Testing Jason West
By Lance Earl
A few days ago I had an opportunity to visit with Jason West, who is running for the Idaho house of representatives. Jason, clearly consternated said, “I don’t know what to make of this”. I think he was trying to decide if I was supporting or attacking his campaign. This makes sense because I was trying to decide if I would support or attack his campaign.
There are a lot of reasons why people do or do not support a candidate. Friendship, faith, trust, familiarity, and associations all play into the equation and all are misplaced and foolish. Principle is the only touch-stone.
Should Jason West win the seat, he will be required to swear an oath to the Constitution of the United States. Jason and I share the same faith. We have a scripture that requires us to know which are the good laws and use all of our influence to bring violators of good laws to justice. As Mormons, we also have an over shadowing understanding that there must needs be opposition in all things. Therefore, if there are good laws, the opposition must be bad laws. Therefore, if we are to bring violators of good laws to justice, we must have the ability to distinguish between the good and the bad.
I shared these concepts with Jason and then asked him the only question that matters. When a bill comes before you, what equation will you use to determine if the resulting law will be good or bad? He answered much as I did in my campaign so I do not fault him. I have learned so much since then.
He spoke of faith, moral compass, a duty to God, Constitution, the founding fathers and the people of district 28. I explained that his answer was not nearly good enough. You see, his opponent, Kelley Packer has uttered the exact same words. No one knows what they mean because the interpretation of such words can be so arbitrary and subjective.
When I told him that if he were unable to articulate precisely what these words mean to him, then they are hollow and empty to me. You see, I believe that there must be meat behind the words, so I pushed Jason to deliver. At first, he was unsure of what I was asking. I could not be clear or I would feed him answers that he could just regurgitate to me. So I pressed and he struggled and together we looked for truth.
The Idaho Constitution requires our legislators to take instruction from the people. Without exception, the legislators of district 28B reject that portion of the Constitution. I was impressed that Jason kept trying to understand even though I was demanding much and rejecting his best responses. It is right that future Representative West should hear and reason together with his constituents, and he did.
I was trying to learn if Jason was founded on certain foundational principles of liberty. Without these principles, he will never recognize blatant government abuse. You see, the voices of corruption, that he now opposes, will be ever present in his ears. With flattery and flowery speeches, they will convince him that wrong is right. Without these principles, he will be blindly lead because the questions he should be asking of me and of you, will never form in his mind.
He is opposing Representative Kelley Packer, who has proven again and again that she is an enemy of the Constitution and a pliable puppet of the corrupt powers that be. When she first ran for this office, she also made flowery speeches but, she was never asked or answered the most important question. As a result, she has been led by corruption into corruption and We the People have paid a terrible price.
I have a little something that I call the “Good Law Equation”. So far, it has never failed me. Lets have a look.
First, there are natural rights, they are called unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. These are granted by our Creator, our God and they may not be enlarged or contracted by men or government. Samuel Adams wrote, “Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can”. The Bill of Rights adds clarity and understanding to these essential rights.
Therefore, when Packer supported Obamacare, she violated liberty and property. When she supported chemical abortion at tax payer expense, she violated life, liberty and property. When she attempted to regulate bake sales, she violated liberty. When she attempted to regulate the parents of hearing impaired children, she violated liberty and property. When she failed to oppose concealed weapons permits, she violated life, liberty, property and the right to support and defend them.
Most of us will agree that the Constitution was inspired of God and will therefore agree that it is good law. Therefore, if it is a federal law or a state law being written to be in compliance with federal law, it must be measured against the Constitution. We turn to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. This section gives a brief list of all powers upon which the federal government may legislate. Any federal activity not authorized in this section is a violation of the Constitution.
Therefore, when Packer supported chemical abortion in order to be in compliance with Obama-care, she violated the Constitution. When she attempted to regulate the parents of hearing impaired children in order to be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, she violated the Constitution. When she failed to resist federal gun laws; when she failed to resist federal education standards; when she failed to resist federalized health care; when she failed to resist tax payer funded abortion; when she failed to resist federally controlled state lands; when she failed to resist criminal legislation by the Supreme Court regarding marriage, Obama-care and more; when she failed to resist all authority of federal agencies that are not expressly authorized by the Constitution; when she failed to resist tax payer funded immigration; when she failed to resist federal policing activity such as Homeland Security; when she failed to resist Senator Guthrie and Representative Ken Andrus for profiting through unconstitutional socialist programs; when she violated Jason West’s first amendment rights; when she threatened legal action if I exercised my first amendment rights, she violated the Constitution.
In the end, Jason answered my question in a way that aligns with the Good Law Equation. I like that. He accomplished in twenty minutes what Packer has refused to look at in as many months.
Now you may ask, why is this the only question that matters? The answer is simple. When a government official is strongly committed to these principles of liberty, it makes almost every other question unnecessary. Based on principle, we already know how he will vote on the vast majority of issues. That comforts me. So, Jason West has my full support and I recommend him to you as the best candidate.
– Republished from: Lance Earl