Are You A Republican (Conservative)
Or A Democrat (Liberal)?

1.) SCHOOLING: Do you believe in A.) homeschooling by self-reliant parents where the parent chooses the rate and level the student learns at (genius level), the curriculum and values learned (Bible -- unaccredited) and can administer the discipline necessary to learn (spanking) OR do you believe in B.) the right of the secular public school system where the NEA licenses teachers, chooses the rate and level the student learns at (slowest student), the curriculum and values (Humanism; Evolution; "political correctness" -- accredited) and has taken away the right to spank? God says, "Evil company corrupts good morals" (1 Cor. 15:33). God says parents, not the State, "shall teach (scripture) ... diligently unto your children" (Deut. 6:6-9). Public schools should be run by local government -- not federal. The Constitution does not authorize any federal involvement in education; Article I grants Congress no authority to create, fund, or regulate schools at all. Congress should not be taxing you to fund a huge federal education bureaucracy that exercises dictatorial control over curriculum and standards nationwide. Those tax dollars should be left with parents and local voters, who can best decide how to allocate precious education resources. Public schools should be voluntary and funded by those who voluntarily choose to go, thus minimizing waste and making accountability great. They should compete in a free market with home schools. Take away the public school monopoly on tax funding and put all schools on the same user fee basis as private schools. Within a very short time, everyone with differing values would start forming schools that served their personal values, and no one’s rights would be violated. Most Christians have become concerned because the Bible and prayer have been outlawed from public schools. But they forget, that these are government schools not "our" schools--and they take everyone's tax money (which is wrong) and thus any values promulgated will always be at the expense of others left out or undermined. The solution is not for one majority to force their values upon anyone else, but to let each faction support the kind of schooling values they want. Let all schools, public and private be funded only by user fees--then everyone is free to pay for the education values they want.

The first object in education with respect to a career, should be to determine the aptitude of each child. What is he most suited to do? What are his inclinations and interests? That is where he will excel best. "What the child admired, the youth endeavoured, and the man acquired" -- Dryden. The first object in education with respect to morality, should be to instill Biblical ethics. The liquid that is first poured into a clay pot seasons it, so that it retains that taste forever. In the same way, those who begin their education by remembering to serve God when they are young, before the world, the flesh and the devil take hold, will receive the love and help from God in the form of his Holy Spirit and answered prayer the rest of their lives, and will not forsake this right way.

2.) PRIVATE PROPERTY: Do you believe in A.) private property rights where the individual property owner can do what he wants with his own land with "just compensation" for any loss OR do you believe B.) that the government has the right to tell you which kind of vehicles and how many you may park on your property, how many residences can be built on your property, and how they must be built? Does the government bureaucrat have the right to tell you how high your bushes and fences can be built? Do neighbors have a right to complain to the local code enforcer to fine you for having a "messy" yard and their property value diminshed because of your "junk" and "old used cars"? Should the community and city have control of your land by means of contracts, covenants and land use restrictions, zoning laws, wetlands restrictions, Clean Water Act, environmental regulations, mandatory building codes, frivolous "eminent domain," property taxes and inheritance taxes OR is private property a right that "thou shalt not steal" (Ex. 20:15)? These regulatory "takings" are prohibited by the 5th Amendment. Are you a land owner or a surf working on the land? Can you own goats and chickens? Can you build a garage or drill a well without permission? Can your property be seized if you break certain laws? Perhaps the solution is to own no property, then nothing can be seized, violated, controlled, reported on, taxed or fined. Perhaps the solution is to sell your property to an alias legally. "When thou dost lend thy brother anything, thou shalt not go into his house to fetch his pledge. Thou shalt stand abroad, and the man to whom thou dost lend shall bring out the pledge abroad unto thee" (Deut. 24:10-11). In other words: "The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all his force dares not cross the threshhold" -- William Pitt. Furthermore, "No State shall impair the obligation of contracts" according to the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, for the government to bail out the housing mortgage foreclosure mess is unconstitutional. Free markets must allow individuals the right to fail as well as succeed. We can't have a free market when we succeed and a socialist state when we fail. The socialism remains and accumulates. A fundamental right is one that a person can claim, simultaneously with other people (no competing claims), without harming other people's rights (harm itself is inevitable) or forcing others to serve him (involuntary servitude). The most common false rights claimed by democratic socialists are the rights to a job, an education or health care. But each of these clearly violates the definition. All people cannot simultaneously claim any of these without forcing others to provide the facilities, the salaries and the working materials. In contrast, the most commonly derived true rights from this definition are life, liberty and property. Each of these traditional rights qualifies under the definition, as long as certain non-conflicting conditions are added. If a person is attacking another without justifiable self-defense, the aggressor’s life would rightfully be put in jeopardy. The right to life does not mean that society is obliged to keep you alive--that would violate the second criteria. It only assures that no one can rightfully take it from you, as long as you are not acting so as to violate any other person’s rights. The right to be free from harmful pollutants emanating from another’s property (if shown to be harmful) is another part of the right to life. Toxic chemical or fertilizer leakage into a stream or into a water table or burning hazardous material that can be smelled downwind, as well as loud music, are legitimate complaints. But there are no "scenic view" rights since neighbors would then have the arbitrary power of complaining about anything they can see on your property that they don't consider "beautiful." One man's junk is another man's treasure. There is no right to a guarantee of a certain value of a property. However, an outdoor drive-in X-rated theater next door would be considered a violation. Personal liberty means the right to contract with willing parties, the right to take risks, and the freedom to engage in any economic endeavor as long as others’ rights are not violated. Property rights would also include the right to freedom of association or non-association on your own property, freedom of expression or speech, privacy (including freedom from search and surveillance when not violating any person’s rights), and freedom from physical or regulatory takings of property by government. There is no unrestricted freedom of expression on other people’s property or even on public property. Personal actions on public property are governed by fundamental rights or “community standards” as determined by mutual consent of the governed.

3.) MONEY: Do you believe that A.) only Congress should "coin and regulate" money and only gold and silver coins should be used as money (Gen. 13:2; 23:16) since commodity value equals face value (they can't be inflated or counterfeited by a government trying to steal from you), OR do you B.) trust your government to print only as much paper money, (whose face value doesn't equal its commodity value) as it receives in revenue (taxes)? Do you trust your government to avoid printing endless amounts of paper money to steal your savings like "a bag with holes" (Haggai 1:6)? Higher prices are the result of inflation. But for many Americans, income stays fixed. "Paper is poverty ... it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself" -- Thomas Jefferson. Paper dollars used to be receipts for real money because they were "redeemable in gold." This limited the amount of paper receipts that could be printed -- until they became fiat when "redeemable in gold was taken off the dollar bill. But "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value ... (Gold) stands as a protector of property rights." -- Alan Greenspan "Gold & Economic Freedom" Since Congress unconstitutionally delegated its responsibility to the "Federal Reserve," a private institution, to issue our paper money and charge us interest, do you trust this central bank run by unelected officials? "The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough money to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money." -- Sir Josiah Stamp, former Director of the Bank of England. Our economy is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks accept our paper dollar. The Bible word for "money" (keceph) means "silver." But debased currency is "divers weights" and "divers measures" (Deut. 25:13-14). Use tangible money and barter, not charge cards and credit. "Owe no one anything" (Rom. 13:8). Fractional Reserve Banking is forbidden in Exodus 22:25-27 since the borrower could not become indebted beyond the value of his assets. The collateral was taken by the first lender so it couldn't be used for a second loan while the shops were still open. The cloak was returned in the evening. But modern banking allows more paper money than there is gold to back it up. Many banks today lend up to 33 times the actual money they have on hand because people accept paper and easy credit (unbacked fiat money) rather than gold and responsible lending. Isaiah 1:22 says, "Thy silver (money) has become dross (worthless), thy wine mixed with water." No mortgaging of or tax on land (Lev. 25:36; Ez. 18:8-17 & 47:18). Usury (interest) is legitimate profit (Matt. 25:27) unless taken from a poor fellow believer (Ex. 22:25; Lev. 25:35-36). When Fanny-Mae and Freddie-Mac have no risk of loss, because the government backs up their risky practices in lending in order to redistribute wealth to poor who can't afford a house, then there is no need for Fannie and Freddie to be responsible with other people's money. The free market is the best and most efficient judge of how much something is worth. Billions of people vote every time they make a purchase and their personal needs and wants should not be tampered with. Trade should be wide open between countries so consumers get the best price for their pay check. Price levels should be based on supply and demand – meaning if you are thirsty in the desert you will pay more for water and the market will get water to that location.

4.) HEALTH: Do you believe A.) the self-reliant individual is accountable for his own health and his own lifestyle choices and that no taxpayer should be required to pay health care costs of those he doesn't have any control over OR do you believe B.) in socialized medicine and compulsory national health care where everyone must pay for the poor lifestyle choices of others? Do you believe that you are somehow responsible for the chain-smoker who gets lung cancer, the drunkard who now has cirrhosis of the liver, the fornicator who contracts venereal disease or the homosexual who acquires AIDS? "If you think health care is expensive now, try paying for it when its free." The FDA, and government in general, have consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, but instead force upon us flouridated water (Fluoride binds to aluminum causing Alzheimer's), genetically modified foods (mainly corn, soy, canola oil and cottonseed oil as well as the animals that are fed these products.) The only protection is to buy organic. For instance, bees are fed GM high fructose corn syrup and then produce honey. (This is why so many bees are mysteriously dying.) Chickens are fed GM corn and soy and then produce eggs and meat. Dangerous pesticides in our food don't know when to stop killing, antibiotics and other chemicals are also in the food supply. The FDA refuses to ban Aspartame (nutrasweet; Aminosweet) which breaks down into methanol (wood alcohol ) which then converts to formadehyde in the body. Formaldehyde causes gradual and eventually severe damage to the neurological system, immune system and causes permanent genetic damage at extremely low doses. Methanol from alcoholic beverages and from fruit and juices does not convert to formaldehyde and cause damage because there are protective chemicals in these traditionally ingested beverages.The most recent independent research in Europe demonstrates that ingestion of small amounts of aspartame leads to the accumulation of significant levels of formaldehyde (bound to protein) in organs (liver, kidneys, brain) and tissues. Excitotoxic amino acids such as the one which is immediately released from aspartame likely increases the damage caused by the formaldehyde. Meanwhile the FDA wastes public funds attacking dietary supplements and requiring dangerous immunizations and vaccinations that cause autism and they outlaw laetrile (apricot pits -- Vitamin B-17) that helps cure cancer victims. Why would they manage socialized medicine any better? Their goal is to empower the drug companies and genetic engineering (Monsatano), not prevent sickness. The U.S. Constitution nowhere gives the federal government the right to force socialized national health care on its citizens. One of the most pervasive evils of our day is the government notion that it has the right to protect us from ourselves, even when no victims are generated.

A common mistake concerns raw milk. If cows were simply kept healthy and well fed, there would be no danger from raw milk. Yet raw milk has been outlawed in many states. It has lots of beneficial bacteria and enzymes that get killed in pasteurization. In addition, the calcium that you supposedly get from milk is essentially insoluble and indigestible after being pasteurized. Did you ever wonder why osteoporosis is so widespread in this country when dairy consumption is one of the highest in the world? Pasteurization turns milk sugar, lactose, into beta-lactose, which is more rapidly absorbed and promotes hunger. Calves that are fed pasteurized milk almost routinely get sick and many die. This fact alone should push farmers to realize the dairy danger involved when milk is pasteurized. After milk is homogenized, the fat molecules are broken up into such small particles, that they get stuck in your arteries and intestinal walls, leading to heart disease and leaky gut syndrome. If you look at the rate of heart disease (and leaky gut which is generally undiagnosed) since the 1940s and 50s, you'll definitely see a large increase. And, it has been found that lactose intolerant people easily tolerate raw milk, proving that there is definitely dairy danger in irritating the stomach. To eliminate the dairy danger, simply cut out all non-raw milk, cheese, yogurt, etc. Bad LDL cholesterol comes from eating fatty meats, homogenized dairy cream, and cakes. Your mom's unhomogenized, unpasteurized breast milk is the highest quality protein. Next is egg protein. Eggs have a biological value of 93.7%, then cow's milk at 84.5%, 76% for fish, and 74.3% for beef.

Almost everyone would agree that we should all be free to accept responsibility for our actions. But there are many well-meaning individuals who have taken it upon themselves to act as the almighty protectors of mankind. Those who arrogate to themselves the power to protect people from themselves--using the coercive power of government, are unconstitutional. This behavior belongs only in the voluntary sector with voluntary awareness programs. When government agencies hire a full time employee such as a fire Marshall or safety officer, for example, each fire or accident in the community becomes a reflection on his job performance. Thus the nature of the responsibility induces the officer to go before elected officials and request additional codes and regulations to control what he feels are unsafe private actions. Freedom becomes the code enforcer's "enemy" and he, unknowingly, becomes freedoms worst enemy. Laws such as motorcycle helmet requirements, mandatory seat belt use, and building codes are all violations of this principle that people should be free to accept responsibility for their own actions. The artificial penalties for transgressing a law also inflict pain and suffering and very real damage, in the form of fines or even potential imprisonment if one resists.Remember that being responsible for our own safety means accepting the CONSEQUENCES of one's own poor judgment, and personal freedom to fail. That is what causes most people to learn by their errors. Judgment increases and people become more wise. The more that government intrudes to "ensure" private safety, the more non-thinking people depend on that supervision, and the poorer their judgments become. Do not take lightly this concept of deteriorating personal judgment in the face of excess codling. It is similar to the evil that comes upon society as it shield's people's bad judgment in health and financial matters with welfare and disability payments. Government welfare services are increased as people neglect to take care of themselves. Because government illegally attempts to use tax money to give health care to certain persons, this in no way gives government the power to start regulating everyone. A one-sided contract, however well intentioned is not binding, nor gives that person control over another. It's like a person who, on his own volition, starts paying for your health insurance, and then tries to control everything you do because he is paying for something which you never solicited! Motorcycle helmet laws fall into this same category. Failure to use a helmet only direct affects the user, and thus the majority has no right to mandate its use. If they did have such a right then safety requirements could be expanded in unlimited ways to include special boots, anti-skid brakes, armored clothing and a host of very expensive additions to an inherently unsafe vehicle.

5.) TAXES: Do you believe A.) in "rugged individualism" and in your capacity to spend your own money more wisely than the government can, OR do you B.) think that a "wise" central government should take your money and pay a "wise" bureaucrat to decide how to spend it for you (many taxes and big government)? Thieves are put in prison for stealing from the rich. But when the government takes your money by means of disproportional taxes on the rich, everyone calls it the law. A graduated income tax is one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto. Does the government somehow have a "right" to arbitrarily tax the rich 50% and the poor 10%? Then turn around and subsidize the poor with tax money (food stamps; welfare)? "Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor ... but in righteousness shalt thou judge" (Lev. 19:15). If a neighbor were to come to your house and demand, at the point of a gun, a monthly sum of money for his personal welfare and support, he would be viewed as an extortioner and thief. When he and other benefit-hungry people go to the legislature to accomplish the same thing by the rule of law, suddenly anyone who resists such thievery is viewed as a criminal. When socialist Eastern Europe escaped from Russian dominance, a FLAT TAX was instituted of from 10 to 15% in all these countries and they are now successful financially. Furthermore, 67 million Americans don't file an Income Tax Return. Why? "Our tax system is unAmerican" -- Ronald Reagan 1985. "If you examined (The 16th Amendment) carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment." -- U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox, 2003. The Sixteenth Amendment's "income tax does not apply to wages received for labor or services rendered, only profits as are produced by businesses and corporations" (Black's Law Dictionary 2nd ed. p.612). "Income" and "wages" are not the same (Central Illinois Pub. Service v. U.S. 435 US 31). "Income" means "Corporate Excise Tax" (Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. 271 U.S. 170,174). Income is defined as Corporate activity in Eisman v. Macomber. In Doyle v. Mitchell 247 US 179 (1918) we read that it is gain or increase arising from Corporate activity. Wages or labor are defined as follows: "Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment by which labor and other services are EXCHANGED for money or other forms of property" (Coppage v. Kansas 236 US 1,14 (1914)). "The 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged" (Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 U.S. 103). When the 16th Amendment uses the phrase"without apportionment," it must mean corporate excise tax (Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 240 U.S. 1) -- not wage earners. In Peck v. Lowe we read that the 16th Amendment gave "no new taxing power." If you file a 1040, you waive your 5th Amendment rights (self-incrimination) and can be jailed if an error is found. Therefore, how can a 1040 be required? Wage-earners are not required to file. The phrase "voluntary compliance" is used (Title 26 CFR CH.1 (4-1-03 edition)). "Your income tax is a 100% voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is a 100% enforced tax. The situation is as different as night and day" (Dwight E. Avis, Head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, Bureau of Internal Revenue). "Based on research ... by the Congressional Research Service, there is no provisions which ... require ... an individual to pay an income tax." -- Senator Daniel Inouye's office) "Tax on labor is unconstitutional" -- Judge James Cox in US District Court in 2003. The Federal Income Tax is a Direct Tax that is unapportioned ("apportioned" means "to divide equally among the people") and therefore unconstitutional. The Federal Reserve Act was unconstitutional since only Congress has power to coin money, not a private bank. The Federal Reserve Act was passed by Congress during Christmas vacation when many Congressmen were away for the holidays. The Federal Reserve Bank has illegal authority to counterfeit money. A Central Bank is another plank of the Communist Manifesto. The U.S. Government borrows money from, and pays interest to, these private bankers. That is where 100% of our Federal Income taxes go -- interest on the Federal debt (This is the conclusion of the Grace Commission). Income tax doesn't fund the Federal Government. If it did, how was the government funded from 1776 till 1913? Education is paid for by local property taxes. Corporate Income tax pays for Military Defense. Highways are funded by the Gasoline tax (which is 42 cents per gallon). If the IRS ever audits you, your first step should be to use the Freedom of Information Act to get a copy of their records that "justify" the audit. Then videotape each meeting with the IRS agent. Also realize that lower courts today won't allow Americans to quote Supreme Court decisions as evidence.

Government should be financed by general taxes only for UNIVERSAL services that are directly related to the defense of fundamental rights of ALL and that render no specific benefit to an individual or group constituting LESS than the whole. This one principle would do more to stop the power of government to redistribute wealth than any other. It would also provide a major obstacle to political corruption since no politician would be able to promise direct benefits to any special individual or group. This principle was the basis for the original “general welfare” clause of the Constitution--which had everything to do with restricting government to those things which related to the defense of everyone’s rights. The type of taxation employed should be directly levied upon the persons or properties protected by government services. The two primary entities protected by the military and police powers of government are people and property (which includes land, buildings, factories, and farms). A truly fair tax system will directly tax those entities in proportion to how much they benefit from government defense and administrative services. Any other form of taxation is a violation of someone’s rights. Taxation should never be allowed on commerce, income, inheritance or gifts. Neither should taxes be hidden within an economic price, interfere with or distort economic processes, or force any person to pay a higher proportion of taxes when no higher protection is required from government services. [The greatest way to keep government expansion in check is by keeping the cost of government up front and painful to the taxpayer. the prohibition against today’s common forms of taxation effectively forces government to tax openly and directly the people and property directly protected.] User fees must be employed to cover all costs for any government services or benefits to particular individuals, groups, and such user fees should be applied to those same services, which produce the fee. [the principle of user fees allows government to offer selective services to less than the whole, as needed, without violating the property rights of the general taxpayer. No taxation without representation. No state should incur a budget deficit and no deficit should be allowed at the national level except in time of declared war. No tax burden should be shifted to the next generation.

6.) FREE ASSOCIATION: Do you believe in A.) the right of Americans to freely associate with those of the same race, religion, culture and political party OR do you believe in B.) forced bussing, forced integration, and government meddling with the free market? Do you believe that landlords have the right to rent or not rent their own apartments and houses to any person for any reason or no reason at all, OR do you believe that a landlord somehow is obligated to not "discriminate" based on culture, language, race, religion, sexual preference, politics, etcetera? Do you believe that a business owner has the right to hire or fire an employee for any reason or for no reason at all, OR is he somehow obligated to not "discriminate" based on culture, language, race, religion, sexual preference, politics etcetera? Should the marketplace be free to decide or should the government have the right to meddle and define "fairness"? If the marketplace were free to operate, it would easily solve many of the problems that seem so difficult for the government to solve. Illegal immigrants, radical Islam in our midst, homosexuals coming out of the closet and undesirables would have nowhere to work or live or go to school. Out of necessity, English would be the only official language and Christianity the favored religion. Clearly there are cases when gender, weight, or size can be significant factors that an employer has the right to consider. There is no limit once you allow government to enter this area. Remember, to limit a person's ability to discriminate (to make a stereotypical generalization) is to violate one's right to act on his judgments, when such judgments do not violate the rights of others. Remember, there is no right to buy just because a sign says "Open to the public." A person's "prejudices" or "bigotry", and subsequent desire not to deal with any class, is not violating anyone's right--it is merely the restricted exercise of his own right. The power to invite or not to invite is inherent in the right to control entrance to one's property. Congressional civil rights legislation is only appropriate for matters of federal contract. In like manner, state legislatures could prohibit discrimination in state contracts, but neither legislative body can rightfully prohibit private discrimination, since that is a violation of the private citizen's fundamental right of association, and disassociation.

7.) JUSTICE: Do you believe that A.) the definition of a criminal is one who has hurt or threatens to hurt the life, liberty or property of another person, OR do you believe B.) a criminal is one who has violated the law? Do you believe a man is innocent till proven guilty, OR guilty based on accusation and warrant-less searches and seizure of evidence? Do you believe that criminals should compensate their victims and pay restitution to their victims rather than being put in prison OR do you believe that a lawbreaker should be put in prison even if there was no victim? Do you believe the taxpayer is obligated to pay for the food and housing of criminals in prison like an all-expense-paid vacation? Do you believe that murderers deserve death OR do you believe that the "compassionate" solution is a life behind bars at taxpayer expense? Jails and prisons are unbiblical. As they are gradually discontinued, imprisonment should only be used for criminals with clear remedial potential and should be self supporting by the labor of the inmates so as not to act as a violation of the property rights of law abiding citizens. If property is stolen and recovered intact, the thief restores double (Ex. 22:4). If property is not recovered intact, the thief pays four or five times its value (22:1), or even seven times (Pr. 6:30-31). If a thief is killed while breaking and entering, there shall be no blood shed for him (Ex. 22:2). Punishment should fit the crime: "Eye for eye; tooth for tooth, hand for hand ... stripe for stripe" (Ex. 21:24-25) and whipping up to 40 lashes for misdemeanors (Deut. 25:3) while felonies deserve the death penalty (Ex. 21). "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed"(Gen. 9:6) since "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin" (Heb. 9:22). Yet lethal injection, hanging, gassing and electrocution don't shed blood. Those are considered humane. But they're unbiblical.

Do you believe that a jury has the right to judge not only the facts of the case but also whether or not the law was constitutional (jury nullification) (Lev.19:15; Num.35:23), OR do you believe the jury must only judge facts? Is fairness when two citizens share equally, or when two citizens have equal opportunity under equal laws? The majority in charge of government should not have the power to take away the rights of the minority. That is why we have a CONSTITUTIONAL republic and not a pure democracy. The CONSTITUTION protects the fundamental rights of the minority from the majority. Therefore, no constitutional amendment should be allowed to violate a fundamental right. That limitation should have been put into our Constitution, but wasn't. Mandatory seat belt laws(as well as prohibition of alcohol or pornography) are unconstitutional since there is no violation of rights of others or imminent threat to life, liberty and property as in drunk driving. People must be allowed to take risks or otherwise engage in dangerous conduct. The argument that personal harm or corruption can result and that society suffers (increased rape from pornography and increased spouse abuse from being an alcoholic and increased public health care costs from auto accidents of not wearing seat belts) are not valid since not all pornographers become rapists, so prosecute the rapist. Not all alcohol users become drunk drivers, so prosecute drunk driving. Not all alcohol users abuse their family, so prosecute abuse when it occurs. The more solid ground of law lies in prosecuting people when they actually cross the line to direct effects and commit a crime. There must be a victim or imminent threat of one in order for there to be a crime. Strong and swift deterrents in the form of an across-the-board cumulative point system that repays the victim -- not permissiveness or jail time (food and housing at public expense) -- whenever a crime occurs. If a majority has the power to dictate what is “good for” others, even when failure to comply does not affect the rights of the majority, this opens up a major pathway used to justify other “good” proposals like fluoridation of water supplies and motorcycle helmet laws. Why not three glasses of milk a day? That private behavior which affects or offends another person's rights through sight or sound or smell (nudity; loud music; burning rubbish upwind) can be limited by a community standard such as decibel level and time of day and whether the smell is toxic. However, painting your house a wild color can potentially lower the value of your neighbor’s house, but since your neighbor has no right to any predetermined value on his home, no rights have been violated. A further safeguard is high fences which make good neighbors.

Due process should always include the right of the accused to have ready access to a representative of his choice to prepare a defense, the right to a speedy and public hearing on the cause for detention, and timely trial not to exceed a certain time limit from the time of detention. Wrongful imprisonment or refusal by the government to “yield up the prisoner” (habeas corpus) is unjust. The accused should be considered as innocent as the current level of credible evidence permits. Even though everyone thinks we presently act under the dictum of “innocent until proven guilty” this is not completely true. Judgments about bail, tendency to flight, and danger to society, always involve some determination of the credibility of the evidence, and the seriousness of the crime at the initial hearing. Access to the courts to defend one’s fundamental rights, in criminal cases, should never be denied due to inability to pay, although the assessment of reasonable user fees and fines are appropriate once guilt is established. Punishments should be fair, proportional to the offense, provide deterrent, provide restitution to victims by the perpetrators, and remove permanently from society chronic offenders who refuse to control their predation upon others. The principle of “violation of rights” test, differs from the current “danger to society” test, which often is used more today to heavily penalize anyone who presents a challenge to the government or court system itself (tax protesters, constitutionalists, government whistleblowers), instead of focusing on criminal threats to the public. The principle of removing chronic offenders of any category permanently from society can mean life imprisonment, the death penalty or even banishment. This will have a powerful deterrent effect as well. To facilitate victim restitution and reduce the burden on taxpayers, a vigorous prison work system should be instituted. All prosecution of criminal acts should be tried before a judge and citizen jury, trained in the applicable law, where the judge is responsible to ensure that rights of all parties are protected and the jury has the power to judge the facts of the case, the applicability of the law to the particular case, and the appropriate punishment. Access to a jury trial should be an absolute right for all criminal cases and an absolute option for civil cases, where the parties to the case are willing to accept their share of the appropriate user fees. One of the most pervasive evils of our day is the government notion that it has the right to protect us from ourselves, even when no victims are caused.

8.) GUNS: Do you believe A.) you have a right to keep a loaded gun with you at all times for protection and that you shall be responsible for any abuse of that right ("An armed society is a polite society.") OR do you believe B.) that guns are unnecessary when police are only a phone call away? Should guns be forbidden in public schools or government buildings or in the National Parks? Should a concealed weapons permit be required to carry a gun in your pocket? Do more guns produce more crime? Should we have a society where a man is allowed to buy a car, vote, own a business and get married -- all with far less red tape and regulations than carrying a gun to defend himself? Does a man's need for self-defense somehow disappear after he has been repeatedly arrested for drunk driving? Does a man's need for self-defense somehow disappear after he has had a squabble with his wife and been hauled off to jail? Or with a neighbor? Does a man's need for self-defense disappear after he has been severely depressed? Should we deny guns to our veterans who experience mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome? Or, yes, even after a prison sentence, is there no chance an ex-con will be mugged anymore? Ever more restrictive definitions of sanity and proper behavior are encroaching on the right to self-defense. Legislation makes it a crime to OWN or BEAR a gun rather than to use it wrongly because we have forgotten that a crime requires a victim. If there is no victim, then there is no crime. I am opposed to giving prohibition powers of prior restraint to the untrustworthy government. Prior restraint is only appropriate when IMMINENT threat to life or property is present. Under this doctrine, a driver of a vehicle could be stopped and arrested for driving "under the influence" of either alcohol or drugs, since his lack of coherence constitutes an imminent threat to life and property. The same is true with gun ownership. Imminent means it could happen at any time--a clear and present danger. But the possible danger to society of a man owning a gun must be balanced against the danger from criminals to that very same disarmed man. First Samuel 13:19 says, "Now there was no smith (gunsmith) found throughout all the land of Israel (United States); for the Philistines (Democrats) said, Lest the Hebrews (Americans) make themselves swords (assault weapons) or spears (21-round clips)." The Brady Bill violates the Constitution's Ninth and Tenth Amendments and "anything in conflict with the supreme law of the land (Constitution) is null and void from date of inception, not the point at which it is proven in court" (Marbury v. Madison 5 USSCP 137). Unconstitutional law is null and void. It "confirs no duty"(Norton v. Shelby County 118 USSCP 425). The Federal and State governments don't conflict (U.S. v. Crookshank). All citizens should be free to own and possess the means of effective personal protection and to use appropriate force to protect life and property from harm when police forces are not immediately available or willing to help. This language does not specifically limit the types of arms a person may possess, though a citizen may agree to do so in the citizen compact. It allows the use of force to defend both life and property, and is not contingent upon permission from police. Citizens acting in self-defense of fundamental rights should use only the force necessary to eliminate the perceived threat. This presents the basic principle of how much force is appropriate. It focuses on the issue of the threat, as seen through the eyes of the one threatened. A privately armed citizenry also serves as a proper counter-force and deterrent to government tyranny. There are two inherent dangers involved in the fundamental right to self-defense. First, it must not be viewed as a total license to kill for small and petty reasons. But on the other hand, it must not be so restrictive that it forces a person to calculate a myriad of legal alternatives when he is under dangerous, threatening and uncertain circumstances. We join together in governmental associations to enhance our ability to deter and prosecute crime, and to use large scale defensive military force when appropriate. We also place voluntary limits upon our own powers of self-defense, by deferring to the judicial process for prosecution rather than taking personal retribution and revenge. The only exception is when the threat is so imminent, dangerous, or uncertain that there is no safe opportunity to summon law enforcement officers. In such a case each person is free to rely on his fundamental right to defend himself. Such self-defense should give every benefit of the doubt to the one who is being threatened--not the aggressor. This principle is specifically worded to not give the type of legalistic aid and comfort to criminals as is presently provided by the myriad of legal restrictions surrounding the use of "deadly force" by a citizen. A homeowner who is threatened by physical force should be free to select the best weapon immediately available, that he determines is necessary to eliminate the threat. There are circumstances that may well even justify shooting a violent attacker as he is fleeing, under the very real presumption that he is likely to come back and try again. It also means that a person isn't restricted from using fast and deadly force against an attacker simply because he cannot visibly see a weapon. In many circumstances, at DARK and at NIGHT, the presence of an intruder who refuses to respond to your demands to identify himself or otherwise stop his approach warrants the use of deadly force, from as safe a distance as possible. The only weapon that is usually suitable under such criteria is a stand-off weapon, such as a handgun. This is why a citizen's right to self-defense is severely handicapped if handguns are prohibited. Self-defense against tyranny, or improper government force, is quite common even in our society. In essence, guns serve as a deterrent in that scenario also. Instead of robbing people outright, the government takes from them by means of unjust taxation. When sufficient violations of this nature occur, and when there is no further recourse to peaceful change, the people may well be justified in exercising their right to revolution. Usually this is only necessary when the majority of voters have begun to participate in the benefits of government theft, and refuse to repeal the improper laws voluntarily. Only when an oppressed minority has lost its fundamental rights and there no longer remains any ability to gain redress for grievance by democratic means is it justified in disregarding the unconstitutional law (nullification), leaving the government (secession), resisting compliance by armed defense, and throwing the rascals out of power (by revolution). Granted, this is a dangerous and unpleasant course, and as stated in the Declaration of Independence, should not be done for "light and transient causes."

9.) EMPLOYMENT: Do you believe A.) that a 14-year-old girl has the right to work if she wants to work earning $4.00 dollars per hour if a boss wants to hire her and her family needs the extra money? Should she be able to work even if the company has no toilet facilities or public heating OR B.) does the government have the right to deny her right to work and restrict work only to 18-year-olds who are paid a minimum wage of $6.00 per hour and only if OSHA declares the job site safe and only if the business passes EPA standards and only if toilet facilities are present? To have a truly "free market" is to allow voluntary behavior. American business can compete against foreign business only if it is not handicapped by government restrictions and regulations. Do you believe in the individual's right to work and individual responsibility OR in mandatory unemployment compensation and employer-provided health care? Freedom is the NON-SYSTEM which, by individual negotiations for worth, allocates (over time) to each product, service, person or idea the results most correctly correlated to its actual true worth. The self-regulating nature of this negotiation is that nobody minds getting rated higher than how he perceives worth, but will vigorously protest when rated lower. In the absence of legalized coercion by private or government sources, each person acting as the guardian of his own worth tends to force all values to eventually move toward their actual worth. All deviations from true worth are temporary and will adjust towards reality over time. Furthermore, the real point is that a job is NOT a right of the worker. It belongs to the EMPLOYER as an extension of his property rights. The employer provides the wage and the task. Laws which deny to an employer the right to "discriminate" based on race, religion, sex and sexual orientation have wide acceptance. But whether or not you agree or disagree that a person can come to some rational distinctions about people relative to race, religion, or sex, is irrelevant. The essential point relative to freedom is whether or not it is proper for government to restrict private judgments in this or any other area where no rights are violated. Once we allow government, by law, to attack an employer's right to hire whom he wants, there is no way to protect any other personal decision-making from attack. When government has the arbitrary power to select which stereotype generalizations are evil and which are acceptable, there is absolutely nothing to prohibit politicians from expanding that list to protect fat people, crazy people, aids infected homosexuals or Marxists from private "discrimination." The same principles of liberty that allow people the freedom to engage in private, voluntary evil practices, also protect the right of employers to judge them as evil, even for their private acts, and to exclude them from employment or association. These improper laws seek to stop the exercise of free judgment. When the exercise of free judgment, even when discriminatory, is prohibited, the essence of free thought is lost as well. In the final analysis, the prohibition of the exercise of free judgment is generally a violation of the right to freedom of action.

10.) MORALITY: Do you believe A.) that homosexuality is an abomination that deserves death because "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22), OR do you believe B.) it is an alternate lifestyle? Statistically, a homosexual is 15 times more likely to commit murder than a heterosexual. With only 4% of the adult population, homosexuals account for 71% of AIDS fatalities, 49% of all Siphilis, 51% of throat Gonorrhea and 53% of intestinal infections. Do you believe that A.) abortion is murder since "thou shalt not kill" and that "If men strive and hurt a woman with child (pregnant) so that her fruit (child) depart from her ... and if any harm follow (if the child dies), then you shall give life for life" (Ex. 21:21-24)? Do you believe that A.) it is a woman's right to choose whether or not to have sex , OR do you believe that B.) once a woman has sex, it is a woman's right to choose whether her fetus lives or dies? Just as a person who crashes into another person’s car with his car is not free to walk away from the responsibility, so a man and a woman, engaging in a consensual act that creates new life, are not free to walk away from that responsibility or otherwise destroy that life, unless the life of the mother is truly endangered. This argument avoids the issue of when the life is “viable.” Using this philosophy, rape does not trigger any liability on the part of the victim--only upon the perpetrator. In the case of the mother and child where neither party is at fault, we do have a conflict of rights. The solution to abort a child would not necessarily have the sanction of law, however. Adoption might be the solution. the case should be judged on a different basis--one that addresses the relative burden of harm to each party when there is a conflict of rights and no one is at fault. The impact of the fetus upon the innocent mother is only temporary and not generally harmful, whereas the impact of an abortion on the innocent fetus is permanent and fatal. Some also dwell on the fact that there is doubt as to when the fetus becomes independent life from the mother. But even a new born baby is not fully independent to sustain life.In the rare case where the life of the mother is clearly in danger due to the pregnancy, the mother, having a fully developed existence in life already, should be accorded the superior standing.

11.) LICENSES: Do you believe A.) that you have a right to travel free and unencumbered without license or license plates, registration or proof of insurance because of the First and Fifth Amendments (Shapiro v. Thompson 394 USSCR 618), and that a traffic ticket is theft and unlawful since it is a "bill of attainer" and there is no injured party, and that you can't be thrown in jail for a debt or its a "debtor's prison" (Erie Railroad v. Tompkins) OR do you believe B.) that driving is a privilege requiring a license? Do you believe that A.) you have a right to enter a common law marriage without a licensed minister and without a marriage license, OR do you believe that B.) you need a licensed minister to sign a marriage license to get married (so that your children become wards of the state and divorce is governed by state statute)? You can only have a common law divorce if there was a common law marriage by contract. Do you believe that A.) a Christian Church should not be licensed with a 501(c)3 tax exempt status because of restrictions imposed on what you can say and do, OR do you believe B.) that the Church must have a license to avoid taxes and operate economically? Do you believe that A.) you have a right to practice law without a license, and the right to an attorney of your choosing even if not a member of the BAR union and even if unlicensed OR do you believe that B.) you must be a member of the BAR to practice law and all other attorneys are "practicing law without a license"? The BAR association monopoly in courts is illegal (David v. New Orleans; Burgent v. Texas). You have a "right to counsel of your choice" (even if unlicensed not a BAR union member) (Hale v. Hinkel; 6th Amendment). Lack of counsel of free choice is worse than no counsel at all (Burgett v. Texas 389 USSCP 109). Accused can't be put in prison unless he first has counsel present in courtroom (Argusanger v. Hanlon 407 USSCR 25). They can't convert a right (to evangelize) into a privilege and require a license, tax or fee (Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 USSCR 105). You may ignore licenses and fees (to peacably assemble a crowd and preach to it) and engage in your right (Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Alabama 373 USSCR 262). A business license, driver's license, marriage license, hunting license, fishing license, church license or license to practice law all take away your Constitutional rights. The U.S. Constitution says you don't need them. If you sign your name to any license or ticket or Voter's Registration Card, make sure you put the words "under duress Uniform Commercial Code I-207 without prejudice" after your name, otherwise you may be entering into a contractual relationship with the State to be subject to a court of equity rather than a court of law. There are two law codes in the U.S.: Tort Law if you harm someone; Contract Law if you don't live up to your agreement. How does the Federal Government justify its vast regulatory powers that are not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution? By resorting to its right to "regulate interstate commerce" and since everything is related to "interstate commerce," it has a right to regulate anything. This misconception gives the government unlimited powers not intended by framers . Constitutional limits on Federal authority means Congress can only create laws within the boundaries enumerated by Constitutional powers. The wide-ranging Federal Power to do "good" things does not exist. Thus, U.S. vs. Lopez overturned the Gun-Free Zones Act of 1990. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumeraterd powers, but Congress feels free to legislate on virtually any subject, citing its power to regulate interstate commerce as an all-purpose justification. But Congressional legislation has to be authorized by the Constitution. Five justices rejected the claim that regulating interstate commerce meant prohibiting possession of a gun, in or near a school. "If we were to accept the government's arguments," Renquist wrote in the majority opinion, "we are hard-pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate." Otherwise the Commerce Clause will swallow the rest of the Constitution. Many Federal Departments go contrary to the framers' vision of a political system in which such matters "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," as the nearly forgotten 10th Amendment says. The Federal Government merely has the power to "regulate trade" (DOT). Laws governing environment (Fish & Wildlife; NFS), parks (Bureau of Land Management), guns (BATF), education (NEA), workplace (OSHA), health and your children's safety (DSHS; Child Protective Services), vitamins and drugs (FDA), anti-discrimination (Affirmative Action), housing (Housing & Urban Development), violence against women and civil rights are not the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. It is judicial activism. One of the most pervasive evils of our day is the government notion that it has the right to protect us from ourselves, even when no victims are caused.

12.) WAR: Do you believe in A.) an all-volunteer army (Num.1:3; Deut.20:5-8), OR B.) compulsory military service which is unconstitutional since the draft is "involuntary servitude" and violates a man's right to his "life and liberty." Any assistance in behalf of liberty given to other nations or peoples, where a significant threat to this nation’s rights cannot be demonstrated, should be encouraged and allowed by government, but carried out by voluntary measures. This principle prohibits tax-payer assisted military involvement in foreign wars where no direct threat to our nation’s liberties can be demonstrated. It also establishes the right of volunteers to help with private arms and manpower. Presently the US uses the Neutrality Act to prohibit all private assistance to freedom movements.

13.) RELIGION: Do you believe that A.) the government should allow and not "prohibit the free exercise" of religion in public schools and government buildings as long as it is voluntary Bible reading, voluntary prayer and "Bible as literature" and "make no law" against it OR do you believe that B.) Christianity and Judaism must be outlawed from the public schools and separated from government? Do you believe in "separation of church from state" interference since the king couldn't intrude on a priestly office or he became leprous (2 Chr.26:18)? The kingship belonged to David's sons forever while the priesthood belonged to Aaron's sons forever. That never meant the Bible should be excluded from public education. American public school textbooks for the first 150 years of our existence were saturated with Bible verses and Biblical history. The original idea of the framers was a desire for Christian principles to be taught, but not for ONE DENOMINATION to run the schools or nation. All denominations of Christianity should be treated equally but the Bible is indispensible. In 1811 the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to remove the Bible from school curriculums (People v. Ruggles). At that time the court sentenced a man who tried to remove it to three months in jail. In 1878, in Reynolds vs. the U.S. Government, the Supreme Court ruled that Christianity and government could not be separated, since government is built upon the Bible and Christian beliefs. Then in Murray vs. Curlett -- the case brought to the Supreme Court by Madalyn Murray O'Hair in 1962 -- the opposite ruling occurred. This landmark case instigated the removal of PRAYER from the schools within the first year and the removal of BIBLE READING the next year. Schools across the nation showed an immediate decline in academics and morality. Teen pregnancy has risen 500% since 1963. S.A.T. scores stayed constant until 1963, then plummeted. While the national average for public school students continues to fall, the average private Christian school student still has scores comparable to the pre-1963 student. Fornication, crime, suicide and divorce have sky-rocketed since 1963 while productivity has plummeted. Before 1960 only 1 in 1000 marriages ended in divorce, but now 65-70% end in divorce. The Democrats have removed God from both the Pledge of allegiance and the Democrat Party platform as of 2020. In 1 John 4:1-3 we read, "every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. this is the spirit of the antichrist."

Private citizens should not be prohibited from using public property on a temporary basis, without cost to the government, for religious celebrations of belief as long as such activities are voluntary and coordinated with other normal public needs. [Religions are no different than any other association of belief. All such associations (that do not threaten fundamental rights, or the community standards established by voluntary compact on public comportment), ought to have free access to public property, even to promulgate their beliefs--as long as any costs to the taxpayer for administration or maintaining public order is reimbursed.] A variety of citizen compacts, all emanating from one basic national pact can also resolve the major differences in religious background in a pluralist society. Most conservatives recognize that this nation was founded as a christian nation. Today, imposing the concept of a christian nation upon non-believers would be highly resisted and improper. If a national government is formed with a basic compact that only sets out basic, bare-minimum “community standards” for public behavior, and each religious section of society (Mormon; Seventh Day Adventists; Jehovah's Witnesses; Jews For Jesus) is allowed to establish more restrictive religious covenants, by mutual agreement in contiguous territory, then a variety of differences in society can be accommodated without each one trying to oppress the other. Freely competing, non-coercive values ensure that neither side has use of the public purse nor enforcement powers to promote its position. Government merely maintains public order and keeps the peace without promoting any system of belief except that which directly protects fundamental rights or which is agreed upon by all participants in a citizen compact covering “community standards” of public conduct. (not private) as long as all citizens who form the government have agreed to those standards. Officials should not be restricted, however, from making statements of personal belief, including religious references to a duty to god or a belief in a supreme being, or praying publicly to god, as long as such pronouncements are stated as their own personal beliefs or feelings, represent part of his or her leadership role to constituents, and do not require mandatory acceptance by others. This principle establishes that even though officers of government are paid employees, they may express their personal convictions about politics, and religion as long as those expressions are part of their leadership responsibility, are not at odds with their official capacity requiring fairness and justice, and are stated as their own personal opinions or feelings. Leaders are paid to lead, and not simply parrot mechanistic rules. If a leader oversteps the bounds of propriety in this area, there are other checks and balances, including the election process or legislative censure that can serve to counterbalance excesses. Values must always be competing, and the only way to accomplish that in a free society is to make sure no one has to subsidize anyone else's values with public funds. That's why prayer and even "generic" religion is improper in public schools--because the government schools improperly take everyone's money. Now, if government schools were financed exclusively user fees, then if the majority wanted to pray that would be acceptable. Those that objected would be free to choose schooling elsewhere with no financial penalty.

14.) FREE SPEECH: Do you believe that A.) men should be free to speak, write or publish their opinions on any subject as long as they don't abuse that right by blasphemy, libel (MISSTATEMENT of fact that damages reputation), slander, and "provoking imminent lawlessness" (Acts 4:18-20) OR do you believe that B.) "hate crimes" legislation (banning criticism of Jews, blacks, homosexuals, and Catholics) should be mandatory? British Columbia now bans all words and images "likely to expose a person ... to hatred or contempt" "because of race, religion, age, disability, sex, marital status or sexual orientation." It can be totally FACTUAL yet still be illegal. Of course, this would make the Bible and Shakespeare, as well as many other books, forbidden. Furthermore, do Christians have A.) a right to distribute religious tracts in public places (parking lots, stores, meeting halls) according to the First Amendment's freedom of speech, press, assembly and religion or B.) must their religious tracts be put only on a "public bulletin board" and be cleared with officials? Isn't handing out a religious tract merely "the right to petition for redress of greivances?" How can there be a freedom of speech, press and religion if there is no place allowed for solicitation or distribution or assembly? When we come to the sticky area of libel (written defamation) and slander (oral defamation), I am in favor of allowing the maximum possible freedom to state negative opinions about others--especially since such criticism is essential for the preservation of freedom and justice. But I would be reluctant to allow continued lying about provable facts, with bad intent. There is no difference between public servants and private people, as in present law, trying to establish different rights for different groups. But I am cognizant of the need to allow a person to prosecute others for lying about matters of purported FACT which the purveyor knows are malicious and untrue, which cause demonstrable harm --however difficult that may be to prove. I believe that the resolution lies in the difference between matters of fact and opinion. Each is free to judge another's worth as he sees it. No one has a "right" to be viewed by all as "honest, upright, moral, or good." Those are all matters of general opinion by others as they view another person and are subject to change. Each person should have the right to make general--non fact-based statements as his own opinion, as long as his comments are stated as such. This disclaimer sufficiently weakens any statement and leaves room for enough doubt. By definition, a truthful fact is one which does not conflict with any other fact about the same subject. There is a difference between something being harmful to your reputation, and being harmful to your rights. No right to a certain reputation exists--only to provable facts of history surrounding your person or property. So the only damages that should be allowed to be recoverable are those which cause financial loss or loss of employment loss based upon the promotion of falsehoods done with malicious and willful intent.In the absence of malicious intent, but where one can prove the allegation is false, the perpetrator should be required by law to make a correction of equal publicity. The refusal to correct a proven falsehood would be a strong indication of malicious intent. One of the ways to show bad intent is for the offended party to send by certified delivery facts, evidence and arguments refuting the charges. If the perpetrator continues to publish the same falsehood, without specifically countering each and all of the arguments and evidence sent to him, he would be held liable for damages henceforth, if a court of law found those facts provable. But in such cases, the accused could demand that the accuser provide the basis of his evidence, or cease and desist. I would not favor prosecution for the first statement--only the subsequent attacks where the attacker could not produce evidence.Accusers of people or products would probably have to send their manuscripts for comments to the accused parties in order to avoid having to publish a later clarifying work.

15.) PRIVACY: Do you believe in A.) the right to privacy inside one's home (no unlawful searches or seizures) (Deut.24:10-11; Isa.39:4-6), OR do you believe B.) that the threat from terrorism means we all must forfeit some of our constitutional rights in order to catch the terrorists? Why have a 4th Amendment, if it does not prohibit government from eavesdropping on phone calls and monitoring emails and internet traffic without telling anyone? We are not required to take a drug test to prove we are drug free or allow ourselves to be fingerprinted to prove we are innocent. The Fifth Amendment protects us. Citizens should be secure in their privacy from government search, intrusion, surveillance, and seizure except when credible evidence exists of a crime against fundamental rights or an imminent threat to liberty. This presents the basis for Constitutional language that would require a warrant be issued by a judge before a search or seizure could take place. Police should have the warrant available for inspection, naming a specific person or place to be searched and detailing the evidence justifying the warrant. Too often, the Constitution’s strict language on warrants is totally disregarded. Surveillance is also routinely conducted without any warrant. Thus, government agents must be held strictly liable for the violation of these limitations on police intrusion. In this section, the right of privacy is assured, with two conditions. One, that the right only exists on one's own property, or on property that he controls. However, it is incumbent upon the person to provide his own shielding when he is in plain view of others who may be on some else's property. Second, no one has a right to privacy when acting and planning to infringe upon another's rights.

16.) CITIZENSHIP: Do you believe A.) that a nation is merely a FAMILY grown great -- all of the same race, language, religion, culture and political persuasion OR B.) that a nation is a balkanized, mix of persons of any language, any religion and any race who are born within the borders of the country (Fourteenth Amendment)? With the coming of a diverse population, the SINGLE common purpose is gone. There is no harmony, agreement or unity. The firmest basis for any nation is to have all its citizens of the same race, religion and language. Is the United States rebuilding the tower of Babel? Will God say again, "The people are ONE, and they have all one language ... So the Eternal scattered them abroad from there"? (Gen. 11:6-8). "Yet I had planted thee a NOBLE vine, wholly a RIGHT seed. How, then, art thou turned into the DEGENERATE plant of a STRANGE vine unto me?" (Jer. 2:21) In the last 50 years, WHITE America has declined from 90% to 72% of the total U.S. population. By the year 2050, WHITE Americans will be a minority -- just 49%. How can a Moslem assimilate with a Jew? How can English-speaking coincide with Spanish-speaking? How can a black man marry a white woman and have children that preserve the genetic heritage of either primary race? The best way to stop illegal immigration from creating a Tower of Babel is to eliminate the welfare state and to recognize that just because a baby is born this side of the Rio Grande, doesn't qualify it as an American citizen. There must be requirements of citizenship. One of the most important differences between citizen and non-citizen might be a restriction from owning titled property, a privilege only extended to citizens. Residents and visitors could own the full range of normal goods but would have to rent housing, cars, businesses or certain investments that are defended by legal title. This would link increased privilege with increased responsibility for maintaining liberty. Currently foreign holders of dollars evade purchasing American products and choose instead to buy up portions of America itself: government debt, land, capital and business enterprises. Since all of these are titled property, under this new proposal they would be restricted to citizens only. Foreign buyers would not be able to buy up the capital assets of America unless they became citizens. In this way, either they become committed to our version of liberty through the citizenship qualification process, or they apply their excess dollars to American products. In both cases, liberty wins. Residents and visitors would pay different types of taxes and user fees than most citizens if they wanted to have access to any public services or public property. In like manner, not having joined the covenant as a citizen, they most likely would not have access to any public property governed by the new government unless they at least agreed to the “community standards” on public behavior and paid appropriate user fees.

17.) UNIONS: Do you believe A.) that employers and employees have the right to make voluntary agreements without a union and without government interference? ("No State shall impair the obligation of contracts" -- U.S. Connstitution)Do workers have the right to compete in the marketplace which means economic freedom OR do you believe that B.) labor union monopolies must eliminate competition for the benefit of all workers and that labor laws regulating minimum wage, conditions of work and collective bargaining are needed to protect employees from employers? Should each seller of goods and services be free to get the best offer he can get and each buyer be free to buy as cheaply as he can or should industry be socialized? Wage rates are prices. Fair market price is when no seller will sell for less and no buyer will pay more. What then are "fair wages?" Wages which result from the competition of employers for workmen and the competition of workmen for jobs when everyone is free. If a workman claims it is proper for workers to unite in a union to force wages up, ask him if it is proper for employers to combine to force wages down. We believe in the principle of separation of trade and state. Just as the retreat of governments from the religious field brought an end to religious wars, so the retreat of government from the economic field will bring an end to pay disputes. Each citizen should be free to produce, work, buy, sell, consume, save and employ without state interference. This is "free enterprise." Buyers want lower prices, sellers want higher prices. If the state intervenes, it must favor one party at the expense of the other. Collective bargaining eliminates competition, thereby eliminating the method for determining a fair price. If we have competition, the avarice of the seller is checked by the frugality of the buyer. If the profits of grocers are too small, many grocers will fail and go out of business. The smaller number of remaining grocers will then be able to raise prices and make a fair profit. If the profits of grocers are too great, more grocers will enter the business, and the greater competition will bring prices and profits down. Competition is a regulator which tends to establish fair prices and fair profits. In collective bargaining an arbitrary authority establishes an artificial price. Collective bargaining cannot work without establishing a monopoly. If half the grocers joined a union to raise the price of groceries, consumers would avoid union grocers and buy from non-union grocers instead. Therefore, to be effective, labor unions must seek complete unionization and a closed shop. Collective bargaining exploits consumers. When union members gain in income, consumers lose income. If all groups collectively bargain, there is no net gain. Just as in 1890 Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to protect the public from industrial monopolies, today the problem is how to protect the public from labor monopolies (higher prices, lower wages). How do labor unions eliminate competition? By saying to employers, "We will put a picket line around your plant, and prevent workers who are willing to accept your terms from entering your plant." Or "We refuse to work with non-union workers." Or "We refuse to work on materials supplied by non-union shops." These are threats and coercion against the employer. Collective bargaining implies much more than negotiating an agreement with an employer. Picketing is considered a form of free speech and free assembly so long as it doesn't interfere with pedestrian traffic and access to places picketed. Also, the signs must not be fraudulent and order must be maintained. But the reality is that pickets assemble to prevent non-union workers from assembling for work. Pickets move about freely to prevent non-union workers from moving into the plant freely. They congregate at entrances to intimidate those who want to enter the factory. The right to unionize is not the right to work at half-speed. It is not the right to employ five men to do the job that one man could do much quicker. Rules are designed to lower efficiency and make a job last. More efficient tools, materials and methods are boycotted. "Labor unions lead the way, Less work and more pay." That is stealing. The right to strike is the right to quit work -- not the right to keep an industry closed. The Federal government is not permitted by the U.S. Constitution to give any group of citizens a special monopoly or privilege to fix their wages, thus disregarding justice to consumers. "Equal justice to all, special privilege to none." But the National Labor Relations Act took away from employers the right to bargain individually and compelled employers to submit to the worker's bargaining method. It abolished freedom of contract. It made the rights of the workers superior to the rights of employers. For instance, the NLRB has ruled that it is unfair for an employer to require a union to post bond to guarantee it fulfills the terms of its contract. Also the NLRB has ruled that employers are required to reinstate strikers who have been convicted of misdemeanors arising out of a strike. In other words, its all right to beat up on workers who cross the picket line. In contrast, the U.S. Constitution under the freedom of contract clause, allows individuals the right to contract with employers. Then each worker's reward is proportional to his individual ability and effort and the employer and employee are the best judges of this.

17.) WOMEN'S RIGHTS: Do you believe A.) Abortion is murder or B.) Abortion is a woman's right? Exodus 21:22-23 states, “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury (abortion), then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life". This strongly indicates that the Mosaic Law viewed the unborn as persons worthy of the same protection and rights as adults. Abortion clinics are therefore equivalent to the high places of Baal where children were sacrificed. Nimrod's religion consisted of child-sacrifice (Jer.19:5) and thus we get the word "CANNIBAL" from "CAHNA BAAL" (Priest of Baal). This is why Leviticus 18:21 says, "thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the FIRE to Molech." (Deut.12:31; 2 Ki.16:3; 23:10; Jer.32:35; Ez.20:31). The modern FEAST OF NATIVITY OF ST. JOHN (June 24th) -- same as the ancient resurrection of Tammuz -- still follows the custom of people passing through the FIRE when it is very low. In Halley's Bible Handbook under "Religion of the Canaanites" we read, "In excavations at Gezer, Macalister ... found ... the ruins of a 'High Place,' which had been a temple in which they worshipped their god BAAL and their goddess ASHTORETH.... Under the debris ... Macalister found great numbers of jars containing the remains of children who had been sacrificed to BAAL. Today ABORTION clinics are our "high places" of BAAL.








Do you believe A.) The woman is the "weaker vessel" physically, emotionally and spiritually or B.) That such thinking is old fashioned. Women are equal to men in every way and should compete with men and try to be smarter than men and outdo men and resent any special compliment or special treatment from men as "male chauvanism"? Matthew Henry made the famous statement that “The woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.” She is double-refined from clay. Women were given greater beauty but men the greater ability. Women should not compete with men, but instead should allow men to win. This thinking is not old fashioned. Men have a different role to play than women. Men should open the door for women. Women should allow them to do it. Men should "put women first" as deserving "greater honor". When a woman tries to order men around and teach men, she loses part of her female nature. She is destroying her female role. A man should not be under a female boss. Remember that throughout the Bible, God communicated with men, not women. He talked mainly to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, John the Baptist, Christ our Lord and his disciples -- Peter, James, John. He did not talk directly to very many women. Only Deborah, Mary and a few others.

18.) The FAMILY: Do you believe A.) that parents are responsible for the health, education and welfare of their children, even to the point of spanking them and religious indoctrination and not allowing them medical care (psycho-therapeutic drugs) OR B.) do you believe it is the State who is responsible for everyone's children without imminent threat to the life of the child? The burden of proof for abuse or neglect should always remain upon the State. Parents are often forced to meet arbitrary requirements as a condition of regaining custody--often including consent to questionable psychological counseling and drug therapy for their children. The courts should never be involved prescribing treatment--only prosecuting actual violations for serious abuse or life-threatening neglect. The Family, composed of a man and a woman and their natural or legally adopted children, act as a special sovereign kingdom over the health, welfare and education of their children until such children reach the age or capability of exercising individual sovereignty and self-responsibility. [It is precisely due to the existence of children, who cannot yet exercise individual sovereignty, that we must carve out a special form of sovereignty for the family kingdom. If we do not give families sovereign status, there is no basis in individual rights theory to stop the state from asserting a preeminent caretaker status in the guise of protecting children--as it does in our current legal system. Children of citizens fall under the protection of their parents’ citizenship until reaching an age or ability to become self-responsible, or they become disqualified by criminal or rebellious behavior. [Children of citizens (or residents, for that matter) automatically come under the respective category of protection that their parents possess. Thus, children are fully protected under the umbrella of their parents’ citizenship, but aren’t considered citizens themselves until they qualify. Once reaching the minimum age to apply for citizenship, they would become “residents” until they otherwise qualify for personal citizenship status.] We must rely on the basic biological fact that no child can be engendered without the male and female components, which are traceable in origin to the parents for purposes of sharing responsibility. This definition is not intended to say that families only exist when both parents are present, but that only a man (king) and a woman (queen) having a child (subject) trigger the creation of a family kingdom. All other artificial forms of the family are creations of the state, and liable to the state. The family kingdom unit, including the subsequent responsibilities of parents, still exists and is binding upon both even if parents separate or never live together in the first place. Marriage that doesn’t involve children does not need this separate form of sovereignty since both parties to a marriage are protected by the individual right of contract. Unfaithfulness to the marriage covenant under this doctrine would be prosecuted as a breach of contract].There is an addition safety valve against abuse as well. Children have the clear right to leave an abusive home at any time, and seek voluntary foster care, before the level of abuse approaches life-threatening consequences. This is an important option in problems of sexual abuse].Some suffering of wives and children must be tolerated in society to shield liberty as a whole from the "ought-a-be-a-law" crowd who would eventually attempt to "license" parents or husbands according to some "pristine" sociological model.

19.) GOVERNMENT: Do you believe A.) we live in a Constitutional Republic whose purpose is to protect the fundamental rights of the minority from any corrupt majority OR B.) do you believe that we live in a Democracy whose purpose is to protect us from ourselves with more regulations and higher taxes to provide more benefits? Can the government take away your life, liberty and property at a whim? The formation of a government with enforcement powers is an extension of two specific fundamental rights--the right to contract with willing parties and the right to act in self-defense of fundamental rights. The only legitimate form of government (in the absence of God's rulership) is a cooperative government formed by free men possessing equal fundamental rights. A cooperative form of government cannot possess any right that its individual members do not possess. In forming and authorizing a government to enhance self-defense, the individual does not cede nor limit any fundamental rights except as specifically agreed upon. The wisdom of the founders in the “great compromise” dividing representation between territoriality for the senate and population for the house of representatives. In addition, to avoid concentrations of power, at each level of government, there should be a separation of executive powers, legislative powers, judicial powers (The founding fathers derived the three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22), and those oversight powers retained by the citizens so as to be able to override potential collusion within the three branches of government. Each separate jurisdiction of government, including citizens, should have investigative and enforcement powers to ensure access to truth, expose corruption, and enforce compliance within their proper and respective realms of authority. One of the weaknesses of the Constitution’s separation of power is the lack of enforcement and investigative powers on the part of the judiciary. Even the Congress has no enforcement powers except that of impeachment. The bar has been raised so high on impeachment that Congress has little power to enforce its investigative authority. Citizens have been given (by Congress) a minor power to investigate government through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA), but are powerless to break through the government’s improper use of secrecy to hide all illegal acts from discovery through ultimate control of the FOIA procedure. The courts almost always refuse to assist the citizens in penetrating this control. Government’s only proper role of enforcement power is to defend the fundamental rights of the persons joining together to form, authorize and support such government. This statement forces all law to seek its basis in fundamental rights and effectively prohibits government from drifting off into areas of regulating and protecting people from themselves and from other harmful decisions that don’t involve violations of fundamental rights. It also declares that non-participants don’t qualify to have their rights protected, except by their own fundamental right of self-defense. This is one of the inducements to join in a cooperative government and help pay for its legitimate expenses.

If you answered "A" to all of the questions above, you are 100% Conservative Republican and "Right." We believe that Christians are synonymous with Conservative Republicans and that Liberal Democrats are "jackasses." We hope you agree. Please print copies of this political questionaire and circulate it widely.

Next Lesson: Jews In Prophecy | Back to Home | Email Us