Signs Of The Times
A lot has happened since our last issue. Most noteworthy, in the Gospel sense, is the death of a great patriot Ezra Taft Bensen. He will be missed, not only as a fine human being but as a wonderful example of a statesman that put his reputation on the line several times because of his strong sense of free agency, against forces that would silence him at a time when the conspiracy was making great inroads for control. He may have made a couple mistakes in his time but there are few that have sacrificed more for the cause. He has paid his dues and I’ll not judge him harshly for any shortcomings, especially in light of my own, and would advise others of the same introspection.
In his place, of course, is Howard W. Hunter. A man also in poor health. There is little chance that he will serve long in that position which opens the way for perennial first counselor, Gordon B. Hinkley. I think one can safely say that great changes are short in coming to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but then some might say that we have seen many already. Some we will speak of later in this article that have been made both at the Church level as well as the state that it so covertly influences.
In the world we can see many things. The United States has troops in more actively hostile fronts than at any time in its history. Places and situations where even the most blatant of conspirators a few short years ago would have been fearful to send them due to public outcry, but now there are sufficient distractions to keep the minds of the populace away from outrageous truth. The sheeples will now most always believe that which is perceived to be true as opposed to that which in reality is true, especially if it means avoiding commitment. The adversary has over the millennia perfected the art of slight of hand and by creating diversion over there, succeeded in averting attention from the true deception over here. Thus the smoke and mirrors routine has effectively drawn people’s attention from the smoldering ruins of a once great bastion of freedom to the more important issues such as which ethnic group has the right to commit genocide against the other, if the “devil” Sadaam Hussein was kept in his palace or which virtuous California city will win the Super Bowl. The list, and deception, goes on.
In this country the political soap opera goes on. As on soap operas, the players are different but they are all paid by the same company. So it is like George Wallace stated in the late sixties, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans.” The players choose up sides to act out one of the greatest performances in history. Dispute after dispute is acted out that we may believe our protection in this great “democracy” still exists in the assertion that each opposing player is watching the other in our best interests or polarizing the people to one of two wrong sides under the premise that if one is wrong the other must be right. Or to cause people to take the middle of the road stance and just become uninvolved. Ezra Taft Bensen once stated that the only thing you get from standing in the middle of the road is hit from traffic in both directions. Others have stated that you take on the characteristics of a yellow strip down your back. Either is as bad since hot or cold the Lord will countenance, but the lukewarm He has said He will spew forth from His mouth.
The problem is to be sure that the both sides you are choosing from are not cold. As in with the Republicrats and DEM-GOPs, the adversary has captured both sides of the supposed spectrum and, of course everything in between. He, having full control of the entire spectrum, could care less where you choose your position, for he wins regardless. An opposing effort can only be made after taking the matter to the Lord with the prior commitment that regardless of the world, you will be entirely on His side, thus taking yourself out of Satan’s playing field altogether.
While this soap opera has been played, successfully distracting attention, the adversary has made some of his greatest achievements in abortion and homosexual rights laws, and other repugnant laws, all further creating the distraction necessary to accomplish the necessary platform in which to launch his final assault against our last vestiges of free agency. Thus accomplishing his final and ultimate goal -- total subjection.
Another of these repugnant laws legislates against one of our final lines of defense, in the auspices of gun control. All under the guise of protecting us against criminals while not infringing upon our “rights” to have guns for the sport of hunting. I, have read, studied and minutely examined the Constitution and have yet to see any rights even mentioned, let alone guaranteed, for the sport of hunting. The second amendment certainly makes no mention of it either real or implied. The Founding Fathers said nothing of hunting but instead made it clear that my right to keep and bear arms was for the ultimate purpose of protecting me from despotic government both alien and DOMESTIC. That there was no better guarantee that a government could not totally enslave its people than when its citizenry had the ultimate resource of defense. So the absolute answer is that the real criminals I have to fear are not the gun carrying thugs on the street, but the true CRIMINALS that want to protect me from them. The adversary and his fellow conspirators have been greatly successful when they have by in large concealed the fact that the ones that are lulling the American public into giving up their arms under the guise of protection, are the very ones that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to protect us against. And certainly we should have the best of arms and technology to protect ourselves since these true criminals do so as well. Well certainly I’m a radical for wanting to hold on that which is dear to me, the free agency of myself and family.
One cannot help but see where we are at when abortionists and homosexuals have more rights than parents. It is felt by most all that government is the ultimate authority over the family. It is felt that the government should be the teacher over the children, and where this is not the absolute, that government should approve of situations where parents have decided to do the teaching. That it is not a right by nature to the parents, but a privilege given by the permission of the state. It is felt that the state should have control over deciding the fitness of living conditions, clothing, food and external influences upon the children. If one does not follow the “norm” of four-wall sided house, designer clothing, junk food, TV and medical doctors, or if one chooses non-conventional housing far away from the cities, home sewn and hand-me-down clothing, a non-meat diet, only uplifting books and music, and herbs, mild food, priesthood blessings and having babies at home with the father as midwife, than he/she is obviously a law breaker, pervert or most likely a child abuser, because, of course, none of these three are found amongst the “norm.”
This last year an effort was made by a former but continuous “friend” to cause even more trouble for my family than in the past. This “friend”, when after being repeated told that that kind of “friendship” wasn’t wanted, thought surely it must be for nefarious reasons since certainly no-one would want to do without his/her friendship. In expressing this a report was made to the Sheriff’s Department concerning child abuse. A Sheriff’s Deputy, certainly knowing that our remoteness was an indication that we might not want to be bothered, went out of his way to continually drop by. This until the Sheriff himself finally dropped by. All when I was at work, thus terrorizing my family.
After this last visit, I made a personal visit to the Sheriff at his office. There I was told that I would have to open my home and family business to the investigation of he or his officers at any time. That if I was raping my daughter that I would have to answer to him and that if I was innocent of such, that surely I should have no objections to his visit. Now, this writer has come a long way in controlling his temper over the years, but this took every ounce of restraint not to reach across the desk and grab the man by the throat, badge or no badge, he having just falsely accused me of probably the most heinous crime a man can commit. But with the Lord’s help I calmed myself, and reluctantly gave into his “request”, still feeling all the while that, “Yes there was a reason why I should object”, although the flood of emotions temporarily clouded my thinking. On the way home I though of several reasons why I should object, not the least of which was matters of Right to Privacy, Sanctity of the Home, Innocent Until Proven Guilty, but all these are just words in the vocabulary of the present day law system.
When he arrived I would not honor his immediate request for him to come through the gate. He was angered and claimed that we had already discussed his doing so. I clearly reminded him that I had agreed to his seeing the children and asking questions, and that they were free to come to the gate where he could do so. I called them down to the gate and he began inquiring in all manners as to their treatment and my suitability as a father and ended with the admonishment that they should feel that they can run away anytime and look him up. Having failed at coercing the children into indicting their father he told them that he was certainly there to protect them. My immediate question to him was, “Who is it that shall protect them from you?” To which his reply was, “Well I can’t think of another since I am the ultimate authority.” To which I stated, “Don’t believe him children, for I, your father, am.” Well needless to say he was now a bit more upset than when he first arrived. He now invited the children to tell him anything, even for him to go away if they desired, but, (unfortunately, for effect only), they have been taught to respect elders, even if they are attempting to do them injustice. He left in a huff, refusing even to chastise those who would file such erroneous reports. My children’s only response after he left was that they had a hard time not laughing out loud at a situation that I had more than a little problem finding the humor in, but I am sure that it is not a burden that they should have to carry at this time, although they know it is real.
This long, and very personal example was made to show a point. The government (state) has come to believe that it certainly does have the right to dictate to you that which is very surely a right given by our Heavenly Father, probably the most blatant and repugnant exercise of unrighteous dominion there is today. And they get away with it because most all this complacent citizenry have lost sight for the most important right, and in turn responsibility, that exists in the eternities, and as such a great war was fought in the pre-mortal existence and continues in full force to this day -- FREE AGENCY. Even those who supposedly know about this war and this threat fail to identify the symptoms. A measuring stick of incomplexity can be applied in every instance if all would focus their commitment on this very important and basic principle.
Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others of the early Church Brethren taught a very important principle of eternal progression for which they were were severely criticized -- exaltation, even the progression of Gods. Part of this they taught, however, was that although some of us may be exalted and become Gods, we will never become as God, our Heavenly Father in that we shall never be His equal (an important fact that the critics fail to mention). The principle is clear that the “creature” can never equal or exceed the “Creator” without absolute chaos. A reality that few, especially the state, fail to recognize in this day. As such, let us look at some very simple markers to be used in our diligent effort to protect that very basic and important right given us by a loving Heavenly Father in the pre-mortal existence and again through the inspired Founding Fathers in the Constitution.
First -- do those who delegated the authority to the government have that authority themselves. The constitution states, “...deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.” If I for example have not the right or “power” to come to your home and dictate how you should raise your family, how can I delegate that authority to the government in the embodiment of Sheriff, Governor or even President for that matter?
Second -- does an inspired Constitution authorize it? After the writing of the Constitution an argument arose in the question of its ratification. There were those who, such as the patriot Patrick Henry, having just escaped the tyranny of despotic government, were adamant that a Bill of Rights be included with the Constitution to assure that government could never deny those rights to its citizenry. Those who wanted ratification of the Constitution stated that clearly the Constitution constrained the government to only such powers as it enumerated and thus anything else would be construed as usurpation of powers. That the Constitution being a statement as to only those powers delegated. A Bill of Rights clearly stating what the government cannot do, would be to intimate that those things not clearly stated in the Bill of Rights might be powers that the government could usurp. Of course the argument returned that, in the end, the Bill of Rights may be our only protection against a government disposed to despotism, and to some degree, thankfully, this argument won out. Although a pure adherence to the contrary argument would have proven exceptional to that which we now have. Regardless, however, to the present day interpretation, the Founders made it clear -- if it is not expressly delegated as a power in the Constitution, it does not exist.
Third -- does it deny life, liberty or property to a person who has not reasonably threatened or denied life, liberty or property to another protected under this compact. The Constitution makes it clear that life, liberty or property cannot be denied under the law unless that individual has done likewise to begin with.
As example, another personal experience. Though personal experiences are just that -- personal, as they are not intended to epitomize martyrdom, they can bring into reality true events that are incident to our understanding.
I am at a side road to a highway. While awaiting the traffic so that I may turn onto the highway, a Utah Highway Patrolman passes on the highway going the same direction I am about to proceed. He looks directly at me, with no mistake. The only “crime” that I am committing is that I am not wearing my safety belt. Obvious to any observant person in a day with shoulder harnesses, especially by an officer trained in observation (when he wants to be). Now I am not your average “criminal”. I was pretty much an avid seat belt wearer until some LDS minded and controlled state legislature decided that I needed to be protected from myself. A familiar argument if I my veil over the pre-mortal existence memory begins to get thin. -Welcome to Zion, my friend!
Now these wonderfully spiritual legislators did not feel they had free agency enough to use this as an excuse for arrest on sight as this seat belt law does not provide it as probable cause for stopping a motorist, but certainly if the officer could come up with some probable cause, real or imagined, then he would be free to enforce this law when he stopped him for another reason. In fact sobriety check points authorized in Utah by search warrant only, (and of course we know that under the Constitution search warrants are issued for specific evidence only, in this case driving under the influence), have ticketed totally sober people for failure to wear a safety belt. - Welcome to Zion, my friend!
So he passes me going the speed limit (55), as he later testifies. I turn onto the highway and go the speed limit (55), as he later testifies. Yet some how after turning onto the highway, he being well past, going the same speed as him, I, defying all the laws of physics, catch up to him within two miles. And then I, defying all the laws of common sense, tail-gate him at approximately 4-6 feet, as he later testifies. [This doesn’t sound the least bit like entrapment] Of course having tired of this great fun, I was forced to pass him on the right, thereby being accused of also not signaling my lane change since my front turn signal bulb was burnt out at the time, being discourteous enough to think that it was most important that the people behind me know my intentions for safety purposes. When I was pulled over it was found that I had also committed the serious and dangerous “crime” of having an expired driver’s license. Also a “crime” for which other probable cause must be used to discover since most officers cannot know otherwise except for the possibility of spirit mediums, and I’ll let the reader be the judge of that, especially the source of those communications. Ultimately I was cited for the dangerous “crimes” of failure to wear a safety belt and an expired driver’s license and only given warnings regarding my following too close and not signaling a lane change, which I can’t understand since certainly he must have felt confident about those charges too or maybe he just wanted to be n-n-n-n...ice! [excuse me I slipped]
To all this I was presented a lovely citation to which I was “requested” !@#$%^&* [slipped again] to sign. In my eagerness to please [*&^%$.] I suggested it would probably be best to just see the judge right then instead of signing. Which I did honestly suggest in the nicest of terms, telling him that I wasn’t trying to create a problem but really felt it best. To this he demanded [got the word right that time] that I get out of the car, at which time he proceeded to hand-cuff me right there on the highway for those dangerous “crimes” of failure to wear a seat belt and driving with an expired driver’s license. He several times requested that I sign by telling me of all the different things that would happen to me and my possessions. That, of course, could not be considered as coercion since after all he did request $%^^&* [sorry]. I finally relented when I realized that my personal possessions, including those I considered most sacred, were going to be rifled through.
However when I did sign this commitment to put myself under the jurisdiction of the court I began to add that I “signed under duress having been (hand-cuffed and threatened with imprisonment)”. Of course he grabbed the pen out of my hand after the word “been”. He asked for his citation book and I asked for the pen as he mumbled something about this being a court document. Finally as I thought he might pistol whip me, this dangerous “criminal”, I returned his citation book to which he asked why I was giving him such a hard time? I said, “You stopped me for not wearing a seat belt and I’m giving you a hard time?” [I was beginning to see the humor in this situation, at least at that time.] He gave me my copy of the citation, and we parted. And that’s the first part of the story.
Now for the rest of the story: I had one trial and one appeal. In neither case did the judge permit me to enter my defense. In fact in the appeal it came to a point where the county attorney (this same county attorney filed an information against me with the court specifying my offenses as “crimes”) did not have to even enter objections any longer, the judge did it for him. My defense was on the first hand, religious and personal conviction -- freedom of conscience against the repugnant nature of forcing me to protect me from myself against my free agency. On the second hand to show that the evidence was gathered by entrapment and coercion meaning it was colored by fraud and therefore inadmissible. On the first strategy I was suppressed as inconsequential. On the second strategy I was denied because I could only bring forth such evidence in a pre-trial hearing to suppress evidence at least three days before trial. I had no desire to suppress evidence, I wanted it to all come out in stark reality as to the abuse of law by one endowed with public trust. In the court’s final judgement he said that I had shown no reason why my personal and religious convictions would exempt me from these crimes and thus I was guilty. The very thing the court adjudged that I had failed to do, it adamantly forbid me to do, and that was as the accused to enter all the information I felt necessary to enter in my defense to prove my innocence.
When told that my fine was still $50.00 and asked as to whether I could pay it my answer was, “No”. When asked when I could pay it I responded, “I cannot because of religious conviction.” The judge promptly sentenced me to two days in county prison for contempt of court, beginning immediately. All for the terrible “crimes” of failing to wear a seat belt and driving with and expired driver’s license. I told the judge that due to religious and personal conviction there would be some things I would need to be forced to do and was escorted from the courtroom by the Deputy Sheriff.
I was “booked” and photographed, told that I would have to remove my garments and be fingerprinted. I refused to remove my garments and be fingerprinted. The first for obvious reasons and the second because of my strong conviction of right to privacy. Obviously I couldn’t help but be thinking, “Sentenced to jail, booked, photographed, fingerprinted and stripped, all for seemingly not wearing a seat belt, preposterous.” But true. I refused, repeating that I had told the court there were some things I would have to be physically forced to do. They relented and let me keep my garments, one being LDS himself, but I am sure all the time all thinking as to whether it would be a good idea to forcibly remove my garments. They tried to impress upon me that an even trade would be to consent to be fingerprinted. I continued to refuse even when one threatened me with the statement that I would not be released until I did. I responded, “Well, I guess I will be here a long time.”
Finally they did resort to force. Three Deputies, one on each arm and one holding my legs. After a half an hour they still were unsuccessful in getting my fingerprints. The officer doing the actual fingerprinting was the LDS Deputy. During the struggle he applied some very painful pressure point maneuvers, but I still refused to open my hands. Except for the one time when I grabbed his hand in a familiar grip and asked him what that was. His statement was, “I don’t want to think about that now.” He must have thought of something though because it was a short time later that he stopped the whole proceeding and said, “I give up. Here let me clean the ink off your hands.” I said, “No thank you, I’ll just keep my hands closed”, suspecting trickery. He said, “No watch! (And as he cleaned up the ink blotter) There will be no more fingerprinting today.” They put me in a cell alone and I locked the door behind me, determined that I would not come out or eat again until they released me.
Every mealtime I was asked over the intercom if I wanted the door unlocked so that I could come out to eat. Each time I responded, “No thank you.” I was nothing if I wasn’t courteous the whole time of my incarceration. Each time the voice on the intercom seemed to plead a little more, telling me that I had been prepared a special meal to meet my dietary restrictions, and that it was very good. Each time I refused. On the Sabbath, one of the Deputies that “booked” me came in to offer me the opportunity to go to the exercise yard with the other prisoners, something I am just sure he figured I must want to do after skipping meals. I declined, graciously. When he left he did something that I did not at first realize, he left the door ajar/unlocked. Upon looking up I noticed this and jumped up and quickly closed it, to which I heard some of the most vile profanities I had even heard. It was evident that the door had been left ajar for another prisoner to enter my cell after the Deputy left. As time went on I could not help but be convinced that this man was a mental case with all the ranting he continued to do for hours. That I was to be left by a vindictive Deputy to the devices of a violent prisoner was of no doubt to me, as the spirit testified to me as well as the unseen protection I was receiving. It was comforting but evident that there were those that sought me harm.
Finally, when my two days were completed, I was released by a Deputy I had not met before. He asked me one more time if I would submit to fingerprints to which I said, “No.” He stated that I had the right to refuse to give my fingerprints but that I could be picked up at anytime to give them. This, of course, leaves the door open to further harassment. I couldn’t help but wonder about my “right” to refuse as I thought back to three Deputies forcefully protecting those rights. I also couldn’t help but wonder why if I had the right to refuse, why I wouldn’t exercise that right if they picked me up again. Never got an answer to those questions.
Having had a friend come pick up my car and other possessions so that they would not be impounded and rifled through while in jail, I had to walk to his house and retrieve those things as no one was home. A seven mile walk is always nice after two days of fasting. I stopped at a couple different homes of people I know for a ride but none were home. I feared hitch-hiking as I was sure that it would be used as an excuse for some officer to pick me up again.
About six miles there I found an eagle feather lying in my path. A find that I had been searching for for some time and which I would never have come across had I gotten a ride. Just then someone I knew stopped to give me a ride the last mile. The Spirit testified to me then that I had to walk those six miles to cap off this personal sacrifice for free agency that I committed, and that this feather was a physical reminder of my reward. A reward that I shall continue to cherish for all eternity, long after the feather has turned to dust.
My family was glad to see me, and I them. Having not been able to communicate with them for those two days because of no phone and remoteness of our home, they couldn’t really be sure of my disposition. They only waited, prepared for any further terrorism against them, and knowing all along that the Lord would watch over their husband and father. And they were right, and how thankful and humble I am that He would watch over a unprofitable servant as I.
Where are we in time? You tell me! I only know that seven years ago as State Chairman and National Executive Director of the American Party I had the opportunity to talk to many, many people all over the country. If I had told any, even the most “radical” that in seven years a man could be imprisoned for not wearing a seat belt, I would have been laughed to scorn. Here it is, we are here. - Welcome to BABYLON my friend!