditional family weakens the institution of marriage as God Himself defined it, and undermines the separate, divinely decreed responsibilities of man and woman for procreation, protection, and rearing of children.
Marriage is not simply a contract between individuals; it affects all of society. For that reason, governments have long recognized the family as the fundamental unit of society and have endorsed and encouraged traditional marriage through legal recognitions, protections and benefits.
Individuals and groups who would overthrow the traditional concept of marriage and family would first mutate and then mutilate these long-established, time-tested social norms. The consequences of such changes would have far-reaching implications. If youth were to harbor the belief that the traditional family is but one choice of lifestyle among others, many of them will make choices that will reap only emptiness and despair, both for themselves and for society at large.
Furthermore, those who seek to undermine traditional marriage and family would effectively limit the rights of those who do uphold the sanctity of these institutions. This consequence leads to another major concern— the eventual erosion of religious liberty, including the liberty to defend, promote, and practice traditional family values.7 Religious liberty is essential if we are to raise up righteous children. Morally responsible families will not marginalize religious liberty, they will nurture and protect it.
In 1995, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a document that supports the development of happy children who are morally strong. It is entitled, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."8 It has been translated into 81 languages. Copies are available at this Congress at no charge. You may also procure the text from the Internet.9
I will cite excerpts from this proclamation that may be helpful to you, your nations, and associations.
STATEMENT ON THE FAMILY
We proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. The family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.
All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Because each person is a spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, each has a divine nature with a potential destiny as an heir of eternal life.
The sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. They have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children, with a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God, and to be law-abiding citizens of their country.
Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.
Fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation, with support from extended families as needed.
That concludes my citations from this proclamation. Copies of the complete text are available to you and to all who would choose wisely among contending messages of our day.
This Congress can also help with persuasive statements and continuing efforts to defend marriage and promote the interests of children in traditional families. While competing voices battle for approval, the message from this conference must be clear. We can learn from Paul who said: "There are . . . so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification."10
"For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"11
Our message is certain! Children are the hope for the future of our nations!
NOTES
1. United Nations World Population Prospects: 2006 revision - Table A.15n.
2. David P. Goldman, "Demographics & Depression," First Things, May 2009, 24.
3. Ibid.
4. Psalms 127:4–5.
5. This conclusion reflects what the New York Times has called a "powerful consensus among social scientists that 'from a child's point of view . . . the most supportive household is one with two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.'" Hardin, 2-Parent Families Rise After Change in Welfare Laws, quoted in What Next for the Marriage Movement? (New York: Institute for American Values), posted to MarriageMovement.org, 12 Dec. 2004.
6. Report of the Mission of Inquiry on the Family and the Rights of Children, a study commission appointed by the National Assembly of France, January 25, 2006, 46 (English translation of commission report).
7. In countries where same-gender marriage is adopted with no religious exemptions, all religions could eventually be required to perform gay marriages or to accept gay priests—even when that violates their most basic doctrines.
8. "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," Liahona, Oct. 2004, 49; Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102.
9. At www.lds.org or by a search on family proclamation.
10. 1 Corinthians 14:10.
11. 1 Corinthians 14:8.
The 28 Principles of LIberty- Principle 8
28 Principles of Liberty- Principle 8
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights”
The Founders did not believe that the basic rights of mankind originated from any social compact, king, emperor, or governmental authority. Those rights, they believed, came directly and exclusively from God. Therefore they were to remain sacred and inviolate.
We may do something ourselves to forfeit the unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, but no one can take those rights from us without being subjected to God’s justice. This is what makes certain rights unalienable. They are inherent rights given to us by the Creator. That is why they are called natural rights.
We have other rights that are called vested rights, which are created by the community, state or the nation for our protection or well-being. However, these can be changed whenever the law makers feel like it. These would be things like areas that are off-limits for hunting, or the right to travel on the public highway. But, the government could not pass a law to destroy all life under the age of two or lock up everyone that is of a certain race, religion, hair color and so on. They cannot destroy the right to life or the right to liberty. A person could lose their liberty due to misbehavior, but not because they have a certain eye color, hair color, or religion.
Besides the right to life, liberty and property, we have many more unalienable rights. If you want to know what those are, read the book.
This article was adapted by Charity Angel from W. Cleon Skousen’s “The 5000 Year Leap” Learn about the 28 principles at www.theprinciplesofliberty.com
Who Is Captain Moroni?
Who was Captain Moroni?
“Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.”
“And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery; Yea, a man whose heart did swell with thanksgiving to his God, for the many privileges and blessings which he bestowed upon his people; a man who did labor exceedingly for the welfare and safety of his people.
Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood.”
Captain Moroni (c. 100 BC-56 BC) was an important Nephite military commander and patriot who lived during the 1st century BC. He is perhaps best known for raising the "Title of Liberty" as a call to arms for his people to defend their country, family and religion. He is first mentioned in the Book of Alma, as "the chief captain over the Nephites.
Among his accomplishments were his extensive preparations for battle and his fierce defense of the right of the Nephites to govern themselves and worship as they saw fit.
Moroni was "only twenty and five years old when he was appointed chief captain" of the Nephites.
The "Title of Liberty", a standard which he raised to rally the Nephites to defend their liberties from a group of dissenters who wanted to establish their leader as a king. He rent his coat and wrote upon it, "In memory of our God, our religion, our freedom, and our peace, our wives and our children"
The Philosophy of Liberty
What is the philosophy of Liberty? We hear a lot of people these days talking about freedom and liberty, but how do we really achieve it? The Founding Father's achieved it, but what were the concepts behind it?
This video, called The Philosophy of Liberty is a great and simplified way to teach everyone about individual rights, and that we do not have the right to infringe on the rights of others. I refer to this in several ways in my writing. This is how we live 'The People's Law" rather than the "King's Law". I also say, this is how we live as 'Freemen" rather than 'King Men'.
We were designed to be a nation of freemen, and right now, we have a few that understand how to do that, and many that are voting for those that will take away the liberty of others. We also have organizations like The Federal Reserve that have been robbing all of us for almost 100 years now. They have enslaved us in perpetual debt. They are the money changers of our day, and the masters of this nation. Which, if you know your history, each of us are sovereigns, and we are the masters of our own selves, and we need to stand up and not let others continue to enslave us and our descendants.
One way that we can begin this process on a large scale, is to educate each other on The Philosophy of Liberty. When we have an educated public, we will once again have a free public. It is the PEOPLE and not the leaders that we need to focus our education on. There are many in positions of influence now who prefer the power, money, and influence over doing what is right. It is the PEOPLE that are our only hope for liberty, it is the PEOPLE that are the guardians of it.
Please share this blog with others, so that they too can learn these principles, and teach their friends and neighbors as well.
I give my permission for anyone who wants to share the content within this blog to do so. All I ask is that you link back to the original source. The articles on the 28 principles of liberty I also give permission to be shared in your own blogs. What I create in any of the blogs that I write, is for the purpose of sharing with others.
This video, called The Philosophy of Liberty is a great and simplified way to teach everyone about individual rights, and that we do not have the right to infringe on the rights of others. I refer to this in several ways in my writing. This is how we live 'The People's Law" rather than the "King's Law". I also say, this is how we live as 'Freemen" rather than 'King Men'.
We were designed to be a nation of freemen, and right now, we have a few that understand how to do that, and many that are voting for those that will take away the liberty of others. We also have organizations like The Federal Reserve that have been robbing all of us for almost 100 years now. They have enslaved us in perpetual debt. They are the money changers of our day, and the masters of this nation. Which, if you know your history, each of us are sovereigns, and we are the masters of our own selves, and we need to stand up and not let others continue to enslave us and our descendants.
One way that we can begin this process on a large scale, is to educate each other on The Philosophy of Liberty. When we have an educated public, we will once again have a free public. It is the PEOPLE and not the leaders that we need to focus our education on. There are many in positions of influence now who prefer the power, money, and influence over doing what is right. It is the PEOPLE that are our only hope for liberty, it is the PEOPLE that are the guardians of it.
Please share this blog with others, so that they too can learn these principles, and teach their friends and neighbors as well.
I give my permission for anyone who wants to share the content within this blog to do so. All I ask is that you link back to the original source. The articles on the 28 principles of liberty I also give permission to be shared in your own blogs. What I create in any of the blogs that I write, is for the purpose of sharing with others.
28 Principles of Liberty-Principle #5
The Founders vigorously affirm throughout their writings that the foundation of all reality is the existence of the Creator who is the designer of all things in nature and the promulgator of all the laws that govern nature.The Founders were in harmony with John Locke who said that a person who calls himself an 'atheist' is merely confessing that he has never dealt with the issue of the Creator's existence. Therefore Locke would say that an Atheist is out of touch with the most important and fundamental reality.
John Locke insists that everyone can know that there is a divine Creator. With Descartes each person can say "Cogito ergo sum'. With God, each person can say, "I AM!" Further more, each person knows that he is something. And something cannot be produced by nothing. Therefore what brought man and everything else into existence had to be something. In order for all of this organizing and arranging to be as such that it is, the Organizer would have to be all-knowing. The something would therefore have to be superior to everything which had resulted from this effort.
Locke taught that the Creator must be a cogitative being since man is cogitative. And that a non-cogitative being like a rock could never have produced a cogitative being like a man. Locke also taught that the Creator would reflect a sense of right and wrong, and a sense of indignation for violation of the law.
The American Founding Fathers agreed with Locke. They considered this truth as the most fundamental premise underlying ALL self-evident truth.
The Founding Fathers also relied on the writings of William Blackstone when it came to their foundation on God's revealed law. He stated that the will of God which is expressed in the orderly nature of the universe is called "the law of nature' and there are laws for human nature just as surely as they exist for the rest of the universe.
The Founders looked at the Creator as both intelligent and benevolent, and anxious and able to respond to people's petitions when they are deserving of needed blessings and engaged in a good cause.
Charles Bracelen Flood discovered in his research that during the Revolutionary War that there were at least sixty-seven desperate moments that George Washington acknowledged that he would have suffered disaster had not the hand of God intervened in behalf of the struggle for Independence. James Madison also acknowledged the hand of God during the Constitutional Convention.
We can now see that the Founders were quite sincere when they adopted the motto "In God we trust." And it is also now clear why they required all witnesses who testify to take an oath and swear before God that they will tell the truth.
In closing, a note from Tocqueville "A presiding judge remarked that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction (in law, that which gives binding force) of all testimony in a court of justice; and that he knew of no case in a Christian country where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief."
(The 28 Principles of Liberty are adapted from the book "The 5000 Year Leap" by W. Cleon Skousen. This article is also published at www.Myspace.com/angelsings www.LDSFreemen.com and the Cape Fair Cryer newspaper in Missouri.)
I give my permission for anyone who wants to share the content within this blog to do so. All I ask is that you link back to the original source. The articles on the 28 principles of liberty I also give permission to be shared in your own blogs. What I create in any of the blogs that I write, is for the purpose of sharing with others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)