JohnBirchSociety

The protection of property right's includes the exercise of, or use of property. This is a very important fact. 1) Infrastructure is an appropriate function of Government in the protection of property rights (which includes the use of property). 2) Military is a very appropriate function of Government in the protection of property rights. This is fundamentally an aspect of the proper function of Government. I've made no statement to the effect of having a weak military. 3) The maintenance of the Union that is best suited to the protection of property rights is appropriate. It is clear that a failure of the American experiment would be devastating to any formation of a proper Government. The Union action in the Civil War was appropriate, though I'd argue a bit about the execution of the War. 4) WWII was appropriate to the function of Government. We were facing a unified global attack on our freedom. In fact, the Empire of Japan did attack us and threaten property rights. Germany most likely would have, given the chance. 5) Any constitutionally declared war was appropriate, the last one being WWII. and.... 1) Uh, if a company pollutes then it is infringing upon other's property. That would be an appropriate function of government to regulate. Government certainly can fine as a tool in the protection of property rights. 2) The exploitation of people is contrary to property rights. Therefore, it is appropriate for Government to intervene. 3) First, you cannot print money. It is impossible, because it falls outside the definition of money. Secondly, constitutionally Congress COINS money. That is an appropriate function of government in the facilitation of the exercise of proper by the citizen. 4) Fines, again, are not unconstitutional. Secondly, I've not been able to find an instance of a hospital refusing immediately necessary life-saving care to any individual where such facilities exist. If they did, it would be morally wrong because it interfere's with the greater principle of right to life to a certain degree. This may be an instance where the force of government can be properly used to insure life at the cost of property. Life being superior to property. Private Unions absent the force of government are fine with me. They represent a contractural agreement between two groups. That's okay. Government should have no place in Unions (other than enforcement of contract, which is a proper function of Government). I don't know what America you've studied. There have always been poor, probably always will be until the Lord comes back. However, the greatest growth in human prosperity for all involved occured during the first 100 years of American history (even with the devastating Civil War). That is a fact. In appropriate Government action outside of its' proper role in the defense of the right of property or life, never results in a improvement in the human condition. It is theft.

First, I must preface my remarks. Pay your income taxes as directed by the IRS. No person has EVER won a case against the IRS on the basis of what I'm about to discuss, EVER. On to the major problem. Only 36 States were needed for ratification of the proposed 16th Amendment. Phillander Knox, Secretary of State, was the person responsible for verification and confirmation of the State's ratification's. Secretary Knox claimed that 38 (not 42 as you claim) of the State's ratified the Amendment. There is a problem with this claim. At least four of the State's listed by Secretary Knox did NOT ratify the proposed Amendment. In fact, one of them (California) has no record of ever voting on any such proposed Amendment. Here are the four problem State's: 1) The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the proposed amendment proposed by Congress. 2) The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed. 3) The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the proposed 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning. 4) The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington. This leaves 34 State's of the list of 38 posited by Secretary Knox as having ratified the proposed amendment. Thirty-six (36) were required. The proposed amendment was not ratified. If anybody is interested in discussing the ratification process, I'll start a thread on it. What I won't discuss is the non-payment of Income Tax, for two reasons: 1) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says to pay income tax. 2) No person, or group has ever won a case in court on the basis of the non-ratification of the proposed 16th Amendment.

Passion is great. Temperance is good. If you can find a balance, you'll be doing awesome. I've been accused of being intemperate on this forum. Especially on my thread having to do with the Environment where I refute the claim that man is responsible in any way other than a miniscule manner for global climate activities. Another is my new thread on "Theft". Another is my thread on "Money". Another "10 Steps to Save America". Passion is great. Find an outlet. Civic-minded might I recommend an organization? It's acronym is JBS....

No, you're taking the statement of Christ to the extreme. Taxation is a necessary function of government. All forms of taxation, by extension, ARE NOT right. Christ does not sanction all forms of Taxation. But wait, there is another message in what Christ said. Even if the taxation by Caesar was wrong (probably) to rebel was certain death. In that circumstance, it was better to live. Of course, the Lord did approve of the rebellion of the States against Britian on the matter, in part, of taxation without representation. So, we cannot logically expand what Christ said about Caesar to include all forms / levels of taxation. Now, the particulars, especially in the United States, under our divinely inspired Constitution are that taxation is to be used to protect the property rights of the individual (the proper function of Government). That's it. There's no other proper use of tax money allowed by the Constitution. And there is a reason for that. The founders knew that any other use of taxation is theft. It really is that simple.

Wow, where have you lived that pays higher taxes and gets better service than we get in the United States? I'd love to know. That way I could win the Nobel Prize in economics by soundly refuting the Laffer Curve: Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Thanks! Oh, by the way, do you support things that have no Constitutional authority in the United States?

If it is Caesar's to begin with, and remember he did say, "...what is Caesar's", then we're just to return that which already belongs to someone else. I agree with that. What I don't agree with, and what Jesus Christ does not agree with, is theft. Theft, whether by the individual or state is NOT sanctioned by Christ. If Christ does sanction it, then the Doctrine and Covenants is wrong on the matter.

Well, we all die, no matter what. And there are some pretty darn mean cancers out there that you pretty much are doomed to die if you get them. Certain brain-cancers are probably some that are nearly impossible, even with holistic medicinal approaches to curing. You seem, from your mannerisms, to be a bit young (no offense on that, wish I were a bit younger). If that is the case, I'd invite you to seek a temperance to some of your positions (keeping in mind that some truth is just rock-solid). Some people do die from cancer, regardless of what they do to prevent it. Chemotherapy, though devastating, can be effective in some instances in the cure. There's a place for modern medicine. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water as Granny used to say...

Wow, someone is more conspiratorial minded than a life-long John Birch Society member? Thought I'd never live to see the day! There well may be a conspiracy at the highest levels of the drug company leaders. I wouldn't put it past fallen man to do such a thing. Even though I am a John Birch member and do believe there is a single conspiracy lead by satan to destroy human liberty, I'm a bit more optomistic about the "Joe Plumber" of the world. I think they're just trying to live a decent life for the most part and would never prevent a cure for cancer from going to market. Wow...are you a member of The John Birch Society, super-duper version?

Do I have a right to directly take the money / property that you have earned? No, that is called theft. Do two people, in concert, have a right to directly take the money / property that you have earned? No, that is called theft. Do one-hundred people, acting in concert, have a right to directly take the money / property that you have earned? No, that is called theft. Do one-million people have such a right? No, it is still theft. Does a nation have such a right? No, it is still theft. No such right exists at either the individual, group, national, or might I add, global level. It is still theft. When government does it, without the express consent of the governed,to the direct benefit of the individual / group, it is still theft. You can couch it in all the terminology you can dream up. It is still theft. It is wrong. It is immoral. That is what socialism / communism is all about. The free-market is the opposite of the proposition that anyone individual OR any group, no matter the size, has a right to take the money of another and either keep it for themselves, or give it to another person or group. The free-market is the opposite of theft.

I'll respectfully disagree with the held position in medicine that cancer is a disease. Cancer happens to people because of something going wrong in their bodies. It does not derive in otherwise healthy individuals. Many factors make us unhealthy, including some over which we have little or no control (genetics / environment). So, even living a healthy lifestyle (eating right, good exercise) won't exempt someone from Cancer. Anyways, I wish you and your husband all the best! I was present for most of my Mother's battle and her eventual death, and it is very hard. You have my sympathy!

I don't believe there is something you can do right now to cure cancer that you have right now. There are means of preventing cancer, but even those are not 100% effective because there are things beyond our control, such as pollution. So you can eat perfect and still get lung cancer from bad air... There is money to be made at drug companies. However, I don't buy that they are deliberately frustrating the actual "cure" of cancer to make a profit, anymore than I would believe fire-fighters are preventing a 100% fireproof / human protection device from being developed because it would "lower the money they make from fighting fire". I think perhaps the AMA may be intentionally barking-up-the-wrong-tree for a "cure" and ignoring the clear science behind cancer being a symptom of a disease state rather than the cause of disease state.

Disagreement often results from misunderstanding. Such is the case with the Gold / Silver standard that the Constitution mandates. People here have pointed to supposed "failures" of that standard in history, yet each time, it is pointed out that the standard wasn't followed at those points in history.

Cancer seems to be a symptom of a diseased status rather than a disease in the classical sense. What I mean is cancer often recurs even after treatment to remove it. It seems to derive from poor nutritional choices that we make. If you eat garbage, most likely, at some point, you'll get sick or get cancer as a symptom of that lifestyle. I applaud researchers who are attacking the symptom of Cancer. Obviously the symptom must be abated because it is so severe. I don't think we'll cure the "symptom" if we continue to eat garbage as a people. My mother died of Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma about 5 years ago. She was a smoker her entire adult life, and obese for a portion of it.

There has been some good, vigorous discussion about the merits of the gold standard in economics on this forum. However, there continues to be a serious misunderstanding about what the gold standard actually entails. In particular, this misunderstanding ignores what the Constitution mandates on the matter. It is quite simple. Constitutionally the gold standard (gold / silver, to be precise) means that Congress determines how much gold / silver equals a "dollar". Fractional reserve banking is a violation of this. The Federal Reserve Note is a violation of this. If you find yourself equating the value of gold to a "dollar", you are making a critical mistake. "Dollar" is a unit of measurement. Thus, it is incorrect to say, "That costs a dollar." Rather, you should say, "That costs a dollar of gold / silver (in the USA)". It would be like going to the grocer and asking for a "gallon". The grocer would respond, "A gallon of what?". The value of Gold in society has been remarkably constant. About one troy ounce has, historically (since Roman times) been able to purchase a good suit of clothes. Comments?

So that I clearly understand you. Are you stating that polar (North and South) ice-caps are melting at a rate that is outside of the normative cyclical rate (summer / winter)? Furthermore, are you attributing that melting (which you've yet to demonstrate is outside the realm of the normative cyclical rate) is caused by the activity of man? A yes answer to either question is wrong. We are not warming globally. Since 2000, the global temperature has decreased to the levels seen in 1979. Since it is a fact that we are cooling as a planet (which is going to accelerate if the dirth of SUN activity continues) how can ice be melting at a higher rate than occurs in the normal melting / aggregation cycle? Polar ice has remained quite constant since 1979 (when measurements began). There is some melting in the summer, and aggregation in the winter. Because the amount of ice (average) has been level since 1979, even with the 1979-2000 temperature increase, followed by the 2000-2005 decrease, how can you maintain you assertion that the ice-caps are melting at an abnormal rate? My data is freely available from NASA.

How did we become the most powerful / educated people in human history without "someone to oversee this"? Why must we adopt Marxist-Communist practices that are not supported constitutionally? And who better to "oversee" your / my children education than those most local to them? Public Education beyond local oversight is a fallacy, and has led to the decrease in our educational output for nearly 100 years.

Now, I can agree with that. Done wrong, anything nuclear is a problem.

This is so fundamentally flawed, I'll have a hard time sorting it out. Let me start at the end. Comparing the "value" of Gold versus Fiat Paper Currency is absurd. And, it is constitutionally inappropriate. Congress determines how much Gold is in a dollar. "Dollar" is a unit of measurement. Fiat Currency inflates over time (always). Federal Reserve Notes have inflated over time (and they always will, it is their nature). Thus, saying the value of Gold inflated based upon FRN's is false. Actually the value of the FRN's decreases over time (it always will) causing more FRN's to be needed to purchase Gold. On the Gold standard, this is not the case. The Gold is the Dollar (with some other metals to make the coinage more durable). It is a constant that rarely changes over time. Also, the person you quote interjects that the Gold Standard and the Federal Reserve System co-exist. This is not possible in a Constitutional sense. Hope I'm clear enough.

We were not on a Constitutionally mandated Gold Standard in 1929. We were in a mixed Fiat / Federal Reserve / Gold Standard. There is a big difference. The main difference is the manipulation(s) that occurred by the FED prior to 1929 that set-up the circumstances of the Great Depression. You can't print GOLD...lol... Furthermore, there is no such thing as Fiat Money. You're speaking of Fiat Currency. Yes, Congress could change the weight of Gold / Silver to the unit of measurement called a dollar on a weekly basis. However, historically this was far from the case. In fact, I can't think of anything Congress does / has done on a week-to-week basis on any issue. By Gold / Silver standard I mean that which is Constitutionally mandated, and set-up by Congress by the Coinage Act of April, 1792. By this means the weight of Gold / Silver in each dollar is mandated by act of Congress (its' proper constitutional function in the matter). Obviously we could not return to such a system in an immediate fashion. We'd have to do it in a very determined, reasonable way. It would probably take 10-15 years to fully extricate ourselves from the debacle of the Federal Reserve System. However, since GOD said that the Constitution is the way to go and that anything more or less than it "cometh of evil", I'll stick with GOD and the Gold / Silver Standard in the Constitution any day of the week.

One more time, for all to see... Experimental Nuclear Reactors are inherently dangerous, because they are experimental. I would advise a large birth around them and very, very stringent regulation of them. On the flip side...commercial, non-experimental, nuclear power plants of the standards seen in France / England / Japan / US / Canada, are the safest means of electrical generation in human history. In fact, they are the safest means of power generation in human history. Disposal of their waste is not an issue. It has been resolved in the safest possible manner. I'm sorry you lived by EXPERIMENTAL nuclear reactors.

Moving back to the Constitutional mandate for real money is the only thing that will save us from our current economic mess. No, we were not on the Gold Standard of the Constitution in 1929.

The best government is that which is local. Local parents can regulate standards. National oversight results in lowest common denominator results with no local competition. Besides the fact that Public Education at a national level is a central tenet of Marxist Communism, and is ABSENT from the Federal Constitution of the United States.

I'm puzzled by your response here. At times you seem to be getting what a free market is then you almost "straw-man" it. A free market is where commerce is free to proceed without government intervention. The appropriate function of government in a free market environment would be when, as you've said, there is unfair practice occurring. It is interesting to note that every unfair practice you list was created through government intervention and not the lack thereof. In any event, the free market, when actually realized (and it is an ideal that is rarely realized), is the best economic ideology for mankind.

Chernobyl was no example of commercial electrical generation in the fashion that the United States / Europe / Japan have been doing in the safest fashion ever achieved of ANY power generation in human history. Chernobyl, for example, used graphite bricks as containment. We are so far advanced from that (and always have been) that it's like comparing a 747 to the Wright Brothers Plane at Kitty-Hawk and then proclaiming the 747 is unsafe. Experimental Nuclear Stations can be dangerous, and I certainly would not want to be around one gone wrong. That's a no-brainer. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about commercial electrical power-generating Nuclear Power plants. They are the safest, most energy efficient means of electrical production, ever devised by man. They are the solution to electrical generation needs of the civilized world.

Very well stated! Thank you! n/t