Balanced Budget Myth and a New Constitution
"And as pertaining to law of man,
whatsoever is more or less than this,
cometh of evil."
— Doctrine and Covenants 98:7
The biggest blow to our Constitutional freedoms would be, not to just ignore the provisions in the document or to write amendments to nullify them, but to supplant the Constitution with a totally new constitution — one without the safeguards to the liberty we now enjoy.
What excuse could the international-socialists use to convince the American people of such a move? Their plans, now, is to create an economic crisis of massive proportions. And to rectify that, they can propose a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
The big furor over having the government balance the budget is one of the biggest hoaxes that has ever been perpetrated on the American people. It is a hoax because it is impossible. Though an honorable goal, the current reality of it is extremely unrealistic. To have a balanced budget takes into account two major, and overlooked, assumptions. Those assumptions are: 1) that there is money in the United States Treasury to draw from, which there is not; and 2) that the income tax collected each year goes to the U. S. Treasury, which it does not.
No Money for a Budget
When there was money in the U.S. Treasury, our lawmakers could develop plans to spend only what was in the treasury and what they intended to take into the treasury from taxes during the coming year. But, since the treasury is bankrupt, and has been since gold and silver were taken out of circulation (gold: 1933; silver: 1972) in payment for national debt, how can these lawmakers plan a budget against something that does not exist? Also, the "income tax" money sent in each year by us, the tax payers, does not go to the treasury but to the Federal Reserve Banking system.
As discussed earlier, the Federal Reserve is a privately owned corporation, although chartered by the federal government. They admit themselves, in their own publication, that "they aren’t run by, owned, or part of government," but that they are a commercial bank and a "privately owned business." (David H. Friedman, I bet you thought. . . , Federal Reserve Bank of New York, p. 15.)
The tax money collected by the IRS does not go into the United States Treasury but goes to the Federal Reserve and into the pockets of foreign business. The endorsement on the back of checks sent to the IRS to pay income tax shows that it is NOT deposited in the U.S. Treasury but in the Federal Reserve Banks (Refer to the back of any check sent to the IRS for the payment of taxes and read the endorsement to see if it is deposited in the U.S. Treasury or in the Federal Reserve Bank). This tax is to credit the U. S. Treasury to pay the "national debt." The only time the Federal Reserve puts money in, or returns money to, the U.S. Treasury is when our government borrows money from them, and the Fed deposits the borrowed amount into the treasury so that our government can operate.
We Borrow into Debt
Now, when our lawmakers are struggling over creating a "balanced budget," or a "balanced budget amendment," they are not telling the people that there is no money in the treasury. Neither are they balancing a budget against current money on hand or projected income they expect to receive from taxes. What they are really doing is creating a planned spending program against the borrowing of more money from the Federal Reserve to keep us in perpetual debt and bondage. We must keep in mind what one of the greatest patriots, Alexander Hamilton, had to say: "In the general course of human nature, a power over a man’s substance amounts to a power over his will." (The Federalist, No. 79.)
It’s Impossible to Pay the Debt
There can be no balanced budget until we have paid off all of the four trillion dollars ($4,411,500,000,000) in debt owed to the Federal Reserve and have some money in our own U. S. Treasury. Can this be done? If we take into consideration that there are only three hundred and sixteen billion dollars ($316,400,000,000) in circulation today, how can we pay off four trillion dollars in debt? Does anyone really believe this can be done? A grade schooler can tell you it cannot be done. To try and do that would leave a debt balance due of $4,095,100,000,000, (Federal Reserve Bulletin, December 1993, pp. A14, A30.) more than money available. If we took all of the money from all of the people and paid it to the Federal Reserve, and if we gave the Federal Reserve all of the land of America, and then we walk away from it, leaving it to them, we would still owe a large debt.
Besides, does anyone really believe that if we had the money to pay off the debt that the greedy Federal Reserve and unethical politicians would allow it? They haven’t done it in the past. Why do people think they will do it in the future? It will not be done and our government and bankers know it.
What Motive for Such Deception?
There has been for the past ten years or so, a push for a Constitutional Convention for a Balanced Budget Amendment. The provision in the Constitution for amending the document is Article V. This is one of those threads of freedom spoken of earlier. When we exercise our agency and use this provision improperly, as it has been used many times since the Bill of Rights, then more of our liberties are threatened. The excuse of needing an amendment for a "balanced budget," is only a ploy to help destroy our already eroded Constitution.
There are people that have painted a bleak future for our economy without such an amendment. As a cure for a very grievous ill, it sounds good on the surface. But it will become only a bandage over a very serious and mortal wound. There are other motives for a convention of this type and it is not for a balanced budget. It is for a new Constitution.
This document that our Founding Fathers created by divine inspiration is a threat to those who would destroy our liberties. When Satan has attacked everything else that God has established, why do we Americans think he will not attack the Constitution of the United States. We must remember that God established the Constitution because it protects our liberties. Satan wants to destroy the Constitution because it protects our liberties.
Let’s consider James MacGregor Burns. Mr. Burns, as member of the board of directors of the Committee on the Constitutional System who are pushing for this convention, has presented forty papers and drafted seventeen proposed reforms to the Constitution that are in opposition to the fundamental principles that our Founding Fathers embraced. Here is some of what Mr. James MacGregor Burns has to say about our Constitution:
"Let us face reality. The framers [of the Constitution] have simply been too shrewd for us. They have outwitted us. They designed separated institutions that cannot be unified by mechanical linkages, frail bridges, tinkering. If we are to turn the founders upside down’ — to put together what they put asunder — we must directly confront the constitutional structure they erected." (The Power to Lead, 1984.)
So there we have it! A motive for a Constitutional Convention that is designed, not for a balanced budget only, but for the deceptive destruction of our God-inspired document. Those that would have the Constitution eliminated want to face it head-on, in a convention, and have it replaced with another document.
A Constitutional Convention?
As many know, a constitutional convention is unique to a free people. When people appoint delegates to represent them in such a convention, those delegates exercise their authority by virtue of the powers inherent in the people themselves. This is how we got our Constitution in 1787.
During the original convention, and during the ratification of the Constitution, there were many dangers to the nation and its form of government. Even though it turned out to be good for the people, having been inspired of God, James Madison was horrified when a few wanted to re-open the convention to try and make, what they felt to be, needed corrections. To this suggestion, Mr. Madison exclaimed:
"Under all these circumstances it seems to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second." (Quoted in Silent Crisis, by Don Fotheringham, The John Birch Society, Appleton, Wisconsin.)
To call a constitutional convention it would take 34 states. There are, at this time, 29 states calling for a convention. Some of those states are considering the revocation of their call and other states are still considering making a call for such a convention.
What Is Behind It?
To give a sketchy history of the plot behind this modern constitutional convention, lets turn again to Colonel Archibald Roberts who has studied this matter thoroughly. From his remarks to the Illinois State Legislature, we find:
"Among their "philanthropic" undertakings, the Rockefeller family established and financed the University of Chicago. Back in the days when the Rockefeller Empire was being built, the head of this university was Robert M. Hutchins, who also was chairman of a committee to form a World Government. This committee wrote a World constitution, and on August 12, 1945, Hutchins said on a University of Chicago Round Table Broadcast that he favored turning over the control of this nation to a Socialist World Government. Associated with Hutchins at the time was Rexford Guy Tugwell who, along with Hutchins and $15 million of Ford Foundation money, went west to Santa Barbara, California where they established the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. It was there that Tugwell completed his draft of a new Socialist constitution for the United States, with which they hope to replace the present United States Constitution — in 1976." (Emerging Struggle for State Sovereignty, p. 200.)
This constitution took ten years to complete. It was published in its final form in 1970. Very few people, indeed, know of its existence and virtually all of America is still in the dark about this deliberate attempt to supplant our divine Constitution with the constitution for The Newstates of America. Colonel Roberts goes on to say:
"A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION is the procedure of choice for removing the annoyance of the United States Constitution and erecting in its stead the Newstates Constitution as the ‘Law of the land.’ The Bicentennial Celebration provided the first test for this plan for merging the United States with the ‘New World Order.’
"On 14 January, 1975, the United States Congress set the constitutional convention plot in motion with House Concurrent Resolution No. 28, introduced by Mr. Pettis, Republican legislator from California. . . ." (Ibid., p. 251.)
Then Colonel Roberts quotes Dr. David Beter, a Political Economist, Author and Lecturer. In Dr. Beter’s critical analysis of this new constitution, he says, in part:
"Certain powerful forces hope to celebrate our nations’s Bicentennial in 1976 by replacing the freedoms guaranteed in our present Constitution with their own dictatorship — a cleverly disguised dictatorship. It has been made to superficially resemble the government that we have now, so that we will not recognize it for what it is — until too late. They are using every propaganda trick at their command to make us lower our guard. And they are about to put us all in a condition of economic desperation to persuade us to accept their cleverly disguised dictatorship." (Ibid.)
Because we still live under our original Constitution, we know they were not able to pull off there scheme by 1976, but they are still working at it.
Let us now, in a very few words, capsulize the new proposed constitution for the Newstates of America. We will not fully evaluate this new proposed constitution. Upon close examination of its provisions, or lack of provisions, we find that:
There is no Bill of Rights or freedom of expression; the right of communication and to petition can be abridged in a declared emergency; there can be unreasonable search and seizure; there is no freedom of assembly, and religious practices shall be "privileged;" there is to be a welfare state and no just compensation for seized property, nor habeas corpus, nor a right to keep and bear arms; the Sovereign States shall be abolished and Newstates created by the federal government; appointed overseer, with no allegiance to the population, instead of elected governors of States, will be in power; the Senate is appointed by the President and is to be appointed for life; Officers of the Newstates are to be appointed; and Executive Order #11490, which consolidates President Kennedy’s ten executive orders, will be implemented, giving all power to regional governments to control all food supplies, money and credit, transportation, communications, businesses, utilities, etc.
The excuse the one-world conspirators are using now, for a convention, is a need for a balanced budget amendment. How might they pull it off? What could be the scenario? With the ideas of Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis in mind, as discussed in Chapter Four, let us use our imaginations and fantasize for a moment. 1) Those in power will pull all the strings they can to cause an economic disaster in this country, similar to the one in 1929 (THESIS). 2) The people will clamor for a solution (ANTITHESIS). And 3) A convention will be called and The Newstates Constitution will we slipped into place (SYNTHESIS).
There Can Be No Balanced Budget
Now, does this sound like a constitution we want to live under? Does this protect our agency which our Heavenly Father granted to man? Can we see how the threads of freedom are being severed and our Constitution is hanging?
There will not be, and cannot be, a balanced budget under our present monetary system. The "balanced budget" argument is ludicrous, and extremely deceptive. "We the Sheeple" have been lead away by deceptive wolves "as a sheep before her shearers" assuming "all is well" and that our lawmakers will take care of us.
When we know the intent of the advocates of the "New World Order," in contrast to what the Lord meant when he said, "I established the Constitution of this land," (D&C 101:80.) perhaps we should not put this sacred document in jeopardy and "throw it up for grabs," so to speak.
J. REUBEN CLARK, Jr.
On Interest, Long Time Debts,
and Installment Buying
"It is a rule of our financial and economic life in all the world that interest is to be paid on borrowed money. May I say something about interest?
"Interest never sleeps nor sickens nor dies; it never goes to the hospital; it works on Sundays and holidays; it never takes a vacation; it never visits nor travels; it takes no pleasure; it is never laid off work nor discharged from employment; it never works on reduced hours; it never has short crops nor droughts; it never pays taxes; it buys no food; it wears no clothes; it is unhoused and without home and so has no repairs, no replacements, no shingling, plumbing, painting, or whitewashing; it has neither wife, children, father, mother, nor kinfolk to watch over and care for; it has no expense of living; it has neither weddings nor births nor deaths; it has no love, no sympathy; it is as hard and soulless as a granite cliff. Once in debt, interest is your companion every minute of the day and night; you cannot shun it or slip away from it; you cannot dismiss it; it yields neither to entreaties, demands, or orders; and whenever you get in its way or cross its course or fail to meet its demands, it crushes you.
"So much for the interest we pay. Whoever borrows should understand what interest is; it is with them every minute of the day and night."
"I should like also to say something about long time debts, say 20 or 30 years, for remodeling and improving homes. I am not unfamiliar with the stock arguments and reasoning used to support this kind of borrowing. But we must fully consider this: Any improvement such as bathrooms, modern heating and refrigerating plants, and the like, will, in the course of ten years, probably be old, out of style, and largely obsolete. If the family is the ordinary one, they will at the end of ten years clamor for new, up_to_date furnishings, for another and modern remodeling. When that times comes the family will have to realize that it must go on paying principal and interest for another ten or twenty years on the worn bath tub and basin, the stained and cracked kitchen sink, the smoky furnace, and all the rest. This assumes, of course, that we have been able to keep up our payments for the first ten years and have not lost the whole property before that time, both what we put into the house as well as the house itself.
"I wish to add something on installment buying that popular method of running in debt for things and paying for them while you wear them out. Installment buying is a twin brother of longtime loans for remodeling and furnishings. A part of a successful installment plan is a very high, usually hidden rate of interest."