TRANSCRIPT
forward. And then after I say the opening prayer, we’ll have of Carmen do the minutes for our last Monday in January,
which was the 29th. So my dearest father in heaven, so grateful to thee for this time that we have to be together that no matter where we’re at,
we can still fill camaraderie with each other and to be able to discuss the things of great importance and the things that we can do. do to be able to preserve the liberty that was given us.
We ask thee that the spirit will be with us, that thy will will be heard amongst all of us, that we will know how to apply these things and that we can be doers of the word and that we will find more ways to be able to spread these things and to be able to grow the tree of liberty society and have a greater impact and a greater reach.
reach and we ask the Father that those that are involved in the conspiracy that they will repent or that they will be taken out of the way and these things I pray in the name of Jesus Christ amen.
Amen. Alrighty, Carmen, go ahead. Tree of Liberty Society units for Monday.
Monday, January 29th, 2024, the opening prayer was offered by Francy Gwinn. Ben said to check the website for boot camp dates,
April Constitution Convention, Friday and Saturday, the dates will become later for training that night, doing not just hearing. Talk about being an info junkie,
increasing our understanding we can be more effective. [BLANK _AUDIO] He quoted many scriptures, Acts,
Ezekiel, Doctrine and Covenants, Second Nephi, and it shared the meaning of those and how they can apply to us.
One of them was that people don’t don’t know where to find the truth and it is our duty to warn our neighbors. And he quoted Nephi who said that he himself was rid of our blood because he has told us the truth.
Our job is to do what’s right regardless. We fear God not man. Samantha said it’s very scary to have arrows coming at you but that God works through us.
Francie Gwynn quoted every member a missionary for spreading the truth no matter what it is. Ben says we’ve got to find ways to compensate for our shortcomings and it becomes easier the more that we do.
More quotes from more scriptures from Timothy, Psalms and Matthew. We can’t get the blessings without doing the work and the hard work is necessary. The foundation is.
has been laid and we need to magnify the warning voice. We need to first seek, obtain, seek, obtain understanding and build it up in others.
Would be motivated to do it and to catch the vision. Jump and Jay reported that he was going to be giving the prayer in the legislature and Phil Jackson.
asked him to mention the synagogue of Satan in his prayer with the legislature. Ben quoted something,
“If it, sin, exists in high places, so much the more need of rebuking it, for from dance it will do the most harm.
And that’s a quote from Brigham Young, the Journal of Discourses. Gweny, Francie Gwynne said that she wrote a letter to the church.
And she said that if any organization is in power, it will be infiltrated. Alan from Canada said we need to be aware and involved. involved. Ben asked us to be more confident and others lack of belief will cease to bother us.
The closing prayer was offered by Mr. Sal. Wonderful, Carmen. Thank you very much. Anybody have any comments, questions, corrections?
Okay. Hold on. The only I did have one thing I did have one thing I didn’t say I’d written a letter to the church I said I was going to write a letter to the church.
Oh Okay, I’m sorry Cuz I haven’t got that done yet, so thank you for the correction. That’s good reminder Okay OK,
well, if nobody has anything else on that, we’ll go ahead and move forward to some other business. There’s going to be about one to two hundred people at the Constitution Party.
Where’s that? There it is. The Constitution Party Convention, it’s their national convention, so people from all over the country will be coming And they said that they will have about one to two hundred people in attendance And so again that and that’s in april 26 and 27 And so um I’d like to order,
you know pre -order a good stack of books And so if anybody is able to help out with the donation to help us to pre -order the book that we can have on hand that would be greatly appreciated.
So we’ll be doing that and so it will be in the afternoon on Friday and then basically from like 10 to 4 on Saturday and again it’ll be at the airport in Salt Lake so if you’re in the Wasatch Front and you’re able to help out we’d love to have you there hang out and chat and have a good time.
So any questions? any questions on that? Okay. The next thing I want to do is just talk about one of the new books that we’ve got available on the website.
And we went over training, encourage you. If you haven’t already, if you weren’t there to go over the training that we did on it, it’s called three questions in the membership portal.
Portal. But I wanted to read from the forward that I did for the book. So the right, the book is back from the 1600s.
And so I did an updated forward to our updated version of it. And just kind of give you a more of a peek of what’s in the book. It says the subtitle in Three Questions lays out the premise premise of this important work,
which both asks and answers three vital questions. One, what is a tyrant? Two, is it honorable to kill a tyrant? Three, will the outcome of killing a tyrant be beneficial to the people?
In today’s male -nudered society, these seem like extreme questions, especially in a society where the people allegedly elect those in who hold power. power in government.
However, we must ask ourselves, no matter how absurd it may sound, what if the elections are a fraud, a mere tactical illusion to make the people think they have power to remove a tyrant,
would be or actually, without having to do anything, but donate some time and money and a few minutes filling out some bubbles on a piece of paper. As I point out in my Invasion series,
the solutions to out -of -control government presented to us by active participants in a satanic conspiracy, voting, lawsuits, rallies, letter -writing campaigns or running for office ourselves are designed to distract us from the only solutions that have ever been effective in restoring lost liberty.
So that’s not the entire introduction, but I thought it gives a good taste of what you’re going to get. from the book and help us really have a better grasp of what it is that it that it covers and encourages all to if we haven’t gotten copies of it to get copies,
get multiple copies and get them out to folks and to remember that we do have the book discount on buying all three paperback versions of the books because they’re a really good complimentary three book set.
set. So encourage everyone to do that. Any comments, questions on that? I’m used to the scriptures being Old English.
Yes. This book seems to be a little different. What I just read was my words. And so it’s when you get.
into the book itself, it’s not quite as old English as like the New Testament, but it’s more like if you read the Federalist papers,
that style of writing. Okay. Because I had to really concentrate on getting, got into it a few pages,
and it seems like it was, that was it. have it. Okay asking a question. Sorry. Yeah, it was I’m I’ve seen a video the other day it said that People back in 1700s for all literate Literacy was 95 to 100 % Even though they didn’t go beyond like third grade education.
Yeah, because of the scriptures and things. This illiterate college student has a real hell of a time with using the phone to tell me what the words mean.
It’s a chore to read it. Anyway, for this illiterate college going well. Well, you know, they’ve dumbed us down. They’ve definitely, you know, the Constitution was considered to be for those of just,
you know, every class of people should have, but could have, at that time, could have read the Constitution understood it. They could have read the Federalist Papers and understood it. And then today, the Federalist Papers are things that a college graduate oftentimes have.
I mean, not just graduate, but like somebody with a master’s degree or a PhD. often had times have a hard time with so It’s definitely been we’ve been dumbed down on purpose. And so it takes more effort for sure The other comments questions.
I’m gonna share my screen So as mentioned in the minutes about the bootcamp,
I had some technical difficulties, but we were able to get a file. I finished it up last week. And then the website stuff was able to get finished up today. And so it is live on the website right now.
That is the link. Our bootcamp course, the six online courses. classes are available on there. It’s free of charge and I’m hoping and encouraging all of you to spread the link around,
share the video that I just posted today around to get people to to get on. But there shouldn’t be any reason why they don’t want to. You know, there’s no there’s no cost barrier to get them to do so.
But this is a great tool for us to use. in recruiting. This is basically a 24 hour, seven days a week recruitment tool on the website for us to be able to share with people,
just really tells them what we’re about, what it is that we’re trying to build, what is the threats to it, and what are some things that we need to be aware of? And then what are we doing about it?
And so the final class, the solutions class is not on the the boot camp, but I give them an invitation at the end of the sixth class to reach out to me if they would like to receive the last class and,
of course, invites them to become members as well. And so but it’s just it goes through each class. You have the one on you go through a class and then it has some questions that,
you know, that tells you the person going through it. Hey, yeah, I. pretty much got this. It’s not like a failing and you can’t move on. It’s just there to say, yeah, I got the point or like,
whoa, those questions, man, I don’t even remember that being talked about. And if that’s where they’re at, then they should probably watch it over again. I didn’t make it difficult. This wasn’t some kind of a gotcha thing.
It was, you know, some of the multiple choices, you know, it was just kind of like a refresher, but it’s just kind of like a refresher. So hopefully no one feels intimidated by the quiz,
but I felt it was it was good to be able to have those after each course. And so that people felt like, okay, yeah, I got this and I can move on. And so you go through a class, go through a quiz,
go to a class, go to a quiz, and then until you get to the end, final quiz and invitation to become a member and to support our efforts. And so please go and do your email lists,
the social media that you’re on, the groups that you’re in, the chat rooms that you’re in to share the link, share the video and encourage others to go on there and take the class whenever they would like.
Any questions, thoughts on this? Okay No questions.
That means I’m I’m just gonna assume that everybody knows exactly and what they need to do and move forward and start sharing this stuff around so Tonight we’re gonna talk about attacks on religious liberty and there are it’s a it’s something going on nationally as well as in many of the state Legislatures right now during the the session But there’s something that that we need to understand about this terminology about
so -called religious freedom. Religious freedom is a term to normalize limiting freedom by compartmentalizing it, saying that, oh yeah,
we might not have our second amendment freedoms, but we have our religious freedoms, or we have our free speech freedoms.
That’s not how it works. If they can limit your one freedom, they are limiting all of your freedoms. There’s no separation between them. And so what’s often referred to as religious freedom is referring to a portion of the Bill of Rights,
the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which states starts off Congress shall make no law respecting so meaning in regard to an establishment of religion.
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So that’s not the entire First Amendment, but it’s the relevant portion to what we’re going to be discussing tonight. So Congress shall make no law talking about establishing,
excuse me, establishing religion or they’re not going to make a law prohibiting you from the free exercising of your religion. Okay,
so that’s two different things. The Founding Fathers said it was immoral to force an individual to fund an institution that they were not a part of.
And so, you know, there’s a, it wasn’t just churches, they were actually talking about schools as well, where, you know, institution that you weren’t a part of, there didn’t matter what it was.
If you weren’t a part of it, it was, it was a vital of your natural rights to make you support it through your words, through your money, whatever it was, but also prohibiting the free exercise of your religion as well.
And so based on that, how many laws about what you believe and how you exercise that belief is Congress authorized to pass so.
So just I want some feedback, right? So according to the First Amendment, how many laws are Congress allowed to make about the exercise of your religion?
Anybody? None. Zero, right? Thank you. Thank you, Alan. So zero, right? No law. OK, so they in what’s his name?
Samuel? No, not Samuel. This is James Madison. Sorry. James Madison in Virginia, authored their basically their First Amendment to their state’s Constitution,
their Bill of Rights, that stated that religion or the duty which we owe to our creator and the manner of discharging it can be directly can be directed only by reason and conviction,
not not by force or violence, and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience,
and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity towards each other. So today,
you know, there’s people that are saying. in God we trust is a violation of the first amendment because it’s in a so -called establishment of religion. But that is not what the Founding Fathers saw at all.
As we can see here, they’re in the constitution of the state of Virginia. They admitted that we have a God and that we have a duty to God. And that is to protect everyone in their rights,
their exercise of their own religion. religion. And that we are to, and even mentioned, Christian forbearance. And even mentioned Christianity is a specific, which is,
you know, today would be like just mind -blowing. The average person would be like, well, obviously that is an establishment of religion, though. The Christianity is the religion of the state and they’re forcing you to be a Christian. But no,
they’re saying that, you know, because everyone in the state was a Christian, especially at that point in time, but that it was… just the Christian duty was just like a generic term almost to forebear with love and charity towards each other in our disagreements with our religion.
You might practice your religion differently, but it is my duty to my God to allow you to do so. And then I have no right, God gave me no rights to take away your right to worship him,
how you see fit. And so those words have meaning. Today, I actually gave a class several years ago on the Constitution and one of the first comments to the class,
it was about our duty to preserve the Constitution. It wasn’t really getting into specifics, but so basically the point was that we have a duty to preserve the Constitution and to protect it. And so,
one of the first comments afterwards was, well, whose definition of the Constitution are we supposed to protect? And I was like, words have meaning. If words don’t have meaning,
then nothing matters because we can all just, you know, if we’re just going to argue about the definitions of words, then there’s nothing that we can do. And so the Constitution, I argued,
had specific meaning. The words in the Constitution had specific meaning and if we can’t agree on the meanings of words then we’re not going to be able to agree on anything and so And so I posited that words do have meaning in the First Amendment the words in it have meaning and so the first dictionary That we have is 1828 one of the founding fathers Webster Was involved in the creation of this dictionary prior to
this point in time basic grammar wasn’t, you know, there was no uniform spelling of words and sentence structure and that kind of thing. Basically, it was good grammar.
If the person that was reading what you wrote understood what you were trying to say, that’s how they judge good grammar. But they felt that it was, you know, at least Webster felt that it was important to be able to have a uniform spelling of words And so just kind of going back to what was the common understanding of pre -exercise.
So the first one being free, the unconstrained, unrestrained, not under compulsion or control, a man is free to pursue his own choice. Then exercise is the practice performance as the exercise of religion.
So to exercise, it means to practice your religion too. to perform the ordinances of your religion. Right. And so we look at that. So the free exercise of religion. What does that mean?
The unconstrained, the unrestrained practicing of one’s religion. So Congress can make no law restraining the practice of your religion.
They are prohibited from doing so. So lots of people talk about rights. And if you have a right to something, they think that you have the the government has the obligation to provide you with that thing.
They talk about medical, you know, health care, I have the right, I have the right to health care. Well, we look at the Bill of Rights and what did the Bill of Rights say? Each one of the Bill of Rights was a prohibition on government.
So government’s job was not to give you those things. So again, government. So making sure that the government did not attack your exercise of your religion,
they weren’t providing you with the church. Not providing you with the church did not mean they were stopping you from practicing your religion. It was up to you to build your church, to hire your, you know, to have a pastor and figure out how that all that was going to go down.
So they were just prohibited from from stopping you. And so any type of regulation that stops you from building a church, it’s a violation of natural law,
a regulation on how you exercise your religion, of course, is a violation of that, and so on. And so this is what was meant by the founding fathers. It’s action, not mere belief. And so today,
the Supreme Court has twisted the First Amendment to say that you’re allowed to believe whatever you are. want, you’re just not allowed to act on it, which is just a complete Orwellian doublespeak of free exercise.
And so there was starting going back to the 1800s. This attack on religion started very, very early on. We have here that Dr. Robert Roberts Bartholo,
who was a U .S. Army doctor who submitted a report to the U .S. Department of Justice. to the U .S. Senate in 1860. And in that report, he said he was describing Mormons,
and he says, which may be styled the Mormon expression and style, the yellow sunken, cadaverous visage, the greenish colored eyes, the thick, protuberant lips,
the low forehead, the light yellowish hair, and the length angular person. Constitute and appearance so characteristic of the new race. Let me go back.
So this was, you know, this wasn’t they weren’t stopping, but it was they were building a prejudice against a group of people. And so that it was easier to take away their rights, calling a religious group of people a race and saying that basically if you were of a certain religion,
then that was, you know, it created a new. race and which had specific features to the body, the hair, the face,
the skin. And so they were they were laying the groundwork to be able to say this is a completely different race, which does not have the rights of a free man. And we have here Ulysses S.
Grant, in his annual message to the country in 1875, stated that one of his goals was to declare church and state forever separate and distinct,
but each free within their proper spheres and that all church property shall bear its own proportion of taxation. And so we see this a lot nowadays,
people promoting the idea of taxing churches, which is literally a form of double taxation. But then he said that his next goal was to drive out licensed immorality such as polygamy and the importation of women for illegitimate purposes.
And so polygamy, of course, during the 1800s was a religious practice of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints. And so it was specific language to criminalize.
criminalize religious activity. And then we have an 1862 that was called the Moral Anti -Bigamy Act. And its goal, they said, was to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the territories of the United States and other places.
And so polygamy being, again, a religious right, a religious what’s the word I’m thinking of, a ordinance.
It was a specific attack on a religion because this was not enforced on the polygamist Indians. It was only enforced on white people that were practicing.
And so we have here the Secretary of State William Everts sent this notice to the governments of Europe in 1879, said, “Under whatever specious guise the subject of polygamy may be presented by those engaged in instigating the European movement to swell the numbers of the law -defying Mormons of Utah and the bans of organizations which are got together in foreign lands as recruits cannot be regarded as otherwise.” than a
deliberate and systematic attempt to bring persons to the United States with the intent of violating the laws and committing crimes expressly punishable under the statute of penitentury offenses.
You are also authorized in your discretion to call attention to the subject and the determined purpose of this government. government to enforce this law and eradicate this institution through the public press of the principal cities or ports of the country as you may find useful Towards the end in view.
So in short what he means here and he specifically mentions Mormons Is that they actually outlawed they prohibited Mormons? from from immigrating to the United States.
This was a note to make sure that Mormons were not allowed to immigrate to the United States, specifically prohibiting the free exercise of religion, making religion a prerequisite for being allowed into the country.
And so we have more in 1887. You have the Edmunds Tucker Act and in the bill It prohibited the practice of polygamy and it but only in the state of Utah territory of Utah This did not apply because it was not it was specifically after the Mormons the federal government has no authority over marriage Outside of the territories and so this only applied within the territory of Utah because it was a direct attack towards
the Mormons and punished with a fine from 500 to to eight hundred dollars and imprisonment of up to five years. So five hundred eight hundred dollars doesn’t sound like a whole lot of money today,
but you times that by roughly twenty three dollars eight hundred times twenty three. And that is what the equivalent of what it would be today. And it dissolved the corporation of the church and directed the confiscation by the federal government of all church properties valued you.
over a limit of $50 ,000. And so it was it was directly related to a church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints because of the Edmunds Tucker Act ceased to be a organization recognized by the government.
So it was no longer a church didn’t exist. The organization of the church didn’t exist. Of course the structure right the priest structure existed And so it’s still operated but it wasn’t a church as seen in the eyes of the government it was dissolved and It was also disenfranchised women who could vote since 1870 and it replaced local judges with federally appointed judges.
So going back to the 18 about 20 years earlier 25 years earlier. They’d gotten rid of the duly elected guv of the territory and replaced them with a federal plant that was placed on the people of Utah without their consent.
They said, “You’re not allowed to have your own elections. You can’t choose your own leaders.” And so it added that here, where not only was your governor not allowed to be picked by you, but your judges were going to be picked by the federal government who,
under code of law, said that their whole purpose and function was to prevent you from existing, to make sure that you cease to exist as a religious institution.
And so preventing you from, you know, from voting, it also attacked religion in schools. A lot of times people think of the first attack on schools in the United States was back in the 1960s with removing prayer from schools,
but it was actually in the 1880s. that religious books were banned from schools. And so a direct attack on religion by the federal government.
Then we had the Colm’s trouble bill from 1889, which if you’ve seen the presentation on the conspiracy in Utah or read invasion, you know, all about it. It introduced a bill to force all disenfranchised of all Mormons polygamists and non -polygamists.
So it was it was even greater. It wasn’t just about a practice. It was about an attack belief because it was just you’re a part of an institution that taught something that was illegal.
And so therefore you were not allowed to vote. You couldn’t serve on juries. You can own property, et cetera. And so also during this time you have the federal government government forcing you to sign a loyalty if you wanted to vote or serve on a jury or own property.
You had to pledge loyalty to the government and dissuade any loyalty you had to any other organization. And so we’re going to the time frame we have here in 1885,
President Grover Cleveland recommended to Congress that it prevented the importation of Mormons Mormons into the country, specifically, again, specifically attacking your religion,
saying you are not allowed to exist, you cannot grow, you cannot bring in your converts to gather. And then we have an 1889 Justice Thomas J. Anderson,
a territorial judge, one of those appointed by the federal government, denied citizenship to foreign born Mormons because, quote, “the religious covenants administered in the endowment house.” required them to pledge allegiance to the church’s laws above and against those of the United States.
So preventing again, the free exercise of religion. And then we have here in 1891, the Immigration Act of 1891, it barred polygamist from immigrating to the United States.
So even after the manifesto, they were continuing. to ban Mormons from entering and immigrating and gathering to the United States.
And so there are many examples, but I thought this was important to show that the attack on the First Amendment, the prohibition of making laws against the free exercise of religion.
They weren’t just… picking some things to be against the law. They were clearly targeting a religious group and finding something that that religious group did that was abhorrent to the population in general as a scapegoat to go after that religious organization.
So now again, pop quiz, right? Let’s go back again. That’s the question. What are the Constitution? How many? many of those actions that we just listed were illegal? All of them.
Every single one of them were illegal. And so none of them were legal. So the first amendment says Congress shall make no law.
Like, I don’t know how much more clear than no law can be. So we have here, we have in 1993, good old Schumer,
what’s his Chuck Schumer from New York, if anybody that follows politics at all knows what a piece of garbage he is, he introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
And so we should think of when he says when Congress says religious freedom restoration, I didn’t realize the First Amendment was was repealed, right? The First Amendment exists. And so there’s no there’s no need to restore the First Amendment.
You just repeal the laws that attack the First Amendment, right? And so religious freedom restoration act, we just need to think about war is peace, freedom of slavery, ignorance of strength. When they called the Patriot Act,
the Patriot Act, no child left behind, you just think of all the different government bills that they name. It’s always a fraud. It’s always the exact opposite. of what they say it is.
And so as you read the bill, it’s exactly what it says. It’s the exact opposite of what its bill is. So in general, government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion,
even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection B. So, right, except is always like basically.
when you see the word accept in legislation, what they’re saying is everything we just said is no is never true. And so what’s the exception is that the government may substantially burden,
meaning regulate, remove a person’s exercise of religion, only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
So they can take away your right to freely exercise your religion if they feel like it. So that’s been in place since 1993.
And you look at this, well, you know, Chuck Schumer, surely the Republicans stood up against this. It was Bill Clinton was the president. president. And you had it was there was it was unanimous in the Congress and only three no votes.
I mean, I’m sorry, not in the Congress in the House, three no. I mean, unanimous in the House, three no votes in the Senate. So virtually unanimous, both houses. So when you know you’ve got every Republican, every Democrat voting on something,
you know, you’re about to get host. And then Bill Clinton signed it. So do we think? Chuck Schumer and virtually every legislator in Congress and Bill Clinton are going to support something that is actually restoring religious freedom?
Of course not. And we can see that in the language of the bill itself. So we do this this bait and switch that we’re seeing. So there are states out there, right? We have states that have passed their own versions.
versions of religious freedom restoration acts. And so you look throughout the the country different of the union, different states that have passed it.
We have states with similar to Indiana’s, which is supposedly the strongest one, states that introduce legislation, but are still pending states that introduce legislation that would supplement laws. And then we have another one that is that failed.
So what’s West Virginia introduced one and it failed. But these other states have one on the books. A variation of that. And so we see here that a former Utah Supreme Court justice stated in just two years ago,
a year and a half ago, in Italy, he said, even religious rights cannot be absolute in a nation with citizen of many different religious beliefs or disbeliefs,
the government must sometimes limit the rights of some. And so he’s saying that the first amendment that says Congress shall make no law is wrong and that your religious freedom of religion is not or your free exercise of religion is not absolute and that the government must limit your rights.
Oh, dang it. Let me go back here. So West Virginia earlier this year passed a Religious Freedom Bill and Utah’s Religious Freedom Bill advances to the Senate.
This just came out a few days ago here in the state of Utah where I’m at. And it was introduced by Odd Weiler, a Buckshot Caucus Utah Illuminati member introduced this bill.
He, just like Chuck Schumer, is not going to introduce anything that is pro -liberty. So we see here, again, just like the federal legislation, except as provided in subsection three, a government may not substantially burden the free exercise of religion.
So just right off the bat, they’re allowed to minorly violate the free exercise of religion, regardless of whether the burden results from a rule. of general applicability. What’s the exception?
A government entity may substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion, so even use the language of the First Amendment, only if the government entity demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and the least restrictive of being able to do so.
So, they can, they can attack your religion. in state code in federal code They can prevent you in violation of the First Amendment Congress shall make no law They’re saying no,
this is and they’re telling you that they’re preserving your religious liberty While they are passing legislation that specifically states they have the right to destroy your exercise of religion completely or well in there.
They they’re you don’t do this on accident. You you don’t lie to this degree on accident. There’s a complete it’s a joke. They’re laughing at you when they do that, right? Persecute.
I can’t hear him. So, Mike is asking what does that mean by burden? So, so I’m trying to make sure I get to the That’s such like a ominous word to have in a Oh application of the burden to the person so meaning It is very general so Michael was asking what it means and you know that it is very general Well,
just like compelling government interest is extremely broad and so the you know the burden they’re saying that the the removal of your free exercise of religion is what the burden means.
They have been so successful at this but if you bring anything up where you mentioned God all of a sudden everything you’re gonna say is discounted and not to be listened to because you’re religious fanatic.
Right. Well, just, you know, even just two people are allowed to disagree on what, you know, what’s legitimate information or legitimate source.
But the government here is saying that not only are they not going to listen to you, but they have the right to say you can’t go to church. You can’t engage in ordinances that you believe are essential. You can’t,
you know, you name it, they’re just like with just marriage in general, where you got to get government permission to get married. Just that means down the road, they’re saying that they can restrict your free access to religion of only people that are 18 and above are allowed to get baptized only because,
you know, that’s a contract. And so they’re allowed to restrict your freedom, your expression of religion by them telling you when you can get baptized or.
they’re saying that they can say, you know, the the free exercise of who decide who can get ordained to offices or to the priesthood.
You name it there. The government is giving themselves the authority. They’re stealing the authority, usurping the authority to be able to control religious institutions as well as indivisible.
exercise of their religious faith. So we’ve seen that all over the country and states and federal level, what they’re doing is that they’re implementing.
Oh, my goodness, I’m sorry. It’s not the now agenda, the NWO, the New World Order. I apologize. They’re implementing the New World Order agenda because they’re saying exactly what the universal human declaration of human rights says,
which is that these rights, your rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. So just like a compelling interest of the government,
right? They’re saying that they can take away your rights when your rights are going against the interests of the state of Utah or the United States government.
That is the exact. you know, meaning of the United Nations saying you can’t exercise your rights contrary to the purposes of the United Nations.
And so they are just applying the U .N. charter into the U .S. government code, into state code, into all those states that I showed earlier. They’re putting in United Nations language into your state’s code.
And so there’s no need for such a bill unless they are purposefully in implementing the new order into your state. There’s no ifs,
ands, or buts about it. That is the only reason that they would introduce such legislation because that is already in the First Amendment. It’s already in most state constitutions. They already exist.
We look at the state of Montana, it says freedom of religion. The state shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
State of Montana has no need for a Orwellian named Religious Restoration Act. States like, there’s no exceptions,
right? They’re not saying except for at a compelling end. but there are states like Utah and Idaho who do limit religious freedom. I’m going to quote from Idaho’s Constitution,
which says, “The guarantee of religious liberty, the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed.” So they’re going to tell you, right? Your ability to exercise your religion is not to be interpreted as to dispense.
with oaths of affirmations or excuse acts of licentiousness or justify polygamous or other pernicious practices, inconsistent with morality or the peace or safety of the state,
nor to permit any person, organization or association to directly or indirectly aid or abet counsel or advise any person to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy or any other crime.
So in their state constitution, they’re saying, well, we can limit the free exercise of your religion. Because to claim that controversial practices like plural marriage are not religious,
is to deny religious history, is to deny the Bible. It is clearly a practice that was observed. you that was observed in Old Testament times.
And and further on. And so this is an attack not on a behavior, but on a religious exercise. And so.
What what is a state to do? If the state has government restrictions in their constitution, then the solution is always the 10th Amendment to nullify.
So if you’re Montana, and you’re looking at federal, the Chuck Schumer’s bill of the government can erase your free exercise of religion,
then the state of Montana needs to pass a bill that says any state official or agent of the union that violates the free exercise of religion of anyone in the bounds of any state official or agent of the union.
state will be arrested and subject to punishment no less than death. That that is that’s the solution that Montana would implement instead of introducing a Freedom Restoration Act.
A state with no government prohibitions should adopt those prohibitions in their constitution. So like Idaho and Utah would should repeal those. prohibitions on the free exercise of religion.
And then they should follow that up with nullification provisions for union officers. So state officers, though, that refuse to do so are exposed as traitors and should be treated as such,
because they are violating their stated oath of office to support and defend the law. Constitution United States, which includes the protection, the free exercise of religion. And so if you are not willing to do that,
but you are actually furthering the erosion of the free exercise of religion with these Orwellian named bills, then you are violating your oath of office,
which means you are a traitor. And there’s there’s only, you know, there’s nothing else that can be done with with those types of individuals and so as we see this bill going through these the state legislatures where Virginia did it has it go through earlier this year those of us that are in the state of Utah seeing it going through the state legislature those individuals we see in the state legislature that is voting
for this the the first committee that heard the bill in Utah it was virtually unanimous And so those senators in that have proven to be people that are saying, you don’t have the free exercise of religion that God gave you.
And that they, as the omnipotent ones, get to tell you when your rights violate their purposes. And so as we see this going on,
it’s important for us to be able to recognize that and to see that when we see bills that that are named this way, you look at who’s who’s doing it. You know, Chuck Schumer and Todd Weiler,
federal and national level. That that just right off the bat should be just, you know, bells should be going off. Red flag should be flying. Just just obvious that something fishy is going down.
Then you read the language and it does the exact opposite, the except for. And it’s obvious that something fishy is going down. a restriction on this and and there’s they are the most fundamental right of being able to worship God according to the dictates of your own conscience are under attack under the guise of protecting them and that’s when they’re so effective is when they’re telling you they’re protecting you while
they’re attacking you it makes it very difficult for the average Joe out there that trusts people in government to be confused and say, well,
the bill says that they’re they’re not allowed to. And so it’s important for us to understand the specifics and the principle, the underlying principle of zero laws are authorized for us to be able to help others see the treasonous behavior going on on the state and local level and who’s engaged in making those things popular.
Who’s who’s who’s out there telling you that? Oh, yes, this is a this is something that we need to do. We need to limit people’s religious liberty. It’s not absolute. Those things can be restricted when that’s the opposite of what the founding fathers said and and what the what the Lord has said.
And so we have a few minutes left, which is good. I’m glad we were able to get through that. I want to open up now to questions and comments specifically. discussion on the things that that we’ve covered in training tonight.
What are some things that that maybe kind of sparked like like a light bulb going off or a question that you have? I want to open that up now. I’m kind of more upset with down the nokes than I was the house in the senate in Utah for voting for it.
when we got a leader in first presidency that’s saying religious, religious rights in the constitution aren’t really there,
but we got to compromise. No wonder the jerks in the state house and that are voting sustaining it. When the church won’t stand up for it.
it’s understandable that the Lincoln poops and the government won’t. Well, what’s also interesting, so here he is doing this,
but yet he does go and fight for the sodomite rights. What? Yeah, endorsing the legislation, saying that as a property owner,
you have to rent to stop the or if you’re a business owner, you have to hire Sotomites. They endorse that, but then they condemn like the the county clerk for not doing Sotomite marriages.
So you start to kind of see where individual’s. Mentality is. Why was younger and better looking?
And just. just to help nullify this I’d go back up to the dairy and Mary Piper sticks to the young mix No better way than I don’t care about this principle.
I’m just taking it to the man What’s he saying He’s just making funny comments.
Don’t worry about it. If it’s relevant, I’ll share. OK. Additional thoughts, comments, questions? Mike,
it was just mad because I said it before he did. I’m just wondering what is holding people back from growing up. out there and with our numbers because we outnumber them by like thousands to one against and just saying,
you know, enough is enough. You’re fired. We’re taking our government back and you got two choices. You can either step down legally, step down, or we will take you down and you will never see the light of freedom again.
I wonder what it’s going to take for that to happen. And I’m pretty sure it’ll never happen in my lifetime. I’m starting to wonder when people are gonna have enough of having enough and start doing what the 10th amendment authorizes us to do and what Thomas Jefferson encouraged us to do when he said that when the government is out of control,
it’s our responsibility to do something about it. I wonder when we’re gonna do that. I think it gets down to five. fundamental principles. It’s not about a civil war, because, you know, I don’t want that government that they’re they’re doing their thing.
I want the ability to be able to gather with those that are of like mind with governments to be able to form, you know, a correct government, a good government. And that’s my point. Yeah.
And that’s why that’s where I’m heading. Exactly. I wonder when people are going to realize that the session and independence is the only solution. – Exactly. I just wonder when people are gonna start realizing that.
– Yep. – And for– – That’s our job, it’s why we have the materials that we produce to help build the understanding some more people. ‘Cause I think your average person doesn’t even understand, they’ve been trained in government churches from five years old to going through college,
being told that the war between the states was– you know, was a bad thing that the South had no right to declare independence from the North,
implying through calling it a civil war that they were trying to take over the government, as opposed to just saying, you guys do your thing, we’ll do ours. And so when people don’t,
when people are trained that way, they don’t understand what the proper solution is. And they’re they’re trained to think that what the solution is is bad.
Exactly. Well, my grandfather made a statement to me when I was just a young little boy. And it’s more true today than ever. He says, how would you how will you know when your rights are gone if you don’t know what they are?
And how will you enforce them if you have no idea who’s been taking away from her who’s been taking them away from you? How will you stand when you don’t know who you’re standing against? And I look at that every day and I’m as a Navy veteran and someone who’s fought and had been stuck for this country.
I wonder when that’s gonna matter or if it ever will. But anyhow, that’s why I do what I do with you and I do share your materials and stuff. You know that.
I share it all over the place and I’m still working on it. to get the right people involved. But one of those days, hopefully that’ll happen sooner than later. After I finished the second book,
I realized that all my being obstinate and standing up to the cops and the judges, that’s the right path to make. You’ve got to have more jackasses.
jackasses out there telling them that they just don’t count. I’ve been doing my part.
Thank you, Alan. Good job. We just, resistance is key. We have, but we have to understand the principles and so acting on learning and then acting on what we learn.
learn, you know, just line upon line. Anybody else on this topic? – That’s really interesting.
In light of a video I listened to today, the James Lindsay one, you have you heard of him? He teaches how, yeah, all of the, the trans and ESG and whatever climate,
whatever, all of that has roots and Marxism or tools of Marxism. And but he said that people are when they’re sucked into it,
they’re, it’s a cult, you know, that they’re sucked into. And how do you extract people from a cult? He said you can’t. can’t, you can’t do it. All you can do is tell them that you disagree and maintain the relationship and hope that they’ll,
when they have questions, they’ll come to you. But I wonder if he’s wrong, or if he’s missing something, like he’s missing the other things we can do. Like, you know, maybe with our family or whatever,
we can’t, we need to be, maintain the relationship. but take our stand that we disagree, but we don’t argue with them. But there’s got,
I like what we’re learning here, that we’ve got to do more resistance, not just, “Hey, I don’t agree.” – Yeah.
– We don’t have any questions. – That saying you don’t agree is the wrong, but we don’t agree with them. We need to tell them that they’re ignorant. They don’t understand things. We need to be blunt,
blunt with them, and let them know that they have no clue what they’re talking about and what they’re pushing. It’s at the end of volume two,
as we’re so excited to know that I’m not totally lipid. flipped out and crazy but to confront these people and I I might be wrong,
but I do believe if you confront them vocally loudly That someone else will say amen,
and then them suckers will scatter Don’t take off There’s a there’s a second that I like a lot. It goes, “A man convinced his will, against his will,
is of the same opinion still.” And so when you’re just, you know, somebody is wrong, right? They’re in a different position than you, and you’re just going after them,
and you’re just having arguments. They’re, you’re, it’s, if you are basically pushing them down until they capitulate, they might have said what that they’ve agreed with you.
you, but their minds haven’t been changed. Somebody that kind of going along with what you said, Joyce, about how do you get somebody out of a cult? Well, somebody has to be, maybe they don’t want to get out of the cult,
but they have to want to, they have to want truth and they have to be willing to admit that maybe they’re wrong about something, that to be teachable or curious, at least to say, oh, why do you believe that and be open to lo – And then maybe they can adjust even just tweak,
maybe maybe just a minor tweak or something. And so we need to be there with, you know, not pushing, making them say that they agree with us when they don’t.
But but having ourselves be somebody that they know they can go to to learn more when they they’re ready is really,
you know, the only thing you can do if they’re not ready to learn, they don’t want to learn that I believe with what the guy was saying that they won’t. It’s you can’t make somebody learn that doesn’t want to. And so we just have to be there and promoting the truth and being there talking about it.
And so that when they’re ready that they then they know where to go. Yeah. I saw that. I saw that same video it was by Greg Mattson um and uh talking with James Lindsay and they were talking about how really these ideas and everything like that are really not even just ideas they’re a religion and our religion based on Jesus Christ and everything is based on truth their religion also well truth could be anything you
know it’s your your truth it’s everything. So we have to stand up for truth no matter what and I think when people they they see maybe they’ll see and is inconsistency or something like that they’ll know that we stand for truth and truth alone.
Well and even like along those lines they’re they’re they’re liars when they say that because they only say that it’s my truth when they want you to back off and not go after them. But when you say something that they don’t like,
they call it violence, you know, saying that I that, you know, Sodom, Sodomites are an abomination to God that that they would call that violence.
And so they they are working to use the force of government to silence people in like in, you know, in countries, you could not say that and allowed to continue to operate as a church.
And so it’s an important force to recognize that when they say it’s about your truth and my truth, that there is no truth. It’s just a way to be able to get themselves into a position over you and so that they can then silence you once they get their materials promoted big enough.
And so it’s important for us to understand. the deception along those lines as well. But the times up, we’ll go and finish up for the night and then we’ll get into our open forum where we can talk about whatever you guys want to talk about.
Let’s go ahead and have our closing prayer. And I’d like to invite Pamela Allen, if you’d be willing to give the closing prayer for us. As soon as I can unmute.
Perfect. Oh, our father in heaven. These are definitely trying times. And we’re grateful that Ben has taken the time with the clear mind to be able to sort things out and help us to understand we’re beginning to see patterns.
And it is. is depressing to see that there are so many people that are willing to support Satan in their Marxist ideas, and to deceptively change things in our government.
We pray, Heavenly Father, that if there’s anything that can be done, that we will be able to do it, that we can continue to stand for truth and righteousness regardless of the slings and arrows.
that might come our way, that hopefully we will be able to open the eyes of people who truly want to know the truth and want to restore our Constitution if it be possible.
We’re so grateful for every blessing we enjoy at thy hand and we pray that we will recognize those blessings and continue to stand for truth and righteousness. continue to be grateful. We are so grateful for these opportunities and we pray that we will put them to good use and we say this in the name of thy Son Jesus Christ.
Amen. Amen.
