JohnBirchSociety

Sadly, it isn't

Real Money is real property. Unfortunately we haven't had real money in nearly 100 years. Ironically, we're "paying" the price dearly for our phony money.

For the most important issue we made is from 1776 until 1913, and partially 'til 1973. What many do not know is one of the major tenets of the Constitution is real money. We had that until 1913 (except for a period during the Civil War). Take away real money, and the people cease to be truly free.

All I want is to follow the United States Constitution at the Federal Level. No exceptions. If we just did that, the results would be a return to prosperity that the world has yet to see. Imagine earning real money that doesn't depreciate in value over time. Imagine no income tax. Imagine no undeclared "wars". Imagine no foreign aid. Imagine no Social Security. Imagine no Medicaid / Medical. Imagine no welfare-state. Imagine no EPA. Imagine no gun-control. Imagine no legal abortions. Imagine no Judicial legislation. Imagine a Congress that follows its' constitutional duties. Imagine a President who doesn't ignore the constitution. What a world it would be! And that's all I want. FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, and you've got my vote.

Wouldn't it be great if we actually had a two-party system in America? Unfortunately there is no real, substantial difference between the "two" parties, other than in how they are spelled.

I agree. And it would be nearly impossible to do so if we had, to the extent humanly possible, a free market (NOT capitialism) with REAL MONEY. You know, we did have such a thing from 1776 until about 1890, and we became the most prosperous nation in history. In fact, we are still coasting along from some of the remains of that astounding wealth. If you wish to help the poor, have REAL MONEY (No Country on Earth does), and a real free market (No Country on Earth does). Socialism is not the answer. Communism is not the answer. Capitialism is not the answer.

As is George W. Bush, William J. Clinton, and nearly every former President of the last 110 years.

Unfortunately, what you endorse does not match what GOD has endorsed, which is the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution doesn't allow what you espouse. Social Democracy is theft. You cannot take what is not yours. My labor is not yours, and visa versa. Even if the majority votes to take what is not theirs to take, and give it to another, it is still theft. I hope you can realize this. As to your final sentence, I don't think anyone here is arguing against you on it. Selfishness is wrong. If one is blessed with good fortune, one should freely impart it to others. What you are wrong about is the means of "redistribution". The means must be voluntary. The ends, remember, do not justify the means (unless, of course, you are communist). Again, you are, for the most part, quoting from the Communist play book, which the Church is against. Theft is theft, regardless of pretense or government or majority sanction.

What you are asserting here is called Communism. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is firmly against Communism. The Church does not forcefully take anything from me. I give because I chose to give. I participate because I chose to. You, nor I, have right to another's labor. Employee's in a free market (which has never fully existed) contract, freely, to provide labor in exchange for wage. They are not forced to work for any specific employer. What you espouse is straight Communism. In fact, you are quoting from the Communist Manifesto to a large extent. The Church is completely opposed to Communism.

Yes, though I'm sure the poor would have voted for him (that's called democracy folks)!!!! "Democracy is like having two wolves and a lamb decide what is for diner"-Ben Franklin God be praised that our founders (American) gave us a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy!!!

Friend, this discussion is very easily resolved. Picture if you will a person who has rightfully, morally, earned $20,000. Now picture another person who comes and takes, without permission, $3,000 of that earned money. We'd both call that theft (I hope). Now suppose 5 people come and take, without permission, $3,000. We'd still, I hope, call this theft. Now suppose the persons entire town comes and takes the $3,000. Still theft, I'd hope you would agree. Now suppose the entire state population takes $3,000. Again, it's still theft. I hope you can logically disassociate yourself from the fallacy of socialism to realize that it is nothing more than government mandated theft. You have no inherent right to the labor of another. Nor do I. If I steal from you directly, or use the force of government to do it, it is still stealing. It is astounding how clearly the 10 Commandments, even after 4,000 years, perfectly applies to this question. The solution to the question is to FOLLOW the 10 Commandments, not violate (no matter the pretense) one of them in the name of "humanitarianism". Thanks.

I favor a return to that which worked. Voluntary associations work. In America, we became the most prosperous (and educated) people in the world through voluntary, locally run, privately funded and directed, primary education. If you check the history of the 19th century in regards to public "education" in the US, you will see that it came after the Marxist Communist revolution began in Europe with Marx and the "Communist Manifesto"...here is a quote from it: "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc." From this paradigm sprang much of what is now known as the "National Education Association" in the United States. Publicly funded "education" will never work. It is contrary to the proper role and function of free government.

True Conservatives favor the proper role and function of government. That role never includes the taking of one person's labor (money) and giving it to another, regardless of pretense (education, health-care, welfare, etc..). It is never correct to steal, even with government sanctioning. Charter Schools are government regulated. Tuition tax credits imply that the money stolen by government should partially be returned to the victim. School Choice cannot actually happen when there is government oversight of all schooling (even home schooling, to an extent). Publically funded education is a central tenet of Marxist Communism, and is contrary to any principle of liberty. The free market, unrestricted, is the best place for education.

A bit silly of you to equate an admonition of the Prophet, during General Conference, with Lord of the Rings or the other works you mentioned. I love Sci-Fi. I'm a rabid fan of the new Galactica. And I can hardly wait for the new Star Trek on Christmas this year.

I can support this on the State level. No Federal involvement, and I'm fine.

We became the most prosperous people in all of human history without government mandated public "education". That is a fact of history. I would like to see, to put it simply, "Less Government, More Responsibility, and with God's help, a better world"... It is nonsense to say that opposition to communistic / socialistic principles will propel us to the feudal era. I support, on the Federal level, the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less. I stand against the taking of a person's labor (no matter the pretense), by force, and giving it to another (no matter the pretense). When such things happen, it is theft, whether government sanctioned or not. Thou shalt not steal, comes to mind.

History doesn't agree with your point. The United States became the most prosperous and powerful and educated nation in all of human history through private, non-governmental, voluntary attendance in schools. Though I don't place the blame of our continued downfall solely in the hands of public "education" it is pretty darn clear that it has failed. And it has failed, not because we don't spend enough, or because parents don't care. It has failed because it is a government mandated monopoly that has, as it root, Marxist Communist principle. From 1776 until the early 1900's there were, for the most part, no government run primary education schools. During that time, we had the highest educated, most prosperous people the world had ever seen. In fact, we became so astoundingly prosperous that even now, many decades after we abandoned liberty in exchange for public "education", we remain the most prosperous people in human history. It is emblematic of the problem that, unfortunately, you seem (and I mean no offense on this), to not know American history, and what it was that made us great.

There are no "private" schools. The "private" schools must adhere to the rules that the government mandates, making them extremely expensive, and unable to reasonably compete with the public alternative. "Private" schools are for those that are quite well off (it would cost me about $15,000 a year for my kids). Take away the government from the picture (yes, publicly sanctioned schools should be abolished), and you are right, you would be able to afford "private" schooling. I think you might agree, that at least at the federal level, the government has no Constitutional enumerative authority to have involvement in public "education" other than in the promotion of art and science through copyright and patent (Article I; Section 8; Clause 8). And I think you might come to agree that publicly mandated education is a tenet of Marxist Communism that was not found in the US prior to the Boston Experiment in the 1800's in any grand scope. You might find of interest a good book "NEA, Trojan Horse of American Education". And of course, "The Communist Manifesto" which speaks very highly of public "education". By the way, on the subject of voluntary associations, there are very few remaining in the open. I'm quite amazed that the Master's Golf Tournament hasn't been shut down by the Fed's. And it is a real miracle that the Boy Scout's are still under Congressional Charter at the national level.

I'm talking about local control of education, but not government force. In other words, when government forces me (or you) to give of our labor to support the education of another, that is theft. Local control would mean VOLUNTARY, local associations that determine, of themselves, the means of education. You would be free to associate with them or not. There would be no compulsory education. This would involve private, free market, competition, not government sanctioned monopolies. Thanks for the reply, I should have been clearer on the "local control" definition! By the way, I am a strict (some would say fanatical, but I don't care) Constitution follower on both the Federal and States level. If it ain't in there, it ought not be done by Government. No exceptions.

ACTUALLY it is time America STOP being in any manner like the British / Swede model of education. Public Education (stealing a persons labor to finance the education of another through the force of government) is a central tenet of Marxist Communism, and needs to be abolished. The Public Education industry in the US is the largest (by leaps and bounds) industry in the US (In fact, in the world). It is by all considerations, the largest monopoly ever devised. It will NEVER effectively work, NEVER. What America needs is a return to local run, and locally financed, education. Put it simply! It is wrong for me to take your labor (money) by force, and give it to another (no matter the pretense). It is wrong for ten of us to do it. It is wrong for 300 million of us to do it. It is theft. Just because the government sanctions the activity does not make it right. It will NEVER work.

Think for a moment of what you just said... Is the First Amendment open to interpretation? How about "Congress shall make all laws..."? I have no desire to get into a real treatise on the matter, but I'm certain you see the problem with the "interpretation" paradigm? If it is true then anything could mean anything depending on who's doing the interpretation. And if that's the case, then even having a constitution is pointless. It would seem that the enemies of the Constitution have won a major battle in their march to destroy it if it is taken as "defacto" that the Constitution is open to interpretation. I only hold up the founders who actually wrote the document, and their explanation in the "Federalist Papers", as to what specific items mean in the Constitution. After all, THEY WROTE IT. What a blessing it is to have the "Federalist Papers"! As an aside, PRESIDENT (yes PRESIDENT) Ezra Taft Benson, in General Conference requested that we READ the Federalist Papers. As to the issue of the Supreme Court determining the meaning of the Constitution, you might want to first establish that the constitution even permits them to do that. (By the way, it doesn't) The Supreme Court answers to the enumerations prescribed within the Constitution, NOT the other way around. Any changes in the Constitution are to be made ONLY through the amendment process (which the founders intentionally made very difficult)... In any event, I respectfully state that your position on this matter is wrong.

I've read the book in question as well as many, many other books. One book people may be VERY interested in reading is "An Enemy Hath Done This" by Benson. In my public experience, across the nation in the past 25+ years, with LDS and with non-LDS, the clear conclusions of such paradigms as President Benson clearly held throughout his adult life in regards to liberty, are so scary that people can't get themselves to consider the possibility. There are, my friends (an you all are), sick, evil, satanically inspired, super-wealthy people who have an insatiable desire to control their fellow man. This is not conspiracy talk, this is the reality of all of history. This is the reality of all of scripture. This is our unfortunate reality. Our liberty is being sold in the name of security. Our property is being confiscated in the name of prosperity. Our labor is being redistributed (stolen) in the name of economic "stimulus". When will it end? Well, it certainly won't end if we ignore history. From the murder of Cain, to this day, history has been one of Conspiracy. Two quotes to leave you with: "Indeed I do tremble for America, when I consider that GOD is just." -Thomas Jefferson "Government is not reason. It is force. Like fire, it can either be a dangerous servant, or a fearful master." -George Washington Friends, I too tremble, and I sure as "heck" don't want to be burned. THINK!!!

President Gordon Bitner Hinckley died last night at 1900PST in Salt Lake City, of causes incident to age. The First Presidency is immediately dissolved and the governing body of the Church is now the Quorom of the Twelve, until a new Prophet is revealed to them. Most likely this will be Thomas Spencer Monson. President Boyd K. Packer will then become the President of the Quorom of the Twelve. So, in General Conference in April we'll have a new Apostle called. Sadness is in the air. He was a great, humble, leader. He will be greatly missed.

There are no writings in scripture, or elsewhere, by prophets, concerning green tea, that I am aware of. I'm certain there is nothing in the Standard Works, which is all I really care about when determining what is doctrinal or not. Absent a specific direction from the prophet, do as you will. Sometimes our cultural mormonism gets a bit absurd. If we are not specifically commanded in scripture, then it is up to the individual, not the Bishop, or the Stake President.

Nope. Evolution never happened. God create all things in the beginning as is. Of course, over the brief time the world has existed there have been mutations, but no trans-species evolution.