The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

[jonesde]

How did Nephi defend himself by cutting off the head of a passed out drunk man named Laban?

I remember first reading about why Nephi did this when I was just a little lad. He was commanded by God to do so in that specific situation. God and His prophets have that neat ability on a one on one basis. Governments on the earth today, as a bureaucracies, do not have the privilege of receiving commandments like that. I think you using this as an example was weak.

Fortunately prophets have explained the justification in this case a little more, unlike many Old Testament examples that are questionable.

In this case Laban had stolen from Nephi and threatened his life multiple times. Even in the moment Nephi's life was in danger due to threats from Laban and his men. Even in that case it is clearly better to avoid the situation than to confront and kill or injure someone, but in this case Nephi also had a commandment to retrieve some stolen property, and the only way to do that was through such a confrontation.

It's not that violence is never justified, and while it is certainly better to avoid it through retreat or posturing to get the other side to back down (or never step up in the first place) sometimes it is unavoidable.

The problem with using violence to solve social problems is two-fold:

1. no sufficient offense has been committed to justify the use of force
2. among the options for solving the social ills it is not only the least effective, but clearly does more harm than good (which in spite of what politicians say in public, many see this harm as the point of the violence and not the theoretical "good" they use as an excuse)

[LoveIsTruth]

The problem with using violence to solve social problems is two-fold:

1. no sufficient offense has been committed to justify the use of force
2. among the options for solving the social ills it is not only the least effective, but clearly does more harm than good (which in spite of what politicians say in public, many see this harm as the point of the violence and not the theoretical "good" they use as an excuse)

Brilliant. You are right, and above all it is UNJUST. You cannot build a just, free, and prosperous society on injustice! Aggressive violence is injustice.

[jonesde]

The problem with using violence to solve social problems is two-fold:

1. no sufficient offense has been committed to justify the use of force
2. among the options for solving the social ills it is not only the least effective, but clearly does more harm than good (which in spite of what politicians say in public, many see this harm as the point of the violence and not the theoretical "good" they use as an excuse)

Brilliant. You are right, and above all it is UNJUST. You cannot build a just, free, and prosperous society on injustice! Aggressive violence is injustice.

Justice is a funny word these days, one of those that government has coopted and basically defined as "what we do" (along with legal, legitimate, and sometimes even words like moral and ethical). In other words, justice to them is not some fundamental concept that government is supposed to diligently preserve and work toward, whatever they do that's what they call justice.

It's sad that our society has basically lost a sense of justice to the point where most label gross injustice as justice. It would be nice to get back to the definition you implied in this post.

[LoveIsTruth]

The problem with using violence to solve social problems is two-fold:

1. no sufficient offense has been committed to justify the use of force
2. among the options for solving the social ills it is not only the least effective, but clearly does more harm than good (which in spite of what politicians say in public, many see this harm as the point of the violence and not the theoretical "good" they use as an excuse)

Brilliant. You are right, and above all it is UNJUST. You cannot build a just, free, and prosperous society on injustice! Aggressive violence is injustice.

Justice is a funny word these days, one of those that government has coopted and basically defined as "what we do" (along with legal, legitimate, and sometimes even words like moral and ethical). In other words, justice to them is not some fundamental concept that government is supposed to diligently preserve and work toward, whatever they do that's what they call justice.

It's sad that our society has basically lost a sense of justice to the point where most label gross injustice as justice. It would be nice to get back to the definition you implied in this post.

Amen. This is the purpose of this thread. In fact, justice is defined by the first Fundamental Principle of Liberty. Curiously, Justice and Liberty there have the same definition, i.e. "Private Property is Liberty and ought not to be violated,"-- That's what justice is. Non-violation is equivalent to non-aggression, therefore you can also define Justice as the absence of aggressive violence (protected by defensive violence). Interestingly, therefore, justice means a society must be a purely voluntary one. Thus, Liberty and Justice are intrinsically linked, and are actually two sides of the same coin, which coin is Love, Peace, and Prosperity.


Thanks for your posts.

[LoveIsTruth]

Ron Paul on the Importance of the Mises Institute



See more media from Mises here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/misesmedia/videos?view=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LoveIsTruth]

Judge Napolitano agrees with Bill O'Reilly that American values have changed dramatically, favoring entitlements and welfare. [This is why Obama won the election. When the majority can vote to plunder the minority (that's called democracy), prosperity and freedom are doomed.] Fox Insider 2012 Nov 8

From http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

[LoveIsTruth]

A Rational Proof of Ethics

Brilliant!

[LoveIsTruth]

Secession: The Right of Free Men

the legal way for states to withdraw is individually, state-by-state after conducting a state secession convention very much like a state constitutional convention on 10th Amendment issues.

Most of the individual states originally joined the union through this process and it is how individual states must lawfully leave the union. This is the same method followed by the individual Confederate States of America when they withdrew one by one following the election of Abraham Lincoln.

The right of democratic state-by-state secession did not die at the point of a bayonet at Appomattox Court House in 1865 after Lincoln's invasion killed 600,000 Americans. The growing support for peaceful devolution of government powers and services to regions and local jurisdictions to allow citizens to control the power of politicians and government is a positive advancement for the 21st century. In addition, the right of devolution of states, geographic regions and groups around the world promotes government competition and freedom.
...

In closing, I would remind you that the people of a tax jurisdiction or individual state are not really free unless they have the democratic, peaceful right to leave as did the American colonies under the British Empire. Also remember that while petitioning the White House may be a great PR campaign there's no reason to get your hopes up that the Federal government will ever say "Yes" voluntarily; while we don't need them, they certainly need us to continue to pay their bills.

http://lewrockwell.com/holland/holland73.1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LoveIsTruth]

Ron Paul: Secession Is an American Principle

[LoveIsTruth]

Secrets Of Secession? What The NWO Fears!

[LoveIsTruth]

Ron Paul Defends Growing Secession Movement

Retiring Congressman notes principle is “deeply American”

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Nov 19, 2012



In his weekly update, released today, Congressman Ron Paul defends those who have signed petitions in all 50 states advocating secession from the federal government, referring to the principle as “deeply American”.

Echoing comments he made back in 2009, Paul notes “This country was born through secession. Some thought it was treasonous to secede from England, but those “traitors” became our country’s greatest patriots.”

“…the principles of self-government and voluntary association are at the core of our founding….There is nothing treasonous or unpatriotic about wanting a federal government that is more responsive to the people it represents.” the Congressman adds.
Explaining that the recent election only served to further entrench the political status quo, Paul urges “…our own federal government is vastly overstepping its constitutional bounds with no signs of reform.” He reminds Americans that “the first and third paragraph of the Declaration of Independence expressly contemplate the dissolution of a political union when the underlying government becomes tyrannical.”

Though he says he is not holding his breath that any state will actually secede, the congressman stresses that “If the possibility of secession is completely off the table there is nothing to stop the federal government from continuing to encroach on our liberties, and no recourse for those who are sick and tired of it.”

“If a people cannot secede from an oppressive government they cannot truly be considered free.” Paul adds.
Listen to the congressman’s comments on secession in full below.

In a separate development, Paul announced in an interview with The Hill Sunday that although he is retiring from Congress, he has no intention of scaling back his speaking schedule and his ongoing campaign for liberty.

“I’m excited about spending more time on college campuses, not less. College campuses will still be on my agenda. That’s where the action is.” Paul said.



As we noted last week, several detractors have claimed that American citizens who signed the secession petitions are effectively advocating a new civil war, and can rightfully be stripped of their firearms.

Some even argued that any American advocating secession should be stripped of their citizenship and deported.
As we described at length in our editorial, Secessionists do not want to be part of a separate country, they wish to use the terms of the Declaration of Independence to peacefully reconstitute through the states and restore the Republic.

[LoveIsTruth]

Alex Jones calls for nationwide effort to take back America from occupying enemy force

“The purest American values, the purest essence of the United States was secession from a corrupt, distant corporate empire backed up by military force,” he said. “We are recaptured by the progeny; by the literal and figurative offspring of those robber barons 235 years ago. We are at the crossroads, and the entire enemy battle plan that we’ve reverse engineered is designed to suppress states’ rights movements. Because the states created the federal government and it is not their right, it is not their duty, we the people that make the states, it is an absolute imperative beyond duty. It is survival that we secede from the New World Order that has conquered us through fraud; that we declare the fraud null and void and then reconstitute the Republic with a new Congress of the several states.”


Read more here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/alex-jones- ... force.html

[Jason]

Jason/Legion, this one for you too:

Larken Rose

When a scam gets rolling, all sorts of human cockroaches come out of the woodwork to try to cash in. This is the perfect description of Larken Rose, a scammer come lately to the world of tax protesting who runs tax scam website http://www.taxableincome.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Not being smart enough to come up with any unique theory of his own, Larken has simply latched on to the “861” or “Income Can’t Be Defined” arguments that end up with the conclusion that only foreigners are required to pay income tax. Larkin’s argument has been exploded more times than a pack of Blackcats at a 4th of July festival (see below) but this hasn’t stopped Larken from marketing his video for $20 on his other website http://www.theft-by-deception.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Larken’s ally is Thurston Bell, which means that his nemesis is Rick Haraka a/k/a Rick Bryan, who criticizes both Larken and Thurston as to be too wet behind the ears to be able to give advice on how to live a perpetually tax-free existence. Indeed, Larken and Thurston represent the “new breed” of tax scam promoters, i.e., high visibility, no shame, and wanting to make the “Big Splash” to try establish themselves as the next Irwin Schiff.

Larken’s most recent marketing ploy has been to announce his “Operation Glove in Face” via his websites and articles in the militia nut media, where he publicly pleads for the IRS to arrest him for non-payment of taxes since 1997. Crazy as this sounds, the convictions of other tax scam artists, such as Irwin Schiff and Bill Benson, only helped their careers.

http://www.quatlosers.com/larken_rose.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For his part, Larken Rose—who is thoroughly logical—dismisses the all-caps argument, as well as the theories of Irwin Schiff, who argues that there is no law requiring U.S. citizens to pay income taxes.

A generation ago, 861 adherents might have quietly avoided filing 1040s and escaped detection. Furtive, small-scale practitioners of activity that is illegal but largely harmless—like smoking pot—generally escape prosecution. Those who do so loudly, however, invite legal trouble. And 861 followers like Rose have been doing the equivalent of holding a marijuana smoke-in at a public park. Rose has approached the IRS to discuss his views and has posted the transcript of one such meeting on his site. He has sold "somewhere between 14,000 and 15,000 legal copies" of the video Theft by Deception. "I know there are a bunch of bootlegs that are out there," he adds. (It wouldn't surprise "Moneybox" to learn that there exists among those who refuse to pay federal income taxes a high propensity to copy intellectual property.) And at least 100,000 copies of the Rose's "Taxable Income" report have been downloaded.

By courting controversy and thumbing their nose at the law, the folk lawyers are striving to become folk heroes. And thanks to the Justice Department's increasingly vigorous efforts to clamp down on their activities, they may succeed. The feds have declared it a "a priority to pursue promoters of frivolous and fraudulent tax schemes." Last May, Larken Rose's house was raided by the Internal Revenue Service.

But when they have been caught in the maw of the courts, 861ers haven't had much luck. Judges have repeatedly rejected claims based on Section 861. As far as the legal system is concerned, it's law settled many times over. Unlike folk remedies, folk law never seems to work—at least when it comes to taxes.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ ... dodge.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rose, a former co-owner of a medical transcription business, was convicted by a jury in August 2005 of five counts of willfully failing to file federal income tax returns. The evidence at trial established that Rose did not file returns for 1998-2002 despite earning $500,000 in income during those years. Rose claimed that he did not file returns for those five years because he believed that income he earned in the U.S. was not taxable according to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 861. The evidence, however, showed that Rose received more than a dozen notices from the IRS rejecting his Section 861 argument and that he received more than ten letters from members of Congress notifying him that his Section 861 argument was invalid. In addition, Rose admitted that he was aware of two court cases rejecting his Section 861 argument.

http://www.justice.gov/tax/txdv05626.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LARKEN DANDRIDG ROSE
http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderSe ... &x=27&y=17" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Larken D. Rose attended a two-year college, then worked as a gardener until he married Tessa David, who had her own business transcribing medical records. Rose was helping her with her business when he began developing his "section 861 argument" and materials explaining and promoting that argument.

Rose is a self-described anarchist, who has written in private correspondence (introduced into evidence as a criminal trial) that "I don't actually like the Constitution" because it gives too much power to politicians," and that "I feel no obligation to obey" the law.

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/larken-rose" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Larken Rose is one of the better anarchist writers. He’s gone from saying “The income tax is invalid due to a legal loophole!” to “All taxation is theft!”

I was really disappointed by this post. Larken Rose is still thinking like a Statist.

Larken Rose is considering filing a lawsuit against the State, regarding unfair treatment by the IRS. He’s learned nothing. Does he really expect a fair trial? A slave will never get a fair trial with State tax collectors in State court, especially when that slave questions the legitimacy of taxes and the State.

Larken Rose has comments disabled on his blog. That’s antisocial. He has a problem, where people say “You’re a thief who isn’t ‘paying his fair share’.” I would leave a comment saying “You’re an idiot if you expect a fair trial or a fair hearing.”

Larken Rose spent a year in jail as a political prisoner, after a dispute with the IRS. He was using the “861 argument”, which is a variation of “The income tax isn’t valid due to a legal loophole.” Based on convoluted language in the law and tax code, some people interpret the income tax as invalid, when applied to individuals. Unfortunately, judges and IRS agents say that the law is 100% valid, as enforced. They have a monopoly. Their opinion is the only one that counts.

Larken Rose was lucky, to only get a year in jail. Other people who challenged the IRS got tougher sentences. (Sometimes, I wonder if people spend time in jail to get their “street cred”, and then go deep undercover, infiltrating various anti-State movements. Just because someone spent time in jail, doesn’t mean they aren’t spying for the State!)

In exchange for a lighter sentence, Larken Rose filed amended tax returns. Larken Rose thought that was amusing. The judge ordered him to commit perjury, because Larken Rose really believed that wasn’t taxable income!

http://www.realfreemarket.org/blog/2012 ... a-statist/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LoveIsTruth]

You are quoting criminals and tyrants, i.e. the "Justice" department. Google the Department of Truth, from 1984.

Larken is right. You and the IRS are wrong.

The fact that the thugs like IRS, trample justice, reason, and law does not make them right.

Learn that.

[jonesde]

You are quoting criminals and tyrants, i.e. the "Justice" department. Google the Department of Truth, from 1984.

Larken is right. You and the IRS are wrong.

The fact that the thugs like IRS, trample justice, reason, and law does not make them right.

Learn that.

Yes, exactly. My thoughts reading through these quotes was generally... yep, sounds great! If more people took this position those who steal through taxes and mandatory fees and fines would not have so much power to abuse and would not be able to steal and kill all around the world. In other words, would more money going to the federal government (or any state/local government) increase or decrease liberty of both those living within that jurisdiction and those do not but are influenced (or destroyed) by it.

Of course, if you like large organizations that have policies mandating massive theft and murder, then I can see why someone not paying taxes would be upsetting and trying to steal from that person or using violence against them would be desirable.

[LoveIsTruth]

The U.S. Constitution: Tool of Centralization and Debt, 1788-Today

The Constitution was from day one an instrument to consolidate Federal power and expand it. The Constitution has proven to be a weak reed in every attempt to slow down the expansion of Federal power. It has proven utterly impotent to roll Federal power back as little as a decade, ever.

Therefore, the following is just plain silly, politically speaking:

• If Congress proves unwilling to force indiscriminate cost reductions on government then it should apply constitutional principles to the budget whereby government functions not enumerated in the Constitution are abolished, privatized, or passed to the states.

I would of course love to see this. But I am unaware of any fiscal year since 1790 in which such a roll-back of Federal employment and Federal spending took place, other than after a major war, when the soldiers were de-commissioned and taxes were cut. If we are talking about civilian employment by the Federal government, I am unaware of any permanent reduction, ever.

There should come a time when the victims of a myth should figure out that they are the victims of a rich and powerful ruling class, which hires the teachers and screens the textbooks to keep the voters docile. But this dawning of enlightenment has yet to come.

When Washington's checks finally bounce, the day of enlightenment will come of necessity, not principle. Then we will have a shot at abandoning the myth of the Constitution as a restraint on Washington's power.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/7833.cfm

The Constitution is an inspired but profoundly flawed document! It had the seeds of its own destruction firmly implanted in it. These are:

• 1) The power to tax (read the power to rob).
  2) The power to coin money (read the power to counterfeit).
  3) Slavery. (Read slavery).
  4) Copyrights and patents (read government forced monopoly on information).

That's why I proposed the five amendments to rid the Constitution of these deadly flaws, and to square it with the Eternal Principles of liberty (see top post). Unless these corrections are implemented, the Liberty and consequently the society itself will inevitably self-destruct. No society can violate these eternal principles and not suffer the consequence, i.e. tyranny and eventual self-destruction.

[LoveIsTruth]

Lew Rockwell: We Don’t Have To Put Up With This


Lew Rockwell is being brilliant again. One point I disagree with is that people should stay home and neither vote nor participate in politics. Those who ignore politics will end up as slaves to those who don't. I voted for Ron Paul. We should ALL vote on principle, not for the one likely to "win" but for the one in harmony with Fundamental Principles of Liberty, rather than the one opposing them.

Lew was right, voting for Romney would have been voting for slow and torturous death, voting for Obama was voting for a quicker death. Incidentally, voting for Ron Paul, would have been voting for life.

Listen here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell- ... with-this/

[LoveIsTruth]

Lincoln was a tyrant who did not want to liberate the slaves, but was forced to.

Disabuse your mind! In his own words:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." -- Abraham Lincoln

Read more: You Can't Secede...Because We're Exiling You!

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, ... What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union;" -- Abraham Lincoln

He destroyed the "Union" and created an empire. The difference between love and rape. Look it up.

Also, Lincoln wanted to make slavery in America PERMANENT, but was forced otherwise.

"There is no evidence that Lincoln provided any significant assistance in the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in the House of Representatives in 1865, but there is evidence of his effectiveness in getting an earlier Thirteenth Amendment through the House and the Senate in 1861. This proposed amendment was known as the "Corwin Amendment," named after Ohio Republican Congressman Thomas Corwin. It had passed both the Republican-controlled House and the Republican-dominated U.S. Senate on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration, and was sent to the states for ratification by Lincoln himself.

The Corwin Amendment would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery. It read as follows:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State,, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

"Person held to service" is how the Constitutional Convention referred to slaves, and "domestic institutions" referred to slavery. Lincoln announced to the world that he endorsed the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address:

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution – which amendment, however, I have not seen – has passed Congress to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service . . . . [H]olding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable" (emphasis added)."

Read more: http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo245.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jason]

You are quoting criminals and tyrants, i.e. the "Justice" department. Google the Department of Truth, from 1984.

Larken is right. You and the IRS are wrong.

The fact that the thugs like IRS, trample justice, reason, and law does not make them right.

Learn that.

That question, even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest, to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.

In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of “law enforcement,” than has been committed in spite of it.

People don’t mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN “country,” their OWN “government,” and their OWN “law enforcers,” in any sort of objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a. “patriotism”), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue, the idea of forcibly resisting “law enforcement” is simply unthinkable to many. Literally, they can’t even THINK about it. And humanity has suffered horribly because of it. It is a testament to the effectiveness of authoritarian indoctrination that literally billions of people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the face of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP it.

Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.)

To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A”–even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side–you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak your mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL ”government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.

Those who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice–even if the injustice is called ”law”–that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow ”government” agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.

Of course, on a practical level, openly resisting the gang called ”government” is usually very hazardous to one’s health. But there is a big difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which is often necessary and rational, and feeling a moral obligation to go along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which is pathetic and insane.

The next time you hear of a police officer being killed “in the line of duty,” take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the “law enforcer” was the bad guy and the “cop killer” was the good guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.

http://www.copblock.org/5475/when-shoul ... oot-a-cop/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The pathway to happiness begins with righteousness through obedience to the commandments. The commandments have been given to us as a divine playbook to direct us away from many of the calamities of mortality.
http://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/12/the-s ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God.
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... ang=eng#10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.

We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... lang=eng#7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Law provides us the options. It is by the operation of laws that things happen. By using or obeying a law, one can bring about a particular result—and by disobedience, the opposite result. Without law there could be no God, for He would be powerless to cause anything to happen (see 2 Nephi 2:13). Without law, neither He nor we would be able to predict or choose a particular outcome by a given action. Our existence and the creation around us are convincing evidence that God, the Creator, exists and that our mortal world consists of “both things to act and things to be acted upon” (2 Nephi 2:14)—or, in other words, choices.

Freedom of choice is the freedom to obey or disobey existing laws—not the freedom to alter their consequences. Law, as mentioned earlier, exists as a foundational element of moral agency with fixed outcomes that do not vary according to our opinions or preferences. Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles observed, “We are responsible to use our agency in a world of choices. It will not do to pretend that our agency has been taken away when we are not free to exercise it without unwelcome consequences.”

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/06/moral-agency?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated — And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated” (D&C 130:20–21).

“All kingdoms have a law given” (D&C 88:36)

“He who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory. And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory. And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory” (D&C 88:22–24).

The world teaches many falsehoods about agency. Many think we should “eat, drink, and be merry; … and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved.” 17 Others embrace secularism and deny God. They convince themselves that there is no “opposition in all things” 18 and, therefore, “whatsoever a man [does is] no crime.” 19 This “destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes.” 20

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... e?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life.” (3 Ne. 15:9.)

His law required all mankind, regardless of station in life, to repent and be baptized in His name and receive the Holy Ghost as the sanctifying power to cleanse themselves from sin. Compliance with these laws and ordinances will enable each individual to stand guiltless before Him at the day of judgment. Those who so comply are likened to one who builds his house on a firm foundation—so that even “the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.” (3 Ne. 11:39.)

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/06/jesus ... r?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyone believe those laws won't be enforced???

Satan has not ceased his efforts “to destroy the agency of man.” He promotes conduct and choices that limit our freedom to choose by replacing the influence of the Holy Spirit with his own domination (see D&C 29:40; 93:38–39). Yielding to his temptations leads to a narrower and narrower range of choices until none remains and to addictions that leave us powerless to resist. While Satan cannot actually destroy law and truth, he accomplishes the same result in the lives of those who heed him by convincing them that whatever they think is right is right and that there is no ultimate truth—every man is his own god, and there is no sin.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/06/moral-agency?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have never felt so humiliated in my life over anything as that the State of Utah voted for the repeal of Prohibition.

- President Heber J. Grant, Conference, Oct. 1934

From this very stand he pleaded with us not to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. He didn't speak as Heber J. Grant, the man, he spoke as the President of the Church and the representative of our Heavenly Father.

- George Albert Smith, Conference, Oct 1943

One of the saddest days in all of Utah's history was when the people, including the Latter-day Saints (for it could not have been done without them), rejected the counsel and urging of the Lord's prophet, Heber J. Grant, and repealed Prohibition long years ago--yet many of those voters had sung numerous times, "We Thank Thee, O God, For A Prophet."

- The Teachings of Spencer. W. Kimball

I go back to the words of Jehoshaphat: “Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper.” (2 Chr. 20:20.)

There are many little things that test our willingness to accept the word of the prophets. Jesus said, “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matt. 23:37.)

So it has been through the history of mankind, and so it is today. In our own communities, even here in Utah, we have experienced some of this. President Grant carried to his grave a deep sense of sorrow that, contrary to his counsel, the people of Utah cast the final vote, in 1934, that repealed the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

I am grateful to say that we had a different experience some years ago when we joined with other citizens in a campaign to control the distribution of liquor. There is no question in my mind that great benefits have come as a result of the overwhelming response to direction from our prophet.

- President Gordan B. Hinckley, "Believe His Prophets", General Conference April 1992

One’s intentions may be of the purest kind. The sincerity may be total and complete. Nevertheless, pure intentions and heartfelt sincerity do not give members of the Church authority to declare doctrine which is not sustained by the living prophets. While we are members of the Church, we are not authorized to publicly declare our speculations as doctrine nor to extend doctrinal positions to other conclusions based upon the reasoning of men and women, even by the brightest and most well-read among us.

The prophets are not only called to receive the doctrine and direct the ordinances through the keys they hold. They are also responsible to keep the saving doctrine pure so that people can hear and feel that doctrine in its sure and certain form.

Occasionally we have those who become a law unto themselves in these matters. Sadly, their pride leads them down a road which President Spencer W. Kimball warned us about: “Apostasy usually begins with question and doubt and criticism. …

“They who garnish the sepulchres of the dead prophets begin now by stoning the living ones. They return to the pronouncements of the dead leaders and interpret them to be incompatible with present programs. They convince themselves that there are discrepancies between the practices of the deceased and the leaders of the present. … They allege love for the gospel and the Church but charge that leaders are a little ‘off the beam’! … Next they say that while the gospel and the Church are divine, the leaders are fallen. Up to this time it may be a passive thing, but now it becomes an active resistance, and frequently the blooming apostate begins to air his views and to crusade. … He now begins to expect persecution and adopts a martyr complex, and when finally excommunication comes he associates himself with other apostates to develop and strengthen cults. At this stage he is likely to claim revelation for himself, revelations from the Lord directing him in his interpretations and his actions. These manifestations are superior to anything from living leaders, he claims.”

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1 ... n?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have been impressed to speak about God’s love and God’s commandments. My message is that God’s universal and perfect love is shown in all the blessings of His gospel plan, including the fact that His choicest blessings are reserved for those who obey His laws. 1 These are eternal principles that should guide parents in their love and teaching of their children.

We read again and again in the Bible and in modern scriptures of God’s anger with the wicked 3 and of His acting in His wrath 4 against those who violate His laws. How are anger and wrath evidence of His love? Joseph Smith taught that God “institute[d] laws whereby [the spirits that He would send into the world] could have a privilege to advance like himself.” 5 God’s love is so perfect that He lovingly requires us to obey His commandments because He knows that only through obedience to His laws can we become perfect, as He is. For this reason, God’s anger and His wrath are not a contradiction of His love but an evidence of His love. Every parent knows that you can love a child totally and completely while still being creatively angry and disappointed at that child’s self-defeating behavior.

The love of God is so universal that His perfect plan bestows many gifts on all of His children, even those who disobey His laws. Mortality is one such gift, bestowed on all who qualified in the War in Heaven. 6 Another unconditional gift is the universal resurrection: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). Many other mortal gifts are not tied to our personal obedience to law. As Jesus taught, our Heavenly Father “maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45).

The key teaching is from modern revelation:

“There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

“And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated” (D&C 130:20–21).

This great principle helps us understand the why of many things, like justice and mercy balanced by the Atonement. It also explains why God will not forestall the exercise of agency by His children. Agency—our power to choose—is fundamental to the gospel plan that brings us to earth. God does not intervene to forestall the consequences of some persons’ choices in order to protect the well-being of other persons—even when they kill, injure, or oppress one another—for this would destroy His plan for our eternal progress. 8 He will bless us to endure the consequences of others’ choices, but He will not prevent those choices. 9

...

The effect of God’s commandments and laws is not changed to accommodate popular behavior or desires. If anyone thinks that godly or parental love for an individual grants the loved one license to disobey the law, he or she does not understand either love or law. The Lord declared: “That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still” (D&C 88:35).

We read in modern revelation, “All kingdoms have a law given” (D&C 88:36). For example:

“He who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.

“And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.

“And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory” (D&C 88:22–24).

In other words, the kingdom of glory to which the Final Judgment assigns us is not determined by love but by the law that God has invoked in His plan to qualify us for eternal life, “the greatest of all the gifts of God” (D&C 14:7).

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... w?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The early founders of America clearly understood the need for human law to not be in conflict with divine law. It was Alexander Hamilton who said, “No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to God’s laws, and such of them as are valid derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.”

Every healthy society needs a common core of values based on the divine law of the Lord. This core of values should be a fundamental upon which all laws governing human conduct are based. Societies which have governed themselves by this fundamental set of values have found peace, prosperity, joy, beauty, morality and fulfillment. Societies which have thought themselves beyond these basic principles have literally destroyed themselves.

The overwhelming question in each age is why each generation must test his law, when the Lord’s performance from generation to generation has been absolutely consistent. Is this not the time to again reexamine our position? Is that which we are building in our personal lives, our families, our communities, and our nations firmly anchored to a foundation based on divine law? Is it not time again to heed the warning of Paul?

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/05/as-a- ... h?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Beware of those who speak and publish in opposition to God’s true prophets and who actively proselyte others with reckless disregard for the eternal well-being of those whom they seduce. Like Nehor and Korihor in the Book of Mormon, they rely on sophistry to deceive and entice others to their views. They “set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion” (2 Ne. 26:29).

Of such President Joseph F. Smith warned when he spoke of the “proud and self-vaunting ones, who read by the lamps of their own conceit; who interpret by rules of their own contriving; who have become a law unto themselves, and so pose as the sole judges of their own doings” (Gospel Doctrine, 381).

False prophets and false teachers are also those who attempt to change the God-given and scripturally based doctrines that protect the sanctity of marriage, the divine nature of the family, and the essential doctrine of personal morality. They advocate a redefinition of morality to justify fornication, adultery, and homosexual relationships. Some openly champion the legalization of so-called same-gender marriages. To justify their rejection of God’s immutable laws that protect the family, these false prophets and false teachers even attack the inspired proclamation on the family issued to the world in 1995 by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles.

Regardless of which particular false doctrines they teach, false prophets and false teachers are an inevitable part of the last days. “False prophets,” according to the Prophet Joseph Smith, “always arise to oppose the true prophets” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 365).

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1 ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Where does the libertarian philosophy commonly promoted or propagandized by the likes of MISES (and associated/connected organizations & foundations) fall in this? Ron Paul?

For many years as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, I had responsibility for East Germany, also known as the German Democratic Republic. In this assignment, my knowledge of the Articles of Faith was most helpful. On each of my visits throughout the 20 years I supervised this area, I always reminded our members in that area of the twelfth article of faith: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

Our meetings behind what was known as the Iron Curtain were always monitored by the communist government there. In the early 1980s, when we sought approval from the government officials to build a temple there, and later when we asked permission for young men and women from that area to serve missions throughout the world and for others to come into their country to serve missions, they listened and then said, “Elder Monson, we’ve watched you for 20 years, and we’ve learned we can trust you and your Church because you and your Church teach your members to obey the laws of the land.”

http://www.lds.org/liahona/2007/06/exam ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Saints knew that the Lord had told them to be “subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” That commandment, revealed then, is true now of our members in every nation. We are to be law-abiding, worthy citizens.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... t?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brothers and sisters, we teach all of our people to be loyal. “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (A of F 1:12.) Be loyal and true.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1 ... d?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For verily I say unto you, my law shall be kept on this land.

Let no man think he is ruler; but let God rule him that judgeth, according to the counsel of his own will, or, in other words, him that counseleth or sitteth upon the judgment seat.

Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... ang=eng#21" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles.
And I will fortify this land against all other nations.
And he that fighteth against Zion shall perish, saith God.
For he that raiseth up a king against me shall perish, for I, the Lord, the king of heaven, will be their king, and I will be a light unto them forever, that hear my words.
Wherefore, for this cause, that my covenants may be fulfilled which I have made unto the children of men, that I will do unto them while they are in the flesh, I must needs destroy the secret works of darkness, and of murders, and of abominations.
Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/10.10?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the consequences of shifting from moral absolutes to moral relativism in public policy is that this produces a corresponding shift of emphasis from responsibilities to rights. Responsibilities originate in moral absolutes. In contrast, rights find their origin in legal principles, which are easily manipulated by moral relativism. Sooner or later the substance of rights must depend on either the voluntary fulfillment of responsibilities or the legal enforcement of duties. When our laws or our public leaders question the existence of absolute moral values, they undercut the basis for the voluntary fulfillment of responsibilities, which is economical, and compel our society to rely more and more on the legal enforcement of rights, which is expensive.

Some moral absolutes or convictions must be at the foundation of any system of law. This does not mean that all laws are so based. Many laws and administrative actions are simply a matter of wisdom or expediency. But many laws and administrative actions are based upon the moral standards of our society. If most of us believe that it is wrong to kill or steal or lie, our laws will include punishment for those acts. If most of us believe that it is right to care for the poor and needy, our laws will accomplish or facilitate those activities. Society continually legislates morality. The only question is whose morality and what legislation.

In the United States, the moral absolutes are the ones derived from what we refer to as the Judeo-Christian tradition, as set forth in the Bible—Old Testament and New Testament.

Despite ample evidence of majority adherence to moral absolutes, some still question the legitimacy of a moral foundation for our laws and public policy. To avoid any suggestion of adopting or contradicting any particular religious absolute, some secularists argue that our laws must be entirely neutral, with no discernable relation to any particular religious tradition. Such proposed neutrality is unrealistic, unless we are willing to cut away the entire idea that there are moral absolutes.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/10/relig ... y?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The rule of law and not of men. Further, there is divine inspiration in the fundamental underlying premise of this whole constitutional order. All the blessings enjoyed under the United States Constitution are dependent upon the rule of law. That is why President J. Reuben Clark said, “Our allegiance run to the Constitution and to the principles which it embodies, and not to individuals.” 16 The rule of law is the basis of liberty.

As the Lord declared in modern revelation, constitutional laws are justifiable before him, “and the law also maketh you free.” (D&C 98:5–8.) The self-control by which citizens subject themselves to law strengthens the freedom of all citizens and honors the divinely inspired Constitution.

U.S. citizens should follow the First Presidency’s counsel to study the Constitution. 17 They should be familiar with its great fundamentals: the separation of powers, the individual guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the structure of federalism, the sovereignty of the people, and the principles of the rule of the law. They should oppose any infringement of these inspired fundamentals.

They should be law-abiding citizens, supportive of national, state, and local governments. The twelfth Article of Faith declares:

“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

The Church’s official declaration of belief states:

“We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them. …

“We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside.” (D&C 134:1, 5.)

Those who enjoy the blessings of liberty under a divinely inspired constitution should promote morality, and they should practice what the Founding Fathers called “civic virtue.” In his address on the U.S. Constitution, President Ezra Taft Benson quoted this important observation by John Adams, the second president of the United States:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” 18

Similarly, James Madison, who is known as the “Father of the Constitution,” stated his assumption that there had to be “sufficient virtue among men for self-government.” He argued in the Federalist Papers that “republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.” 19

It is part of our civic duty to be moral in our conduct toward all people. There is no place in responsible citizenship for dishonesty or deceit or for willful law breaking of any kind. We believe with the author of Proverbs that “righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” (Prov. 14:34.) The personal righteousness of citizens will strengthen a nation more than the force of its arms.

Citizens should also be practitioners of civic virtue in their conduct toward government. They should be ever willing to fulfill the duties of citizenship. This includes compulsory duties like military service and the numerous voluntary actions they must take if they are to preserve the principle of limited government through citizen self-reliance. For example, since U.S. citizens value the right of trial by jury, they must be willing to serve on juries, even those involving unsavory subject matter. Citizens who favor morality cannot leave the enforcement of moral laws to jurors who oppose them.

The single word that best describes a fulfillment of the duties of civic virtue is patriotism. Citizens should be patriotic. My favorite prescription for patriotism is that of Adlai Stevenson:

“What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? … A patriotism that puts country ahead of self; a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.” 20

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/02/the-d ... n?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jonesde]

You are quoting criminals and tyrants, i.e. the "Justice" department. Google the Department of Truth, from 1984.

Larken is right. You and the IRS are wrong.

The fact that the thugs like IRS, trample justice, reason, and law does not make them right.

Learn that.

That question, even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest, to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.

In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of “law enforcement,” than has been committed in spite of it.

People don’t mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN “country,” their OWN “government,” and their OWN “law enforcers,” in any sort of objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a. “patriotism”), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue, the idea of forcibly resisting “law enforcement” is simply unthinkable to many. Literally, they can’t even THINK about it. And humanity has suffered horribly because of it. It is a testament to the effectiveness of authoritarian indoctrination that literally billions of people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the face of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP it.

Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.)

To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A”–even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side–you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak your mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL ”government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.

Those who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice–even if the injustice is called ”law”–that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow ”government” agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.

Of course, on a practical level, openly resisting the gang called ”government” is usually very hazardous to one’s health. But there is a big difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which is often necessary and rational, and feeling a moral obligation to go along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which is pathetic and insane.

The next time you hear of a police officer being killed “in the line of duty,” take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the “law enforcer” was the bad guy and the “cop killer” was the good guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.

http://www.copblock.org/5475/when-shoul ... oot-a-cop/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We believe in being _subject_ to government folks, not obedient to them. We only believe in being obedient to God and to parents when children. As for laws, there are limits on this as made clear in D&C 134:2:

We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

Outside of that scope it is clear that not only are the laws not valid, but that any government that goes beyond this scope will NOT exist in peace. The overreach of federal, state, and local governments that we suffer from is destroying peace in this country. Yes, many of us are peacemakers and we honor even the dishonorable laws, but that does not make them right nor does it mean that those who violate such laws are violating teaching of the gospel of Christ.

What's interesting is that D&C 134 goes beyond this to describe a position on those in government who go beyond what is justified, making it clear that they will be accountable to God for it:

We believe that agovernments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men baccountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

Heck, D&C 134 even makes a clear distinction between the proper role of government and the proper role of religion, and that governments should not be used to enforce religious policy (the BoM talks about this too):

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of aworship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish bguilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

[Jason]

Lincoln was a tyrant who did not want to liberate the slaves, but was forced to.

Disabuse your mind! In his own words:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." -- Abraham Lincoln

Read more: You Can't Secede...Because We're Exiling You!

Abraham Lincoln is said to have loved a poem that reads:
Oh why should the spirit of mortal be proud?
Like a swift-flitting meteor, a fast-flying cloud,
A flash of the lightning, a break of the wave,
Man passeth from life to his rest in the grave.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... m?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stephen A. Douglas did aspire to the presidency of the United States. He did have opportunity to defend the Church. But in a political speech in 1857, he viciously attacked the Church as “a loathsome, disgusting ulcer in the body politic” and recommended that Congress cut it out.

Some have asserted that no one had better prospects for the presidency than did Douglas, but when the results of the election were tallied, he received only twelve electoral votes. The election victory went to an obscure backwoodsman by the name of Abraham Lincoln.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/03/josep ... n?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We have thousands of times more available information than Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln. Yet which of us would think ourselves a thousand times more educated or more serviceable to our fellowmen than they? The sublime quality of what these two men gave to us—including the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address—was not attributable to their great resources of information, for their libraries were comparatively small by our standards. Theirs was the wise and inspired use of a limited amount of information.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Remember that those who climb to high places did not always have it easy. We are told that when Abraham Lincoln was a young man, he ran for the legislature in Illinois and was badly “swamped.”

He next entered business, failed, and spent 17 years of his life paying up the debts of a worthless partner. He fell in love with a beautiful young woman, to whom he became engaged, then she died. Entering politics, he ran for congress and was badly defeated. He tried to get an appointment to the U.S. land office but failed. He became a candidate for the U.S. Senate and was badly defeated. Then in 1856 he became a candidate for vice-president and was again defeated. In 1858 he was defeated by Douglas, but in the face of all this defeat and failure, he eventually achieved the highest success attainable in life and undying fame to the end of time. This was the Abraham Lincoln who was president of the United States. This was the Abraham Lincoln about whom numerous books have been written. This was the Abraham Lincoln who carved his own success out of the mountains of difficulty.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/11/the-d ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Abraham Lincoln said of the Bible: “This Great Book … is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Saviour gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong” (Speeches and Writings, 1859–1865 [1989], 628).

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... e?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We must learn the principles of the Constitution and then abide by its precepts. Have we read the Constitution and pondered it? Are we aware of its principles? Could we defend it? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound?

I quote Abraham Lincoln:

“Let [the Constitution] be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling-books, and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation.”

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/09/the-c ... d?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Public virtue, which expects men to rise above self-interest and to act in the public interest with wisdom and courage, was so evident in leaders like George Washington, who, we used to declare, could never tell a lie, and Abraham Lincoln, known as “Honest Abe.” In the past few years we have seen “official after official—both on the national and the local political scene—put self-interest … above the larger public interest. …

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1 ... y?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When I think of love, I think of Abraham Lincoln, one of the outstanding presidents of the United States. He was also one of the nation’s greatest writers and orators. I have seldom read words that better characterize the love that a man can have for others than the love he described as he penned a letter to a mother who had lost all her sons in the Civil War. It is known as the Lydia Bixby Letter. Note carefully the words of Abraham Lincoln and see if you don’t feel within your heart the love that filled his:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/03/formu ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Be a Sincere Friend

President Monson quotes the 16th president of the United States. “Abraham Lincoln offered this wise counsel, which surely applies to home teachers: ‘If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.’

“A friend makes more than a dutiful visit each month. A friend is more concerned about helping people than getting credit. A friend cares. A friend loves. A friend listens. A friend reaches out.”

http://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostle ... y?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All of us can become discouraged. But when I think of discouragement, I sometimes think of a news article I once read:

“If you sometimes get discouraged, consider this fellow. He dropped out of grade school. Operated a country store. Went bankrupt. Took 15 years to pay off his bills. Took a wife. Unhappy marriage. Ran for U.S. House of Representatives. Lost twice. Ran for U.S. Senate. Lost twice. Delivered speech that became a classic. Audience indifferent. Attacked daily by the press and despised by half the country. Despite all this, imagine how many people all over the world have been inspired by this awkward, rumpled, brooding man who signed his name simply, A. Lincoln.” (Wall Street Journal).

http://www.lds.org/liahona/1985/06/stre ... r?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some spurn effort and substitute an alibi. We hear the plea, “I was denied the advantages others had in their youth.” And then we remember the caption that Webster, the cartoonist, placed under a sketch of Abraham Lincoln’s log cabin: “Ill-housed, ill-fed, ill-clothed.”

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/03/in-qu ... e?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Abraham Lincoln said: “I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live up to what light I have.” 4 Lincoln is remembered for what he did but also for what he was—a forthright man of integrity.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2003/07/stayi ... r?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So life has its oppositions and its conflicts, and the gospel of Jesus Christ has answers and assurances. In a time of terrible civil warfare, one of the most gifted leaders ever to strive to hold a nation together said what could be said of marriages and families and friendships. Praying for peace, pleading for peace, seeking peace in any way that would not compromise union, Abraham Lincoln said in those dark, dark days of his First Inaugural, “Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory,” he said, “will yet swell … when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” 15

The better angels of our nature. That is much of what the Church and general conference and the gospel of Jesus Christ are about. The appeal today and tomorrow and forever to be better, to be cleaner, to be kinder, to be holier; to seek peace and always be believing.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1 ... m?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A few, like Lincoln, though in a political role, provide spiritual leadership as well. Lincoln, by the way, warned of how individuals of ambition and talents would continue to arise and that such an individual “thirsts and burns for distinction, and if possible … will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving freemen” (cited in John Wesley Hill, Abraham Lincoln—Man of God [1927], 74; emphasis in original).

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/05/repen ... 8?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Abraham Lincoln once asked, “What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence?” He then answered, “It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, our army and our navy. … Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in us.” (Speech at Edwardsville, Illinois, 11 Sept. 1858, quoted in John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations, Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1968, p. 636.)

There are, of course, those who, in bitterness and disbelief, have rejected the idea of an independent spirit in man that is capable of free will and choice and true liberty.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/11/the-g ... e?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The legendary General Robert E. Lee of American Civil War fame declared, “Duty is the sublimest word in our language. … You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less.”

From that same hour of history, as Abraham Lincoln left the people of Springfield to take over the nation’s presidency, he said, “Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith let us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it.” (Address, Cooper Union, New York, 27 Feb. 1860.)

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/05/the-c ... y?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Abraham Lincoln, America’s greatest hero, was tragically homely. But from his great heart and mind came words such as few other men have spoken.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/03/a-con ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

President Kimball once said, “What mother, looking down with tenderness upon her chubby infant does not envision her child as the president of the Church or the leader of her nation! As he is nestled in her arms, she sees him a statesman, a leader, a prophet. Some dreams do come true! One mother gives us a Shakespeare, another a Michelangelo, and another an Abraham Lincoln, and still another a Joseph Smith.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/03/presi ... n?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These words about the martyred Abraham Lincoln also describe the majesty of the Prophet Joseph Smith:
Here was a man to hold against the world,
A man to match the mountains and the sea. …
And when he fell in whirlwind, he went down
As when a lordly cedar, green with boughs,
Goes down with a great shout upon the hills,
And leaves a lonesome place against the sky.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... n?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Believe it or not, at one time the very notion of government had less to do with politics than with virtue. According to James Madison, often referred to as the father of the Constitution: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of the government—far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” (Russ Walton, Biblical Principles of Importance to Godly Christians, New Hampshire: Plymouth Foundation, 1984, p. 361.)

George Washington agreed with his colleague James Madison. Said Washington: “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” (James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the President, 1789–1897, U.S. Congress, 1899, vol. 1, p. 220.)

Nearly one hundred years later, Abraham Lincoln responded to a question about which side God was on during the Civil War with this profound insight: “I am not at all concerned about that, for I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord’s side.” (Abraham Lincoln’s Stories and Speeches, ed. J. B. McClure, Chicago: Rhodes and McClure Publishing Co., 1896, pp. 185–86.)

Madison, Washington, and Lincoln all understood that democracy cannot possibly flourish in a moral vacuum and that organized religion plays an important role in preserving and maintaining public morality. Indeed, John Adams, another of America’s Founding Fathers, insisted: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.” (John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles F. Adams, 1854.)

Yet that is precisely the position we find ourselves in today. Our government is succumbing to pressure to distance itself from God and religion. Consequently, the government is discovering that it is incapable of contending with people who are increasingly “unbridled by morality and religion.”

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/10/relig ... y?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As Abraham Lincoln pronounced during the Civil War, so now may we say, “We have forgotten God!”

http://www.lds.org/new-era/1978/07/amer ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The revered Abraham Lincoln accurately described our plight: “We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth, and power. … But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.”

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... y?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Many Americans have lost sight of the truth that righteousness is the one indispensable ingredient to liberty. Perhaps as never before in our history is our nation collectively deserving of the indictment pronounced by Abraham Lincoln in these words:

“We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth, and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.

“It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the Offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.” (“A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America,” March 30, 1863, as cited in Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Washington, D.C.: United States Congress, 1897, pp. 164–65.)

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1 ... d?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In our childhood, we in the United States were told the stories of George Washington’s confessing to chopping down the cherry tree and Abraham Lincoln’s walking a great distance to return a small coin to its rightful owner. But clever debunkers in their unrighteous zeal have destroyed faith in such honesty; the media in all too many cases have paraded before us a veritable procession of deception in its many ugly forms.

What was once controlled by the moral and ethical standards of the people we now seek to handle by public law. And so the statutes multiply, enforcement agencies consume ever-increasing billions of dollars, and prison facilities are constantly expanded—but the torrent of dishonesty pours on and grows in volume.

http://www.lds.org/liahona/1993/06/we-b ... t?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I urge you to see the big picture and cease worrying about the little blemishes. Abraham Lincoln was a gangling figure of a man, with a long and craggy face. There were many who looked only at the imperfections of his countenance. There were others who joked over the way he walked, and kept their eyes so low that they never saw the true greatness of the man. That enlarged view came only to those who saw the whole character—body, mind, and spirit—as he stood at the head of a divided nation in its darkest hour, lacing it together “with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God” gave him to see the right. (Second Inaugural Address.)

Of course, there are aberrations in our history. There are blemishes to be found, if searched for, in the lives of all men, including our leaders past and present. But these are only incidental to the magnitude of their service and to the greatness of their contributions.

Keep before you the big picture, for this cause is as large as all mankind and as broad as all eternity. This is the church and kingdom of God. It requires the strength, the loyalty, the faith of all if it is to roll forward to bless the lives of our Father’s children over the earth.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/05/five- ... t?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jason]

You are quoting criminals and tyrants, i.e. the "Justice" department. Google the Department of Truth, from 1984.

Larken is right. You and the IRS are wrong.

The fact that the thugs like IRS, trample justice, reason, and law does not make them right.

Learn that.

That question, even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest, to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.

In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of “law enforcement,” than has been committed in spite of it.

People don’t mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN “country,” their OWN “government,” and their OWN “law enforcers,” in any sort of objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a. “patriotism”), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue, the idea of forcibly resisting “law enforcement” is simply unthinkable to many. Literally, they can’t even THINK about it. And humanity has suffered horribly because of it. It is a testament to the effectiveness of authoritarian indoctrination that literally billions of people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the face of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP it.

Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.)

To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A”–even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side–you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak your mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL ”government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.

Those who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice–even if the injustice is called ”law”–that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow ”government” agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.

Of course, on a practical level, openly resisting the gang called ”government” is usually very hazardous to one’s health. But there is a big difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which is often necessary and rational, and feeling a moral obligation to go along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which is pathetic and insane.

The next time you hear of a police officer being killed “in the line of duty,” take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the “law enforcer” was the bad guy and the “cop killer” was the good guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.

http://www.copblock.org/5475/when-shoul ... oot-a-cop/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We believe in being _subject_ to government folks, not obedient to them. We only believe in being obedient to God and to parents when children. As for laws, there are limits on this as made clear in D&C 134:2:

We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

Outside of that scope it is clear that not only are the laws not valid, but that any government that goes beyond this scope will NOT exist in peace. The overreach of federal, state, and local governments that we suffer from is destroying peace in this country. Yes, many of us are peacemakers and we honor even the dishonorable laws, but that does not make them right nor does it mean that those who violate such laws are violating teaching of the gospel of Christ.

What's interesting is that D&C 134 goes beyond this to describe a position on those in government who go beyond what is justified, making it clear that they will be accountable to God for it:

We believe that agovernments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men baccountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

Heck, D&C 134 even makes a clear distinction between the proper role of government and the proper role of religion, and that governments should not be used to enforce religious policy (the BoM talks about this too):

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of aworship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish bguilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

It is my purpose to show that in troubled times the Lord has always prepared a safe way ahead. We live in those “perilous times” which the Apostle Paul prophesied would come in the last days. 1 If we are to be safe individually, as families, and secure as a church, it will be through “obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.” 2

On July 24, 1849, the Saints had been in the valley two years to the day. They finally were free from years of mobbing and persecution. That called for a great celebration.

Just a few years earlier under dreadful conditions, the Prophet Joseph Smith suffered in Liberty Jail for months while the mobs drove the Saints from their homes. The words liberty and jail do not fit together very well.

Joseph called out:

“O God, where art thou? And where is the pavilion that covereth thy hiding place?

“How long shall thy hand be stayed, and thine eye, yea thy pure eye, behold from the eternal heavens the wrongs of thy people and of thy servants, and thine ear be penetrated with their cries?” 3

The Prophet Joseph Smith had earlier sought direction, and the Lord told the Saints to seek redress from the judges, the governor, and then the president. 4

Their appeals to the judges failed. During his life, Joseph Smith was summoned to court over 200 times on all kinds of trumped-up charges. He was never convicted.

When they sought redress from Governor Boggs of Missouri, he issued a proclamation: “The Mormons must be treated as enemies and must be exterminated or driven from the state, if necessary for the public good.” 5 That unleashed untold brutality and wickedness.

They appealed to President Martin Van Buren of the United States, who told them, “Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you.” 6

I will read the final paragraphs of their third petition addressed to the Congress of the United States:

“The afflictions of your memorialists have already been overwhelming, too much for humanity, too much for American citizens to endure without complaint. We have groaned under the iron hand of tyranny and oppression these many years. We have been robbed of our property to the amount of two millions of dollars. We have been hunted as the wild beasts of the forest. We have seen our aged fathers who fought in the Revolution, and our innocent children, alike slaughtered by our persecutors. We have seen the fair daughters of American citizens insulted and abused in the most inhuman manner, and finally, we have seen fifteen thousand souls, men, women, and children, driven by force of arms, during the severities of winter, from their sacred homes and firesides, to a land of strangers, penniless and unprotected. Under all these afflicting circumstances, we imploringly stretch forth our hands towards the highest councils of our nation, and humbly appeal to the illustrious Senators and Representatives of a great and free people for redress and protection.

“Hear! O hear the petitioning voice of many thousands of American citizens who now groan in exile … ! Hear! O hear the weeping and bitter lamentations of widows and orphans, whose husbands and fathers have been cruelly martyred in the land where the proud eagle … floats! Let it not be recorded in the archives of the nations, that … exiles sought protection and redress at your hands, but sought it in vain. It is in your power to save us, our wives, and our children, from a repetition of the bloodthirsty scenes of Missouri, and thus greatly relieve the fears of a persecuted and injured people, and your petitioners will ever pray.” 7

There was no pity, and they were turned away.

In 1844, while under the avowed protection of Governor Thomas Ford of Illinois, the Prophet Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were shot to death in Carthage Jail. Words cannot express the brutality and suffering the Saints had endured.

Now on this 24th of July in 1849, free at last from the mobbings, they planned to celebrate. 8

Everything the Saints owned would come across a thousand miles (1,600 km) of desert by handcart or covered wagon. It would be 20 more years before the railroad came as far as Salt Lake City. With almost nothing to work with, they determined that the celebration would be a grand expression of their feelings.

They built a bowery on Temple Square. They erected a flagpole 104 feet (32 m) tall. They made an enormous national flag 65 feet (20 m) in length and unfurled it at the top of this liberty pole.

It may seem puzzling, incredible almost beyond belief, that for the theme of this first celebration they chose patriotism and loyalty to that same government which had rejected and failed to assist them. What could they have been thinking of? If you can understand why, you will understand the power of the teachings of Christ.

Almost but not quite as amazing as their choice of patriotism for a theme was what came next: 24 aged sires (as they were called) led by patriarch Isaac Morley. They were known as the Silver Greys—all 60 years of age or older. Each carried a staff painted red with white ribbon floating at the top. One carried the Stars and Stripes. These men were a symbol of the priesthood, which was “from the beginning before the world was” 9 and had been restored in this dispensation.

The Saints knew that the Lord had told them to be “subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” 10 That commandment, revealed then, is true now of our members in every nation. We are to be law-abiding, worthy citizens.

The Lord told them, “I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose.” 11

“Brethren and friends, we who have lived to three-score years, have beheld the government of the United States in its glory, and know that the outrageous cruelties we have suffered proceeded from a corrupted and degenerate administration, while the pure principles of our boasted Constitution remain unchanged. …

“… As we have inherited the spirit of liberty and the fire of patriotism from our fathers, so let them descend [unchanged] to our posterity.” 14

One would think that, compelled by force of human nature, the Saints would seek revenge, but something much stronger than human nature prevailed.

The Apostle Paul explained:

“The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. …

“… We have the mind of Christ.” 15

That Spirit defined those early members of the Church as followers of Christ.

If you can understand a people so long-suffering, so tolerant, so forgiving, so Christian after what they had suffered, you will have unlocked the key to what a Latter-day Saint is. Rather than being consumed with revenge, they were anchored to revelation. Their course was set by the teachings still found today in the Old and the New Testaments, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

If you can understand why they would celebrate as they did, you can understand why we have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, in the principles of the gospel.

The Book of Mormon teaches, “We talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.” 16

And so today in these strangely perilous times, in the true Church of Jesus Christ 17 we teach and live the principles of His gospel.

The senior leaders of the Church will virtually always be seasoned by decades of preparation.

President Monson is ideally suited for the challenges of our day. He is sustained by two counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles—all prophets, seers, and revelators.

That same Lucifer who was cast out of our Father’s presence is still at work. He, with the angels who followed him, will trouble the work of the Lord and destroy it if he can.

But we will stay on course. We will anchor ourselves as families and as a church to these principles and ordinances. Whatever tests lie ahead, and they will be many, we must remain faithful and true.

I bear witness of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, that They live, that Thomas S. Monson is called of God by prophecy.

“The standard of truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing.” 22 Today the sun never sets on congregations of the Latter-day Saints. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... t?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jason]

The U.S. Constitution: Tool of Centralization and Debt, 1788-Today

The Constitution was from day one an instrument to consolidate Federal power and expand it. The Constitution has proven to be a weak reed in every attempt to slow down the expansion of Federal power. It has proven utterly impotent to roll Federal power back as little as a decade, ever.

Therefore, the following is just plain silly, politically speaking:

• If Congress proves unwilling to force indiscriminate cost reductions on government then it should apply constitutional principles to the budget whereby government functions not enumerated in the Constitution are abolished, privatized, or passed to the states.

I would of course love to see this. But I am unaware of any fiscal year since 1790 in which such a roll-back of Federal employment and Federal spending took place, other than after a major war, when the soldiers were de-commissioned and taxes were cut. If we are talking about civilian employment by the Federal government, I am unaware of any permanent reduction, ever.

There should come a time when the victims of a myth should figure out that they are the victims of a rich and powerful ruling class, which hires the teachers and screens the textbooks to keep the voters docile. But this dawning of enlightenment has yet to come.

When Washington's checks finally bounce, the day of enlightenment will come of necessity, not principle. Then we will have a shot at abandoning the myth of the Constitution as a restraint on Washington's power.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/7833.cfm

The Constitution is an inspired but profoundly flawed document! It had the seeds of its own destruction firmly implanted in it. These are:

• 1) The power to tax (read the power to rob).
  2) The power to coin money (read the power to counterfeit).
  3) Slavery. (Read slavery).
  4) Copyrights and patents (read government forced monopoly on information).

That's why I proposed the five amendments to rid the Constitution of these deadly flaws, and to square it with the Eternal Principles of liberty (see top post). Unless these corrections are implemented, the Liberty and consequently the society itself will inevitably self-destruct. No society can violate these eternal principles and not suffer the consequence, i.e. tyranny and eventual self-destruction.

There is need for public praise of our constitutions and their principles. A rising generation of influential opinion makers seems to place a lesser value on the United States Constitution. An example of that was related to me by a recent law graduate. In a panel discussion at the Harvard Law School, a professor of constitutional law criticized the United States Constitution in harsh terms. Another faculty panelist speculated that if his colleague’s criticisms were valid we might as well just take our written constitution and “roll it and smoke it.” That kind of disdain for our national constitution is more than concerning.

The United States Constitution is the oldest written national constitution still in use. It has served Americans well, enhancing freedom and prosperity during the changing conditions of more than 200 years. Frequently copied, it has become the United States’ most important export. After two centuries, every nation in the world except six have adopted written constitutions,[2] and the United States Constitution was a model for all of them. Consequently, if we abandon or weaken its fundamental principles, we betray our own national ideals and we also weaken our global neighbors.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/f ... lin-h-oaks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

George Washington was perhaps the first to use the word miracle in describing the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. In a 1788 letter to Lafayette, he said:

“It appears to me, then, little short of a miracle, that the delegates from so many different states (which states you know are also different from each other in their manners, circumstances, and prejudices) should unite in forming a system of national Government, so little liable to well-founded objections.” 3

It was a miracle. Consider the setting.

The thirteen colonies and three and one-half million Americans who had won independence from the British crown a few years earlier were badly divided on many fundamental issues. Some thought the colonies should reaffiliate with the British crown. Among the majority who favored continued independence, the most divisive issue was whether the United States should have a strong central government to replace the weak “league of friendship” established by the Articles of Confederation. Under the Confederation of 1781, there was no executive or judicial authority, and the national Congress had no power to tax or to regulate commerce. The thirteen states retained all their sovereignty, and the national government could do nothing without their approval. The Articles of Confederation could not be amended without the unanimous approval of all the states, and every effort to strengthen this loose confederation had failed.

Congress could not even protect itself. In July 1783, an armed mob of former Revolutionary War soldiers seeking back wages threatened to take Congress hostage at its meeting in Philadelphia. When Pennsylvania declined to provide militia to protect them, the congressmen fled. Thereafter Congress was a laughingstock, wandering from city to city.

Unless America could adopt a central government with sufficient authority to function as a nation, the thirteen states would remain a group of insignificant, feuding little nations united by nothing more than geography and forever vulnerable to the impositions of aggressive foreign powers. No wonder the first purpose stated in the preamble of the new United States Constitution was “to form a more perfect union.”

Economically and politically, the country was alarmingly weak. The states were in a paralyzing depression. Everyone was in debt. The national treasury was empty. Inflation was rampant. The various currencies were nearly worthless. The trade deficit was staggering. Rebelling against their inclusion in New York State, prominent citizens of Vermont had already entered into negotiations to rejoin the British crown. In the western territory, Kentucky leaders were speaking openly about turning from the union and forming alliances with the Old World.

Instead of reacting timidly because of disunity and weakness, the delegates boldly ignored the terms of their invitation to amend the Articles of Confederation and instead set out to write an entirely new constitution. They were conscious of their place in history. For millennia the world’s people had been ruled by kings or tyrants. Now a group of colonies had won independence from a king and their representatives had the unique opportunity of establishing a constitutional government Abraham Lincoln would later describe as “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

There is irony in the fact that a constitution which protects the people’s “right to know” was written under a set of ground rules that its present beneficiaries would not tolerate.

Reverence for the United States Constitution is so great that sometimes individuals speak as if its every word and phrase had the same standing as scripture. Personally, I have never considered it necessary to defend every line of the Constitution as scriptural. For example, I find nothing scriptural in the compromise on slavery or the minimum age or years of citizenship for congressmen, senators, or the president. President J. Reuben Clark, who referred to the Constitution as “part of my religion,” 6 also said that it was not part of his belief or the doctrine of the Church that the Constitution was a “fully grown document.” “On the contrary,” he said, “We believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world.” 7

That was also the attitude of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He faulted the Constitution for not being “broad enough to cover the whole ground.” In an obvious reference to the national government’s lack of power to intervene when the state of Missouri used its militia to expel the Latter-day Saints from their lands, Joseph Smith said,

“Its sentiments are good, but it provides no means of enforcing them. … Under its provision, a man or a people who are able to protect themselves can get along well enough; but those who have the misfortune to be weak or unpopular are left to the merciless rage of popular fury.” 8 This omission of national power to protect citizens against state action to deprive them of constitutional rights was remedied in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted just after the Civil War.

President Ezra Taft Benson expressed the fundamental principle of popular sovereignty when he said, “We [the people] are superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around.” 13 The Book of Mormon explains that principle in these words:

“An unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness. …

“Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws. …

“Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.” (Mosiah 29:23–26.)

Finally, the delegates had to decide how minority rights could be protected when the government was, by definition, controlled by the majority of the sovereign people.

A government based on popular sovereignty must be responsive to the people, but it must also be stable or it cannot govern. A constitution must therefore give government the power to withstand the cries of a majority of the people in the short run, though it must obviously be subject to their direction in the long run.

Without some government stability against an outraged majority, government could not protect minority rights. As President Clark declared:

“The Constitution was framed in order to protect minorities. That is the purpose of written constitutions. In order that the minorities might be protected in the matter of amendments under our Constitution, the Lord required that the amendments should be made only through the operation of very large majorities—two-thirds for action in the Senate, and three-fourths as among the states. This is the inspired, prescribed order.” 15

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention achieved the required balance between popular sovereignty and stability through a power of amendment that was ultimately available but deliberately slow. Only in this way could the government have the certainty of stability, the protection of minority rights, and the potential of change, all at the same time.

The rule of law and not of men. Further, there is divine inspiration in the fundamental underlying premise of this whole constitutional order. All the blessings enjoyed under the United States Constitution are dependent upon the rule of law. That is why President J. Reuben Clark said, “Our allegiance run to the Constitution and to the principles which it embodies, and not to individuals.” 16 The rule of law is the basis of liberty.

As the Lord declared in modern revelation, constitutional laws are justifiable before him, “and the law also maketh you free.” (D&C 98:5–8.) The self-control by which citizens subject themselves to law strengthens the freedom of all citizens and honors the divinely inspired Constitution.

Those who enjoy the blessings of liberty under a divinely inspired constitution should promote morality, and they should practice what the Founding Fathers called “civic virtue.” In his address on the U.S. Constitution, President Ezra Taft Benson quoted this important observation by John Adams, the second president of the United States:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” 18

Similarly, James Madison, who is known as the “Father of the Constitution,” stated his assumption that there had to be “sufficient virtue among men for self-government.” He argued in the Federalist Papers that “republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.” 19

It is part of our civic duty to be moral in our conduct toward all people. There is no place in responsible citizenship for dishonesty or deceit or for willful law breaking of any kind.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/02/the-d ... n?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The International Banking Cartel (I)
http://www.presstv.ir/Program/272398.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The International Banking Cartel (II)
http://www.presstv.ir/Program/273928.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you really want to change things, you first need to come to terms with just how corrupt and evil the current system is.

An incomplete understanding of the situation will lead to half baked solutions that accomplish nothing.

http://stormcloudsgathering.com/nazi-st ... government" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So what's the solution to the money problem??? More private money??? More private banking???

Episode 71: Following his “Farewell to Congress” speech last week, Congressman Ron Paul talks to GoldMoney’s Andy Duncan about the achievements and legacy of his recent presidential campaign – particularly in the context of monetary policy. They discuss the recent re-publication of his book The Case for Gold and his forthcoming chairmanship of the Campaign for Liberty. Paul also talks about the likelihood of America returning to some form of gold standard in the years ahead and the prospects for private currency issuance; what the next four years under President Obama are likely to hold; and the shale oil revolution.

http://www.goldmoney.com/podcast/ron-pa ... globalecon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...they always conveniently leave out Council on Foreign Relations member Lewis Lehrman who partnered with Ron Paul in writing that book...not to mention Lewis Lehrman's derivative work with Project for the New American Century (PNAC) -

Money and the coming World Order
http://www.thegoldstandardnow.org/image ... -Order.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lord Alfred Milner, wealthy English man and front man for the Rothschilds, served as paymaster for the International bankers in Petrograd during the Bolshevik Revolution. Milner later headed secret society known as The Round Table which was dedicated to establishing a world government whereby a clique of super-rich financiers would control the world under the guise of Socialism. The American subsidiary of this conspiracy is called the Council on Foreign Relations and was started by, and is still controlled by Leftist international bankers.

http://www.ldsfreedomnetwork.com/none-d ... piracy.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank…sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.

- Carroll Quigley

In describing the characteristics of the Rothschilds and other major international bankers, Dr. Quigley tells us that they remained different from ordinary bankers in several ways: they were cosmopolitan and international; they were close to governments and were particularly concerned with government debts, including foreign government debts; these bankers came to be called "international bankers." (Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p.52)

But while wars and revolutions have been useful to international bankers in gaining or increasing control over governments, the key to such control has always been control of money. You can control a government if you have it in your debt; a creditor is in a position to demand the privileges of monopoly from the sovereign. Money-seeking governments have granted monopolies in state banking, natural resources, oil concessions and transportation. However, the monopoly which the international financiers most covet is control over a nation's money.

Eventually these international bankers actually owned as private corporations the central banks of the various European nations. The Bank of England, Bank of France and Bank of Germany were not owned by their respective governments, as almost everyone imagines, but were privately owned monopolies granted by the heads of state, usually in return for loans. Under this system, observed Reginald McKenna, President of the Midlands Bank of England: "Those that create and issue the money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in their hands the destiny of the people." Once the government is in debt to the bankers it is at their mercy. A frightening example was cited by the London Financial Times of September 26, 1921, which revealed that even at that time:

"Half a dozen men at the top of the Big Five Banks could upset the whole fabric of government finance by refraining from renewing Treasury Bills."

http://www.ldsfreedomnetwork.com/none-d ... piracy.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.

- Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance.

- James Madison, Father of the Constitution

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

- Thomas Jefferson

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

- Thomas Jefferson

I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.

- Remarks at dinner honoring Nobel Prize winners of the Western Hemisphere on 4/29/62 by JFK
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Read ... tions.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/quote]

Paul supports legalization of parallel currencies, such as gold-backed notes issued from private markets and digital gold currencies.[66] He would like gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies[67] to compete on a level playing field with Federal Reserve Notes, allowing individuals a choice whether to use sound money or to continue using fiat money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... f_Ron_Paul" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The ultimate solution will only come with the rejection of fiat money worldwide, and a restoration of commodity money. Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation.

— Ron Paul, Congressional Record, March 13, 2001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dH3_Lcf ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...in "private hands" of course...

If history shows anything, it's that prosperity is possible only in a protective system. The purpose of a national government to defend our rights against the organized powers of money, the pull-down nature of international trade, and to use public credit and commonwealth to help foster the conditions for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/The- ... 1-872.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How powerful is our "central bank?" The Federal Reserve controls our money supply and interest rates, and thereby manipulates the entire economy-creating inflation or deflation, recession or boom, and sending the stock market up or down at whim. The Federal Reserve is so powerful that Congressman Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, maintains:

"In the United States today we have in effect two governments… We have the duly constituted Government… Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution."

Neither Presidents, Congressmen nor Secretaries of the Treasury direct the Federal Reserve! In the matters of money, the Federal Reserve directs them! The uncontrolled power of the "Fed" was admitted by Secretary of the Treasury David M. Kennedy in an interview for the May 5, 1969, issue of U.S. News & World Report:

"Q. Do you approve of the latest credit-tightening moves?

A. It's not my job to approve or disapprove. It is the action of the Federal Reserve."

http://www.ldsfreedomnetwork.com/none-d ... piracy.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is interesting to note how many assassinations of Presidents of the United States follow their concern with the issuing of public currency; Lincoln with his Greenback, non-interest-bearing notes, and Garfield, making a pronouncement on currency problems just before he was assassinated. We now begin to understand why such a lengthy campaign of planned deception was necessary, from the secret conference at Jekyll Island to the identical “reform” plans proposed by the Democratic and Republican parties under different names. The bankers could not wrest control of the issuance of money from the citizens of the United States, to whom it had been designated through its Congress by the Constitution, until the Congress granted them their monopoly for a central bank.

- Eustace Mullins "Secrets of the Federal Reserve"

A piece appeared in the press noting that businessmen are insisting with increasing zeal on searching the minds and the hearts of their employees by means of polygraph tests. If any arm of government were to go so far, they would be met by horrified protests at this vicious attack on individual freedom, and rightly so. What is it that gives ordinary businessmen a power greater than that of the government? It is the capacity for giving or withholding money—nothing else in the world. This is the weapon that Satan chose from the beginning to place him and his plans beyond politics, and it has worked with deadly effect. There is only one thing in man’s world that can offer any check on the unlimited power of money—and that is government. That is why money always accuses government of trying to destroy free agency, when the great enslaver has always been money itself.

- Hugh Nibley
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... ts/?id=162" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“I established the Constitution of this land,” said the Lord, “by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose” (D&C 101:80).

The dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple, as dictated by the Lord and found in the Doctrine and Covenants, contains these words: “May those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever” (D&C 109:54).

After he became President of the Church, President Wilford Woodruff declared that “those men who laid the foundation of this American government were the best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits … [and] were inspired of the Lord” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1898, p. 89).

Unfortunately, we as a nation have apostatized in various degrees from different Constitutional principles as proclaimed by the inspired founders.

The Lord said, “Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land” (D&C 98:6).

How then can we best befriend the Constitution in this critical hour and secure the blessings of liberty and ensure the protection and guidance of our Father in Heaven?

First and foremost, we must be righteous.

John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (The Works of John Adams, ed. C. F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31). If the Constitution is to have continuance, this American nation, and especially the Latter-day Saints, must be virtuous.

Second, we must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.

Have we read The Federalist papers? Are we reading the Constitution and pondering it? Are we aware of its principles? Are we abiding by these principles and teaching them to others? Could we defend the Constitution? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound? Do we know what the prophets have said about the Constitution and the threats to it?

As Jefferson said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be” (Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, 6 Jan. 1816).

We must become accurately informed and then let others know how we feel. The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “It is our duty to concentrate all our influence to make popular that which is sound and good, and unpopular that which is unsound. ‘Tis right, politically, for a man who has influence to use it. … From henceforth I will maintain all the influence I can get” (History of the Church, 5:286).

I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document. To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed His stamp of approval upon it.

I testify that the God of heaven sent some of His choicest spirits to lay the foundation of this government, and He has now sent other choice spirits to help preserve it.

We, the blessed beneficiaries of the Constitution, face difficult days in America, “a land which is choice above all other lands” (Ether 2:10).

May God give us the faith and the courage exhibited by those patriots who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

May we be equally as valiant and as free, I pray in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... n?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress):

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"I Want to Legalize the Constitution" ~ Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqZZiW0VFrA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LoveIsTruth]

Jason/Mummy/Legion,

If you think clearly you should be able to state your point concisely.

"Control of money" in that context, means a government forced monopoly. Remove the monopoly and you kill unbacked fiat by the hand of Free Competition in Currencies, which is the right of the people who are truly free.

It is unjust to create a government forced monopoly. What do you have against JUSTICE?

[jonesde]

Jason/Mummy/Legion,

If you think clearly you should be able to state your point concisely.

"Control of money" in that context, means a government forced monopoly. Remove the monopoly and you kill unbacked fiat by the hand of Free Competition in Currencies, which is the right of the people who are truly free.

It is unjust to create a government forced monopoly. What do you have against JUSTICE?

The disconnect here, and what makes it difficult to discuss these things with Legion is that he truly believes that the government is the only organization, individually or collectively, that represents the people. It seems his perspective is that even the people themselves do not represent the people and that really only government does.

From that perspective it is impossible to see the government as doing anything bad for "the people", and it seems like the only solution to any problem is to have the government control it (because... it represents "the people"). It also leads to the belief that all of the problems we now face are with individuals and institutions that are not controlled by "the people" through the government.

Unfortunately this fails to recognize the constant disapproval of government actions and agents, and the proof by the bailouts and such that government consistently acts against the will of the majority and does so because of usurpation of power and complete violation of the limits of government detailed in the constitution.

Going after private organizations like banks and large corporations using government will NEVER work because those banks and large corporations are creations of government and the privileges and monopolies of those "private" organizations come directly from government. They work hand-in-hand, not in any sort of opposition, regardless of the lies of political rhetoric. The actions of those involved in both public and private sectors paint a very different picture.

Whatever the case, the belief that Legion has mentioned on various occasions should at least make it easier to understand the perspective that he comes from and the basis for the explanations of cause for issues along with the proposals for solutions.

Also, if Legion says that he used to be where you are, don't believe it for a minute. It is clear that he never really believed in or agreed with the true principles of liberty, and his background in government positions helps make this clear.

On the other hand, once you pluck out everything Legion says that is based on this belief that government represents the people and is the best solution to any given problem, he REALLY has some interesting and useful things to say. For that reason I read most of his posts and find them to be of value, but I don't respond to them very often any more. Still... I have been tricked by his use of other accounts and had long, laborious discussions with him through alter egos not realizing it was him. I'd like to think that now I recognize his patterns more and could avoid that even if he created new accounts and tried to bait me, but I'm not really sure I wouldn't fall for it again... #-o