JohnBirchSociety

Wow, you wish to abandon the inspired Constitution? Wow! That view is at odds with the Church and liberty.

You work out? Hadn't noticed...just ribbin' ya! Hey, along with your workout and guns you might find American Kenpo very useful in combating crooks on drugs. It is completely scientific and it doesn't matter what a person is on when you use it (I know this from experience). Besides it being created by a devout LDS person...

No, there is no such record for any of my children. It brings up some interesting discussions with records clerks and new bishoprics. I've just always been uncomfortable with public blessing of children that have no clue what we are doing on their behalf. Maybe it comes from a complete dislike of my Catholic heritage and the baptism of infants?

You can, unless confronted by a gun, which is typical in today's society. The Second Amendment is not just about self-defense, it is also about keeping tyranny at bay.

Are we saying God has the priesthood? That's an interesting concept. One that I would completely disagree with. God created the priesthood. His power is in his nature as the Supreme Being / Creator of all that exists.

This brought back a stickler of a lesson from Stake Conference that I nearly walked out on. The Stake President here mandated that we use the "thee / thou" language in prayers, etc., or they weren't done right. I kid you not!

I was under the impression that a Father always has the right, the patriarchal right to bless his children, regardless of priesthood? The priesthood only comes into effect when performing the specific public ordinance at church, which I never did for any of my children. I just blessed them at birth, privately. It was profound and intimate.

Any group that would infringe upon the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution would be part of the effort to deprive us of the inalienable right to self-defense. I'm surprised that you are not aware of such activity.

I don't know if you know it or not (I'm hopeful that you don't), but you are essentially quoting Karl Marx in your positions. In the United States, under the divinely inspired United States Constitution, gold and silver coin is mandated as our money. Only Congress can coin money (not print it, which is impossible). These two facts should give pause to any person who believes in the United States Constitution. For instance, why did the founders say "coin" money? Why were they so specific? Why did they mandate Gold or Silver coin as US money? Were they wrong, or are we, with our "Federal Reserve"? The answer to these questions gives us the solution to today's economic fiasco. We will never solve the problems of today's economy, absent a return to sound money as mandated by, as GOD has said, our divinely inspired constitution. I stand with the prophets in declaring that it is akin to scripture and that it should espouse the strictest possible adherence.

Gold / Silver money in the hands of the people would not make them poorer. We would not have massive inflation. We'd have enormous deflation with foreign purchases nearly coming to all halt if the other trading nations did not follow suit (it would be illegal to exchange paper fiat currency for Gold / Silver coin or notes). And of course, this would all take time. The Big-Banker establishment / FED would kick-n-scream all the way through their dismantling. Not to mention they would interfere at every step of the way to make it look like it would work.

Thanks for the clarification on that. You are correct. Bad form on my behalf. Allow me to modify my original numbers. In 2007 the US GDP in FRN's was $13,843,825,000,000 according to the IMF. Given a depreciation of the FRN value versus a real Gold / Silver dollar in 1913 ($1 in 1913 buys $21.60 in 2007) our real value (as measured by real dollars, 1913 style) GDP was $640,917,824,074 or just about $641Billion. The US GDP in 1913 was $517,383,000,000. So today's real value GDP is $123,000,000,000 more than in 1913. That's a 23.8% increase from 1913. Given the premise of M0 (Currency supply), we would need approximately $34,720,000,000 dollars of real money (Gold / Silver coin as mandated by the US Constitution) for circulation. This is well within the means of total Gold / Silver (and especially Silver) supply of today and represents essentially the same amount needed (based on population, now versus then) in 1913. Thus, there is no problem in respect to the amount of precious metals available for coinage.

Add to this excellent treatise the fact that our REAL GDP (in terms of real money, not fiat currency as we currently have) is a fraction of $10Trillion. In real money (In the US remember, that's Gold or Silver Coin) our GDP, based upon the devaluation of the FRN versus a real dollar of gold / silver since 1913 is 21.60 times less ($1 in 1913 can purchase $21.60 in 2007). So $10,000,000,000,000.00 / 21.60 equals $462,962,962,962.96. So actual GDP based on real money / "dollar" value is about $470Billion. The GDP in 1913 in the US was about $517Billion (real dollars, real money). So, today's real value GDP is less then it was in 1913. So, given that in 1913 there was enough Gold / Silver coin to cover the nation's needs, it would seem there would be more than enough now, since there is more Gold and Silver (processed) in existence than there was in 1913. Again, there is no real, valid argument against the Gold / Silver Standard as Constitutionally mandated.

It is interesting to note that probably the most efficient Martial Art (in terms of its' scientific application) is American Kenpo Karate. It was created by Edmund K. Parker, Sr., a devout LDS member: Ed Parker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Probably Mr. Parker's best surviving student is Dr. Ron Chap'el, Phd., from Los Angeles. Mr. Chap'el has a Phd., in Kinesiology from UCLA, and is the finest Martial Artist I've ever seen, having studied / observed the art's for over 30 years. Much of what Bruce Lee became was because of his close friendship and interaction with Mr. Parker. Anyways, for those who cannot carry a gun, like most of California, it is a fine option, both for physical fitness, and to be a part of Mormon secular history.

Got a question about the human condition. All have sinned, and in so doing, cannot be saved, of themselves. We all require the intercession of the Atonement of Christ for our salvation. That being said, I've never murdered, I've never stolen, I've never fornicated. Am I better than those who have done such things in the eyes of GOD? A follow-up would be; What is righteousness? Can we be righteous?

How can espousing that which is wrong (a wrong political viewpoint) on matters such as fundamental individual liberty NOT be a sin? I believe the scriptures clearly teach that it is a sin.

Food will be essential to survival, as it always has been, in particular in the midst of a collapse of any magnitude (Post-war Germany comes to mind). After the dust settles, 6months to a year (Post-war Germany comes to mind), then Gold and Silver coin in recognizable denominations like a "dollar" or "fifty-cent" piece, will be of great use. At no point in all of recorded human history has Gold been worthless as a medium of exchange.

Certainly could be a fulfillment. Whether or not it was, it was the end of the longest period in history (that I've been able to find) of a nation not having its' homeland attacked by outside forces (1812-2001). That says a lot. I'm glad Pres. Hinckley woke you up a bit. Good for him and you. I've been seeing this trend in specifics for 5+ years. In a general sense fiat currency ALWAYS collapses. Real money never does. Sooooo....in a general sense, it is just a matter of time as to when the collapse begins. I'm so glad the Founders had the foresight to avoid the problems of Fiat at the beginning of our nation. Real money is so essential to individual liberty. I'm of the opinion that it is the central key-stone to individual liberty in the civilized world.

Excellent. It was the premier view because the framers knew of the dangers of fractional reserve banking as pursued by England at the time. They knew the dangers of fiat. They wanted to give the citizens real money that was not easily manipulated by conspiring individuals, such as we now see with the Federal Reserve. Sad and funny it is that Greenspan, with his Phd., claims to not have seen it all coming, when the actions he espoused during his tenor were specifically pointed in the direction we are now in. When you increase the currency supply by billions it puts pressure on the acquisition of risk because the sound expenditures are covered. Then there becomes an imbalance as more liquidity moves to risk (sub-prime mortgage "security" bundles). It self perpetuates in artificial way (one that can not happen with real money). Then the Fed decides in their brillance to restrict the currency supply and whamo! Today is what we've got. No economist with any sense could not have seen the effect of those actions. Greenspan is a feind of the worse kind. Bernake is no better. I've been specifically predicting this crisis for nearly 5 years. What writing on the wall jumped out at you?

Wow. You do know the Constitution was divinely inspired? And no, I'm not extreme on that position. Slavery is not divinely inspired. The Constitution establishes a Gold / Silver standard. Thus, I'm of the position, on that merit alone, that it is the superior economic standard.

cool n/t

Taxation is necessary. Not all taxation is RIGHT. I'm sure you see the difference? In the United States, Congress is constrained by the Constitution as to what it can tax and how it can expend tax revenue. We should pay our taxes. That is the appropriate course of action. What that does not equate to is the presumption that all taxation is right or within the proper function of government. The progressive income tax is not a proper function of government.

I've NEVER SAID that taxation within the proper function of government is WRONG. So stop acting like I'm a nut case that's against all forms of taxation. There are proper forms of taxation. Income tax is a proper form of taxation. It was already allowed by Congress prior to the advent of the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment (if ratified) expands the power of Congress so that enumeration and apportionment is not required for tax to be levied. This allowed a PROGRESSIVE income tax, which is OUTSIDE of the proper function of Government (Do I need to cut-n-paste the biography of the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson as a source on this?). A progressive income tax is also a central tenet of Marxist-Communism. That, by itself should give pause to any freedom loving person... So again, I think you've completely missed the point. You've created a form of straw man thinking that I am against taxation. This is incorrect. I am against theft. Please re-read the opening thread. It is philosophical rather than political. Theft is wrong. That is the premise. As to Elder Oaks. Wow, does that man have a booming voice or what? He should play the voice of GOD if they ever do a new "Ten Commandments". I actually agree, almost 100% with his statement. I think that in nearly all cases I can imagine, we ought to work within the legal framework of the United States to remedy the ills that have been fostered upon us. However, there is a certain illogical in the total concept of his statements. They don't allow for the American Revolution, which was an action by citizens that ran contrary to the very principles that he espouses in his discourse. See the problem? Again, I tell people to pay their taxes. We should. That doesn't equate to demanding that those taxes in all their forms are within the proper function of government or even Constitutional. Given the Supreme Courts astonishing ability to ignore clear Constitutional law and even refer to foreign law in its' decision making, is it not wise to be skeptical of their overall integrity when viewing constitutional matters? I'm not looking through a peephole of history. I'm intimately aware of what the Framers spoke of and intended of our Constitution. I don't just quote one person. I've studied this stuff my entire adult life (30+ years) in great detail. Nothing I've said has violated any Constitutional or moral principle.

We can argue the specifics of policy / economy, with or without writing master thesis's for each response. The central point of this thread is the following, for which no references are required (it's self-evident): You have no right to steal what is rightfully mine. The opposite applies. I have no right to steal what is rightfully yours. No group, however large has the right to steal what is not theirs. To do so, even under the pretense of government is always theft, always.

No, I want Congress to have authority to tax. The question is, shall they do it in violation of the apportionment clause of the Constitution? That's what I'm against. In economic principle I'm against a graduated income tax because it is central to marxist communism.

That's a business decision that has no immediate impact on life. It should be left to the private individual / company to reach a contractural agreement on care. If there is a market for preventative health care then somebody / some company in a free society will be able to best provide it. That's how the free market works.