Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation

[Jason]

FYI - There is no war on drugs....just a war on the government's competition!

NATO has rejected an appeal made by Russia for eradication of opium fields in Afghanistan, arguing that the sole source of income in the region cannot be removed.

Addressing a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council on Wednesday, head of Russia's Federal Drug Control Agency (FSKN) Victor Ivanov said "Afghan opiates led to the death of 1 million people by overdose in the last 10 years, and that is United Nations data. Is that not a threat to world peace and security?"

Meanwhile, NATO spokesman James Appathurai voiced understanding for Russian concerns, given the country's estimated 200,000 heroin and morphine addicts and the tens of thousands dying each year as a result of their addiction.

However, he went on to say that the Afghan drug problem had to be handled carefully in an effort to avoid alienating local residents.

"We cannot be in a situation where we remove the only source of income for people who live in the second poorest country in the world without being able to provide them an alternative. That is simply not possible," the NATO official explained.

According to statistics provided by Ivanov, Russia was the single largest consumer of heroin in 2008. Moscow blames NATO for the surge in heroin trafficking from Afghanistan to Russia.

The production of opium in Afghanistan has skyrocketing since the US-led invasion of the country in 2001.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=12 ... =351020403

Afghanistan provides roughly 95% of the world's heroin and Columbia provides roughly 85% of the world's cocaine. Both are controlled directly by the US and specifically the CIA. Estimated at $500 billion a year industry. We have half a million troops and private contractors in Afghanistan and we are building 7 new military bases in Columbia.

CIA drug trafficking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking

The CIA's Drug-Trafficking Activities
http://www.serendipity.li/cia.html

ARMITAGE A MAJOR PLAYER

But the real operator in Afghanistan was Richard Armitage, a man whose legend includes being the biggest heroin trafficker in Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War; director of the State Department’s Foreign Narcotics Control Office (a front for CIA drug dealing); head of the Far East Company (used to funnel drug money out of the Golden Triangle); a close liaison with Oliver North during the Iran-Contra cocaine-for-guns scandal; a primary Pentagon official in the terror and covert ops field under George Bush the Elder; one of the original signatories of the infamous PNAC document; and the man who helped CIA Director William Casey run weapons to the mujahideen during their war against the Soviet Union. Armitage was also stationed in Iran during the mid-1970s right before Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the shah. Armitage may well be the greatest covert operator in U.S. history.

On Sept. 10, 2001, Armitage met with the UK’s national security advisor, Sir David Manning. Was Armitage “passing on specific intelligence information about the impending terrorist attacks”? The scenario is plausible because one day later—on 9-11—Dick Cheney directly called for Armitage’s presence down in his bunker. Immediately after WTC 2 was struck, Armitage told BBC Radio, “I was told to go to the operations center [where] I spent the rest of the day in the ops center with the vice president.”

These two share a long history together. Not only was Armitage employed by Cheney’s former company Halliburton (via Brown & Root), he was also a deputy when Cheney was secretary of defense under Bush the Elder. More importantly, Cheney and Armitage had joint business and consulting interests in the Central Asian pipeline which had been contracted by Unocal. The only problem standing between them and the Caspian Sea’s vast energy reserves was the Taliban.

Since the 1980s, Armitage amassed a huge roster of allies in Pakistan’s ISI. He was also one of the “Vulcans”—along with Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Rabbi Dov Zakheim—who coordinated Bush’s geo-strategic foreign policy initiatives. Then, after 9-11, he negotiated with the Pakistanis prior to our invasion of Afghanistan, while also becoming Bush’s deputy secretary of state stationed in Afghanistan.

Our “enemy,” or course, was the Taliban “terrorists.” But George Tenet, Colin Powell, Porter Goss, and Armitage had developed a close relationship with Pakistan’s military head of the ISI—General Mahmoud Ahmad— who was cited in a Sept. 2001 FBI report as “supporting and financing the alleged 9-11 terrorists, as well as having links to al Qaeda and the Taliban.”

The line between friend and foe gets even murkier. Afghan President Hamid Karzai not only collaborated with the Taliban, but he was also on Unocal’s payroll in the mid-1990s. He is also described by Saudi Arabia’s Al-Watan newspaper as being “a Central Intelligence Agency covert operator since the 1980s that collaborated with the CIA in funding U.S. aid to the Taliban.”

Capturing a new, abundant source for heroin was an integral part of the U.S. “war on terror.” Hamid Karzai is a puppet ruler of the CIA; Afghanistan is a full-fledged narco-state; and the poppies that flourish there have yet to be eradicated, as was proven in 2003 when the Bush administration refused to destroy the crops, despite having the chance to do so. Major drug dealers are rarely arrested, smugglers enjoy carte blanche immunity, and Nushin Arbabzadah, writing for The Guardian, theorized that “U.S. Army planes leave Afghanistan carrying coffins empty of bodies, but filled with drugs.” Is that why the military protested so vehemently when reporters tried to photograph returning caskets?

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/11 ... istan.html

Colonel Bo Gritz can tell you loads of stories about Armitage....and blocking/destruction of efforts to get POWs out....along with first hand evidence of heroin involvement with General Khun Sa....

CIA: aka. Contraband Import Agency
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/cia_druglords.htm

The Spoils of War: Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404A.html

NY Times: Afghan Opium Kingpin On CIA Payroll
But exposé serves as little more than a whitewash because it fails to mention decades-long U.S. agenda to support lucrative Golden Crescent drug trade.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ny-times-af ... yroll.html

January 2001 Issue #43:"A People's History of the CIA: The Subversion of Democracy from Australia to Zaire"
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/i ... ssue43.htm

FYI - Articles available from the Table of Contents drop down list at the link above....

[Wiikwajio]

But the owners of Corporation B do not pay for their negligence.

That is the whole point: If you can prove criminal negligence on the part of B, then they deserve NO protection at all, and are liable for every penny.
But, Not all business losses, misfortunes, or even bankruptcy are due to negligence.
If you always risked your house when starting a business, that is not conducive to doing business, even honest business.

Corporations make perfect sense, as long as they are not allowed to shield crime, willful negligence, or fraud.

You are free not to do business with corporations, if you choose, but if you do, you assume that absent of crime, willful negligence or fraud, your collateral does not exceed the assets of the corporation you are dealing with.

Makes perfect sense to me.

(By the way have you heard of the corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints? It makes sense to me too!)

When you get insurance it has costs. Being a Corporation is insurance provided by the government. Corporations, not We the people, should pay for it. If they do not pay for it then it is theft.

I have no problem with Corporations as long as the pay for the costs to society they cause. You seem to have Libertarian beliefs and those are and always will be that the costs of liberty for perverts and drug users and drunk drivers and corporations etc. should never be paid for by those that cause We the People to lose our right as the majority to establish a government that will protect our safety and HAPPINESS.

Libertarians want license not liberty. They want to be able to force their depravity and total lack of love they neighbor skills on society and do it while society has to pick up the cost and pieces they create with their depravities and dangerous acts. They are anarchists and anarchy is worse than tyranny.

[Wiikwajio]

Afghanistan provides roughly 95% of the world's heroin and Columbia provides roughly 85% of the world's cocaine. Both are controlled directly by the US and specifically the CIA. Estimated at $500 billion a year industry. We have half a million troops and private contractors in Afghanistan and we are building 7 new military bases in Columbia.

Like we always used to say in High School. If you want to buy the REALLY good drugs you have to get them from a Cop.

[LoveIsTruth]

Being a Corporation is insurance provided by the government. Corporations, not We the people, should pay for it. If they do not pay for it then it is theft.

Being a Corporation is a voluntary contract, which says that if you deal with the corporation your collateral is limited by the assets of the corporation (absent of fraud, crime or willful negligence). The government simply enforces the voluntary contract; that is the whole role of the government (provided the contract is fair and honest).

I have no problem with Corporations as long as the pay for the costs to society they cause.

The cost to the society is born by the parties that deal with corporations. It is a voluntary arrangement, you do not have to deal with them if you don’t want to).

You seem to have Libertarian beliefs and those are and always will be that the costs of liberty for perverts and drug users and drunk drivers and corporations etc. should never be paid for by those that cause We the People to lose our right as the majority to establish a government that will protect our safety and HAPPINESS.

I think the problem here is the definition of the term "Libertarian." I believe in INDIVIDUAL rights and responsibility. You are free to do with your property as you please, as long as you do not violate the property of others. If that is libertarian, then I am libertarian, and so were the Founders. This idea of private property is the most fundamental principle of liberty. It is an eternal principle without which liberty in this world or in the next is quite impossible.

Now, ultimately, all belongs to God. But even he gives people opportunity to be wrong. The Benson principle of which you spoke earlier, is the true criteria for what government can and cannot do: With regards to private property, if you as an individual have no moral right to do something, you cannot delegate it to your government to do it for you; because the only just authority the government has is what you as individual yourself have and delegated to the government to do in your behalf. If you have no right to do it, the government cannot do it. It is a true principle of self government, a principle God expects you to follow.

[Jason]

FYI - There is no war on drugs....just a war on the government's competition!

NATO has rejected an appeal made by Russia for eradication of opium fields in Afghanistan, arguing that the sole source of income in the region cannot be removed.

Addressing a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council on Wednesday, head of Russia's Federal Drug Control Agency (FSKN) Victor Ivanov said "Afghan opiates led to the death of 1 million people by overdose in the last 10 years, and that is United Nations data. Is that not a threat to world peace and security?"

Meanwhile, NATO spokesman James Appathurai voiced understanding for Russian concerns, given the country's estimated 200,000 heroin and morphine addicts and the tens of thousands dying each year as a result of their addiction.

However, he went on to say that the Afghan drug problem had to be handled carefully in an effort to avoid alienating local residents.

"We cannot be in a situation where we remove the only source of income for people who live in the second poorest country in the world without being able to provide them an alternative. That is simply not possible," the NATO official explained.

According to statistics provided by Ivanov, Russia was the single largest consumer of heroin in 2008. Moscow blames NATO for the surge in heroin trafficking from Afghanistan to Russia.

The production of opium in Afghanistan has skyrocketing since the US-led invasion of the country in 2001.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=12 ... =351020403

Afghanistan provides roughly 95% of the world's heroin and Columbia provides roughly 85% of the world's cocaine. Both are controlled directly by the US and specifically the CIA. Estimated at $500 billion a year industry. We have half a million troops and private contractors in Afghanistan and we are building 7 new military bases in Columbia.

CIA drug trafficking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking

The CIA's Drug-Trafficking Activities
http://www.serendipity.li/cia.html

ARMITAGE A MAJOR PLAYER

But the real operator in Afghanistan was Richard Armitage, a man whose legend includes being the biggest heroin trafficker in Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War; director of the State Department’s Foreign Narcotics Control Office (a front for CIA drug dealing); head of the Far East Company (used to funnel drug money out of the Golden Triangle); a close liaison with Oliver North during the Iran-Contra cocaine-for-guns scandal; a primary Pentagon official in the terror and covert ops field under George Bush the Elder; one of the original signatories of the infamous PNAC document; and the man who helped CIA Director William Casey run weapons to the mujahideen during their war against the Soviet Union. Armitage was also stationed in Iran during the mid-1970s right before Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the shah. Armitage may well be the greatest covert operator in U.S. history.

On Sept. 10, 2001, Armitage met with the UK’s national security advisor, Sir David Manning. Was Armitage “passing on specific intelligence information about the impending terrorist attacks”? The scenario is plausible because one day later—on 9-11—Dick Cheney directly called for Armitage’s presence down in his bunker. Immediately after WTC 2 was struck, Armitage told BBC Radio, “I was told to go to the operations center [where] I spent the rest of the day in the ops center with the vice president.”

These two share a long history together. Not only was Armitage employed by Cheney’s former company Halliburton (via Brown & Root), he was also a deputy when Cheney was secretary of defense under Bush the Elder. More importantly, Cheney and Armitage had joint business and consulting interests in the Central Asian pipeline which had been contracted by Unocal. The only problem standing between them and the Caspian Sea’s vast energy reserves was the Taliban.

Since the 1980s, Armitage amassed a huge roster of allies in Pakistan’s ISI. He was also one of the “Vulcans”—along with Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Rabbi Dov Zakheim—who coordinated Bush’s geo-strategic foreign policy initiatives. Then, after 9-11, he negotiated with the Pakistanis prior to our invasion of Afghanistan, while also becoming Bush’s deputy secretary of state stationed in Afghanistan.

Our “enemy,” or course, was the Taliban “terrorists.” But George Tenet, Colin Powell, Porter Goss, and Armitage had developed a close relationship with Pakistan’s military head of the ISI—General Mahmoud Ahmad— who was cited in a Sept. 2001 FBI report as “supporting and financing the alleged 9-11 terrorists, as well as having links to al Qaeda and the Taliban.”

The line between friend and foe gets even murkier. Afghan President Hamid Karzai not only collaborated with the Taliban, but he was also on Unocal’s payroll in the mid-1990s. He is also described by Saudi Arabia’s Al-Watan newspaper as being “a Central Intelligence Agency covert operator since the 1980s that collaborated with the CIA in funding U.S. aid to the Taliban.”

Capturing a new, abundant source for heroin was an integral part of the U.S. “war on terror.” Hamid Karzai is a puppet ruler of the CIA; Afghanistan is a full-fledged narco-state; and the poppies that flourish there have yet to be eradicated, as was proven in 2003 when the Bush administration refused to destroy the crops, despite having the chance to do so. Major drug dealers are rarely arrested, smugglers enjoy carte blanche immunity, and Nushin Arbabzadah, writing for The Guardian, theorized that “U.S. Army planes leave Afghanistan carrying coffins empty of bodies, but filled with drugs.” Is that why the military protested so vehemently when reporters tried to photograph returning caskets?

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/11 ... istan.html

Colonel Bo Gritz can tell you loads of stories about Armitage....and blocking/destruction of efforts to get POWs out....along with first hand evidence of heroin involvement with General Khun Sa....

CIA: aka. Contraband Import Agency
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/cia_druglords.htm

The Spoils of War: Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404A.html

NY Times: Afghan Opium Kingpin On CIA Payroll
But exposé serves as little more than a whitewash because it fails to mention decades-long U.S. agenda to support lucrative Golden Crescent drug trade.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ny-times-af ... yroll.html

January 2001 Issue #43:"A People's History of the CIA: The Subversion of Democracy from Australia to Zaire"
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/i ... ssue43.htm

FYI - Articles available from the Table of Contents drop down list at the link above....

U.S. Turns a Blind Eye to Opium in Afghan Town

KABUL, Afghanistan — The effort to win over Afghans on former Taliban turf in Marja has put American and NATO commanders in the unusual position of arguing against opium eradication, pitting them against some Afghan officials who are pushing to destroy the harvest.

From Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal on down, the military’s position is clear: “U.S. forces no longer eradicate,” as one NATO official put it. Opium is the main livelihood of 60 to 70 percent of the farmers in Marja, which was seized from Taliban rebels in a major offensive last month. American Marines occupying the area are under orders to leave the farmers’ fields alone.

“Marja is a special case right now,” said Cmdr. Jeffrey Eggers, a member of the general’s Strategic Advisory Group, his top advisory body. “We don’t trample the livelihood of those we’re trying to win over.”

United Nations drug officials agree with the Americans, though they acknowledge the conundrum. Pictures of NATO and other allied soldiers “walking next to the opium fields won’t go well with domestic audiences, but the approach of postponing eradicating in this particular case is a sensible one,” said Jean-Luc Lemahieu, who is in charge of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime here.

Afghan officials, however, are divided. Though some support the American position, others, citing a constitutional ban on opium cultivation, want to plow the fields under before the harvest, which has already begun in parts of Helmand Province.

“How can we allow the world to see lawful forces in charge of Marja next to fields full of opium, which one way or another will be harvested and turned into a poison that kills people all over the world?” said Zulmai Afzali, the spokesman for the Afghan Ministry of Counternarcotics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/world ... marja.html

[Wiikwajio]

Being a Corporation is a voluntary contract, which says that if you deal with the corporation your collateral is limited by the assets of the corporation (absent of fraud, crime or willful negligence). The government simply enforces the voluntary contract; that is the whole role of the government (provided the contract is fair and honest).

It creates cost for WE the People. If you do not understand this just look at the bailouts. All of the costs of corporations are not known in advance but we do know from history that corporations are more dangerous than standing armies. If you choose to ignore history then that is your problem but your theories will forever be wrong if you do not look at history and learn from it.

I think the problem here is the definition of the term "Libertarian." I believe in INDIVIDUAL rights and responsibility. You are free to do with your property as you please, as long as you do not violate the property of others.

Can you name 15 ways that you can violate the property of others without trespassing on that property. I can. I can name 100. And the Declaration of Independence is clear that it is not just damage to another property that can justify stopping what others are doing. Law can be established to protect the happiness of the majority.

If that is libertarian, then I am libertarian, and so were the Founders. This idea of private property is the most fundamental principle of liberty. It is an eternal principle without which liberty in this world or in the next is quite impossible.

If is Libertarian. It is poorly thought out and does not include the lessons of history. It is a pipe dream that has never worked and will never work. It forgets the influence of the religion of the majority and the culture of the people. It allows for the minority to intimidate and harass the majority without allowing for the majority to have recourse.

Do you have any actual experience in government or are you just placing your theories here on line?

, ultimately, all belongs to God. But even he gives people opportunity to be wrong. The Benson principle of which you spoke earlier, is the true criteria for what government can and cannot do: With regards to private property, if you as an individual have no moral right to do something, you cannot delegate it to your government to do it for you; because the only just authority the government has is what you as individual yourself have and delegated to the government to do in your behalf. If you have no right to do it, the government cannot do it. It is a true principle of self government, a principle God expects you to follow.

I have the right of self-defense. I have the right to establish a government that will best effect my happiness.

Can you name all the rights I have given to me by God? Do you know what sovereignty even is? Did you know that a sovereign has the right to declare war? How about if I declare war on your private property because I don't like the color you painted your barn? You do realize that I, as a sovereign, have that right? Therefore I can delegate that right. And if I could not then the U.S. could not declare war.

Libertarian thinking FAILS to consider these FACTS. It is why it is a total failure. Has never worked. Will never work and is one of the worst forms of government ever promoted and is only promoted by people that do not understand history or sovereignty or any thing about how government works and fails.

[LoveIsTruth]

It creates cost for WE the People.

The cost is justly born by the parties who voluntarily entered into a contract to deal with corporations.

If you do not understand this just look at the bailouts.

Bailouts are an example of government overstepping its authority and committing plunder and actually violating contracts rather than upholding them. This is not the fault of corporations as such but of corrupt government.

we do know from history that corporations are more dangerous than standing armies.

Are you paraphrasing Jefferson, where he spoke of banking institutions having power to counterfeit? That is more dangerous than standing armies, not corporations per say. There is nothing inherently evil in the idea of corporation. By this logic you can say that people are more dangerous than standing armies.

If you choose to ignore history then that is your problem but your theories will forever be wrong if you do not look at history and learn from it.

The history unmistakably shows that it is banking institutions and the government when given power to counterfeit a nations currency will destroy that nation.

Can you name 15 ways that you can violate the property of others without trespassing on that property. I can. I can name 100.

I can't, please enlighten me.

And the Declaration of Independence is clear that it is not just damage to another property that can justify stopping what others are doing.

I am not aware of any such language in the Declaration of Independence.

Law can be established to protect the happiness of the majority.

Be careful with that logic. Statements like that often were used to plunder and enslave the minority for the "benefit" of the majority. I have learned that there is only one thing that truly ensures the prosperity of the majority, and that is sacred respect for the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, for majority is NOTHING but a collection of INDIVIDUALS. By destroying the INDIVIDUAL you are destroying the collective, only one person at a time…

It is poorly thought out and does not include the lessons of history.

Please, enlighten me again!

It is a pipe dream that has never worked and will never work.

In my opinion, it is the only thing that ever worked or ever will. I give you John Adams:

• "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."
  -- John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787

Truer words were never spoken!

It forgets the influence of the religion of the majority and the culture of the people.

These principles of private property are a sacred and indispensable part of a true religion. It is the very foundation of liberty!

It allows for the minority to intimidate and harass the majority without allowing for the majority to have recourse.

Are you talking about corporations intimidating and robbing people? If yes, corporations like people should answer for their crimes! But it does not mean that corporations are evil in and of themselves, just like it doesn't mean that people are evil in and of themselves!

Do you have any actual experience in government or are you just placing your theories here on line?

I studied carefully the principles of Liberty, without which no nation can ever be free. And yes, I am placing them here on line.

I have the right of self-defense.

That you do.

I have the right to establish a government that will best effect my happiness.

Unless, of course, your "happiness" is built on plundering and enslaving someone else by the force of the government you create.

Do you know what sovereignty even is?

Sovereignty is the idea of self-ownership, and also of property ownership (when you come justly in possession of it). We are born with it. It is a gift of God to man. It is akin with agency and self-determination.

Did you know that a sovereign has the right to declare war?

You have a right only to self defensive war to protect your life, liberty and property and none else.
Sovereignty does not absolve you from responsibility for your actions. If you infringe on the rights and property of others, that is where your liberty ends and justice has it's sway!

How about if I declare war on your private property because I don't like the color you painted your barn? You do realize that I, as a sovereign, have that right? Therefore I can delegate that right. And if I could not then the U.S. could not declare war.

You have no right to infringe upon the rights and property of others, and you certainly cannot delegate a right you do not have. Again, the only war justified by God is to preserve your life, liberty and property, and nothing else.

Libertarian thinking FAILS to consider these FACTS.

On the contrary. I just considered them for you!

It is why it is a total failure. Has never worked. Will never work and is one of the worst forms of government ever promoted and is only promoted by people that do not understand history or sovereignty or any thing about how government works and fails.

It is the only system that makes any sense. It is the foundation of the Constitution of the United States. It is the ideal of the Founders. It is reasserted in the Scripture of truth. It is the only system that does work, ever worked, or ever will work.

Cheers!

[ithink]

I like your last sentence, but you still do not understand.

Can you point out an error or a flaw in my resining? I thought I was being logical.

Thanks.

What I'm trying to say is there are more ideas you need to get in your head that I cannot put there in a forum. A lot of what you say is reasonable but misdirected and faulty based on not enough information for you to come up with the right answers. My post was an effort to share what I have learned, but I like Aristotle, cannot make you learn nor can you learn what you need to learn by cruising Utube or by posting on and off at an online forum. If you are not offended, take the time from your busy schedule to read the book I referenced.

[Wiikwajio]

You have no right to infringe upon the rights and property of others, and you certainly cannot delegate a right you do not have. Again, the only war justified by God is to preserve your life, liberty and property, and nothing else.

Really? So the Nephites had no rights to infringe on the property of the Lamanites? The Lamanites claimed all the land the Nephites were on. Who decides who owns what?

I guess Joshua had no right to invade and slaughter what was to become Israel. Moses freed the property of the Pharaoh took them out of Egypt.

Since the Revolutionary war was all about taking away the lands of the King of England I must suppose you abhor the American Revolution too? All the lands in the American colonies were owned by the King of England. Should we give back all the lands the United States stole from the Indians. And what legal right did the Indians have to this land anyway?

Once again you ignore history.

It creates cost for WE the People.

The cost is justly born by the parties who voluntarily entered into a contract to deal with corporations.

Those costs are paid in taxes and fees established by the government. Were you not aware of that? Governments establish those prices, taxes and fees.They have the power to establish any rate they want to.

we do know from history that corporations are more dangerous than standing armies.

you paraphrasing Jefferson, where he spoke of banking institutions having power to counterfeit? That is more dangerous than standing armies, not corporations per say. There is nothing inherently evil in the idea of corporation. By this logic you can say that people are more dangerous than standing armies.

I am observing history. And yes. I knew the quote by Jefferson but since then I have observed how unchecked corporations destroy the liberty of We the People and therefore we have the right to defend against these creations of the government We the People created.

A corporation cannot be imprisoned or killed in the same manner as a man. They have privileges granted by the creation of We the People. Those privileges can be taken away at any time by We the People as an act of self-defense and for other reasons.

Jefferson wrote and signed with John Adams and Ben Franklin and Sam Adams:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I have learned that the system established by those men has become destructive of the God given rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Therefore we have the right to establish a from of government that will best effect our safety and happiness.

Corporations, and not just banking corporations, are dangerous to freedom. Individuals with too much wealth are dangerous to liberty and negatively effect the happiness of We the People. Since the old system helped to established bailouts and corporate welfare and the enslavement of the average American into being forced, in many cases, to work for huge corporations that reduce wages to the point of starvation like the old Company Stores, We the People have the right to establish a tax system that will control this threat to our liberties.

Can you name 15 ways that you can violate the property of others without trespassing on that property. I can. I can name 100.

I can't, please enlighten me.

Why? I just wanted to know if you understood the principle of how easy it is to harm or violate another man's property. I see from your words that you do not have a clue. This is common among Libertarians. It is why they cannot conceive of the true nature of property ownership and how property values can be destroyed without any visual evidence.

And the Declaration of Independence is clear that it is not just damage to another property that can justify stopping what others are doing.

I am not aware of any such language in the Declaration of Independence.

Yes. That is obvious.

Law can be established to protect the happiness of the majority.

Be careful with that logic. Statements like that often were used to plunder and enslave the minority for the "benefit" of the majority. I have learned that there is only one thing that truly ensures the prosperity of the majority, and that is sacred respect for the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, for majority is NOTHING but a collection of INDIVIDUALS. By destroying the INDIVIDUAL you are destroying the collective, only one person at a time…

I am very careful of that thinking. I am also aware that a vocal irritating lawless minority can destroy the "happiness" of the majority. If the government will not stop such infringements upon the rights of the majority then it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Get it clear in your mind that the majority has the right to defend itself against a minority that negatively effects its happiness. On the other hand the minority has the right to rebel but if they lose there are consequences. If you cannot bare to take those consequences then you had best not rebel.

It is poorly thought out and does not include the lessons of history.

Please, enlighten me again!

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. You can read history all by yourself. Everything I say is there for those who seek the truth. I would recommend the Avalon project by Yale University and the Book of Mormon and the Bible as good sources. Perhaps a study on the writings concerning the Prophet Joshua would help.

It is a pipe dream that has never worked and will never work.

In my opinion, it is the only thing that ever worked or ever will. I give you John Adams:

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."
-- John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787

And this was said AFTER he had helped to steal all the colonies from the King of England who was the previous owner because he purchased them from the Indians or simple took the land depending on your point of view. All property was owned by the King. The traitorous Americans stole it or they just took what God gave them. If the King owned then they stole it. If God owned then there is no private property and any man that claims God decreed he should possess the land has a claim to that land as valid as any other man that makes the same claim.

It allows for the minority to intimidate and harass the majority without allowing for the majority to have recourse.

Are you talking about corporations intimidating and robbing people? If yes, corporations like people should answer for their crimes! But it does not mean that corporations are evil in and of themselves, just like it doesn't mean that people are evil in and of themselves!

Corporations never answer for their crimes. They are fictions. They feel no guilt or punishment. They are creations of the government and can be taxed to death just because the government created them. They are creations of people so that they can avoid the consequences of their actions. They limit liability.

And I was not writing about corporations specifically. I was writing about individuals that intimidate and harass the majority. Gay rights groups that want the government to allow them to be married. Drug users that want drugs to be legalized. (I am in that group). Pornography peddlers that seek to place their products on every corner. Mormons that want to have polygamy and the United Order instead of monogamy and a free market system. Muslims how want all to worship Allah or be wiped from the earth. Nudists that want to go out in public naked. Peeping Toms that wish to use electronic surveillance and telephoto lenses to take away the privacy of others. Exhibitionists that seek to commit public sex acts. Miners how want to strip mine without paying the costs to those people that may come after them. Loggers that cut down whole forests for a profit and in doing so change the weather of the world or even just the scenery of the area which devalues the property of the people in the area without any obvious trespass. All of these can effect the happiness of We the People. We the People, therefore, have the right to establish a government that will work to keep those minorities from doing what they want. We have the right of self-defense.

Do you have any actual experience in government or are you just placing your theories here on line?

I studied carefully the principles of Liberty, without which no nation can ever be free. And yes, I am placing them here on line.

So you have no practical experience. That was obvious. Have you studied what happened to the lofty principles of Washington, Adams and Jefferson when they had to be President instead of what they said as they were stealing the King's property? Perhaps, since you quoted John Adams as your hero you should read the history concerning the unconstitutional Alien Sedition Acts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

Then come back and tell me how John Adams was a supporter of individual rights.

[

I have the right to establish a government that will best effect my happiness.

[

, of course, your "happiness" is built on plundering and enslaving someone else by the force of the government you create.

Could you please show me that limitation in the Declaration of Independence written by a slave owner and signed by other slave owners that were also men that did not believe women or Indians or even freed Negroes had the right to vote and also did not allow non-Protestants to vote or be elected in most states.

Once again you ignore history.

Did you know that a sovereign has the right to declare war?

[quote="LoveIsTruth] "You have a right only to self defensive war to protect your life, liberty and property and none else. Sovereignty does not absolve you from responsibility for your actions. If you infringe on the rights and property of others, that is where your liberty ends and justice has it's sway!

[/quote]

So Joshua could not invade what was to become Israel. Americans could not take the land from the land's owner, the king of England? The USA was not allowed to wipe out and taken the land of the Indians that were supporting King George?

The USA is not allowed to attack Germany in WWI or WWII?

The USA was not allowed to declare war on Spain?

The USA could not invade Mexico and take California, Nevada, Arizona etc. with the help of the Mormon Battalion?

You are a lot like John Adams before he became President without, of course, the actual experiences he had in stealing the king's property, assisting in the failed invasion of Canada and giving only Christians the right to equal protections. He would not have liked a cultist polytheist polygamist Mormon like yourself.

"And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law."Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780 AD

You would not have even been allowed to run for governor if you were a Jew or a Muslim or an Atheist. Nope. They did not believe in or allow freedom of religion in John Adam's home State.

Art. II. The governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; and unless he shall, at the same time, be seized, in his own right, of a freehold, within the commonwealth, of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

"I, A.B., do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected."

By the way...that Constitution was drafted by John Adams, Samuel Adams, and James Bowdoin during the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention.

What was that quote you had from Johnny boy? Oh yes: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."

And he enforced his belief by not allowing non-Christians to hold office. Seems kind of an empty quote now, does it not?

But I did not quote the best part yet:

Art. III. As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffcused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of the public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, To promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

[LoveIsTruth]

Really? So the Nephites had no rights to infringe on the property of the Lamanites? The Lamanites claimed all the land the Nephites were on. Who decides who owns what?

I guess Joshua had no right to invade and slaughter what was to become Israel. Moses freed the property of the Pharaoh took them out of Egypt.

As I pointed out previously all things belong to God. God gave land to the Nephites and to Moses and dispossessed and drove out and destroyed the nations who previously owned it. Since it is his, he can do with it as He pleases.

Now you say that anyone can make a claim that God gave them something, and who then is right? Obviously God does not contradict himself and would not create contradictory claims to land. So if two nations claim that God gave them the land one of them is wrong. Which one? That's the question, isn't it? Well I believe in the prophets of God and in what they say in the authority of their calling as mouthpieces of God. "Whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants it is the same." So, now we have to identify which prophets are truly the spokesmen for God. I believe and know that Moses, Nephi, and Joseph Smith were true prophets of God. Therefore the claims to land they made in the name of the Lord I take to be true.
Other people may disagree. But it is an age old predicament of people not following the true prophets or even the true God. How is it then to be decided? Ultimately it will be decided by power, even the power of God. I do not say that worldly might makes right. No. But God's power will make right. And would be pretenders and tyrants, who justify their oppression by claiming that God gave them the right to rule will be thrown down in God's own time.

Since the Revolutionary war was all about taking away the lands of the King of England I must suppose you abhor the American Revolution too? All the lands in the American colonies were owned by the King of England. Should we give back all the lands the United States stole from the Indians. And what legal right did the Indians have to this land anyway?

What does the Book of Mormon say on the subject?

1 Ne. 13:14 -19

• 13 And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters.
  14 And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.
  15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.
  16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.
  17 And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them.
  18 And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.
  19 And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.

So, as you can see God indeed gave this land to the colonist and dispossessed the native inhabitants (at least for a time) and the king of England (forever).

So argue your case to God, whose land it is.

That's why George Washington and the colonist where able to prevail against the mightiest military power on earth, because God was with them.

I knew the quote by Jefferson but since then I have observed how unchecked corporations destroy the liberty of We the People and therefore we have the right to defend against these

You are right. If corporations commit crimes and destroy liberty they must be punished.

A corporation cannot be imprisoned or killed in the same manner as a man. They have privileges granted by the creation of We the People. Those privileges can be taken away at any time by We the People as an act of self-defense and for other reasons.

When corporations commit crimes there remains no more immunity for the individuals who control these corporations. These individuals must be brought to justice without any cover of corporate privilege. As I stated repeatedly, the individuals in control of corporations are entitled to protection of their personal (non-corporate) property only in case of honest business loss, NOT in case of crime, fraud, or willful negligence. If such crimes exist, the individuals that control the corporations are liable for every penny they own, and for their lives and liberty as common criminals would be.

But absent of crime corporations must be protected in their rights, just as the people who own them. By unjustly oppressing corporations you oppress the people.

I have learned that the system established by those men [Founding Fathers] has become destructive of the God given rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Therefore we have the right to establish a from of government that will best effect our safety and happiness.

It is not the system that was established by the Founders that has become destructive of the God given rights, but willful neglect of that system by our present government. Constitution was not perfect, but it was inspired. If we followed it today, we would not have the majority of the problems we face. (Sound money, for one, is demanded in the Constitution but is ignored by the present government.)

Corporations, and not just banking corporations, are dangerous to freedom.

As I said before, there is nothing inherently evil about corporations, just like there is nothing inherently evil in man if he does justice.

Individuals with too much wealth are dangerous to liberty and negatively effect the happiness of We the People.

God is an individual, and he owns all. However great the wealth an individual possesses, it is his right to have, as long as he obtained it honestly and honorably and commits no crime.

Since the old system helped to established bailouts and corporate welfare and the enslavement of the average American into being forced, in many cases, to work for huge corporations that reduce wages to the point of starvation like the old Company Stores, We the People have the right to establish a tax system that will control this threat to our liberties.

As I said before, bailouts are theft, and the government had no right to do them. Therefore both the government that did the bailouts and the corporations which received the stolen wealth should be subject to the proceedings of justice, and should answer for this crime.

But if there is no crime involved, I don't believe that any one has the right to tell a corporation how much to pay it's employees. And again, by unjustly taxing and oppressing corporations you tax and oppress the people.

As for John Adams, he was no saint, but the quote of his I gave, is just as true. Truth is truth, whether it is found in heaven or in hell, you are obligated to accept it.

You can stop exhibitionist and pornographers in public places through property rights. Property rights are your friend, not your enemy. It is the fundamental concept of liberty.

Have you studied what happened to the lofty principles of Washington, Adams and Jefferson when they had to be President

We are duty bound to uphold just, true and holy principles, regardless of the faults of mortal men. This is how God will judge you in the end.

The USA is not allowed to attack Germany in WWI or WWII?

USA had no business to be in WWI, and for that matter in large part in WWII. Haven't you heard, War is a racket!

[Wiikwajio]

Which one? That's the question, isn't it? Well I believe in the prophets of God and in what they say in the authority of their calling as mouthpieces of God. "Whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants it is the same." So, now we have to identify which prophets are truly the spokesmen for God. I believe and know that Moses, Nephi, and Joseph Smith were true prophets of God. Therefore the claims to land they made in the name of the Lord I take to be true.

Moses was not allowed to go into Israel. Was he a false prophet? The Nephites were wiped out. Joseph Smith was murdered. The Saints were chased out of Missouri, Illinois and Iowa. The Saints were forced to capitulate to U.S. Federal Government. Yes. The lands belong to God so that means the Lamanites were blessed by God and had the right to the land and they took it. The Saints obviously had no right to stay in Missouri, Illinois or Iowa and the Saints were not allowed to have polygamy or the United Order even though both were to be an everlasting principles. Did I get those right?

Queen Liliuokalani must also have been wicked and the U.S. blessed of God when the U.S. stole Queen Liliuokalani's land [Hawai'i] too. It that prophesied in the Book of Mormon? And Great Britain must have been blessed by God when they conquered India? And of course Lenin was blessed of God to defeat the Czar and Mao was blessed of God to murder 100,000,000 Chinese. The Japanese must have been blessed by God to defeat China at first and then God blessed the Americans so they could drop an A-Bomb on women and children after Japan had already asked for terms of surrender?

Did I get that right? Whoever wins has God's approval so there really is no reason to ever take up arms. Is there? Just sit back and let God take care of all these problems. Rights? Or is God to weak to do it without our help?

Since the Revolutionary war was all about taking away the lands of the King of England I must suppose you abhor the American Revolution too?

Ne. 13:14 -19
So, as you can see God indeed gave this land to the colonist and dispossessed the native inhabitants (at least for a time) and the king of England (forever).

But the Founding Fathers did not have the Book of Mormon. Therefore that could not be their justification. Under your beliefs what was their justification for taking the land of the king? Are you claiming that whoever wins is the righteous party blessed by God? I guess that King Noah was more righteous and blessed by God than Abinadi? Or am I failing to understand your justifications? He who wins has God's support?

So argue your case to God, whose land it is.

Moroni did not argue his case to God. He picked up his sword and killed the King-men. His son must not have been as righteous as his father since he lost Zarahemla not long after that. But I guess Captain Moroni really was not very righteous since he had to fight all those battles. Moronihah was given Zarahemla and many other cities without a fight. Or maybe God just likes to play with us?

That's why George Washington and the colonist where able to prevail against the mightiest military power on earth, because God was with them.

So when the USA was defeated in Vietnam God must have been on the side of the Communists? After all the mightiest military power on earth in 1972 was the USA. Are you claiming God supported the Communist?

I knew the quote by Jefferson but since then I have observed how unchecked corporations destroy the liberty of We the People and therefore we have the right to defend against these

You are right. If corporations commit crimes and destroy liberty they must be punished.

A corporation need not commit a crime to be a threat or to keep the people from happiness. That is the point. You do not wait for the corporation to rape the land and civilization any more than you wait for the mugger to rape your wife in the street. You act in advance knowing how dangerous corporations are or you are too late to avoid the consequences. Punishment comes after the damage has occurred. Self-defense does not have to wait until you are harmed or killed. You just have to believe there is a credible threat. Huge Corporations are a credible threat.

America was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. Whether or not the Traitor Roosevelt knew this makes no difference to this discussion. A country that is threatened has the right to stop that threat. WE could have attacked the Japanese fleet before they attacked. Or are you claiming the USA hard to wait until we were attacked to stop the Japanese attack. After all, until the Japanese bombers crossed into the Lord's airspace that the USA had stolen by God's will from Queen Liliuokalani there was not crime.

Corporations are a threat by their mere existence. You seem to believe that people must wait to be harmed before they can act. Is that what you are claiming?

]When corporations commit crimes there remains no more immunity for the individuals who control these corporations. These individuals must be brought to justice without any cover of corporate privilege. As I stated repeatedly, the individuals in control of corporations are entitled to protection of their personal (non-corporate) property only in case of honest business loss, NOT in case of crime, fraud, or willful negligence. If such crimes exist, the individuals that control the corporations are liable for every penny they own, and for their lives and liberty as common criminals would be.

When you come face to face with the reality that the only people that ever go to prison when a corporation commits a crime are when the corporations steals from the rich. The poor will eternally suffer under the hand of the rich unless something is done in advance to end the threat. We the People cannot allow corporations to get too large any more than we can allow government to get too large.

Do you favor limited government? Why? If you do not favor limited government then you can argue that you do not favor limited corporations. But if you favor limited government then your arguments fail if you believe corporations cannot also be limited. You currently are taking the position that We the People can limit government (a corporation) and yet we cannot limit capitalist corporations. Your arguments die for lack of consistency.

So absent of crime corporations must be protected in their rights, just as the people who own them. By unjustly oppressing corporations you oppress the people.

So absent a crime government cannot be limited? And corporations do not have rights. They have privileges that can be taken from them by the very government that gave them life. For some reason that lacks all reason you support unlimited powers to corporation so that they are to be treated better than humans. Why?

I have learned that the system established by those men [Founding Fathers] has become destructive of the God given rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Therefore we have the right to establish a from of government that will best effect our safety and happiness.

It is not the system that was established by the Founders that has become destructive of the God given rights, but willful neglect of that system by our present government.

But it must be what God wanted so it is okay. Right? After all those powerful corporation with their unlimited power you support changed the system we have so they must have been supported and blessed by God according to your rules. The property they control belongs to God? Is God on vacation?

"The [corporations] where able to prevail against the {We the People], because God was with them"? That is your argument above, is it not?

Constitution was not perfect, but it was inspired. If we followed it today, we would not have the majority of the problems we face. (Sound money, for one, is demanded in the Constitution but is ignored by the present government.)

So God must have not wanted it followed because He is in charge and we would have won the war like Washington did if God had been on our side but instead we have been enslaved since 1913 by Corporations.

Corporations, and not just banking corporations, are dangerous to freedom.

As I said before, there is nothing inherently evil about corporations, just like there is nothing inherently evil in man if he does justice.

That is like saying there is nothing inherently evil about Communism or Socialism or Fascism. By their fruit ye shall know them and huge corporations oppress people, historically.

Individuals with too much wealth are dangerous to liberty and negatively effect the happiness of We the People.

God is an individual, and he owns all. However great the wealth an individual possesses, it is his right to have, as long as he obtained it honestly and honorably and commits no crime.

No. He is not. The government can take away the wealth of a man under the constitution by Eminent domain. The government decides what is legal and what is not legal so a man's fortune can be taken away at any time. No man is allowed to be a threat and too much wealth is always a threat to the average man. The General Welfare is to be protected.

Since the old system helped to established bailouts and corporate welfare and the enslavement of the average American into being forced, in many cases, to work for huge corporations that reduce wages to the point of starvation like the old Company Stores, We the People have the right to establish a tax system that will control this threat to our liberties.

As I said before, bailouts are theft, and the government had no right to do them. Therefore both the government that did the bailouts and the corporations which received the stolen wealth should be subject to the proceedings of justice, and should answer for this crime.

They are not theft, according to your standards if God approves of that theft (Nephi stealing the Brass plates, Founding Fathers stealing the kings land, etc. And according to your examples you can tell if God approves by the side that gets the property. Therefore the bailouts are not theft. They are just God giving His property to those that rightfully deserve it. Now I disagree with this belief but that is exactly what you are promoting. I don't know why except that you refuse to learn from history.

As for John Adams, he was no saint, but the quote of his I gave, is just as true. Truth is truth, whether it is found in heaven or in hell, you are obligated to accept it.

Really? That is not what the scriptures say:

Matt. 7: 7 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

So was Adams a good tree or a corrupt tree? If corrupt then his statement is corrupt and if a good tree then he was right about the Alien Sedition Act. Right? Or was Christ wrong?

You can stop exhibitionist and pornographers in public places through property rights. Property rights are your friend, not your enemy. It is the fundamental concept of liberty.

So we can stop anyone from anything with property rights. We can stop corporations from having "obscene" profits? Please explain how.

Have you studied what happened to the lofty principles of Washington, Adams and Jefferson when they had to be President

We are duty bound to uphold just, true and holy principles, regardless of the faults of mortal men. This is how God will judge you in the end.

Do you pay income taxes? Is that a just, true and holy principle? Is Social Security a just, true and holy principle?
Do you have a Social Security card? If the Founding Fathers were justified somehow by a prophesy in the Book of Mormon that was not yet translated, in going to war over a 2% tax. So why are you not justified in going to war over a 40% tax? Or are you afraid that God will not support you because your cause is not just? I don't have a SSN nor do I file a 1040 or pay an income tax. Is that because God supports my efforts?

The USA is not allowed to attack Germany in WWI or WWII?

The USA had no business to be in WWI, and for that matter in large part in WWII. Haven't you heard, War is a racket!

But we won? God must have justified it. Right? We ended up with their land after all. So why do you claim we had no business to be in WWI? After all Germany had the mightiest military on the earth when we declared war on them as is authorized in the God inspired Constitution you claim to support. Are you claiming God did not support our efforts? Then how did we win?

[LoveIsTruth]

The majority of what you say has to do with the fact that you completely ignored my following words in the previous post:

How is it then to be decided? Ultimately it will be decided by power, even the power of God. I do not say that worldly might makes right. No. But God's power will make right. And would be pretenders and tyrants, who justify their oppression by claiming that God gave them the right to rule will be thrown down in God's own time.

If you did not understand this, I will be happy to explain.

God gives his children certain power to see what they will do with it. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other bloody dictators were given power by God to test them, as well as to punish nations, (for remember it is often by the wicked that the wicked are destroyed, though a lot of righteous suffer in the process too). These dictators failed their tests and will receive their reward, which will be to suffer all the pain, sorrow and suffering they have inflicted upon millions of their innocent brothers and sisters. You know this. But in the end, it is the power of God that will decide who remains and who prevails (and even though the righteous may be slain they will be resurrected), and it is the righteous that will triumph in the end and inherit the land, and all their enemies destroyed and punished. If you desire to know whose side God is on, and who will remain in the end, I submit to you the advice that Nephi gave to his brothers Laman and Lemuel:

• • (1 Nephi 15:8-11):
    And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord?
    And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.
    Behold, I said unto them: How is it that ye do not keep the commandments of the Lord? How is it that ye will perish, because of the hardness of your hearts?
    Do ye not remember the things which the Lord hath said?—If ye will not harden your hearts, and ask me in faith, believing that ye shall receive, with diligence in keeping my commandments, surely these things shall be made known unto you.

If you do not want to follow this advice, then you will just have to wait until the end to find out the answers to who was on God's side, and who wasn't, when every knee will bow and every tongue will confess.

But the Founding Fathers did not have the Book of Mormon. Therefore that could not be their justification. Under your beliefs what was their justification for taking the land of the king?

The events and truths described in the book of Mormon were true long before the book was actually published. If something is not published, it does not make it false. The Founders were inspired men, and it should not surprise you that the truth on this point was revealed to them by the Spirit of God.

Moroni did not argue his case to God. He picked up his sword and killed the King-men.

I beg to disagree:

• • (Alma 46:11-17):
    And now it came to pass that when Moroni, who was the chief commander of the armies of the Nephites, had heard of these dissensions, he was angry with Amalickiah.
    And it came to pass that he rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.
    And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land—
    …
    And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come.
    And therefore, at this time, Moroni prayed that the cause of the Christians, and the freedom of the land might be favored.
    And it came to pass that when he had poured out his soul to God, he named all the land which was south of the land Desolation, yea, and in fine, all the land, both on the north and on the south—A chosen land, and the land of liberty.

Self-defense does not have to wait until you are harmed or killed. You just have to believe there is a credible threat.

That is true.

Huge Corporations are a credible threat.

The size of a corporation is not a threat in itself. Only crime is. However big a corporation is, it has a right to exist as long as it honors the rights of others. By this logic you can say that any strong man is a threat. That is not a righteous logic. But again, just laws must be enforced upon large corporations as well as small.

Corporations are a threat by their mere existence.

The same logic would say that people are threat by their mere existence.

We the People cannot allow corporations to get too large any more than we can allow government to get too large. … if you favor limited government then your arguments fail if you believe corporations cannot also be limited.

There is a key difference between corporations and government. It is force. You do not have to deal with a corporation if you don't like it. Government forces you to deal with it by law. That is the key difference.

You currently are taking the position that We the People can limit government (a corporation) and yet we cannot limit capitalist corporations. Your arguments die for lack of consistency.

Democratic government by definition is public property, and is subject to the will of the people. Corporations are private property, and are not subject to the will of the people, because corporations are not their property. (It is just like the people in your town have no say on what you do with your own property unless you violate the property of others.) If 99% of the population of your town decided to rob you and take away your property, they should have no right to do so, unless you violated the property of others first.

God is an individual, and he owns all. However great the wealth an individual possesses, it is his right to have, as long as he obtained it honestly and honorably and commits no crime.

No. He is not. The government can take away the wealth of a man under the constitution by Eminent domain.

Under the Constitution the government cannot take private property without just compensation.

The government decides what is legal and what is not legal so a man's fortune can be taken away at any time.

The government has no right to decide in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land, even the Natural Law, the unalienable rights that God gave to man. If it attempts to do so, it loses its legitimacy, and if it persists in it, it is liable to be overthrown by the people.

No man is allowed to be a threat and too much wealth is always a threat to the average man.

You sound like a communist agitator. Wealth is not sin, and you have no right to plunder neither the rich nor the poor. A sacred respect for private property is an eternal principle without which liberty CANNOT exist, and chaos and destruction of a nation is quite inevitable. Have you not read in the scripture "Thou shall not steal?" Is God a liar? Or have you lost your moral bearings?

The General Welfare is to be protected.

The ONE and ONLY way to protect the general welfare is to have a sacred respect for INDIVIDUAL rights and property; for what is collective but a collection of individuals, therefore by destroying an individual you are destroying the collective, only one person at a time.

Matt. 7: 7 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

So was Adams a good tree or a corrupt tree? If corrupt then his statement is corrupt and if a good tree then he was right about the Alien Sedition Act. Right? Or was Christ wrong?

The scripture you mentioned is correct, and you can judge a man by his fruits.

And you know full well, that besides Christ, hardly any man was always correct. So Adams spoke the truth about the sacred importance of private property in the quote I mentioned; this truth stands on its own as the law of God, and if Adams quoted the scripture "Thou shall not steal" it does not make the scripture false.

So we can stop anyone from anything with property rights. We can stop corporations from having "obscene" profits? Please explain how.

There is nothing wrong with great profits, as long as they are obtained honestly and honorably, without violating the rights and property of others. But if a corporation pollutes the air or the land or environment, then property rights can be employed to stop it and to effect a just remedy.

[In WWI] Are you claiming God did not support our efforts? Then how did we win?

We had no business at all to be in WWI. We won absolutely nothing in the process, only lost in lives, treasure and liberty here at home. As for WWII there were better ways to win. For starters our Wall Street should not have plundered Americans to build up and support Hitler before and during the war. Yes, God defeated Hitler by the hands of the allies, but this victory could have been achieved much easier and less bloodily if we did not support the war on both sides, and followed the advice of the Founders not to go in search of dragons to slay and not to pursue an empire around the world.

[LoveIsTruth]

OK. I changed it (the amendment). Is it better now?

Thanks!

[LoveIsTruth]

Tweaked the last paragraph to read:
"The government shall not raise a user fee above the point where more than 10% of the citizens who are subject to this fee are acquitted of it by the jury of their peers."

[Jason]

Under the federal stimulus plan, the state does not have to pay interest on monies borrowed for unemployment benefits prior to December 31, 2010. However, Florida’s UC Trust Fund is not expected to carry a positive balance until the 2013‐14 fiscal year, which means Florida will begin owing interest in fiscal year 2011‐12. Estimated interest payments on this borrowing are significant; they may run as high as $75.3 million due September 2011, $63.8 million in September 2012 and $21.6 million in September 2013. Interest payments must be made from sources other than trust funds, e.g. General Revenue; however, the principal can be paid with state unemployment tax.

If unemployment tax rates are not increased and the Trust Fund remains in default, the federal government has the ability to take away the ability of Florida companies to write‐off their unemployment expenses from their federal tax returns. If the Trust Fund is not made solvent, the federal government also has the ability to take over the program and force larger costs onto Florida employers to ensure the federal government is repaid quickly.

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/FileStore ... c%2009.pdf

The Current State Of Unemployment Benefits

MICHELE NORRIS, host:

For a better understanding of exactly what unemployment benefits have lapsed and what might be restored, we turn to Maurice Emsellem. He is the co-policy director for the National Employment Law Project. And we asked him to explain the different categories of benefits.

Mr. MAURICE EMSELLEM (Co-policy Director, National Employment Law Project): Right now, there are state unemployment benefits available which is 26 weeks of benefits, and then there are the federal extensions. The maximum you can collect by way of a federal extension is 73 weeks. That adds up to 99 weeks.

The federal extensions are broken down into four tiers depending on the state's unemployment rate. So, all states qualify for 34 weeks. If you have over 6 percent unemployment, you get another 13. If you have over eight and a half percent unemployment, you get another six weeks.

So, the folks who are running out of benefits right now are two big groups. First, there are the folks who are running out of their state unemployment benefits and there's no federal extension for them. That's a big group of people. Then, there is the second group of those who are running out of a particular tier. Say you're on the first tier and you get the first 20 weeks, you can't move up to tier two to the next 14 weeks because there's no extensions.

NORRIS: How many workers are we talking about who are at risk of now losing their benefits?

Mr. EMSELLEM: Well, as of the end of last week, 1.7 million workers had already prematurely lost out on their federal extended benefits. By the end of next week that number will go up to 2.1 million workers. By the next week after that, which is around the time when Congress will reconvene and take up the legislation, we're talking about 2.5 million workers, long-term unemployed, who are without their unemployment benefits.

NORRIS: What about COBRA benefits?

Mr. EMSELLEM: So, I'm glad you mentioned that, Michele, because we're talking about the extensions right now, but it's very important to understand that Congress has already - in the midst of, you know, very high levels of unemployment, almost 10 percent unemployment - has already taken back several of the benefits that were made available by the Recovery Act in February 2009. That includes the subsidy for COBRA benefits. Congress provided 65 percent subsidy for folks who qualified for COBRA; that helped almost 2 million workers since February.

NORRIS: And we should say that this helps workers hold on to their health insurance. That's what we're talking about with COBRA benefits.

Mr. EMSELLEM: Helps workers - exactly. If your employer was providing health benefits, then you can continue the coverage and the federal government was paying 65 percent of that. So, you know, for the average worker, that meant that they had to still come up with about $400 a month to cover the COBRA, but there's a big difference between $400 and $1,200, $1,500 when you're employed.

So, that's been taken away. None of the proposals in Congress right now would include that. There's a great amendment that Senators Casey and Brown have proposed to continue the COBRA coverage. So, that's really important.

And then there was also a boost in the benefits, an extra $25 a week in state and federal benefits that were made available by the Recovery Act. Helps you buy a couple more bags of groceries every month. And now, there's talk about eliminating those benefits as well.

I've been doing this work for almost 20 years now. I've been through a couple major recessions and never in my experience have we been talking about cutting back benefits when we have these huge levels of unemployment.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =128248155

As of: October 8, 2010

Totals $ 40,484,187,333.10 (Current balance) $ 3,571,300,000.00 (Oct line of credit) $ 403,812,575.79 (October borrowing to date)

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo ... ssched.htm

Explanation of taxes and where the money goes at both Federal and State level -
https://www.talx.com/News/Articles/Jour ... yAug09.pdf

Unemployment Insurance Program Changes by State in 2010
http://projects.propublica.org/tables/u ... state-2010

Unemployment Insurance Tracker
http://projects.propublica.org/unemployment/

2011: The Year Of The Tax Increase
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/arch ... x-increase

2011: Major tax shocks coming
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?S ... leID=11848

The Coming Tax Assault I: 2011 Destroyed by Tax Increases on Everyone
http://aconservativeteacher.blogspot.co ... ed-by.html

[LoveIsTruth]

Your point please

Thanks.

[Jason]

Your point please

Thanks.

At the end of the day it always comes down to force!

[LoveIsTruth]

Your point please

Thanks.

At the end of the day it always comes down to force!

True, then let the force of the true principles of liberty be felt by all would-be tyrants! Let Freedom ring!

[Jason]

Your point please

Thanks.

At the end of the day it always comes down to force!

True, then let the force of the true principles of liberty be felt by all would-be tyrants! Let Freedom ring!

LOL....I'm waiting for divine intervention too!

[LoveIsTruth]

Ok. Changed it again. Please read the new version at the top of the thread.

Thank you!

[andrew]

To preserve liberty and prosperity of the people, The only sources of revenue allowed to government are these: public property user fees, and voluntary contributions

Sorry to rain on your parade, LoveisTruth, I appreciate you genuine desire to better the condition of mankind, but you are overlooking a fundamental premise.

In order for a person to become an owner of a piece of land, that person should either homestead an un-owned piece of land or buy one from the previous owner. In order to homestead, a person has to mix his sweat/labor with that piece of land.
Now, you are using a term "public property". Does it belong to the governmental officials? Did they mix their sweats with it? Or does it belong to a certain individual who cedes his ownership of that land in favour of the government?
I am afraid that none of the two. In most cases when government claims a piece of land to be public property, it commits an immoral act of claiming something to itself that is not actually its.
It is immoral to say "all the land stretching from hither to thither is now ours". By the same token Columbus could have claimed both North and South America. Or Adam, Abel or Cain could have claimed all of the planet to be theirs and extract a user fee from all future inhabitants. Can you see where the logic of immorally-claimed public property is leading?
So, no, your draft is not there yet. Strike the public property fees out and I will take another look at it.
Cheers.

[LoveIsTruth]

To preserve liberty and prosperity of the people, The only sources of revenue allowed to government are these: public property user fees, and voluntary contributions

Sorry to rain on your parade, LoveisTruth, I appreciate you genuine desire to better the condition of mankind, but you are overlooking a fundamental premise.

In order for a person to become an owner of a piece of land, that person should either homestead an un-owned piece of land or buy one from the previous owner. In order to homestead, a person has to mix his sweat/labor with that piece of land.
Now, you are using a term "public property". Does it belong to the governmental officials? Did they mix their sweats with it? Or does it belong to a certain individual who cedes his ownership of that land in favour of the government?
I am afraid that none of the two. In most cases when government claims a piece of land to be public property, it commits an immoral act of claiming something to itself that is not actually its.
It is immoral to say "all the land stretching from hither to thither is now ours". By the same token Columbus could have claimed both North and South America. Or Adam, Abel or Cain could have claimed all of the planet to be theirs and extract a user fee from all future inhabitants. Can you see where the logic of immorally-claimed public property is leading?
So, no, your draft is not there yet. Strike the public property fees out and I will take another look at it.
Cheers.

By the term public property I mean property that all people have equal claim too, like a public road. Do you not agree that public property exists?

Public property should be governed by the voice of the people, under a condition that all should be treated equally.

What did I miss?

Thanks.

[andrew]

Surely a group of consenting individuals can pool their money to build a road and later charge user fees. I call it a co-operative business. Those owners can have "equal claim" to it, as you put it. If you want, you can call it "public property", but in my mind this term is ambiguous.

I don't have a problem with a group of people calling themselves government owning property and services like roads, police, courts, military, firefighters etc. if that government doesn't use force to forbid competition. In such a case this "government" is simply a competing business. Pretty soon if that government doesn't provide services to the satisfaction of consumers, it will lose its customers and go out of business.
If such is assumed to be the case, then the following clause is unnecessary:

The government shall not raise a user fee above the point where more than 10% of the citizens who are subject to this fee are acquitted of it by the jury of their peers.

If the government is simply a business owner, how can there be "subjects to this fee"? And why should their take somebody to the court for not paying it?
This needs elaboration.

[LoveIsTruth]

Surely a group of consenting individuals can pool their money to build a road and later charge user fees. I call it a co-operative business. Those owners can have "equal claim" to it, as you put it. If you want, you can call it "public property", but in my mind this term is ambiguous.

I don't have a problem with a group of people calling themselves government owning property and services like roads, police, courts, military, firefighters etc. if that government doesn't use force to forbid competition. In such a case this "government" is simply a competing business. Pretty soon if that government doesn't provide services to the satisfaction of consumers, it will lose its customers and go out of business.
If such is assumed to be the case, then the following clause is unnecessary:

The government shall not raise a user fee above the point where more than 10% of the citizens who are subject to this fee are acquitted of it by the jury of their peers.

If the government is simply a business owner, how can there be "subjects to this fee"? And why should their take somebody to the court for not paying it?
This needs elaboration.

Who is subject to the fee? He who uses the public property that charges the fee.

Why is jury clause necessary?
It is to check the politicians, so they do not raise the fees too high.

If someone thinks the fee is too high, he appeals to a jury of peers, the jury grants him waver so he can use the public property in question without paying the fee. If 10% of people are granted wavers, then politicians, by law, must lower the fee.

[andrew]

Thank you LoveisTruth, I'm convinced that your intent is just, albeit the wording could have been less ambivalent.
I'll tell you this - let those politicians provide the services, raise their fees, acquit by the jury of peers etc. AS LONG AS they don't use force against private individuals who compete with their services. Thats' all what I care about.
This cometition is impossible under the present US system, where the government assumed control over millitary, police, justice to name the most crucial ones.