We correctly acknowledge that our country was founded on the principle that we have God-given, unalienable rights and that government’s proper role is constrained to protecting those rights. So, what are those rights? Do we have the “right” to have our government do certain things for us and does that “right” have anything to do with the moral code of right and wrong? As we study the Constitution and Declaration of Independence we will look more closely at some very fundamental principles contained in those two marvelous documents in order to see more clearly what is – and what is not – the proper role of government.
Speaker 1: Alright. Welcome to Rights in the Constitution. This is number nine in the seminar series in the constitution. And I’ve been thinking about this one for a long time. It really should’ve been one of my first presentations because it has very strong foundational tint to it or talk about some principles that are very, very important and philosophies and philosophically sound ideas that have built our nations. So I mean all those number nine in the series I think it’s really foundation that I recommend. I hope you had some find on it. I also want to point out and start out by giving some credit or credit as due, I have to mention all these presentations. I really — it’s like I don’t have hardly any original ideas in this presentation. All I do is compiling from the best writings, from the best men and women, the best hearts and minds, these ideas to pull together. So I want to make sure that if there’s anything good in these presentations, if you like them, I want to stand outside them as well and look on and say, hey, I’m an admirer of these presentations too because I really don’t like they’re necessarily mine. They’re just pulling together all the great people through the ages and especially with the help of God. There’s been a lot of things that I’ve been confused on, how to teach things right. How to understand and show principles and I really want to make sure to give the glory to him because he’s the one who thought understand these thing. So I want to start out there. This right, we talked a lot about God. We talked a lot about principles and then, I think it’s an appropriate time to discuss that. So one person in particular had a lot of help from, his writings, this man name Ezra Taft Benson. He wrote an incredible document called The Proper Role of Government. It’s intertwined in all this presentation. I could basically quote him at every one of these slides where I got some information from him. So we’re going to start that with four questions. And I think this pretty much be the premise behind the whole presentation and rights in the constitution. What are rights? Where the rights come from? Who possesses rights? And why the rights matter in the first places? Okay? So we’re going to hit those. I want to start with the questions thought, what is the American dream? When we talk about that, what’s the American dream? Why isn’t it called the Canadian dream or the Chinese dream or the Russian dream? The American dream is the idea that the government is going to get out of the way and you can dream and become and do whatever or whomever you want to become. You can do what you want to do and that’s the dream, part of the American dream. American dream as you can do what you want to do. Government is going to get out of your way. Now, unfortunately, a lot of people now a days think the American dream is that government is going to support you and provide for your seek and reach your — all your needs and wants through government, that’s not the American dream. The American dream has to do with government not doing things being prohibited from doing things not from providing and being providential. Now, there’s a basis on everything because they’re all kind of interesting question to start out. So as far as this, what is the right? Let’s get a definition. I spend a lot of time on this definition way too much time on this definition. I think it’s well done. I think there’s some complexity and some depth to it, maybe a little philosophical but I guess I have to bear with it, right? Since I came out for the presentation, it’s my definition. Okay. Here is the first thing. First of all, we need to understand what are the right is, to know what a right is and it’s not as critical since the purpose of the government is to secure our rights. Otherwise, you might find yourself supporting ideas and programs and candidates et cetera that are in conflict with proper role of government because we don’t understand what a right is. So let’s say the first part here, an individual claim, okay, God gives rights to individuals. He doesn’t give rights to groups or the governments or communities, okay? We’re going to get a lot into this later, a lot more into this later in the presentation. And then, there’s word of claim. What’s claiming? It means to demand or to assert, okay? So an individual claim is the first part of the right. So the thing is, to a God giving ability, alright? So where the rights come from? Well, the decoration says they come from God. We’ll get more onto that as well on the presentation. But rights aren’t outcomes, rights are opportunities. Rights aren’t outputs, rights are inputs, okay? So stability. Along with that is this next part to act for one self and or to be free from being act upon by others, okay? So first part is an individual claim to a God given ability to act for one self and or to be free from being acted upon by others, okay? Now, there’s some other parts of this. The next is which can be legitimately defended by use of force, alright? A right can be legitimately defended by use of force. If you truly have adjusted claim to something then by nature, you have the right to defend it. Your conscience is your guide. But to violate your conscience to use force to defend yourself against an attack upon your property, no, that’d be told in my conscience. I feel like I have the right to do that. The God given right to defend myself but, but to violate your conscience to you sue force to take property from another person in order to give it to another? Yeah, that would violate a conscience. I can’t do that. I can’t take from one and give to another, okay? So, both of those cases, force is needed in order for that thing to be accomplished but in the first case, it’s forced to defend, it’s a negative force, the defensive force. And the second case, it’s forced to be proactive to be offensive, to provide. You see the difference there? You conscience helps you understand. It’s pretty simple to understand it that way. They can be defended by force, that’s a right, if you have to initiate the force and take from one to give another, that’s not right at all, okay? The next part of this is can be exercise by everyone? God doesn’t give rights to just some people. He gives rights to all of his children, correct? So if he gets rights to everyone, then if someone says well, I have this right and anyone else does, that’s not a right at all. It’s most likely a privilege or a benefit. Next of the word here simultaneously, everyone should be able to exercise that right at the same time. If it’s mutually exclusive, it’s not a right. Can everyone have life at the same time? Yeah. Can everyone have liberty at the same time? Yeah, unless someone uses the liberty in French on my liberty. Can everyone owned property at the same time? Yes, not the same piece of property but everyone can have private property. These things aren’t mutually exclusive. Everyone can exercise them simultaneously, okay? And does not force others to act in order for that thing to exist, okay? Rights stand on their own, they’re independent. They don’t depend on any other person or force in order to resist. Why? Because their source, they come from God, okay? Now, they’re natural and even on self-evident. In order for a person to have a right to something, if it’s required that a different person be force to give something out then that’s not right. Like we talked about before, that’s a privilege or benefit, okay? As well for a right. Well, no, because what’s its source? Its source is the property by the their people. Can’t resist on this, someone else is forced to give up their property to supply the welfare for another person, is life are right? Yes, it comes from God. It doesn’t require anyone else to give up anything for that person to live. So you can see the differences are. Okay? So those are our definition. An individual claim to a God given ability to act for one self and or to be free from being acted upon by others which can be legitimately defended by use of force, it can be exercise by everyone simultaneously and does not force others to act and order for that theme choices, okay? Like I said, maybe along in definition but I think it’s interesting to understand what a right is as it’s fundamental, it’s foundational to understand their proper role on government because we don’t know rights are then, you may be come in several with the governments doing this fine because we need to understand the rights are. Okay. So there’s the first definition on what is a right. The second question we’re talking about is where the rights come from. We have discussed the briefly. Let’s get into a little bit more here. Thomas Jefferson says this, can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we’ve removed their only firm bases like conviction in the minds that people that these liberties are the gift of God that they’re not to be violated with this rat. Where the rights come from? The foundation, the whole nation, the liberties can’t resist and just to understand where they come from. They come as a gift from God, okay? Thomas explained further. He says rights are not gifts from one man to another nor from one class of men to another. It’s impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man. It consequently follows that rights are pertained to man and right of its existence. And must therefore be equal to every man, okay? I’m going to read what are here in the notes. What rights are equal to every man? Well, quite simply, the rights to be free, to do as we please whatever we want to do as long as we don’t infringe on the rights of others, right? Now, this is an important point, rights come from where individuals have in common, okay? Which makes them similar by nature, not from what makes one individual inferiors, that’s the victim mentality. The victim mentality is this, if I’d have much as someone else then I need to have more rights to granted to — in my government in order to make myself equal to that person. And that’s because the focused is on inequality of things, okay? God didn’t give inequality of things to everyone but he gave us inequality of rights that everyone has the opportunity to do or to become — have anyone infringe on their life toward a property in that pursued to their happiness. Can you see difference? So in short, natural rights come from who we are not from who we are not, alright? Now, that answers where rights come from, they come from God. Frederic Bastiat says this. Each of us has a natural right from God to defend his person, his liberty and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life in the preservation of anyone of them. It is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. So the point mean, who possesses rights to ask the question? Well, he’s saying each of us. That means individually, we possess rights. God doesn’t grant rights to a group of people or to a government or to community, grants rights to individuals, alright? The basic foundations there. It’s interesting how he says the preservation on anyone of these three rights is completely depended on the other two, well, let’s look at them. Let’s look at life, liberty and property. So if you have liberty and property body of life, that doesn’t work workout too well, it doesn’t, not even allowed to use it, but let’s say your life, you have property. We have no liberty to do what you want to with your life or your property. Are you really free? No. What if you have your life, your liberty and do what you wanted to do but you have no property, are you free then? Well, Hamilton says this in federal 73. He says the power over man support is a power over his will. So if I’m alive and I’m free to do whatever I want to do and I’m free to do with own my will, Hamilton says, look, if you do have a property, then guess what, the means of production to keep you alive and keep you be able to move and breath and do as you please. There’s someone else can shows that property then guess what, they control you. So you see, it’s interesting how we put associate, that’s very, very true life liberty and property are very much intertwined and interdependent on each other. The last question was why do rights even matter in the first place? Alright, we know what rights are. Who gives into us, who possesses them why does that even matter. Well, Madison says this. We rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. The reason that rights matter is because the whole entire basis of our country is based on the idea of the individual having rights that they delegates. They have company and power and authority with those rights to government to act in this behalf, okay? And since man form government, man assuming master over that government, right? Essentially in this quote, Madison is saying is we need to decentralize. We need to push power down to the people because this whole experiment, this American experiment is based on self-government. And we did not centralized power. We need to decentralize. We need to get into the hands of the people. Jefferson said, interesting coined is sometimes it side that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself, can he then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? That history answers this question because he’s very clear, right? Man aren’t angels, and Madison talked about that in another presentation, some quotes I guess. So is that leading for this? Does that mean the self-government, it means you can do whatever you want to do? Because he says, look, our whole capacity of the experiment here is on this idea of self-government. Self-government means you can do whatever you want to do. Jefferson helps us out with that a little bit. He says this, of liberty I would say that in the whole plentitude have its extent. It is uninstructed action according to our will, okay? We’re created free. We can do whatever we want to do. We can choose to do good. We can choose to do bad. We’re free aren’t we? Why the God said set it up that way? Well, these, for two reasons, I can think it. First of all, what’s good in the absence of bad? It has to be the opposition that’s in there. You know, it’s going to be good. Well, this is good. It’s not searching as bad. How is that good? It’s just is, okay? The second thing I think is if you’re forced to do good, then that’s not incompliance to what God wants to happen, right? If we are forced to do good then that would be called force not freedom. God gave us the freedom to choose, to choose what we’d like to do, okay? That’s what Jefferson is saying here. Now, he was on to say but rightful liberty. He qualifies this idea of liberty doing whatever you want. Rightful liberty is uninstructed action according to our will but within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. So what restrains our actions? The equal rights of others. We’re going to do whatever we want to do as long as we’re not infringing on other people’s rights. He concludes by saying, I do not add within the limits of the law, okay? Because he says what restrains our actions, our liberty is the rights of other, the equal rights of others has — I’m not going to add that the law restrains our activity because he says, I do not add this on limits of law because law is often but the tyrants will and always so when it violates the right even individual. Now, what’s the focus he has on individual? Here’s a fairly negative view of government here, right? He says look, the law usually is the tyrants will. So it’s not the tyrants will that restrains us, it’s the equal right of other. That’s natural law that restrains us, okay? Now, John Locke was an awesome writer, very good philosopher that in some ways is the founder’s founder. He says that he kind of as a second witness to what Jefferson saying, freedom is not as we are told liberty for every man to do what he desires for who could be free when every other man’s humor might domineer over him. Freedom is a liberty to dispose and order as he desires his person, actions, possession in his whole property within the allowance of those laws under what she is and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, by freebie follow his own.
There’s a difference there isn’t it? Because Jefferson says no, it’s not the law that restrains us and Locke says no, it is the law, okay? So tow similar very — these are very similar founding fathers. John Locke wasn’t a founding father but a very similar idea, foundational ideas and let’s look at the difference. Because Locke is saying it is within the proper role of law to restrain our actions. Not just the equal rights of others but that’s because he defines law to be respectful of that, okay? That’s one of the next part of his quote. Because he says the end of law is not to abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For an all this states have create it means capable of laws where there is no law, there is no freedom. For liberties to be free from restrains and violence from others which cannot be where there is no law. So they’re saying the same thing really in the end aren’t they? Because what Locke is saying is that we’re talking about natural law that complies with the laws of nature, natures God. And Jefferson I’m sure would say, well, let’s find out, law restricts our actions, our liberty if that law complies a natural. His problem is or history has thought us the law usually just to time its will, okay? So what we want to as long as we’re not infringing other people’s rights. Jefferson added this to it. With all these blessing, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one more thing fellow citizens. Why centrifugal government which are restrain man from injuring one another shall lead them otherwise free to regulate at own pursuit of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of the laborer the bread that he has earned. This is the sum of good government, okay? So there are lot of misunderstanding. There’s natural law, this thing too as the job, the government has protect us but not to provide things for us, not to do all those things. Okay, so what kind of intro there. What’s our rights? Who possesses them? Who gives them to us? Who possesses them? And why do rights matter? Okay? We got hopefully a foundational summary. We’re going to get on lot more detail on each one of those sayings that have given us an idea here. So what I want to do now, we spend a lot more time in the declaration in this presentation. I got to tog through the declaration and I kind of word by word in some ways in that — the theme is paragraph key [phonetic] [0:17:17]. We’re going to start out here. We hold this. Choose to be self-evident. Okay? What’s the first word you think of when I say self-evident? It’s obvious to where it comes to mind. It’s obvious, okay? They’re self-evident choose. They comply with the laws of nature and natures guide gravity as a self-evident choose, it’s obvious. And guess what, gravity couldn’t careless, how many laws are legislated against it? You say gravity does exist and it won’t yield they won’t change because of legislative action. So the self-evident choose out there. That all men are created equal and here is the question, well, what do you mean all men are created equal? Well, I use to have brown hair and now it’s turning grey. We have different colors of hair. We’re in different sizes, different weight, how we are all born equal? What does that mean? We’re born equal in our rights, okay? That’s how we’re born equal, in our natural rights, that they’re endowed by their creator. What’s the word endow mean? Endow means to give a gift. So we’re endowed by our creator. We’re given a godly gift, a gift from God, okay? And make sure you know, the source is God not government. With certain un-editable rights, un-editable rights are those gifts from God. Positive rights are granted rights, created rights, sometimes called bested rights that are given by man or government. But his natural or un-editable rights, they are given to us by God and of course, if man, that’s why this positive rights, this created rights and this bested rights to give us those rights is the person who endows us these rights and they can take them away. It’s essentially makes sure God stays in that, okay? That among these, meaning there are other God given rights besides the three that are listed here. Our life, God’s greatest gift to mankind is life. He’s in charge of the giving of life, right? Liberty, next to the gift of life itself the right to be free, to choose, to make choice as we want to and for our own version of pursuing happiness is what it’s all about. We have to choose to act not use strain by others. And the pursuit of happiness, now, this is interesting. We’re going to spend some time on this one. The right to pursue happiness not the right to possess happiness, remember? Rights are the inputs not the outputs. It’s the opportunity, not the results, not the outcomes. This phrase recognizes that no man can demand happiness from any other man. Or from the government of man creates but man can be man and defend his right to pursue happiness against others who had inhibit his pursuit and finishing on his rights. In other words, it’s a man or free to do become strive, invent, think dream to do whatever they want to, okay? But, you know, the right to possess happiness to the expense of another man. Now, with life liberty and property, I challenge you, when I said that among these are life that liberty and property, I challenge you to find any of the legitimate right that comes from God doesn’t require anyone else to give it to you or sacrifice something for you in order to have it, legitimate right that is not directly tied to life liberty or property. The founders are very inspired, the writings of the founders very inspired, that really things do come down to life, liberty and property, okay? So moving on, that the security’s rights, governments or institute it among men. We kind of hit this preferably but let’s look at this, God gave man his rights, correct? Man made the government to protect those rights. Man has superior the government and the ruler over it, okay? There’s another interesting inference in this phrase because it says that the security is rights, governments institute among man. The inference is without government, we don’t have the security of our rights. Is that true? Yeah. Just like John Locke said a couple of slides ago, we need to have law. Where there is no law there is no freedom. It’s important that we have government, a proper amount and only a proper not limited government but it’s important we do have government in order to protect those rights. Otherwise you live in anarchy, okay? Or might is right. Okay. Lastly, driving they’re just powers in the consent of the government and it seems to me like we’ve gone through these parts in the declaration almost every presentation, maybe just in my mind a lot but driving they’re just powers in the consent of the government is very very important and were going to get into more detail later on this but as an individual, I can only do certain things using force. So I as an individual can only give to government a power that I have. I have to choose to give it to him but I have to had a power in the first place to give it to him at all. I can’t give the government a power I myself don’t have because government drives are just powers in the consent of the government, okay? So lot of times, we’ll talk about the declarations. Some people say well, that’s just a philosophic at of document, it’s just an idea. It’s just kind of a declaration of independents from Britain. It has nothing to do with our government. Well, let’s look at that a little bit because I think it’s important. I hold that the declaration is the foundation upon which the house of the constitutions bill. If you don’t have foundation you don’t have the house, okay? Let’s take on some ideas. Sandy Adams posts this idea. Before the formation of this constitution, this declaration of independence is recede and ratified by all the states in the union and has never been disannulled, okay? She was saying the state of the union ratified it just like they ratified the constitution so there’s some legitimacy to — let’s look at the constitution itself. Does the constitution talk about the declaration? If it does, I mean our supreme level in is legitimizing our declaration independence. And it does, article seven, the right as part of the constitution, says done in convention by the unanimous consent to the states present to the 17th day of September and the year of our lord in 1787 and of the independence of the United States of America, the 12th. So September 17, 1787, and they’re saying in that year, in the 12th year. So 11 years back from 1787 is what date? 1776. That according to the founders, according to the constitution itself, our rule of law says that’s when our country was born in 1776, that the bearing of — the declaration independence is the birth day to according to the founders, according to the constitution of our nation. So it does have some bearing. It is important. It is tight into our constitution or in our American form of government. There’s a — Supreme Court case back in age 97. It says this, the constitution is but the body in letter of which the declaration independence is the thought and the spirit. And it’s always safe to read to leader of the constitution in the spirit of the declaration of independence. Note that they rest more imperatively upon the courts and the enforcement of those constitutional provision is intended to secure that the quality of rights to which rights which is the foundation of free government, okay? So the Supreme Court is ruled and I don’t like to — they’re right on in this case and I like the way they put this. That the constitution of the body in the letter, you know, the declaration of the spirit is simply a chief justice. Warren Burger [phonetic] [0:24:18] says, does the declaration independence was the promise, the constitution was the fulfillment, okay? So we never had to be nervous like the Supreme Court has said. We don’t have to be nervous of interpreting the constitution through the eyes and through the lens of the declaration because declaration starts foundation. It’s a philosophical and spiritual foundation of our nation. And to cut if off and just say, oh we’re just going to look at this at the laws is to cut off why the laws are put together in the first place. It’s fundamentally important. It’s not just done on other document. It’s foundational to our country, okay? So let’s talk a little bit more about what’s in the constitution. I like to throw on this article one section for it has two [phonetic] [0:24:57], it says the congress shall assemble at least once in every year, okay? It’s not that much for you to do. It’s pretty simple but you should show up once a year, okay? I think there’s some beautiful quotes I found about simplicity. First of all, consider our constitution, it is way smaller less aluminous than the great majority, any bill that comes across the president’s desk now a days. And its power in simplicity isn’t there. Thomas Sowell, famous economist said this, people who apply themselves on their complexity and deride others for being simplistic should realize that the truth is often not very complicated. Well, it gets complex as evading the truth. And then it applies to the constitution. It’s very simple document that outlines some very powerful concepts. Simplicity is powerful. Leonardo da Vinci said this, simplicity is the ultimate sophistication that’s come in from one of the greatest minds to have a right, simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Then Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. says, I would not give a phage for the simplicity of this side of complexity whether I give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity. And in my mind, this is actually the founders did, been an incredible journey done. And a challenge to overcome, they’re going to wave through this in this very very complex idea of creating a new government based on ideas and concepts from history and from logic and reason and their godliness and their morality. Four and a half months, they waited to through this saying and what they came out with on the other end was something that was simple, in powerful in its simplicity. That’s the power of the constitution. And that’s why it’s in the constitution, the principles that our founder in are so important and can’t this be ignored and say oh, you know that is trying their best no. They understood and like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said that he gave his life for that simplicity on the other side of the complexity. I feel the same way about the constitution. This limited government idea have reminds of the quote by Thomas Jefferson. He says that government is best which governments least because its people discipline themselves. If we are directed from Washington Oandasow [phonetic] [0:27:01] and then went to rip, we will soon want for bread. So that’s an interesting, in the Russian USSR, right? Their constitutional guarantees things like bread and water and yet, people want to do the tune of 10s and millions of people dying even though it’s guaranteed. You can write all laws if you want. You can the constitutions if you want but in America, bread and water isn’t guaranteed, is it? And yet, we’ve been the most prosperous and well taking care of nation on the world, not because what government did but because of what people did, right? So like government is best which are governments least, the idea of limited government. Now, the preamble of the constitution stats our with these words, we, the people of the United States or it could be more clearer that the foundation, the source of all power and authority is in the people. We, the people are ordained in establishing this constitution. That’s important. Now, that’s the preamble of the constitution. Almost everyone knows the preamble, a lot of people memorized it. The thing that I didn’t know to recently is there’s a preamble to the bill of rights and we’re talking about rights in the constitution and of course, we’re going to discuss the bill of rights, correct? So there is a preamble to the bill of rights. Now, let me start out by saying something about the bill of rights. A lot of people say oh, the bill of rights gives us our rights. Well, these aren’t rights that the bill of rights gives us that God has given us that the bill of rights prohibits the government from infringing upon. It is important and that may sound like semantic once again but that’s really important because if you know where the source is then you know who’s in charge of that right. God gave us the rights. The bill of rights is really a bill of prohibitions on government from infringing on those rights. But the preamble to bill of rights says this, the conventions of a number of states having at the time of their document in constitution expressed to desire in order to prevent misconstruction or be facilitates powers that further declaratory and restrictive classes should be added. Here is what happen as when they’re going around trying to get the constitutions and ratifying this you’re going to say conventions. Some of the conventions that look, we don’t feel comfortable, we want to have some other restrictive and declaratory clauses, okay? These words, you know, what’s the misconstruction mean? It means a misinterpretation, abuse, right? To have bad modus, to do something wrong intentionally. A declaratory class is something to declares what rights are. And then the restrictive is to say look, congress can’t do this. Government can’t do this. So states said we will ratify this constitution if you give us an opportunity to put forward some ideas for a bill of rights, okay? And that’s why this preamble arrived the bill rights of it and that’s the preamble is explaining. Now, it’s not that the bill of rights went without controversy, okay? The federals are very much against the bill of rights, okay? Alexander Hamilton is one of the prime federalist an then he makes a good point. It’s kind of an interesting point. The other anti-federals in the federals both her pro-freedom but both have different perspectives and point on this. The point he made, he says I go further and further in the bills of rights in the sense and then the extent in which they are contended for are not only in necessary in the [inaudible] [0:30:05] this constitution but even be dangerous.
Why different post of bill of rights be dangerous? He says quite simply, why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? And why do you need the bill of rights that say you can’t do this and you can’t do this and you can’t do that? He’s saying look, we never gain power to that in the first place. So I try to make a list because it’s going to be exhaustive and people will try to say oh, I didn’t say we can’t do that. So we can do this. And essentially, that’s of the 10th amendment saying isn’t it? 10t amendment, the last of the bill of rights says this, the power is not delegate in the United States by the constitution or prohibited right to the states or serve the states respectively or to the people. Okay, that’s in the same look. If we didn’t list it, it’s not there. Okay? So that anti-federals got the bill of rights. And looking back, I think that was providential. I think it’s good because look how much they destroyed our guide and rights as it is. At least to have a bill of rights government can look and say, oh yeah, that’s right. We can’t do that, so specifically we can’t. So I think it’s nice to have the bill of rights. But the 10th amendment essentially said what the federals are saying look — giving you, there is no power then. The 9th amendment is also thrown in to help some of the federal side is which are true, it is, okay? Says the enumeration and the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed or deny or disparage others, retain by the people, okay? Just because we list certain rights that we’ve protected, doesn’t mean there aren’t other rights that are God given and it can’t be disparage by government. So you see these concepts showing up that are there in the constitution. They make sense, okay? Let’s go to the first amendment. The first amendment is a fairly popular one that’s quoted and referred too often. And people talk about these that being our first amendment rights. Are there first amendment rights? Now, there are God given rights of the first amendment prohibits government from infringing on. Because there are first amendment rights, right? We’re giving the same ideas. Government can take away because government gave them. That’s not true. God gave them, government can’t take them away. These are — to prohibit government from infringing on then. We could read through this. Congress shall make no law respecting or establishing the religion or prohibiting the pre-exercise they’re of or prohibiting the freedom in speech or the press or the right of the people physically assemble or partition the government for areas of grievances. It’s a fairly well-known. So those are very much very well-know. I want to focus on one that’s not brought up that often. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people, piece of thee to assemble, okay? Piece of thee to assemble is the idea to associate, okay? To come together. Now, if I’m free to associate, does that mean that I have to associate? Obviously not, right? This concept makes it clear why unions are against the idea of freedom. They are contrary to the idea of freedom because in unions, you’re forced, in some unions I should say, you’re forced and in some unions, in some states, they foresee the join union in order to work in that state. That’s a problem because your freedom to associate means you can. It doesn’t mean you have to. That’s a violation of that first amendment prohibition on government, the God given right to associate. If I’m free to associate, is that mean that is I want to form an association, I have to include everyone? No, I can choose what I want to include in my association, right? I don’t have to be told by government who will be in my association, it’s my choice because I’m free to associate whom I’d like to. Doing otherwise would very much infringe on that right. Speaking of associations, I’d like to say this — talk to you. One of my favorite — I like the way this guy think. He says this, the Americans make associations to get entertainments, to found seminaries, to build INS, to construct churches, to defuse books, to send missionaries to the arthropods. In this manner, they found hospitals, prisons and schools, okay? If it’s proposing — some truth or to foster some feeling by the encouragement of the great example, they form a society. Wherever at the head of some new undertaking, you see the government in France, or a man of shrink [phonetic] [0:34:07] in England. In the United States, you’ll be sure to find in association, why? Because that’s a free people do. They see problem. They see where something wants to get done, they go fix it. They don’t say hey government, go fix that or you guys take care of it. They say, well, I’m free. I can make choices. I can influence others to inspire them to do good things like let’s go form an association to do this and this and this. That’s what I like to talk to you, points out that’s one of our success factors. The idea that we don’t look to government to fix our problems, we look to ourselves and we just do it. It’s a beautiful concept. It’s kind of been lost today. We’re very good at saying well, there’s an agency but that is an agency for that. What we should say is doesn’t need to be an agency. We can just use the power of persuasion, the power of choice. Let’s work together and get something done, alright? That’s especially in my mind has specially of use of thing, maybe at the local levels where we look for and ask for and apply for guarantees that you’ve been talk down money and authority and therefore, control and we don’t get to do — we want to do in the first place. Why won’t we just form together and make an association and go do it? So that leads us to an interesting question. Does government have the right to, alright? So you the government have the right to do whatever it is, fill in the blank. Because like Ezra Taft is saying, let’s form associations. We don’t need to include the government. Well, what is the government have the right to do? Well, let’s define our terms first, okay? Let’s define government, this word government. Washington helps us with the very famous quote. Hopefully one that’s memorizes. The government is not resent, it’s not eloquence, the government is force like fire to dangerous servant and a fearful master, okay? So according to Washington, government is not a play thing isn’t it? Government is force, and you got to watch out because like fire, it’s a dangerous servant and a fearful master, something that we do need to be aware of what its tool — the tool of government is force. So when you look at that statement, let’s define our next term which is a right. We’ve already define this. Let’s take it in a little more context. So government is force, well, what is a right? Well, Frederic Bastiat helps us out. He says if every person has the right to defend even by force, his person, his liberty and his property that it falls that the group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Does the principle of collective right, its reason for resisting this law and this is based on individual right, okay? So individual right is the essence in the substance behind any idea of collective or governmental power and authority. It’s all based in the individual right. Let’s compare or contrast that though to Roger Wilson. Roger Wilson says this, socialism rest at bottom upon the opposite of the community to determine its own destiny and not of its members. He says men as communities are supreme over man as individuals. It’s upside down though isn’t he? That’s not the American form of government. It’s not that communities are in charge of men. It’s that men are in charge of and they’re doubted rights and therefore can delegate to communities or the governments, certain power of authorities associate that right. It’s bottom up not top down and Roger Wilson and then was shown in else policies as well. He’s very much a top down community socialism. He’s in charge of people no, people are in charge with the government. Bastiat supports this — my saying — it seems to me that the right of the state can be nothing but regularizing the preexisting personal rights. For my part, can I can see the collective right that is not have its foundation in an individual right or presuppose it. Hence, to know whether the state is legitimately invested with the right, we must ask whether the individual has that right in virtue of its nature and the absence of government. We must ask whether the individual has that right in virtue of its nature and then the absence of all government, okay? So government doesn’t have rights. Individuals have rights and the individuals create government so government can’t tell individual let to do, individuals tell government what to do. Now, the reason this is true is because it comes from, well, it’s logical and it’s truth. It’s a principle freedom but also it’s embodied in the declaration independence where it says deriving, they’re just powers and the consent of the governed. So going back to this original question, does government have the right too? Well, when we understand that government equals force and the government doesn’t have rights then we recognize that really that question should be ask does the government have the right too. The question when we really understood what that means is do I have the right as an individual to use force too? That’s a tough question really means is do I have the right as an individual to use force too? Do certain things because I have the rights as an individual to use force to do that then I can delegate the government, okay? Now, one point I want to make earlier before I forgot is when I have a right from God and I delegate, I don’t delegate to government the right to do things as I delegate to government the power and the authority associated at that right. I don’t delegate the right. I retain the right because government I just my service, is just my master, government is just my servant. And I retain the right, okay? If I have the right to defend myself and I hire a local police officer to help me on that because someone comes to attack me, I still have the right to defend myself. I didn’t give up that right to the sheriff saying man, I hope you shows up, okay? So I want to make sure that’s put in there. Now, another interesting thing to understand is all can legitimately control our my actions which is govern by choice, by freedom. I get to choose what I want to do. And other thing I can have control over is the actions of others when it infringes on my rights. In which case, I can try to work through by choice, by talking, persuasion et cetera. Or if necessary and legitimately, I can use force to defend myself against who envision all my rights, okay? Now, when I use this — [inaudible] [0:40:03] and this is the critical question, okay? Do I have the right as an individual to use force to accomplish this in? When you use that question and see that is a filter becomes very, very clear, that the proper role of government is really when it comes down to it is only and primarily focused on the defends of rights. And that’s a very limited rule, very limited because it just defending rights because one of the rights for me to use forces and then to make them do certain things or not allow them from doing certain things that should be govern by their choice, they’re free to have choices and consequence. That’s they’re life. I can’t control that. In order to be right for me to use force to take from them and give to another, that’s wrong. And so the only legitimate reason for government to use is to defend life governing property. So it wouldn’t be right for me then it isn’t right for government because I can’t transfer to them and delegate to them power and authority that I myself don’t have. I can’t force other people to buy products or services they don’t need or want or use nor can I force them to give the charity nor can I be the one who makes the choice on how it’s redistributed, okay? So there’s some basic ideas there. It’s really, really critical. I really think you can run agencies, programs, laws, through this filter to idolize an individual if I do, then it is in the proper role of government. If I don’t, it’s not within the proper role of government and what does that do? It cuts out like 80% of the things that government does. Should we pretty narrow? That’s right, that’s how America was found on the idea of limit the government, okay? Ezra Taft Benson made this point and I think it’s well worth talking about. Once the principle of that protective function of the government gives way to the aggressive or redistributed function, then forces us set emotion that drive a nation toward totalitarianism. Sometimes, the principle of the proper role of government is most annoying and inconvenient. But if government manufactured its own authority and it exercises self-proclaimed powers, not delegate by the people then the creatures sees the creator becomes master. And he says that pretty clearly. I get it through and made a little commentary here or not because probably I shouldn’t because these guys are more clearly than I would but how does this really happen? The way this happens because we allow it, the man allows government to do things man himself cannot do and therefore, government takes on in a natural position of having power over people’s lives that within property. It is also that people flock to that government who’s in the position of power and they flock they because they want to get the benefits that that government can provide. Now, it’s interesting though as we discuss in our economics presentation, this government can’t provide anything. They can’t make things. They can’t create wealth. Only people create wealth. And the problem is government takes from the wealth to the people in order to do what the people in this house couldn’t do, okay? And natural power is introduce. Government becomes the monster and the master to take from some and give the other. That’s why the proper role of government should only follow within that which people themselves can do becomes then there’s not a natural force of government operate on natural force. By nature, I can defend myself where then government can defend. But if they’re going to take resources because they can’t produce anything, they’re going to take resources from people. They should only do for those people what they could do for themselves by nature, okay? Now, when we talk about this proper role of government mean annoying and inconvenient, reminding me a quote by Jefferson. He said, I’d rather be expose to the inconvenience as attending too much liberty than to those attending too smaller degree of it. Good quote I think. Alexis de Tocqueville, he describes the government that is not bound to its proper protective role in this way. This is a long quote but it’s powerful I think. He says this, unbound power is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if like that authority is an object was to prepare man for manhood but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood. It is well content that the people should rejoice provided they’re thinking of nothing but rejoicing. For the happiness such a government willingly labors but it chooses to be the soul agent and the only arbiture [phonetic] [0:44:03] of the happiness. It provides similar security for seasons applies on our necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principle of concerns, directs in industry, regulates decent to property and subdivides our inheritances. What remains but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living. It carries a surface of society with the network with a small complicated rule, my newton uniform through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shuttered but softened, bend, guided, I mean their seldom forced by to act but they are constantly restrained from acting, such a power does not destroy but it prevents existence. It does not tyrannize but it compresses, it extinguishes and stupefies a people to each nation is reduce to be nothing better than a flock of teemed and industrial animals of which the government is the shepherd. Well, stated, I think it’s a very well stated. What it’s pointing out is when government goes outside of its proper role, what does it do?
It does justice, okay? I can go to that whole court again. It does justice. It creates a benevolent providential government whoever one seeks to give them all that they into people just become sheep or it has other than — coined that race. To do whatever they’re told and we look to government for all that they need, that’s not the proper role of government because then, it puts government at the head and the government becomes the master over the people but the people created the government. There’s a violation of principle when the creature becomes greater than the creator, okay? So getting back to this idea, we’re going to get back here. As an individual, I have the unquestionable God given right to be on the one hand free from conversion, invasion, forcible injury or death, confiscation or destruction of property and fraud. I’ve undeniable, unquestionable God given right. Does an individual, does an individual, do you free from those things. But I also have the unquestionable God given right to be free to do some certain things, to use force to defend these freedoms and to pursue my own version of happiness, okay? Now, all of this contention upon one thing unless I infringe on the individual rights of another because by infringe on the individual rights of another, what happens? Then government shall act on me and does need to course me or take away from me my property in a form of a fine or et cetera et cetera, or limit my pursuit of happiness. My idea of happiness is this, well, it’s infringing on people’s right. Okay. They can’t do it then. There’s a proper role of government to do so. Okay? The thing I’d like to point out in this slide is the only thing I’m really free to do to proactively preemptively do is to use my rights to choose. I had the choice. It’s always better when you have opportunity to use choice instead of force because force acts on people’s rights. Choice doesn’t it respects on honors to other people’s rights. Now, under this republic or rule of law, the constitution explicitly one, prohibits government form infringing all my God given individual rights but it also explicitly instructs the government to act on me only if I’ve infringe on another individuals God given rights. And then I shall all comes down to a simple concept. If an individual’s God given rights infringed upon, government must act on that person in order to secure the other person’s rights. If the individual’s God given rights are secure, government must not act, okay? In short, once again, God created man. He gave him rights. Man creates the government and gives it duties to perform to better drive for man’s rights. Therefore, man must remain master over the government. If government replaces God as the gift of rights then the government will become master of a man and the creature exceed the creator instead it [inaudible] [0:47:41] that sometimes reputation is good. Alright, so what we’re going to do now is I think I can now setup a model. To me, the way my mind works, I like to see simple models or simple things I can apply, because like that question, right? The right of an individual to do these certain things. I can run things by that filter and understand more clearly. I’ve put a model together that I think has the same effect, the same way to help us look at different bills or agencies or ideas or programs, okay? So I set it up here on the left hand side of God given rights and we have government action. The first thing to understand is that’s kind of miss no mere there, this association is government action, its government force, okay? That’s a government has its force like we’ve already establish with Washington. Now, as you come in here and we say look, God given rights, when they aren’t secure then what? Then government force must act. On the contrary, when God given rights are secure, then what? Government force, government must not act. And why is this? Well, it complies with natural law, with individual law, right? If you aren’t acting on my rights, if you are infringing on my rights, I’m not going to act upon you. I’m not going to force you or control you. I can’t, right? The violation on that right. But if you are acting on my natural rights, then it is all right and natural and completely justified for me to use forced on you to stop you from infringing on my rights, it happens on the individual level. It happens on the individual level and they can happen at the government level, right? Okay? So this is the basic concept that when God given rights aren’t secured government shall act. When God given rights are secure, government shall not act. Now, on the next slide here is interesting because some people say, well if God given rights are secure are still alright for government to act, but the problem is the equation never stays this way, when government acts remember, they’re acting out of force and the only thing government acts on, they don’t act on oxygen. They don’t act on ideas or concept. Government always acts on people’s life, liberty or property, okay? So to balance in this equation is if government force acts, then they will act on God given rights. Now, the reason that’s the model works, it is just like the previous model, it shows up in the declaration of independence. That’s the securities rights, the governments for instituting them. That’s essentially what this model is saying, right? We need to secure rights that’s why government must act, that’s why governments formed in the first place. But government needs the security, government shall not act because their rights are already secure. We don’t need government to act. So what we’re going to do now is we’re going to apply those models to a bunch of different scenarios. And here is what we’re going to start to give, so far we thought a lot about idea as in concept and principles and quotes. We’re going to get into the constitution and now, let’s see where this thing shows up. First one I want to talk about is this Transportation Security Administration, the TSA. I’m going to read some here just to make sure I state this clearly. Are the God given rights are passengers waiting to board an airplane being violated by other passengers waiting to board an airplane? No. Our people’s God given right is secure? Yes. Well, if God given rights are secured then what? Government shall not act. Now, some might — are the government is providing protection on people’s lives by doing these searches to make sure no bombs are going to go on board, right? But there’s a difference. Am I as a passenger on the plane infringing on anyone rights by simply riding the plane? No. Therefore, the government cannot use force to act on my God given rights. Doing so would’ve violate my right to due process of law, okay? That Fifth Amendment here, that’ve says no person shall deprive to the life, to have a property that do process a law because I’d be treated as guilty until I can prove myself innocent. They can pack me down and searching and do all these things because I’m guilty until they can prove that I’m innocent. That’s the opposite of the do process of law, it’s a violation of the Fifth Amendment. It’s the violation of my God given right to that privacy, okay? That’s what’s said in the fourth amendment. But right of the people to be secure in the person’s houses, papers and the effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be infringed because my God given right to privacy in the fourth amendment protects government from infringing on that right. Even if they do it in the name of protection or even if they do to the name of — we’re trying to help this and prevent bad things are happening well. If you have to — that’s interesting tradeoff because what we essentially saying is I’m willing to have the guarantee of you stripping me in my privacy rights in order to protect me against the possibility of another right being violated. No, you have to — it’s something that’s legitimate. You don’t have to strip somebody’s rights in order to get that, okay? And some people say well, it’s reasonable and it says right here, that against unreasonable [inaudible] [0:52:19] that I think it’s a reasonable for people to be check if we’re going to have a plane, make sure they don’t have a bomb on them. Well, guess what, that fourth amendment clarifies what reasonable search and seizure is then it says no weren’t shall issue but upon problem will cause, supported by author affirmation and particularly described in the place to be search and the person or things to be seizure. That’s what reasonable search is, okay? Now, warrant, you had to go before a judge and you have to get a warrant that says, look, more probably than that, [inaudible] [0:52:47], more probably they’re not I swear as an oath on my honor. We forgotten in that I believe this is what’s happening and this some sort of things I need to go search for and sees. In that case, the judge can decide, okay I’m going to give you this warrant more probably than I, I agree with you and I trust your honor that we’re going to grab this thing, but you just randomly search everyone or not randomly, to search every single person is a violation of due process of violation of privacy, violation of its right that we have from God. And government is famous for. They’re always saying this all look, we need to do this in order for your security, reminds me of a quote by Benjamin Franklin, those who’d give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, these are I mean the liberty nor safety, okay? Now, if someone wants give up their God given right to privacy and to do process of laws and say yeah, you can come and search me and — but then they can, can’t they? But the other way to look at this that same question as it have Benson voted [phonetic] [0:53:43] right as an individual have the right to go around to everyone in line to get on that plane and search them to make sure they’re not the bomb. Do I have the right too as an individual? No. Therefore, I can’t give that right to government o you on my behalf. The free market will take care of this — there’ll be people who say I want to pay the little extra price for the security to spend the couple of hours in line and getting search before I go on this airline. And each airline available make the choice when is market demand? If the market demands happens and then we’ll do it. And guess what, they’ll do it out of choice not in out of force. They’ll hire an agency to do it. They have it sent to do it right. And some airlines will say, we’re not going to provide this or some people say I don’t want this or sort of this, I don’t want that violation of rights. I want my privacy and I want to do process. And I want to be treated like an American. I’m going to patronize that airplane, that airline, okay? And so the Private Macro [phonetic] [0:54:32] forget that out and then they do so by choice not by force. What other Department of Labor, Agriculture, Energy, OSHA, et cetera, is an employer’s job offer to a laborer to work for him and fringing on that labor’s God given rights? No. Is the financial success or failure of a farmer due to bad weather, plants and their crop that didn’t produce well have anything to do with someone infringing on his God given rights? No again. Does the price of gasoline infringe on a consumer’s God given rights? No. Does the fact that an employee might get hurt in the job and fringe on his God given rights? No. Are the laborers, farmers, consumers and employees God given rights secures? Yes. Bad things happen sure but are their rights secure? Yes. Well, if the rights are secured then, government shall not act, okay? Government can’t use force to not only fairs to the market in order to make something easier on a favorite group of the economy, okay? Article one, section nine class six substantiates hits that says no preference shall be given by any relation of commerce to one state over those of another. Interesting, look at that and what it’s saying there is this concept that they’re shouldn’t be preference, government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers, right? To help by relation of commerce to one — now the rules shouldn’t favor or disfavor others and in my experience with the different groups like Department of Labor, Department of Commerce, Department of Agriculture and OSHA et cetera, that’s exactly what to do. The rules and regulation end up choosing when — usually to choose the big guys over the little guys because the rules and regulations that are chosen, the big guys can handle but it puts the little guys out of business and they can conglomerate. They can buy those little guys up and becomes the central relation of power, okay? Here in article one section nine class six that shouldn’t happen. Article one section 10 class one says no state shall pass in the expose factor law or law inferring an obligation to contracts. So when you’re talking about employees or different situations, actually I’m thinking employee, why? Because as a human resource manager for 10 years — about employees, employees and employers can contract, right? It’s not government’s job to set the terms to that contract, it’s the government’s job to enforce the terms to that contract. The employee is not forced to work for them. They don’t have to work for their employer. They can use choice to get themselves out of the problem. They’re not to use force to get out of the problem, okay? So what happens is these governmental agencies end up extending their power and using their power that eyes of the individual don’t have. Eyes of individual can’t go in there and subsidize and help in control and make sure nothing bad happens by use of force. I can’t do that, right? You go to work, you might get hurt, yeah. That might happen. I can’t control and make sure that it doesn’t happen by force. So therefore, I can’t delegate to government and make sure that it doesn’t happen by force. That’s a hard one to understand. It’s hard in people to think about. I discuss that a little bit more in the Q and A section. What about welfare — security Medicare? Is a person’s lack of food, absence of a retirement plan or limited access to medical care result to someone infringing on his God given rights? No. Or his God rights secure? Yes. Then government force shall not be use, okay? To confiscate the God given right to property of one person or to take it from them and give it to another, the property of they may choose to give his property to a person of less fortune. That’s fine. But it cannot be force from him because he’s not violating anyone’s God given rights. It doesn’t matter how much you ever wants to help them fortunate, the government is us and if we want to do something, we will, with choice not by force, alright? Remember if I say this, I’ve talked about this ago. No person shall be deprived to life liberty of property that due process of law. If anyone violated anyone’s rights then I shouldn’t have my property taken from me forcefully, that’s a violation of my rights. Amendment 14, those state shall denied to any person — section the equal protection of the laws not equal things or equal et cetera, just equal protection of the laws. Welfare, social security Medicare, those are really emotional issues for those people — the producers where I mean, tax is taken from them in given. As an individual, can I take from one person give to another? No, I can’t use force as an individual therefore I can’t give the government that power. Now, it’s interesting side note though. I get for a study because I have step taken from me and forcibly given to other people. And the producers, the tax payers instead of the tax receivers, they got frustrated — that’s not right, that’s not fair because what? It strips of their property but we have to look at that opposite of that coin. This is something that it has to be thought. Those people, what does it do to the people who receive those welfare checks et cetera? It teaches them that you’re depended upon government. You can’t possibly survive unless government does something for you. And dependent is the opposite of independent. Dependent is not free, dependent is not independent, it’s not free and they’re driving them in their freedom. And then, the process of government doing something they should not do, they control both those who pay into the system and those who receive to the system, receive from the system. It’s a control issue, a freedom issue that’s why I mean both of us have a freedom and that’s a principle that needs to be understood, it needs to be talk. Now, when this happens, when government engages in this redistribution in wealth, it’s what Frederic Bastiat defines as being legalized plunder. He says this in his book of the law. But how is this legal plunder be identified? Quite simply, see if government takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if government benefits one citizen they expense of another by doing with the citizen itself cannot do without committing the crime, okay?
Which I think it goes to exclamation point on the idea just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s moral, doesn’t mean it’s right, just because something legal because there is legalized plunder going on in America today that taking off — the government doing something that I can’t do individually, I get thrown in jail for doing what government is doing and yet, because they’ve made it legal, people tend to say well, that’s right then. No, just because something is legal doesn’t make it more or doesn’t make it right. Now, we’re going to go to interesting one, the National Defense Authorization Act. There’s a person that God given right to speak out against the government if you feel they are infringing on his rights. Yes, that’s the very essence and purpose of the first amendment, okay? Let’s look at that first amendment real quick, congress shall make no law of abridging the freedom of speech pretty clear. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. So the National Defense Authorization act, let’s apply this — if the person infringing on anyone’s God even rights by expressing his opinion on a political issue or political figure or whatever it may be or any other issue for that matter? No. Are his another God given right secure? Yes. Then government should not act on that individual, okay? Pretty simple. In the NDAA, there is the indefinite attention of American citizen, section 1021 says that American citizens can be detained if the president thinks they are a domestic terrorist, they can be detained and not known or be told where they’re staying. The redefabias corpus [phonetic] [1:01:32] can be suspended. We don’t have to bring forth evidence. We have to tell you why you’re in jail. You don’t have to have your day in court, no due process and opportunity to defend yourself, okay? The Fifth Amendment says no person shall deprive to life liberty of property that do process of law. The National Defense Authorization Act is the exact reverse of the do process of law. If we go into sixth amendment — to read through all of these in every single one of these things that stands as a God given right and the six amendment prohibits government from infringing on. Every single one of those is a provision in the NDAA that violates it, okay? Did you shall enjoy the right to speedy and public trial by an impartial journey? No, not NDAA and to be inform to the nature and cost of accusations? Nope, to be confronted with witnesses against him? Not that either. To have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor? Nope and to have as the assistance of counsel of his defense. In all those cases, there’s five or six or seven different things that the six amendment guarantees the NDAA violate, okay? A lot of you don’t even want to know lot of ignorance — but the NDA is alive and well supported by both sides, support of all kinds of people that should know better. What in the world we’re given the power to the government to wipe away the sixth amendment or wipe away the Fifth Amendment. Well, the six amendment — to restrict and prohibit the government and yet, the governments erasing those things. NDAA is a very dangerous act, okay? Because people’s God given rights to speech, to descent are protected and just because they say something, it doesn’t mean they’re necessarily considered a terrorist, okay? Before the constitution, you carry a bible. You have a gun, part of the home land securities — in the terrorist list, that’s wrong. And then, for — to say, you could be a terrorist, we’re going to throw you in jail and not tell anyone, that’s a wrong thing. Right, so hopefully that model helped you. I don’t know it helps me and you can apply to any issue there, any bill, any program, any agency. This brings us to interesting slide, FDR second bill of rights. I didn’t know this. FDR issue, the second bill of rights and here is what he said those rights were interesting when you look at them. The right to a useful and remunerative job, the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation, the right of any farmer to raise in sells product and return which will give him and his family a decent living, provide every business man to trade, the right of every family duties at home, the right adequate medical care and my favorite, the right to adequate protection from an economic fears, good. Government is going to make us don’t have to fear anymore, the right to get education. Now, remember, when FDR issued this, they’re running on the time of the great depression, people said, oh men, our right to a home, our right to a good job, our right to recreation, our right to all these things, are those rights? They’re not rights. One great progressive tactic is to call things rights that aren’t rights. And that’s why you have housing and urban development and EPA and OSHA and DOT, all these things that are agencies and government arms that are trying to protect things that aren’t rights in the first place and usually they’re now trying to protect, they are trying to provide them. And if some things are right, you should be able to naturally use force to defend, these aren’t about defending anything. And when I would say that all these rights, the FDR’s rights is people do have the second bill of rights. They do have embodiment of their pursuit of happiness. You can use your life, liberty and property to go get to get education, to go get a home, to go get a job, to go have recreation, go forward. No one is going to get in your way. He’s saying the opposite. The government is going to provide these things for you using the force of government. And if I can’t — I can’t force taking from you to help this person of recreation or just forcibly give someone recreation, I can’t do that. So government can’t do it, okay? It’s important. Do an interesting thing, compare the second bill of rights at FDR to the USSR constitution article 118 through 121, compare them, they early similar. So when — FDR saved our country, the United State well, FDR socialized our country and made it so that people thought the government was supposed to provide they’re not supposed [inaudible] [1:05:47] and supposed to protect in people pull themselves out of our situation with the help of God with hard work, blood sweat and tears and that’s how they do it in that government because then once we get out in the depression I was oh, it must be government, governments want us all to know, governments want to prolong it. The government gone out of the way, we were able to solve issue much quicker, okay? What do we do about our predicament? What we need to do is we need to return to two principles, okay? We need to return government to its proper role of the protective function. This only happens as to educate ourselves and then inform others and teach them, help them understand. So we can become the society that Tocqueville — that he saw on America. He said this, no one in the United States is there to advance the maxim that everything is permissible for the interest of society. In the United States we don’t say we can whatever we want as long it’s good for people. He says in America been think that way. That’s how we came today, that’s not how they thought because [inaudible] [1:06:36] liberty. That’s why the law permits the Americans to do what they please, religion prevents them from conceiving and forbids them to commit, whether it’s rush or unjust. Did you understand where your rights come from? You understand the fear and worship of God then your religion will control you, okay? As a friend of my recently stated the constitution was written to govern the government, okay? The constitution is written to govern the United States. And the United States government is this as a relationship manager. They’re in charge of relationship in the overseas nation. They’re in charge of the nation just between the states. But as far as government interaction with the people, that’s the role of the states and local government. People aren’t to be affected, aren’t to be controlled by the federal government, okay? And then the people just to act by choice, the government is just there to protect their rights not to control them. Alexis de Tocqueville says look, whether law permits the Americans to do things, we’re apprehended to be free to do what we want to do and we are governed not because the fear of the law because the fear of God, the fear of truth or desire to follow truth. Benjamin Franklin says only a verdurous people are capable of freedom as nations become corrupt ambitious they are more than even masters. The more we become corrupt ambitious and selfish and proud, the more we have need a master. So we can see the real turn needs to be in our hearts in our minds. We need to understand [inaudible] [1:08:08] to the freedom and live them. There is this saying that people that you can’t legislate morality. Now, at that means, you can’t make laws that are based on morality. I would say nothing can be further truth and of course you can. Laws are based on rules, are based on ideas, based on principles, right and wrong, you can’t kill somebody, you can’t murder, there’s laws against murder, why? Because the morality says, you shall not kill. God says you shall not kill, of course you can base law as a morality, where else should we base them on? The popular opinion and they need a basing on principles, right? That’s the whole point. And right and wrong is the essence of laws. Laws defined what’s right and wrong. So of course, morality is going to be the foundation. But — if you say when you mean you can’t — when you say can’t let the same morality you mean that laws can’t define your morality or make your moral, that’s very, very true. This gets some things legal doesn’t make it moral. You can’t rely on a law to determine your morality. Your morality must come from a fear of God, right? Desire to follow truth and not just to comply with laws. Well, I should make these points. I think it support this idea. Of all of the dispositions of habits that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are in dispensable supports. If we’re on return this country to the greatness of what it was when were founded on the two principles when the government acting within its proper role. When we’ve got to get back to religion moralities, we govern ourselves and don’t look for government to government us, okay? Now the famous quotes by Adams, our constitutions are made only for a moral and religious people, it’s holding an adequate to the government of any other. So well, Anderson [phonetic] [1:09:48] suggested here, fist, the quote by Sander Adams, the sum of all is if we would most truly enjoy the gift of heaven, let us become a virtuous people then shall we both deserve and enjoy it? Well, on the other hand, if we are university vicious and debauching our manners then the former of our constitution carriers the face of the most resulted freedom, we shall in reality be the most objects slaves. That’s true, right? No matter was not — with some written in the constitution, what’s written in law, what matter is if we’re going to follow two principles of freedom that are written there in. If we’re going to be virtuous, if we’re going to govern ourselves and now, we’ll say well, it’s legal so I can do that. Or to pass the law so I can take from you and give to you or they pass the law so you owe that to me, okay? Here are some questions. And I try my best to learn as much as they can about God and the proper role of government and then, do I live that way? Am I looking to government to decide for me what is right and wrong or am I looking to God to decide what’s right and wrong? How do I look at the agency’s programs, laws and issues that we discussed? Are my action is congruent with my beliefs? Do I share with others both publicly and privately my feelings and viewpoints about rights and the proper role of government? Am I active in that community and standing for what is right and standing to live in the government and it’s standing it for God? Can I join out organization that makes voice better heard in may action is more reflective, okay? The question is what am I going to do? So end of the final slide — duties on hours, results on gods. I can’t — it’s actually the change is it need to happen but God can. We need to return this country back to him and back to true principles of freedom and restrain and limit the government to its proper role so that we can flourish again both the economically, freedom, and industry whatever maybe because we’re free again and we have choice that governs our lives instead of the force that governs our lives. And when we do our duty, God helps those and help things else. He’ll bring forth the miracles that we need because we need a miracle, there’s no question. And all of the ends of this presentation I was like man, this is — there is some challenge that are not even close to what the constitutions are calling for principles of freedom or establishing but, we can get there through miracles, through God’s help, thank you.