Do you still like President Donald Trump?

by Robert John Stevens, September 28, 2017

A friend asked if I still like Trump.

Here’s my answer:

I’m for inalienable rights, liberty, freedom, free markets, non-internvention (staying out of the affairs of other nations), peace, prosperity, the Golden Rule and limited government.

I do not endorse wars of aggression, murder, destroying other nations, endless wars, government propaganda, the forced redistribution of wealth, unnecessary and unconstitutional taxes, endless regulations or a central bank.

Those, as I understand, are the principles endorsed by our Founding Fathers. So I back any politician who endorses those fundamental principles.

Subdivision Approval Increases Land Values and Borrowing Power Needed for Capital Improvements

by Robert John Stevens, September 27, 2017

For innovation to flourish, farmers, developers and entrepreneurs need capital.

Landowners need loans for a variety of reasons, but when governments such as Utah County deny settlement, to obtain higher loans from banks, landowners must agree to lien more of their property, take more risk and in some cases bet the farm.

For example, yesterday my parcel #8 in Benjamin, Utah, a 5.25-acre parcel, was recorded with Utah County as an improved, buildable lot causing its value on the Utah County records to soar from $89,400 to $192,300.

As raw land, local banks would only lend me up to 50% of its value compared to 75% now that Utah County declares it as an improved building lot:

50% of $89,400 is $44,700
75% of $192,300 is $144,225

That’s a 322% increase!

I desperately need a $400,000 loan to build, pave and dedicate a 3/4-mile interior road so Utah County will declare two more of my lots buildable, even though all the improvements are completed including a 62-foot paved road stub, but that required liens against nine, 5.25-acre unimproved lots. The risk of losing all of them is too great.

What if Utah County reverts back to its pioneer roots and declared all land to be buildable? Settlers then could exercise their inalienable private property rights, build on their own lands and make improvements as needed according to county specifications, and borrow a lot more with much less risk.

Now that my lot is declared bulidable, my taxes are higher and I don’t want higher taxes, especially since no buildings are built.

Until relatively recent times in America, all land was buildable. The Founding Fathers were careful not to interfere with private property rights. Until the establishment of the Federal Reserve banksters in 1913, there were basically no regulations in the United States and yet we produced the majority of the world’s goods and were the richest country in the world.

Today endless government regulations may solve problems but cause others. For the abundant life, citizens must be allowed to build on their own lands.

Modern innovations provide many alternatives for modern conveniences such as utilities, clean water and road materials, none which were available just 100 years ago when inalienable rights were honored and the middle class prospered.


Emails today between me and Brayden Brucker at Utah Valley Credit Union (UCCU):

Hi Brayden,

Yesterday one of my 5.25-acre parcels was recorded with Utah County as a buildable lot causing its value on the county records to soar from $89,400 to $192,300.

What percentage of a land’s value as determined by Utah County do you lend on? 40%, 45%, 50%?


From Brayden Brucker:

If it is considered an improved building lot – meaning it is ready to build on, we can go up to 75%. Raw Land is up to 50% loan-to-value. So we would lend between 50-75%.

Private Property Rights are Rights, Not Privileges

by Robert John Stevens, September 26, 2017

Utah County Commissioner Greg Graves at today’s Utah County Commissioner Meeting in Provo, Utah from his chair and on television made the comment. “Private property rights are privileges, not rights.” I later went to the podium and corrected him. I don’t have a transcript of what I said but this is what I know:

Private property rights existed before governments were formed. Governments were formed to protect private property rights.1

Although in the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson didn’t specifically mention private property rights, and his famous statement did not say, “Life, liberty, private property rights, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, he knew private property rights are inalienable rights, required for human happiness, and it is the proper role of government to defend them.

How do we know this?

1. Because private property rights were already stated and accepted in founding documents, even those in Virginia.

2. The phrase “among these”:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence knew there were other unalienable rights.

3. The Founders’ subsequent writings and contributions.

Private property rights were enshrined in every or almost every state constitution after the American Revolutionary War, including Article 1, Section 1 of the Utah Constitution which reads, ” All men have the inherent and inalienable right to enjoy and defend their lives and liberties; to acquire, possess and protect property; to worship according to the dictates of their consciences; to assemble peaceably, protest against wrongs, and petition for redress of grievances; to communicate freely their thoughts and opinions, being responsible for the abuse of that right.”

Many of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence played a major role in creating and ratifying state constitutions.

If private property rights are privileges and not rights, then as Commissioner Bill Lee so wisely asked Commissioner Graves, “Then what is their source?” If the government is the source of private property rights then the government also has the right to take them away.

Private property rights are rights, not just privileges as socialists would have us all believe. I corrected Commissioner Graves and pointed out that inalienable rights are not taught in public schools and few citizens understand their meaning or importance.


1 The United States government was formed to protect inalienable rights, including private property rights, and to defend liberty.

On FamilySearch Genealogical Indexing

by Robert John Stevens, September 26, 2017

When it comes to technology, most people avoid doing what they haven’t done before, so much good can come from hands-on, personal instruction.

Success can then be measured by the number of people who will declare with confidence, “I can do that.”

Do you stand with President Trump for our flag, our country, and our heroes?

by Robert John Stevens, September 26, 2017

Yes, but no. President Trump’s role is limited to the Executive Branch’s responsibilities as outlined in the United States Constitution.

Moral citizens of virtue cannot support corruption in government, unconstitutional wars of aggression, the forced redistribution of wealth, over burdensome taxation (aka theft), endless regulations, no representation in government, the steady advancements towards socialism and the disregard for inalienable rights, liberty and private property rights.

Should then the Pledge of Allegiance be to the flag, a ruler or to the country? Because the country is defined by the U.S. Constitution, perhaps we need a wording change.

It is the right of citizens to stand or kneel during the pledge. It is also the right of a professional athletes’ employer to fire them if they may contractually do so.

We need a president who is grounded on correct principles. Asking citizens to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance would be much easier if President Trump advocated correct, founding principles in voice and action. I recommend he appoint former Congressman Ron Paul as his tutor.

Or is this another distraction with a political goal in mind? Wrote Paul Craig Roberts:

The protests by black pro-football players by refusing to stand for the national anthem has come at an unfortunate time. It is playing into the hands of the military/security complex which is using President Trump’s loud voice challenging the “anti-americanism” to whip up patriotic fervor. It is amazing how people fall for it every time. The military/security complex and their presstitutes are creating public anger at those “attacking our country.” This anger will be turned from black football players to Russia.

With the public in its pocket, the military/security complex will increase its reckless provocations of Russia until we are all dead. — Washington Has Initiated Military Conflict With Russia