JohnBirchSociety

Socialism is not the devil. It is a tool of the devil. Government control of the free market makes it not free. Pure Capitalism involves the control of Capital. In the pure sense, the ultimate "Capitalist" system is Communism, where the State, rather than individuals, controls all capital. In a free market nobody can even come close to controlling all the capital, even in their market segment (other than at the very beginning of the market segment where they are the only provider of such goods / services, but in a free market competition would almost immediately arise). You need to read Adam Smith (as boring and long as it is). A good primer of smith is Henry Hazzlit's "Economics in One Lesson".

Very well put. Thank you! n/t

In WWII Congress properly declared war. And we won. I've no problem with exercising our human, moral obligation to protect innocents from tyranny, wherever we chose to do so. Under no circumstances should we have agreements with any nation to enter into warfare on their behalf. If there is a moral reason to act, we can, an ought to do so. We should do so using our total national sovereignty (which entangling alliances diminish), in our own interests, through proper constitutional mandate. We did this in WWII and won. I will posit that we will not win another large-scale conflict again if we don't follow the Constitution. As an example, take Korea, Vietnam, etc. In fact, every major conflict that we have entered into since WWII we have not won.

1) On foreign policy. By entangling alliances I mean those that would compel us to military action on behalf of another nation. I believe in free trade, and agreements that actually facilitate those activities. I believe in diplomatic relations with all nations. We ought not have any foe's if we'd be open with all nations. Rubber, and all other goods not indigenous to the United States we would purchase in a free market environment. Treaties that would compel us to enter into conflicts I am against. That is what George Washington was warning us about in his farewell address. Trade agreements that would step outside the sovereignty of the United States (dictate prices, labor, etc.) are contrary to the intent of the framers. 2) The graduated income tax is a central tenet of Marxist Communism. That alone should give pause to any American. Besides that, the Federal Government was able to function quite well (and withing its' Constitutional mandates) WITHOUT an income tax. Prior to the income tax amendment (which may not have been properly ratified), the Federal Government received the bulk of its' revenue from excise taxes on imports. They were not burdensome. I appreciate bring the discussion back to a narrow focus. One of the reasons I was a bit broad in scope on my opening comments was to not constrain the discussion. But I agree that a more specific approach is now a good idea. Thanks.

One word, cookies.

I have really no idea what your clips were about, but I'll take a stab at it: Socialism is wrong. It is government sponsored theft, and it is wrong. Period. End of story.

Sad to see an American President so blatantly lie. I can think of no harsher, despotic, evil, terrorist nation than North Korea, yet, our President just removed them from the "terrorist nation" list... What a joke! Wake up to a sense of your awful situation, before it is to late.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. The Scriptures are so incredibly clear that it is sad to me that people cannot see that GOD has always been GOD. Anyways...

It is so unscriptural that I can't even believe that people miss it. This is a central tenet of all of scripture. GOD created all that exists. He did not become GOD or progress, nor does he progress. He has all attributes of righteousness in perfection, and always has. He created time, and is not beholden to it. All that is, exist through his decree. He is subordinate to nothing. This is the clear, no-wiggle-room, no-loopholes, no-nonsense, declaration of all of Scripture. It is so fundamental to Christianity as to be absurd, as offensive as that term is, that a person who claims to be Christian does not understand it. GOD has always been at his "full potential"...

At the risk of being cast to outer-darkness on this forum, I believe I've pretty bluntly stated that Joseph Smith, at the end of his life, did actually teach things that are contrary to foundational, unequivicable statements of the scriptures. The primary example would be that GOD has always been GOD, is not 'a' GOD, but rather is the only GOD. He is not anthropomorphic, he did not become GOD, he is GOD. To lds.net outer-darkness I go.

Come again? How are they not a redistribution of wealth? The taxpayer (me) pays tax at the point of a gun (government force) and that tax is given directly to another. That is theft. That is the definition of a redistribution of wealth. It is the definition of Communism. The proper function of government is very simple to define. The protection of property rights is the proper function of government. It has not rightful place in other aspect of society.

Excellently written. Thanks. n/t

My opinion on WIC is that it is okay. I like the idea of feeding Moms and young kids. It is a slippery slope to get on, though... HOWEVER, it is not okay from a Constitutional standpoint. Taking wealth from individuals and directly disbursing to others is theft. It is plunder. It is Socialism. It is wrong.

1) The Founders knew that in order to have a chance at getting rid of slavery, etc., there had to be established a strong Union. It was a sad, but necessary compromise. 2) I've said nothing about the absence of taxation. The 16th Amendment may not have been passed correctly, to begin with. Secondly, we were just fine without it. The size of the Federal Government was greatly constrained to its' appropriate functions, without it. It is Communistic. We don't need a Graduated Income Tax. What we need is a properly constrained Federal Government that derives its' necessary revenue from Constitutionally appropriate means. 3) The Founders established a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. They had the Senators selected by the State Legislatures as a filter from democracy. Also, this more fully insures that the States have a stronger control of the Federal will. The removal of this filter has had enormous negative impact upon the United States. 4) I support the proper function of government in maintaining the "general welfare" (roads, water-systems, etc.). The proper function does not extend to direct disbursement of funds to an individual citizen from another citizen, by force of government. That is what I am against. It is theft. It is wrong. 5) If the enormous benefits of the Social Services in the United States continue, no amount of enforcement will prevail because people are frankly willing to DIE to get here. Remove the incentives (free social services), and that would greatly lessen the problem. Obviously, enforce the laws we have, and punish those who break them. 6) You've marked probably the only exception that I believe is morally correct on this matter. Emergency, life-saving care, ought not be denied to any person. That is a matter of law, and should remain as such. Other than that, I can't think of an appropriate exception. 7) Having been elected to the local school board Title X committee (the one that determines how all federal funding will be spent), and appointed by that board to the position of Chairman, I am very much aware of the money that is being spent on Public Education. I am against all Federal involvement in education. Segregation is a human rights issue, and is an appropriate function of the Federal government to be against. Federal funding of Public Education is a Marxist Communist tenet and is wrong. Schools ought to be funded and supervised at the most local level possible. In some instances this may be at a State level. In most cases it would be at a community level. 8) I'm not prejudice against other countries. I want free trade with all nations. Unlimited, free trade. Real free trade. No prejudice at all. That trade does not require any super-national agreements. As to our border, it is where we say it is, by force, if necessary. That has been the case through all of human history, entangling alliances have done nothing to change this. 9) UN Headquarters is in the United States. Hmmm? 10) We'll have to agree to disagree on this. Discourse is good. Thanks.

All I can say is "yep".... n/t

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond. I do appreciate it. I'm not denying citizenship to anyone. Voting is a privilege, not a right, in the United States (you are born with rights). The problem that you've missed on this, is that if those who receive direct government (disbursed directly to them, not things like roads / millitary, etc.) assistance can vote for more of the same (and the record shows they do exactly that) we will go broke. Politicians pander to them. I want to remove this ability. Those who get assistance (which is unconstitutional, by the way) ought not be able to vote for more assistance. That's the ultimate in theft. And it is flat-out wrong. I would exempt the innocent people (mentally ill, wounded veterans, etc.) but the vast majority of able-bodied citizens that receive government assistance that is directly disbursed to them, ought not be able to vote for more of the same. This would be a first real step in the long road ahead of us in getting rid of Socialism.

Franklin Roosevelt? Are you kidding me?

1) The Doctrine and Covenants has the answer to your question on the appropriateness of slavery in the Constitution: "And that alaw of the land which is bconstitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me." -D&C 98:5 Only the portions of the Constitution that maintain rights and privileges is justifiable. Obviously slavery falls outside the bounds of this admonition. As an aside, slavery is still legal in the United States: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." -US Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1 2) Congress, through proper authority given it by the Constitution stated in the Coinage Act of April 2, 1792, that a "dollar" of Gold should contain 27grain of Gold and that the Gold ratio to other metals in the coin (because pure Gold is to soft) should be 11 parts pure Gold to 1 part Silver / Copper alloy. Congress was empowered through this Act, and others to have the public be able to present Gold or Silver to be coined for free, or for a nominal fee, have the public receive coin in the value of the metal minus the fee, immediately upon presentation. Over time the supply of Gold / Silver coin expanded, thus preventing the hyper-inflation of Gold / Silver Coin value because of extreme scarcity. This kept the coinage relatively scarce, but not inordinately so. At the same time, Banks were allowed to print bank-notes, at their own risk that were backed in such currency. In a free market, with real money, over time the money will increase in value because of supply issues. The reason Congress was given the power to "regulate the value thereof" was to avoid and catastrophic swing in such worth. As with anything of this nature, it is only so good as the honesty of those elected. For example, in the Coinage Act of 1873 Silver was demonetized. This was unconstitutional and contributed, in large part to the Depression of that time. The advantages of the Gold / Silver standard as mandated by the Constitution are great. One primary advantage is that a few conspiring people would have a very difficult time manipulating the coinage. For example, and in contrast, The Federal Reserve System manipulates our currency on an almost daily basis. If we were on a Gold / Silver standard, this could not be done, unless Congress voted on such changes in a very, very frequent way, which is highly unlikely given the Congressional schedule. In fact, there have only been five Coinage Acts in the United States, and only two of those made any significant changes. See the difference?

1) The Founding Father said so. 2) Graduated Income tax is a tenet of Marxist Communism. Also, there is a good case to be made that the 16th Amendment was NOT properly ratified. For reference work on this read "The Law That Never Was". 3) The primary reason I'm against the 17th Amendment is that the Founders did not establish our government in this manner. Futhermore, it moves us towards Democracy, which is a completely foreign idea to our Constitutional Republic. 4) By Social Services I mean things such as Social Security, MediCaid. Things where funds / services are directly disbursed to citizens. I don't mean things of a "general welfare" scope, like roads or local police / fire. Also, Veteran's would be exempted from this prohibition. Thanks for bringing up stuff to clarify on this point. I can see how it was poorly written. 5) Obviously any level of reasonable government depends upon at least a moderately honest elected representation. If the representatives won't follow their oath of office, we're out of luck, regardless of what "laws" we have. 6) See #4. Again, only for those who had received direct government assistance. I'm not talking about the "general welfare" that we all get. Those who receive direct assistance should not be able to vote to get more of it. 7) Again, thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I mainly am speaking of Federal Funding of Public Education. I agree that it is a National issue to not have segregation and within the proper scope and function of the Federal Government to intervene where such things occur. I would not rescind the GI Bill. 8) If American's wish to visit other lands they can do so at their own risk. If we have persons who have committed crimes in foreign lands we can address requests for extradition on a case by case basis. We don't need trade agreements, we need free trade. NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., have worked to the demise of the American worker / industry. 9) Uh, Anti-US is pretty simple. Action taken against the interest of the United States are "anti-US". The UN has so clearly been against the interests of the United States that it is absurd to remain a member. As Elder Ezra Taft Benson once said, "Let us have no further blind devotion to the Communist dominated United Nations". The UN was founded by Communists, for Communists, and is run today by Communists. 10) Sadly, I don't think either your position, or mine will avoid a coming Nuclear strike on America. Absent that event, I believe we ought to bring our troops home and stay alert here. Let all nations know that an attack on American soil would be foolishness. Thanks again for your comments!

Ummm....Wow.... Uh, Capt. Moroni, et.al, in the scriptures were not American citizens and they predate the existence of the Constitution. Therefore, it is absurd to compare them to us. Furthermore, Moroni did not live in a time when there even was a Doctrine and Covenants that stipulated the "cometh of evil" stipulation on the Constitution that A-Train makes reference to. We MUST as American LDS, DEMAND that our civic leaders obey the Constitution. Anything, anything at all, no exceptions, more or less than the Constitution in this respect, "cometh of evil". Those aren't our words, that's GOD tellin' us how it is...

The First Presidency has stated that the Hill Cummorah in Up-State New York is the Hill Cummorah of the Book of Mormon.

No specifics, with one exception. The Hill Cummorah. We know the precise location of that important Book of Mormon landmark where the bloodiest battle in human history took place.

I don't agree. I think it is appropriate to approach the testable claims of the Book of Mormon as such. For instance, the Hill Cummorah in Up-State New York has been declared by the First Presidency as the same as the one in the Book of Mormon. Given that stance, it is reasonable to ask why there is absolutely no evidence for the massive (largest in known in human history) battles that took place near that location. The bloodiest battle in human history took place there. That is a testable claim.

There is one piece of Book of Mormon geography in the America's that theChurch DOES take a specific stance on. That is the Hill Cummorah in Up-State New York. The First Presidency has stated that the Hill Cummorah in Up-State New York is the same Hill Cummorah as spoken of in the Book of Mormon. Of course, intellectually, this poses profound archeological problems.

I'd love to see the answers to this as well. n/t