Has anyone abandoned Libertarianism or Paleo-Conservativism?

[Jason]

There's certainly a context or bias to everything....but those were just a couple samples. Plenty has been written by the Mises folks regarding a return to the Articles which as pointed out by Elder Oaks and President Benson were a dismal failure.

The contrast between the two seems quite transparent...but to each their own.

Anyways I reckon we now know which side of the Constitution and religious fence you fall on.

If all else fails by all means resort to personal attacks...

[Jason]

Oh, Bourne dude, Mr "Swagger" Wahlberg, etc etc. I KNOW that you KNOW that when this country "comes to the rescue" of other nations, they have no intention of helping them. So save it. You're not fooling anyone.

You're also making it sound like I'm AGAINST the constitution. No, I'm against the abuse of an ever-increasing tyrannical federal government who was NEVER intended to have this much power. Those quotes you put up from Lew Rockwell in attempt to make your point, shows that you don't understand the context in which it was spoken. The quote isn't pointing out that the constitution was bad when compared to the AoF, it is instead damning the rapid expansion of federal jurisdiction the constitution guarantees to the states. Or in other words, the subversion of the constitution and not the constitution itself. It has plenty checks and balances. They're just being ignored.

Don't forget that Legion (or one of his other names on this forum) said that Ron Paul "is controlled by the Globalists and a tool of satan." That statement certainly establishes Legion's credibility!!

Joseph Smith saw God...does that establish my credibility as well...LOL

And I stand by that statement. The solution to a private banking problem (End The Fed) isn't more private banking via markets Ron has already declared are controlled and manipulated. In fact Ron resorted to government to correct market manipulation...and not Goldman Sachs. So either he's extremely ignorant and just flat out stupid...or he's a lying two faced politician with alterior motives (think Peter Thiel and CIA and Paypal and digital gold for one world currency).

I don't buy into the ignorant stupid stance...and think he's brilliantly talented. Obviously I'm not alone considering who some of his buddies are (CFR and Bilderberg). If you do...more power to you!!!

[InfoWarrior82]

Anyways I reckon we now know which side of the Constitution and religious fence you fall on.

Thank you. I'm glad it's now clear that I'm a supporter of the Original Intent of the constitution.

[Rock34]

I'm favoring more towards constitutional monarchy myself. Get the medieval Church of the Devil out of it and go straight to heraldry, knighthood and nobility. To me it's the natural rule of man since the first civilizations on earth. Even the Book of Mormon supports my position, contrary to popular belief. King Benjamin had everything going well, so did King Nephi. You don't read many serious shenanigans until the Judges start taking over. King Noah was easily overthrown compared to the Gadianton conspiracy. Even the Jaredites had some stability under good kings. It's when they couldn't decide upon succession that they started to go into anarchy. It doesn't help that Moroni and Mormon put their biased spin on monarchy. Nephi didn't seem too opposed to it. Life was "like a dream" under the original Nephite monarchy in the New World. The best 200 years were when they lived under their ultimate King, the resurrected Christ.

The Old Testament had chaos and wars up until David and Solomon came along, then came unprecedented prosperity. It wasn't until the split that they started quarreling.

In Britain, I guess I would be considered a "conservative". In America, I'm a Benedict Arnold traitor. Oh well.

[InfoWarrior82]

Joseph Smith saw God...does that establish my credibility as well...LOL

And I stand by that statement. The solution to a private banking problem (End The Fed) isn't more private banking via markets Ron has already declared are controlled and manipulated. In fact Ron resorted to government to correct market manipulation...and not Goldman Sachs. So either he's extremely ignorant and just flat out stupid...or he's a lying two faced politician with alterior motives (think Peter Thiel and CIA and Paypal and digital gold for one world currency).

I don't buy into the ignorant stupid stance...and think he's brilliantly talented. Obviously I'm not alone considering who some of his buddies are (CFR and Bilderberg). If you do...more power to you!!!

You don't know Ron Paul's ideology as well as you think you do. As a congressman, part of his congressional duty was to establish the laws of legal tender (as pointed out in the constitution.) It is the legal tender laws of today, which sprang from the establishment of the private federal reserve system and even the civil war, which Ron Paul was trying to reverse. Also, you make the mistake in assuming Ron Paul wants to abdicate the role of government in maintaining the "regulation" of our currency. Competing currencies does not mean the elimination of a government established currency. Are you proposing that we should also eliminate UPS, Federal Express, DHL, etc?

What is the only way to break up a monopoly? Especially, when a private banking cartel owns the government? Oh! Oh! Oh! Ron Paul knows! Pick him! Pick him! Ron Paul: Introduce the free market once again, (as a congressman). Competing currencies = no more monopoly. Did you know it used to be legal to use gold and silver as currency!? Yeah! It's true! Hey, and at one time, even our paper money was backed by gold too! Wow!

But of course it will never happen. The gadiantons have it in the bag. They have everything they've always wanted. Right here, right now. Not someday. Now.

[Jason]

Anyways I reckon we now know which side of the Constitution and religious fence you fall on.

Thank you. I'm glad it's now clear that I'm a supporter of the Original Intent of the constitution.

That's one way to put it...

Of course one can rationalize things however they want....but the reality is the two sides (church leadership...not to mention God Himself and libertarian pundits) have completely different perspectives. I find it impossible to reconcile the two...but if you can...more power to you!!!

God

According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... ang=eng#79" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

vs.

Libertarians

Johnsson: Do you agree with Ron Paul that we should go by the Constitution and that's it?

Rockwell: The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown.

http://www.dailypaul.com/78807/lew-rock ... federation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The prevailing historical interpretation of the country under the Articles of Confederation is an example of the harm that has resulted from the ignorance of economics among generations of historians.

Our best guides to the critical decade of the 1780s are two of the few American historians who understand economics and are true liberals—William Graham Sumner and Murray Rothbard.

We know the consummation. The nationalists were able to exploit the situation sufficiently to secure a federal convention to be held in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787. Exceeding their instructions (which were only to draw up a few amendments), the delegates decided to throw out the Articles altogether and write a new national constitution which was subsequently ratified by the states (but not without considerable opposition and probably a national majority opposed to it). Rothbard described it as the triumph of "a radically nationalist program that would recreate as much as possible the pre-liberal situation existing before the Revolution. . . . In short, they were able to destroy much of the original individualist and decentralist program of the American Revolution." We live with the consequences today.

Thus do we see how the period of the Articles of Confederation was not characterized by chaos and increasingly bad economic times, as historians tend to assume. Rather, the Articles proved themselves to be a perfectly viable structure for a free society, encouraging trade and prosperity and adherence to the highest ideals of 1776.

http://mises.org/daily/1296" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.

It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali.

In the second place, the old Articles of Confederation, to which the states had subscribed in good faith as a working agreement, made all due provision for their own amendment; and now these men had ignored these provisions, simply putting the Articles of Confederation in the wastebasket and bringing forth an entirely new document of their own devising.

http://mises.org/daily/4254" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

During the era when the Articles of Confederation provided a framework for government, Americans lived their natural Inherent Autonomy with less interference. An artificial reverence for the U.S Constitution, immediately guarantees a disconnect from optimism. Personal benefit in harmony with national gain rests upon the precept of unified agreement. The standard of principle must share a natural distrust for despotic government. We all lost our cause with the emergence of a strong federal state. This kind of union has proven to be authoritarian nightmare. Freedom had a better chance under the Articles of Confederation.

http://batr.org/autonomy/121204.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Advocacy to restore the Constitution falls short. Reform can never reinstate a natural autonomy. The establishment of an excessive central government is the tragic legacy of a flawed organization that diminished individual States authority. The essential quandary for the paradox that results from the creation of the contract is how do you hold public officials accountable and enforce sanctions for abusing the highest law of the land? Obviously, the government cannot be trusted to respect the rightful limits originally intended. If a band of urban Founding Fathers perverted their own meaning of the Constitution, what chance exists in the ominous age of globalism?

At the very least, let us be honest and debate with integrity. The U.S. Constitution destroyed the voluntary union and replaced it with an unforgiving master. Our mutual mission should seek the building of a genuine Republic. Only with the admission that the experiment failed, can the future be rescued.

http://batr.org/autonomy/122604.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the U.S. Constitution can be so totally perverted to make it effectively non existent, what hope is there in it’s restoration when it mistakenly allowed for the creation of an empowered central government? The contrast, in the Articles of Confederation, offered modest functions for a federal legislature, a limited and rotating management of bureaucratic duties and a very narrow role for federal courts. By resorting to the pressures and the power ambitions of autocrats, the 1789 Constitution sowed the seeds for a worst tyranny that has eaten away at the protections that were so obviously intended, when it was written. Sovereign States have been reduced to beggars. Under the Articles of Confederation the “perpetual union between the States” might have been achievable. With the invention of a preeminent executive and a proscriptive judiciary, we have evolved into a rule by an imperial dictator blessed under the cloak and process of arbitrary sanction.

The attempt in the U.S. Constitution to design strict prohibitions and parameters for a central government have been ignored and transgressed by succeeding generations of power mad Statists that hate Liberty as much as they love mastery over citizens. The proof of the insanity, for allowing a transfer of conditional authority into a structure that inevitably fosters the rule of depraved domination freaks, is the sad story of our history. Evil men who lust for power over all else, will always be with us. Granting them an easy road to perfect their sinister plots in the name of allegiance to country is lunacy. The principles upon which the Articles of Confederation were conceived, respected the righteousness of self rule. Revitalize the autonomy of states and diminish the scope of central intrusion. The war for independence must be fought again, the impostor who would be king is still named George . .

http://batr.org/autonomy/010905.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It used to be that I was all fired up in support of “restoring the Constitution.” It wasn’t until I considered the philosophical arguments against constitutions in general that I came to realize that support for the US Constitution is like supporting your own enslavement.

Consider that constitutions are pieces of paper that purport to give some arbitrary body of men the legitimacy to rob people at the point of a gun in order to supposedly secure “their liberties.” I don’t know about you, but armed robbery seems like a ridiculous way to secure someone’s “liberty”.

The Constitution codifies and legitimizes mass theft, war and the imposition of regulations upon commercial enterprise that ought not to exist in the first place. Constitutions, no matter how they are written, ALWAYS reduce individual liberty because they always seek to legitimize coercively funded State power and centralize it within some governing body.

http://www.libertariannews.org/2012/02/ ... stitution/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[InfoWarrior82]

Anyways I reckon we now know which side of the Constitution and religious fence you fall on.

Thank you. I'm glad it's now clear that I'm a supporter of the Original Intent of the constitution.

That's one way to put it...

Of course one can rationalize things however they want....but the reality is the two sides (church leadership...not to mention God Himself and libertarian pundits) have completely different perspectives. I find it impossible to reconcile the two...but if you can...more power to you!!!

God

According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... ang=eng#79" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

vs.

Libertarians

Johnsson: Do you agree with Ron Paul that we should go by the Constitution and that's it?

Rockwell: The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown.

http://www.dailypaul.com/78807/lew-rock ... federation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The prevailing historical interpretation of the country under the Articles of Confederation is an example of the harm that has resulted from the ignorance of economics among generations of historians.

Our best guides to the critical decade of the 1780s are two of the few American historians who understand economics and are true liberals—William Graham Sumner and Murray Rothbard.

We know the consummation. The nationalists were able to exploit the situation sufficiently to secure a federal convention to be held in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787. Exceeding their instructions (which were only to draw up a few amendments), the delegates decided to throw out the Articles altogether and write a new national constitution which was subsequently ratified by the states (but not without considerable opposition and probably a national majority opposed to it). Rothbard described it as the triumph of "a radically nationalist program that would recreate as much as possible the pre-liberal situation existing before the Revolution. . . . In short, they were able to destroy much of the original individualist and decentralist program of the American Revolution." We live with the consequences today.

Thus do we see how the period of the Articles of Confederation was not characterized by chaos and increasingly bad economic times, as historians tend to assume. Rather, the Articles proved themselves to be a perfectly viable structure for a free society, encouraging trade and prosperity and adherence to the highest ideals of 1776.

http://mises.org/daily/1296" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.

It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali.

In the second place, the old Articles of Confederation, to which the states had subscribed in good faith as a working agreement, made all due provision for their own amendment; and now these men had ignored these provisions, simply putting the Articles of Confederation in the wastebasket and bringing forth an entirely new document of their own devising.

http://mises.org/daily/4254" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

During the era when the Articles of Confederation provided a framework for government, Americans lived their natural Inherent Autonomy with less interference. An artificial reverence for the U.S Constitution, immediately guarantees a disconnect from optimism. Personal benefit in harmony with national gain rests upon the precept of unified agreement. The standard of principle must share a natural distrust for despotic government. We all lost our cause with the emergence of a strong federal state. This kind of union has proven to be authoritarian nightmare. Freedom had a better chance under the Articles of Confederation.

http://batr.org/autonomy/121204.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Advocacy to restore the Constitution falls short. Reform can never reinstate a natural autonomy. The establishment of an excessive central government is the tragic legacy of a flawed organization that diminished individual States authority. The essential quandary for the paradox that results from the creation of the contract is how do you hold public officials accountable and enforce sanctions for abusing the highest law of the land? Obviously, the government cannot be trusted to respect the rightful limits originally intended. If a band of urban Founding Fathers perverted their own meaning of the Constitution, what chance exists in the ominous age of globalism?

At the very least, let us be honest and debate with integrity. The U.S. Constitution destroyed the voluntary union and replaced it with an unforgiving master. Our mutual mission should seek the building of a genuine Republic. Only with the admission that the experiment failed, can the future be rescued.

http://batr.org/autonomy/122604.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the U.S. Constitution can be so totally perverted to make it effectively non existent, what hope is there in it’s restoration when it mistakenly allowed for the creation of an empowered central government? The contrast, in the Articles of Confederation, offered modest functions for a federal legislature, a limited and rotating management of bureaucratic duties and a very narrow role for federal courts. By resorting to the pressures and the power ambitions of autocrats, the 1789 Constitution sowed the seeds for a worst tyranny that has eaten away at the protections that were so obviously intended, when it was written. Sovereign States have been reduced to beggars. Under the Articles of Confederation the “perpetual union between the States” might have been achievable. With the invention of a preeminent executive and a proscriptive judiciary, we have evolved into a rule by an imperial dictator blessed under the cloak and process of arbitrary sanction.

The attempt in the U.S. Constitution to design strict prohibitions and parameters for a central government have been ignored and transgressed by succeeding generations of power mad Statists that hate Liberty as much as they love mastery over citizens. The proof of the insanity, for allowing a transfer of conditional authority into a structure that inevitably fosters the rule of depraved domination freaks, is the sad story of our history. Evil men who lust for power over all else, will always be with us. Granting them an easy road to perfect their sinister plots in the name of allegiance to country is lunacy. The principles upon which the Articles of Confederation were conceived, respected the righteousness of self rule. Revitalize the autonomy of states and diminish the scope of central intrusion. The war for independence must be fought again, the impostor who would be king is still named George . .

http://batr.org/autonomy/010905.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It used to be that I was all fired up in support of “restoring the Constitution.” It wasn’t until I considered the philosophical arguments against constitutions in general that I came to realize that support for the US Constitution is like supporting your own enslavement.

Consider that constitutions are pieces of paper that purport to give some arbitrary body of men the legitimacy to rob people at the point of a gun in order to supposedly secure “their liberties.” I don’t know about you, but armed robbery seems like a ridiculous way to secure someone’s “liberty”.

The Constitution codifies and legitimizes mass theft, war and the imposition of regulations upon commercial enterprise that ought not to exist in the first place. Constitutions, no matter how they are written, ALWAYS reduce individual liberty because they always seek to legitimize coercively funded State power and centralize it within some governing body.

http://www.libertariannews.org/2012/02/ ... stitution/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The reason these men have become disillusioned with the constitution is because of the way it has been perverted over the centuries. They see the current system becoming as a law unto itself. No wonder why the Articles of Confederation sounds so good right now! Yes, these men you quote are shortsighted. Mostly because they don't have the restored gospel like you and I. They are forgetting that there was a time when men actually honored the original intent of the constitution. ANY piece of paper that outlines the way government should behave will eventually become corrupted. Look no further than the Lord's inspired constitution itself. The only perfect system is the one the Lord will preside over as King.

Make no mistake, I am a "small L" libertarian conservative constitutionalist. Sorry to have not made that clear.

[Jason]

Joseph Smith saw God...does that establish my credibility as well...LOL

And I stand by that statement. The solution to a private banking problem (End The Fed) isn't more private banking via markets Ron has already declared are controlled and manipulated. In fact Ron resorted to government to correct market manipulation...and not Goldman Sachs. So either he's extremely ignorant and just flat out stupid...or he's a lying two faced politician with alterior motives (think Peter Thiel and CIA and Paypal and digital gold for one world currency).

I don't buy into the ignorant stupid stance...and think he's brilliantly talented. Obviously I'm not alone considering who some of his buddies are (CFR and Bilderberg). If you do...more power to you!!!

You don't know Ron Paul's ideology as well as you think you do. As a congressman, part of his congressional duty was to establish the laws of legal tender (as pointed out in the constitution.) It is the legal tender laws of today, which sprang from the establishment of the private federal reserve system and even the civil war, which Ron Paul was trying to reverse. Also, you make the mistake in assuming Ron Paul wants to abdicate the role of government in maintaining the "regulation" of our currency. Competing currencies does not mean the elimination of a government established currency. Are you proposing that we should also eliminate UPS, Federal Express, DHL, etc?

What is the only way to break up a monopoly? Especially, when a private banking cartel owns the government? Oh! Oh! Oh! Ron Paul knows! Pick him! Pick him! Ron Paul: Introduce the free market once again, (as a congressman). Competing currencies = no more monopoly. Did you know it used to be legal to use gold and silver as currency!? Yeah! It's true! Hey, and at one time, even our paper money was backed by gold too! Wow!

But of course it will never happen. The gadiantons have it in the bag. They have everything they've always wanted. Right here, right now. Not someday. Now.

Great...more rationalization. Competing currencies was a disaster under the Articles of Confederation. You twist it into something entirely different (UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc)....come on shipping??? vs. national currency??? Have you bitten that deep into the libertarian apple?

How do you introduce a free market when it doesn't exist? AGAIN...more private banking does not resolve a private banking problem.

Competing currencies =

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.

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

At the close of the Revolution, the thirteen states found themselves independent but then faced grave internal economic and political problems. The Articles of Confederation had been adopted but proved to be ineffectual. Under this instrument, the nation was without a president, a head. There was a congress, but it was a body destitute of any power. There was no supreme court. The states were merely a confederation.

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

And I think its fundamentally dishonest that you exclude the private parties interested in pursuing competing currencies (digital gold anyone? Paypal, CIA, and Bilderberg steering committee member libertarian Peter Thiel?).

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

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;

Mr. Anonymous & The Libertarian Movement
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0812/S ... vement.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Eyes on the Prize (Sidebar to Mr. Anonymous)
http://www.thebellforum.com/content.php ... -the-Prize" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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;

Private banking problem....

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;

"There’s nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency…"
— Ron Paul, Congressional Record, March 13, 2001

Money and the coming World Order (Ron Paul's book buddy "Case for Gold" Lewis Lehrman CFR and signatory to PNAC doc leading to 9/11)
http://www.thegoldstandardnow.org/image ... -Order.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"TO OUR SURPRISE, Paul's financial disclosures reveal no holdings of physical gold, gold coins, or gold equivalents like certain exchange-traded gold funds, which is confounding, given his strident advocacy of the metal as an insurance policy against the almost-certain debasement of the currency by politicians and central bankers. So we dug around a little. In his financial-disclosure form for the years 1994 through 2002, Paul reported holding "semi-numismatic" coins worth between $100,001 and $250,000. But from 2003 onward, they were never mentioned again. Rachel Mills, the congressman's press spokesperson, said Paul, who generally is garrulous on the topic of hard money, did not wish to comment."
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB500 ... 5161142897.." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2012/0 ... auls-gold/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let's be Realistic about Ron Paul
http://www.henrymakow.com/ron_paul.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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;

Is it just a coincidence that CIA insider and member of the Bilderberg steering committee, Peter Thiel, is investing in Ron Paul all while being a co-founder of PayPal (the world's leading digital money company)?

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.

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

The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren't infringing on their rights…. There are those that feel online gambling is morally wrong and financially irresponsible, which I do not argue with, but they also feel that because of this, the government should step in and prevent or punish people for taking part in these activities. This attitude is anathema to the ideas of liberty.
- Ron Paul

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi ... ne.0042366" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the time of prohibition the Church has opposed every law that made liquor easier for anyone to use at any age. The Church leaders opposed the repeal of prohibition, they have spoken against laws that would permit liquor by the drink, and they have discouraged action that would allow the sale of liquor to minors.

The logic of their arguments, which I fully support, is simple. The Lord has said that liquor is not good for man and that it is to be avoided.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;1974/07/i-have-a-question/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

By the time Elder Heber J. Grant became Church President in 1918, America was in a reform crusade called Prohibition. One year earlier, in December 1917, the U.S. Congress had approved an amendment to the Constitution making the production and sale of alcohol illegal; the states ratified the amendment in January 1919. President Grant, a Word of Wisdom advocate, called Prohibition “the greatest financial and moral blessing that has ever come to humanity.” 10 But Prohibition failed to end the alcohol trade, driving it underground instead.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/09/the-c ... h?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

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;

Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... ang=eng#53" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jason]

Anyways I reckon we now know which side of the Constitution and religious fence you fall on.

Thank you. I'm glad it's now clear that I'm a supporter of the Original Intent of the constitution.

That's one way to put it...

Of course one can rationalize things however they want....but the reality is the two sides (church leadership...not to mention God Himself and libertarian pundits) have completely different perspectives. I find it impossible to reconcile the two...but if you can...more power to you!!!

God

According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... ang=eng#79" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

vs.

Libertarians

Johnsson: Do you agree with Ron Paul that we should go by the Constitution and that's it?

Rockwell: The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown.

http://www.dailypaul.com/78807/lew-rock ... federation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The prevailing historical interpretation of the country under the Articles of Confederation is an example of the harm that has resulted from the ignorance of economics among generations of historians.

Our best guides to the critical decade of the 1780s are two of the few American historians who understand economics and are true liberals—William Graham Sumner and Murray Rothbard.

We know the consummation. The nationalists were able to exploit the situation sufficiently to secure a federal convention to be held in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787. Exceeding their instructions (which were only to draw up a few amendments), the delegates decided to throw out the Articles altogether and write a new national constitution which was subsequently ratified by the states (but not without considerable opposition and probably a national majority opposed to it). Rothbard described it as the triumph of "a radically nationalist program that would recreate as much as possible the pre-liberal situation existing before the Revolution. . . . In short, they were able to destroy much of the original individualist and decentralist program of the American Revolution." We live with the consequences today.

Thus do we see how the period of the Articles of Confederation was not characterized by chaos and increasingly bad economic times, as historians tend to assume. Rather, the Articles proved themselves to be a perfectly viable structure for a free society, encouraging trade and prosperity and adherence to the highest ideals of 1776.

http://mises.org/daily/1296" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.

It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali.

In the second place, the old Articles of Confederation, to which the states had subscribed in good faith as a working agreement, made all due provision for their own amendment; and now these men had ignored these provisions, simply putting the Articles of Confederation in the wastebasket and bringing forth an entirely new document of their own devising.

http://mises.org/daily/4254" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

During the era when the Articles of Confederation provided a framework for government, Americans lived their natural Inherent Autonomy with less interference. An artificial reverence for the U.S Constitution, immediately guarantees a disconnect from optimism. Personal benefit in harmony with national gain rests upon the precept of unified agreement. The standard of principle must share a natural distrust for despotic government. We all lost our cause with the emergence of a strong federal state. This kind of union has proven to be authoritarian nightmare. Freedom had a better chance under the Articles of Confederation.

http://batr.org/autonomy/121204.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Advocacy to restore the Constitution falls short. Reform can never reinstate a natural autonomy. The establishment of an excessive central government is the tragic legacy of a flawed organization that diminished individual States authority. The essential quandary for the paradox that results from the creation of the contract is how do you hold public officials accountable and enforce sanctions for abusing the highest law of the land? Obviously, the government cannot be trusted to respect the rightful limits originally intended. If a band of urban Founding Fathers perverted their own meaning of the Constitution, what chance exists in the ominous age of globalism?

At the very least, let us be honest and debate with integrity. The U.S. Constitution destroyed the voluntary union and replaced it with an unforgiving master. Our mutual mission should seek the building of a genuine Republic. Only with the admission that the experiment failed, can the future be rescued.

http://batr.org/autonomy/122604.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the U.S. Constitution can be so totally perverted to make it effectively non existent, what hope is there in it’s restoration when it mistakenly allowed for the creation of an empowered central government? The contrast, in the Articles of Confederation, offered modest functions for a federal legislature, a limited and rotating management of bureaucratic duties and a very narrow role for federal courts. By resorting to the pressures and the power ambitions of autocrats, the 1789 Constitution sowed the seeds for a worst tyranny that has eaten away at the protections that were so obviously intended, when it was written. Sovereign States have been reduced to beggars. Under the Articles of Confederation the “perpetual union between the States” might have been achievable. With the invention of a preeminent executive and a proscriptive judiciary, we have evolved into a rule by an imperial dictator blessed under the cloak and process of arbitrary sanction.

The attempt in the U.S. Constitution to design strict prohibitions and parameters for a central government have been ignored and transgressed by succeeding generations of power mad Statists that hate Liberty as much as they love mastery over citizens. The proof of the insanity, for allowing a transfer of conditional authority into a structure that inevitably fosters the rule of depraved domination freaks, is the sad story of our history. Evil men who lust for power over all else, will always be with us. Granting them an easy road to perfect their sinister plots in the name of allegiance to country is lunacy. The principles upon which the Articles of Confederation were conceived, respected the righteousness of self rule. Revitalize the autonomy of states and diminish the scope of central intrusion. The war for independence must be fought again, the impostor who would be king is still named George . .

http://batr.org/autonomy/010905.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It used to be that I was all fired up in support of “restoring the Constitution.” It wasn’t until I considered the philosophical arguments against constitutions in general that I came to realize that support for the US Constitution is like supporting your own enslavement.

Consider that constitutions are pieces of paper that purport to give some arbitrary body of men the legitimacy to rob people at the point of a gun in order to supposedly secure “their liberties.” I don’t know about you, but armed robbery seems like a ridiculous way to secure someone’s “liberty”.

The Constitution codifies and legitimizes mass theft, war and the imposition of regulations upon commercial enterprise that ought not to exist in the first place. Constitutions, no matter how they are written, ALWAYS reduce individual liberty because they always seek to legitimize coercively funded State power and centralize it within some governing body.

http://www.libertariannews.org/2012/02/ ... stitution/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The reason these men have become disillusioned with the constitution is because of the way it has been perverted over the centuries. They see the current system becoming as a law unto itself. No wonder why the Articles of Confederation sounds so good right now! Yes, these men you quote are shortsighted. Mostly because they don't have the restored gospel like you and I. They are forgetting that there was a time when men actually honored the original intent of the constitution. ANY piece of paper that outlines the way government should behave will eventually become corrupted. Look no further than the Lord's inspired constitution itself. The only perfect system is the one the Lord will preside over as King.

Make no mistake, I am a "small L" libertarian conservative constitutionalist. Sorry to have not made that clear.

Disillusioned??? Are you serious???

These goons are a paid propaganda machine. They aren't disillusioned. They are propagating their version of history. They are propagating their own version of liberty and moral behavior (which actually can't coexist because siding with the devil never was nor never will be a path to liberty). Supposedly they are well studied (thus shouldn't be disillusioned). They've created their own version of history and "the facts" of the time and get their bread buttered by spreading it to the masses. A view completely at odd with the leaders of the church. Who's bias do you buy into?

Not that it matters much but I'm a monarchist. God is the King of Kings....and hopefully Christ will come soon and take His position as our King. In the gap I'm in full favor of the Constitution and the principles it stands for - for the people and by the people. Not private money and whatever rules private money wants to dictate via its control with debt/usury, paper, gold, or whatever tool they happen to have at their disposal...

[InfoWarrior82]

Disillusioned??? Are you serious???

These goons are a paid propaganda machine. They aren't disillusioned.

Alright, if you say so.

Not that it matters much but I'm a monarchist. God is the King of Kings....and hopefully Christ will come soon and take His position as our King. In the gap I'm in full favor of the Constitution and the principles it stands for - for the people and by the people. Not private money and whatever rules private money wants to dictate via its control with debt/usury, paper, gold, or whatever tool they happen to have at their disposal...

Same here. But, you do know that scenario you just outlined about money is happening right now?

Which, out of these three scenarios would it be the toughest, if not impossible way to destroy our currency via monopolized control:

1. Have a completely privatized market issuing the currency
2. Have the government only issuing currency.
3. Revert back to the original legal tender laws and have both government and free market competing currencies.

[Jason]

Disillusioned??? Are you serious???

These goons are a paid propaganda machine. They aren't disillusioned.

Alright, if you say so.

Mr. Anonymous & The Libertarian Movement
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0812/S ... vement.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Eyes on the Prize (Sidebar to Mr. Anonymous)
http://www.thebellforum.com/content.php ... -the-Prize" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Finally, in his most surprising statement, he [David Rockefeller] revealed he considers himself a follower of the Austrian school of economics. Friedrich Hayek had been his tutor at the London School of Economics in the 1930s.

http://www.mskousen.com/2000/01/intervi ... ckefeller/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/quote]

Frankly, having worked for Luhnow in the summer of 1963, I am amazed that he figured out this strategy. He may have lost some of his edge.

The Volker Fund would finance all the leading Austrian Economists and would have a substantial impact on the 'Chicago School of Economics', including Milton Friedman.

This is true. I even had a summer job there in 1963. It was the best salaried job I ever had. They paid me to read.

Ludwig Von Mises, who never held a paid job at any University, was maintained first by David Rockefeller and then for decades received money from the Volker Fund and related business men, like Lawrence Fertig.

There is no evidence that David Rockefeller ever gave Mises a dime. Fertig did. He was a free market-promoting businessman, the author of a book on the market, Prosperity Through Freedom (1961).

Von Mises' biographer, Richard M. Ebeling:

"Many readers may be surprised to learn the extent to which the Graduate Institute and then Mises himself in the years immediately after he came to United States were kept afloat financially through generous grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. In fact, for the first years of Mises's life in the United States, before his appointment as a visiting professor in the Graduate School of Business Administration at New York University (NYU) in 1945, he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation."

This is true. It has been known to anyone who read Mises' book, Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War (1944). In the "Acknowledgment," he thanked the Rockefeller Foundation and the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Note: his theory of economic epistemology was totally at odds with the NBER. But the NBER liked this project.

David Rockefeller said: "Finally, in his most surprising statement, he revealed he considers himself a follower of the Austrian school of economics. Friedrich Hayek had been his tutor at the London School of Economics in the 1930s."

There is no trace of any of Hayek's ideas in anything David Rockefeller has said or done. Hayek clearly wasted his time on David Rockefeller.

Murray Rothbard too was financed by the Volker Fund:

"Rothbard began his consulting work for the Volker Fund in 1951. This relationship lasted until 1962, when the VF was dissolved. A major part of Rothbard's work for the VF consisted of reading and evaluating books, journal articles, and other materials. On the basis of written reports by Rothbard and another reader – Rose Wilder Lane – the VF's directors would decide whether to undertake massive distribution of particular works to public libraries.

Rothbard later called his work with the Volker Fund, "the best job I've ever had in my life."

Rothbard and I agreed. It was the best job we had in our lives. I got $500 a month in 1963 – a princely sum in 1963 for a 21-year-old kid in his first real job. Rothbard got free books and minimal payments to write the reviews. Rothbard got free books and $6,000 a year.

The Volker Fund did close in 1962. It was re-named as the Center fort American Studies late in the year. Luhnow fired F. A. "Baldy" Harper and replaced the staff. My father-in-law, R. J. Rushdoony, became its main scholar. He was fired a year later. He received a research stipend as a severance pay for bout two years. Luhnow closed it a few years later.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/9117.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not that it matters much but I'm a monarchist. God is the King of Kings....and hopefully Christ will come soon and take His position as our King. In the gap I'm in full favor of the Constitution and the principles it stands for - for the people and by the people. Not private money and whatever rules private money wants to dictate via its control with debt/usury, paper, gold, or whatever tool they happen to have at their disposal...

Same here. But, you do know that scenario you just outlined about money is happening right now?

Which, out of these three scenarios would it be the toughest, if not impossible way to destroy our currency via monopolized control:

1. Have a completely privatized market issuing the currency
2. Have the government only issuing currency.
3. Revert back to the original legal tender laws and have both government and free market competing currencies.

Why would they care about destroying "their" currency? Do we not use "Federal Reserve Notes"? Is that not the source of their power and control over our government and economy?

Would you destroy a useful tool of yours? I wouldn't...unless it was to gain an even better tool (more power and control). Enter global currency (crash all the regional currencies to implement a global one). Based on "digital" gold. At least that's the aim of Ron Paul's buddy Lewis Lehrman in his PNAC document -

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

Have you read it? Seems to me Ron's playing right along with the game plan. Anyways to address your scenarios...

1) Founding intent of the Constitution was to prevent such a thing. That was why the job was assigned to Congress (elected representatives of the people). The initiation of the war with England was over who got to print the money (and tax the people) and the subsequent source of battles ever since (to capitulate in 1913). Its been an ongoing battle between the people (government) and private markets (individuals) over controlling our currency. I'll side with the Constitution.

2) Done. They weren't stupid when they wrote the Constitution...and it is divinely inspired and testified of by God Himself. As long as the government remains a representative government...then the power is with the people vs. a few private individuals. That's the way it should be.

3) The term "legal tender" wasn't even in use then. There was never intent to have competing currencies. Its well documented that competing currencies was a disaster. The Father of the Constitution James Madison said so himself - Federalist #44. The only loophole was the allowance of the states to use up their gold and silver (only) currencies in the transition to the new central currency (via Congress).

Legal Tender Guidelines

Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation. Both parties are free to agree to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or otherwise according to their wishes. In order to comply with the very strict rules governing an actual legal tender it is necessary, for example, actually to offer the exact amount due because no change can be demanded.

http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/polici ... guidelines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When the United States was established, the U.S. Constitution outlined the basic framework through which government – both state and federal – could act on behalf of America’s citizens. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution was legal tender mentioned, and this is a bone of contention still amongst those who see the Federal Reserve as an illegitimate institution.

First, the purpose of legal tender is to centralise the creation of money by creating monopoly control of the money printing press. This might be done to reduce the chaos associated with allowing anyone to issue bank notes. But it also might be done to inflate and increase leverage for taxation purposes. There are competing ideas on this issue but it boils down to a centralisation versus de-centralisation/States’ Rights versus Federalist argument.

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/09 ... ssion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"I [Ron Paul] wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... f_Ron_Paul" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obviously if one has to "legalize" the Constitution to allow competing currencies....it wasn't there to begin with...by his own admonition.

James Madison explained the issues with competing currencies in Federalist 44:

The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. In addition to these persuasive considerations, it may be observed, that the same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin. Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded; retrospective alterations in its value might be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and animosities be kindled among the States themselves. The subjects of foreign powers might suffer from the same cause, and hence the Union be discredited and embroiled by the indiscretion of a single member. No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver.

http://constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

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

[InfoWarrior82]

Mr. Anonymous & The Libertarian Movement
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0812/S ... vement.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Eyes on the Prize (Sidebar to Mr. Anonymous)
http://www.thebellforum.com/content.php ... -the-Prize" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Finally, in his most surprising statement, he [David Rockefeller] revealed he considers himself a follower of the Austrian school of economics. Friedrich Hayek had been his tutor at the London School of Economics in the 1930s.

http://www.mskousen.com/2000/01/intervi ... ckefeller/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think it's quite obvious that devious men would use the engines of prosperity to eventually seize control and shut the door behind them once they have gained a foothold within government. You are also forgetting a sweet little gem of a quote by Rockefeller: "Competition is a sin." An obvious fraud of a man.

Not that it matters much but I'm a monarchist. God is the King of Kings....and hopefully Christ will come soon and take His position as our King. In the gap I'm in full favor of the Constitution and the principles it stands for - for the people and by the people. Not private money and whatever rules private money wants to dictate via its control with debt/usury, paper, gold, or whatever tool they happen to have at their disposal...

Same here. But, you do know that scenario you just outlined about money is happening right now?

Which, out of these three scenarios would it be the toughest, if not impossible way to destroy our currency via monopolized control:

1. Have a completely privatized market issuing the currency
2. Have the government only issuing currency.
3. Revert back to the original legal tender laws and have both government and free market competing currencies.

Why would they care about destroying "their" currency? Do we not use "Federal Reserve Notes"? Is that not the source of their power and control over our government and economy?


Would you destroy a useful tool of yours? I wouldn't...unless it was to gain an even better tool (more power and control). Enter global currency (crash all the regional currencies to implement a global one). Based on "digital" gold. At least that's the aim of Ron Paul's buddy Lewis Lehrman in his PNAC document -

Yes, this: "..to gain an even better tool (more power and control). Enter global currency (crash all the regional currencies to implement a global one)."

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

Have you read it? Seems to me Ron's playing right along with the game plan.

No. Not really. Competing currencies is the opposite of an unified international monetary order.

Anyways to address your scenarios...

1) Founding intent of the Constitution was to prevent such a thing. That was why the job was assigned to Congress (elected representatives of the people). The initiation of the war with England was over who got to print the money (and tax the people) and the subsequent source of battles ever since (to capitulate in 1913). Its been an ongoing battle between the people (government) and private markets (individuals) over controlling our currency. I'll side with the Constitution.

Yes, that's right. So number 1 is out of the question.

2) Done. They weren't stupid when they wrote the Constitution...and it is divinely inspired and testified of by God Himself. As long as the government remains a representative government...then the power is with the people vs. a few private individuals. That's the way it should be.

Unfortunately, the constitution was subverted and the international private banking cartel seized power over the printing press and issuance of currency and credit.

3) The term "legal tender" wasn't even in use then. There was never intent to have competing currencies. Its well documented that competing currencies was a disaster. The Father of the Constitution James Madison said so himself - Federalist #44. The only loophole was the allowance of the states to use up their gold and silver (only) currencies in the transition to the new central currency (via Congress).

Legal Tender Guidelines

Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation. Both parties are free to agree to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or otherwise according to their wishes. In order to comply with the very strict rules governing an actual legal tender it is necessary, for example, actually to offer the exact amount due because no change can be demanded.

http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/polici ... guidelines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When the United States was established, the U.S. Constitution outlined the basic framework through which government – both state and federal – could act on behalf of America’s citizens. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution was legal tender mentioned, and this is a bone of contention still amongst those who see the Federal Reserve as an illegitimate institution.

First, the purpose of legal tender is to centralise the creation of money by creating monopoly control of the money printing press. This might be done to reduce the chaos associated with allowing anyone to issue bank notes. But it also might be done to inflate and increase leverage for taxation purposes. There are competing ideas on this issue but it boils down to a centralisation versus de-centralisation/States’ Rights versus Federalist argument.

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/09 ... ssion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"I [Ron Paul] wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... f_Ron_Paul" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obviously if one has to "legalize" the Constitution to allow competing currencies....it wasn't there to begin with...by his own admonition.

No, that's not accurate at all. According to the Constitution, Congress only has the power to “coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,” and furthermore, “No state shall … coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts….” This means that it is unconstitutional for the Federal Reserve, a creation of Congress, to issue fiat money such as the Federal Reserve Note. Moreover, the only constitutional money is gold and silver coin. What Ron Paul is saying isn't that we should invent new things to add to the constitution, but to allow for the constitution to work as originally intended. Recent legal tender laws (by congress) enabled the problem we have today. Printing money at a whim. This leads to problems with gold back fiat currency. What's the answer to that? Remove the gold backing! Ta da!

James Madison explained the issues with competing currencies in Federalist 44:

The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. In addition to these persuasive considerations, it may be observed, that the same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin. Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded; retrospective alterations in its value might be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and animosities be kindled among the States themselves. The subjects of foreign powers might suffer from the same cause, and hence the Union be discredited and embroiled by the indiscretion of a single member. No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver.

http://constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Madison was weary of competing fiat paper money. He was a huge proponent of gold and silver. So, yes competing unbacked PAPER money would be a bad thing. Here's more on Madison:

What would Madison Say?
http://www.therichterreport.com/content ... _item_id=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

Yep. Too bad, that's what we now have today.

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

So, now we've gone over how the constitution failed to prevent such things from happening by having corrupt men in power, lets discuss how to take down this monopoly monstrosity. (Which you did not address). How do you resolve the current problem with government and private banking interests joined at the hip?

[bobhenstra]

The only way all this mess is coming down is when our Lord decides it will happen, soon I pray! That event will be preceded by our Prophet testifying first to America and then to the world of the wickedness that now encompasses us and the rest of the world, the missionaries called home, and then, preparations will be too late. The unprepared virgins left out of the feast, left to fend for themselves, they will die!

As a country, "our" last chance to be led by a righteous Priesthood holder was cast off by those who preferred a RP, the quitter or Obama! As a people "our Hezekiah" is now yet to take his place as a governing authority, we could have had him!!! The cleansing soon to take place will scare the unprepared spitless, and the unprepared members of the Church will have no excuse, and will be held responsible for those children and spouses they lose because of a husband's stupidity!

As with Ron Paul who turned his back on all his supporters, he quit, he lowered his trousers and showed his backside, yet many still speak of him in glowing terms, the mess he made will stink on, and even yet----- the unprepared of the Church will not learn who and what it is they need to listen to---

Sad!

[Vision]

[quote="bobhenstra "Sad! [/quote]

Sad is right, that so many were fooled by Mitt

[sbsion]

[quote="bobhenstra "Sad!

Sad is right, that so many were fooled by Mitt[/quote]


what's even sadder is so many Christians are fooled by Judah/Israel, the anti-Christ

[Thinker]

what's even sadder is so many Christians are fooled by Judah/Israel, the anti-Christ

Nonsense & I hope that in the future, you will not attempt to perpetate your own version of the anti-Christ with prejudice.
The anti-Christ is any principle or person that is "anti-love."
"Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail - But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever." -Moroni 7:46-47

"God is love." -1John 4:8
Love/Charity is striving for what is best for ourselves & others, through trial & error -active faith.

"God is no respector of persons." -10:34
He loves us all - whether we happened to be born in America, Israel or Congo.

[sbsion]

you got it............right on..........now, think

[Thinker]

Sbsion,
Did I miss sarcasm?

The only way all this mess is coming down is when our Lord decides it will happen, soon I pray!

Hi Bob,
I like many perspectives of yours, and I especially appreciate your humor.
But I feel the need to point out that the "heaven's reward fallacy" is a thinking distortion, and more harmful than helpful.
http://psychcentral.com/lib/2009/15-com ... stortions/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No doubt there is a war - & as JS mentioned, the greatest war is not fought on the battleground, but it is between principles.
We can't just let it all go to hell, and wait & see what the Lord will do about it.
We know the Lord isn't taking anybody's free agency away.

I believe God and Christ are about active love... not being luke warm & giving up.
I think it's important to realize where God is found, instead of looking in the wrong places...
"And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." -Luke 17:20-21

Part of the name of our church is based on this cognitive distortion... "latter day saints."
For one thing, I've never heard anybody say, "Hi, Saint Jennifer" or "Hi Saint Bob."
Maybe we should be called, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Brothers and Sisters."

Seriously, I don't believe in Heaven's reward fallacy, and I don't think God is about that either.
Everything we experience in this life, is in the present moment. Generally, we don't time travel.
God is not "I WAS THAT I WAS."
God is also not, "I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE."
God is "I AM THAT I AM."
We experience God within us in the current moment.

[Moss Man]

What happened to this thread? I wanted to see how more people have or haven't changed their political beliefs.

I've always voted for the best person and found myself voting for Constitution Party candidates over 90% of the time. One day a friend asks me if I'd like to become a chair for the Constitution Party of Oregon for my county. Of course I accepted.

Before that I was always unaffiliated but did register as a Republican for the Oregon 2008 Primaries and voted for Ron Paul.

I'm now unaffiliated and use the Constitution and Laws of God to decide who gets my vote.

[bobhenstra]

Hi Saint Thinker! The questions I ask are simply---what makes you think I believe in "rewards" in heaven? Are you suggesting I accept this fallacy as fallacy or---fact? or perhaps that you understand that I understand why a reward fallacy---exists? Clarification please?

And, what has psychology have to do with my understanding of your understanding of the scripture? Were I to declare your opinion as misunderstood and incorrect, would it damage your------psyche? Or would you prefer a--:ymhug:

Bobby

[Jason]

So, now we've gone over how the constitution failed to prevent such things from happening by having corrupt men in power, lets discuss how to take down this monopoly monstrosity. (Which you did not address). How do you resolve the current problem with government and private banking interests joined at the hip?

Well for starters...it pays to study things out...read their publications...figure out what the agenda is.

Then with a well informed people you take back government....not destroy it.

Seems we're still at ground zero though. The obsession with fiat vs. PMs pretty much side tracks a good majority of would be patriots. The ultimate power is in the people and their government. Instead the propaganda is working and folks get sidelined in favor of private markets. They think they are supporting freedom by giving the bankers an additional edge with competing currencies (remove the last vestiges of government or Congressional control over currency). Rather than take government back they seem intent on destroying their last remaining thread all while ranting about liberty and how the Constitution never prevented wicked men from taking advantage of ignorant people.

[Thinker]

Hi Saint Thinker! The questions I ask are simply---what makes you think I believe in "rewards" in heaven? Are you suggesting I accept this fallacy as fallacy or---fact? or perhaps that you understand that I understand why a reward fallacy---exists? Clarification please?

And, what has psychology have to do with my understanding of your understanding of the scripture? Were I to declare your opinion as misunderstood and incorrect, would it damage your------psyche? Or would you prefer a--:ymhug:

Bobby

Sure, Saint Bobby! :ymhug:

I apologize that I didn't state it with more grace.
Thank you for your dignified and kind response.
You mentioned...

The only way all this mess is coming down is when our Lord decides it will happen, soon I pray!

Maybe I misunderstood you, but my impression was that you were expecting the Lord to decide outcomes and were hoping it would all come down soon.
I believe God doesn't take away free agency & that we are God's hands.
The heaven-reward fallacy is a common way of thinking not only in our church, but in many Christian churches. Sometimes I get frustrated because there's so much work to be done, instead of throwing up our hands, and waiting for God to do what only we can do - with studying, pondering & help from the spirit. I'm far from perfect, but often I try to make a difference in this world - by standing up for goodness, life & health, even in the face of strong opposition. I wish I didn't feel so alone in that.

[bobhenstra]

The only way all this mess is coming down is when our Lord decides it will happen, soon I pray!

Maybe I misunderstood you, but my impression was that you were expecting the Lord to decide outcomes and were hoping it would all come down soon.
I believe God doesn't take away free agency & that we are God's hands.
The heaven-reward fallacy is a common way of thinking not only in our church, but in many Christian churches. Sometimes I get frustrated because there's so much work to be done, instead of throwing up our hands, and waiting for God to do what only we can do - with studying, pondering & help from the spirit. I'm far from perfect, but often I try to make a difference in this world - by standing up for goodness, life & health, even in the face of strong opposition. I wish I didn't feel so alone in that.

:ymhug: Perhaps Saint Thinker, a rereading of 3 Nephi 8 would clarify my position and desires! To further understand and perhaps a further clarifying of my position, a thorough study of Helaman 6 through 3 Nephi 10 would be of benefit, I leave it to you :ymhug:

I'm a tired crippled old man who understands salvation. I've fought the good fight and will gladly leave the remainder of this, the final battle (of this the Telestial Kingdom) to the younger Saints of the True Church! As I have often declared; it's not the years, it's the genetics-----

However St. Thinker, I'm curious about what I perceive as your understanding of the reward fallacy? To clarify, it's my understanding that there are no rewards (suggesting merit) in Heaven, "gifts" are what we receive during and after our trials, failures and successes here in mortality, for example;

D&C 6:13, If thou wilt do good, yea, and hold out faithful to the end, thou shalt be saved in the kingdom of God, which is the greatest of all the gifts of God; for there is no gift greater than the gift of salvation.

Or----

D&C 14:7, 7 And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God.

So, Saint Thinker, you seem to suggest that your understanding of the "reward fallacy" among members of the church has something to do with answering of prayer, might that be your position?

Thank you for your trouble--

St. Bob

[Thinker]

Hi St. Bob, :ymhug:
Thanks for your kindness and patience with me, and your humor is refreshing.
I realize at each of our heart and soul, we each have unique testimonies - they aren't one size fits all.
I appreciate and relate with how you mentioned that gifts we receive are during and after trials.

My understanding of God is evolving, and I think it should be - gospel= good news... eternally learning new things.
I just feel such urgency in doing all I can to make this world a better place, especially for my children & future generations.
There's so much, it often seems overwhelming, the way politics play out, the way media pushes lies - & other issues.

We need to constantly be striving to learn & live the gospel & to stand firm for basic, precious truths.
There's a part of a song that keeps coming to mind... "Calling all the angels..."
I feel that we're not alone - but sometimes I forget. When we're doing all we can, all we need to do is ask for help, and it will be given.
I hope and pray that nobody will just let it all go to pots, expecting God to fix it, but rather to do all we can & not give up!

[bobhenstra]

I "humbly" admit, the title of "Saint Bob" is growing on me! Hmm, perhaps on my tombstone-----