Ron Paul runs - Ron Paul Wins!

[ktg]

Ron Paul Revolution: THE GREAT AWAKENING

Again, RP's words have summarized those give by church leadership.

“Popular feeling is being flogged into a support of this plan [to wage more war]. The press, the movies, the radio, the rostrum, all are deliberately used to build this terrible aim in our hearts. Enormous sums are expended by the military in propaganda, to scare us civilians into a blind following of their insanity. Often this propagandizing is crudely done, at other times it is carried on with great craft and cunning. We are to be made so jittery with fear that we shall follow with eyes shut where they lead.” - J. Reuben Clark

"The international gospel of the Founding Fathers was forecast by Jefferson in 1793. It was voiced by Washington in his Farewell Address in 1796, when he declared we should have “as little political connection as possible … It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world …" Nor may we overlook that great doctrine of neutrality set up under Washington himself and Jefferson and Hamilton… We have gone forward and are going forward, as if we possessed all the good of human government, of human economic concept, of human comfort, and of human welfare, all of which we are to impose on the balance of the world,— a concept born of the grossest national egotism… In values of government and law, these wars and the interminglings of men of different concepts of freedom and human rights, have brought into our own system, the despotic principles of European systems, against which the Fathers warned… All this takes us into a situation that places our destinies largely in the hands of those who appear to be urging us towards war, not peace.… It is time we returned to the political faith and work of the Fathers. It is indispensable that we do so if we are to have peace. I believe in the old faith and the old works, under which we had so much of peace. I am a political isolationist in the full sense of the term and am not fearful in declaring it.
I am a political isolationist because: I fully believe in the wisdom of the course defined by Washington, Jefferson, and other ancient statesmen. The whole history of America before and since the Revolution proves the truthfulness of their assertions. All during our pre-Revolutionary history we were at war, we were robbed, plundered, and massacred because of European wars in the issues and causes of which we had no concern. History is repeating itself...
... In my view, our whole international course and policy is basically wrong, and must be changed if peace is to come. Our policy has brought us, and pursued, will continue to bring us, only the hatred of nations now — and we cannot thrive on that, financially or spiritually — and certain war hereafter, with a list of horrors and woes we do not now even surmise. If we really want peace, we must change our course to get it. We must honestly strive for peace and quit sparring for military advantage. We must learn and practice, as a nation and as a world, the divine principles of the Sermon on the Mount. There is no other way...
We, the common people, have not been told the facts for years, since long before the last war broke. We are not now being told the facts." - J. Reuben Clark, 1947 Church News

[LoveIsTruth]

Thanks, ktg! Good one.

[LoveIsTruth]

Ron Paul Wins Taunton MA Republican 2012 Straw Poll

Wow! This from Massachusetts?

Ron Paul 51%
Romney 38%
Santorum 8%
Newt 3%

[SempiternalHarbinger]

Not sure why am responding to you. But I thought I would anyway in a peaceful way even though you have not apologized for your uncalled choice of words towards me.. But thank-you for the video you posted of Eustace Mullins. Also I have posted some of this in other threads but not sure if you have read it.

I like most of your post, Semp.Thankyou! And I like Eustace Mullins a lot,I knew you would! though I don't think he understands the real great role the Jews have to play in God's plan. I agreeThey are indeed God's covenant people,I agree and He will fulfill his covenants unto them, and they will be saved if they repent. However, most of the facts Eustace uncovered are correct.Thus the reason why they murdered friends and family, Persecuted beyond imagination, and couldn't get a job with anyone. And Ron Paul agrees with your assessment as well. Everyone should study his work. I agree!Thanks for bringing him to my attention. Your welcome!I didn't know anything about him before.

Well now you do!

As you have already found out he hates Jews for the most part with all his heart. And I also should warn you as with everything else in this world use the spirit of discernment when reading his works. He is not the source of all truth in any way. But he is a really amazing historian who paid dearly in bringing these things to light. Now what I like about him might just be the opposite of what you like. But it's important as with everything else to get confirmation and get original sources. He does a good job at this. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." Also I have a couple of his extra books of his. I will look and see if I can find them. If so, if you want I will send you them for you to keep. Just PM address if interested.

President Garfield who was assassinated openly declared that whoever controls the money supply controls the people.

He was right. This is why money is TOO important to be controlled by government. Government should NOT control the people. This is the very essence of Liberty. You said it! Free Market will control money as any other product. This is why 100% commodity based currency is the money of a Free Market, because it does NOT require government coercion to operate. Free Competition in Currencies is what we demand, because it is intrinsic part of Freedom itself, and honest money is quite impossible without it.

Not government. We the people. I am still waiting for an example of this so called free market ever working successfully in any society in the history of the world. Bottom line is Whoever does coin Money and regulate the Value thereof holds sovereignty. And the Constitution say we the people have that power.

Now lets discuss a few things.. Article one section 8 of the US Constitution states Congress has the power "to coin money AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF." Now does it say anyway that the free market should decide? Where in the Constitutions does it even talk about the free market?? Why would Congress be given the power to regulate the value? Why would they need that power? And if they have that power, does that not mean WE the people do not have that reserved to Ourselves? I believe it does. What we basically have today is a free market. Little if any government intervention. Our congress does not control or print the money. They don't set the prices for medals, gas, food, electricity. That would be credit agencies and Big private corporations. Our Congress has no say in these things. So if government is no involved today and Big Corps run America and the world how is it possibly going to change in a free market free of government intervention? It would be similar to what we have today.

Congress can never do the job the constitution gave them in this free market which is to regulate the value of the currency In the interest of the American people. Whoever does coin Money and regulate the Value thereof holds sovereignty. History proves this.

"The free market regulates itself." - Ron Paul

Not we the people.

The power to create money has been usurped from we the people. By no less than a private international bank. Which issues our money as DEBT and lends it back to us at interest. Not our government, not congress, but a private bank. The cartel gives the appearance that governments are creating our money, and Austrians love to blame big bad government and fiat money. But they are just pawns of the cartel. One side of the argument. We can turn this all around, we the people can get back our country ONLY by repenting, forgiving others, and by reclaiming the power to create our money as article 1 section 8 says. This real problem of exploitation can only be overcome when the use of the money created benefits all the people. A market free of government involvement, the law of the jungle prevails and the continuation of the exploitation of the weak and strong. Austrian's really want is government completely out of the picture. They want to abolish Article 1, Section 8, destroying the true sovereignty of the US Federal Government. I could be wrong but to me it appears by advocating a free market, free of government involvement all we are doing is undermining we the people's power to control the value of currency and its issuance. And by blaming government we destroying our only hope. Besides turning from our wicked ways.

So, who is going to be the "hidden-hands" guiding this virtuous "free-market" free of government intervention?

It would be the money interests. It would be big international corporate financial interests. The ones who are looting the American people today. J.P Morgan, Goldman Sucks, Bank of America, etc, etc, ect..... And by going to a free market what we will have effectively done is move the power of the purse out of the hands of an elected body, into the hands of private corporate interests. Just as it is right now.

GOLD

You think the greenbacks were unconstitutional... You think paper is unconstitutional. and only advocate gold. Because it is hones money. I will get to weather it is or is not constitutional in a second.

So In this virtuous "free-market" system free from government, Austrians want to make gold and silver legal tender so that "sound money" can compete on a level playing field. Now who is going to lead the way? Do you think you can just go digg up enough Gold to meet the demands of the American people overnight? If not, Who in this world owns enough gold and silver to set up a competing currency banks backed by precious metals? I sure can't. I don't think many people here can. To me it is simple, the big banks of today. They'd be the very ones setting up competing banks under this free market system making loans at interest. That would be in the banks and big corporations best interest and they would have zero resistance doing this in a free market, free of government intervention. There would be no one able to stop them. They would gain total control of this free market in no time without any consequences. It is in the gold bugs best interest to compete with the free market and set up competing currency banks to make loans at interest. They have done this for ages.. It's exactly how the Rothschild's gained control of Europe. they loaned the gold out at interest never to look back. I see no reason to believe they would not or could not do this if we got rid of government.

And the only way we'd know for certain a competing currency certificate was actually redeemable for a precious metal, would be to have some sort of publicly monitored depository. But if government can't be trusted who would be responsible for this? The Free Market regulates itself remember. I wonder if that's in the plans. If not, the ability to loan out more certificates than you have reserves for would prove irresistible. Than were back to fiat money. And that leads to the same dead end. And I read no where in the US Constitution about “free competition in currency" or “competing currencies.“ And I don't see anywhere where it says to let the “free market” regulate itself.

Greenbacks and Abraham Lincoln

Austrians condemn the greenbacks and say it was an act of treason and unconstitutional all because it was paper. I disagree. But lets discuss this. Who and Why was Abraham Lincoln assassinated? During the Civil War Lincoln needed money. He went to the European banks and asked for money at the recommendation of his Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase. The banks told him they would help him but they wanted 19% interest for the loans. (some say it was 24% to 36%. Either way it was enough to enslave America for a very long time) Now for a few seconds put yourself in Lincolns shoes.... What options do you have?? Either the government could succumb to debt slavery money from the bankers. Or? Lincoln did not have the luxury or the time to go dig up enough gold and silver to cover the coast of War. Not an option. So accepting loans at interest from the banks and not being able to go digging were not options..... What would you do?

Well Abraham Lincoln ignored Salmon P. Chase who wanted America to become enslaved, Lincoln bypassed the European banks and decided to do what many of our founding Fathers advocated. Which was create an independent and inherently debt free currency. The Greenback. Shortly after this measure was taken an internal document circulated between private British and American Banking interest stated; "Slavery is but the owning of labor, and carries with it the care of labor, while the European plan... is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. This can be done by controlling the money. It will not do to allow the Greenback...As we cannot control that." In essence, today federal reserve system is in fact a modern day slavery system. And if the allowed the green back to continue they would lose their power and control over America.

It also should be noted that Salmon P. Chase tried to pressure Lincoln into accepting the Loans at interest from the European banks by repeatedly threatening resignation. Also being Abraham Lincolns Secretary of the Treasury was not enough. he had bigger aspirations.

So Lincoln had two option which were to either...

Government could either print its own "DEBT FREE" money with no interest attached?

Or

Accept Debt slavery money of private bankers at huge interest rates attached?

What would you choose? The European Banks lost so much money when Lincoln ignored Salmon P. Chase and went to the greenback. It took years and years for the bankers to recover from this. And Lincoln and his Greenbacks were the reason. The bankers would not allow this so Lincoln and the Greenbacks had to be taken out. And they succeed in both. And the Greenbacks were a serious threat to the bankers.

So, were the greenbacks constitutional??

Now here is something you might find of worth or you may choose to ignore it.. But the question must be asked... Were the Greenbacks constitutional? Here is one of the fathers from the Austrian School of Economics who gives a serious history lesson on the matter. Here is the 1884 version with commentary by Nobel Prize winning economist, Prof. Milton Friedman of Stanford University.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Julliard v. Greenman (110 U.S. 421, 448) in 1884 ruled that:

“Congress is authorized to establish a national currency,(as the constitution states) either in coins or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals.” (So it first was ruled Constitutional. The highest court of the land ruled it Constitutional.)

Nobel Prize winning economist, Milton Friedman describes some of the history of the battle leading up to this historic decision by the U.S. Supreme Court:

“During the Civil War, Congress authorized greenbacks and made them a legal tender for all debts public and private. After the Civil War, in the first of the famous greenback cases, the Supreme Court declared the issuance of greenbacks unconstitutional.(So after the civil was it the greenbacks were ruled unconstitutional. One 'fascinating aspect of this decision is that it was delivered by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, who had been Secretary of the Treasury when the first greenbacks were issued. Not only did he not disqualify himself, but in his capacity as Chief Justice convicted himself of having been responsible for an unconstitutional action in his capacity as Secretary of the Treasury.' (I agree with Milton Friedman and find it truly fascinating. Since he could stop the greenbacks as Secretary of the Treasury, the only way to stop the greenbacks is to have the supreme court rule them unconstitutional. What better way to do this than gain control of the highest court of the land and have himself as head of it. Salmon Chase was an enemy to our country and we the people. his only interest were the same interest as the European banks.)

“Subsequently an enlarged and reconstituted Court reversed the first decision by a majority of five to four, affirming that making greenbacks a legal tender was constitutional, with Chief Justice Chase as one of the dissenting justices." (Of course Chase voted it unconstitutional. Of course he was dissenting.)

“It is neither feasible nor desirable to restore a gold-or-silver coin standard, but we do need a commitment to sound money. The best arrangement currently would be to require the monetary authorities to keep the percentage rate of growth of the monetary base within a fixed range. This is a particularly difficult amendment to draft because it is so closely linked to the particular institutional structure. One version would be:

‘Congress shall have the power to authorize non-interest-bearing obligations of the government in the form of currency or book entries, provided that the total dollar amount outstanding increases by no more than 5 percent per year and no less than 3 percent.’

“It might be desirable to include a provision that two-thirds of each House of Congress, or some similar qualified majority, can waive the requirement in case of a declaration of war, the suspension to terminate annually unless renewed."

“A Constitutional Amendment would be the most effective way to establish confidence in the stability of the rule. However, it is clearly not the only way to impose the rule. Congress could equally well legislate it."

Quoted from: A Program for Monetary Stability, by. Dr. Milton Friedman, Fordham University Press (N.Y. 1960, 1992), pgs. X, 66-76, 100-101; and, Free to Choose by Dr. Milton & Rose Friedman, Harcourt Brace & Co. (San Diego 1980, 1990), pgs. 307-308.

Gold money systems just do not work. And NO ONE knew this better than Eustace Mullins and Carroll Quigley.

Delving into monetary history in the 1800s makes it obvious that gold is the money of plutocracy, not democracy, not freedom for a sovereign nation. It's an intellectually dishonest approach that will eventually leave its proponents disgraced on the ash-heap of history. If you actually do any honest research of the 1800's, and 1970's, you would see the fallacy of "gold money." Any open-minded review of the monetary history of the world shows that gold is absolutely manipulable by bankers! Austrian's economics has always worked out great for the world’s richest people --- the holders of the majority of gold. Gold money has never worked well to provide freedom from serfdom for the common man.

Early America had no gold. They were forced, in order to have a medium of exchange, to print their own homegrown paper money. This was money issued by the individual colonial governments, without debt. It worked very well, and the colonies began to prosper.

Unfortunately, as of 1694, England's tally stick system --- also a debt-free money system --- had been killed with the founding of the Bank of England. After 700 years of prosperity under the debt-free tally stick system, England was suddenly thrust into a situation where they had to borrow all of their money into existence, at interest, from bankers. Of course this new money, was backed by gold. How did that work out?

By the mid-1700s, the interest on this new national debt was crippling the empire on which the sun never set. Fully 75% of British taxation went to paying just the interest on England’s titanic debt. As a result, England was forced to squeeze increasingly exorbitant taxation out of all her colonies; America was no exception. Of course, they demanded this payment in gold, but America had no gold. To the gold money system of the bankers, America’s debt free “colonial script” was worthless.

So, the British passed the Currency Act of 1764. This outlawed America’s “worthless” fiat paper money and ordered all Americans to pay their taxes in fiat gold or silver coin. The result was the same as would occur today if the average American was told that they could no longer make transactions in anything but gold or silver coin. Most of us would immediately be bankrupt. Look what befell the American colonies. As Franklin put it:

"In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."

To Ben Franklin this return to a gold money system was the basic cause for the American Revolution.

"The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the Colonies [their] money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction."

So, to Franklin, this banning of America's debt free currency was the primary and underlying cause of the American Revolution.

Here is a video of Eustace Mullins on some fascinating history on Rockefellers, Lincoln, and JFK. I think you will like it. But I find it fascinating how he describes the health of the American people and the cause of our health problems. You will agree 100% with this assessment.



Now if you watched, you will noticed how he talks about how over time his work became very easy because the more he experienced he figured out all these men behind the scenes, all of the men who ran Big Corps, who owned the Fed, medical industry, institutes ect.. were all interconnected. And because this his work was easy and basically just wrote the same thing describing many aspects of the mob cartel. I am sure you can understand this. You are well aware of this fact except Mullins knew that those who funded, financed the Austrian Schools of Economics were they very people who control America. Thus the reason why the Rockefellers funded the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and today receive hundreds of millions of dollars each year by wealthy donors of this cabal.

Eustace Mullins. In his book "The World Order, A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism"

"Hence his [Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England] campaign in favour of completely autonomous central banks, dominating their own financial markets and deriving their power from common agreement among themselves. They would succeed in taking out of the political realm those problems which are essential for the development and prosperity of the national financial security, distribution of credit, movement of prices. They would thus prevent internal political struggles from harming the wealth and the economic advancement of nations."

"In short, Norman wished to see the imposition of the World Order over the financial affairs of the nations. It was this agreement among the central banks, rather than the front organization, the League of Nations, which became their final instrument of power. Crucial to these arrangements was the monetarist school, the Austrian School of Economics, an outgrowth of the Pan-Europe movement."

Carol Quigley said an elite group of global financiers were bent on controlling the world. He said, Their goal was "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." He called this clique simply the "international bankers." Their essence was not race, religion or nationality but was just a passion for control over other all humans. And the key to their success was that they would control and manipulate the money system of a nation while letting it appear to be controlled by the government. Today they not only control the money supply, they now control the creation and the own most of what will soon replace it.

Winston Churchill, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, reintroduced the gold-standard in 1925. In 1932, Churchill testified the following before the House of Commons:

"When I was moved by many arguments and forces in 1925 to return to the gold standard, I was assured by the highest experts, and our experts are men of great ability and of indisputable integrity and sincerity, that we were anchoring ourselves to reality and stability, and I accepted their advice. I take for myself and my colleagues of other days whatever degree of blame and burden for having accepted their advice.

"But what happened ? We have had no reality, no stability. The price of gold has risen since then by more than 70 per cent. That is as if a 12-inch foot rule had been stretched to 19 or 20 inches…. Look at what this has meant to everybody who has been compelled to execute their contracts upon this irrationally enhanced scale. Look at the gross unfairness of such distortion to all producers of new wealth, and to all that labour and science and enterprise can give us. Look at the enormously increased volume of commodities which have to be created in order to pay off the same mortgage debt or loan. Minor fluctuation might well be ignored, but I say quite seriously that this monetary convulsion has now reached a pitch where I am persuaded that the producers of new wealth will not tolerate indefinitely so hideous an oppression. . . .

"I therefore point to this evil, and to the search for the method's of remedying it as the first, second and third of all the problems which should command and rivet our thoughts."

Here is Ezra Pound, who was one of the all time great poets of our time who was Eustace Mullins mentor. As I already told you he was a threat to the establishment and was a political prisoner for many years and was put in a mental hospital without trial.

“The present war dates at least from the founding of the Bank of England at the end of the 17th century, 1694-8. Half a century later, the London usurocracy shut down on the issue of paper money by the Pennsylvania colony, A.D. 1750. This is not usually given prominence in the U.S. school histories. The 13 colonies rebelled, quite successfully, 26 years later, A.D. 1776.” According to Pound, it was the money issue (above all) that united the Allies during the second 20th-century war against Germany: “Gold. Nothing else uniting the three governments, England, Russia, United States of America. That is the interest–gold, usury, debt, monopoly, class interest, and possibly gross indifference and contempt for humanity.”

And elsewhere: “Gold is a coward. Gold is not the backbone of nations. It is their ruin. A coward, at the first breath of danger gold flows away, gold flows out of the country.”

Brigham Young would agree with this assessment!

"Gold is good for nothing, only as men value it. It is no better than a piece of iron, a piece of limestone, or a piece of sandstone, and it is not half so good as the soil from which we raise our wheat, and other necessaries of life. The children of men love it, they lust after it, are greedy for it, and are ready to destroy themselves, and those around them, over whom they have any influence, to gain it”
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:, p.250

That is the real face of Gold as Pound saw it.

Pound, evidently, had no problems seeing the self evident: that the Gold Standards of the past and most certainly of modern history, beginning in Amsterdam, were banker operations.

Neither had Eustace Mullins, who left very little to guess in his book:

“The international gold dealings of the Federal Reserve System, and its active support in helping the League of Nations to force all the nations of Europe and South America back on the gold standard for the benefit of international gold merchants like Eugene Meyer, Jr. and Albert Strauss, is best demonstrated by a classic incident, the sterling credit of 1925."

J.E. Darling wrote, in the English periodical, “Spectator”, on January 10, 1925 that:

“Obviously, it is of the first importance to the United States to induce England to resume the gold standard as early as possible. An American controlled Gold Standard, which must inevitably result in the United States becoming the world’s supreme financial power, makes England a tributary and satellite, and New York the world’s financial centre.”

Mr. Darling fails to point out that the American people have as little to do with this as the British people, and that resumption of the gold standard by Britain would benefit only that small group of international gold merchants who own the world’s gold. No wonder that “Banker’s Magazine” gleefully remarked in July, 1925 that:

“The outstanding event of the past half year in the banking world was the restoration of the gold standard.”

This evil scheme was revealed by Sir Josiah Stamp, director of the Bank of England and the second richest man in Britain in the 1920s. Speaking at the University of Texas in 1927, he dropped this bombshell:

“The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin . . . . Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. . . . Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. . . . But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit."

And That's exactly what the greenbacks did.... They took power to create money from the bankers and had to be taken out. It's now forgotten history.

We need to restore Article One Section 8. We the people need to take the power back of issuing and controlling money which is our right to begin with. Gold will do i guess as long as that power is controlled by we the people. I just don't see any reason to to go gold digging.

[Juliette]

Great post Semp!! Who are you?? I wonder about everyone on this site. Where did all this knowledge come from?
Are you also a moderator?

Do these Ron Paul followers know so much because they've followed him through the years? With this same kind of enthusiam?
I've never seen anything like it. I have only jumped in the game this election. Interesting to say the least.

[liberty_belle]

Ron Paul Wins Taunton MA Republican 2012 Straw Poll

Wow! This from Massachusetts?

Ron Paul 51%
Romney 38%
Santorum 8%
Newt 3%

Here is the problem....In AZ Ron Paul won hands down in the Poll at 85%
In the exit polls http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Scv5TVuTITM

yet, we are to believe that Romney ran away with it.

This is the problem with primaries with computers doing the calculating! No one ever can see the votes tallied

[liberty_belle]

Great post Semp!! Who are you?? I wonder about everyone on this site. Where did all this knowledge come from?
Are you also a moderator?

Do these Ron Paul followers know so much because they've followed him through the years? With this same kind of enthusiam?
I've never seen anything like it. I have only jumped in the game this election. Interesting to say the least.

I can only speak for myself...I jumped into politics when I was 20 years old (24 years ago) when our Governor Meecham was being wrongfully recalled. I listened carefull to the arguments and then I spent 2 hours every day reading the Book of Mormon and the D&C for direction. In that course of study I was being lead to research more about modern day gadiantons and secret combinations.

After I graduated from a bsns college (ya, that was dumb) I took on a job where I was daily at the Capital rubbing shoulders with the States top Legislatures. I had my eyes open to corruption and self-grandizement. The majority of these people did not really care about the State and that was very clear.

Some years later, I became locally involved and labored diligently at the our State Capital, first as a parent for Parental Rights, then later as the AZ Dir. for the International Coalition for Drug Awareness/

I did not know about Ron Paul until 2007, but when I heard him, I had already understood the Constitution, Civil Liberties etc. I never thought in my life time that I would ever see such a person with unwavering commitment to the People of the Country. At first their were a couple of issues that I had problems with ie social issues, but that was only because I did not fully understand agency, I guess. Over the last four years, I have done even more studying into exactly what agency is and God's plan on how we should use it. That is why I can, with fervency stand behind Ron Paul.

Hope that can give you a little light into one of Ron Paul supporters

[Juliette]

Great post Semp!! Who are you?? I wonder about everyone on this site. Where did all this knowledge come from?
Are you also a moderator?

Do these Ron Paul followers know so much because they've followed him through the years? With this same kind of enthusiam?
I've never seen anything like it. I have only jumped in the game this election. Interesting to say the least.

I can only speak for myself...I jumped into politics when I was 20 years old (24 years ago) when our Governor Meecham was being wrongfully recalled. I listened carefull to the arguments and then I spent 2 hours every day reading the Book of Mormon and the D&C for direction. In that course of study I was being lead to research more about modern day gadiantons and secret combinations.

After I graduated from a bsns college (ya, that was dumb) I took on a job where I was daily at the Capital rubbing shoulders with the States top Legislatures. I had my eyes open to corruption and self-grandizement. The majority of these people did not really care about the State and that was very clear.

Some years later, I became locally involved and labored diligently at the our State Capital, first as a parent for Parental Rights, then later as the AZ Dir. for the International Coalition for Drug Awareness/

I did not know about Ron Paul until 2007, but when I heard him, I had already understood the Constitution, Civil Liberties etc. I never thought in my life time that I would ever see such a person with unwavering commitment to the People of the Country. At first their were a couple of issues that I had problems with ie social issues, but that was only because I did not fully understand agency, I guess. Over the last four years, I have done even more studying into exactly what agency is and God's plan on how we should use it. That is why I can, with fervency stand behind Ron Paul.

Hope that can give you a little light into one of Ron Paul supporters

Thank-you for that Liberty. I did attend some Evan Mecham rallies at ASU. I was very upset at the way he was treated.
My Father started a business in the Valley when I was young. When we graduated from high school, we worked at his business. No college for us. And that was ok. My family is wealthy because of his, and our, hard work. He built his company up until he had one in Phoenix, North Phoenix, Chandler, Mesa and Apache Junction. Our family recently sold the business.
I spent my life, after working for the business, raising children. I have a beautiful family. My son served a mission in Edmonton Canada. My daughters married in the Temple and are outstanding women. My Mothers maiden name is Udall. I come from a political family, but just wasn't interested.
When I decided to join this forum, after being on the apostate sight, I had no idea how little I knew. I also have never been talked down to like I have been here. Not even on the other site. I'm not used to that. I have served as the president in almost all the organizations for the women in this church. I have never been attacked like I have been on here. I know I have attacked back also. I felt like it was dog eat dog, and I wasn't going to be eaten. Even though I was not very well informed! :-\
I do see your enthusiam for Ron Paul. He is a great man. He is very intelligent. He stands for the constitution. I have learned so much.
It doesn't change my mind concerning Mitt Romney however. I wanted him in the last election. I think he has the best chance of being the nominee and thats what I want. If Ron Paul should be the nominee, I would vote for him. I would not vote for Gingrich. My family and all the people I know here in Az want Romney. If the vote is changed and dishonest, why are we even trying? I'm afraid that Obama will be our next President because of that very thing. Sad state of affairs!

[ktg]

If the vote is changed and dishonest, why are we even trying?

Elder Verlan H. Andersen explains that we have a duty to do so.

From his book "The Book of Mormon and the Constitution":

CAN POLITICAL BELIEFS AFFECT PERSONAL SALVATION?
Some may remain aloof from politics because they believe it has nothing to do with salvation or exaltation. With this thought in mind let us look at this scripture:
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. (D&C 134:1)
In a nation of self-governing people like the United States, all citizens have a moral responsibility to the Lord for their political conduct. With the privilege of self-rule comes the obligation to exercise that privilege in accordance with the Lord’s commandments. Moral principle is as applicable in group action as in individual action. When one decides to befriend or oppose a law, he exercises moral judgment. This judgment is also his personal political philosophy and code of justice. His judgment indicates whether he is just. One’s political philosophy also contains his views on human freedom. Every act he would allow others their freedom to do is allowed by the laws he favors. Conduct which he wants to use force and the fear thereof to prohibit is forbidden by those laws. Thus, one’s political philosophy is an expression of his beliefs on free agency. When we recall what the scriptures have to say regarding the fate of those who made the wrong decision on this matter in the pre-existence, we may want to be certain we do not use force to deny a rightful freedom here. This is the question at issue with respect to every law and every government action upon which we pass judgment. It seems that one can jeopardize his eternal welfare through group action as well as through individual conduct. Even though one acts in concert with others, and even though there may be thousands or millions who join with him in punishing the innocent, in judging unjustly and in opposing freedom, he is not thereby absolved from personal accountability.
The scriptures verify that we were judged by our attitude toward free agency in the pre-earth
life. Those who opposed it are even now suffering the worst punishment known. If it be true as
President McKay has indicated, that free agency may become the measuring rod by which we will
be judged here in mortality, it is of transcendent importance that we know and do those things
which provide freedom and that we identify and avoid those which injure or destroy it. The attempt
to destroy freedom in the pre-earth life was probably undertaken mainly by teaching false doctrines
concerning it. This appears to be one of the main ways of destroying it here on earth also. But in
addition to this, we can use our mortal bodies to injure and destroy the freedom of others by
forcibly depriving them of one of those physical possessions they must have to exercise it—life,
liberty and property.

Also, read the chapter titled "THE LORD JUDGES MEN BY THE CIVIL LAWS THEY SANCTION OR OPPOSE" in his book "The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil."

Both books can be downloaded for free at http://www.inspiredconstitution.org/books.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you only read 2 more books in your entire life, PLEASE read these!

[LoveIsTruth]

Now lets discuss a few things.. Article one section 8 of the US Constitution states Congress has the power "to coin money AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF." Now does it say anyway that the free market should decide? Where in the Constitutions does it even talk about the free market?? Why would Congress be given the power to regulate the value? Why would they need that power? And if they have that power, does that not mean WE the people do not have that reserved to Ourselves?

To "REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF" means nothing more nothing less than to determine what is the WEIGHT of gold or silver to be in the dollar. That's all. It is part of determining weights and measures. Once that is set it does not change, just like pound does not change, or foot, or yard. They stay the same, or it is fraud. That's all the Congress could do with regards to the money used by the States, i.e. gold and silver. As for things reserved to Ourselves, The Constitution Limits the government only, NOT the people. People can coin and use any private currency they please.

What we basically have today is a free market. Little if any government intervention.

Are you kidding me? I can't believe you would say something so absurd! Almost every facet of our life and economy is controlled by the government!

Our congress does not control or print the money. They don't set the prices for medals, gas, food, electricity. That would be credit agencies and Big private corporations. Our Congress has no say in these things.

Congress is the only institution that creates monopolies in all these areas, and allows bureaucrats right regulations that massively distort operation of free market for the benefit of well connected corporations. That is NOT free market, it is fascism, the rule of government connected to corporations.

So if government is no involved today and Big Corps run America and the world how is it possibly going to change in a free market free of government intervention? It would be similar to what we have today.

Wrong. It is because of government force that big corporations can distort free market, by granting themselves government forced monopolies and/or privileges. Again I say that is NOT Free Market. It is Fascism. Remove this immoral government force, the Free Market will operate again for the benefit of the consumers.

Congress can never do the job the constitution gave them in this free market which is to regulate the value of the currency

To regulate a metal currency is to ONCE determine the WEIGHT of gold or silver in a dollar, and that's all.

Whoever does coin Money and regulate the Value thereof holds sovereignty. History proves this.

People should be free to produce private currencies. And the Constitution did not forbid it. The Constitution limits only the government, not the people. As for sovereignty, the people, i.e. individuals are sovereign, not the government.

A market free of government involvement, the law of the jungle prevails and the continuation of the exploitation of the weak and strong.

Exactly the reverse is true. It is government involvement that makes possible the legal plunder we are witnessing. Thieves get rich via government forced monopolies. Free Market is NOT the law of the jungle, but its opposite. Free Market has much stricter regulations than that of the government bureaucrats who bail out their buddies. Free Market, and freedom in general, can exist ONLY if private property rights are religiously preserved. And absent government plunder this is what you will get, because private sector can enforce private property rights, MUCH, MUCH better than a government monopoly.

Austrian's really want is government completely out of the picture. They want to abolish Article 1, Section 8, destroying the true sovereignty of the US Federal Government.

Government is NOT sovereign, the people, INDIVIDUALS are.

I could be wrong but to me it appears by advocating a free market, free of government involvement all we are doing is undermining we the people's power to control the value of currency and its issuance.

Wrong. In a Free Market, ANYONE can issue any currency he likes, and the preference of people determines which currency takes hold of most of the market. (The same as with any other product in a Free Market.) History shows that it will undeviatingly be an 100% commodity based currency, because it is the most stable and the most honest monetary system known to man.

And by blaming government we destroying our only hope.

You sound like a statist. Government is NOT "our only hope;" quite the opposite, it is our only problem. As Reagan put it: "Government is NOT the solution, it is the problem."

So, who is going to be the "hidden-hands" guiding this virtuous "free-market" free of government intervention?

Supply and demand, plus private property rights.

It would be the money interests. It would be big international corporate financial interests. The ones who are looting the American people today. J.P Morgan, Goldman Sucks, Bank of America, etc, etc, ect..... And by going to a free market what we will have effectively done is move the power of the purse out of the hands of an elected body, into the hands of private corporate interests. Just as it is right now.

You are mistaken. What we have now is NOT free market. The banksters are so powerful because they were granted a GOVERNMENT FORCED MONOPOLY on counterfeiting. That is the direct opposite of Free Market. Remove this immoral government force and you will have Free Competition in Currencies, with Free Market rejecting worthless unbacked paper. Then it will be fulfilled what Sir Josiah Stamp said in 1927: "Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. " (Thanks for that quote by the way). Take this government forced monopoly away and you will have a better world.

So In this virtuous "free-market" system free from government, Austrians want to make gold and silver legal tender so that "sound money" can compete on a level playing field. Now who is going to lead the way? Do you think you can just go digg up enough Gold to meet the demands of the American people overnight? If not, Who in this world owns enough gold and silver to set up a competing currency banks backed by precious metals? I sure can't. I don't think many people here can. To me it is simple, the big banks of today. They'd be the very ones setting up competing banks under this free market system making loans at interest. That would be in the banks and big corporations best interest and they would have zero resistance doing this in a free market, free of government intervention. There would be no one able to stop them. They would gain total control of this free market in no time without any consequences. It is in the gold bugs best interest to compete with the free market and set up competing currency banks to make loans at interest. They have done this for ages.. It's exactly how the Rothschild's gained control of Europe. they loaned the gold out at interest never to look back. I see no reason to believe they would not or could not do this if we got rid of government.

If money cannot be conjured out of nothing, then it will move into the hands of those who produce things. Thus people who produce valuable goods and services will end up with most of the money.

And the only way we'd know for certain a competing currency certificate was actually redeemable for a precious metal, would be to have some sort of publicly monitored depository. But if government can't be trusted who would be responsible for this?

Private sector. If they violate people's trust they will lose customers, and with government NOT granting any special privileges (or monopolies) those customers will go to someone who provides a better service, and the scheming bankster will go to jail.

The Free Market regulates itself remember. I wonder if that's in the plans. If not, the ability to loan out more certificates than you have reserves for would prove irresistible. Than were back to fiat money. And that leads to the same dead end.

I just answered this. If a bankster tries that and gets caught (unable to return a gold deposit) he loses his customers and goes to jail, because the government is not there to bail him out or grant him special privileges, etc. Free Market in money will work just the same as Free Market in milk, or cement or computers, because money is NOTHING more than just another product. It is that simple. There is nothing magical about money. IT IS JUST ANOTHER PRODUCT, like milk, cement, grain, or computers or iPods. It's just another product that is used as a medium of exchange.

And I read no where in the US Constitution about “free competition in currency" or “competing currencies.“ And I don't see anywhere where it says to let the “free market” regulate itself.

Neither does it prohibit these. But, you are right, that is a flaw in the Constitution which I seek to fix with Honest Money Constitutional Amendment.

Austrians condemn the greenbacks and say it was an act of treason and unconstitutional all because it was paper. I disagree. But lets discuss this. Who and Why was Abraham Lincoln assassinated?

Because he wanted to create a government forced monopoly to counterfeit money (i.e. conjure purchasing power out of nothing). Banksters wanted that monopoly for themselves. That's why they killed him. It was one group of criminals fighting another group of criminals. NO ONE should have a counterfeiting monopoly: NO ONE! It is immoral, and is the essence of tyranny and plunder. Free Market rejects such fraud, because no one likes being plundered, and people, when free, will demand a 100% commodity backed currency, the most honest and the most stable monetary system known to man. Free Competition in Currencies will establish just that system, because it is a superior product compared to an unbacked paper.

During the Civil War Lincoln needed money. He went to the European banks and asked for money at the recommendation of his Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase. The banks told him they would help him but they wanted 19% interest for the loans. (some say it was 24% to 36%. Either way it was enough to enslave America for a very long time) Now for a few seconds put yourself in Lincolns shoes.... What options do you have?? Either the government could succumb to debt slavery money from the bankers. Or? Lincoln did not have the luxury or the time to go dig up enough gold and silver to cover the coast of War. Not an option. So accepting loans at interest from the banks and not being able to go digging were not options..... What would you do?

Not go to war, unless people are willing to VOLUNTARILY finance it, and only if the war is just.

Well Abraham Lincoln ignored Salmon P. Chase who wanted America to become enslaved, Lincoln bypassed the European banks and decided to do what many of our founding Fathers advocated. Which was create an independent and inherently debt free currency. The Greenback.

Most of the Founders were adamant against unbacked paper. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams and many others spoke forcefully against it. This is why they put it into the Constitution that NOTHING but gold and silver is to be used as money by the States (Article I, Section 10). Can you at least read?

Shortly after this measure was taken an internal document circulated between private British and American Banking interest stated; "Slavery is but the owning of labor, and carries with it the care of labor, while the European plan... is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. This can be done by controlling the money. It will not do to allow the Greenback...As we cannot control that." In essence, today federal reserve system is in fact a modern day slavery system. And if the allowed the green back to continue they would lose their power and control over America.

Yes and hand that power into the hands of nice and trustworthy politicians, until the government ends up owning all the property of the people and Liberty is destroyed. I feel so much better now! The problem with unbacked fiat money is not that it is issued by banksters instead of government, but that it is issued at all. It is plunder, it is theft, it is immoral. The analogy is Nazi concentration camps,-- the problem with them was not that they were ran by private companies instead of government, but that they were ran at all! It is immoral; It is THEFT! It is legal plunder. It DESTROYS Liberty, and consequently the society itself!

So Lincoln had two option which were to either...
Government could either print its own "DEBT FREE" money with no interest attached?
Or
Accept Debt slavery money of private bankers at huge interest rates attached?

What would you choose?

Neither.

And the Greenbacks were a serious threat to the bankers.

Yes, one criminal cartel (i.e. the government), was a serious threat to another criminal cartel, the banksters. Both wanted to plunder the people. Neither had a right.

So, were the greenbacks constitutional??

States can use NOTHING but gold and silver as money. Also the congress was granted authority to COIN money, not to PRINT money. Don't you think the founders knew English? It was obvious that Constitutional money were METAL, namely Gold and Silver. The Supreme Court should have been hung for treason when they said unbacked paper was Constitutional!

Gold money systems just do not work.

If they do not work, why are they then preferred every time by the Free Market absent government coercion? We have 6000 years of history to prove that.

Early America had no gold. They were forced, in order to have a medium of exchange, to print their own homegrown paper money. This was money issued by the individual colonial governments, without debt. It worked very well, and the colonies began to prosper.

Really? Have you not heard the phrase: "Not worth a continental?" Google it. It was an unmitigated disaster that wiped out the property of many of our Founding Fathers, after which they insisted on putting it into the Constitution that "nothing but gold and silver" to be used as money by the States (Article I, Section 10). You got your history wrong.

England was suddenly thrust into a situation where they had to borrow all of their money into existence, at interest, from bankers. Of course this new money, was backed by gold. How did that work out?

It was government forced monopoly with "fractional reserve banking" (read legalized counterfeiting). Of course they bankrupted England in few short decades! That's what legalized and monopolized counterfeiting does EVERY TIME. Gold was NOT to blame; legalized and monopolized counterfeiting (in the form of "fractional reserve" banking) was.

The result was the same as would occur today if the average American was told that they could no longer make transactions in anything but gold or silver coin. Most of us would immediately be bankrupt.

The debts of the US government are fraudulent and need not to be paid. Those who made those debts need to go to prison. Secondly, a smooth transition requires a Free Competition in Currencies, with good money gradually driving out the bad. That's what happens absent government coercion when Free Market is allowed to operate, because no one likes being plundered, and unbacked fiat is legalized plunder, nothing more nothing less.

Winston Churchill, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, reintroduced the gold-standard in 1925. In 1932, Churchill testified the following before the House of Commons:

"When I was moved by many arguments and forces in 1925 to return to the gold standard, I was assured by the highest experts, and our experts are men of great ability and of indisputable integrity and sincerity, that we were anchoring ourselves to reality and stability, and I accepted their advice. I take for myself and my colleagues of other days whatever degree of blame and burden for having accepted their advice.

"But what happened ? We have had no reality, no stability. The price of gold has risen since then by more than 70 per cent.

That is ridiculous. I knew Churchill was a crook. This doesn't even make sense! Think about it: If British Pound was anchored (backed) by gold, the price of gold CANNOT rise when expressed in Pounds, because Pound means nothing more than a certain WEIGHT of gold. The only way how the price of gold could have risen in terms of pounds if pound is NOT anchored to gold, which contradicts his previous statement where he said: "we were anchoring ourselves." So the man is either an idiot or a liar, because he blatantly contradicts himself, and he was not an idiot. Therefore I will have to go with him being a liar.

"Gold is good for nothing, only as men value it. It is no better than a piece of iron, a piece of limestone, or a piece of sandstone, and it is not half so good as the soil from which we raise our wheat, and other necessaries of life. The children of men love it, they lust after it, are greedy for it, and are ready to destroy themselves, and those around them, over whom they have any influence, to gain it”
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:, p.250

He merely pointed out that food is more important than gold. And he was right. However gold is great as a common medium of exchange. If it was not so, why would then Brigham Young and the twelve apostles create a gold backed currency in Utah in 1800's with gold backed certificates bearing their signatures? So you are taking this out of context, my friend.

“The outstanding event of the past half year in the banking world was the restoration of the gold standard.”

This evil scheme was revealed by Sir Josiah Stamp, director of the Bank of England and the second richest man in Britain in the 1920s. Speaking at the University of Texas in 1927, he dropped this bombshell:

“The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing.

You contradict yourself and misapply Stamp's excellent quote! You cannot have gold standard (i.e. 100% gold backing) and creating "money out of nothing." They are the opposites of each other, because you cannot conjure gold out of NOTHING, but you can unbacked paper.

And That's exactly what the greenbacks did.... They took power to create money from the bankers and had to be taken out. It's now forgotten history.

We need to restore Article One Section 8. We the people need to take the power back of issuing and controlling money which is our right to begin with. Gold will do i guess as long as that power is controlled by we the people. I just don't see any reason to to go gold digging.

Free Market will decide whether it is profitable to go "gold digging" not you. That is the whole point of Free Competition in Currencies which is a MUST if people are to be truly free. On what moral basis would you forbid Free Competition in Currencies? And if Free Competition in Currencies is to exist, then unbacked fiat money will unavoidably die by the hand of Free Market, because no one likes being plundered, and people will freely choose a 100% commodity based, interest free currency, because it is the most honest and the most stable monetary system known to man. Let Free Market decide, or in other words, let the free people decide. What do you have against Freedom?

[LoveIsTruth]

Now lets discuss a few things.. Article one section 8 of the US Constitution states Congress has the power "to coin money AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF." Now does it say anyway that the free market should decide? Where in the Constitutions does it even talk about the free market?? Why would Congress be given the power to regulate the value? Why would they need that power? And if they have that power, does that not mean WE the people do not have that reserved to Ourselves?

To "REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF" means nothing more nothing less than to determine what is the WEIGHT of gold or silver to be in the dollar. That's all. It is part of determining weights and measures. Once that is set it does not change, just like pound does not change, or foot, or yard. They stay the same, or it is fraud. That's all the Congress could do with regards to the money used by the States, i.e. gold and silver.
As for things reserved to Ourselves, The Constitution Limits the government only, NOT the people. People can coin and use any private currency they please.

What we basically have today is a free market. Little if any government intervention.

Are you kidding me? I can't believe you would say something so absurd! Almost every facet of our life and economy is controlled by the government!

Our congress does not control or print the money. They don't set the prices for medals, gas, food, electricity. That would be credit agencies and Big private corporations. Our Congress has no say in these things.

Congress is the only institution that creates monopolies in all these areas, and allows bureaucrats right regulations that massively distort operation of free market for the benefit of well connected corporations. That is NOT free market, it is fascism, the rule of government connected to corporations.

So if government is no involved today and Big Corps run America and the world how is it possibly going to change in a free market free of government intervention? It would be similar to what we have today.

Wrong. It is because of government force that big corporations can distort free market, by granting themselves government forced monopolies and/or privileges. Again I say that is NOT Free Market. It is Fascism. Remove this immoral government force, and the Free Market will operate again for the benefit of the consumers.

Congress can never do the job the constitution gave them in this free market which is to regulate the value of the currency

To regulate a metal currency is to ONCE determine the WEIGHT of gold or silver in a dollar, and that's all.

Whoever does coin Money and regulate the Value thereof holds sovereignty. History proves this.

People should be free to produce private currencies. And the Constitution did not forbid it. The Constitution limits only the government, not the people. As for sovereignty, the people, i.e. individuals are sovereign, not the government.

[Jason]

Now lets discuss a few things.. Article one section 8 of the US Constitution states Congress has the power "to coin money AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF." Now does it say anyway that the free market should decide? Where in the Constitutions does it even talk about the free market?? Why would Congress be given the power to regulate the value? Why would they need that power? And if they have that power, does that not mean WE the people do not have that reserved to Ourselves?

To "REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF" means nothing more nothing less than to determine what is the WEIGHT of gold or silver to be in the dollar. That's all. It is part of determining weights and measures. Once that is set it does not change, just like pound does not change, or foot, or yard. They stay the same, or it is fraud. That's all the Congress could do with regards to the money used by the States, i.e. gold and silver.
As for things reserved to Ourselves, The Constitution Limits the government only, NOT the people. People can coin and use any private currency they please.

"coin money" - piece of metal stamped and issued by the authority of a government for use as money.

"regulate the value thereof" could be weight of precious metals...or the value "stamped" onto the coin (face value).

I would like to see commentary from that time that supports your case....because as to my knowledge (limited for sure)....there is none.

Our congress does not control or print the money. They don't set the prices for medals, gas, food, electricity. That would be credit agencies and Big private corporations. Our Congress has no say in these things.

Congress is the only institution that creates monopolies in all these areas, and allows bureaucrats right regulations that massively distort operation of free market for the benefit of well connected corporations. That is NOT free market, it is fascism, the rule of government connected to corporations.

So what is the heart of the problem - people not utilizing their representation, government itself (the tool), or corporations running rampant over the people wielding the tool of government that the complacent people have allowed?

So if government is no involved today and Big Corps run America and the world how is it possibly going to change in a free market free of government intervention? It would be similar to what we have today.

Wrong. It is because of government force that big corporations can distort free market, by granting themselves government forced monopolies and/or privileges. Again I say that is NOT Free Market. It is Fascism. Remove this immoral government force, and the Free Market will operate again for the benefit of the consumers.

If government is removed....what stops the corporations???? Ya know the likes of Blackwater/Xe/Academi from being contracted (highest bidder - supply/demand) to roll in and stomp your guts out????

Whoever does coin Money and regulate the Value thereof holds sovereignty. History proves this.

People should be free to produce private currencies. And the Constitution did not forbid it. The Constitution limits only the government, not the people. As for sovereignty, the people, i.e. individuals are sovereign, not the government.

Banks are free to produce private currencies and are the ones that currently control trade (derivatives, CDO, ABS, ETF, bonds, digital gold - DGC, etc etc etc etc).

Will removing what little remaining government control/intervention change the current awful situation????

[jeanpierre]

"No state shall:...coin Money;...."

[jeanpierre]

"No state shall:...coin Money;...."

[LoveIsTruth]

"coin money" - piece of metal stamped and issued by the authority of a government for use as money.

That is only one meaning. There are others:

- to make (coinage) by stamping metal: The mint is coining pennies.
- to convert (metal) into coinage: The mint used to coin gold into dollars.

All these are talking about metal. And this is the meaning the founders had for it as proved by Article I, Section 10 of US Constitution.

"regulate the value thereof" could be weight of precious metals...or the value "stamped" onto the coin (face value).

Kind of like the government now stamps $1 on the face of a one ounce silver coin? That is totally ludicrous and stupid. Only our "out of their mind" government could do such a stupid thing! The only proper stamp is to represent the weight of metal in the coin. Incidentally, that was the ORIGINAL meaning of the term "dollar." It meant a certain WEIGHT of silver. So was British Pound Sterling; it was a certain WEIGHT of silver! That meaning was gradually corrupted when banksters started counterfeiting for a living.
So if you want honest monetary system, the only face value will be the WEIGHT of metal in the coin.

So what is the heart of the problem - people not utilizing their representation, government itself (the tool), or corporations running rampant over the people wielding the tool of government that the complacent people have allowed?

Both.

If government is removed....what stops the corporations???? Ya know the likes of Blackwater/Xe/Academi from being contracted (highest bidder - supply/demand) to roll in and stomp your guts out????

Other corporations, plus the people in general being armed. If you have one corporation terrorizing the people, the people will hire other corporations to hunt them down, so that there will only be red water left from Blackwater. This is how free market works. This is how justice works too.

Banks are free to produce private currencies and are the ones that currently control trade (derivatives, CDO, ABS, ETF, bonds, digital gold - DGC, etc etc etc etc).

Only one private currency monopoly exist right now in US. It is FRN's. Under Free Competition in Currencies ANYTHING can be used as money without government persecution via corrupt law and taxation.

Will removing what little remaining government control/intervention change the current awful situation????

Yes, and it is not "little." It is the government created monopoly strangle hold on the society. Without this government force monopoly the bankster empire comes crushing down. That's why Free Competition in Currencies kills unbacked, interest bearing fiat. Freedom is the ONLY thing that works!

[LoveIsTruth]

"No state shall:...coin Money;...."

Private citizens can coin money (or should be able to) under the Constitution. The prohibition is on the States only, not on private citizens.

[Jason]

"coin money" - piece of metal stamped and issued by the authority of a government for use as money.

That is only one meaning. There are others:

- to make (coinage) by stamping metal: The mint is coining pennies.
- to convert (metal) into coinage: The mint used to coin gold into dollars.

All these are talking about metal. And this is the meaning the founders had for it as proved by Article I, Section 10 of US Constitution.

Is that why First Bank of the United States chartered in 1791 was permitted to issue paper currency (in order to facilitate trade)....less than a year after the 13th colony (Rhode Island) ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights???

"regulate the value thereof" could be weight of precious metals...or the value "stamped" onto the coin (face value).

Kind of like the government now stamps $1 on the face of a one ounce silver coin? That is totally ludicrous and stupid. Only our "out of their mind" government could do such a stupid thing! The only proper stamp is to represent the weight of metal in the coin. Incidentally, that was the ORIGINAL meaning of the term "dollar." It meant a certain WEIGHT of silver. So was British Pound Sterling; it was a certain WEIGHT of silver! That meaning was gradually corrupted when banksters started counterfeiting for a living.
So if you want honest monetary system, the only face value will be the WEIGHT of metal in the coin.

Just like the ludicrousness of paper money....

So what is the heart of the problem - people not utilizing their representation, government itself (the tool), or corporations running rampant over the people wielding the tool of government that the complacent people have allowed?

Both.

There were three options....

If government is removed....what stops the corporations???? Ya know the likes of Blackwater/Xe/Academi from being contracted (highest bidder - supply/demand) to roll in and stomp your guts out????

Other corporations, plus the people in general being armed. If you have one corporation terrorizing the people, the people will hire other corporations to hunt them down, so that there will only be red water left from Blackwater. This is how free market works. This is how justice works too.

Other corporations???

Oh the people in general being armed ehh?? As in the non-united (no government) people? The same one's without morals and for sale to the highest bidder?

What are they going to hire them with??? Debt??? Ron Paul already sold off all the gold and lands to satisfy the debt....what are you going to hire them with??? Do you seriously think you are going to win in a bidding war???

Free markets....that's funny!!! Justice....how ironic!!! You've created a situation where might makes right....what do you expect????

Banks are free to produce private currencies and are the ones that currently control trade (derivatives, CDO, ABS, ETF, bonds, digital gold - DGC, etc etc etc etc).

Only one private currency monopoly exist right now in US. It is FRN's. Under Free Competition in Currencies ANYTHING can be used as money without government persecution via corrupt law and taxation.

Prove it!!! I've already posted several items and links proving that isn't the case...and you just kept changing topics rather than admitting you were wrong (remember your statement that private currencies existed up until 1913).....

Will removing what little remaining government control/intervention change the current awful situation????

Yes, and it is not "little." It is the government created monopoly strangle hold on the society. Without this government force monopoly the bankster empire comes crushing down. That's why Free Competition in Currencies kills unbacked, interest bearing fiat. Freedom is the ONLY thing that works!

Wait a minute....you said earlier that the corporations were running the show....which is it - corporations or government???

If you remove government force...how in the world does the bankster empire come crashing down??? Wouldn't the corporations with all of their control still exist? And now you have no political unification of the people (government)....so its each man for himself???

[LoveIsTruth]

Is that why First Bank of the United States chartered in 1791 was permitted to issue paper currency (in order to facilitate trade)....less than a year after the 13th colony (Rhode Island) ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights???

Jefferson was against it, and killed the bank by refusing to renew its charter (and withdrawing all government's deposits from it; incidentally this was the reason for the war of 1812, the English banksters retaliating for the destruction of the Central Bank they controlled), because such paper bank is unconstitutional and deadly for Liberty. He was right. This is why I am proposing Honest Money Constitutional Amendment, to make it impossible for such government forced monopoly to exist.

As in the non-united (no government) people?

People will unite VOLUNTARILY to defeat such a corporation. No government coercion is necessary.

The same one's without morals and for sale to the highest bidder?

What the government will give you more morals than Free Market?

What are they going to hire them with??? Debt??? Ron Paul already sold off all the gold and lands to satisfy the debt....what are you going to hire them with??? Do you seriously think you are going to win in a bidding war???

Do you seriously think a corporation is going to win a war against American people?

Free markets....that's funny!!! Justice....how ironic!!! You've created a situation where might makes right....what do you expect????

Quite the opposite. I removed immoral government force that created a monopoly, and allowed people to provide their own security. They will do it much better than a government monopoly that seeks to disarm the people.

I've already posted several items and links proving that isn't the case...and you just kept changing topics rather than admitting you were wrong (remember your statement that private currencies existed up until 1913).....

Private currencies exist now, but they are persecuted via taxation. It's like going to the bank to change $5 into quarters, and paying a SALES tax on the transaction. Thus, the only currency that is not subject to "sales" or capital gains tax when it changes hands is FRNs. Thus all other currencies are discouraged via taxation force.

Will removing what little remaining government control/intervention change the current awful situation????

Yes, and it is not "little." It is the government created monopoly strangle hold on the society. Without this government force monopoly the bankster empire comes crushing down. That's why Free Competition in Currencies kills unbacked, interest bearing fiat. Freedom is the ONLY thing that works!

Wait a minute....you said earlier that the corporations were running the show....which is it - corporations or government???

Corporations run the show via hijacked government force. This government-corporate amalgamation has a name: Fascism. Remove improper government force and Fascism ends.

If you remove government force...how in the world does the bankster empire come crashing down???

Because the counterfeiting monopoly exists ONLY because of government coercion. Remove that monopoly, and counterfeited, i.e. worthless, unbacked currency will be rejected by a Free Market.

Wouldn't the corporations with all of their control still exist?

No. Because much of their control comes via government force that grants them monopolies and privileges, protecting the corrupt corporations from the forces of Free Market, which Free Market would have bankrupted the thieves otherwise. (Because no one likes being plundered, if they can choose!)

And now you have no political unification of the people (government)....so its each man for himself???

The only unification that is worth-while is VOLUNTARY unification, i.e. the unification of Free Market on mutually beneficial and VOLUNTARY terms. A unification that protects private property from being violated via taxation and government force (legal plunder). Such VOLUNTARY unification is much, much stronger and JUST than the government's legal plunder we are offered otherwise.

[LoveIsTruth]

Ron Paul: A Gallon of Gasoline for a Dime!

Ron Paul Interview With Cavuto On Oil & The Dollar 03/05/12

[marc]

)

[Jason]

Is that why First Bank of the United States chartered in 1791 was permitted to issue paper currency (in order to facilitate trade)....less than a year after the 13th colony (Rhode Island) ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights???

Jefferson was against it, and killed the bank by refusing to renew its charter (and withdrawing all government's deposits from it; incidentally this was the reason for the war of 1812, the English banksters retaliating for the destruction of the Central Bank they controlled), because such paper bank is unconstitutional and deadly for Liberty. He was right. This is why I am proposing Honest Money Constitutional Amendment, to make it impossible for such government forced monopoly to exist.

Jefferson was against paper money....or the private bank??? A little honesty would be greatly appreciated....

As in the non-united (no government) people?

People will unite VOLUNTARILY to defeat such a corporation. No government coercion is necessary.

Any proof of that??? Ya know like people voting with their dollars against Walmart or other global corporations that are raping and pillaging the local economies???

The same one's without morals and for sale to the highest bidder?

What the government will give you more morals than Free Market?

How can you have a Free Market without morals???

What are they going to hire them with??? Debt??? Ron Paul already sold off all the gold and lands to satisfy the debt....what are you going to hire them with??? Do you seriously think you are going to win in a bidding war???

Do you seriously think a corporation is going to win a war against American people?

History is demonstrating this....are you historically illiterate? Ya know the Morgans, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, etc etc etc....the ones funding the foundations that promote your libertarian rhetoric....

Free markets....that's funny!!! Justice....how ironic!!! You've created a situation where might makes right....what do you expect????

Quite the opposite. I removed immoral government force that created a monopoly, and allowed people to provide their own security. They will do it much better than a government monopoly that seeks to disarm the people.

LOL....yeah somehow the people will do it better individually rather than politically united (government)....NOT! Zero proof....zero evidence....complete hypothesis and hypocritical in nature and application.

I've already posted several items and links proving that isn't the case...and you just kept changing topics rather than admitting you were wrong (remember your statement that private currencies existed up until 1913).....

Private currencies exist now, but they are persecuted via taxation. It's like going to the bank to change $5 into quarters, and paying a SALES tax on the transaction. Thus, the only currency that is not subject to "sales" or capital gains tax when it changes hands is FRNs. Thus all other currencies are discouraged via taxation force.

Oh so you finally admit that you were lying....great...I'm glad to finally see a little honesty. Is a derivative subject to "sales" or capital gains tax? CDO? MBS? When the Federal Reserve exchanged dollars for MBS with the banks....was there a sales tax or capital gains tax?

Will removing what little remaining government control/intervention change the current awful situation????

Yes, and it is not "little." It is the government created monopoly strangle hold on the society. Without this government force monopoly the bankster empire comes crushing down. That's why Free Competition in Currencies kills unbacked, interest bearing fiat. Freedom is the ONLY thing that works!

People created the government which allowed the monopoly (fought it for some time with off and on wins and losses). Please prove that without government force a bankster empire has come crashing down.....any history of successes in the last say 500 years would be really nice. Otherwise you are just spouting nonsense from your banking funded education...

Wait a minute....you said earlier that the corporations were running the show....which is it - corporations or government???

Corporations run the show via hijacked government force. This government-corporate amalgamation has a name: Fascism. Remove improper government force and Fascism ends.

LOL....which came first....the corporation or the government???

Since you admit that corporations run the show.....how does taking government (the political unification of the people) out of the mix help the people out???

If you remove government force...how in the world does the bankster empire come crashing down???

Because the counterfeiting monopoly exists ONLY because of government coercion. Remove that monopoly, and counterfeited, i.e. worthless, unbacked currency will be rejected by a Free Market.

Counterfeiting monopoly existed well before 1913....in fact it has been a battle since the country was established (your point with Jefferson and the first chartered private bank as noted above). Goes back to the Rothschild's taking over the Bank of England after bankrupting the country via gold loans in the 1700's (end of the tally stick era). The only thing you'll get by removing government will be stronger corporations...or complete anarchy and the breakdown of society...in which the last thing you'll have is Freedom and Liberty.

Wouldn't the corporations with all of their control still exist?

No. Because much of their control comes via government force that grants them monopolies and privileges, protecting the corrupt corporations from the forces of Free Market, which Free Market would have bankrupted the thieves otherwise. (Because no one likes being plundered, if they can choose!)

Evidence instead of complete banker funded verbatim hogwash would be nice. Corporations have existed long before our current government and played extensive roles in directing nations and national conflicts. Get some history outside of Rockefeller funded Mises please....like back with the Dutch East India Company, British East India Company, Hudson Bay Company, etc....as well as the corporation controlled UN, WTO, GATT, World Bank, etc that open up countries to their raping and pillaging....not to mention setting exchange rates (China hedge) and dominion over commodities.

And now you have no political unification of the people (government)....so its each man for himself???

The only unification that is worth-while is VOLUNTARY unification, i.e. the unification of Free Market on mutually beneficial and VOLUNTARY terms. A unification that protects private property from being violated via taxation and government force (legal plunder). Such VOLUNTARY unification is much, much stronger and JUST than the government's legal plunder we are offered otherwise.

Voluntary is what we have....if you don't want to volunteer...you can still move! Also they have to be mutually beneficial terms....and all you are talking about is voluntary (in or out at any time) which is just chaos and anarchy. Again work on your foundation of knowledge and extend it out beyond the banker funded education from Mises and Cato....the abstract terms and thoughts that sound nice on the surface but in application end up turning over what little remaining control the people have to the bankers....

[LoveIsTruth]

Six Romney Family Members Hit Campaign Trail… For RON PAUL



“I don’t dislike Mitt at all,” Chad Romney (pictured above) said. “He seems like a nice guy. He just doesn’t understand the constitution like Ron Paul.”
“It’s Ron Paul or bust,” Chad Romney added.

[LoveIsTruth]

Jefferson was against paper money....or the private bank??? A little honesty would be greatly appreciated....

Both. He was against both!

• Thomas Jefferson on coin and paper currency:
  
  “Specie [gold and silver coin] is the most perfect medium because it will preserve its own level; because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands, and it is the surest resource of reliance in time of war.” ~Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813
  
  “Paper is poverty,… it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.”~Letter to Edward Carrington, 1788
  
  Dangers of Paper Money. “That paper money has some advantages is admitted. But that its abuses also are inevitable and, by breaking up the measure of value, makes a lottery of all private property, cannot be denied.” ~Letter to Josephus B. Stuart, 1817
  
  “The trifling economy of paper, as a cheaper medium, or its convenience for transmission, weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals… it is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted.” ~Letter to John W. Eppes, 1813
  
  “The monopoly of a single bank is certainly an evil. The multiplication of them was intended to cure it; but it multiplied an influence of the same character with the first, and completed the supplanting the precious metals by a paper circulation. Between such parties the less we meddle the better.” ~Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1802

Are you smarter than Jefferson, Joseph Smith and Ezra Taft Benson? They all said the same thing. But above it all the Eternal Principles of Liberty say the same thing, which truth is from God. But truth does not count for much with you, you are smarter than truth. You are kicking against the pricks. You cannot prevail against the truth anymore than you can prevail against God. Good luck. You will fail, as God lives!

A little honesty please.

I'll address the rest of your post later.

[Jason]

Jefferson was against paper money....or the private bank??? A little honesty would be greatly appreciated....

Both. He was against both!

• Thomas Jefferson on coin and paper currency:
  
  “Specie [gold and silver coin] is the most perfect medium because it will preserve its own level; because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands, and it is the surest resource of reliance in time of war.” ~Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813
  
  “Paper is poverty,… it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.”~Letter to Edward Carrington, 1788
  
  Dangers of Paper Money. “That paper money has some advantages is admitted. But that its abuses also are inevitable and, by breaking up the measure of value, makes a lottery of all private property, cannot be denied.” ~Letter to Josephus B. Stuart, 1817
  
  “The trifling economy of paper, as a cheaper medium, or its convenience for transmission, weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals… it is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted.” ~Letter to John W. Eppes, 1813
  
  “The monopoly of a single bank is certainly an evil. The multiplication of them was intended to cure it; but it multiplied an influence of the same character with the first, and completed the supplanting the precious metals by a paper circulation. Between such parties the less we meddle the better.” ~Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1802

Are you smarter than Jefferson, Joseph Smith and Ezra Taft Benson? They all said the same thing. But above it all the Eternal Principles of Liberty say the same thing, which truth is from God. But truth does not count for much with you, you are smarter than truth. You are kicking against the pricks. You cannot prevail against the truth anymore than you can prevail against God. Good luck. You will fail, as God lives!

A little honesty please.

I'll address the rest of your post later.

Thank you for the information on Jefferson's feelings about paper money and private banking....much appreciated.

So he was against paper and private banking. Great....as you point out with those three great men above....all were for PM money....that is PM government money. I have no argument with that. What I am against is the destruction of government and the people that will shortly follow as their last remaining tool is removed.

[LoveIsTruth]

As in the non-united (no government) people?

People will unite VOLUNTARILY to defeat such a corporation. No government coercion is necessary.

Any proof of that??? Ya know like people voting with their dollars against Walmart or other global corporations that are raping and pillaging the local economies???

You described a Blackwater corporation terrorizing people. Walmart is not doing that. Walmart is providing a great service people want.

The same one's without morals and for sale to the highest bidder?

What the government will give you more morals than Free Market?

How can you have a Free Market without morals???

You can't. But it will cultivate morals much better than a government monopoly.

What are they going to hire them with??? Debt??? Ron Paul already sold off all the gold and lands to satisfy the debt....what are you going to hire them with??? Do you seriously think you are going to win in a bidding war???

Do you seriously think a corporation is going to win a war against American people?

History is demonstrating this....are you historically illiterate? Ya know the Morgans, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, etc etc etc....the ones funding the foundations that promote your libertarian rhetoric....

Again, we are talking about a corporation using violence in the streets. In a free market people will put an end to it quick. (New York minute.)

Free markets....that's funny!!! Justice....how ironic!!! You've created a situation where might makes right....what do you expect????

Quite the opposite. I removed immoral government force that created a monopoly, and allowed people to provide their own security. They will do it much better than a government monopoly that seeks to disarm the people.

LOL....yeah somehow the people will do it better individually rather than politically united (government)....NOT! Zero proof....zero evidence....complete hypothesis and hypocritical in nature and application.

Not individually, but VOLUNTARILY united. Learn to read. Also look up "hypocritical" I think you have a problem with English.

I've already posted several items and links proving that isn't the case...and you just kept changing topics rather than admitting you were wrong (remember your statement that private currencies existed up until 1913).....

Private currencies exist now, but they are persecuted via taxation. It's like going to the bank to change $5 into quarters, and paying a SALES tax on the transaction. Thus, the only currency that is not subject to "sales" or capital gains tax when it changes hands is FRNs. Thus all other currencies are discouraged via taxation force.

Oh so you finally admit that you were lying....

No, I admit that you cannot read! I said:

"Only one private currency monopoly exist right now in US. It is FRN's. Under Free Competition in Currencies ANYTHING can be used as money without government persecution via corrupt law and taxation."

It is a true statement. All other private currencies, besides FRNs, are subject to capital gain and sales taxes ON THE MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE. Only FRN's are free from this handicap, because they are a government monopoly. Try transacting in gold or silver without paying capital gain and sales taxes on the gold. They will put you in prison. Learn to read please, before you accuse people of lying.

Is a derivative subject to "sales" or capital gains tax? CDO? MBS? When the Federal Reserve exchanged dollars for MBS with the banks....was there a sales tax or capital gains tax?

MBS and derivatives are NOT money. They are NOT used as a common medium of exchange to buy other products and services.

People created the government which allowed the monopoly (fought it for some time with off and on wins and losses). Please prove that without government force a bankster empire has come crashing down....

Banker empire is a government force monopoly on counterfeiting. By allowing Free Competition in Currencies, you end the monopoly (by definition), and thus destroy the counterfeiting machine by the hand of Free Market, because given choice, people will reject counterfeited (i.e. worthless, unbacked) money in favor of a 100% commodity based currency, because it preserves their purchasing power much better, because it is the most stable and the most honest monetary system known to man and has existed for almost 6,000 years. The gold coins of long gone empires still buy a lot because they have intrinsic value INDEPENDENT of the whims of politicians. Prove it is not so!

Wait a minute....you said earlier that the corporations were running the show....which is it - corporations or government???

Corporations run the show via hijacked government force. This government-corporate amalgamation has a name: Fascism. Remove improper government force and Fascism ends.

LOL....which came first....the corporation or the government???

Government creates corporations and grants them immunities and privileges that would not have existed in a Free Market absent government coercion. The CEO's of corporations must be held PERSONALLY responsible for the crimes committed by their corporations (not just shareholders).

Since you admit that corporations run the show.....how does taking government (the political unification of the people) out of the mix help the people out???

The only viable and JUST political unification of the people is a VOLUNTARY one, not forced via taxation at the point of a gun (which is what government now is: "We will rob you now, so that others may not rob you later" kind'a deal, ... you know. That's what taxation is: it is THEFT. It is utterly immoral. It is legalized plunder, nothing more nothing less.).

If you remove government force...how in the world does the bankster empire come crashing down???

Because the counterfeiting monopoly exists ONLY because of government coercion. Remove that monopoly, and counterfeited, i.e. worthless, unbacked currency will be rejected by a Free Market.

Counterfeiting monopoly existed well before 1913....in fact it has been a battle since the country was established (your point with Jefferson and the first chartered private bank as noted above). Goes back to the Rothschild's taking over the Bank of England after bankrupting the country via gold loans in the 1700's (end of the tally stick era). The only thing you'll get by removing government will be stronger corporations...

You have just contradicted yourself. First you said government forced counterfeiting monopolies existed well before 1913 (proving my point), and then, in the same paragraph non the less(!) you state that if you REMOVE this immoral government force (that granted the monopoly) you will get stronger monopolies! That doesn't even make any sense! If you remove improper and immoral government force that grants the monopoly on counterfeiting, then you expose the worthless papery to the pressures of Free Market competition with gold, silver or some other 100% commodity based currency, which will end fiat unbacked paper before you can say "worthless," because no one likes being plundered by counterfeiters (because that's what unbacked fiat is: it is legalized plunder via counterfeiting). People will see that the prices on all items expressed in FRNs are going up, and the prices on the same items expressed in gold or silver staying constant or going down (because 100% commodity backed currencies are MUCH, MUCH more stable than unbacked paper ones). So people will prefer to get paid in gold and silver money that preserves and increases their purchasing power, and FRN's will be gradually rejected as worthless paper that they are! It is simple. Freedom works. It is the only thing that does!

or complete anarchy and the breakdown of society...in which the last thing you'll have is Freedom and Liberty.

VOLUNTARY cooperation among people will still exist and be even STRONGER than ever. It is corrupt government that introduces moral and economic chaos into society, NOT the Free Market. If people respect each other under an immoral government forced monopoly, they will respect each other even MORE under a free market, and there will be MORE law and order and JUSTICE when people are free, then when they are not.

Wouldn't the corporations with all of their control still exist?

No. Because much of their control comes via government force that grants them monopolies and privileges, protecting the corrupt corporations from the forces of Free Market, which Free Market would have bankrupted the thieves otherwise. (Because no one likes being plundered, if they can choose!)

Evidence instead of complete banker funded verbatim hogwash would be nice. Corporations have existed long before our current government and played extensive roles in directing nations and national conflicts. Get some history outside of Rockefeller funded Mises please....like back with the Dutch East India Company, British East India Company, Hudson Bay Company, etc....as well as the corporation controlled UN, WTO, GATT, World Bank, etc that open up countries to their raping and pillaging....not to mention setting exchange rates (China hedge) and dominion over commodities.

Most if not all of these were examples of government forced monopolies. British royal family was behind East India Company (and they were the biggest drug dealers on the planet). Learn your history! It is government force that cause the greatest slaughter and maihem that this world has ever seen, not Free Market!

And now you have no political unification of the people (government)....so its each man for himself???

The only unification that is worth-while is VOLUNTARY unification, i.e. the unification of Free Market on mutually beneficial and VOLUNTARY terms. A unification that protects private property from being violated via taxation and government force (legal plunder). Such VOLUNTARY unification is much, much stronger and JUST than the government's legal plunder we are offered otherwise.

Voluntary is what we have....if you don't want to volunteer...you can still move!

That is not voluntary! Translation "my way or the highway!" It is almost just as "voluntary" as a gun to your head. You can volunteer to die. Learn the definition of words please! Voluntary means no threat of violence. And that is not what this society is built on. All taxation is at the point of a gun. That's what taxation is. It is armed robbery by definition. Therefore ALL taxation is immoral. And where are you going to move? This fraud is all over the planet. We must make a stand for Liberty and Justice where we live! That's what the Founders taught us. That is our duty to God.

Also they have to be mutually beneficial terms....and all you are talking about is voluntary (in or out at any time) which is just chaos and anarchy.

"In or out at any time" is the definition of a Free Market. You vote with your money. If the product is good you are in; if it is not, you are out. Simple. Nothing wrong with that. Learn economics 101, at least from Mises, or from common sense.

Again work on your foundation of knowledge and extend it out beyond the banker funded education from Mises and Cato....the abstract terms and thoughts that sound nice on the surface but in application end up turning over what little remaining control the people have to the bankers....

You are dead wrong as always. I am talking about correct principles of Liberty. You are talking about tyranny and police state (your own words) that you embrace. You are a disgrace to liberty movement. You are lacking in basic logic and understanding of Eternal Principles of Liberty. You contradict the Scriptures and modern prophets (including Joseph Smith and Ezra T. Benson). You need to find out what Liberty means and why God is its greatest champion, even to the point of having 1/3 of his children leave heaven, rather than destroy their agency. Learn this, or you are going in the footsteps of Satan who wanted to FORCE everyone. Learn this before it is too late. God is the God of Liberty! (And you don't even know what that means!)