tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-82144520332384899422024-03-12T19:49:25.841-07:00Awake and AriseAwake and Arise was first published in 1992 and reprinted in 1994. The book is about the U.S. Constitution and threats to our liberties, but even though it is written with the Latter-day Saint (Mormon) in mind, general reading audiences find much valuable information and documentation therein. A document containing 33 Chapters.Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-28967284387801842162009-02-07T10:41:00.000-08:002009-02-07T10:59:06.879-08:00<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpcA2QzaiFYoLR4yH9T94Jo0MSz5gXPBNbup4GohR0-3_E4nzoR_Ax0hqRPWQJClWFQX8KhFnanFiVsTEaT48vwQ1CE9Gm-EHOUKx7UqYNEXOV8FSVLojVmSRMoGkJtzxMZXWNHFUJlvE/s1600-h/Awake-0-Cover.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5300131697038994754" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 304px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpcA2QzaiFYoLR4yH9T94Jo0MSz5gXPBNbup4GohR0-3_E4nzoR_Ax0hqRPWQJClWFQX8KhFnanFiVsTEaT48vwQ1CE9Gm-EHOUKx7UqYNEXOV8FSVLojVmSRMoGkJtzxMZXWNHFUJlvE/s400/Awake-0-Cover.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div></div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-84491811951641891922009-02-07T10:28:00.000-08:002012-11-10T14:37:51.932-08:00<div align="center">
<b><span style="font-size: 180%;">AWAKE AND ARISE</span></b></div>
<div align="center">
<br />
<i>A study on the principle of free agency,<br />our constitutional relationship to agency,<br />the threads upon which our sacred Constitution hangs,<br />and our relative responsibility.</i></div>
<div align="center">
<br />
by Joseph W. Grammer</div>
<div align="justify">
<br />
<span style="font-size: 180%;">T</span>o those valiant patriots, both past and present, who have given, and will yet give, their all for the cause of liberty — who are not afraid to stand up and be counted, and go through the refining process of sacrificing their personal and private interests for the righteous preservation of their personal liberty, and for the right of others to exercise their free will -- their liberty.</div>
<div align="center">
<br />
All rights reserved.<br />
Copyright © 1992 Joseph W. Grammer<br />
PRINTING HISTORY<br />
First Printing 1992<br />
Second Printing 1994<br />
Third Edition 2002<br />
<br />
ISBN: 1-880416-64-6</div>
<div align="center">
<br />
Cover Designed by James Van Treese<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="color: red;">
<a href="http://www.ziddu.com/download/20813926/AWAKEANDARISE.pdf.html"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Download this book as a FREE E-BOOK by</span></b></a></div>
<div style="color: red;">
<a href="http://www.ziddu.com/download/20813926/AWAKEANDARISE.pdf.html"><b><span style="font-size: large;">CLICKING HERE </span></b></a></div>
<br /></div>
Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-7431160985757750472009-02-07T10:25:00.000-08:002009-02-07T10:27:10.362-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:180%;">Author’s Note</span></strong></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >T</span>hat which is contained in this book is solely my responsibility. Any opinions or views expressed by me in this book are those for which I alone am responsible. The selecting, editing and arrangement of works cited in this work are those of my choosing, and all emphasis within such quoted works are totally my responsibility.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />I also wish to make clear that this is not a publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or any religious, political, or governmental organization. The opinions and views expressed in this publication are those for which I alone am responsible.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />All scriptural quotations contained in this work are taken from the King James Version of the Holy Bible and the scriptural Standard Works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.<br /></div><blockquote style="styleDocument: [object]"></blockquote><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="right">--Joseph W. Grammer</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-56296795507437023932009-02-07T10:24:00.000-08:002009-02-08T13:57:31.429-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >"The patriot, </span><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >in the beginning of a change, </span><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >is a scarce man, </span><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >and brave and hated and scorned.<br />"When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."<br />— Mark Twain</span></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><span style="font-size:130%;"></span> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"> </div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-39103403810140301892009-02-07T10:22:00.000-08:002009-02-07T10:23:59.733-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:180%;">Introduction<br />To the Third Edition</span></strong></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >A</span>lthough there have been few miner changes and updates to this addition of the book, the text still reads as it did when it was first published, and when Ezra Taft Benson was still President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His passing on May 30, 1994, did not change the importance of his messages, therefore the words in this book will remain written as though he is still speaking to us today — for indeed, he is.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Regarding changes and updates: I have only made a few minor grammatical corrections and word changes, along with very few additions to the original text — which are minimal. The text that was previously in bold type for emphasis in the earlier editions of the book has now, for the most part, been put in italics. I have also adding one new chapter, and have taken the liberty of altered the contents of the appendix at the end of the book. However, anything that was taken from the appendix has not been totally deleted, but only placed elsewhere in the book.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />A lot has transpired concerning the erosion of our liberties since this book was first published in 1992, but I have not bothered to go into the text and make such notations. Like a new computer which often becomes obsolescent by the time it hits the marketplace, so it is with trying to keep up with rapid transpiring current world events. If I were to try and keep abreast of them by publishing books, the information would virtually be outdated before any such book hit the bookstore shelves.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Consequently, I believe that which is contained in the original publication of this book should be enough to enlighten the reader to what is really going on in this nation and the world regarding man’s right to freely exercise his liberty. Considering such, I recommend that the reader keep abreast of what is actually transpiring by obtaining alternative news sources rather than relying on the establishments controlled press and news media, such as television, radio, and traditional newspapers and magazines. Such alternative news, which is often shocking, is out there for those who are not afraid of learning the truth.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As stated above, this book was started and first published when Ezra Taft Benson was President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and revered by members of that Church as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. He was a strong promoter of the restored Church, the true gospel as revealed by Jesus Christ through the Prophet Joseph Smith, the inspiration found in the Book of Mormon, the eternal family unit, the cleansing of the inner vessel, personally coming unto Christ, and of liberty — the liberty that comes only through righteous living and love of fellow man — the kind of liberty that inspired the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution for the united States of American — the kind of liberty that founded a mighty nation that had, originally, a fundamental faith in divine providence.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In all of the above values, Ezra Taft Benson found favor among all Latter-day Saints except in the last. Only in the last of this list has he been continually criticized and misunderstood. But as great as his love and service was in all of the above, it will someday be found that his greatest contribution to the church, American, and the world, was his deep love and commitment to the principle of agency and man’s right to be freed. He was not only tirelessly devoted to Jesus Christ but to the Divinely inspired Constitution for these united States of America. Few people new it as well, nor loved it as much.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Being a man inspired of God, he spoke with a unique spirit of love and with the fire of commitment. He added his warning voice to that of President David O. McKay, and other former General Authorities regarding the threats to our inspired Constitution and national freedom — being, therefore, only one of many witnesses concerning this grave subject. It was no mistake that God placed him in a position of prominence during the Eisenhower administration, becoming a witness to much of the secret combinations that threaten the peace and freedom of, not only this nation, but the entire world. Yet, few Church leaders in this century have received as much criticism as he has, and few have had their words neglected as much as his.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Let us not be surprised when many of us will have to stand before him at some future date and make an accounting of what we did with the inspired knowledge he gave to us from the Almighty regarding liberty. Rest assured — there will be an accounting. Indeed, time will reveal those hypocrites who claimed to have sustained him as a Prophet of God while he was still in the flesh, but, in reality, did not truthfully sustain or support him in his inspired words. When a Stake President, Bishop, or any other authority claims to have supported President Benson as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and now attempts to minimize that Prophet’s teachings, how can that leader be taken seriously by those under their authority?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This book, though having a message and purpose much broader than Ezra Taft Benson, was partly conceived to help people come to know what a great American he truly was, and that there is still a great conflict raging upon the earth over man’s liberty. His message was always timeless and sincere.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />I am republishing this book in an attempt to continue informing readers of the desperate situation in this country and the world regarding the right of man to be free. Although we are to anxiously be engaged in a good cause, yet if our hearts are not right with God, and if we are not on His side, it makes little difference who’s side we are on. As put forth in the last two chapters, we need to turn our hearts to Jesus Christ, for only in Him do we have salvation. He is our only hope for true liberty.</div><blockquote style="styleDocument: [object]"></blockquote><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="right">--Joseph Warren Grammer</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-65998297422853489002009-02-07T10:16:00.000-08:002009-02-07T10:22:00.599-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:180%;">Preface</span></strong></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >T</span>his work had been considered for quite some time before I undertook to write it. I had only some general ideas at first, and did not have a clear conception of how to treat all of the many controversies inherent within the topic. I knew that some of them would have to be discussed, but to what extent?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As the book proceeded, my approach began to take shape. I decided not to give an exhaustive study of the topics presented, but to give sufficient evidence that there are problems in our governmental system that had developed since, but not because of, our Founding Fathers. I felt it would be most valuable to present the information in a forthright manner without appearing to be radical, fanatical, or extremist.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />I know, with all humility, that to accept the premises set forth in this work, one must have a love for truth and a desire for, and an understanding of, free agency — liberty. Freedom may not be for everyone, nor will everyone find the gospel of Jesus Christ to his liking. To accept the principle inherent in liberty, takes faith and courage. And not all people possess enough of either to warrant risking their position in life to get into the freedom battle and to stand up for truth, no matter how overwhelming the evidence of that truth.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />There are those, however, who manifest sufficient qualities to follow the Lord’s commandments — all of them. And some of those commandments include, not only paying tithing, living the word of wisdom, doing home-teaching and other church assignments, but also studying the Constitution and defending their rights of liberty as given to them by God. Therefore, this work is intended to be a straightforward, documented and no-nonsense approach to the subject.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It is the purpose of this book to show that the most important principle in the realm of our Heavenly Father, next to life itself, is that of agency, and to live in an environment of freedom so we can exercise that agency. President David O. McKay said, "<em style="styleDocument: [object]"><strong>We must never forget that next to life itself, free agency is the greatest gift of God to man</strong></em>." (CR, October 1966, p. 5.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />However, it seems that when we talk of free agency in relation to the Constitution of the United States and government, many members of the Church feel it is political. In reality, it is not. President Benson made the following comments about this frame of mind in general conference when he said, "The government has penetrated so much of our lives that one can hardly speak for freedom without being accused of being political. Some might even call the war in heaven a political struggle — certainly it was controversial. Yet the valiant entered it with Michael." (CR, April 1965, p. 124.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It may seem political to most when we might have to "jockey for position" when petitioning for our rights. Rights, however, are eternal principles and are freely given of God, as we will discover in this work. And agency (the right to exercise those rights) is the second greatest gift of God next to the breath of life.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Those rights were meant to be protected by the Constitution of the nation, but as President Brigham Young once said, quoting the Prophet Joseph Smith: "The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread." (JD, 7:15) What is that thread? We will be exploring that question in this book because I feel it does have an answer. We will find that it is a very obvious and seriously overlooked answer.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It will also be my purpose to show that there are, indeed, conspiracies — great secret combinations — trying to overthrow the freedom of this and all lands, and that Lucifer is at the head of them. We will explore the fact that it is Satan’s intent to destroy our agency through these great secret combinations. It is the devil’s design also, not only to destroy our agency, but the Constitution of the United States which helps protect that Godly gift.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The reader will be shown that Satan’s secret combinations and conspiracies existed before we came to this earth and they still continue today. Our current Prophet, President Ezra Taft Benson, said in the General Conference of October 1988:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"<em style="styleDocument: [object]">I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. <strong>A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world</strong></em> (see Ether 8:18-25)." (CR, October 1988, p. 103.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />President Benson then goes on to say that the ". . . forces of evil increase under Lucifer’s leadership." (CR, October 1988, p. 103.) Now some of these forces of evil are secret combinations, or conspiracies. There are many that do not like the word "conspiracy" because it is threatening. This word has been made unpopular by those of influence and who are also part of, or support, these great secret combinations. Making the word "conspiracy" unpopular places the truth seeker in an unfavorable light and helps bend the suspicious, pointing finger, away from the guilty.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />My aim is to help the reader understand what should, and can, be done concerning these satanic plots. Information is given to the reader to help him follow the admonition found in The Book of Mormon when it speaks of these conspiracies in our day: "<em style="styleDocument: [object]"><strong>Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awaken to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you</strong></em>." (Ether 8:24.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />So this book was born with an idea to help shed light on the dark things of the world (secret combinations) thriving in the element of darkness and deception. A conspiracy, by its very nature, is secret. When knowledge reveals such secrecy, then that dark conspiracy ceases to be a conspiracy. God is truth and light; Satan is not. By shedding light on such secret works of darkness, the power of the evil one also ceases to exist. This only happens, though, when that light and knowledge is presented in a timely fashion; otherwise, some significant damage may be incurred.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />There are a lot of positive aspects of the Constitution that we will be discussing. However, in covering this document, I am purposely presenting the negative aspects of what has happened to the principles contained in it and those threads upon which it hangs. We can talk about the positive aspects of it all our lives, but until we start understanding the negative ones we cannot begin to know what the dangers are to our liberties.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Perhaps we can take for example our human body, with pains, lumps and various unnatural changes going on within it. These symptoms could be because of some cancerous growth. Now, would it be wise to just talk about how wonderful life is, or should we get to the point of the problem and try and save a, possibly, dying body? The negative aspects of life must be addressed as well as the positive. Then, and only then, can we know what to do about the problem.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Although we are living in the last days spoken of in the scriptures, this work is not intended to be a book on the last days, the Second Coming, or the millennial era. It is primarily concerned with free agency, the Constitution of the United States, secret combinations, and their relationship to the above events. It is designed to inform and educate the reader about the seriousness of our current situation in this, our God-given land of liberty and about the inspired Constitution which He gave us.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Lastly, it is my intent to share with you, the reader, a few thoughts on what we can do in relation to the forgoing discussions. The Lord has a plan and we need to know of it and make it a part of our lives. It is also hoped that this book can offer some positive conclusion to this ever- continuing contest between good and evil — agency versus force.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />At this point I will be so judgmental as to say that the honest-in-heart, those who do not live in a world of self-denial, will understand the purpose of this book; others will reject it. I do not intend to say this with pride or arrogance, only with what I have come to <strong>KNOW</strong> to be true.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />There is in this book, although not exhaustive by any means, a profusion of quotes from scripture, leaders of the Church, our Founding Fathers, and many others; these are, of course, in support of the points I will be trying to make. If the reader feels that a quote is invalid for any reason, he or she is welcome to disregard it — mark it out, as though it were not there. The reader may find that there is enough evidence presented in this work to cover the subject and still come to the conclusion I intended.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In my opinion, the final conflict between good and evil is at the door. We must be prepared, both spiritually and temporally. We know who is going to win; it will be the Savior, Jesus Christ. The question might be asked: "What part will we be playing in the final events?"</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The "American Dream" is only a dream. For a very short time in our nation’s history the concepts embraced in the Constitution of the United States were a reality. But not long after its creation, the true meaning and intent behind that sacred document were lost. Its true aim was dissipated and subverted due to ignorance, greed, and pride. It is this authors intent to help bring the "American Dream" back to life.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />By offering the reader a little knowledge, understanding and incentive, perhaps we can become better prepared to stand before the Savior on that great day of reckoning, which surely will come.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="right"><br />--Joseph W. Grammer</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br />"One can hardly speak for freedom<br />without being accused of being political.<br />Some might even call the war in heaven a political struggle —<br />certainly it was controversial.<br />Yet the valiant entered it with Michael."<br />— Ezra Taft Benson </div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-76674260667625568882009-02-07T10:08:00.000-08:002009-02-07T10:16:14.573-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Chapter 1<br /><span style="font-size:180%;">An Introduction — Getting Attitudes Together<br /></span></span></strong><em>"Where there is no vision, the people perish:<br />but he that keepeth the law,<br />happy is he."<br />—Proverbs 29:18</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >T</span>his great nation, the United States of America, is unlike any nation that has existed since the dawn of man. Not only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but many other Christian churches and people believe it was instituted by divine wisdom and the hand of a loving God. It is not only the doctrine of this, the "Mormon" Church, but that of many other people, that God established its inspired Constitution. It is also the belief of many that America’s forefathers wisely followed His guidelines — they having been "raised up unto this very purpose." (D&C 101:80.) They established the noblest government with the greatest amount of freedom any nation or people have ever known.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It is unfortunate, however, that many of Americans are ignorant of the real purpose of the founding of our nation and the contents of our sacred document, the Constitution of the United States. This is also even very true for some Latter-day Saints.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In a High Priests group meeting one Sunday the instructor of the class asked its members how many had read the Constitution of the United States. Out of about 25 or 30 men, only three raised their hands. We have been told by our Prophet Ezra Taft Benson to ". . . learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers." (The <em>Ensign</em>, November, 1987, p. 7.) It is sobering to ask ourselves, "Have we followed his counsel?"</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">We Have Heroes</span></em><br />In the past, our Founding Fathers have been the beacons by which our governmental "ship of State" has been steered. Their thoughts and ideals have been the spirit behind critical decision making. Those wise and noble men have influenced not only our great country, but other nations as well. Today, however, the ideals and values of those inspired founders are being more and more disregarded.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As we strive for meaning and direction in our lives during these trying times, we often look to heroes for stability, like our forefathers have been. In doing so we develop modern day heroes to rally around. These heroes can be people we trust, such as the President of the U.S., a Church official, some ethnic leader, renowned scientist, etc.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Heroes are not always people. They can also be heroic causes we believe in, like: the Iraq-Kuwait/Middle-East conflict; standing up for, or against, abortion or homosexuality; or things like saving the whales or the White Spotted Owl. Such heroic efforts are important for some of us. But what happens when someone comes along and tries to tell us that our modern day hero, or cause, is something less than we suppose? Would we have a tendency to take offense? As some people know, the truth can hurt. And offense can come to many because of truth.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now what is the point of all of this one might be asking. The point that we will be making in this book is the fact that many of our popular government leaders and pet programs may not be all they are presented to be. And by so discovering this, the reader may take offense.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We also have a tendency to protect our belief systems when we do become offended. At the risk of playing with words we might say, "To believe something or not to believe something, that is the question." — to believe in God or not to believe in God; to believe in freedom for all or not too believe it is for all; to believe there is a threat to the Constitution or not to believe such a threat exists; to believe in conspiracies or not to believe in these satanic secret combinations; to get involved in issues or not to get so involved. These are some of the critical questions we will be addressing in this book; and these issues play a part in our belief system in one way or another.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Because they are part of our belief system, we must know where we stand in regard to them; and the best way to do that is to confront that belief system with information. Then, and only then, can we make wise and appropriate choices for the good of our temporal existence and eternal salvation. Heroes are not always what they seem to be on the surface. But when they are attacked, our belief system is challenged and we take offense.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />When the prophet Alma was sorrowing because of the wickedness of his people, he wrote: "they began to be offended because of the strictness of the word." (Alma 35:15.) Speaking of the last days, the Lord said, "And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another." (Matt. 24:10; JS-Matt. 8.) And it tells us in the book of Matthew: "when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended." (Matt. 13:21.) We therefore may find it hard to accept truth. "Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear," said the brothers of Nephi. And Nephi responded: "Wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center."(1 Ne. 16:1-2.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Depending on the situation and our nature at the time, we can become defensive of our own position, and of the person or principle we support — becoming hurt and angry, and closing our eyes, ears, minds and hearts.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />However, we can also be a believing person if we choose to be. Believing with the spirit of faith, when truth is recognized, is not gullibility. For those with the spirit of meekness, this statement from the Lord can add strength: "And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me." (Matt. 11:6.) Blessings can come to us when we are not offended in the Savior’s life, His works, His teachings or commandments.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">A Time for Truth<br /></span></em>Truth can be a powerful force for good when it is accepted in faith. Wouldn’t it have been a tragedy if our forefathers had not believed what they read and were told by those who took the time to learn the facts? If the reader is afraid that his belief system will be upset because of what follows in this book, then perhaps he or she ought not to continue reading. Because if they do, they will be presented information, that if taken in a serious manner, could change this country around from the deadly direction in which it is headed.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />True information received, contrary to our belief system, can be very uncomfortable, especially when it involves our elected government officials. Some may say, "It is un-American and disloyal to make such claims as there being a secret combination," — or as we might call it today, a conspiracy. Others may say, "My free agency isn’t threatened; we should support our President and elected officials, and have more faith in their programs. Don’t try and make me lose faith in our government leaders and their policies. Besides, no one is perfect anyway."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Book of Mormon tells us of the wicked King Noah. Should he not have been called to repentance? What was his fate and that of those who supported him? Can we not learn from such stories? There are those who, like King Noah, without studying the facts or listening to warnings, will continue in their wicked ways supporting that which is evil.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Most of us know of the proverbial "handwriting on the wall" syndrome, where we have a tendency to ignore warning signs when things seem to be going well. President J. Reuben Clark, a past member of the First Presidency, said, "There always comes a time when unpleasant truths must be retold, even though the retelling disturbs the ease and quiet of a luxurious error. Today seems to be such a time. On such occasions, the criticism, slander, misrepresentation that one gets, are of no consequence." (CR, April 1963, p. 111.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />When confronted with such a problem in our lives, perhaps we can look, listen and investigate, in order to learn the truth for ourselves rather than becoming offended or defensive.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It is a fact that good people and causes are slandered by prejudice, bias and sometimes designing individuals. However, it is also true that there are those out there that need to be exposed for what they are. We, as God’s children, have been commanded to learn truth, act upon that truth and to take that truth to others.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />An oft-quoted scripture related to this subject is John 8:32: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Truth is all-powerful. Truth not only helps us understand our relationship with God, it can also make us free from bondage, but only as we choose to act. However, many of us do not discern truth for what it is and therefore cannot act upon it.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Danger of Pride</span></em><br />Some possess such pride, gross apathy, and chosen ignorance that they remain unmoved by evil events and the seriousness of those circumstance. Many have heard someone say something like: "I know enough of that person not to believe what he says?" Or perhaps something like: "I’ve heard about that and I just can’t believe such a fantastic story?" And so they proceed, through prejudice, defending their stance, continuing to wear their blinders as they are led "carefully" away saying "all is well." The New Testament warns us about such attitudes in the last days:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." (2 Thes. 2:9-11.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />There are many of the proud and stubborn who will talk against the Church, disbelieve its leaders, and continue on supporting the antichrist and unholy principles. We know the results when Cain, Pharaoh, Laman and Lemuel were warned and they continued in their evil and deceptive ways.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Choosing to disregard warning signs about a deadly disease in our bodies could prove fatal. Choosing to disregard the warning signs of a deadly disease in the world, and in this noble country of ours, could also be very deadly. The secrecy, the people destroyed, the nations ruined, the bondage of humanity, etc., can be so appalling and hideous that many of us do not want to face them. So we turn our faces and stick our heads in the proverbial sand. It is like many people are saying, "Why, we still get a paycheck, Congress is still in session — so the Constitution must still be alive and well, and we are still free to be complacent."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">We Have Been Warned<br /></span></em>Then, there are others who feel that if secret combinations are so serious, the Prophet would surely say something about it; otherwise, we shouldn’t get involved in such things. Well, the fact is that the prophets have raised a warning voice for over a hundred years, and especially within the past forty years. But, have we been listening and have we had ears to hear their messages? An example can be cited, in reference to just such a warning, from our current Prophet. Did we hear the message which he gave in General Conference, October 1988? Here are his words, once again:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world." (CR, October, 1988, p. 103.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As we study that monumental talk, we discover the spirit in which he spoke; for, starting with his third sentence of that talk, he said, "As a special witness of Jesus Christ, and as His humble servant, it is my obligation and privilege, as the Spirit dictates, to bear pure testimony and witness to that which I know to be true. This I will do."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now, may we ask ourselves, what is a "special witness?" What did he mean, "as the Spirit dictates?" What does it mean to bear "pure testimony?" What does it mean when you "know" something to be true? To those who understand what he said here, it means that he spoke by revelation — not personal opinion, bias, prejudice, or some other personal inclination — but revelation from the Lord.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In this same spirit he said that this wickedness is "more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before." That means TODAY — more so than EVER BEFORE in history. Does that sound like things are getting better? Are we going to ignore this warning of our Prophet?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We may not hear much more about this subject over the general pulpit as we did in the past due to the sensitive work taking place behind the "Iron Curtain," as it was once called. As we gain a true understanding of the events in Eastern Europe, we will find his words are still very applicable. The wall is down and missionaries are in Russia. Nevertheless, we have been warned and counseled and it behooves us to heed those words. The lack of a warning voice does not mean things are much better, for as we study the contents that are to come, many may still be concerned.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We must consider our relationship to a Prophet’s warning voice. We must remember that the Lord forbid Mormon to "preach unto them" because they had "wilfully rebelled against their God." (Morm.1:16.) A scripture from the Doctrine and Covenants may be of value here: "And all they who receive the oracles of God, let them beware how they hold them lest they are accounted as a light thing, and are brought under condemnation thereby, and stumble and fall when the storms descend, and the winds blow, and the rains descend, and beat upon their house." (D&C 90:5.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />There are those even among Church members, including those in leadership and sensitive positions, who have their own beliefs based on prejudice and bias philosophies. Ezra Taft Benson in, An Enemy Hath Done This, is quoted as saying, ". . . this fight for freedom might never become popular in our day. And if you wait until everybody agrees in this Church, you will be waiting through the second coming of the Lord." (AEHDT, p. 276.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We know the results when the children of Israel and the Nephites were warned concerning their wickedness and didn’t take heed. Are we not also the children of Israel, descending from the Israelites? Why should we be so arrogant as to think we are more righteous than our forefathers? It is unfortunate that some of us find for ourselves a very comfortable niche in life and feel it hard or inconvenient to change, be it right or wrong.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">All Is Not Well in Zion<br /></span></em>Satan, the father of lies, establishes these great and secret combinations. Let us ask ourselves: "What is a secret?" It is, as Webster says: "Keeping from knowledge of others, something not revealed, keep private," etc.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />And Satan, who is the father of lies, cannot tell the truth and desires to hide his works from others; and to do so he must deceive. If there is a conspiracy, would those responsible tell the truth about it? No, they would not, for a conspiracy, by its nature is a lie. And Satan cannot tell the truth. The scriptures testify to that. As Jesus was talking to the Pharisees, He said, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>"Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:43-44.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />So we see here that Satan is incapable of telling the truth, and he teaches his followers here on this earth to also lie. It is his nature to deceive, for the truth is not in him. He must, and does, deceive. And so do his disciples.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />If the devil is the author of secret combinations, or conspiracies, then he surely wouldn’t want anyone to know they exist. The whole premise of a conspiracy is that it is secret; and if he, the devil allowed all to know one existed, then it would destroy the premise of a conspiracy and people would not be deceived.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Part of this deep and dark craftiness is to convince the deceived that everything is okay; or, that it is so bad, why try fighting it. Some common attitudes among us are: "People only make mountains out of molehills, so why get excited about something we cannot do anything about anyway?" And, "Just mind your own business, keep the commandments, and God will handle the rest." However, the scriptures warn us of this type of logic and give us these words:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well — and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell. And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance." (2 Ne. 28:21-22.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Consequently, Latter-day Saints, along with most Americans, are misled by those calling good evil and evil good; for the scriptures say, "if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."<br />Satan is so diabolically clever that he influences man to discredit that which is good, especially when it comes to unraveling the mysteries of secret combinations. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Hollywood is no exception. Movies and television have been one of the biggest tools in this deception. Movies like "Red Dawn," about a communist invasion of the U.S. by foreign troops coming in from the South, is one example. Another one is: "They Live," about aliens from some other planet that take over the world appearing as humans which you can only detect by wearing special sunglasses. And of course there are many others seemingly far-fetched movies that could be mentioned.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />By filling the heads of the public with fantastic stories it leads one to disbelieve the truth when a REAL fantastic story appears. So now when someone uncovers a secret plot in some business or government they are accused of witch hunting, watching too much TV, or just plain being gullible. But, in reality, this is just the type of attitude these conspirators want us to take towards the true and alert patriots — to call them crazy and say to them, "You go to too many movies. That’s only Hollywood make-believe, not real life. All is well in Happy Valley, USA (Zion)."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">There Is No Excuse<br /></span></em>Among much of his wise counsel and warnings, Ezra Taft Benson has also said, "There is no excuse that can compensate for the loss of liberty." (AEHDT, p. 314.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />And the Prophet Hosea tells us, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: Because thou hast rejected knowledge . . . seeing thou hast forgotten the law of God." (Hosea 4:6.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Let us not remain uninformed and ignorant of our condition but seek to find knowledge to enlighten our path. The Apostle Paul declares to the Corinthians, "Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices." (2 Cor. 2:11.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />By recognizing that there is an enemy — knowing what form he takes, what his purpose is and how to protect ourselves from his attacks — can arm us with knowledge, which is power. Knowledge is the first step in fighting the evil one. But, we must be aware that an insight into a problem is not a solution without a plan of action to rid ourselves of the problem. As we pursue this course of thought in this book we must remember that involvement is paramount to the security of our liberties — knowledge, alone, will not suffice.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />No matter how convincing an argument might be there will always be those who will not believe it, or will not accept it if they did believe it. The proud will only scoff at it, and unwittingly perhaps, give support to those devilish plans of the adversary. We must remember that Laman and Lemuel received personal angelic revelation but still continued to choose wickedness. (1 Ne. 3:29-31.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The honest-in-heart will be meek and teachable enough to understand the message presented herein and truly desire to see a positive change. They will not live in gross apathy and chosen ignorance but will prayerfully ask for God’s intervention and, at the same time, will extend themselves into this eternal conflict. They will desire to follow the admonition of the Lord when He spoke to Captain Moroni through Pahoran, head of the Nephite government:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"We would subject ourselves to the yoke of bondage if it were requisite with the justice of God, or if he should command us so to do. But behold he doth not command us that we shall subject ourselves to our enemies, but that we should put our trust in him, and he will deliver us. Therefore, my beloved brother, Moroni, let us resist evil, and whatsoever evil we cannot resist with our words, yea, such as rebellions and dissensions, let us resist them with our swords, that we may retain our freedom, that we may rejoice in the great privilege of our church, and in the cause of our Redeemer and our God. Therefore . . . the Spirit of God . . . is also the spirit of freedom. See that ye . . . fear not, for God will deliver . . . yea, and all those who stand fast in that liberty wherewith God hath made them free." (Alma 61:12-15, 21.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />They, the meek, will understand this Spirit of God, or the spirit of freedom. This spirit upholds the principle of agency and a free environment to exercise that agency. They will also understand what the Lord meant when He spoke in the Doctrine and Covenants:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom. Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms — That ye may be prepared in all things. . . . Behold, I sent you out to testify and warn the people, and it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor." (D&C 88:77-81.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We are not only commanded to acquire and share this knowledge of various kinds; we are also admonished to be in a condition to receive and understand it. We certainly cannot teach others that which we do not comprehend. Therefore, we read again from the Doctrine and Covenants: "Let him that is ignorant learn wisdom by humbling himself and calling upon the Lord his God, that his eyes may be opened that he may see, and his ears opened that he may hear; For my Spirit is sent forth into the world to enlighten the humble and contrite, and to the condemnation of the ungodly." (D&C 136:32-33.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">President Benson Testifies</span></em><br />Now, we have received similar counsel. In that same talk which he gave in October conference of 1988, where he spoke as a "Witness," as the "Spirit dictates," and with "pure testimony," President Benson also counseled us as follows:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"I testify that it is time for every man to set in order his own house both temporally and spiritually. . . . It is time for us, as members of the Church, to walk in all the ways of the Lord, to use our influence to make popular that which is sound and to make unpopular that which is unsound. We have the scriptures, the prophets, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Now we need eyes that will see, ears that will hear, and hearts that will hearken to God’s direction." (CR, October, 1988, p. 103-10.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Have we followed his counsel? Have we been getting our lives in order? And, have we been using our influence in making "popular that which is sound and to make unpopular that which is unsound?" Do we have eyes to see, ears that hear, and hearts that hearken? Have we done, as the scriptures have told us to do: "testify and warn the people," for "it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As we continue reading on, we will discover the Lord’s will in regard to man’s government structure, its operations, and our free agency in relationship to that government. We will also learn what He, the Lord, expects of all of us, so that we might not only live free in this life, but experience eternal life in the life to come.</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-50822015224811915952009-02-07T09:58:00.000-08:002009-02-07T10:08:29.268-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Chapter 2<br /><span style="font-size:180%;">Agency — A God-given Right<br /></span></span></strong><em style="styleDocument: [object]">"I . . . have given unto the children of men </em><em style="styleDocument: [object]">to be agents unto themselves."<br />— D&C 104:17.<br />"God would not exert any compulsory means, </em><em style="styleDocument: [object]">and the devil could not . . . </em><em style="styleDocument: [object]">all was voluntary."<br />— Joseph Smith</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >I</span>n this chapter we will take up the subject of free agency. As we start to peruse the topic, and the eternal aspects of the subject, it will be good to start at the beginning, and that beginning will take us back to the very creation of man. That is, his creation in the pre-earth life where he dwelt with God our Heavenly Father as His spiritual offspring. The purpose of doing so is to touch on the principle of free agency and how that agency relates to the subject of secret combinations.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />But, before we do so it will be mentioned here that the term, "free agency," is not mentioned in the scriptural "standard works" of the Church. Agency is not free. There is a price to pay for all of us to retain it. A price was paid in the pre-earth life and a war in Heaven was fought over this sacred principle. A bloody revolution raged in the land of America for the establishment of a free environment where man’s agency could be exercised without restraint. Throughout history, many such wars and revolutions have been for the establishment and protection of this God-given principle. A relevant statement from Elder Ezra Taft Benson regarding our creation may be of interest here:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Our governmental system, like the systems of ancient Israel and biblical Christianity, recognizes man as a special creation of God. He is not, as some theorists reason, a product of chance or merely an educated animal. His paternal origin is from God. Thus, man inherently possesses God-implanted attributes and potential: reason, free agency, judgment, compassion, initiative, and a personal striving for perfection." (TNSI, p. 84.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Intelligence Is Agency<br /></span></em>In the beginning, or pre-earth life, we were created by God and are known as His spirit children. He said to the prophet Enoch: "Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them. . . ." (Moses 7:32.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>So God created man and gave him knowledge and intelligence. In some manner, currently unknown to mortals, God organized a substance called intelligence (Abr. 3:22) and, out of it, created His spirit children. From the Doctrine and Covenants we learn, among other things, some very important points in relation to our creation and agency. In section 93, verse 29, we read: "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Here we learn that "Intelligence" is "the light of truth," and cannot be "created or made." So when man was created he was given intelligence or, in other words, he was given truth, which is light. This intelligence, or the light of truth, has always existed and will always exist. It cannot be made or created but only organized. Now let’s go on and read a couple more verses from this section:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>"All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light." (D&C 93:30-31.) </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Here we find that "truth" and "intelligence" is "agency." We now find that all truth and intelligence, or light, are independent "to act" for themselves. We also find that without this light and truth, and intelligence, we could not exist. With this existence, man has "agency," with the capacity to act and be "independent."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This, then, is the beginning existence of man, when he was created and given the ability to be free and independent (D&C 104:17; 2 Ne. 2:26), having his agency to make choices relevant to the "light of truth" that is in him. The scripture goes on and says: "and here is the condemnation of man; because . . . they receive not the light." It could also be said, however: "Here is the glory of man, because he receives the light."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Glory Is Light and Truth<br /></span></em>Skipping down to verse 36 it states: "The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth." Here we find that God’s glory consists of intelligence, which is light and truth. We have learned, also, that truth and intelligence is agency. Therefore, we come to understand that since glory is intelligence, light and truth, glory also consists of agency. That which is emitted from such perfected intelligence, truth, and agency is light. That light is so refined that it glows and becomes His glory and He is made glorious. He is honored, He is praised, He is exalted, and His splendid and radiant magnificence is due to perfected intelligence, truth, and agency.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Verse 39 says, "And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth. . . ." Since light and truth is agency, as just discussed, then by taking away light and truth he also takes away our agency. We find that the "wicked one," Satan, can indeed take away light and truth by telling us lies and by deceptions. By believing in his lies we relinquish our freedom to exercise our agency, and we subject ourselves to his will and become slaves. Or, to put it another way: By believing in his treachery, we give power to him, or to his followers in this world, over our liberties. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />By being deceived into believing and accepting Satan’s principles, or false doctrine, we indeed lose a portion of truth, or light. The process might be likened to a vacuum; when there is emptiness, something must fill it. The more darkness we accept, the more light we lose. The more we accept light, the less darkness is in us. It is either one or the other. Therefore, the more we allow ourselves to yield to his deceptions and his ways, the more we lose light and truth.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />To become glorious as the Father and the Son are Glorious, we must do as they have done. We must learn truth, not falsehoods. We must be willing to live God’s laws, not Satan’s. We must make wise choices by the light that is in us. We must very carefully guard our God-given agency. Our future salvation and glory is dependent upon how we exercise our agency, use our intelligence in choosing truth and light and deciding whom we will follow.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Heavenly Council</span></em><br />Sometime after the creation of man in the pre-earth life — we do not know how long after — there was a council held in heaven and God stood among "the intelligences that were organized before the world was" created. There was one of "them that was like unto God" who said, ". . . we will make an earth whereon these [intelligences] may dwell." What was the reason for an earth? One reason was for us to be proven or tested. As was stated: "And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them." (Abr. 3:22-25.) The earth, therefore, was to be a proving ground for God’s children. It was to be this way so that not only God, but we, could see how well we would use our agency and to see what type of choices we would make. The creation of the earth was so needed and important that "all the sons of God shouted for joy." (Job 38:7.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Plan of Salvation<br /></span></em>Because all, except Jesus, would make choices that would keep them from God’s eternal presence, someone had to provide a plan of salvation, to give opportunity for His children to enter back into His presence when this trial on earth was finished. "And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here Am I, send me." At this time another also wanted to have that privilege. "And another answered and said: Here am I, send me."(Abr. 3:27.) We do not know how many others might have offered their services, but we do know of two offers and the resulting conflict that followed that of the second.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This second intelligence was Satan, who "was from the beginning" (Moses 4:1), and was "an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God." (D&C 76:25.) Lucifer was "a son of the morning" (D&C 76:26; Isa. 14:12), which leaves us to assume that there was more than one son of the morning. We also find that "the devil was before Adam" (D&C 29:36), or as it may sound: Lucifer was spiritually created before Adam was spiritually created. Whatever the case may be, it seems that he had influence, and he said, "Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it." (Moses 4:1.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />By his design, he "sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him." (Moses 4:3.) He planned to accomplish this by not giving man a chance to exercise his agency and to make choices. Man would be forced into submission, whether he wanted to submit or not. This is not God’s way. The Prophet Joseph Smith stated:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"We deem it a just principle, and it is one the force of which we believe ought to be duly considered by every individual, that all men are created equal, and that all have the privilege of thinking for themselves upon all matters relative to conscience. Consequently, then, we are not disposed, had we the power, to deprive any one of exercising that free independence of mind which heaven has so graciously bestowed upon the human family as one of its choicest gifts. . . ." (TPJS, p. 49.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">That Which Was Evil<br /></span></em>Not only did Lucifer want total power and control over the spirit children of God, but he wanted God’s honor, His power and His glory.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Nephi tells us that Satan "sought that which was evil before God." (2 Ne. 2:17.) What was that evil thing? The scriptures tell us what it was: Lucifer wanted to be the "Son," and he wanted God’s "honor" which is God’s "power." (Moses 4:1-3; D&C 29:36.) By so doing, Satan "sought to take the kingdom of our God and his Christ." (D&C 76:28.) The devil also said in his heart: ". . . I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." (Isa. 14:13-14.) </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Satan’s Plan Rejected<br /></span></em>However, his plan was not accepted because of his pride and his disrespect for the agency of man. God said, "But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me, — Father, thy will be done." (Moses 4:2.) The Beloved Son wanted His Father’s will to prevail which included respect for the agency of man. The Son also displayed a respect for the Father’s position and meekly submitted Himself to the Father’s will, and said, "the glory be thine forever." (Ibid.) This was in sharp contrast to Satan’s plan, to take the power and honor of God, and disenfranchise man of his agency. So God said, "I will send the first." (Abr. 3:27.) Because of this decision, we are told that "Satan, that old serpent, even the devil" rebelled against God, and the Only Begotten Son.(D&C 76:25, 28; Moses 4:3.) </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The spirit children of our Heavenly Father were told that if they remained faithful in their pre-earth existence they would receive glory and be "added upon." Abraham records this account in the following manner: "And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate. . . ." (Abr. 3:26.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">War in Heaven<br /></span></em>The second intelligence, Satan, "was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him." (Abr. 3:28.) This "angel in authority" and "son of the morning" must have had great influence, because, as the scriptures say, "a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from" God; and "his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth." (D&C 29:36; Rev. 12:4.) Because of his rebellion and influence there was a war in heaven: "Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not." Rev. 12:7-8) </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Elder Bruce R. McConkie helps explain what type of war that was that raged in the heavens. In his excellent work, The Millennial Messiah, he illustrates:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"That war was a war of words; it was a conflict of ideologies; it was a rebellion against God and His laws. Lucifer sought to dethrone God, to sit himself on the divine throne, and to save all men without reference to their works. He sought to deny men their agency so they could not sin. He offered a mortal life of carnality and sensuality, of evil and crime and murder, following which all men would be saved.<br />"And so, in the courts of heaven, the war of wars was waged. Christ and Michael and a mighty host of noble and great spirits preached the gospel of God and exhorted their brethren to follow the Father. Lucifer and his lieutenants preached another gospel, a gospel of fear and hate and lasciviousness and compulsion. They sought salvation without keeping the commandments, without overcoming the world, without choosing between opposites." (<em>The Millennial Messiah</em>, pp. 666-67.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />That "war of words," and that "conflict of ideologies," raged in heaven and is still raging in the socialistic philosophies of the world today. It is raging for the purpose to destroy man’s agency. As President David O. McKay said in conference in April of 1942: "An attempt to rob man of his free agency caused dissension even in heaven. . . . To deprive an intelligent human being of his free agency is to commit the crime of the ages." He then went on to say,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"So fundamental in man’s eternal progress is his inherent right to choose, that the Lord would defend it even at the price of war. Without freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of action within lawful bounds, man cannot progress. The Lord recognized this. . . . Men have sought for it, fought for it, have died for it. Ancient freemen prized it, slaves longed for it, the Magna Charta demanded it, the Constitution of the United States declared it." (PPNS, p. 476, from CR, April 1942, pp. 72-73.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Lucifer Cast Out<br /></span></em>The scriptures tell us that Lucifer, "having sought that which was evil before God," became "the great dragon," and "as lightning," had "fallen from heaven" and was "cast out into the earth."(2 Ne. 2:17; Rev. 12:9; Luke 10:18; Isa. 14:12.) This angel, who rebelled, therefore, "was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son" by the power of the "Only Begotten." (D&C 76:25; Moses 4:3.) "He became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies" (Moses 4:4; 2 Ne. 2:17), "and was called Perdition . . . he was Lucifer" (D&C 76:26.), "that old serpent." (Rev. 12:9; D&C 76:28.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As the story continues we find that, "at that day, many followed after him" (Abr. 3:28.), and that "also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from" God "because of their agency" (D&C 29:36.), "and his angels were cast out with him" (Rev. 12:9), "and they were thrust down, and thus came the devil and his angels." (D&C 29:37.) Why were they turned away and cast out? "Because of their agency." They were free to make a choice, and their choice was to be on the side of that which was good or that which was evil. There was no other choice to make. Elder Alvin R. Dyer, in his book, The Meaning of Truth, tells us that there were no neutrals in that conflict. He writes: </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>"Some have said that there were neutral spirits in the pre-mortal state . . . there were no neutrals in that estate of existence, all sustained one position or the other. Some were occupied by complete rebellion and became sons of perdition and as such were not permitted to be born into the probation of mortality." (<em>The Meaning of Truth</em>, p. 57.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Because of their defiance and revolt, and because of their stance due to the conflict in ideologies, there was no "place found any more in heaven" for Satan and his followers. (Rev. 12:8; Jude 1:6.)<br />Even in the pre-earth life of Heaven, we had our agency to make choices and receive the rewards of those choices. One third of the hosts of Heaven exercised their agency in full view of reality and knew the consequences if they failed. And fail they did.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Agency Given on Earth</span></em><br />It is recorded that God said, ". . . in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency." (Moses 7:32.) This does not mean that this was the first time man received his agency because we just discussed the fact that the rebellious spirits in Heaven had their agency and that agency was from the beginning. God is just reiterating the fact that from the beginning of mortality we also had our agency.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The principle of agency was so important to God that after He placed Adam in the Garden of Eden, the first thing that He did was to give Adam the "breath of life," and then a choice to make, even before Eve is introduced onto the scene and the commandment to "multiply, and replenish the earth" was given to them.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now the book of Genesis is not as clear and as complete in the story of the creation as the book of Abraham, which is found in the Pearl of Great Price. So it will be that latter work we will concern ourselves with at this time.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In the fourth chapter of Abraham we find a creation, just as we do in Genesis chapter one. But in chapterf five of Abraham we find another creation; the first was a spiritual creation (Abr. 5:4-5; Gen. 2:4-5) while the second was the temporal one. We find in verse seven (also Genesis 2:7) that ". . . the Gods formed man." In verses 12-13 (see Genesis 2:16-17) God commanded Adam, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it." It wasn’t until the verses 14-16 (verses 21-22 of Genesis) that Eve was created. So we see from this that the first thing that God did was to give life to Adam and then gave him a commandment so he could exercise his agency. This was done even before he was told to "multiply, and replenish the earth." That is how important agency is to our Heavenly Father.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In the council in Heaven we were told, "They who keep their second estate (faithfulness in mortal earth life) shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever." (Abr. 3:26.) So God gave man commandments to see if he would keep his second estate and to see if man "will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them."(Abr. 3:25.) He gave them the first and second greatest commandments, to Love God and their neighbor. As Moses records it: "And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father. . . ." (Moses 7:33.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />But then Moses goes on in the same verse and says, . . . "they are without affection, and they hate their own blood." This happened because Satan was "to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto" the voice of the Lord.(Moses 4:4.) Indeed, that great dragon "deceiveth the whole world" (Rev. 12:9) even from the beginning unto this very day.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">War Against the Saints<br /></span></em>Now the scriptures are clear that "power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations" (Rev. 13:7; Isa. 14:12), and that "it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them." (Rev. 13:7) "Wherefore, he maketh war with the saints of God, and encompasseth them round about." (D&C 76:29.) President Harold B. Lee, writing in his, Stand Ye in Holy Places, gives some interesting thoughts on this continuing conflict:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Have you ever tried to think through that suggested analogy of life likened to a ‘battle’? To have a battle as we understand it, there must first have been an issue or principle over which opposing forces contend. . . .<br />"To be successful, each such army must train its soldiers in the science of war, in rigid discipline. . . . As a prelude to the actual clash of arms, spies and fifth columnists have been at work behind the lines of the enemy forces to . . . spread propaganda among the enemy in an attempt to demoralize and to spread confusion.<br />"That there is a force of evil in the world is as certain as that there is being directed a work of righteousness, and that between these two forces there is an eternal conflict with the price of the human soul as the stake.<br />"Satan commands a mighty force comprising one-third of all God’s spirit children who were cast out with him — tangible and real although not always discernible by sight, and under whose masterful direction there goes forward constantly propaganda of lying and deceit." (<em>Stand Ye in Holy Places</em>, pp. 327-29.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Why is it necessary for such conflicts or war to occur? The Lord explains it, although it is hard for many to comprehend. To really grasp the full importance of it, one needs to have the Holy Spirit as his or her guide. The Lord has said to us: "And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet. . . ." (D&C 29:39.) </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>Again, in his book, The Millennial Messiah, Elder McConkie presents some explanation into Satan’s offer of forced salvation, in these words: "His offer was a philosophical impossibility. There must needs be an opposition in all things. Unless there are opposites, there is nothing. There can be no light without darkness, no heat without cold, no virtue without vice, no good without evil, no salvation without damnation." (The Millennial Messiah, p. 667.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Constitution Protects Rights<br /></span></em>The expressed purpose behind the inspiration of our Constitution was to provide an environment whereby God’s children could be free to exercise their agency and be account-able for that agency. As we read in the Doctrine and Covenants, we find:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />". . . the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; . . . That every man may act . . . according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land. . . ." (D&C 101:77-80.)<br /><br />Do we put government before moral and righteous value, or do we put God and His will first? As one anonymous person said, "If you don’t put God first, it doesn’t matter what you put first."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Do we seek for government intervention and economic handouts for person and state and let some other entity choose our life style for us? or do we exercise our own agency and work out our own temporal salvation?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Do we give up our liberty and God-given rights with the rationalization that, by so doing, it’s for the good of all? or do we jealously guard those liberties with our "Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor"? (The last words from The Declaration of Independence.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Do we choose to stay ignorant of God’s laws and His ways, believing government when they tell us that all is well? or do we seek alternative information for learning truth rather than the traditional news media?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Are we so comfortable in our situated complacency that we become blind to the evil nature of things around us? or are we willing to venture out of our comfort zone to live a lifestyle which is pleasing to the Lord instead of pleasing to those around us?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />There are many more questions that could be asked concerning the many conflicting ideologies that plague mankind. Every man is given his "moral agency" and is to "be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment." How can this be done when we want to shift blame and responsibility, for our uncomfortable choices, to something or to someone else? "We the People" have exercised our agency, and many of the choices made have put us in bondage. The purpose of this book is to help the many honest-in-heart to "awaken" to the reality of their "awful situation." (Ether 8:24; Mosiah 2:40.)<br /><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Agency, the Free Gift<br /></span></em>Free agency does not automatically mean "the right." We might have the freedom to take a life but we do not have the right to do so. Life is a gift of God and no one has the right to take it from another person, nor for a person to take it from himself. Likewise, freedom is a gift of God and no one has a right to take it from us, nor do we have a right to put that freedom in jeopardy through debts, contracts, agreements or any other means. Our responsibility and obligation is to honor and cherish our God-given agency and freedom as we would our lives, respecting and protecting them at all costs. President David O. McKay warned us about the possible loss of our agency in a conference address in 1966 when he said, "Efforts are being made to deprive man of his free agency, to steal from the individual his liberty; and we must never forget that next to life itself, free agency is the greatest gift of God to man." (CR, October 1966, p. 5.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />While speaking in general conference, of the impending judgments of God and the duties of the saints, President John Taylor had the following to say about agency: </div><blockquote style="styleDocument: [object]"></blockquote><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">"Besides the preaching of the Gospel, we have another mission, namely, the perpetuation of the free agency of man and the maintenance of liberty, freedom, and the rights of man." (JD, 23:63.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Eternal progression is based upon the principle of agency and the freedom to choose and exercise that agency in a free environment. That was the entire purpose of the creation of the Constitution: to provide a free environment where man would be free, to exercise his own agency, and be "accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment."</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-84657252093333638962009-02-07T09:46:00.000-08:002009-02-07T09:57:52.001-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Chapter 3<br /><span style="font-size:180%;">Secret Combinations in the Latter Days<br /></span></span></strong><em>"The war that began in heaven is not yet over.<br />The conflict continues on the battlefield of mortality.<br />And one of Lucifer’s primary strategies has been<br />to restrict our agency<br />through the power of earthly governments."<br />— Ezra Taft Benson</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >I</span>n the foregoing chapter we have discussed Lucifer’s desire to control the will of man. His goal is not money, for that is an earthly commodity. His aim is power over the minds and bodies of God’s children here on the earth. The war in heaven was over agency.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Why would anyone want to control another? Why would one person want to enslave another? Why do some wilfully rebel against authority? Why are there mass-murderers? Why are there rapists? Why are there child molesters? and so forth. President Benson asked: "What would anyone gain by wanting to create a conspiracy? Maybe pride, financial gain, power, etc." (CR, April 1989.) Many people cannot fathom the mind of such a person. The answer seems to be beyond good reason. The fact remains that because of pride and the lust for power, the devil wants control over man’s agency.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Perhaps it isn’t as important that we understand "why" as much as it is to come to the realization that some minds just work that way. We must realize that some minds DO work differently from others. We need to realize that it is a FACT; this is not just a theory. To ignore it because we don’t understand it is like sticking your hand into a pet viper’s den and thinking it won’t bite you just because you feed it regularly. We are free to exercise our agency. Some use it with respect to others and some with disrespect to others. Ezra Taft Benson spoke these words on the subject:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>"The Lord has so arranged things in this life that men are free agents unto themselves to do good or evil. The Lord allows men to only go so far, but the latitude is great enough that some men promote much wickedness and other men much righteousness."(CR, April 1967, p. 59.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Lucifer continues the war that he waged in heaven against man’s agency. In his address at Brigham Young University in 1986, President Benson spoke on this subject and said,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The war that began in heaven is not yet over. The conflict continues on the battlefield of mortality. And one of Lucifer’s primary strategies has been to restrict our agency through the power of earthly governments. Proof of this is found in the long history of humanity.<br />"When the first worldly government began as a theocracy, Adam’s descendants soon departed from this perfect order and degenerated into various political systems. The result has been human misery and, for most of humankind, subjugation to some despotic government.<br />"From Nimrod to Napoleon, the conventional political ideology has been that the rights of life, liberty, and property were subject to a sovereign’s will, rather than God-given." (CHB, p. 3.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Speaking of governments, the Doctrine and Covenants tells us that laws should be "framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life," that no law "has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms of public or private devotion," and that "rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens. . . ." (D&C 134:2, 4, 7.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Although the Lord has told man what His will is in relation to government, Satan has no respect for it and continues his quest for the agency and souls of God’s children here on earth. From the beginning of time until the present, the evil one has influenced governments to the destruction of countless millions of souls. He has done this, by great measure, through secret combinations. Such combinations are commonly called conspiracies.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">What Is a Conspiracy?<br /></span></em>For our convenience, and before we go on in this discussion, let’s take a moment and ask ourselves, "What is a conspiracy?" To do this we will consult a few dictionaries for their definitions of the word:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"CONSPIRACY: An illegal, treasonable, or treacherous plan to harm or destroy another person, group, or entity. - A combination of persons banded secretly together and resolved to accomplish an evil or unlawful end. - An agreement manifesting itself in words or deeds and made by two or more persons confederating to do an unlawful act or use unlawful means to do an act which is lawful. (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, 1981.)<br />"CONSPIRACY: The planning of two or more persons to do an evil act." (Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, 1975.)<br />"CONSPIRACY: A combination of two or more persons by some concerted action to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means." (<em>Bouvier’s Law Dictionary</em>, 1914 edition.) [<em>Author’s Note</em>: The earlier (pre-Civil War, 1854) editions of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, have been the basis for many of the earlier English and American laws, and decisions based on such laws. These earlier editions are more precise in interpreting the true meaning of our Founding Father’s intentions, and such meaning were the basis upon which the Constitution of the United States was founded. The more current editions of this work reflect more of the political, social, and economical mind-set of present thinkers.]</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />For a summary of the above we might say that a conspiracy is: The planning and acting together secretly of two or more persons for an unlawful, harmful, and evil purpose. In short, there are three aspects of a conspiracy: First, there must be two or more people; second, their plans must be secret; and third, those plans must be for an evil purpose. This definition can be verified by the following events.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The First Secret Combinations<br /></span></em>Now let’s take a look at the first conspiracy and roughly work our way through history until we get to our time. As we do, keep in mind that the name of the game is control over the individual person. Greed for money and worldly gain is only an inducement Satan uses to coax man into playing the devil’s game of control.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Due to the sketchiness of the story of Cain and Abel in the book of Genesis, as with the story of the creation, we will concern ourselves with the following account from the Pearl of Great Price, and the book of Moses, specifically.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In so doing, we will not go into a lot of detail about Cain slaying his brother Abel, for that is popularly accepted. But we will cover the point to be made, and that is to show that Cain was involved in the first secret combination or conspiracy upon the earth.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Before the murder of Abel was accomplished, Cain "loved Satan more than God." He was given a chance to repent but became "wroth," and continued to rebel before God. (Moses 5:17-26.) And then we have the following given to us:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"And Satan said unto Cain: Swear unto me by the throat, and if thou tell it thou shalt die; and swear thy brethren by their heads, and by the living God, that they tell it not; for if they tell it, they shall surely die; and this that thy father may not know it; and this day I will deliver thy brother Abel into thine hands.<br />"And Satan sware unto Cain that he would do according to his commands. And all these things were done in secret.<br />"And Cain said, Truly I am Mahan, the master of this great secret, that I may murder and get gain. Wherefore Cain was called Master Mahan, and he gloried in his wickedness." (Moses 5:29-31.) </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In the Doctrine and Covenants we are told that Abel "was slain by the conspiracy of his brother." (D&C 84:16.) A secret is one thing; but when that secret involves more than one person, as with Cain and his "brethren," it becomes a combination — a "secret combination." The scripture last quoted said that Abel was killed by a "conspiracy." So here we have the fact that a secret combination is a conspiracy.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In this story we also find that all this wickedness was done, not only in secret, but with an oath to preserve that secrecy. And if they were to reveal that great secret, they would suffer death. This type of secret oath was, and still is, part of secret combinations or conspiracies. As we continue, this point will become more obvious.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now the next conspiracy we find mentioned is when Lamech "entered into a covenant with Satan, after the manner of Cain." However, Irad, the son of Enoch, knew of the secret and "began to reveal it unto the sons of Adam." Lamech became angry and slew Irad, "not like unto Cain, his brother Abel, for the sake of getting gain, but he slew him for the oath’s sake." (Irad apparently became, as far as we have word, the first martyred patriot who died for the cause of liberty while trying to reveal a secret combination — a conspiracy.) The scriptures go on to say,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"For, from the days of Cain, there was a secret combination, and their works were in the dark, and they knew every man his brother.<br />"Wherefore the Lord cursed Lamech, and his house, and all them that had covenanted with Satan . . . and their works were abominations, and began to spread among all the sons of men." (Moses 5:49-52.)<br />"And the children of men were numerous upon all the face of the land. And in those days Satan had great dominion among men, and raged in their hearts; and from thenceforth came wars and bloodshed; and a man’s hand was against his own brother, in administering death, because of secret works, seeking for power." (Moses 6:15.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In the Book of Mormon it also tells us that these secret combinations, or conspiracies of darkness, were from ancient date. We learn that from the beginning, the devil "stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness;" (2 Ne. 9:8-9) that these secrets were "as in times of old;" (2 Ne. 26:22) that they were of "ancient date and they have been handed down;" (3 Ne. 3:9) and that they did enter into a "covenant which was given by them of old, which covenant was given and administered by the devil, to combine against all righteousness." (3 Ne. 6:28.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />From the book of Ether, which covers a period long before and up to the Nephite era, we find similar references; for it says: ". . . they adopted the old plans, and administered oaths after the manner of the ancients. . . ." (Either 10:33.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The book of Ether directs us to another story of faith as the Lord leads a righteous prophet and his people to this promised land, as He did Lehi and his family. And, like the people of Lehi, the Jaredites fell into pride, wickedness, and secret combinations.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In this book we find a host of references to such secret combinations; indeed, the book is full of deception, intrigue, and murder. The Lord had a definite reason for including the book of Ether within the Book of Mormon. Alma told his son Helaman that the twenty-four plates should be kept so "that the mysteries and the works of darkness, and their secret works . . . may be made manifest unto this people. . . ." (Alma 37:21.) Ether is presented as a specific warning to those in the latter days. (Either 8:22-24.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In this same book, however, we are told that God has nothing to do with such works: "For the Lord worketh not in secret combinations, neither doth he will that man should shed blood, but in all things hath forbidden it, from the beginning of man." (Either 8:19.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As stated before, part of Satan’s work on this earth is the continuation of the war which he waged in the heavens. And part of that war is to establish secret combinations and conspiracies to obtain power and control over God’s children. The scriptures verify this fact. We have been told to "search the scriptures." During that search, if our spiritual attitudes are right, we can see that we are given examples of those conspiracies. We can know they exist. (Gen. 37:17-20; 2 Sam. 15:11-14; 2 Kgs. 12:20; 2 Kgs. 14:18-19; 2 Kgs. 15:30; Ezek. 22:25; Acts 23:12-14.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">From the Book of Mormon<br /></span></em>The Book of Mormon seems to be one continuing reference to secret combinations in one way or another. The people of this great book were involved with these conspiracies, supported them, and were condemned and perished because of them.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The very first individuals to conspire were Laman and Lemuel as they murmured against their father. (1 Ne. 2:11-12.) As they were to go back to Jerusalem and obtain the brass plates from Laban, they became angry with Nephi and their father. As the scriptures recite the incident we read: "Wherefore Laman and Lemuel did speak many hard words unto us, their younger brothers, and did smite us even with a rod." (1 Ne. 3:28-31.) As we know, from reading the Book of Mormon, these elder brothers continued to rebel and became the first of their people to fight against the Church of God. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />One of the first large groups of conspirators, shrouded in secrecy, was started by Korihor, an antichrist, "he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness."(Alma 29:12-18.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Another conspirator was Amalickiah, chief commander of the Lamanites, who had the Nephite king killed and which, "by his fraud, gained the hearts of the people . . . sought the favor of the queen . . . and by the assistance of his cunning servants, he obtained the kingdom." (Alma 47:17-35.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now let’s get to the central conspirator of the Book of Mormon, and that is Gadianton: "For there was one Gadianton who was exceedingly expert in many words, and also in his craft, to carry on the secret work of murder and of robbery; therefore he became the leader of the band of Kishkumen." (Hel. 2:4.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This Kishkumen had murdered Pahoran, a chief judge; and his band "entered into a covenant that no one should know his wickedness." (Hel. 2:3.) When Kishkumen was killed by a servant of Helaman, Gadianton "caused that his band should follow him. And they took their flight out of the land, by a secret way, into the wilderness." (Hel. 2:8-13.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In the sixth chapter of Helaman we find that the band of Kishkumen, led by Gadianton, is back on the scene committing secret murder; "And they were called Gadianton’s robbers and murderers" (Hel. 6:18), and there were many Nephites among them.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"And it came to pass that they did have their signs, yea, their secret signs, and their secret words; and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant. . . .<br />"Now behold, those secret oaths and covenants did not come forth unto Gadianton from the records which were delivered unto Helaman; but behold, they were put into the heart of Gadianton by that same being who did entice our first parents to partake of the forbidden fruit —<br />"Yea, that same being who did plot with Cain, that if he would murder his brother Abel it should not be known unto the world. And he did plot with Cain and his followers from that time forth.<br />"Yea, it is that same being who put it into the heart of Gadianton to still carry on the works of darkness, and of secret murder.<br />"And behold, it is he who is the author of all sin. And behold, he doth carry on his works of darkness and secret murder, and doth hand down their plots, and their oaths, and their covenants, and their plans of awful wickedness, from generation to generation according as he can get hold upon the hearts of the children of men." (Hel. 6:22-30.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As we go into the book of Ether we find Akish forming secret works by oath "which had been handed down even from Cain . . . which combination is most abominable and wicked above all, in the sight of God." (Ether 8:9-19; 9:1-6.) So Satan is still at work, causing secret works of darkness and teaching his followers to administer covenants and oaths in secret.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">What Were the Results?<br /></span></em>As Alma was preaching to his son, Helaman, and speaking of these secret combinations, he said that "all their oaths, and their covenants, and their agreements" were not to be revealed to the people lest "they should fall into darkness." However, Alma did say that "only their wickedness and their murders and their abominations shall ye make known unto them." And "cursed be the land forever and ever unto those workers of darkness and secret combinations, even unto destruction, except they repent before they are fully ripe." (Alma 37:21-31.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Destruction awaits the wicked who participate in such dark conspiracies. Of course this should not be surprising, knowing God’s attitude about such things. The Lord uses, however, the enemies of the wicked to bring about that destruction. Moroni said that the secret combinations with their oaths and covenants "have caused the destruction" of the Jaredites and the Nephites. (Ether 8:20-21.) Not only did they have to contend with their enemies, which came upon them, but also natural plagues such as drought, poisonous serpents, etc. (Ether 9:30-34.) President Benson, speaking about this calamity, said, "Pride results in secret combinations which are built up to get power, gain, and glory of the world. This fruit of the sin of pride, namely secret combinations, brought down both the Jaredite and the Nephite civilizations and has been and will yet be the cause of the fall of many nations. . . ." (CR, April 1989, p. 5.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Predictions of Our Time<br /></span></em>One of the key purposes of the Book of Mormon is to inform the future inhabitants of this choice land, those living here now, about the threat of these secret works. In 1 Nephi, we find that Nephi sees a vision of the church of the devil set up among the Gentiles. He called it the "great and abominable church," and that for the "praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity." This is done "that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men." (1 Ne. 13:1-27.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We learn in the fourteenth chapter of this book, that there are only two churches on the earth. This seems logical since the Lord said, "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Matt. 6:24.) So from this fourteenth chapter we read:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.<br />"And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God." (1 Ne. 14:10, 13.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The church of the devil is not only a religious organization to pervert the ways of Christ and His Church, it is also political and governmental. It involves anything that has to do with agency and man’s free exercise of that Godly gift. We must remember Satan’s goal is not "which church is right"; it is control of the human soul — the spirit, mind, and body of man.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Second Nephi tells us that the gentiles in the last days are "lifted up in the pride of their eyes," and that there are also "secret combinations, even as in times of old, according to the combinations of the devil." (2 Ne. 26:20-24.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Prophet Mormon, speaking of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, said that "it shall come in a day when the blood of saints shall cry unto the Lord, because of secret combinations and the works of darkness." (Morm. 8:26-32.) From this we see that we are living in a day of secret combinations, for that is one of the reasons the Book of Mormon is here.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We have not only been warned by the ancient prophets of the scriptures but also by our modern-day prophets. The Prophet Joseph Smith, in an unpublished revelation, said, "Verily thus saith the Lord, peace shall soon be taken from the earth, And it has already begun to be taken; for a lying spirit has gone out upon all the face of the earth and shall perplex the nations, and shall stir them up to anger against one another. . . ." (Joseph Smith, a revelation on war, November, 1837; Elder’s Journal, I, November 2, 1937, p. 28; Unpublished Revelations, No. 41.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Record Is for Us<br /></span></em>We know for whom the Prophet Mormon compiled those precious plates. It was for those who now live on this great land and who have access to the Book of Mormon. That great prophet said, "Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not." (Morm. 8:35.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Mormon placed in that account that Kishkumen and his band were "not known among the people of Nephi" because they "did mingle themselves among the people, in a manner that they all could not be found." (Hel. 1:12.) Then as the Nephites supported them the robbers "seduced the more part of the righteous . . . in their works and partake of their spoils . . . thus they did obtain the sole management of the government." (Hel. 6:38-40)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We are told by Nephi that if we, the gentiles, sin against the gospel, "and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations," the Father "will bring the fullness of [His] gospel from among" us. (3 Ne. 16:10.) The Prophet Moroni says that "the sword of vengeance hangeth over" our heads if we "build up" our "secret abominations." (Morm. 8:40-41.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />All of Alma, from chapter 43 until the end, as well as some earlier parts, is an account of a war for liberty. Helaman and Third Nephi, in large part, continue this account. These parts of the Book of Mormon are not there simply because Mormon was a military leader, as some have speculated. They are there because we live in a similar time and need the warning it gives because we are making the same mistakes.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Mormon saw our time. He could have placed other things in the Book of Mormon besides the struggles for liberty. But he knew that we needed what he had access to. This is one of the reasons our living Prophet, Ezra Taft Benson, has pleaded with us to study this sacred book of scripture: It tells us of our time with a warning voice.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In a general conference, Ezra Taft Benson discussed the striking similarities between the aims and tactics of our communist-socialist conspiracy and the secret combinations of the Book of Mormon such as the Gadianton robbers: "The Prophet Moroni described how the secret combination would take over a country and then fight the work of God, persecute the righteous, and murder those who resist. Moroni therefore proceeded to describe the workings of the ancient "secret combinations" so that modern man could recognize this great political conspiracy in the last days." (CR, October 1961, p. 71.) </div><blockquote style="styleDocument: [object]"></blockquote><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">Then he went on to quote from Ether, chapter eight, which is a warning to us in these latter days:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Wherefore, O Ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are buildt up to get power and gain — and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.<br />"Wherefore, the Lord commanded you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you . . . .<br />"For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning. . . ." (Ether 8:23-26.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />After quoting most of the above scripture, Ezra Taft Benson went on to say, "The Prophet Moroni seemed greatly exercised lest in our day we might not be able to recognize the startling fact that the same secret societies which destroyed the Jaredites and decimated numerous kingdoms of both Nephites and Lamanites would be precisely the same form of criminal conspiracy which would rise up among the gentile nations in this day." (CR, October 1961, p. 72.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />President Benson has tried to tie together for us the similarities and relationships of past secret combinations with our current-day secret conspiracies. In his book, A Witness and A Warning, published in 1988, he says: "From the Book of Mormon we see the evils of secret combinations portrayed in graphic and chilling reality." (<em>A Witness and a Warning</em>, p. 21.) And in an earlier book called, Title of Liberty, he says:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"When all of the trappings of propaganda and pretense have been pulled aside, the exposed hard-core structure of modern Communism [socialism] is amazingly similar to the ancient Book of Mormon record of secret societies such as the Gadiantons. In the ancient American civilization there was no word which struck greater terror in the hearts of the people than the name of the Gadiantons. It was a secret political party which operated as a murder cult. Its object was to infiltrate legitimate government, plant its officers in high places, and then seize power and live off the spoils appropriated from the people. (It would start out as a small group of ‘dissenters’ and by using secret oaths with the threat of death for defectors it would gradually gain a choke hold on the political and economic life of whole civilizations.)<br />"The object of the Gadiantons, like modern Communists [socialists], was to destroy the existing government and set up a ruthless criminal dictatorship over the whole land.<br />"One of the most urgent, heart-stirring appeals made by Moroni as he closed the Book of Mormon was addressed to the gentile nations of the last days. He foresaw the rise of a great world-wide secret combination among the gentiles which ‘seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; . . .’ He warned each gentile nation of the last days to purge itself of this gigantic criminal conspiracy which would seek to rule the world.<br />"The prophets, in our day, have continually warned us of these internal threats in our midst — that our greatest threat from socialistic-communism lies within our country.<br />"The prophets have said that these threats are among us. The Prophet Moroni viewing our day said, ‘Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, . . ." (Ether 8:24.)’" (TL, pp. 184-85.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">From the Doctrine and Covenants<br /></span></em>Let us now turn to our latter-day revelations from the Doctrine and Covenants. It also warns us of these conspiracies.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In section ten we find that "Satan has great hold" upon the hearts of wicked men, and that their hearts are "corrupt, and full of wickedness and abominations; and they love darkness rather than light." (D&C 10:20-27.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We are also informed that "all flesh is corrupted" before the Lord and that the "powers of darkness prevail upon the earth," and that there are things which are had in "secret chambers." (D&C 38:11-13.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In the section on the "Word of Wisdom" we are warned about "evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days." (D&C 89:4.) And section 42 encourages the converts in the east "to flee to the west, and this in consequence of that which is coming on the earth, and of secret combinations." (D&C 42:63-64.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Secret Acts Revealed</span></em><br />Now we know that these secret combinations and their works of darkness will not stay hidden, as many suppose. We are told by the Lord, as Nephi says: "All things shall be revealed unto the children of men which ever have been among the children of men." (2 Ne. 27:11.) And the Prophet Mormon said, "All things which are hid must be revealed upon the house-tops. . . ." (Morm. 5:8.) The Doctrine and Covenants says much the same thing: "And the rebellious shall be pierced with much sorrow; for their iniquities shall be spoken upon the housetops, and their secret acts shall be revealed." (D&C 1:3.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In section 88, we are told that in the last days, angels will sound their trumps. When they do it will "reveal the secret acts of men, and the thoughts and intents of their hearts." (D&C 88:108-110.)Yes all wickedness will be revealed for all to know. And when it is, conspiracies, secret combinations, and all works of darkness will cease. For as Nephi says, speaking of the Latter-days: "There is nothing which is secret save it shall be revealed; there is no work of darkness save it shall be made manifest in the light; . . .Wherefore, all things which have been revealed unto the children of men shall at that day be revealed; and Satan shall have power over the hearts of the children of men no more, for a long time." (2 Ne. 30:17-18.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The War Continues</span></em><br />However, this revealing of all things will not be until the Lord chooses. Until then, we have to be aware of and contend with those secret combinations. We are told that we "know not the hearts of men in [our] own land." (D&C 38:28-30.) What IS in the hearts of our government leaders? Could it be the same thing that our Founding Fathers fought against? President Benson had some concerns about it when he said, </div><blockquote style="styleDocument: [object]"></blockquote><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">"Momentum is gathering for another conflict — a repetition of the crisis of two hundred years ago. This collision of ideas is worldwide. Another monumental moment is soon to be born. The issue is the same that precipitated the great premortal conflict — will men be free to determine their own course of action or must they be coerced?" (CHB, p. 27.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We still have some serious times to be concerned with and Satan is still raging on the earth to bind men down to his will. Elder Bruce R. McConkie spoke of this fact in his book, The Millennial Messiah. Speaking of Satan, he said,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"And his legions, the legions of hell, are everywhere. They are ‘the third part of the stars of heaven,’ the one-third of the spirit children of the Father; and they were cast out of their heavenly home because of rebellion. And so the holy word says: ‘Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath.’ And he goes forth ‘to make war’ with all men and particularly with those who ‘keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.’ (Rev. 12:4-17.) And the war that is now going on among men, the war between good and evil, is but a continuation of the war that began in heaven." (<em>The Millennial Messiah</em>, p. 667.)</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-39403335757276037792009-02-07T09:31:00.000-08:002009-02-07T09:44:59.250-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Chapter 4<br /><span style="font-size:180%;">Like Two Peas in a Pod<br /></span></span></strong><em style="styleDocument: [object]">"Never forget for one moment that<br />Communism and Socialism are state slavery.<br />World conquest has been,<br />is now, and ever will be its ultimate goals.<br />And these two are as alike as<br />two peas in a pod<br />in their ultimate effects upon our liberties."<br />— President J. Reuben Clark, Jr.</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >I</span>n our last chapter we established the fact that secret combinations, or conspiracies, existed from the beginning of man until the present time, and that these conspiracies are even prophesied for the future. In this chapter we are going to zero in on the most popular secret combinations in our own day and time, that of "communism" and "socialism."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Communism is a conspiracy. It is secret, subversive, and attempts to destroy the will and agency of man. Its running mate, socialism, has the same goals. They are basically the same in their overall aims — only the approach to reach the same goals may differ.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Communistic-Socialism<br /></span></em>In the early 1900's there were a series of revolts brought against the Czar of Russia. Like early France and many other nations before, the wealthy landowners brought extreme measures upon the common people — and of course, these people revolted.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The war of 1917 interrupted these revolts. But after the war, things exploded into a full-blown revolution. A few elite Bolsheviks quickly took control of the revolution from the common people and subjugated them to another form of tyranny with even more extremes. (Note: In 1903, at the second party congress, the Russian Social Democratic party split into two factions; one group representing the majority, under Lenin, which was called the Bolsheviks, and a minority group which was called the Mensheviks.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The newspapers were taken over by the Communist Party and Lenin immediately exchanged truth with lying propaganda. Lenin outlawed all other political parties, and purged out those who dissented. Through the regimes of both Lenin and Stalin, tens of millions of people were either executed or sent to forced labor camps. These new extremes were known as socialism. Socialism? Yes, socialism!</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Communism is the revolutionary approach to socialism instigated by Nikolai Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, to be exact). As we will find out later, real social change is to be gradual; but a radical thrust at it by force was Lenin’s approach. In the Encyclopedia Britannica (1947 edition), speaking of communism, it says:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Historically the term [communism] was frequently used as identical with socialism, as was done by Karl Marx and Friedrick Engels in their famous Communist Manifesto (1848).<br />"In recent times the meaning of the word communism has been narrowed down to denote that interpretation of Marxan doctrine proposed by Lenin when he came to power in Russia as a result of the revolution in Nov. 1917, and on the basis of which he and his followers have tried to transform society in Russia.<br />"While socialism put its faith in an evolutionary development and in democratic means of attaining the liberation of all men from economic servitude, communism regarded revolution and an ensuing dictatorship of the proletariat as a necessary period of transition to the future free and equalitarian society. . . .<br />"Communism . . . regards dictatorship as a transitional institution, and full democracy as the goal. It believes that true democracy cannot be realized in a capitalistic society on account of the economic exploitation imposed upon the economically weaker elements of society. . . .<br />"In trying to create a true democracy of free and equal individuals, terror was ruthlessly employed, all humanitarian considerations and individual rights were disregarded. . . ."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We will have more discussion on the fact that socialism and communism are basically the same in their final goal. As the heading quote says: "these two are as like as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effects upon our liberties."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It is also noted that the aim of communistic-socialism is a "true democracy." Now that sounds strange. We have been led to believe that communism and democracy were opposites. That is not so. That has been a gradual "brain-washing" approach to help lead us to accept democracy as the ultimate form of government for the U.S. Studying the chapter that will soon follow entitled, "Our Government - Democracy or Republic?" the reader will get an understanding of what a democracy really is; it is a favorite form of government for dictators.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now we find that today communism, as a word, is dying; but the goals and philosophies of that social order are coming closer to reality. The development of true socialism is a gradual development over a period of time. It satanically usurps the will of the people through deception and imposes bondage in the place of liberty. The man considered the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, once said, "Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." (Quoted in TRC, pp. 136-137; AEHDT, p. 9.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As we get into the discussion of socialism, let us refer back to the encyclopedia. It tells us that: "The ‘Communist Manifesto,’ drafted by Karl Marx and Friedrick Engels for the Communist League and issued in the ‘year of revolutions,’ 1848, is generally regarded as the starting point of modern socialism." (<em>Encyclopedia Britannica</em>, 1947, 20:890.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The concept of socialism went as far back as the Prophet Joseph Smith. In September of 1843, the Prophet met a socialist from England. This is what the Prophet had to say, "I attended a second lecture on socialism by Mr. Finch, and after he got through, I made a few remarks. . . . I said I did not believe the doctrine." (HC, 6:33.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">What Is Socialism?<br /></span></em>We now come to a brief discussion of what socialism is and how it works. To do this we will be referring to many quotes from, not only experts who have studied the subject, but from socialist leaders themselves. We will start our search into this subject with reference from the book, Title of Liberty, by Ezra Taft Benson:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Dr. V. Orval Watts, noted political economist, has described this socialist system which I fear — and I have but suggested a very few evidences. Here are his words:<br />"‘Socialism . . . is the theory and practice of coercive collectivism. It is the evil fruit of greed for other men’s possessions and greed for control over other men’s labor.<br />"‘This greed for goods and power is as old as man and as widespread as the human race. It goes by many names, disguised in many forms, as men think up many excuses for robbing and ruling their fellows.<br />"‘Socialist theory is a modern excuse, an elaborate rationalization for this greed and for the organized looting and despotism it seeks to achieve. But its materialism, its collectivist point of view, its reliance on violence and coercion, even most of its economics, are as old and as common as sin.<br />"‘It holds out to men the hope that they may reap where they have not sown. It teaches that man is the creature of his environment, and that he may be happy and good if he gets enough wealth, regardless of how or where. All that is needed, says the socialist tempter, is to bow down and worship the socialist state, turning over to it authority and power to take wealth where it finds it and to direct labor as it wills. Just a little class hatred, a little lying propaganda, a little violence on the picket lines, a little suppression of adverse critics, and a few generations of compulsory education in socialistic thought, then surely we shall see the bright new day of equality, peace, brotherhood, and freedom! So say the socialists.’" (TL, pp. 63-64.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />George Bernard Shaw, the noted author and playwrite, was a steadfast socialist. He not only believed the evil doctrine but preached it and was an authority on its principles. There are two quotes from him that follow. One is from Marion G. Romney, given in general conference, and the other is from Ezra Taft Benson’s book just previously quoted:</div><blockquote style="styleDocument: [object]"></blockquote><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">"George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian socialist, said that: ‘Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population.’" (CR, April 1966, p. 95, quoting from the <em>Encyclopedia Britannica</em>, 1946, 20:895.)<br />"But compulsion was nothing new in the thinking of social democrats. One of their original founders emphasized this when he said:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">"I also made it quite clear that under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well." (TL, p. 172, from <em>Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism</em>, p. 470.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Does this sound like the kind of government you want for your country? It sounds much like the old plan from the pre-earth life, doesn’t it?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Workings of Socialism</span></em><br />Let’s turn again to The Red Carpet, by Ezra Taft Benson. He has studied, preached, and written so much on the subject that he is certainly worth quoting often. So let’s read some more from this authority:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"When socialism is understood, we will realize that many programs advocated, and some of those already adopted in the United States fall clearly within the category of socialism. What is socialism? It is simply governmental ownership and management of the essential means for production and distribution of goods.<br />"Now supposing a person came along and said, ‘I am in favor of doing away with competitive markets and private property, of setting up communes in each locality, and taking all the land away from the farmers, of taking over all the steel mills, all the electric power plants, all the automotive industry, the banks, the railroads, the newspapers, the television and radio stations, all the mines, and so forth.’<br />"I am sure that such a proposal would meet with immediate and united resistance by the vast majority of the American people.<br />"But, supposing the same person came and said, ‘It is in the public interest and to the benefit of each citizen if we make industry, the farms, and all means of production and distribution operate for the benefit of all the people and not just for the profit of a few stockholders.’ Immediately this line of deception receives a wave of support. It is occurring today here in the United States. It occurred in England, France and Eastern Europe as well as the Scandinavian countries. It occurred in Russia.<br />"Now obviously, the worst thing that can happen to a socialist is to have himself openly identified with the work of the communists who are generally feared and despised. The socialists know they cannot seize property and power by ‘due process of law’ unless they are politically popular, therefore, they try desperately to avoid the taint of the communists and present their program so that it appears ‘moral,’ ‘democratic,’ ‘peaceful,’ and so gradual that the people will not resist it.<br />"These are the exact words used by the social Democrats in England in 1889 when they were preparing to lay the foundation for the seizure of power which finally took place after World War I and again after World War II. They prepared a book called ‘Fabian Essays on Socialism.’ In the preface they said the book was being written by seven members of the executive council of the Fabian Society. They then said, ‘The writers are all Social Democrats.’ Nevertheless, they adopted the name of ‘Fabians’ after the Roman General Fabius, who won his battles by capturing or defeating the enemy a few at a time. This is what the Social Democrats call ‘gradualism.’ It is their intention to use this method in conquering their enemies which in this case happens to be free men.<br />"Freedom is not always lost on the battlefront." (TRC, pp. 66, 69-70, 134.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Various government officials have created, or supported, a variety of crises in America to condition people to the importance of government controls and interventions such as oil shortages, high taxes, economic turmoil, moral degeneration, drugs, educational regression and a host of other conditions. These government sponsored disasters are to condition the people for "The New World Order," an order of total control of the people and their property by an elite ruling class.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />To do this, they use a three-step principle, which is: Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis. Thesis comes first; that is — create a problem. The next step is antithesis — create opposition to the problem, such as prejudice, fear, threats, panic, etc. And then the final phase: synthesis — the crowning achievement of government, where they intervene with the solution to the problem, which they created, or encouraged, in the first place to create chaos whereby a solution is needed.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />When the people are in fear and out of control, they will agree to most any remedy, including giving up their rights of freedom and protection, for a quick fix. In this way, the government can impose on the people any scheme they wish without the people becoming aware of what has happened to them: social security, government education, socialized medicine, the United Nations, a national or international police force, a one-world monetary system and international banking, the New World Order, etc.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Ralph Epperson, in his book The Unseen Hand, writes of Jan Kozak, a member of the Secretariat of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, who wrote a book entitled: And Not a Shot is Fired, the Communist Strategy for Subverting a Representative Government. Mr. Epperson explains what Jan Kozak spelled out about the Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis concept, although Epperson did not use these terms:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Mr. Kozak describes what has been called the ‘Pincers Movement,’ the method by which the conspirators can use the parliament, the ‘Pressure from Above,’ and the mob, the ‘Pressure from Below,’ to convert a democracy into a dictatorship.<br />"What Mr. Kozak proposed was a five-part program to seize control of a government.<br />"The first step consisted of having the conspiracy’s own people infiltrate the government (the ‘pressure from above.’)<br />"The second step was to create a real or alleged grievance, usually through either an action of government or through some situation where the government should have acted and didn’t.<br />"The third step consisted in having a mob created by the real or alleged grievance that the government or the conspiracy caused demand that the problem be solved by a governmental action (the ‘pressure from below.’)<br />"The fourth step consisted in having the conspirators in the government remedy the real or alleged situation with some oppressive legislation.<br />"The fifth step is a repeat of the last three. The legislation that the government passes does not solve the problem and the mob demands more and more legislation until the government becomes totalitarian in nature by possessing all of the power." (Quoted in <em>The Unseen Hand</em>, p. 36-37, from And Not a Shot is Fired, 1957, p. 16.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />And so we have some of the plans on leading sleepy America, step-by-step, down the road to socialistic slavery without their awareness. Nephi was speaking of this type of wickedness when he said, "And there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old, according to the combinations of the devil, for he is the founder of all these things; yea, the founder of murder, and works of darkness; yea, and he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever." (2 Ne. 26:22.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />From the foregoing we can pretty well see what the long-term goals of the socialists are and how they plan to implement some of their programs for enslaving the American people. Some of their aims, as Ezra Taft Benson writes, are as follows:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Here is what these Fabians or social democrats said they were going to do:<br />"With reference to private property they said, ‘. . . private property in land and capital will inevitably go the way of feudalism which is superseded.’<br />"The social democrats also said they were going to work for ‘the ultimate and gradual extinction of the (property owning) class.’<br />"They said they were going to nationalize or collectivize the land . . . set up collectivized farms . . . organize communes in each locality . . . get clothes from a community store, eat at a community table . . . nationalize the major industries and develop industrial communes. . . .<br />"They pointed out that ‘the perfect fitting development of each individual is not necessarily the utmost and highest cultivation of his own personality, but the filling, in the best possible way, of his humble function in the great social machines.’<br />"At this point some of you may wonder whether I am talking about communism of Russia rather than the social democrats in England. But I have mentioned these things so that you can see that in their final form the two are identical." (TL, pp. 171-72.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As long ago as general conference, October 1960, he was warning us of this evil secret combination and their satanic attitudes of murder, much like the Gadianton Robbers. In that conference he said,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Those who subscribe to this philosophy [socialistic communism] stop at nothing to achieve their ends. They do not hesitate to destroy — if they are strong enough — whatever stands in their way. Our own generation has witnessed the Russian communists liquidate millions of their fellow countrymen. Even more recently we have seen the Chinese communists wipe out millions of their fellow countrymen — no one knows the exact number.<br />"To the true communist [socialist], nothing is evil if it is expedient. Being without conscience or honor, he feels completely justified in using whatever means are necessary to achieve his goal: force, trickery, lies, broken promises, mayhem, and individual and mass murder." (CR, October 1960, p. 101.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">A Few Deceptions</span></em><br />We are purposely being deceived by the so-called freedom which is being presented to us by the Soviet leadership. Up front it looks and sounds good. But as we examine their motives we find their nature hasn’t changed from the beginning. It was stated earlier that, "Communism as a word is dying, but the goals and philosophies of that social order is coming closer to reality." Even Mikhail Gorbachev (Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev), admits this in his book, Perestroika, which was published in this country. The Nobel Peace Prize winner confesses:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"To put an end to all the rumors and speculations that abound in the West about this, I would like to point out once again that we are conducting all our reforms in accordance with the socialist choice. We are looking within socialism, rather than outside it, for the answers to all the questions that arise . . . those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed." (<em>Perestroika</em>, pp. 22-23.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Does this sound like the man that the Western World has been praising for his reforms. It does if we know the workings of the deceptive mind. He is nothing more nor less than a "wolf in sheep’s clothing."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />By feigning freedom for their people, the Soviets are duping the West into a hypnotic euphoria. And while they do they will bilk the American people for billions of dollars — continuing to build arms while American disarms — and they will come back on us with a vengeance as they have done before.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In his book, New Lies for Old, Anatoliy Golitsyn, an ex-KGB officer, warns us about how the communist deception threatens the survival of the west in their strategy of deception and disinformation. The book was published in 1984, five years before the "democratization" and "liberalization" of Eastern Europe, showing that what has recently happened over there was planned, and that turning the communist-block countries into a "Democracy" is actually a deceptive plot:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The suggested European option would be promoted by a revival of controlled ‘democratization’ on the Czechoslovak pattern in Eastern Europe. . . .<br />"The ‘liberalization’ would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party’s role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed. . . . The supreme Soviet would be given greater apparent power and the president and deputies greater apparent independence . . . there would be greater freedom for Soviet citizens to travel. Western and United Nations observers would be invited to the Soviet Union to witness the reforms in action.<br />"But, as in the Czechoslovak case, the ‘liberalization’ would be calculated and deceptive in that it would be introduced from above. It would be carried out by the party through its cells and individual members of government, the Supreme Soviet, the courts, and the electoral machinery and by the KGB through its agents among the intellectuals and scientists. . . . It would contribute to the stabilization of the regime at home and to the achievement of its goals abroad.<br />"Western acceptance of the new ‘liberalization’ as genuine would create favorable conditions for the fulfillment of communist strategy for the United States, Western Europe, and even, perhaps, Japan." (<em>New Lies for Old</em>. pp. 338-40.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />So the mind of the Soviet still clicks away at its timetable for world domination. They have made peace overtures before, which were short lived. The Americans bought into them then; should things be any different now? Our gullible nature hasn’t changed any more than their deceitful nature has changed. This fact was pointed out in the Encyclopedia Britannica, when it tells of such peace overtures made in 1936 — but what happened later, history tells: </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>"During the period of the co-operation of the Soviet Union with the democratic nations, a new democratic constitution was introduced on Nov. 25, 1936, which stressed the principles of democracy without abandoning the firm grip of the dictatorship upon the country." (<em>Encyclopedia Britannica</em>, 1947, 6:136.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Dimitry Manuilsky made a statement at the Lenin School of Political Warfare in Moscow, as far back as 1931. He is quoted in Cleon Skousen’s book, The Naked Communist, as he discloses the true nature of the Soviet leadership, even today:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. . . . To win we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movements on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist!" (Quoted in, <em>The Naked Communist</em>. pp. 208, 235.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />To sum-up this little discussion on their deception let’s turn once again to Ezra Taft Benson: "Yet some gullible, fuzzy heads are trying to tell us that the communists are changing — becoming more cooperative. They might change their strategy but their objective is still to ‘bury’ us. Their deadly conspiracy remains the same." (PPNS, p. 271.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We are now hearing that all is well in the world and that peace is coming. But should we trust what looks good? Of what do the scriptures warn us? "For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape." (1 Thes. 5:3.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Two Peas in a Pod<br /></span></em>The communist nation of Russia was called the United Soviet Socialist Republic (U.S.S.R.). As stated before, communism and socialism are basically the same, only the methods of achieving goals may be different.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Because we hear so much about "social" government programs in this country of "free" America we have a tendency not to relate it to socialistic communism, when in fact there is a very strong corollary.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Socialistic programs are supposedly designed to control the property of the individual and distribute it to all people equally. This can be a very worthy goal when sponsored under the proper direction. But that direction must come from the Lord. And the people must be willing to part with their substance by choice, instead of force. Without such direction and volunteerism, the system becomes slavery for both the giver and the receiver: for the giver because he is not really giving but is being forced to give — stolen from; and for the receiver because, to receive in a socialistic system, he must submit to the worldly-whims of the elite, — bondage. Socialism and communism are not the "united order," as some would suppose. There is a section in the appendix on this difference.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As socialism is not the United Order, neither is democracy a desirable form of government, or Karl Marx would not have said, in his Communist Manifesto, that "the first step in the revolution" was to "win the battle of democracy."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We have spoken of both communism and socialism as being the same in principle, if not in approach. To cement this into the minds of the reader we will read the following thoughts. From the United Press International, in September 1991, we read that "China will remain a socialist nation . . . under the leadership of the Communist Party." Here is the entire quote:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"China’s Premier Li Peng voiced in a National Day address today that China will remain a socialist nation . . . despite ‘drastic and profound changes.’ Li described the world today as ‘chaotic’ following the collapse of Soviet and eastern-bloc communism. Li pledged China would resist the trend . . . saying quote ‘no tempest will shake (our) determination to move along the path of building socialism under the leadership of the Communist Party of China.’" (<em>United Press International</em>, September 30, 1991).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />And in a recent National Geographic magazine with a special article on communist Cuba and Fidel Castro, it says, "Last year, 1990, Fidel Castro, who admits that he is a Marxist-Leninist, said, ‘Socialism will be the society of the future . . . Cuba must change but not at the cost of socialism.’" (As reported in, <em>National Geographic</em>, August 1991, p. 96.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Of all the LDS General Authorities, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., of the First Presidency, before his death in 1961, was perhaps the Church’s leading authority on communism, socialism, the United Nations, and those threats to the American people. From this great Church leader and patriot we read:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Socialism, reduced to its lowest terms, aims at a revolution, by force if necessary, against our whole social and industrial order and existence, in matters pertaining to the production of the necessaries and luxuries of life, which production, in the new order, is to be wholly taken over by the State.<br />"Communism aims at a revolutionary overturning, seemingly also by force if necessary, of our present systems of distribution of products, the new system to be a completely equalized consumption and distribution, every man, speaking in general terms, to have the same as every other man, no more, no less, the amount any man gets to be wholly independent of how much he does for it, or whether or not he has done anything at all for it. . . . Do not mistake the foregoing for an attempted rhetorical outburst; it is not. It is a short statement of the actual facts.<br />"Neither socialism nor communism has always taught the same principles nor advocated the same measures; these have varied as have the time and as have the people proselyted. These systems have never aimed at consistency in their proselyting, for in this they have always been opportunistic, advancing from time to time the principles that promised converts.<br />"One method that has been framed is this: they will gradually secure control of the regular State governmental machinery through the exercise of the elective franchise in the prescribed constitutional manner, but by corrupt methods. . . . Then, having so secured control, they will overturn the regular governmental order and set up the revolutionary forms.<br />"Still another method that has been proposed is thoroughly to bureaucratize the regular governmental machinery; then to make government so intricate and complex that the normal machinery cannot manage it; following this to usurp and lodge all governmental operations in the executive department [executive orders]; then through and by the administrative bureaucrats that shall have been trained in the functions of the regular governmental legislative and judicial agencies, they will, finally, when the critical moment comes, openly take over, by a planned peaceful revolution, the whole government, abolish the Constitution, and rob us of our free institutions and liberties. (Quoted in PPNS, pp. 223-25, from CN-6/16/45.)<br />"The paths we are following, if we move forward thereon will inevitably lead us to socialism or communism, and these two are as like as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effects upon our liberties.<br />"And never forget for one moment that communism and socialism are state slavery. World conquest has been, is now, and ever will be its ultimate goals." (Quoted in the TL, p. 74.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Socialism, and its running mate communism, is not the last word in secret combinations. There still exists a deeper and more sinister conspiracy at hand (if that is possible). In the next chapter we will delve into it a little.</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-69047312629882186592009-02-07T09:16:00.000-08:002009-02-07T09:31:11.135-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Chapter 5<br /><span style="font-size:180%;">The Devil’s Kingdom on Earth<br /></span></span></strong><em>"In relation to the kingdom of God,<br />the devil always sets up his kingdom<br />at the very same time in opposition to God."<br />— Joseph Smith</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >O</span>n the surface of things, as far as conspiracies are concerned, communism has been in the forefront of people’s minds. However, there is a much deeper and more sinister design afoot than most people expect. There is a deeper plot, and in his book, The Red Carpet, Ezra Taft Benson quotes Senator Strom Thurmon of South Carolina who speaks of a deeper conspiracy:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Our people must understand that our fears must not be reserved for so-called card carrying communists alone. There are few such any more. There are others in this country who believe in essentially the same ends as do the communists. They are socialists, who look toward an international socialist order just as the communists do, except by an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary approach. They join with communists in discouraging the inculcation of patriotism, for patriotism is a form of nationalism which impedes the establishment of world socialism." (Quoted in TRD, pp. 81-82.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now we have already covered the subject of communistic socialism. But it doesn’t end there. Let go into this conspiracy theory some more and see just who some of these "others in this country" and the world are. We will find that it is not just a communist scheme but that there are deeper designs in the plans.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Yet a Deeper Plot<br /></span></em>Parts of this even deeper, conspiracy is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, the Committee of 300, and more. These groups are made up of elite individuals who feel that they are the only ones who are intelligent enough to make decisions for the people of the world. Their pride consists of: over-enlarged egos, the insatiable desire for power, and extreme wealth. Some of the members of one group might hold a seat in one or more of the other groups. (Although the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is extremely important in this study we will not be discussing it here. This, however, does not minimize the importance of this council. The reader is directed to the book, The Shadows of Power, which covers the subject in some depth.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In June 6-9, of 1991, the Bilderbergers held their most recent meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany. Henry Kissinger, President Nixon’s national security adviser, has been on the steering committee for almost two decades. They did not circulate its agenda or a list of attendees.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Some of those that were there and participated, although this is not a complete list, were: Former Under Secretary of State George Ball, Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady, U.S. State Department counselor and under secretary-designate for economic affairs, Robert B. Zoellinck, plus William Quandt, Jack F. Matlock, Robert B. Zoellick, Robert D. Blackwell, Michael J. Boskin, and Thomas W. Simmons, Jr., of the United States; Lawrence Freedman and Patrick Wright from the United Kingdom; Jean-Louis Cadieux from the European Common Market; Ruud F.M. Lubbers from the Netherlands; General Secretary Manfred Worner, and Henning Wegener from NATO; William Quandt of the Brookings Institution; etc.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />There were representatives from various nations; such as Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America; and others representing international groups.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Also, lets not forget David Rockefeller and his Chase Manhattan cohorts.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />When Michael J. Boskin, a senior official of the President, was asked why he was there, Mr. Boskin, after trying to dodge the question, said that his attendance "was in the nature of membership in a private club."(<em>The Spotlight</em>, special report, September 1991, p. B-2.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As with most secret groups, information leaks out — so it has been with this illustrious meeting.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Among some of the things discussed was that of the "final stages of the process leading to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which will bankrupt the United States and turn its workers into slave labor, was set in motion." (Ibid.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />From The Spotlight, a very conservative newspaper, we find an article about the Bilderberg meeting. It reads in part:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Harvard Economist Jeffery Sachs, who as an advocate of IMF (International Monetary Fund) ‘austerity shock therapy,’ has nearly destroyed the Polish economy. The other working group member, who joined with Gorbachev’s blessing, was Grigory Yavlinsky . . . who wrote the 500 Day Plan, which, by catapulting food and other consumer prices as Sach’s program has done in Poland, would mean virtual starvation for 70 million Russian pensioners. (Ibid., p. B-8.)<br />"What the Bilderberg group intends is a global army at the disposal of the United Nations, which is to become the world government to which all nations will be subservient by the year 2000.<br />"And, they promised each other, there will be ‘more incidents’ [such as the Persian Gulf war] for the UN to deal with in the years ahead. The Bilderberg group and its little brother, the Trilateral Commission, can set up ‘incidents’ on schedule, they said, but in less direct words. The words ‘within five years’ were heard repeatedly." (<em>The Spotlight</em>, June 24, 1991, pp. 1, 3.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Beginnings</span></em><br />There has always been a secret combination, or conspiracy, of one kind or another during the history of the world. But not until May 1, 1776, was one organized for the purpose of overthrowing the entire world. Yes, it’s true that Rome, and others of the ancient empires, wanted to control the world, but they were not necessarily secret — they were out in the open — and everyone knew it. But now we have secret plots to overthrow the world and its people.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Prophet Joseph Smith, while preaching on Sunday, May 12, 1844, one month before he and his brother were martyred, said,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The scripture is ready to be fulfilled when great wars, famines, pestilence, great distress, judgments, etc., are ready to be poured out on the inhabitants of the earth. . . . Woe, woe be to that man or set of men who lift up their hand against God and His witness in these last days: for they shall deceive almost the very chosen ones!<br />"False prophets always arise to oppose the true prophets and they will prophesy so very near the truth that they will deceive almost the very chosen ones.<br />"In relation to the kingdom of God, the devil always sets up his kingdom at the very same time in opposition to God." (HC, 6:364)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now we might ask ourselves, "What is the devil’s kingdom?" The following can give us a clue.</div><blockquote style="styleDocument: [object]"></blockquote><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">There was a book written and published in 1798 entitled, Proofs of a Conspiracy, by John Robison, A.M., in which he unveils the "Illuminati Order," which order is considered to be the beginnings of our current-day, world wide secret combinations. From the "Introduction to the Americanist Classics Edition," of this book we find the following about John Robison:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Professor Robison was a member of the distinguished circle of intellectuals who at that time enhanced the reputation of the University of Edinburgh. In fact, in 1783, Robison was elected general secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. In short, Robison was one of the leading intellects of his time, deeply interested in every aspect of man’s attainments, both scientific and moral, in civilized society. . . .<br />"Robison had all of the virtues of the enlightened, rational, scientific, humane and religious spirit which characterized the founders of our own country and which represented the flower of eighteenth-century English intellect."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This reference to Professor Robison is given to show what kind of high integrity and moral fiber the man was made of that researched-out the first and most pervasive of our latter-day secret combinations — the Illuminati Order.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />He mentions Dr. Adam Weishaupt. Dr. Weishaupt was a professor of canon law, and a professor of considerable renown, at the University of Ingolstadt. Weishaupt was also a former Jesuit priest — which priestly order was "annulled and extinguished" by Pope Clement XIV in 1773 for meddling in the affairs of the state and being the enemies of government. [<em>Author’s Note</em>: The Jesuit order was reinstated in 1814 by Pope Pius VII. Of this action John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson and said, "I do not like the re-appearance of the Jesuits. If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth...it is this Society..." Jefferson’s reply was: "Like you, I disapprove of the restoration of the Jesuits, for it means a step backwards from light into darkness." (Quoted in <em style="styleDocument: [object]">The Unseen Hand</em>, p. 79, from Rene Fulop-Miller, <em>The Power and Secret of the Jesuits</em>, p. 390.)] From the "Introduction to the Americanist Classics Editions," of the book just cited, we read about this man:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Weishaupt was not a military man bent on conquering the world via large armies; nor was he a crude gangster who could organize and lead a band of thieves. Weishaupt was an intellectual, a professor of law at a noted university with the arrogant self-conceit of the mentally superior who feel that they should be running the world and everyone in it. And so he devised an ingenious vehicle for world conquest — a secret Order — which would prove immensely attractive to other mentally superior beings of a similar frame of mind. He called it the Illuminati Order and grafted it, at selected points, onto Freemasonry — like a fungus."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />John Robison says that; "Weishaupt had long been scheming the establishment of an Association or Order, which, in time, should govern the world. . . . The Lodge Theodore," of the Freemasons, "was perhaps less guarded in its proceedings, for it became remarkable for the very bold sentiments in politics and religion. . . . Of the zealous members of the Lodge Theodore the most conspicuous was Dr. Adam Weishaupt."(<em>Proofs of a Co</em>nspiracy, pp. 58-58.) Robison then goes on to say, "It was then discovered that this and several associated Lodges were the nursery of preparation-school for another Order of Masons, who called themselves the ILLUMINATED, and that the express aim of this Order was to abolish Christianity, and overturn all civil government." (Ibid., p. 60.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Robison was a former Mason himself. He found that Weishaupt used the Masonic lodges of Europe to provide the brethren with "full protection from the authorities by maintaining their rule of secrecy," and that "this impunity had gradually encouraged men of licentious principles to become more bold, and to teach doctrines subversive of all our notions of morality." However, Robison knew that "Freemasonry had existed long before Weishaupt had come on the scene," and that it was "clear that the Illuminati Order was quite distinct and separate from Freemasonry." (The Masonic order in the earlier years of America did not have the same subversive influences that infected their brother’s order in Europe; but it didn’t take long before it did.) As the account continues it speaks of the purpose of the Order:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"To be more explicit, the Illuminati Order was built around the novel idea that the end — the happiness of the human race — justified the means!<br />"It was through this process of selection and careful inculcation that Weishaupt, in a mere decade, was able to gather into his Order the cleverest and most diabolical minds in Europe. The true purpose of the Order was to rule the world. To achieve this it was necessary for the Order to destroy all religions, overthrow all governments, and abolish private property. In order to accomplish this it would be necessary to convince enough people that religion, governments, and private property were the real obstacles to human happiness."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This is precisely what the communists have advocated since the Communist Manifesto, 1848. And on May 1, each year, Soviet Russia still celebrates the date as "May Day," or the date of the Russian Revolution of 1905. Nevertheless, the Illuminati Order was established on May 1, 1776.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Let’s get back to the matter at hand. One of the requirements for membership in the Order was that the members of the Order had to take an oath. The oath reads in part: "I bind myself to perpetual silence and unshaken loyalty and submission to the Order, in the persons of my Superiors; here making a faithful and complete surrender of my private judgments, my own will, and every narrow-minded employment of my power and influence."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now this sounds something like what we learned about the Gadianton robbers of the Book of Mormon having to take an oath doesn’t it? There was even more secrecy than the oath. There was a progression of hierarchy to the Order’s structure. In current vernacular it might be said that information was on a "need-to-know" basis:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Members of the secret Order pledged blind obedience to their superiors and only knew about the organization what their immediate superiors would tell them. . . . Members were required to spy on one another and submit reports and autobiographies which could compromise them should they decide to leave the Order.<br />"The ultimate despotic purpose of the Illuminati Order was kept secret. Only by degrees . . . could the initiated learn of the true mysteries and purposes of the Order. And each step of the way was very carefully plotted and planned by Weishaupt and his colleagues, so that the squeamish and gullible never rose higher than the lowest degrees, while the bold, ruthless and cynical, those ready and willing to dispense with religion, morality, patriotism and any other hindrances, rose to the top." (<em>Proofs of a Conspiracy</em>, "Introduction to the Americanist Classics Edition.")</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Let us visualize a pyramid with a broad base, with various levels until the narrow top, and finally the peak is reach. The peak, being the devil himself — worshipped by the occultist and heads of these grand and secret combinations. Each level below, on a "need-to-know" basis, serving the wishes of their master on the level above them — the people on these lower levels not knowing what, if anything, is above the upper level they answer to. To make it a little more clear, let’s number the levels of the pyramid, starting at the bottom as — let’s say 10, and the top being 1 Those on level 8 may not even know that there is a level 6. They may believe their allegiance stops with the level just above them — level 7.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Some Antichrists</span></em><br />As a note of interest, Karl Marx was a product of this Illuminati Order. Marx was not an "atheist" as some suppose. He was, however, an "antichrist." Earlier, Karl Marx had professed a belief in Christianity. One of his first written works, while still in high school, was called The Union of the Faithful with Christ. In it he said,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Through love of Christ we turn our hearts at the same time toward our brethren who are inwardly bound to us and for whom He gave Himself in sacrifice.<br />"Union with Christ could give an inner elevation, comfort in sorrow, calm trust, and a heart susceptible to human love, to everything noble and great, not for the sake of ambition and glory, but only for the sake of Christ." (Marx and Satan, p. 11, from Karl Marx, Die Vereinigung der Glaubigen mit Christo (The Union of the Faithful with Christ), (Werke) (Works) (MEW), supplement, I, p. 600.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Not long after Marx received his certificate of graduation from high school he began to emerge as something contrary to his previous beliefs. He seemed to have a vindictiveness against the God he once extolled. In a later poem he wrote: "I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above." In another poem he said, "Then I will be able to walk triumphantly, Like a god, through the ruins of their kingdom. Every word of mine is fire and action. My breast is equal to that of the Creator." (Ibid., p. 12-13, from <em>Deutsche Tagespost</em>, West Germany, December 31, 1982.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Somewhere along the line, Marx developed a hatred for everything Christian, and a love for evil. He started dabbling in the black masses and the occults, of which we will not venture discussing. Nonetheless, Marx became an ardent supporter of that which was antichrist.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Does the foregoing sound like a man who does not believe that God exists? No it does not! This is a man that does believe that God exists!</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Lucifer and his angels are not atheist — they were created by God. As we discussed in a previous chapter, God endowed Lucifer with power and authority — which power and authority he misused. Satan and his followers know without a doubt that God does exist. The devil recognized Jesus and tried to tempt Him. The devils that Jesus cast out of a man knew who Jesus was. The devil — Lucifer, or Satan — cannot possibly be an atheist. Nevertheless, he can be an antichrist — that which fights against the Christ and the works of Christ. And so we not only have Karl Marx but Adam Weishaupt (a former Jesuit priest), and a host of others, who are not atheists but are antichrists.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />There have been, down through the ages, various occults for the worship of Satan. In these latter-days, this practice is flourishing like never before. Not only among our average people do we find this custom but also among the elite of the world. Richard Wurmbrand, in his book Marx and Satan, dealing with this subject, wrote:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"So from time immemorial men have believed in the existence of the Devil. Sin and wickedness are the hallmark of his kingdom, disintegration and destruction its inevitable result. The great concentrations of evil design in times past as well as in modern communism [socialism] and nazism would have been impossible without a guiding force, the Devil himself. He has been the mastermind, the secret agent, supplying the unifying energy in his grand scheme to control mankind." (Ibid., p. 14.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />So we have here what looks like the beginning of our modern-day secret combinations, or great conspiracies. Their evil designs and purposes laid out before us — with Lucifer himself being at the head of it.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Book of Mormon was not just warning us of just another secret combination or just another conspiracy, of which there have been many through history, but of much more sinister and deeply entrenched orders of darkness than ever before know in history. President J. Reuben Clark, an expert on secret combinations tells us:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"In the last half of the seventeen hundreds, beginning in the 1750's, two systems of revolutionary thought emerged. One system deals with our social, economic, and governmental order, the material things and aspects of life. This system is two-fold, embracing Socialism and Communism. . . . The other system . . . deals with our religious beliefs, through what we call ‘higher criticism,’ and its twin, ‘rationalism.’ . . . These revolutionary systems have gained such influence as now to constitute a threat against our whole existing order, material and spiritual. Each of these two systems has gone forward under its own power, yet with such a full complementary relationship and activity, the one to the other, as can be accounted for only by assuming they are directed by one superior malevolent [malicious] intelligence.<br />"It may be said here that the great apostles of the material systems have often been men of high ideals and of lofty purpose, but their inspiration has come from the wrong source, and so they have reached wrong conclusions and have advocated wrong principles and methods." (PPNS, p. 223, from CN-6/16/45.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Sinisterism Continues</span></em><br />Let’s explore more of this conspiracy concept and see if there is more too it — for there is.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In his highly researched book, The Unseen Hand, by A. Ralph Epperson, he quotes the late Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister, 1874-1880, who confirmed the assertion of these secret societies when he said,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"There is in Italy a power which we seldom mention in this House (the House of Parliament).<br />"I mean the secret societies. . . .<br />"It is useless to deny, because it is impossible to conceal, that a great part of Europe . . . to say nothing of other countries...is covered with a network of these secret societies...What are their objects?<br />"They do not want constitutional government. . . . They want to change the tenure of the land, to drive out the present owners of the soil and to put an end to ecclesiastical establishments." (<em>The Unseen Hand</em>, pp. 76-77, from a quoted in Nesta H. Webster’s, <em>Secret Societies and Subversive Movements</em> (Christian Book Club of America), p. IV., p. IV.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Dr. John Coleman has done extensive research into the conspiracy. He has been able, over many years, to discover an even deeper controlling element — "super-organization" — in this international secret combination. He writes in his Conspiracy Who’s Who: The Committee of 300, that: "There most certainly is an organization controlling the conspiracy to commit the U.S. to a One-World Government, and it is called "The Committee of 300," or as the members like to call themselves, "The Olympians," fancying that they have power equal to the mythical gods of Greek mythology." (<em>Conspiracy Who’s Who: The Committee of 300</em>, p. 1.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />During his research into this group (which possesses an attitude much like Lucifer in the pre-earth life) he discovered their "truly amazing social-psychiatry-opinion-making capabilities and resources." He went on to say,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"What unfolded was an astounding array of interlocked oligarchical corporations, banks, insurance companies, the news media and politicians, all controlled by a single entity which also deployed them and saw to it that their key men always ended up in control positions around the world.<br />"Be sure that we understand what I am writing about here. This is an entity that reaches far beyond ANY government, indeed it is true to say that it makes and breaks governments at will, and that includes the government of the United States of America.<br />"Let us dispose of the ‘it cannot happen in America’ tunnel-vision syndrome; it can, it has and it is still happening. For decades we in the U.S. have been controlled in every facet of our daily lives to think this way and actually believe that our opinions are own, when in fact they have been manufactured for us." (Ibid.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Dr. Coleman mentions such names as Von Thurn, Taxis, Elie Rothschild, Jocelyn Hambro, the Luzzati and Bonacossi families representing the Jewish Venetian oligarchy, and the Lambert family of Belgium. Some of these names may not mean much to some of us at this time, but that’s okay. We do not need to know everyone. We need only to know what is happening.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Coleman writes on page eight of his work: "Just to give you an idea of how vast this wealth is, the Von Thurn and Taxis fortune makes David Rockefeller a man of modest means by comparison."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It takes money, BIG MONEY, to finance such far-reaching schemes and to wage a war or revolution. During the American revolution this nation had to borrow money to help support it. Where did the money come from which aided the Russian Revolution? It actually came from the International Bankers — specifically speaking, from the Federal Reserve. There is a chapter in this book which will deal with this aspect of the conspiracy so we will not take time to do so here, except only to mention the fact.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />When you own all of the money in the world, or at least most of the money, what more do you need? What was Lucifer’s desire? Power and control over the will of man, not money. So his disciples here on earth are still implementing his plan — not for money — but for power — power that can control the news media which can help keep the people ignorant of what is going on in the world.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />With vast amounts of wealth (wealth incomprehensible), the news media can be bought. There was a radio station in Texas that discussed aspects of the conspiracy. Rockefeller’s bank moved in — bought it out — and now it is a Spanish-Speaking station playing Mexican music. It is happening here in America!</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Book of Mormon calls these conspiracy, "The Great and Abominable Church." (1 Ne., Ch. 13 and 14.) John in Revelation calls it "The Great Whore that sitteth upon many waters." (Rev., Ch.17.) The prophets saw our day and recognized not a local or single nation trying to wage war with another but an all-encompassing, world-wide effort of evil and darkness.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The conspiracy is so all-pervasive and so all encompassing that it would boggle the average mind to be confronted with its power and magnitude.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Side Show</span></em><br />Most people in the past have thought communism to be the evil culprit of subversion and conspiracy. However, it has turned out that communism is only a puppet in the hand of the great secret combination. Through the clever manipulation of the news media, the evil minds behind the socialistic conspiracy for one-world-domination has shown communism to be the bad guy — and in truth, they are truly evil. Nevertheless, they have been used as pawns, a front for the more villainous efforts of the dark minds that seek to overthrow the entire world. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />To draw an analogy, this whole thing may be much like a magician. While entertaining us with his clever speech, and fast and skillful manipulation of his right hand, his left hand is pulling together some sort of trick.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Another analogy may be like that of a ventriloquist with a dummy on his lap. He too is a master of deception. He beguiles us with the charm of his animated friend which draws attention away from the fact that he may be moving his lips. Remember when the President said, "Read my lips, no new taxes!" What did we get? More taxes! And when he said that he did not want war in the Middle East, what did he do? He committed more troops!</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />So now, we have been the dummies sitting in the audience for many decades watching and listening to the clever deceptions of our political entertainers. We have been watching the wrong hands while they pull off some subtle deception — behind OUR BACKS.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We have become so enthralled with this entertainment that when we are even told to "Read my lips," we still do not hear what is being said or notice what is being done. We are beguiled by the charm of it all.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Let us carry this a little further. Picture a person with a bunch of marionettes in his hand. These stringed puppets can be called: America, Great Britain, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia, Central and South America, Africa, the Middle East, the Far East, etc. As the operator pulls the strings the politicians in the various nations move accordingly. At the top of this manipulation is not the communist conspiracy. That also is another puppet in the arsenal of deceptive and evil entertainment.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The great secret combinations of this world are headed by very clever, intelligent, deceptive, sinister, and extremely wealthy people. People who have the financial resources to play any game they please — and they make the rules. Their wealth is of such magnitude that the average person cannot even comprehend its awesomeness.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />With money you can buy almost anything or anybody in this world. Yes, there have been those leaders of various countries, and at various times, that would not cooperate. But they have been deposed or assassinated by a hired gun. Such threats have been, and are being, used throughout the world today and the great secret combination is spreading its tentacles like a giant octopus into every facet of our lives — into every nation in the world.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Constitutional Challenge<br /></span></em>Ezra Taft Benson has said, "There is no freedom under full socialism. Our fight is freedom vs. creeping socialism." (AEHDT, p. 255.) And in general conference during October, 1979, he spoke these words: "Today, we are in a battle for the bodies and souls of men. It is a battle between two opposing systems: freedom and slavery, Christ and anti-Christ. . . . God must ever have a free people to prosper His work and bring about zion." (CR, October 1979, p. 44.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Of course many other general authorities spoke of these secret combinations. Let’s refer to George Q. Cannon. When he spoke the following words these socialistic combination had already started their work. He was the first counselor in the First Presidency under President Wilford Woodruff when he said,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Among the many signs of the times concerning which the prophets have spoken, there are none scarcely that are of a more threatening character than the combinations of various kinds which are being formed in the land. These combinations are ominous of evil. If they go on increasing as they have done for some years past, the consequences to our nation will be of a most serious, if not to say dreadful, character.<br />"In Europe, a condition or feeling has arisen, among socialists, nihilists, anarchists, and people of this type, that is exceedingly threatening to the government under which people of this description live. They are agitating, and plotting, and spreading dissatisfaction among all classes. They have sufficient ground for complaint to make their appeals to their fellows very convincing. . . . [Author’s Note: Nihilists — The denial of the existence of any basis for knowledge or truth; the general rejection of customary beliefs in morality, religion; the doctrine that all social, political, and economic institutions must be completely destroyed in order to make way for new institutions; any violent revolutionary movement involving some use of terrorism – (Webster)].<br />"Thousands of these dissatisfied people from various countries of Europe have flocked to the United States. Russia, Germany and Austria have contributed large numbers, and they have come filled with these ideas concerning the rights of man. Many have also come from other lands . . . they become agitators of a dangerous character even in this country, where there are no monarchs or nobles. The leaven of discontent has gradually spread until combinations of a most formidable character have been formed in this country. . . .<br />"This is a fearful picture, and we may know what the result will be, by reading the predictions of the prophets concerning the last days. Not only will these combinations of labor and capital spread, but combinations also of a political character, looking to the overthrow of governments and to the introduction of anarchy. . . ." (<em>Juvenile Instructor</em>, 1890, 25:536-37.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />President John Taylor spoke and warned us about these conspiracies and shared his concerns about the Constitution. In 1881, he wrote:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"It is really astonishing to see what efforts are being made to accomplish the overthrow of rule and government in Russia, Austria, Germany, Spain, England, Italy, France, Turkey, etc. These things are beginning to spread among and permeate the nations of the earth. Do we expect them? Yes. These secret combinations were spoken of by Joseph Smith, years and years ago. I have heard him time and time again tell about them, and he stated that when these things began to take place the liberties of this nation would begin to be bartered away. We see many signs of weakness which we lament, and we would to God that our rulers would be men of righteousness, and that those who aspire to position would be guided by honorable feelings — to maintain inviolate the Constitution and operate in the interest, happiness, well-being, and protection of the whole community. But we see signs of weakness and vacillation. We see a policy being introduced to listen to the clamor of mobs and of unprincipled men who know not of what they speak, nor whereof they affirm, and when men begin to tear away with impunity one plank after another from our Constitution, by and by we shall find that we are struggling with the wreck and ruin of the system which the forefathers of this nation sought to establish in the interests of humanity." (<em>Juvenile Instructor</em>, 1881, 22:143.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As mentioned above, the Illuminati Order was founded by Adam Weishaupt in 1776. That happens to be the year that our nation declared independence from England. Isn’t it interesting that the organization that can be considered the father of our modern socialistic-slave societies in the world, the Illuminati Order, was founded the same year the Declaration of Independence was written, and this nation struck out to be a free people. From two different general conferences we read the following from President Benson:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Now the Lord knew that before the gospel could flourish there must first be an atmosphere of freedom. This is why he first established the Constitution of this land through gentiles whom he raised up before he restored the gospel." (CR, April 1965, p. 123.)<br />"Our Father in Heaven planned the coming forth of the Founding Fathers and their form of government as the necessary great prologue leading to the restoration of the gospel . . . America, the land of liberty, was to be the Lord’s latter-day base of operations for His restored church." (The <em>Ensign</em>, November 1987, p. 4.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Remember what the Prophet Joseph Smith said, "In relation to the kingdom of God, the devil always sets up his kingdom at the very same time in opposition to God." Satan is out to destroy the work of God. This nation was to be established so that the Church would have a free environment in which to grow. Without that atmosphere of freedom, the Church might not have lasted very long. As the Prophet continued:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Only in this foreordained land, under its God-inspired Constitution and the resulting environment of freedom, was it possible to have established the restored Church. It is our responsibility to see that this freedom is perpetuated so that the Church may more easily flourish in the future.<br />"Unfortunately, we as a nation have apostatized in various degrees from different Constitutional principles as proclaimed by the inspired founders." (The <em>Ensign</em>, November 1987, p. 6.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Can we see now why it is so important to uphold the Constitution and the principles upon which it stands? God has ordained it to be our standard of liberty. If we do not get off of our "comfortable complacency," as President Benson called it once, we may lose all that we have been given and for which our forefathers have died. And who do you think will have to stand in the great judgment and account for their apathy in this matter?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">We Must Understand</span></em><br />It may be fitting to quote, once again, the statement made by our Prophet, President Ezra Taft Benson, in the general conference of October, 1988. Perhaps if we read it in the light of what we have just learned, it might have a little more meaning for us. This will not be the last time that this statement will be used in this book. Because of the implication of its message, it will be used again. This has been his last verbal address given to the saints (at the writing of this book), and it was given during the Sunday afternoon session of that conference. At that time he inspiringly said,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over American and the entire world." (CR, October 1988, p. 103; The<em> Ensign</em>, November 1988, p. 87.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now we have covered a lot of territory in this chapter. And if all of this seems to fantastic and hard to believe — even a little scary — then that’s understandable. There are those who still might argue that this is just too involved and all-encompassing to be real — this is just someone’s make-believe. Well, we might ask, "If someone is capable of thinking up this hoax, then isn’t someone capable of thinking it up and then try to implement it? The devil has been allowed to use more of his powers in the last days, than he has been using before. In a reprint from the Millennial Star, called "The Coming Crisis — How to Meet It," it speaks of unusual powers that Lucifer will be given, and how people will marvel that the great governors and brave monarchs of ancient Babylon could have been such firm believers in magicians, and the like, in their day. Then it goes on to say,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"He [Satan] has made some manifestations of his power in different periods of the world, but never before has there been such an array of numbers on his side, never before such a consolidation of armies and rulers, never before has there been such an imposing and overwhelming exhibition of miracles as Satan will shortly make manifest . . . And he, the son of perdition it is, that will be allowed a much longer chain than heretofore. And such will be the greatness of his power, that it will seem to many that he is entirely loose. He will be so far unshackled and unchained that his power will deceive all nations, even the world. And the elect will barely escape the power of his sorceries, enchantments, and miracles! And even God himself, the true God, will contribute to put means and instruments in his way and at hand for his use, so that he can have a full trial of his strength and cunning, with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish.<br />"But marvel not, for when the greater power of the like class of persons, under the direction of Satan, shall be brought to bear in your own day, the delusion will be so much stronger that Princes, Presidents, Governors, and chief Captains, will be constrained to bow to it. Their credulity will be taxed beyond the power of resistance. The workers of these mysterious and supernatural arts will bring to their aid both natural and supernatural causes that will challenge and defy disputation . . . facts and truth will constitute such a measure of the ingredients of these mysterious and wonderful arts as to give them an irresistible strength of conviction to those who are unenlightened by the spirit of God. And so far as facts and truths are mingled, it must also be acknowledged that God, the true and living Sovereign of heaven and earth, will contribute to product the delusion. He has said that ‘HE WILL SEND THEM STRONG DELUSIONS THAT THEY MIGHT BELIEVE A LIE.’" ("The Coming Crisis — How to Meet It," reprinted from <em>The Millennial Star</em>, April 30, 1853, Vol. 15, pp. 273-276, 289-292.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now if all of this seems too fantastic and hard to fathom, then go back and read the first four chapters and re-read this one again. We should not reject it because it has not been part of our normal belief system. We must get implanted in our mind and receive our own spiritual testimony of the actuality of what Satan’s plans are and how he uses egocentric people to implement his schemes of mental, physical, and spiritual domination.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We must understand the relationship of free agency, the Constitution of the United States, and secret combinations and conspiracies. We must comprehend it! We must see what is happening to our liberties. It tells us in Proverbs that: "Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he." (Prov. 29:18.) Our temporal salvation, as well as our spiritual, may depend on being able to grasp the importance of the situation. Re-read these chapters if we must. But WE MUST UNDERSTAND what is happening!</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Let’s move on now to the Constitution. As we do so, we will be examining it in the light of what has happened to its principles and how it is "hanging by a thread." As we keep in mind the things learned in these first five chapters, we will more fully understand what is happening to our sacred document and what is behind its gradual disintegration.</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-24314940412006798242009-02-07T08:53:00.000-08:002009-02-07T08:59:41.601-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Chapter 6<br /><span style="font-size:180%;">The Constitution to Hang by a Thread<br /></span></span></strong><em>"When the Constitution of the United States hangs,<br />as it were, upon a single thread,<br />they will have to call for the "Mormon" Elders<br />to save it from utter destruction;<br />and they will step forth and do it."<br />— Brigham Young</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >M</span>uch has been said in the "Mormon" Church about the statement the Prophet Joseph Smith was supposed to have made about the Constitution of the United States hanging by a thread and the subsequent salvation of it by the Elders of the Church. To the knowledge of this author, that particular statement cannot be verified. However, the following statement might be the one his successors may have alluded to:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction. (Joseph Smith, July 19, 1840; Msd 155 Bx4, Joseph Smith, Church Historians Library.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />There are many remarks from Brigham Young, John Taylor, and other authorities concerning Joseph Smith’s statement about the Constitution hanging by a thread. It is not necessary, though, to refer to all of them to establish the fact that we have been warned by our living Prophets of the inevitability of the situation.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />On a number of occasions, Brigham Young referred to Joseph Smith’s statement. One of them is given in the introductory quote of this chapter — another is quoted below. In this one he is rather emphatic:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Will the Constitution be destroyed? No: it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, "The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction." It will be so. (JD, 7:15.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We know there has been some dispute over the validity, or at least, the exactness of the statement. Elder Orson Hyde, one of our earlier apostles, tried to make a clarifying statement on the issue when he said,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"It is said that brother Joseph in his lifetime declared that the Elders of this Church should step forth at a particular time when the Constitution should be in danger, and rescue it, and save it. This may be so; but I do not recollect that he said exactly so. I believe he said something like this — that the time would come when the Constitution and the country would be in danger of an overthrow; and said he, ‘If the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the Elders of this Church.’ I believe this is about the language, as nearly as I can recollect it." (JD, 6:152.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Our current Prophet, on numerous occasions, has also spoken of this statement. In that excellent speech on the Constitution given at Brigham Young University entitled, "The Constitution A Heavenly Banner," he said,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said, ‘Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction.’<br />"I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. But it will not be saved in Washington. It will be saved by the citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church — men and women who will subscribe to and abide the principles of the Constitution." (CHB, pp. 28, 30-31.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">What Is the Thread?<br /></span></em>We might ask ourselves, "How can the Elders of the Church save the Constitution from hanging by a thread if they do not know what that thread is?" Many in the Church have discussed it, but none (at least to this author’s knowledge) have identified it. There is an answer, however. And instead of looking for something mysterious, let us look at the most obvious. And that obvious answer to the question could be found from Ezra Taft Benson. In general conference, October 1966, he gives us an idea of what that thread might be when he said, "Yes, we all love the gospel. . . . We should all strive to live according to its precepts. But the basic thread running through the gospel plan is freedom, the right of choice, of the individual. The gospel can prosper only where there is freedom." (CR, October 1966, p. 124.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Of course — FREEDOM! Now we have it! The Constitution is all about freedom, liberty, agency, and having a government that will secure to every man a free environment where he can exercise that God-given agency. That is what the war in heaven was all about and that is what the Revolutionary War was over. President Benson equates freedom with the gospel. And we shall find, as we continue studying the subject, that the gospel and freedom are inseparably connected.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Every clause of the Constitution and the first ten amendments, the "Bill of Rights," are all threads woven into the fabric of liberty. They are constructed so that the Constitution can provide the maximum strength and security for freedom that man can devise. And when those threads of "freedom" are severed, one by one, then that Constitution will have but little to hold it together.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">In Conclusion<br /></span></em>We may not know precisely if the Prophet Joseph Smith made the exact statement he has so often been given credit for, but it doesn’t really matter. We have the sentiments of other authorities on the subject, and those we must also respect. As President David O. McKay once said, "Next to being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States!" (<em>The Instructor</em>, 1957, 91:34.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We asked ourselves a question about what the thread was and we discovered it was the principle of "freedom." Now maybe we can ask ourselves a few more questions — they are: "How can the Elders save the Constitution if they do not know what it stands for?" "How will they know what to save if they haven’t read it?" "How can they know if they are saving the right principles if they are supporting government philosophies that are contrary to it?"</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Such question can be very sobering indeed. How can we uphold and defend that which we do not know and understand? Not only are we to help preserve this great document but we are to be "united" in so doing. Are we united?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Some members are willing to study the document and its principles while attending church, yet others of the Church reject the thought of discussing the Constitution in church meetings, saying it is a political issue — even though it has been preached, countless times, in general conference.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />One may wonder if the Lord is pleased with that type of apathetic attitude concerning the sacred document which He caused to be established by wise men, and which prophets have testified of as divine.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In general conference, October 1987, President Benson expressed his testimony about the faithful who love and work to uphold the principles in the Constitution. He said, "I testify that the God of heaven sent some of His choicest spirits to lay the foundation of this government, and He has now sent other choice spirits to help preserve it." (General Conference, October 1987; <em>Ensign</em>, November 1987, p. 7.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />At this time, we might ask ourselves a couple more questions: "Where do we fit into this scenario?" And, "Do we measure up to God’s expectations of us in this matter of upholding and defending the Constitution?" In the next few chapters we will be examining this sacred document and our duty in relation to it.</div><blockquote style="styleDocument: [object]"></blockquote><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><span style="font-size:130%;">ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON THE CONSTITUTION HANGING BY A THREAD<br /></span></div><blockquote style="styleDocument: [object]"></blockquote><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">"You will see the Constitution of the United States almost destroyed; it will hang by a thread, as it were, as fine as the finest silk fiber." (Attributed to Joseph Smith, in the presence of Edwin Rushton and Theodore Turley in Nauvoo, Ill., 1843.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"And I tell you further, Elders of Israel, that you do not know the day of your visitation, neither do you understand the signs of the times, for if you did you would be awake to these things. Every organization of our government, the best government in the world, is crumbling to pieces. Those who have it in their hands are the ones who are destroying it. How long will it be before the words of the prophet Joseph will be fulfilled? He said if the Constitution of the United States were saved at all it must be done by this people." (Brigham Young; JD, 12:204; see also JD, 2:182 and JD, 8:324.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"God will have a free people, and while we have a duty to perform to preach the Gospel, we have another to perform, that is, to stand up in the defense of human rights — in the defense of our own rights, the rights of our children, and in defense of the rights of this nation and of all men, no matter who they may be, and God being our helper to maintain those principles and to lift up a standard for the honorable of this and other nations to flock to, that they may be free from the tyranny and oppression that is sought to be crowded upon them. This is a duty we have to perform, and in the name of Israel’s God we will do it. . . . And if other people trample upon the Constitution and pull it to pieces, we will gather together the pieces and rally around the old flag, or what is left of it, and proclaim liberty to the world, as Joseph Smith said we would." (John Taylor; JD, 23:239; see also JD, 20:357.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Now, I say if our rulers and governors become corrupt and attempt to trample those principles under their feet; though the nation itself might go to pieces, yet it is beyond the power of man to destroy the principles of the Constitution. They may destroy one another, yet the principles contained in that instrument will live, and the God of heaven will maintain them until Jesus Christ comes in the clouds of heaven to set up His throne in Jerusalem, and to reign on the earth a thousand years." (Wilford Woodruff; JD 22:346.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"It is my conviction that the Elders of Israel, widely spread over the nation will, at the crucial time, successfully rally the righteous of our country and provide the necessary balance of strength to save the institutions of constitutional government." (Ezra Taft Benson; CR, October 1961, p.70; <em>The American Heritage of Freedom - A Plan of God</em>, p. 4.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"When Justice is satisfied, and the blood of martyrs atoned for, the guardian angel of America will return to his station, resume his charge, and restore the Constitution of our country to the respect and veneration of the people; for it was given by the inspiration of our God." (Orson Hyde; JD, 6:369.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The only way for safety to the people of the government of the United States is to repent of their sins, turn away from all their iniquities, receive the Gospel of the Son of God and become citizens of that kingdom which is to endure for ever; then all the great and glorious principles incorporated in this great republic will be incorporated in the kingdom of God and be preserved. I mean the principles of civil and religious liberty, especially, and all other good principles that are contained in that great instrument framed by our forefathers will be incorporated in the kingdom of God; and only in this manner can all that is good in this and in foreign governments be preserved." (Orson Pratt; JD, 13:125-126.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"I tell you that there are boys growing up in these mountains who have the principles of human liberty grounded deep in their hearts, and they will maintain them, not only for themselves, but for others. God speed the day, I say — if the nation pursues its downward course and tears up these fundamental principles of government which have made them strong — when the Constitution may be rescued and all men and women shall be free again." (Moses Thatcher; JD, 26:334-335.)</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-63691268936903112932009-02-07T08:43:00.000-08:002009-02-07T08:53:17.400-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Chapter 7<br /><span style="font-size:180%;">God Chose Our Founding Fathers<br /></span></span></strong><em style="styleDocument: [object]">"And for this purpose have I established<br />the Constitution of this land,<br />by the hands of wise men<br />whom I raised up unto this very purpose. . . ."<br />— Doctrine and Covenants 101:80</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >W</span>e are taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that our Founding Fathers were inspired in their work in establishing this country and bringing about the Constitution of this nation — for the scriptures tell us they were "raised up unto this very purpose. . . ." (<em>Doctrine and Covenants</em> 101:80.) Ezra Taft Benson tells us: "Now the Lord knew that before the gospel could flourish there must first be an atmosphere of freedom. This is why He first established the Constitution of this land through Gentiles whom He raised up before He restored the gospel." (CR, April 1965, p. 123.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />At another time he teachess us that the foundation that was laid for this country was spiritual. He said, "This nation was established by the God of heaven as a citadel of liberty. A Constitution guaranteeing those liberties was designed under the superintending influence of heaven. . . . The foundations of America are spiritual. That must never be forgotten nor doubted." (TETB, p. 569.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />And in October conference of 1987, President Benson cites a quote from Charles Pinckney, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from South Carolina, in which Mr. Pinckney says: ". . . The superintending hand of Providence . . . miraculously carried us through the war. . . ." (General Conference, October 1987; <em style="styleDocument: [object]">Ensign</em>, November 1987, p. 5.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />These Founding Fathers recognized the hand of God in their affairs as they fought for independence and drafted the document we revere as coming from God. As James Madison was trying to influence the state of New York to ratify the new Constitution, he wrote: "It is impossible for a man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution. (<em>The Federalist</em>, No. 37.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This new-found nation was in serious trouble. There were disputes between the states, civil unrest, financial problems, and a host of other serious concerns to the leaders of America. The charter for the new nation, the Articles of Confederation, had weaknesses that needed attention. To save the nation, delegates from the various states gathered to find the remedies.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />James Madison, considered the Father of the Constitution, had a plan; others also had their worthy ideas. During this Constitutional Convention, the delegates argued and fought over most any little item. The convention was about to go down as a disaster. On June 28, 1787, as the quarreling persisted, Benjamin Franklin, the eldest delegate of the convention, addressed the president of the convention, George Washington, and the other delegates. It has become his most famous speech:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Mr. President,<br />"The small progress we have made . . . is, methinks, a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding. In this situation of this assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard — and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a super-intending Providence in our favor. . . . And have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?<br />"I have lived, Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that, without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little, partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, or conquest.<br />"I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of heaven and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be required to officiate in that service." (<em>The Real Benjamin Franklin</em>, pp. 258-259; <em>America: To Pray or Not To Pray</em>, p. 15, from James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 209-210.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The result of this speech to the delegates resulted in serious prayer and contemplation by the members of the convention — the rebuke began three days of prayer and church attendance. Reflecting on the events, after the delegates reassembled, Jonathan Dayton, one of the delegates, said, "Every Unfriendly feeling had been expelled, and a spirit of reconciliation had been cultivated." (Quoted in America: <em>To Pray or Not To Pray</em>, p. 16, from Stephen K. McDowell and Mark A. Beliles, <em>The Spirit of the Constitution</em>.) The result: the finest government charter ever presented to a people — the Constitution of the United States.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Our Founders Esteemed Lightly</span></em><br />Our Founding Fathers were highly religious men who trusted in the protection of a wise and loving Heavenly Father. But as the years pasted and we drew further away from those founders, we began to loose sight of the vision they once held. We, as a nation, also began to loose the religious faith they once knew — relying more on our own abilities than on the blessings of God. President McKay expressed his feeling along these lines in a statement he made in General Conference on Friday morning, April 4, 1952. In his address he said, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>"The founders of this great republic had faith in the economic and political welfare of this country because they had faith in God. Today it is not uncommon to note an apologetic attitude on the part of men when they refer to the need of God governing in the affairs of men."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It is the current practice in many of the college and high school history books to try to teach our youth that our Founding Fathers were "deists," and not believers in Jesus Christ as we, as Latter-day Saints, know they were. A deist is one who believes in "deism." Webster tells us that deism is:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"1) The belief that God exists and created the world but thereafter assumed no control over it or the lives of people.<br />"2) The belief that reason is sufficient to prove the existence of God, with the consequent rejection of revelation and authority." (<em>Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language</em>, 1964 edition.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />To give one example of this, this author chose one of his own American History text books from college, and in it — as the text speaks of the founders — we read the following:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Many interested themselves in deism, the rational religion of Enlightenment philosophers, especially those in France. The deists believed in God but considered Him a rather remote being who had created the universe, not an intimate presence who was concerned with human individuals and their sins. Franklin, Jefferson, and others among the Founding Fathers held deistic views." (Richard N. Current, T. Harry Williams, and Frank Freidel, <em>American History: A Survey</em>, p. 173.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Not only have they been labeled deists and non-believers in Christ, they have also been increasingly neglected in our history books as well. To this fact Ezra Taft Benson makes note:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"This Week Magazine recently surveyed history books issued before 1920 and compared them with those being used today, issued since 1920.<br />"Nathan Hale said, ‘I regret that I have but one life to give for my country,’ in eleven of the old textbooks, but in only one of the new textbooks.<br />"Patrick Henry said, ‘Give me liberty or give me death’ in twelve out of the fourteen earlier texts, but in only two out of the forty-five recent texts.<br />"But John Paul Jones set the record. He said, ‘I have not yet begun to fight,’ in nine of the old books and in none of the new books.<br />"Is this a challenge? Today's world! Today's world is warped. We must give direction to our young people." (TL, p. 201.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Among the neglect and misrepresentation of our founders are the false stories about them, such as their being immoral or power-hungry. Even Christopher Columbus has been charged with introducing syphilis into Europe from America. This is currently being taught in one of Utah's major universities where the professor believed it, because it is in a text book from which he teaches.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This information, as many good historians know, is false. This is a shameful philosophy perpetrated upon our American youth in order to steer them away from the truth regarding the faith and moral integrity of our forefathers and their belief in the divine intervention of God in the establishment of this nation. Not that all college professors are purposely deceiving our youth, but people do have a tendency to believe what they read. And everything we read is not truth.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Such stories were not being taught 75 years ago or before. Why now? Why are they taught today? Perhaps to discredit those God-fearing men, and in so doing, undermine the foundation of our great nation. Remember — when you have enough money you can buy almost anything. That includes publishing companies, as well as the news media.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Our Founders a Moral People</span></em><br />What did John Adams, our second president, say about the Constitution? He is quoted by President Benson in the general conference of October 1987: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (Quoted in CHB, p.23; General Conference, October 1987; the <em>Ensign</em>, November 1987, p. 6.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Could immoral men establish a moral and religious government? Can "a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit?" (Luke 6:43-45; Matt. 7:15-20.) No it cannot! Whatever other faults they possessed as mortals, they were not immoral. These were men of principled integrity and religious devotion.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This devotion is pointed out in the case of our first President, George Washington. In Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, of the Constitution, will be found the oath of office for the President of the United States. Dr. Cleon Skousen, one of our nation’s best-learned men on the government of this country, wrote about George Washington and what happened when he took the oath of office for the first time: "It is interesting that when George Washington placed his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office, he added the words, "So help me God!" Each President followed this example afterward, and in 1862, by an act of Congress, it was incorporated into the oath as an official part of the ceremony." (<em>The Making of America</em>, p. 538.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Not only was George Washington a great general and President, but he was also very modest and a great Christian. This is pointed out in the following: When the gathering of delegates from differing states convened for the Constitutional Convention on May 25, 1787, they immediately and unanimously voted and chose George Washington to be its presiding officer. After having been "conducted to the Chair," George Washington "lamented his want of better qualifications" for the position.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This was not the first time that Washington expressed his unworthiness, or lack of desire, for leadership and glory. After the Revolutionary War, he was approached by some of his officers with the proposition of setting up a monarchy with him as King George I, to be King of America. While begging his associates to wait with patience until the governmental system could be improved, he fervently condemned the plot and is purported to have said, "There is only one King and that is Jesus Christ."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Not only was Washington devoted to Christ but Thomas Jefferson also was well acquainted with Him. Has anyone ever heard of the "Jefferson Bible"? A few people have. What is the Jefferson Bible? It is the "Red-Letter" edition of the New Testament. Thomas Jefferson was the first to read the New Testament and underline, in RED, all of the words that Jesus spoke. The practice became popular and eventually publishers started printing "Red-Letter" editions of the New Testament.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Our Founders Chosen of God<br /></span></em>These great Founding Fathers, as we have briefly discussed, were chosen by God to do a great work. The Lord would not have chosen immoral people to lay the foundation of this great Republic. He would have chosen those with integrity, faith, and moral and religious principles. If they were otherwise, would they have appeared in the St. George Temple and requested their work to be done for them? Here is Wilford Woodruff’s testimony regarding this great event:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"I am going to bear my testimony . . . that those men who laid the foundation of this American government . . . were the best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits, not wicked men. General Washington and all the men that labored for the purpose were inspired of the Lord. . . .<br />"Every one of those men that signed the Declaration of Independence, with General Washington, called upon me, as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the Temple at St. George, two consecutive nights, and demanded at my hands that I should go forth and attend to the ordinances of the House of God for them. . . . Would those spirits have called upon me, as an Elder of Israel, to perform that work if they had not been noble spirits before God? They would not." (Quoted in <em>This Nation Shall Endure</em>, p. 18, from Conference Report, April 1898, pp. 89-90.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, had these sentiments to share about his brethren in that great work:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Whatever may be the judgment pronounced on the competency of the architects of the Constitution, or whatever may be the destiny of the edifice prepared by them, I feel it a duty to express my profound and solemn conviction, derived from my intimate opportunity of observing and appreciating the views of the Convention, collectively and individually, that there never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them, than were the members of the Federal Convention of 1787." (Quoted in <em>The Constitution A Heavenly Banner</em>, pp.14-15.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We have reviewed a few positive things in relation to our Founding Fathers. They were the type of people you would expect God would choose to do a great and holy work. We may have to stand before them someday and answer to them for what we have or have not done about the blood they gave, the sacrifices they endured, and the nation they raised up for our benefit and liberty. We will close this chapter with these words from another God-fearing President, Abraham Lincoln:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"God rules the world. It is the duty of nations as well as men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow . . . and to recognize the sublime truth that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord." (Quoted in GFC, p. 392.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />From the foregoing we may ask ourselves: Does this sound like we should be living in a nation where we leave God out of our affairs and out of our public education? Was this the intent of our inspired Founding Fathers, or is it the current philosophy of those who want to distort history and undermine the spiritual progress of this nation?</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-82152880500284884072009-02-07T08:06:00.001-08:002009-02-07T08:35:14.134-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Chapter 8<br /><span style="font-size:180%;">An Introduction to Our Sacred Documents<br /></span></span></strong><em style="styleDocument: [object]">"The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard;<br />and is founded in the wisdom of God.<br />It is a heavenly banner."<br />— Joseph Smith</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >W</span>e will now get into those two sacred documents that our Founding Fathers so devotedly created and cherished. No other nation has had such inspired men to direct their destiny as this one. The documents, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States, stand as monuments to the men and women who sacrificed their all for the sake of liberty. We are told by President David O. McKay that they are involved "primarily" with the "freedom of the individual," and that they are "immortal." In context he says:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The two most important documents affecting the destiny of America are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Both of these inspired, immortal papers relate primarily to the freedom of the individual. Founded upon that principle of free enterprise fostered by these documents, the United States of America, in less than two centuries, has achieved a greatness that far exceeds that of any other country in the world." (CR, October 1966, p. 5.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In the statement above, President McKay spoke of "free enterprise." To understand a little better the purpose of government and how it relates to free enterprise, President Benson gives us a glimpse of how a government might come about:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"In order for people to prosper, they cannot afford to spend their time constantly guarding family, fields, and property against attack and theft, so they join together with their neighbors and hire a sheriff. At this precise moment, government is born. The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only what they had a right to do for themselves — nothing more. Quoting from Bastiat: ‘If every person has the right to defend — even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right.’<br />"The proper function of government, then, is limited to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft, and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute money or property nor to force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by the people. No individual possesses the power to take another’s wealth or to force others to do good, so no government has the right to do such things either. The creature cannot exceed the creator." (CHB, pp. 8-9.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Declaration of Independence<br /></span></em>The appropriate title of the "Declaration of Independence" is "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." Notice that the "u" in united is a small letter. This signifies that the states were "united" in their declaration for independence — not that they were called the "United States." The states were independent, but united in their effort.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In this declaration, Thomas Jefferson penned these famous words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Frederic Bastiat was quoted earlier by President Benson. Bastiat, a French economist, statesman, and author, studied the socialist fallacy and, in 1850, wrote a little book entitled, The Law. It is based on eternal truths and has been read for over a century. Our Prophet, President Ezra Taft Benson, has often quoted from its pages. Its arguments against socialism are equally valid today. Mr. Bastiat phrased his feeling about liberty very succinctly:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.<br />"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." (<em>The Law</em>, p. 6.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Liberty was the overriding principle our founders sought. The declaration was a series of 27 grievances against King George, III, of England because of his repressive measures. It was time to do something about it since the King paid no heed to the request from America. John Adams, when the state delegates were assembled and adopted the Declaration of Independence, said,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, I give my hand and my heart to this vote. It is true, indeed, that in the beginning we aimed not at independence. but there’s a Divinity that shapes our ends. . . . Why, then, should we defer the Declaration? . . . You and I, indeed, may rue it. We may not live to see the time when this Declaration shall be made good. We may die; die Colonists, die slaves, die, it may be, ignominiously and on the scaffold.<br />"Be it so. Be it so.<br />"If it be the pleasure of Heaven that my country shall require the poor offering of my life, the victim shall be ready. . . . But while I do live, let me have a country, or at least the hope of a country, and that a free country.<br />"But whatever may be our fate, be assured . . . that this Declaration will stand. It may cost treasure, and it may cost blood, but it will stand and it will richly compensate for both.<br />"Through the thick gloom of the present, I see the brightness of the future as the sun in heaven. We shall make this a glorious, an immortal day. When we are in our graves, our children will honor it. They will celebrate it with thanksgiving, with festivity, with bonfires, and illuminations. . .<br />"Before God, I believe the hour is come. My judgment approves this measure, and my whole heart is in it. All that I have, and all that I am, and all that I hope, in this life, I am now ready here to stake upon it; and I leave off as I began, that live or die, survive or perish, I am for the Declaration. It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God it shall be my dying sentiment. Independence now, and Independence forever." (Quoted in CHB, p. 31-33.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Explanations on the Declaration<br /></span></em>In the Declaration of Independence, as published in this book, the reader will find a number (within parentheses) at the beginning of a clause which represents one of the 27 complaints the founders had against King George, III. This numbering is not part of the original document.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We, in this nation, are right back where our forefathers were with King George. Again, we are fighting for the same causes — not with a foreign nation, this time, but with our own.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Constitution</span></em><br />Eleven years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence came the Constitution of the United States. In most books where The Constitution is presented, it is usually relegated to an appendix as an afterthought. Here it is offered in the body of the text for serious consideration and study. It may be good to keep in mind the question, "If we do not know what is in the Constitution how do we know if a law is constitutional, unconstitutional, or non-constitutional?" Should we take it for granted?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The purpose of this book is to show, in part, what has happened to our rights because we have taken the Constitution for granted and left it in the hands of those who were supposed to safeguard its principles and our liberties, but have not. Another purpose is to not only establish the fact of secret combinations in the world, but to show what effect those conspiracies have had on the Constitution.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As we become well acquainted with the Doctrine and Covenants, we begin to understand why God established this Constitution. It was for the purpose of protecting the agency He has given to us. We must realize and have it firmly planted within our souls that Lucifer — Satan, the devil himself, the founder of secret combinations, conspiracies, and the great and abominable church — wants to destroy the Constitution for the purpose of taking away our liberties.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Because many of us have not come to this realization, we have failed, to a great extent, to fully understand the real meaning of agency, and have therefore neglected our duty in regard to this sacred document. President David O. McKay said to the saints, ". . . There has been an alarming increase in the abandoning of the ideals that constitute the foundation of the Constitution of the United States. . . ." (Quoted in CR, October 1966, p. 120.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">As Good as It Can Be<br /></span></em>Perhaps a reason many have abandoned this document is because it is popular to teach its weaknesses rather than its strengths. The Constitution, although an inspired document, does not mean that it is perfect. It is only as perfect as man, in his weaknesses, can make it. Brigham Young pointed this out when he said, "I repeat that the Constitution, laws, and institutions of our Government are as good as can be, with the intelligence now possessed by the people." (<em>Journal of Discourses</em>, 6:344.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>But, because it is not perfect, it does not mean the document was not inspired. Take for example Nephi’s statement in regard to the Book of Mormon: "Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself." (1 Ne. 19:6.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Likewise, let’s hear what Moroni said, "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, . . ." (Mormon 9:31.) He also said, "And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these." (Morm. 8:12.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />That same promise can hold true to this great and inspired Constitution. Whoever receives it "and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it," can receive an understanding of it and know the minds of our Founding Fathers and the will of the Lord in its creation.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">What Is in It?<br /></span></em>The Constitution of the United States was created and adopted "to form a more perfect union" among the different states. This was done by a combination of the different states for the purpose of protecting themselves, and for their mutual pursuit of happiness.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />There had already been a union created and the Articles of Confederation was the charter for that union. However, it was not a very stable document and in these articles were many weaknesses. So to create a stronger nation the Founding Fathers convened an assembly to rectify the problems and to help establish "a more perfect union" of states.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Constitution consists of a preamble and seven separate articles. The Preamble states the purpose of the Constitution and shows that the people are to hold the power over the government, not the other way around. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The first article deals with the legislative department, the "Congress of the United States" — the House of Representatives and the Senate.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The second article deals with the executive department, the "President of the United States of America."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The third article involves the judicial department, the "Supreme Court," and other "inferior courts."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The fourth article relates to the states and their alliance with other states, the national government, and the citizens. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The fifth article discusses how the Constitution can be amended.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The sixth article covers several miscellaneous items.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The seventh, the last, explains the process for the ratification of the Constitution.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">A Document of Agency<br /></span></em>The Founding Fathers, when they forged the Constitution, did not leave us with a document that tied our hands. They also included elements of "free agency" therein — provisions so man could make choices. Some of these provisions that God gave us to see how we will exercise our agency, involve: contracts, treaties, and amendments (These three items will be covered in later chapters).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Within these three provisions they, as the Lord would have done, left opportunities for us to make decisions and decide what we will do with the opportunities afforded us. If the reader will refer back to the sub-heading, "Agency Given On Earth," in Chapter 2, he will see that God gave man options in exercising his agency after God gave him life. After God gave this nation life, He wisely established this Constitution with some provision for man to exercise his agency.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The questions might have been: "How will man utilize these provisions?" "Will he bind himself into servitude through the obligations of contracts?" "Will he involve himself with treaties that will supersede the Constitution?" or, "Will he introduce amendments to the document which will nullify his liberties?" This, to the author, is an example of the inspiration under which this "Heavenly Banner" was created — to make man free to be free, or free to place himself into bondage.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In our study of the Constitution and its accompanying Articles of Amendments, we will explore how well "We The People" have exercised these options in protecting our liberties.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Explanations on the Constitution<br /></span></em>The Constitution as presented in the text of this book is as it was written, as far as this author can find, even to the spelling. The modifications in bold italics represent passages which have been changed, eliminated, or nullified — this is not part of the original text — the exception to this is the bolding of titles, heading, and the first three words of the Preamble — they are modified for emphasis only.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The parenthetical notations at the ends of clauses in the document are for reference to the respective articles in The Federalist papers. This will be handy for the personal study of the document and The Federalist papers themselves. These papers include the writings of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. The purpose of the papers was to help explain many of the clauses and principles found in the Constitution.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />An example for The Federalist paper Number 78 will be noted: (Fed. No. 78). These references, as placed herein, are not part of the original Constitution but are in keeping with President Ezra Taft Benson’s counsel to read The Federalist papers. (General Conference, October 1987; <em>The Ensign</em>, November 1987, p. 7.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />For further enhancement in the study of the Constitution and The Federalist papers, Clinton Rossiter made the following remarks in his edition of the papers: "Those readers who do not have the energy and fixed purpose to make their way through the whole of The Federalist may wish to know that, by common consent of learned opinion, the following numbers are the cream of the eighty-five papers: 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 23, 37, 39, 47, 48, 49, 51, 62, 63, 70, 78, 84, 85 (ten by Hamilton, ten by Madison, and one by Jay)." (The Federalist, p. xvii.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />There is no substitute for reading and studying the Constitution in order to get an understanding of what it contains. For the serious student, it should be approached as one would study the scriptures, that is, with faith and prayer. When this is done with the true intent of knowing and understanding this inspired work, the Spirit of God will help teach and testify of its meaning and divine origin.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The student of the Constitution should do all he can to search out the writings and statements of authorities on the subject and weigh them against the dictates of the Spirit. And, in this search, no greater authorities exist than our Founding Fathers, themselves, and the scriptures. To help facilitate this approach there are two good books on the subject. They are both by W. Cleon Skousen: The Making of America and The Five Thousand Year Leap. He goes into the Constitution clause-by-clause, and also identifies and discusses the 28 basic principles on which our nation was founded.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Bill of Rights<br /></span></em>The term, "Bill of Rights," is the common and popular name given to the first ten Articles of Amendments. These first Ten Amendments were passed by Congress, September 25, 1789, and ratified by three-fourths of the states, December 15, 1791. They took effect on the 15th of December, 1791. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The driving motive behind the Bill of Rights was the conviction, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, that rights came from God and not from man or man’s government. The main contributor to the Bill of Rights was George Mason. Mason was a close friend to George Washington and very influential in governmental affairs. In 1776 he drew up the Virginia Constitution along with the popular Bill of Rights for that State.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Originally, the first ten Articles of Amendments — Bill of Rights — had a three paragraph preamble. In most publications of this document the preamble is not published; most Americans do not know it exists.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In that preamble it states, "that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added," to the Constitution. By such a statement it tells us what the Constitution is: It is a series of "Declaratory" and "Restrictive" clauses. The amendments to it were to add "further" clauses of the same nature.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Bill of Rights was much like the Constitution which it amended, it declared that which already existed, such as the rights of the people and the states but put restrictions on the powers of government. However, starting with the eleventh article and thereafter, the amendments started limiting "We The People," and started giving more power to the government. Thomas Jefferson was very concerned about government using its vested powers to control people when he said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." (<em>The Making of America</em>, p. 570, from Adler, Mortimer J., et al., eds. The Annals of America, 4:65-66.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It is important to keep in mind that, if we don’t know what our rights are, it is the same as if we had no rights. Why? Because if we do not know what they are, how do we know when they are being violated? The following quote comes from the Pathfinder Magazine, June 27, 1951. It also expresses some of these same concerns:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"We have enjoyed the safeguards of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, whose word, until recently, we believed was immutable and inalienable. The protection, the confidence, the assurance provided by the Bill of Rights opened up the faucets of human ambition and let loose an avalanche of new incentives. Men were free to inquire, to reject, to choose, to risk, to create!<br />"Till twenty years ago, the Bill of Rights, generator of the genius of America, was taken for granted. For two decades now it has been under attack. . . . The plan seems to be to impose upon the people political control of their daily activities.<br />"Today the Bill of Rights is in jeopardy. If it could speak, I believe it would have this to say: ‘I am your Bill of Rights. Don’t take me for granted. As man brought me to life, I can be slain by men, and will be slain unless you, the plain people of America, organize to defend me.<br />"‘My existence depends on how vigilantly you watch those who administer your government. . . . Your question must always be: Not ‘what does a law give me, but what does it take away from me?’" (Statements on Communism and the Constitution of the United States, p. 38.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />One of the most pressing fears that existed in the hearts of some of the Founders was the impending threat to the liberty of future generations by law makers. To help curve this possibility, they placed in the First Amendment the phrase, "Congress shall make no law. . . ." However, as we examine the current issues closely, we find that our federal government has made laws contrary to the Bill of Rights. President Ezra Taft Benson has this to say about these amendments:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"I am hereby resolved that under no circumstances shall the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights be infringed. In particular I am opposed to any attempt on the part of the federal government to deny the people their right to bear arms, to worship, to pray when and where they choose, or to own and control private property." (TETB, p. 617.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Explanations on the Bill of Rights<br /></span></em>Originally there were seventeen articles proposed; these were narrowed down to twelve — the first two of the twelve, of which, were not ratified by the states. The remaining ten, now known as the Bill of Rights, were originally Articles Three through Twelve. They have been, however, renumbered as Articles One through Ten. A transcription of the original twelve articles is presented here. But, the reader must remember that the first two are not part of the Bill of Rights as we have them today. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This document is as it was written, as far as the author can find. The modifications in bold italics represent passages which have been changed, eliminated, or nullified — this is not part of the original text. The bracketing and parenthetical numbering of the first amendments, comprising the Bill of Rights, are also of this author’s doing to help the reader understand their relationship to one another.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Our Constitution Meant For a Republic<br /></span></em>We Latter-day Saints have a duty to this Constitution. In 1967, President McKay wrote:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"It is part of our ‘Mormon’ theology that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired; that our Republic came into existence through wise men raised up for that very purpose. We believe it is the duty of the members of the Church to see that this Republic is not subverted either by any sudden or constant erosion of those principles which gave this Nation its birth. (A Letter by President David O. McKay dated May 25, 1967.)<br />". . . there are some fundamental principles of this Republic which, like eternal truths, never get out-of-date; and which are applicable at all times to liberty-loving people. Such are the underlying principles of the Constitution, a document framed by patriotic, freedom-loving men, who we declare were inspired by the Lord." (<em>Man May Know For Himself</em>, 1967, pp. 345-346.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In his monumental speech at Brigham Young University, known as The Constitution A Heavenly Banner, President Benson said,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"It is now two hundred years since the Constitution was written. Have we been wise beneficiaries of the gift entrusted to us? Have we valued and protected the principles laid down by this great document?<br />"For the past two centuries, those who do not prize freedom have chipped away at every major clause of our Constitution until today we face a crisis of great dimensions." (CHB, p. 24-25.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />What type of government did our Founding Fathers establish? A republic, not a democracy as many would have us believe. To point this out we will hear what Benjamin Franklin said as he, and other delegates, filed out of Independence Hall at the end of the convention. Dr. Franklin was anxiously approached by a woman who asked:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>"Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?"<br />"A republic," said Franklin, "if you can keep it." (<em>The Real Benjamin Franklin</em>, p. 263.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]"> </div>With this little story we will end this chapter and take you into our sacred documents, the Declaraton of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-39690532178358366032009-02-07T07:35:00.000-08:002009-02-07T07:55:10.138-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Chapter 9</span></strong></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:180%;">Declaration of Independence</span></strong></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">In Congress, July 4, 1776</span></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;">T</span>he unanimous <span style="font-size:180%;">D</span>eclaration of the thirteen united <span style="font-size:180%;">S</span>tates of <span style="font-size:180%;">A</span>merica,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >W h e n</span> in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>(1) He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(2) He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(3) He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(4) He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(5) He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(6) He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(7) He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(8) He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(9) He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(10) He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(11) He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislature.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(12) He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(13) He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their acts of pretended legislation:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(14) For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(15) For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(16) For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(17) For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(18) For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(19) For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(20) For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(21) For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(22) For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(23) He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(24) He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(25) He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(26) He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">(27) He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>Nor have We been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We, therefore, the <strong>Representatives</strong> of the <strong>united States of America</strong>, in General Congress Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, <strong>Free and Independent States</strong>; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >John Hancock</span></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>SIGNERS OF THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION According to the Authenticated List printed by Order of Congress of January 18, 1777: included first, John Hancock, then fifty-four Delegates representing thirteen States: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and New Jersey.</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-77497065608769917712009-02-07T06:38:00.000-08:002009-02-17T05:17:27.149-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Chapter 10<br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >The Constitution of the United States of America<br /></span></span></strong>Adopted September 17,1787<br />Effective March 4, 1789</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >We the People</span> of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (<em>Federalist</em> No. 84). (<em>Common defence</em>: See chapter entitled "Treasonous Treaties - The Loss of Sovereignty," for explanations in the annulment of this clause.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >ARTICLE I</span></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>SECTION 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. (<em>All Legislative Powers</em>: See chapter entitled "The Three Branches of Government," to understanding the annulment of this clause.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. (Fed. No’s. 39, 45, 52, 53, 57).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five-Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. (Fed. No’s. 52, 60).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three. (Fed. No’s. 53-56, 58). (<em style="styleDocument: [object]">Direct Taxes</em>: The Sixteenth Amendment was an attempt to modify this clause regarding taxes based on personal income, which taxes are direct upon the person receiving the income. "Direct taxes" are to be apportioned upon the "several States" and not the individual.) (<em>Number of Representatives</em>: This temporary provision has now been fixed at 435, based on Congressional Apportionment, with each State having at least one Representative.) (<em>Free Persons</em>: This clause was superseded by the Fourteenth Amendment which changed this to "the whole number of persons in each State," instead of just "the whole number of free persons." American Indians are now subject to taxes. The "other persons" referred to were slaves, which was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment. (See notes on these two Amendments).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. (Fed. No. 79).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote. (Fed. No’s. 39, 45, 60, 62, 63). (<em>Chosen by the legislature thereof</em>: This clause was altered by the Seventeenth Amendment. The Senate is now chosen through direct election by the voters in each State.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies. (Fed. No’s. 59, 67). (<em>Choosing the Senate</em>: This was a temporary provision so that only one-third of the Senate would be selected in a given year.) (<em>Method of filling vacancies in the Senate</em>: This clause was modified by the Seventeenth Amendment which altered the method of filling vacancies in the Senate.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizens of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. (Fed. No. 62, 64).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. (Fed. No’s. 39, 65, 66, 79).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. (Fed. No’s. 59-61).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day. (<em>First Monday in December</em>: This clause was superseded by Amendment Twenty and was changed to read: "shall begin at noon on the third day of January.")</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either house during his Continuance in Office. (Fed. No. 55, 76).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. (Fed. No. 66).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. (Fed. No’s. 69, 73).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill. (Fed. No’s. 69, 73).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; (Fed. No’s. 30-36, 41, 56, 83). (<em>Provide for the common Defence</em>: See Chapter entitled "Treasonous Treaties - The Loss of Sovereignty," for the nullification of this Clause.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;<br />To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; (Fed. No’s. 42, 45, 56).<br />To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; (Fed. No. 32, 43).<br />To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; (Fed. No. 42, 44).<br />To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; (Fed. No. 42).<br />To establish Post Offices and post Roads; (Fed. No. 43).<br />To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (Fed. No. 43).<br />To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; (Fed. No. 81).<br />To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; (Fed. No. 42).<br />To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; (Fed. No. 41).<br />To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; (Fed. No’s. 23, 24, 26, 41).<br />To provide and maintain a Navy; (Fed. No. 41).<br />To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;<br />To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; (Fed. No. 29).<br />To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; (Fed. No’s. 29, 56). (<em>The Militia</em>: See chapter, "Treasonous Treaties - The Loss of Sovereignty," which shows how this clause is annulled.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock_Yards, and other needful Buildings; -And (Fed. No’s. 32, 43).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. (Fed. No’s. 29, 33, 44).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. (Fed. No. 42). (<em>Importation of Slaves</em>: On January 1, 1808, Congress forbid all further importation of slaves which made this paragraph outdated.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. (Fed. No’s. 83, 84).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. (Fed. No. 84).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (<em>Taxation</em>: Contrary to popular belief, The Sixteenth Amendment establishing the graduated income tax, DID NOT nullified this clause, according to numerous Federal Court decisions.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State. No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another. (Fed. No. 32).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State. (Fed. No’s. 39, 84).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. (Fed. No. 33, 44). (<em>Marque and Reprisal, and gold and silver Coin</em>: See chapter entitled, "Extra Thoughts On Our Constitution," for a discussion on these subjects.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress. (Fed. No’s. 32, 44).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;">ARTICLE II</span></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>SECTION 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows. (Fed. No’s. 39, 69-71, 84). (<em>Term of the President</em>: The President is limited to two terms by the Twenty-Second Amendment.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. (Fed. No’s. 39, 45, 68). (<em>Each State</em>: This was extended by the Twenty-Third Amendment to include the District of Columbia.) [The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President. (Fed. No. 66). (<em>Method of electing President and Vice President</em>: This whole paragraph is superseded by the Twelfth Amendment.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. (Fed. No. 64). (<em>Qualifications of the President</em>: This was a temporary provision since not all Presidents could have possibly been alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. (<em>Succession to the President upon his disability</em>: This paragraph was modified by the Twentieth and Twenty-Fifth Amendments, and by the Presidential Succession Act.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them. (Fed. No’s. 73, 79).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: - "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. (Fed. No’s. 69, 71, 74). (<em>Commander in Chief</em>: The President has assigned this command over to the United Nations. See chapter entitled "Treasonous Treaties - The Loss of Sovereignty," for explanation.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. (Fed. No’s. 42, 66, 69, 76. 77).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. (Fed. No. 67, 76).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. (Fed. No’s. 42, 69, 77, 79).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. (Fed. No. 39, 69).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;">ARTICLE III</span></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. (Fed. No’s. 65, 78, 79, 81, 82).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State; — between Citizens of different States, — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. (Fed. No. 80). (<em>The liability of the states</em>: These clauses are restricted by the Eleventh Amendment which requires that any suits against a State by an individual or a foreign nation must be approved by that State and initiated in the courts of that State. This amendment now gives the States the ability to take excessive advantage of a citizen and protect the States from legal reprisal.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. (Fed. No. 81). </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. (Fed. No’s. 83, 84). (<em>Rules respecting trials</em>: The provisions in this paragraph were broadened in positive ways by the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. (Fed. No’s. 43, 84).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. (Fed. No’s. 43, 84).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;">ARTICLE IV</span></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the Public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. (Fed. No. 43).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. (Fed. No. 80).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labor, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due. (<em>Extradition of slaves</em>: This clause became outdated when it was superseded by the Thirteenth Amendment at the time slavery was abolished.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. (Fed. No. 43). (<em>Junction of two or more States</em>: See chapter entitled, "States Rights or Regionalism," for a discussion on how this clause has been nullified.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. (Fed. No. 43).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />SECTION 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. (Fed. No’s. 39, 43).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;">ARTICLE V</span></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it’s equal Suffrage in the Senate. (Fed. No’s. 39, 43, 85). (<em>Built-in amendment to-the-amendment clause</em>: This clause was a temporary provision and became obsolete in 1808 as provided by the same clause.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;">ARTICLE VI</span></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. (Fed. No. 43).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (Fed. No’s. 27, 33, 34, 39, 44).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (Fed. No’s. 27, 44). </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><span style="font-size:180%;">ARTICLE VII</span></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. (Fed. No’s. 39, 40, 43).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />DONE in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="right"><strong>Go WASHINGTON</strong>, <em>Presidt<br />and Deputy from Virginia</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="left">Attest: <strong>WILLIAM JACKSON</strong>, <em>Secretary </em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="left"><blockquote></blockquote>The Document was also signed by thirty-eight Delegates representing twelve states: Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennyslvania. Rhode Island abstained but signed later.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >Bill of Rights<br /></span><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >Congress</span> OF THE <span style="font-size:180%;">United States</span><br />begun and held at the City of New York, on<br />Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.</strong></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>T h e Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />R e s o l v e d , by the SENATE and HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring. That the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all, or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />A r t i c l e s in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the Original Constitution. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Article the first.....[Not Ratified]<br /></span>After the first enumeration required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Article the second.....[Not Ratified]<br /></span>No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Article the third.....(1st AMENDMENT) </span></strong></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Article the fourth.....(2nd AMENDMENT)</span></strong></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Article the fifth.....(3rd AMENDMENT)</span></strong></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Article the sixth.....(4th AMENDMENT)</span></strong></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Article the seventh.....(5th AMENDMENT)</span></strong></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Article the eighth.....(6th AMENDMENT)</span></strong></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Article the ninth.....(7th AMENDMENT)</span></strong></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re_examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Article the tenth.....(8th AMENDMENT)</span></strong></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">Excessive bail shall not lie required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Article the eleventh.....(9th AMENDMENT)</span></strong></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Article the twelfth.....(10th AMENDMENT)</span></strong></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.<br /></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><span style="font-size:180%;">ADDITIONAL ARTICLES of AMENDMENT to the<br />CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES</span></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><blockquote><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"></strong></blockquote>ARTICLE XI<br />11th AMENDMENT<br /></strong>Ratified February 7, 1795</div><blockquote style="styleDocument: [object]"></blockquote><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong>ARTICLE XII<br />12th AMENDMENT<br /></strong>Ratified July 27, 1804 </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vic-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. (<em>12th Amendment</em>: This clause has been superseded by section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong>ARTICLE XIII<br />13th AMENDMENT<br /></strong>Ratified December 6,1865</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong>ARTICLE XIV<br />14th AMENDMENT</strong><br />Ratified July 9, 1868</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong>ARTICLE XV<br />15th AMENDMENT<br /></strong>Ratified February 3, 1870 </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong>ARTICLE XVI<br />16th AMENDMENT<br /></strong>Ratified February 3, 1913 </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong>ARTICLE XVII<br />17th AMENDMENT</strong><br />Ratified April 8, 1913 </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong>ARTICLE XVIII<br />18th AMENDMENT</strong><br />Ratified January 16, 1919 </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article, the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by Congress. (<em>18th. Amendment</em>: This Amendment, which established prohibition, was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment, December 5, 1933.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong>ARTICLE XIX<br />19th AMENDMENT</strong><br />Ratified August 18, 1920</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any States on account of sex. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong>ARTICLE XX<br />20th AMENDMENT<br /></strong>Ratified January 23, 1933</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice-President shall end at noon on the twentieth day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the third day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the third day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died, the Vice-President-elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice-President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President-elect nor a Vice-President-elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice-President shall have qualified. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice0-President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong>ARTICLE XXI<br />21st AMENDMENT<br /></strong>Ratified December 5, 1933 </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong>ARTICLE XXII<br />22nd AMENDMENT<br /></strong>Ratified February 27, 1951</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong>ARTICLE XXIII<br />23rd AMENDMENT</strong><br />Ratified March 29, 1961</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 1. The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the district and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong>ARTICLE XXIV<br />24th AMENDMENT</strong><br />Ratified January 23, 1964 </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br />Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.<br /><br /><strong>ARTICLE XXV<br />25th AMENDMENT<br /></strong>Ratified February 10, 1967</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong>ARTICLE XXVI<br />26th AMENDMENT<br /></strong>Ratified July 1, 1971</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-89659507208862831362009-02-06T07:20:00.000-08:002009-02-06T07:33:32.889-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Chapter 11<br /><span style="font-size:180%;">Our Government — Democracy or Republic?<br /></span></span></strong>At the conclusion of the Convention<br />Benjamin Franklin was asked,<br /><em>"What have you wrought?" He answered,<br />". . . a Republic, if you can keep it."</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >I</span>n this section we will explore, briefly, the ideas expressed in many of the common forms of government. However, the real purpose is to show the difference between the democratic form of government which most Americans believe this government was founded upon, and the republican form of government which the government was actually founded upon.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The forms of government discussed here are listed below in alphabetical order. They will be examined in the same order as listed. Special attention, however, will be given to the topics of "Democracy" and "Republic," which will be explored at the end of this section, and in more depth than the others. The reason for this is to show that our Founding Fathers did not establish this American form of government on the principles of democracy but on republican principles. In actuality, our form of government is a blend of both and can be rightly called a "Democratic Republic," although, the emphasis should be placed on republic.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Forms of Government<br /></span></em>ANARCHY: Governed by no person or organization. Absolute individual liberty but absolute disorder.<br />ARISTO-DEMOCRACY: Governed by divided power.<br />DEMOCRACY: Governed by the majority. The law restricts the people.<br />DICTATORSHIP: Governed by one person.<br />FEDERAL: Governed by the States who created the government.<br />MONARCHY: Governed by a King or Queen, or both together.<br />OLIGARCHY: Governed by a few or minority.<br />REPUBLIC: Governed by representatives and based on written law. The law restricts the government.<br />SOCIALISM: Governed by control of all people and all things.<br />THEOCRACY: Governed by God.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Anarchy<br /></span></em>"The absence of all political government; by extension, Confusion in government. The absence of government; a state of society where there is no law or supreme power." (<em>Bouvier’s</em>)<br />"The complete absence of government and law. Political disorder and violence. General disorder from lack of government." (<em>Webster’s</em>)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Undisciplined and irresponsible people who wish to destroy government are the ones who create this non-governmental entity. An anarchy will eventually be converted to either a dictatorship, monarchy, or oligarchy, due to one or more people who seek power for selfish interests. There are some cases when the one assuming power has honorable intent and is genuinely concerned for the liberty and welfare of the people. But, this may be considered unusual due to the selfish and proud nature of most men.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Aristo-Democracy</span></em><br />"A form of government where the power is divided between the more powerful men of the nation and the people." (<em>Bouvier’s</em>)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />An example might be the United States federal government. We have elected officials intimidated by a few special interest people and groups (those who really have the power and make the policies) as we have already discover in this work. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Democracy<br /></span></em>"That form of government in which the people rule. . . . But the multitude cannot actually rule: an unorganic democracy, therefore, one that is not founded upon a number of institutions each endowed with a degree of self-government, naturally becomes a one-man government. The basis of the democracy is equality, as that of the aristocracy is privilege; but equality of itself is no guarantee for liberty, nor does equality constitute liberty. Absolute democracies existed in antiquity and the middle ages; they have never endured for any length of time. On their character, Aristotle’s Politics may be read to the greatest advantage. Lieber, in his Civil Liberty, dwells at length on the fact that mere equality, without institutions of various kinds, is adverse to self-government; and history shows that absolute democracy is anything rather than a convertible term for liberty." (<em>Bouvier’s</em>)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">"Majority rule. Government by the people. Political and social equality in general; belief in this." (<em>Webster’s</em>)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In this form of government, the people, in most cases are led to believe that they are in control of the government, when in reality, it is a dictatorship or an oligarchy. It is traditionally controlled by a few people with special interest. A fuller discussion on the topic of democracy will follow towards the end of this chapter.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Dictatorship<br /></span></em>"In Roman Law: A magistrate at Rome invested with absolute power. His office continued but for six months." (<em>Bouvier’s</em>)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">"One who dictates. . .unlimited powers of government; an absolute ruler." (<em>Webster’s</em>)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In a dictatorship the governmental power is absolute and the legislature rests in a single person. This power is usually despotic or tyrannical but there have been instances when some dictators have been known to be benevolent.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Federal<br /></span></em>"A term commonly used to express a league or compact between two or more states. . . . A union or confederation of sovereign states, created either by treaty, or by the mutual adoption of a federal constitution. . . ." (<em>Bouvier’s</em>)<br />"Of or formed by a compact; specifically, designating or of a union of states, groups, etc. in which each member agrees to subordinate its power to that of the central authority in common affairs." (<em>Webster’s</em>)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The creation of a federal form of government helps present to the world the appearance of a single state, while the individual states still retain the rights and power of internal regulation and administration for the respective local self-governments. There is no real lessening of sovereignty involved except the waiving of certain powers in conducting independent relations with foreign nations.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Monarchy<br /></span></em>"That government which is ruled, really or theoretically, by one man, who is wholly set apart from all other members of the state. . . . According to the etymology of the word, monarchy is that government in which one person rules supreme — alone." (<em>Bouvier’s</em>)<br />"A government or state headed by a king, queen, or emperor: called absolute (or despotic) when there is no limitation on the monarch’s power, constitutional (limited) when there is such limitation. A hereditary sovereign." (<em>Webster’s</em>)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Usually with a monarchy there is a genetic continuing of succession in the government which can aid in the repression of dangerous and aspiring individuals seeking power. They can often be tyrannical and have a desire for extravagance and an expansion of the kingdom which can lead to greed, military domination and wars. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Oligarchy<br /></span></em>"The government of a few. A name given to designate the power which a few citizens of a state have usurped, which ought by the constitution to reside in the people. Among the Romans, the government degenerated several times into an oligarchy. . . ." (<em>Bouvier’s</em>)<br />"Government in which power is in the hands of a few." (<em>Webster’s</em>)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This form of government can be as dangerous and as self-serving as a dictatorship or a monarchy. It can also be very compassionate. But it mostly retaining power within the system, without giving the people much voice in government.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Republic</span></em><br />"A commonwealth; that form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independently of its form of government." (<em>Bouvier’s</em>)<br />"A state or nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives elected directly or indirectly, by them and responsible to them." (<em>Webster’s</em>)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Republican Government<br /></span></em>"A government in the republican form; a government of the people; a government by representatives chosen by the people . . . a republican form of government in the constitution means a government in which the people choose, directly or indirectly, the executive. A blending of legislative and executive powers in the same official does not violate the constitutional guarantee." (<em>Bouvier’s</em>)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Where does the power rest in a republican form of government? It rests in a written constitution. Here is where power is limited and the people can retain maximum power to themselves. We will examine this form of government more completely at the end of this chapter.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Socialism<br /></span></em>"Any theory or system of social organization which would abolish, entirely or in great part, the individual effort and competition on which modern society rests, and substitute for it co-operative action, would introduce a more perfect and equal distribution of the products of labor, and would make land and capital, as the instruments and means of production, the joint possession of the members of the community." (<em>Bouvier’s</em>)<br />"Ownership of exploitable capital and means of production by the government, not by individuals or by private enterprise." (<em>Webster’s</em>)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Elder Ezra Taft Benson said, speaking of socialism: "It is simply governmental ownership and management of the essential means for production and distribution of goods." (<em>The Red Carpet</em>, p. 66.) This principle of socialism was discussed in previous chapter more fully.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Theocracy<br /></span></em>"A species of government which claims to be immediately directed by God." (<em>Bouvier’s</em>)<br />"Literally, the rule of a state by God or a god. Government of priests claiming to rule with divine authority." (<em>Webster’s</em>)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />There are various forms of government. As we examine them we find that there are really only two. These two are: 1) A theocracy, or rule by God; it is not man who decides on this form of government, it is God. 2) All the rest, which are ruled by man. More will be said about theocracies towards the end of this book.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Democracy — Spectacles of Turbulence<br /></span></em>In May, of 1787, Edmund Randolph of Virginia told the assembled members of the Constitutional Convention that the purpose they had come together was "to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of democracy. . . ." (<em>The New American</em>, June 30, 1986, p. 4.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In <em>The Federalist Papers</em>, No. 10, James Madison declared a similar belief in which he said,". . . democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Samuel Adams was well know as an outspoken man and one who did not run from a fight. On this critical issue he is quoted as saying: "Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide." (Ibid.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />These are pretty strong words from some of our founders regarding a form of government we pride ourselves in possessing. Could it be that they were wrong; or could it be that we have been led to believe as we do, and that they were right? Lets examine the issue further.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Probably one of our more liberal founders, but still an ardent supporter of freedom and independent liberty, was Alexander Hamilton. He had these words on the subject:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity. (Ibid.)<br />"We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy (or some other form of dictatorship)." (<em>The Unseen Hand</em>, p. 35.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Here we have it. A republican government, not a democracy, was what the founders wanted. The difference was very clear in the days of 1787. The people, and the Founding Fathers in particular, knew that there was a vast difference in a republican and democratic government. The people in this nation knew the distinction until about 1900, when shortly thereafter we started hearing the cry from President Woodrow Wilson, "Make the world safe for democracy." John Dewey’s influence on public education also helped establish this philosophy which was socialistic and scientifically based. From those points on, the American people have been led to believe what was not intended. John F. McManus said, "We sing the Battle Hymn of The Republic, not "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy." He also observed that, "Perhaps the most pervasive bit of misinformation loose in the land today is the belief that the United States is and always has been a democracy. It is not! When we pledge allegiance to our nation’s flag, we also pledge allegiance to ‘the Republic for which it stands.’" (<em>The Birch Log</em>, January 19, 1984.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />For those who are concerned about the subject, there seems to be a program of changing the publics views on the type of government we really were intended to possess. Let’s take a look at what may be going on without our knowledge. In the <em>United States Army Training Manual</em>, 1928, a definition of democracy is given:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy, attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights.<br />"Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequence.<br />"Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.<br />However, in the Soldier’s Guide, 1952, another definition or idea is presented: "Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our government will be organized and run — and that includes the Army, Navy and Air Force. The people do this by electing representatives, and these men and women then carry out the wishes of the people." (<em>The Unseen Hand</em>, p.34.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Why, may we ask, is there such a distinct difference in both definitions? Is someone trying to convince us that a democratic form of government is good for us even though our Founding Fathers have stated otherwise. The conclusion that the honest seeker comes to is that perhaps Satan is at work again.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />When people lie to you, they often get caught in their own trap. Look at the second definition given. It states ". . . the majority of the people decide. . .and that includes the Army, Navy and Air Force." Question: Do the military personal decide who will be their leaders and how they will be governed? Those who have been in the military know differently.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now let’s take a short quote from Karl Marx and his Communist Manifesto: "We have seen . . . that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy." (<em>Communist Manifesto</em>, Henry Regnery Company, 1954, pp. 35-36.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Why does he want to "win the battle of democracy" if it is good for us and bad for communism? Or, perhaps, is it really bad for us and good for communism?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />James Madison knew it was dangerous to the people. He said, "In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger!" (<em>The Unseen Hand</em>, p. 35; The Freeman, October 1981, p. 621.) That is why laws and amendments passed have to be passed by two-thirds or three-fourth vote instead of a simple majority, so that a simple majority cannot take control of government. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This was one of the objections to the ratification of the Constitution and in particular Article Five of the document. In the debates in Virginia during the Ratifying Convention (5-6 June 1788) a Mr. Lee of Westmorland gave some very convincing arguments in favor of a simple majority. He realized that if it took three-fourths to pass a law then it would only take one-fourth to defeat it. (<em>Encyclopedia of the American Constitution</em>, 1986, pp. 580-583.) When the issue is thoroughly studied and understood it will be discovered that it was intended that a minority could kill dangerous legislation instead of having a simple majority pass it. This was to protect the minority of the people from the power of the majority.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />One type of dangerous legislation that the people need to protect themselves from is that of improper and over taxation. This was a major issue that our colonists had with King George. During the times of George Washington there was a British professor named Alexander Fraser Tyler who had an understanding of this danger:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess (liberal gift) out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship." (<em>The Unseen Hand</em>, p. 36.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now, does this sound much like the fiscal problem we have in our government spending programs today? Finances have ever been and will ever be a major issue, if not the most important one, that the people have to consider. This is why our Congress, the representatives of the people, were to make financial laws. They were beholding to the people. But with the passing of the Seventeenth Amendment, the Senate now can propose spending legislation because they are chosen by the people and not the states. Cicero, the great Roman Political Philosopher once said, "A legislative majority may pass laws that contradict the natural law, but "these no more deserve to be called laws than the rules a band of robbers might pass in their assembly." (Quoted by Stephen Pratt in <em>Freedom in the 90's</em>, p. 5.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In this discussion on democracies, it has been found that their form of government is "incompatible with personal security." They "have ever been spectacles of turbulence." Their "very character was tyranny," "results in mobocracy." With them the "rights of the minority are in danger." Democracy "collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship," which may be the reason it is a form of government favored by socialistic communism. Oscar Wilde, a nineteenth -century author, penned this clever play-on words about the dangers of a democracy: "Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people." (<em>The New American</em>, June 30, 1986, p. 5.) John McManus makes the following assertion:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Democracy . . . is a system which allows a majority to rule with no brake on its activity other than whim. The majority may spring from all the people, or from the elected representatives of the people, or from appointed officials such as our nation’s supreme Court. If the majority is not subject to the restraint embodied in a fixed rule of law such as our nation’s Constitution, the rule of men quickly takes over. In short order, tyranny is the consequence, as history so clearly shows." (<em>The Birch Log</em>, January 19, 1984.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In his booklet entitled, The History of World Revolution, the Duke of Northumberland (1931), made the following observation about democracies: "The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise." (Ibid.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Note his wording, "new world tyranny." This sounds much like, "New World Order." It is the supposition of this book that the New World Order is a form of tyranny and a program for bondage inspired by Satan himself and that changing government from a republic to a democracy places us in his hands for his evil purposes.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It can be easily seen that our Founding Fathers never intended a democratic form of government. If they did they would have founded one and made reference to it. No where are such references found. To help make this point, Thomas Jefferson in his third inaugural address, referred several times to a republican form of government but did not refer to a democracy at any time. Also, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States or any of the original constitutions of our fifty states. Democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution but "Republican Form of Government" is. Lets read what it says in Article IV, Section 4 of this document: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We see then, that it is a "Republican Form of Government" that we are to be guaranteed, not a democracy. There is a difference between the two and Chief Justice John Marshall (U.S. Supreme Court, 1801-1835), knew the difference, and he expressed it in these words: "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." (Ibid.) And as Dr. Benjamin Rush, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, said, as he quoted a Swiss gentleman: "Democracy is the devil’s own government." (Quoted in <em>Building Faith With the Book of Mormon</em>. pp. 89-90.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Republic — Best of Man’s Governments<br /></span></em>It was President Woodrow Wilson who tooted the horn to the tune of, "Make the world safe for democracy." Others got on the same bandwagon and started playing the same song while the Battle Hymn of The Republic, began to be heard less and less.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In his talk, The Constitution A Heavenly Banner, which was later published in booklet form, President Ezra Taft Benson has this to say about the relationship of a representative-republican form of government and a democracy: "The principle of representation means that we have delegated to an elected official the power to represent us. The Constitution provides for both direct representation and indirect representation. Both forms of representation provide a tempering influence on pure democracy." (CHB, pp. 21-22.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As we have learned in our discussion on democracy, that form of government does need tempering. Alexander Hamilton once remarked, "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy." (The New American, June 30, 1986, p. 4.) As has been reviewed, democracies do contain extremes, turbulence, and are very unstable.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, "What have you wrought?" And he has been credited with answering, ". . . a Republic, if you can keep it." With this answer, Benjamin Franklin not only signified what form of government was created but also its importance. In Cleon Skousen’s excellent book on constitutional history, The Making of America, he points out that there are three kinds of republics:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"1. The ‘unitary’ republic is one in which all power is vested in the central government. Great Britain is a unitary republic with all power centered in the Parliament.<br />"2. A ‘confederation of states’ republic is one which grants very little power to the central government but reserves nearly all power in the local political units or the states. This is what happened under the American Articles of Confederation, which almost caused the states to lose the Revolutionary War. During the American Civil War, the Southern states also tried to use a ‘confederacy.’<br />"3. A people’s ‘constitutional’ republic is sometimes called a ‘federal’ republic or ‘democratic’ republic. This system is based on the supreme will of the people, which is expressed in a written constitution. It was invented by the American Founding Fathers. This American system divides power vertically and horizontally and assigns to each level of government those responsibilities which can be most efficiently and economically administered there. It proved to be the soundest system of government ever devised by man." (<em>The Making of America</em>, p. 265.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />One of the most popular of the Founding Fathers and author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, said that a republican form of government works best and that government should be divided among various levels. In a letter to Joseph C. Cabell, February 2, 1816, he wrote:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, law, police, and administration of which concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body." (GFG, p. 290; AEHDT, p. 134.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />James Madison, the one credited with the title of "Father of the Constitution," said that a republican government is the best of all governments and the most perfect. Lets read his words:<br />"No government of human device and human administration can be perfect; that . . . which is the least imperfect is therefore the best government; that the abuses of all other governments have led to the preference of republican government as the best of all governments, because the least imperfect. . . ."(PPNS, p. 111, from <em>The Complete Madison</em>, p. 49.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher, had much the same sentiments about its perfection and once wrote that, "The Republican form of government is the highest form of government; but because of this it requires the highest type of human nature - a type nowhere at present existing." (<em>The New American</em>, June 30, 1986, p. 4.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The second President of the LDS Church, Brigham Young, had a lot to say about our government and the fact that it is a republic. He had some very interesting observations in regard to the relationship of a theocracy and a republic. On one occasion he asked a question and then offered an answer to that same question: "What is a true Republican government? is easily answered. It is a government or institution that is perfect — perfect in its laws and ordinances, having for its object the perfection of mankind in righteousness." (JD, 7:10.) He then went on to say:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Can any temporal means be adopted to save them [inhabitants of the United States] from the vortex of ruin into which they are fast approaching — a doom which they never can avert without sincere repentance? Yes, there is seemingly a human policy, if adopted, that would snatch them from destruction. What is it? Let the people rise en masse to lay the foundation of a wholesome independent, free. . . . Republican government — a government which, if carried out, will be perfect in itself." (Ibid, p. 11.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, and at other times, said that he believed in preserving this true structure of government and that it was the true form of government for the preservation of liberties. His feelings were that the people, not the government, were the best ones suited to safeguard their own freedoms. As we put a few of these quotes together, we have the following: </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"I do, . . . with sincere zeal, wish an inviolable preservation of our present federal Constitution, according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the states, that in which it was advocated by its friends, and not that which its enemies apprehended . . . and I am not for transferring all the powers of the states to the general government, and all those of that government to the executive branch. (<em>The Real Thomas Jefferson</em>, p. 460.)<br />"Governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the elements of popular election and control in their composition; and believing, as I do, that the mass of citizens is the safest depository of their own rights, and especially that the evils flowing from the duperies [being duped] of the people are less injurious than those from the egoism of their agents, I am a friend to that composition of government which has in it the most of this ingredient. (Ibid, p. 608.)<br />"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property, and in their management. (Ibid, p. 609.)<br />"Modern times have the single advantage . . . of having discovered the only device by which [men’s equal] rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person but by representatives chosen by themselves. . . . (Ibid, p. 610.)<br />"From the moment that to preserve our rights a change of government became necessary, no doubt could be entertained that a republican form was most consonant with reason, with right, with the freedom of man, and with the character and situation of our fellow citizens. To the sincere spirit of republicanism are naturally associated the love of country [and] devotion to its liberty, its rights, and its honor. (Ibid, p. 607.)<br />"I conscientiously believe that governments founded in [republican principles] are more friendly to the happiness of the people at large, and especially of a people so capable of self-government as ours." (Ibid, p. 608.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Constitution of the United States is written law and is the basis of our republican form of government. President John Taylor, like his predecessor Brigham Young, spoke these words in the conference of October, 1872:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The government of the United States is what is called a republic. In a form of government of this kind the foundation of all law, power and authority is the voice or will of the people; that is the genius of the government. It is based upon a written constitution granting unto the legislature power to do thus and so, and to go no further; and while they who make and administer the laws confine themselves within the limits of that constitution, their acts are what is called constitutional. When they go beyond that, their acts are called unconstitutional, that is, they deprive the people of certain rights guaranteed to them by the written compact that they have entered into. . . ." (JD, 15:212.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />When our Founding Fathers established this republic, it was not their intentions that government should rule, nor the people themselves rule us. It was their intention to have the people, following biblical principles, rule themselves. It was also their intent that the Constitution and our republic, would protect the people’s rights to do so while putting restrictions on the government itself and any body of officials therein.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">In Conclusion</span></em><br />Democracies have been repeatedly tried throughout history without long-lasting success, as the serious student of governmental history can attest. Our Founding Fathers were as familiar with the weakness of the democratic form of government as they were with the serious drawbacks of a Monarchy.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In closing this discussion on forms of government, let’s quote a few more words of John F. McManus on this very important subject:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"In a republic, the law’s purpose must be not only to empower government to carry out its proper functions, but also to limit it strictly to just those functions. It follows necessarily that the law must prevent the people from destroying their own unalienable rights in a state of ignorance, confusion and passion — as did the people of Rome when demagogic leaders persuaded them to let the Roman republic be destroyed.<br />"Americans have been led away from the principles established at great cost by our nation’s founders. The result is an already massive and ever-growing central government — a looming tyranny from within. . . . This is a republic, not a democracy. Let’s keep it that way!" (<em>The Birch Log</em>, January 19, 1984.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Our Founding Fathers formed a distinctive government, one that utilized the representative aspects of a Republic. Emphatically and repeatedly, they emphasized that they had founded, not a democracy, but a Republic. To function as a democracy, we must abandon or ignore the Constitution.</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-59411338109876270602009-02-06T07:05:00.000-08:002009-02-06T07:19:41.405-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Chapter 12<br /><span style="font-size:180%;">Our Unalienable Rights<br /></span></span></strong><em style="styleDocument: [object]">"I . . . have given unto the children of men</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><em style="styleDocument: [object]">to be agents unto themselves."<br />— D&C 104:17<br />". . . they have become free forever . . .</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><em style="styleDocument: [object]">to act for themselves and not to be acted upon . . . ."<br />— 2 Nephi 2:26<br />"Stand fast therefore in the liberty</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><em style="styleDocument: [object]">wherewith Christ hath made us free,</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><em style="styleDocument: [object]">and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."<br />— Galatians 5:1</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >T</span>homas Jefferson wrote the following words in our great Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self_evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This is the most oft-quoted clause in the document. Jefferson is also quoted in President Benson’s book, The Constitution A Heavenly Banner, as saying: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" (CHB, p. 5.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The subject of rights, and the free exercise of these rights, was the whole foundation for the establishment of this nation. The Declaration of Independence declared these rights and the creation of the Constitution with its Bill of Rights was to protect them. Rights can be cataloged into various forms:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />1. Unalienable or Inalienable Rights — Rights granted by God and inherent in every man.<br />2. Divine Rights — Rights granted by a monarch’s inherited claim to rule.<br />3. Legal Right — Rights established or given by written law.<br />4. Human Rights — Rights established by humanity or society.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Who Gives Rights?<br /></span></em>Our legal rights, and human rights, are usually granted by dictators and tyrants and those despotic forms of governments that do not recognize God as the giver of rights. The following quotes will help establish the true nature of rights:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"RIGHT. A well-founded claim. . . . As rights precede government, so we find that now rights are acknowledged above governments and their states.<br />"A legal right, a constitutional right, means a right protected by the law, by the constitution; but government does not create the idea of right or original rights; it acknowledges them; just as government does not create property or values and money, it acknowledges and regulates them. If it were otherwise, the question would present itself, whence does government come? Whence does it derive its own right to create rights? . . . We would be consistently led to adopt the idea of a government deriving its authority to introduce and establish rights from a source wholly separate from human society and the ethical character of man, in the same manner in which we acknowledge revelation to come from a source not human." (Bouvier, p. 2961.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />True and unalienable rights were granted by God and not by man nor by government; for we are told that we are "endowed" by our "Creator with certain unalienable Rights." President Benson states, on page six of his book previously quoted, that:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Rights are either God-given as part of the divine plan, or they are granted by government as part of the political plan. Reason, necessity, tradition, and religious conviction all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights. If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government. I, for one, shall never accept that premise."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" were not the only unalienable rights of which our Founding Fathers were aware. Others existed then, and they exist now. The three mentioned in the Declaration of Independence were only a summation of a more extensive list that they desired to exercise. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>In his book, <em>The Five Thousand Year Leap</em> (pp. 125-126), W. Cleon Skousen lists some of those other rights. They are: The right </div><blockquote style="styleDocument: [object]"></blockquote><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">Of self-government,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">Of free conscience,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To make personal choices, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To choose a mate, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To beget one’s kind, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To privacy, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To provide nature’s necessities (air, food, water, clothing, shelter), </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To choose a profession, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To enjoy the fruits of one’s labors, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To improve one’s position through barter and sale, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To own, develop, and dispose of property, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To explore the natural resources of the earth, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To contrive and invent, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To contract, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To provide personal security, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To bear arms for self-defense, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To free speech, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To a free press, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To assemble, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To petition, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">To a fair trial, and the right </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">Of free association.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>This list of additional unalienable rights is by no means exhaustive. But it does point out that we were endowed by our Creator with many more rights than just the first three that were previously mentioned.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">What Is Liberty?<br /></span></em>There is a difference between liberties and rights. Where a right is a claim upon some quality of life, liberty is the freedom to posses that right or exercise that claim. For example: A person may have the liberty or freedom to injure another person in his life (kill), liberty (slavery), or property (steal), but he does not have the right to do so. Again, let’s turn to Bouvier:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"LIBERTY. (Lat. Liber, free; libertas, freedom, liberty). Freedom from restraint. The faculty of willing, and the power of doing what has been willed, without influence from without.<br />"Liberty, on its positive side, denotes the fullness of individual existence; on its negative side it denotes the necessary restraint on all, which is needed to promote the greatest possible amount of liberty for each." (Bouvier, p. 1964.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />When the Church was to be restored, the Lord needed a free environment in which His people could exercise their rights to worship without restraints. President Benson states:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Our Father in Heaven planned the coming forth of the Founding Fathers and their form of government as the necessary great prologue leading to the restoration of the gospel. Recall what our Savior Jesus Christ said nearly two thousand years ago when He visited this promised land: ‘For it is wisdom in the Father that they should be established in this land, and be set up as a free people by the power of the Father, that these things might come forth’ (3 Ne. 21:4). America, the land of liberty, was to be the Lord’s latter-day base of operations for His restored church." (CR, October 1987; <em>The Ensign</em>, November 1987, p. 4.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />So God’s purpose was for man to be free — free to exercise his agency with no restraints from others. Rights are free gifts from God. He, however, did not give man the right to take another man’s rights from him. Nor did He give man the right to give away his rights to another, though he may possess the liberty or freedom to do so.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Unalienable Rights<br /></span></em>Man cannot take our rights away from us unless we give him permission to do so. The wording, "unalienable" rights, means rights that cannot, or should not, have a lien placed upon them. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>In Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, we find the definition for lien: "LIEN. A hold or claim which one person has upon property of another as a security of some debt or charge. . . . A right to hold. . . . The right of retaining or continuing possession till the price is paid."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In the same dictionary we find the meaning of unalienable: "UNALIENABLE. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer . . . the natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable." (Bouvier, pp. 1978, 3350.) </div><blockquote style="styleDocument: [object]"></blockquote><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">And in Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 1693, we find the definition for the same word as: "UNALIENABLE. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred." It is noted that in Black’s, the term inalienable is used. In the same dictionary (p. 903) the definition for this word is: "INALIENABLE. Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another. . . ." These two terms, "unalienable" and "inalienable" are used interchangeably. However, the correct word is "un-a-lienable." </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Giving Jurisdiction Over Our Rights<br /></span></em>There are those that complain that such-and-such a law or act of government is "un-constitutional" and takes away our rights. When the law goes contrary to the provisions in the Constitution it may be considered, "un-constitutional." However, when we feel that a law or act takes away some of our rights and freedoms and those losses are the result of our entering into contractual agreements, then it is not "un-constitutional," it is "non-constitutional." It is "non-constitutional" because we have permitted ourselves to be placed "outside" of the God-given protection of the Constitution by putting our liberties in jeopardy through contracts, licenses, and treaties.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It is interesting that when God gave us our free agency, He also gave us a choice to see how we will use it; such as with Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit. The Constitution is no exception. It was devised and instituted under divine intervention, "that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment." It was "established . . . by the hands of wise men whom [He] raised up unto this very purpose. . . ." (D&C 101:77-80.) The Lord also said, in verse 79, "Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." However, the clause in Article I, Section 10, states, "No State shall enter into any. . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts," which opens the door for the citizens of the United States to "contract" their God-given rights away. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Our rights can be waived and superseded by contractual agreements. Since the government cannot impair the obligation of contracts that we sign ourselves into, then those contracts cannot be infringed upon, leaving us with no constitutional protection. We literally set ourselves outside of the protecting influence of the Constitution. Some of these contracts are: documents called "contracts," a license, and treaties.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Contracts — Liening Away Our Liberty<br /></span></em>We can lien away our rights and they can be superseded by contract. In Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (page 658), it tells us: "CONTRACT. An agreement between two or more parties to do or not to do a particular thing."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We find here that a contract is an "agreement between two or more parties." A contract binds those parties to one another in a way that neither of the parties is totally free until the provisions of the contract are satisfied. Therefore, when a contract in entered into, the parties are subject to one another. We are to be subject to only one sovereign, and He is God. By such contractual obligation we willfully give ourselves over to a form of slavery. When we do this, we must serve another power in addition to serving God. This is totally against God’s laws of liberty, even though we are free to exercise our agency in this manner. By so doing, we are not totally free to serve God because we are bound by contract to serve mammon. Since the government cannot impair the obligation of contracts that we sign ourselves into, then those contracts cannot be infringed upon, leaving us with no constitutional protection.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now what are some of these contracts we get involved in that nullify our free agency and put us into debt? A partial list of contracts is: bank notes for loans, bank signature cards, Social Security card applications, driver’s licenses, marriage licenses, insurance contracts, incorporation papers, written or oral agreements, various applications, etc. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Licensure — An Excuse to Control<br /></span></em>Now the term, license, was mentioned. Let’s find out what a license really is: "LICENSE. A permission. A right, given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal, or a tort or trespass." (Bouvier, p. 1974.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />A license is a contract wherein we have to abide by a particular set of rules in order to be granted the right to perform some act. We must note that the rights granted by a license are rights granted by man to man through contract and not rights necessarily granted by God, as the Declaration of Independence declares. We must also be aware that whoever grants rights to a person has the power to take the granted rights from that person. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />There is a very interesting story in regards to licensure behind one of the most famous quotes in American history. It involves an observation of one of our great patriots — it goes something like this:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In March of 1775, a young attorney, Patrick Henry was riding through a small town in Culpeper, Virginia. In the town square he saw, to his horror, a man tied to a whipping post. He had been scourged mercilessly, his back laid bare and bloody. "When they stopped beating him," said Patrick Henry, "I could see the bones of his rib cage. I turned to someone and asked what the man had done to deserve such a beating as this." The answer given was that the man was a minister and one of twelve men who refused to obtain a license. Three days later he died of continued scourging. It was this incident, shortly before the revolution, which inspired this young attorney from Virginia to speak his famous words that fanned the fires of liberty. These heated words were declared at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Williamsburg, Virginia:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. . . . There is no retreat, but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! . . Gentlemen may cry peace, peace — but there is no peace. . . . Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" (PPNS, pp. 498-99.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The license can become arbitrary control which gives permission to do something that is otherwise illegal without that license. Are contractors, professionals, and other business owners required to have a license? Such a requirement makes a crime out of something that is otherwise not a crime. A license turns a right into a privilege which can be rescinded.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />On the other hand, some things are illegal and a license is obtained by the individual or business to function beyond that which is lawful. Are banks, such as the Federal Reserve, licensed? Yes, they are. If they did not have a license, they would be doing something illegal. What might that be? Could it be the loaning of money for "usury" (interest), which is condemned in the Bible and by our Founding Fathers? This could be a subject the reader might find worth investigating.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Another thing that must be considered is that when we form a corporation, obtain a license, or enter into any other form of governmental contractual agreement, we become an arm of, and subject to, that government body that issues the license. And therefore, we are not free as we would suppose, but subject to the whims of that government. That government can dictate the terms, policies, teachings, activities, etc. of that person or entity under contract.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Prophet Joseph Smith, while expressing his feelings on some needed moral improvements in the city, covered the subject of licensing to the council of the City of Nauvoo. Said he: "I also spoke at length for the repeal of the ordinance of the city licensing merchants, hawkers, taverns, and ordinaries, desiring that this might be a free people, and enjoy equal rights and privileges, and the ordinances were repealed." (HC, 5:8.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />So we see that a license is an instrument that can be used to give another power over our liberties. Another document that will help nullify our liberty as will a license is a treaty. Let us now take a look at that.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Treaties — Entangling Alliances<br /></span></em>The second clause of Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says that the President, "shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties. . . ." And in Article VI, Section 2, we read: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. . ."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />One such treaty was the League of Nations Treaty of 1919. The U.S. Senate did not approve of this treaty because the obligations associated with it posed a serious threat to the Constitution. However, the Senate did not seriously study the United Nations Treaty and adopted it without much analysis. The United States, in consequence thereof, is now required to go to war without a declaration by Congress. This is exactly what happened in the cases of Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. This treaty is now leading the United States and the rest of the world into a "New World Order" of government — a government in which the voice of the people is not heard — a government which does not recognize Jesus Christ as Lord and King — a government which dictates its will upon all "kindreds, and tongues, and nations." (Rev., Chapter 13.) By such treaties we have authorized other nations and people to control our destinies instead of controlling our own. Is there any wonder that the second President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, said, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." (<em>The Five Thousand Year Leap</em>, p. 267, from Bergh, 3:321.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Incorporation — An Arm of the State<br /></span></em>Many incorporate and become corporations for various reasons. Two of the prevalent ones are: to receive protection from certain liabilities, and to receive special tax credits or considerations. However, by so incorporating, those corporations become subject to the laws and whims of government and are not totally free to exercise their affairs as they so choose. They literally become an arm of the state, controlled and dictated to by the state.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />When someone incorporates they are not only trying to serve themselves, their company, and perhaps their God, but they are also serving the state by adopting their laws, policies, and many principles which could be contrary to the interest of free men and of God’s will, even though some of those laws or policies may be legal. In reality, they are serving "two masters." The scriptures tell us, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon," and that a "house divided against itself shall not stand." (Matt. 6:22-24, 12:25; see also I Kgs. 18:21, James 1:8, Rev. 3:15-16, Moro. 7:16-17.) Although financial prosperity can come about by incorporating, yet often correct and Godly principles can be relegated to the state in the process.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">In Conclusion<br /></span></em>It is God who granted us our rights. We do not have the right, though we may have our freedom, to put a lien upon them and assign those rights over to someone else, government or otherwise. Let us read the words of President John Taylor on this most important matter:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"There are certain principles that belong to humanity outside of the Constitution, outside of the laws, outside of all the enactments and plans of man, among which is the right to live; God gave us the right and not man; no government gave it to us, and no government has a right to take it away from us. We have a right to liberty — that was a right that God gave to all men. . . ." (JD, 23:63.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />By engaging in such contracts, as just discussed, we have exercised the free agency God has given us, and by utilizing the clauses provided to test our character, we have put a lien upon our rights and have become enslaved. Can we then blame our loss of freedom on that government we have so contracted with? No! We cannot blame them. We are at fault. And we must suffer the consequences of our ignorance, and the judgments of a just God. It will be His judgments we will ultimately have to contend with, not those of governments.</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-9253562823836192662009-02-06T07:00:00.000-08:002009-02-06T07:04:34.738-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Chapter 13<br />Common Law — Civil Law<br /></span></strong><em>"The Common Law is, in simple terms,<br />just plain common sense and<br />has its roots in the Ten Commandments."<br />— Jury Handbook</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >W</span>ith this discussion we must be aware that all Christian civilized nations outside of the English-speaking nations, have a system of law that is based on the Roman civil law. That is a system of laws that has been long recognized in Europe and grew up from an absolute and centralized government. The type of mind that produces that sort of law is entirely different from the type of mind that exists in the freedom-loving English-speaking nations, and in particular, the United States of America.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Property, and the right to possess it, is the sole purpose of earthly laws. Property is not just a tangible thing only, such as land. Property, as represented in the 5th. Article of Amendments, also included the rights and actions a person can exercise. So when we speak of the right to property, we are speaking not only of the right to hold tangible or physical substance but the right to exercise our free agency or liberty. The following definition helps point out this fact:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"PROPERTY. The right and interest which a man has in lands and chattels to the exclusion of others. . . The sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe.<br />"As ordinarily used it means the things possessed, but it may include the right to use and enjoy it. The more comprehensive meaning is presumed to have been intended by the use of such a word in a constitution. . . . A vested right of action is property in the same sense that tangible things are property.<br />"Property, in the strict legal sense, is an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government, and in the ordinary sense, indicates the thing itself, rather than the rights attached to it. The term ‘property’ embraces every species of valuable right and interest. . . .<br />"In a strict legal sense, land is not property, but the subject of property. The term property, although in common parlance applied to a tract of land or a chattel, in its legal signification means only the right of the owner in relation to it. It denotes a right over a determinate thing. Property is the right of any person to possess, use, enjoy, and dispose of a thing." (<em>Bouvier's</em>, p. 2750.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Common Law<br /></span></em>With this short understanding of property, let’s get into a brief discussion on the type of law our forefathers intended that this nation should be under: that of "common law." Webster defines common law to be "The unwritten law of a country based on custom, usage, and the decisions of law courts, as contrasted with statute law." In The Making of America, Dr. W.Cleon Skousen says, "The Common law jury not only had power to ‘determine the facts,’ but it also had authority to ‘determine the law.’ It could determine what the law meant and whether or not the jury considered it constitutional. The jury could even ignore the law if it felt it would cause an injustice if applied to the case at hand." (<em>The Making of America</em>, p. 614.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />From Bouvier, we find the following definition as it pertains to this subject of common law mentioned in the 7th Article of Amendments:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"COMMON LAW. That system of law or form of the science of jurisprudence which has prevailed in England and in the United States of America, in contradistinction to other great systems, such as the roman or civil law.<br />"Those principles, usages, and rules of action applicable to the government and security of persons and of property, which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature.<br />"The law of any country, to denote that which is common to the whole country, in contradistinction to laws and customs of local application." (<em>Bouvier's</em>, p. 564.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Law of Equity</span></em><br />Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution states, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution. . . ." The law of equity is part of common law and, as can be seen below, can be very flexible and equitable, although it is easily encumbered:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"EQUITY. A branch of remedial justice by and through which relief is afforded to suitors in the courts of equity. In the broad sense in which this term is sometimes used it signifies natural justice. . . . In a more limited application, it denotes equal justice between contending parties. . . . One division of courts is into courts of law and courts of equity.<br />"The difference between the remedial justice of the courts of common law. . . . That administered by the courts of law is limited by the principles of the common law (which are to a great extent positive and inflexible), and especially by the nature and character of the process and pleadings, and of the judgments which those courts can render. . . . It is not uncommon, also, for cases to fall in those courts, from the fact that too few or too many persons have been joined as parties, or because the pleadings have not been framed with sufficient technical precision.<br />"The remedial process of the courts of equity, on the other hand, admits, and, generally, requires, that all persons having an interest shall be made parties, and makes a large allowance for amendments by summoning and discharging parties after the commencement of the suit. The pleadings are usually framed so as to present to the consideration of the court the whole case, with its possible legal rights, and all its equities, — that is, all the grounds upon which the suitor is or is not entitled to relief upon the principles of equity. . . . Its final process is varied so as to enable the courts to do that equitable justice between the parties which the case demands. . . ." (Ibid, p. 1059.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Admiralty-Maritime Jurisdiction</span></em><br />Once again from Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, we read, "The judicial Powers shall extend to all Cases . . . of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction." Admiralty-maritime is, however, not common law even though it is mentioned in the Constitution. Let us briefly explore this subject.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />After the fall of the Western empire of Rome it became necessary that some tribunal should be established that could hear and decide cases that came out of maritime commerce, or commerce upon the seas. Eventually, jurisdiction in most maritime states was transferred to a court of admiralty. This court had jurisdiction of all affairs transacted at sea, including prize. Because the captain of a ship was totally responsible with the goods and delivery of his mission, he possessed total control and law in regard to his ship and duty. In consequence of this, jurisdiction of all controversies of a private character that grew out of maritime employment and commerce were added. As nations grew more commercial in nature, this became their most important jurisdiction.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />From the maritime laws and courts of admiralty we have our current-day contractual agreements. These contractual agreements put the participants in a different court jurisdiction than common-law courts. Among them are insurance agreements. The captain of a ship would contract with a merchant to deliver goods. Due to the often high risks at sea, from such things as adverse weather conditions, piracy, wars, etc., he would also contract for the merchant to insure the ship, cargo, life, and things pertaining to his assignment.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"ADMIRALTY. A court which has a very extensive jurisdiction of maritime cases, civil and criminal.<br />"This ordnance (Code de Commerce, 1681) describes the jurisdiction of the admiralty courts as embracing all maritime contracts and torts arising from the building, equipment, and repairing of vessels, their manning and victualling, the government of their crews and their employment . . . and from . . . insurance. This was the general jurisdiction of the admiralty; it took all the consular jurisdiction which was strictly of a maritime nature." (Ibid, p. 139.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"MARITIME. Pertaining to navigation or commercial intercourse upon the seas, great lakes, and rivers.<br />"The word ‘maritime’ is also to have its appropriate meaning relating to the sea. The words ‘admiralty’ and ‘maritime,’ as they are used in the constitution and acts of congress, are by no means synonymous. . . . They were evidently both inserted to preclude a narrower construction which might be given to either word, had it been used alone. The English admiralty had jurisdiction of all cases arising beyond sea, although not maritime in their character. These are excluded by the use of both terms." (Ibid., p. 2091.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It was this problem with Kings George, III, — the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction he kept trying to impose on the colonists — along with his burdensome taxes and other oppressive measures, that brought about the Revolutionary War. We kicked King George and his laws of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction off our land. However, we have brought it back onto the land with our contracts and we have set ourselves outside the protection of the Constitution. It is as though we have dishonored our forefathers’ true intent. Have they shed their blood in vain? </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Our Flag Is Now a Civil Law Flag<br /></span></em>The flag of this nation was a Common Law flag with no gold fringe. The President of the United States, however, can designate a deviation from the regular flag, by executive order. In 1959, this was done. (4 U.S.C. Chapter 1, Section 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959 F.R. 6865.) Now, our flag is a military flag. It resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a gold-fringed border on three sides. (Pursuant to 4 U.S.C., Chapter 1, Section 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Such a military flag results in "jurisdictional" implication when flown. It represents admiralty jurisdiction, maritime law, and respective authority and powers; this is the jurisdiction and laws of contractual agreements and servitude. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />A flag with a gold fringe around it is a Civil-Law flag and not a Common-Law flag. Those who accept it accept the Civil Law and contractual jurisdiction and wave their rights to Common-Law proceedings. When we pledge allegiance to a flag with gold fringe, we are pledging allegiance to Civil Law and not the Common Law of our forefathers. It is certainly not the "Title of Liberty" spoken of by Captain Moroni. Here is what Bouvier has to say about the implication in jurisdiction in regard to flags: </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>"Under what is called international law "the law of the flag," a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts, and that they must either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agents at all." (Bouvier, pp. 799-800.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">An Interesting Thought<br /></span></em>While we are on the subject of admiralty jurisdiction and maritime law, which pertains to the sea or waters, let us consider a couple of scriptures in the light of the forgoing discussion. In Revelation, we read about the "great whore that sitteth upon many waters," (Rev. 17:1.) and that, "The waters . . . where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." (Rev. 17:15.) In the Book of Mormon, we read that the, "great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil . . . is the whore of all the earth . . . and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people." (1 Ne.14:9-11.) The laws of admiralty and maritime refer to that which pertains to the sea. Could the scriptural references just cited have reference to this same admiralty and maritime jurisdiction? Perhaps it might warrant more serious study on the question.</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-66253508586873912352009-02-06T06:46:00.000-08:002009-02-06T06:59:57.102-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Chapter 14<br /><span style="font-size:180%;">Treasonous Treaties — The Loss of Sovereignty<br /></span></span></strong><em>"All Treaties made . . .<br />shall be the supreme Law of the Land."<br />— Article VI, Clause 2</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >A</span>nother one of those provisions in the Constitution for exercising our agency, which can destroy our liberties, is that of treaties. Article VI, Clause 2, tells us, ". . . all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This is extremely important to remember because we have entered into a series of treaties, and by so doing, have rescinded our rights to appeal to the Constitution for protection from the encroachments of foreign entities. Treaties, in a very real sense, can place us in the hands of slave masters from foreign lands. Thomas Jefferson had serious apprehensions about treaties and felt that we should not entangle ourselves with them. In 1799 he wrote in a letter to an Elbridge Gerry, and said, "I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe. . . ." (The Real Thomas Jefferson, p. 644, from Bergh, 10:78.) And in 1804 he wrote the following: "Our system is to have [no treaties] with any nation, as far as can be avoided. . . . It is against our system to embarrass ourselves with treaties or to entangle ourselves at all with the affairs of Europe." (Ibid., p. 645, from Bergh, <em>Jefferson at Monticello</em>, 11:38.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />One of the worst treaties that this nation has entangled itself with is a treaty with the United Nations (U.N.). This is not just this author’s view, but as we proceed, we will find that it is the view of many others.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The United Nations is a group of nations bound together for the cause of peace, so they say — but as we continue our study, we will find that this is not their plan.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">All Power to the U.N.<br /></span></em>Senator Dan Smoot, had this to say about the United Nations’ philosophy in regards to socialistic-communism:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Well-informed constitutionalist Americans know that the United Nations Charter is a multi-nation treaty which, if obeyed by all parties to it, would require member nations to cooperate in socializing their national economics and then to merge into a unified world-wide socialist system. Creation of a world socialist system is the objective of communism. Thus, as created, the United Nations and all its specialized agencies are designed to serve the cause of communism. In many specific ways, the United Nations has promoted the interest of the Soviet Union." (PPNS, p. 454, from The Dan Smoot Report, 4-8-63.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />President Benson, a Dan Smoot supporter, also has much to say about the United Nations and its type of government. From a chapter entitled, "The United Nations — Planned Tyranny," in one of his books, he said, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"It has always been a source of amazement to me how so many Americans properly are concerned over the growth of big government and the welfare state here at home, but continue to give their unqualified support to the U.N. which incorporates every doctrine which they abhor. The reason, I suppose, is that too few of us have taken the time or felt the need to find out just what is the concept of government at the U.N.<br />"On the Surface, the U.N. Charter and the structure of its various departments bears a strong resemblance to those of our own federal government. But the similarity goes no further that outward form. Whereas the United States is founded on the concept of limited government, the U.N. concept is one of unlimited government power with virtually no meaningful restraints to protect individual liberty.<br />"Instead of insuring that all member states have limited forms of government, the U.N. assumes that most of them have unlimited power over their subjects. The U.N. is not the least bit concerned over the fact that a majority of its members are governments which rule with police-state methods. Instead of assuming that any power not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is reserved to the individual citizens or their smaller governmental units, the U.N. operates under the doctrine that its Charter is sufficiently vague and broad so as to authorize doing absolutely anything." (AEHDT, pp. 203-204.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Then President Benson goes on to quote their representative, Abraham Feller, who said, "Under international law, the (U.N.) organization must be deemed to have those powers which, though not expressly provided in the Charter, are conferred upon it by necessary implication as being essential to the performance of its duties." (Quoted in AEHDT, pp. 204-205.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />There is ambiguity in the law of the U.N. charter and, it seems, that almost anything goes when it comes to fulfilling their purpose. This is convenient because it leaves procedures open for almost any method they choose.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Not only do they not value exact and written rules, but they do not value God as the Giver of good government. Again, President Benson says:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"There is no mention of God in the United Nation’s charter, the United Nation’s Covenant of Human Rights or any other similar United Nation’s document. ‘Prayer to Christ’ is specifically forbidden at the opening of all United Nations sessions. It was a serious mistake to shut God out of the deliberations of the United Nations. The godless United Nations has failed as it was certain to do.<br />"I agree with Dean Russell of Rockford College (Illinois) that ‘we American people sponsored and endorsed a completely alien concept of government when we joined the United Nations. . . . It is high time we gave some consideration to the interests of the United States instead of the United Nations. Let us get out before we are dragged under.’" (TRC, p.194-196.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Treaties and Treason<br /></span></em>A Constitutional definition of treason can be found in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1, and Article II, Section 4. It speaks of the removal of the President upon conviction of treason. Treason is defined by the Constitution as follows: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT." (Article III, Section 3, Clause 1.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Webster defines treason as, "1. Betrayal of trust or faith; treachery. 2. Violation of the allegiance owed to one’s sovereign or state; betrayal of one’s country." Bouvier says, "TREASON. This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance. . . . It is the only crime defined by the constitution. . . ." (<em>Bouvier’s</em>, p. 3310.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In a Proclamation issued on April 16, 1917, by President Woodrow Wilson, he said, "The courts of the United States have stated the following acts to be treasonable: . . . the acquisition, use or disposal of any property with knowledge that it is to be, or with intent that it shall be, of assistance to the enemy in their hostilities against the United States; the performance of any act or the publication of statements or information which will give or supply in any way, aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States; the direction, aiding, counseling, or countenancing of any of the foregoing acts; such acts are held to be treasonable whether committed within the United States or elsewhere. . . ." (AEHDT, p. 81; PPNS, p. 283.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Haven’t we, as a nation, given aid, comfort, direction, counseling, etc., to the Soviet Union — our enemy for over 80 years — in the form of food, moneys, industrial help, and military secrets? We even gave them money which they used to make weapons which they sold to Red China and North Vietnam, which were used to kill our own boys. If that is not treason, what is?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In a statement by the First Presidency in 1939, we read: "Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support Communism [Socialism] is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a Communist or supporter of Communism."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now have we, as Americans, our government, and government officials been supporting those forces which plot the overthrow of our nation and our liberties? The answer is an emphatic YES! And those who do not believe this are either ignorant of the facts or ignore them altogether as though there is no danger or treason involved. There have been many indications of treason from our top government officials in the past.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The top leaders in the United Nations are communists. And as we have learned earlier — communism and socialism are the same. Supporting the U.N., in any manner, is in effect supporting communistic socialism. By such treaties, as with that made with the United Nations, the treaty becomes treasonable, although legal.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">A Treasonable Stance<br /></span></em>Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait on August 4, 1990. This was after April Glaspie, American ambassador from the State Department, assured Hussein that the United States had no interest in the border disputes and would not get involved. This was a signal for Hussein to make his move. Almost immediately, the President deployed U.S. troops into the Persian Gulf area.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />On September 11, 1990, the President addressed a joint session of Congress and the American people, where he gave a five-point objective for our presence there following the invasion by Iraqi forces into Kuwait. Those five points are: 1) to protect Saudi Arabia from attack by Iraq; 2) to restore Kuwait’s former government; 3) to secure the removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait; 4) to cause Saddam Hussein to stand down as head of the Iraqi government; and, 5) to form a "New One World Order".</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />During that speech, on September 11th, the President said, among other things, "Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective — a new world order — can emerge . . . we are now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders." If we understood the founders of the U.N., we would know that they envisioned a one-world socialistic government.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />On October 1, 1990, speaking before the United Nations General Assembly, he emphasized that, "The United Nations can help bring about a new day . . . a new world order, and a long era of peace." And, on November 19, 1990, when he and other national leaders were signing ANOTHER TREATY, he said that the pact heralds a "new world order. . . . It is the farthest-reaching arms agreement in history, and it signals the new world order that is emerging."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Dr. W. Cleon Skousen expressed his feelings on this subject in his Prognosis for the Persian Gulf Crisis: </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The press has now revealed that the President knew of the possibility of an attack several weeks before it occurred, but instead of going to Congress he went to the Aspen Institute in Colorado, and was there with Margaret Thatcher when the attack occurred.<br />"What is the Aspen Institute? This the latest name for the planning center of the nation’s leading members of the Forbe’s 500.<br />"These are the international bankers, the big industrialists, the heads of the oil corporations, and many of the people who run the nation’s media. Naturally, this is a powerful group and they have never hesitated to intervene in the affairs of the American people when it has been in their interest to do so. In the past this group of powerful vested interests has been known as the Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR, the Tri-lateral Commission, The Council on Pacific Relations, the Bilderbergers, etc. Basically, they have always been more or less the same people. Their latest meeting place for important planning sessions is the Aspen Institute. The most significant goal of the Aspen Institute is to set up a ‘new world order’ to replace the individual sovereignty and national constitutions of the various nations of the world, including our own.<br />"When the President left the Aspen Institute on August 2, and returned to Washington it was rather amazing to see how vigorously he took action. There was no counselling with Congress, no conferences with majority and minority leaders from Congress, no investigation, nothing. It was almost as though he were following some pre-arranged plan.<br />"The president knows exactly what this term [New World Order] means, and so does the Aspen Institute. Not too long ago we interviewed the top officials of the Aspen Institute and they made it very clear that the New World Order is the top priority for the future.<br />"How the New World Order is going to work in the future, was demonstrated on November 29, [1990] when the United Nations Security Council voted to have force used against Iraq if Saddam Hussein did not have his forces out of Kuwait by January 15 [1991]. The Congress will then be asked to pass the same identical resolution which ratifies the action of the UN. At that moment you will have seen for the first time in U.S. history a declaration of war by treaty. It will mean that we will fight a war, not for the American people, but for a United Nations Security Council which we neither elected nor have the power to control." (<em>Prognosis for the Persian Gulf Crisis</em>, 1990, pp. 3-4, 8.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Another individual who has been evolved in keeping abreast of current events due to his position and experience is Colonel James "Bo" Gritz. He gives us the following insights into the Persian Gulf War:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"[The President] fired the USAF Chief of Staff on 17 September when — against the wishes of his superiors — the four-star general revealed plans for a general war in the area, as U.S. troop strength approached 200,000 and government spokesmen spoke of years of U.S. occupation. I don’t believe this was a simple blunder or that he became a blabbermouth overnight. I think the former USAF Chief of Staff was trying to save America from another no-win war. He was willing to sacrifice his career to tell America the truth. The Pentagon has ordered 20,000 caskets and 50,000 rubber body-bags." (Center For Action News Alert, ‘America In The Middle East,’ January 1991, p. 1.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The President has known his responsibility to this nation, but his goal was not to uphold the Constitution but to bow to the wishes of another power. In an article entitled American Blood for a "New World Order"? Gary Benoit wrote:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"What further proof is needed of Mr. Bush’s internationalist mindset than the fact that he went to the Security Council of the United Nations — not the U.S. Congress — for the authority to go to war? According to the U.S. Constitution, only the Congress has the authority to declare war. Mr. Bush knows this. While he took an oath to uphold the Constitution, he brazenly thumbed his nose at it by dodging efforts to recall Congress to make the decision." (The John Birch Society Bulletin, January 1991, p. 8.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Although Congress approved of U.S. forces to go to the Persian Gulf, nevertheless, it was after the fact. It was in October, 1990, that the President addressed the U.N. and it was in November, of the same year, that the U.N. Security Council agreed to send U.N. forces into the war zone. It was not until January, 1991, that Congress consented. Perhaps they had no choice since our boys (and now girls) were already over there. The editors of the Council on Foreign Relation’s Foreign Affairs publication said,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Never before in American history was there a period quite like it. For 48 days the United States moved inexorably toward war, acting on authority granted by an international organization.<br />"On November 29, 1990, in an unprecedented step, the United Nations Security Council authorized the use after January 15, 1991, of ‘all necessary means’ to achieve the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from the territory of Kuwait. On January 12 the Congress of the United States authorized President Bush to use American armed forces to implement that resolution. This too was unprecedented." (Quoted in The JBS Bulletin, November 1991, p. 4.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Here we have it from the mouth of the organization that has pushed the support of the United Nations from the very beginning — the Council on Foreign Relations — the real power (the shadow government) behind our U.S. foreign policy. (For further information about the Council on Foreign Relations and the American decline, read: <em>The Shadows of Power</em>, by James Perloff.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">War Unjustified<br /></span></em>In the April General Conference of the Church, 1942, President David O. McKay spoke of the reasons for wars and some of the unjustifiable excuses for them. When listing some of those unjustifiable reasons, he said, "Nor is war justified in an attempt to enforce a new order of government, . . . however better the government or eternally true the principles." (CR, April 1942, pp. 72-73; PPNS, p. 476.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Unjustifiable, or not, this war was for the establishment of a "new order of government" — it’s called, "The New World Order." And justifiable or not, the Bilderbergers — a group of internationalists striving for a one-world government, which was mentioned in a previous chapter — had their hands in the Persian Gulf War.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It is they who basically pull the strings that move the U.N. From The Spotlight, a conservative newspaper, we get the following information about the secret meeting the Bilderbergers held in Germany, during June of 1991. This newspaper had a reliable source on the "inside," which fed them knowledge about much of the proceedings. Here is some of that information:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"This grim news came from a ‘main pipeline’ — a high-ranking Bilderberg staffer who secretly cooperated with our investigation — behind the guarded walls of the Badischer Hof, who was operating from inside with colleagues serving as ‘connecting pipelines.’<br />"What the Bilderberg group intends is a global army at the disposal of the United Nations, which is to become the world government to which all nations will be subservient by the year 2000.<br />"Crucial to making the UN a strong world government, by ‘osmosis,’ in the words of some Bilderberg participants, is to bestow it with ‘enforcement power.’<br />"A UN army must be able to act immediately, anywhere in the world, without delays. . . .’ said Henry Kissinger during one of the forums.<br />"Kissinger and others expressed pleasure over the conduct of the Persian Gulf war, stressing that it had been sanctioned by the UN, at the request of President George Bush, himself a Trilateral luminary, before the issue was laid before the U.S. Congress.<br />"The fact that the President would make his case to the UN first, when the Constitution empowers only Congress to declare war, was viewed as a significant step in ‘leading Americans away from nationalism.’<br />"‘The Persian Gulf venture has advanced the cause by years,’ one speaker said. Americans, so reluctant to commit their flag to foreign battlefields after 58,000 perished in the ill-fated Vietnam War, have had their attitude ‘completely turned around,’ he said.<br />"Such an adventure was essential to getting Americans into ‘the right frame of mind for the years ahead,’ said another.<br />"In their circumspect way, the Bilderberg participants claimed credit for influencing the President to go to war, some mentioning, with knowing smiles, that the American ambassador, April Glaspie, had assured Saddam Hussein directly that the United States would take no action if he invaded Kuwait.<br />"And, they promised each other, there will be ‘more incidents’ for the UN to deal with in the years ahead. The Bilderberg group and its little brother, the Trilateral Commission, can set up ‘incidents’ on schedule, they said, but in less direct words. The words ‘within five years’ were heard repeatedly." (<em>The Spotlight</em>, June 24, 1991, pp. 1, 3.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />For the past eighty years, various Presidents have been involved in questionable and treacherous activities. But some have retained a spark of Americanism. One such President was John F. Kennedy. Even though caught up in the power of office, and the establishment, he retained a love for this country. As we read his words, we may come to realize why certain people would want to have it stricken from public view. At one time, President Kennedy had the nerve to proclaim:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>"The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy America’s freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizens of their plight." (A speech delivered at Columbia University in October of 1963.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It is not uncommon to hear citizens express the idea that we must support the President, and to do otherwise is not patriotic and is un-American. President Theodore Roosevelt thought otherwise and he is credited with expressing these unusual thoughts on this subject of treason and the Presidency:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country.<br />"It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country.<br />"In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth — whether about the President or anyone else — save in the rare cases where this would make known to the enemy information of military value which would otherwise be unknown to him.<br />"Every man who parrots the cry of ‘stand by the President’ without adding the proviso ‘so far as he serves the Republic’ takes an attitude as essentially unmanly as that of any Stuart royalist who championed the doctrine that the King could do no wrong. No self-respecting and intelligent free man could take such an attitude." (President Theodore Roosevelt; Benson, GFC, p. 320; James J. Drummey, <em>The Establishments Man</em>, p. 116; The <em>John Birch Society Bulletin</em>. No. 380, January 1991, p. 1.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Alliances Destroy Sovereignty</span></em><br />The United Nations Treaty which was adopted without much analysis is now leading the United States and the rest of the world into a "New World Order" of government, a government in which the voice of the people is not heard. The President knows the ramifications of such treaties. The Constitution states that, "all Treaties made, or which shall be made . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land." (Article VI, Clause 2.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />By such treaties we have authorized other nations and people to control our destinies instead of us controlling our own. Is there any wonder that the third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, said, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." (<em>The Five Thousand Year Leap</em>, p. 267, from Bergh, <em>Writings of Thomas Jefferson</em>, 3:321.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., of the First Presidency and former Under Secretary of State and former ambassador to Mexico, was one who understood the Constitution and the serious problems of treaties. He said, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />‘In furtherance of the general plan in contemplation of a world-state, we have made treaties of alliance containing obligations that infringed upon our sovereignty. (Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, p. 450.)<br />"It has already been said that to an outsider this new theory of treaty-law is a device to secure our participation in a world-state. . . . This treaty-law doctrine is power-thirst gone mad." (Ibid., pp. 450-453, from President J. Reuben Clark, 5/29/57.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />By involvement in treaties, the safety and protection guaranteed by our Constitution is in danger. Such treaties surrender our sovereignty over to a foreign entity. Ezra Taft Benson said, "Our Constitutional form of government and the citizens who revere what our nation represents stand directly in the path of these globalists’ plans. Therefore, from the earliest stages, subversion of the United States has been a primary focus of their plans." (CR, September 1961, p. 73.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />President J. Reuben Clark, in 1957, quoted a high government official as saying that treaties can take power away from the Constitution:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />". . . congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty laws can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights." (PPNS, p. 451, from Frank E. Holman, <em>Story of the "Bricker" Amendment</em>, pp. 14-15.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Bill of Rights, those "unalienable" rights granted by God, are also in jeopardy by treaties. Our Constitution can be nullified by treaties, as Thomas Jefferson was aware. In 1803 he wrote: "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution." (<em>The Real Thomas Jefferson</em>, p. 644, from Bergh, 10:419.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">A Defenseless Nation<br /></span></em>Not only can we not end up with a written Constitution, but we could be in danger of being defenseless. The Preamble to the Constitution talks about providing for the "common defence." In Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 16, we read: "The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence . . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia. . . ."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />These clauses have been nullified by the "Arms Control and Disarmament Act," of 1961. The following is taken from Public Law 87-297 — Sept. 26, 1961. It is a law of which very few Americans know the ramifications. It is stated here, in part:<br /></div><blockquote style="styleDocument: [object]"></blockquote><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center">(UNITED STATES STATUTES AT LARGE, 1961, VOLUME 75)<br />TITLE<br />SECTION 1. "Arms Control and Disarmament Act."<br />PURPOSE<br />SEC. 2. ". . . It is the purpose of this Act to provide impetus toward this goal . . . toward ultimate world disarmament." (p. 631)<br />DEFINITIONS<br />SEC. 3. The terms "arms control" and "disarmament" means the identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control, reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and armaments of all kinds under international agreement including the necessary steps taken under such an agreement to establish an effective system of international control. . . . (pp. 631-32)<br />RESEARCH<br />SEC. 31. ". . . the Director is authorized and directed, under the direction of the President . . . to make arrangements . . . for the conduct of research, development, and other studies in the field of arms control and disarmament by private or public institutions or persons:<br />(a) the detection, identification, inspection, monitoring, limitation, reduction, control, and elimination of armed forces and armaments. . . .<br />(d) the control, reduction, and elimination of armed forces and armaments in space, areas on and beneath the earth’s surface, and in the underwater regions. . . .<br />(h) the economic and political consequences of arms control and disarmament, including the problems of readjustment arising in industry and the reallocation of national resources. . . .<br />(k) methods for the maintenance of peace and security during different states of arms control and disarmament. . . . (pp. 633-34)<br />GENERAL AUTHORITY<br />SEC. 41. In the performance of his function, the Director is authorized to —<br />(a) utilize or employ the services, personnel, equipment, or facilities of any other Government agency, with the consent of the agency concerned, to perform such functions on behalf of the Agency as may appear desirable.<br />(c) enter into agreements with other Government agencies, including the military departments through the Secretary of Defense, under which officers or employees of such agencies may be detailed to the Agency for the performance of service pursuant to this Act.<br />(e) employ individuals of outstanding ability without compensation. . . . (pp. 635-36)<br />SECURITY REQUIREMENTS<br />SEC. 45. (a) The director shall establish such security and loyalty requirements, restrictions, and safeguards as he deems necessary in the interest of the national security and to carry out the provisions of this Act.<br />TRANSFER OF ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES TO AGENCY<br />SEC. 47. (b) The President, by Executive order, may transfer to the Director any activities or facilities of any Government agency which relate primarily to arms control and disarmament.<br />Then, in 1962, President Kennedy, signed and delivered this "Blueprint for the Peace Race." The ironic thing, though, it is more a blueprint for sure invasion of the American people. This "Blueprint" is also given in part:<br />BLUEPRINT FOR THE PEACE RACE<br />UNITED STATES ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY<br />April 18, 1962<br />". . . not to an arms race but to a peace<br />race - to advance together step by step,<br />stage by stage, until general and complete<br />disarmament has been achieved."<br />PRESIDENT KENNEDY<br />September 25, 1961<br />"As national armaments were reduced, the United Nations would be progressively strengthened."<br />It calls for a three-stage program of controls and disarmament. Unlimited power is to be given to the United Nations.<br />1. Elimination of production of armaments.<br />2. Have at national disposal only those agreed forces required to maintain internal order.<br />3. Reduction of military bases to only those to be utilized by the United Nations.<br />4. Establishment of a United Nations Peace Observation Corps which would be equipped with agreed types of armaments and would be supplied agreed manpower by nation, would be progressively strengthened until it would be fully capable of insuring international security in a disarmed world.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />From the foregoing we find that these disarmament measures include "armaments of all kinds," including personal weapons. Power is given the director over industry, economics, national resources, government agencies, and the individual. Authority can be used to enforce the law on the individual "without compensation." Could this be a form of "slave labor?" The director has vast powers "in the interest of national security." Here is a question to consider: "If we are disarmed, how secure will we be?" Also, we have the possibility of a Presidential Executive Order where the President could declare martial law, and hold in suspension the Constitution.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Thus, we see the goal of the United Nations and their intended program to bring the world under its control. They will take charge, as they did in the Persian Gulf War, and let the world know they will not tolerate anyone rising to power that might be a threat to U.N. domination.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />At the U.S. Senate Hearings on the revision of the U.N. Charter, Samuel R. Levering, of Virginia, had the following observations to make about the powers of the U.N. and the subsequent loss of sovereignty:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Clearly, an effective international civilian inspection and police force would require a strengthened and revised United Nations to provide democratic and effective controls. The World Court would have to be given jurisdiction over individuals accused of violating the law. . . . The Security Council would have to become . . . responsible for the operation of the inspection and police force.<br />"There is no chance to depend on the good faith of the parties involved alone. We have tried that and it has not worked. The only thing that has a chance of stopping the arms race is inspection, but inspection does require force. . . .<br />"So, we believe that sort of power needs to be given the United Nations, an international civilian inspection and police force, acting directly on individuals who are found breaking the law in the field of prohibited armaments, or preparations therefore." (Samuel R. Levering, of Virginia, speaking in behalf of The Friends Committee on National Legislation, U.S. Senate Hearings, February 20, 1950, pp. 645, 649.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />However, President Benson said, "I Consider it a direct violation of the obligation imposed upon it by the Constitution for the federal government to dismantle or weaken our military establishment below that point required for the protection of the States against invasion, or to surrender or commit our men, arms, or money to the control of foreign or world organizations or governments. . . . I believe that no treaty or agreement with other countries should deprive our citizens of rights guaranteed them by the Constitution." (AEHDT, p. 146.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Asking ourselves a question, at this point, might be appropriate: "How can peace and freedom be assured when total military power is in the hands of only one single organization, when all nations are disarmed, and subject to the whims, prejudices, biases, dictates, and controls of that organization?" Such a system of government is slavery and the loss of sovereignty for all the nations involved. This is the goal of the United Nations and their "New World Order." By the treaty with the U.N., with NATO, for "Disarmament," etc., our Constitutional provision for "common defence," has been annulled. And more recently, our President, the man who took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution," (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.) has gone on the public new media and presented a plan for more military cut backs. And the February, 1992, The McAlvany intelligence Advisor, reports:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"On February 1, 1992, the chiefs of state of 20 countries, headed by George Bush, met at the United Nations and declared that ‘the world community can no longer allow advancement of fundamental rights to stop at national borders...that the UN abandon its tradition of noninterference in internal affairs of member countries. . .<br />"George Bush, addressing the world leaders at the UN, said, ‘It is the sacred principles enshrined in the UN Charter to which we will henceforth pledge our allegiance.’ Those ‘sacred principles’ Bush refers to were crafted by Soviet spy Alger Hiss and given force by the signatures of Joseph Stalin...<br />"At the same UN meeting, plans were discussed to transfer national armies to the control of the United Nations. As the Los Angeles Times (2/1/92) said, ‘Creating a standing army under the control of the United Nations Security Council would give the world organization a military punch it has never had before and could convert it into a full-time international police force. . .<br />"If this UN standing army is created, blue helmeted UN troops from Russia, China, Europe, Africa, etc. could be on US soil within 3 to 5 years. Harvard professor Joseph S. Nye (a former State Department official and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission) in a New York Times editorial (1/27/92), was blunt in coming out for a ‘fire brigade, or UN rapid deployment force - led by the US - for the coming New World Order." (<em>The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor</em>, March 1992, pp. 5-6.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, we read: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States. . . ."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Let us ask ourselves another question: "How can the President of the United States be the commander in chief of our military when all the power is turned over to the United Nations and a "New World Order." He has subordinated his command to the will of the U.N. and nullified his powers provided by the Constitution.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Let us continue with another statement of President Benson. In his true and consistent form, he has these strong feelings to share on this subject of foreign policy of this nation:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: The preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the president shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He is our executive; he is on our payroll; he is supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the president of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their people, or even to defend them against their enemies. (TETB, 614.)<br />"Those who subscribe to this philosophy [communism] stop at nothing to achieve their ends. They do not hesitate to destroy — if they are strong enough — whatever stands in their way. Our own generation has witnessed the Russian communists liquidate millions of their fellow countrymen. Even more recently we have seen the Chinese communists wipe out millions of their fellow countrymen — no one knows the exact number.<br />"To the true communist [socialist], nothing is evil if it is expedient. Being without conscience or honor, he feels completely justified in using whatever means are necessary to achieve his goal: force, trickery, lies, broken promises, mayhem, and individual and mass murder. (CR, October 1960, p. 101.)<br />"I consider ourselves at war with international Communism which is committed to the destruction of our government, our right of property, and our freedom; that it is treason as defined by the Constitution to give aid and comfort to this implacable enemy. (<em>The Proper Role of Government</em>, p. 22.; AEHDT, p. 144. )<br />"I have in my possession a copy of an unpublished manuscript on the United Nations Charter prepared in 1945 and given to me by that eminent international lawyer and former Under Secretary of State, J. Reuben Clark, Jr.<br />"President Clark’s declarations on this, as on other subjects, emphasize more and more with the passing of time his vision and statesmanship. Commenting on the United Nations Charter and the ‘travesty on exhaustive consideration’ as the charter was hastily approved by the Congress, under urging from the State Department, he continues with a devastating analysis and a sober warning to the American people that there will be a day of reckoning. I believe that day is near at hand. The hopes and the aspirations of the people have been betrayed . . . let us have no further blind devotion to the communist-dominated United Nations. (TL, pp. 78-79.)<br />"We should get out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of the United States." (AEHDT, p. 208.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Senator Dan Smoot, from whom we heard earlier, said that we should withdraw from the U.N. and that perversive form of control over the nation. From "The Dan Smoot Report," of January 29, 1962, we read:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"United States membership in the United Nations has caused a perversion of our fundamental concepts of government. . . .<br />"We cannot restore Americanism; we cannot have an American policy, either foreign or domestic; we cannot reestablish America as a free and independent constitutional republic — until we withdraw from the United Nations." (Quoted in TRC, pp. 196-197.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Human Nature Has Not Changed</span></em><br />Evil and ruthless people have wanted to control the world before. What makes us think that human nature has changed since ancient times? It has not! In fact, Satan has more power than ever before. In a Priesthood Leadership Meeting in 1986, President Benson had this to say about the subject:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"We live in a day of great challenge. We live in that time of which the Lord spoke when he said, ‘Peace shall be taken from the earth, and the devil shall have power over his own dominion.’ (D&C 1:35.) We live in that day which John the Revelator foresaw when ‘the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed. . . . (Rev. 12:17.) The dragon is Satan; the woman represents the Church of Jesus Christ." (Priesthood Leadership Meeting, 4 April 1986; <em>The Ensign</em>, May 1986.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />President Benson gave Doctrine and Covenants 1:35 as a reference. It says that "the day speedily cometh; the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand, when peace shall be taken from the earth. . . ." It said the day is coming but is not yet. President Benson said that, "We live in that time." From this it sounds like we are living in a time that was prophesied of by the Lord — a very evil time. Why, then, are we so naive to believe that these world leaders are only out for world peace and brotherhood. They are not! They are out to destroy our liberties protected by the Constitution.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Treaties can be an illusion, and designing people will use them to steal the property and freedom of the law-biding. Employing deceptive means and promises — much like the spider to the fly — we have been lured into the web for destruction. The chapter in this book titled, "Bewitched By the Beast," will give the reader an idea of how we have neutralized our strength while the Soviet Union has continued to increase theirs.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Our first President, George Washington, warned us about treaties and alliances. It is too bad that we have not followed the advice of our Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. In closing, let us consider a few words from Washington’s Farewell Address:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible.<br />"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world. . . .<br />"Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.<br />"There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now we have learned that treaties can be treasonous. We, of this nation, have exercised our God-given agency and partook of the fruit that is bringing destruction. We not only have evil and designing people in the world but also in this country — those with whom we have put our trust. The threads of freedom are being severed, and we have signed our agreement to it.</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-44294657029651806122009-02-06T06:28:00.000-08:002009-02-06T06:45:27.258-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Chapter 15<br /><span style="font-size:180%;">The Three Branches of Government<br /></span></span></strong><em>"The principle of the Constitution<br />is that of a separation of<br />legislative, executive, and judiciary functions. . . .<br />If this principle be not expressed in direct terms,<br />it is clearly the<br />spirit of the constitution. . . ."<br />— Thomas Jefferson</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >T</span>he first sentence in the Constitution is: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." (Article I, Section 1, Clause 1.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In this chapter, we will explore the ways that Congress has abrogated some of its rights to make laws by allowing the executive and judicial branches to assume some of the process. In short, Congress has help nullify Article I, Section 1, Clause 1, of the Constitution.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" ><strong>The Legislative Branch<br /></strong></span>Our government was so arranged that each department of the Federal Government had its own specific duties. The legislative branch, Congress, made up of the House of Representatives, who were to represent the people, and the Senate, who were to represent the States; the executive branch, the President of the United States, which was to enforce the laws that Congress was to pass; and the Supreme Court, which was created to adjudicate differences and to determine if the laws passed by Congress were Constitutional or not. President Benson explains:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"To safeguard these rights, the Founding Fathers provided for the separation of powers among the three branches of government — the Legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Each was to be independent of the other, yet each was to work in a unified relationship.<br />"In order to avoid a concentration of power in any one branch, the Founding Fathers created a system of government that provided checks and balances. Congress could pass laws, but the president could check these laws with a veto. Congress, however, could override the veto and, by its means of initiative in taxation, could further restrain the executive department. The Supreme Court could nullify laws passed by the Congress and signed by the president, but Congress could limit the court’s appellate jurisdiction. The president could appoint judges for their lifetime with the consent of the Senate.<br />"The use of checks and balances was deliberately designed, first, to make it difficult for a minority of the people to control the government, and second, to place restraint on the government itself." (CHB, pp. 19-20.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Erosion of Power<br /></span></em>But like all free people, Congress can relegate its powers to others by making laws that will do just that — give the congressional power to other bodies in the government.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />President Benson give two examples of how our government has abandoned fundamental principles of sound government and how constitutional freedoms have been eroded. About one of these he says:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Let me cite, just briefly, two examples of the erosion of our constitutional freedoms. Both have come about because we, the people, have allowed the government to ignore one of the most fundamental stipulations of the Constitution — namely, the separation of powers.<br />"In recent years, we have allowed Congress to fund numerous federal agencies. While these agencies may provide some needed services and protection of rights, they also encroach significantly on our constitutional rights. The number of agencies seems to grow continually to regulate and control the lives of millions of citizens.<br />"What many fail to realize is that most of these federal agencies are unconstitutional. Why are they unconstitutional? They are unconstitutional because they concentrate the functions of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches under one head. They have, in other words, power to make rulings, enforce rulings, and adjudicate penalties when rulings are violated. They are unconstitutional because they represent an assumption of power not delegated to the executive branch by the people. They are also unconstitutional because the people have no power to recall administrative agency personnel by their vote." (Ibid., pp. 25-26.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" ><strong><span style="styleDocument: [object]">The Senate</span><br /></strong></span></span>As the House of Representatives were to represent the voting population of the nation, the Senate was to represent the individual States in Congress. Now, however, thanks to the passage of the Seventh Amendment, the Senate represents the people and not the States who use to appoint them.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Senate was appointed by the State Legislatures and sent to Washington to represent the interest of the State. If the State Legislature did not like what Congress was proposing, they could call home their representatives, the Senators. This was happening, and justly so. Powers, that be, were not getting their bills passed (the Federal Reserve Act, for one) so they introduced an amendment which the States foolishly ratified. The States, now, ARE NOT represented in the U.S. Congress.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We must remember, it was the individual States that got together and had a convention in 1787, not the people. The States wanted proper representation in the national government. The Senate was to be a balance of power and a link between the individual States and the Federal Government, but now they have no such link or representation. James Madison wrote:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems." (<em>The Federalist</em>, No. 62.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This was one of the critical balances of power as embodied in a "Republican" form of government. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. . . ." This Republican Form of Government was not just for the internal structure of the States but to extend out in their influence to the Federal Government as well. These leanings, now, are more towards a democratic rather than a true republican form of government. Let’s see what President Ezra Taft Benson has to say on this subject:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The Constitution provides for both direct representation and indirect representation. Both forms of representation provide a tempering influence on pure democracy.<br />"The House of Representatives was elected for only two years by direct vote of the people on a population basis. This concession to democracy was balanced by the establishment of a Senate, originally elected for six years, by state legislatures. This was an ingenious system whereby the Senate, not directly responsible to the people, could act as a restraining influence on any demagoguery by the House. No law could be passed without the majority approval of the House, whose members were directly elected by the populace; but also, a law had to have the majority concurrence of the Senate, who at that time were not elected by the people. In this way, the passions and impulses of the majority vote were checked.<br />"The intent was to protect the individual’s and the minority’s right to life, liberty, and the fruits of their labors — property. These rights were not to be subject to majority vote.<br />"We all know, of course, that this system was altered by amendment so that today both House and Senate are elected by direct popular vote." (CHB, p. 22.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Emoluments<br /></span></em>Article I, Section 6, Clause 2, states: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected . . . the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time. . . ." Now what is are "Emoluments?" "EMOLUMENT. The profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as a compensation for services, or which is annexed to the possession of office as salary, fees, and perquisites (extra payment); advantage; gain, public or private." (<em>Bouvier’s</em>, p. 1035.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It is, without question, that the violation of this clause in the Constitution is wide-spread and has become a staple in the economical diet of our elected officials in government. The graft, the special interest groups and their lobbyist, the "under the table" fringe benefit, etc., has not only gotten out of hand but has been the major moral weakness in our government. It sounds like what Nephi found among the wicked Nephites: ". . . moreover to be held in office at the head of government, to rule and do according to their will, that they might get gain and glory of the world." (Hel. 7:5.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />President Brigham Young was very opinionated about many things and this subject is no exception. His comments might be applied to Congress as well as the President. Let us read some of his pointed remarks on this matter:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Should we give him (the President) twenty-five thousand dollars per annum, and make him superior to any other honest man in the Territory, State, or kingdom, in things pertaining to this world? . . . No, for if he is capable of ruling the people and dictating them, he is capable of taking care of himself. . . .<br />"Do you ask why I would recommend this course? I answer, Because of the weakness of man . . . the streets would be full of demagogues; you will see them perched upon every ant-hill, croaking out their stump speeches for this or that man to be our ruler.<br />"Whether such a man as a ruler will do good to the people, is not thought of . . . but the one is after the thousands of dollars, and the other after his paltry fee. the welfare the people they do not consider.<br />"The motto should be: ‘If you do not labor for the good of the people, irrespective of the times, we do not want your services; for if you labor for the money, you seek to benefit yourselves at the people expense.’" (JD, 7:11-12.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We might ask our representatives the following question: "How does this clause in the Constitution, of no increases, square with their policy of voting themselves large wages while they are still in office?"</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Supporting Socialistic Communism<br /></span></em>Not only do Congress raise their own salaries, and our taxes, contrary to the Constitutional provisions, they also use our tax money to support that government which is dead-set on destroying America — socialistic communism. Ezra Taft Benson has said, "Rather than impede communism our policies in their total effect have apparently helped promote it." (CR, October 5, 1962, p. 15; The Improvement Era, December 1962, p. 913.) And in one of his many books he writes: "I fear for the future when foreign governments have used and are using American tax money to pay for socialism." (TL, p. 63.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Sterling Allan, in his excellently researched book, The Vision of All, makes the following quotes:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Congressman Toby Roth said, ‘Billions of dollars in loans at terms that American borrowers can only dream of are being provided to the Soviet government and, in turn, are being used to help finance Soviet aggression and adventurism around the world.’ (<em>The Vision of All</em>, p. 94, from ‘<em>Look Who’s Funding Moscow</em>,’ The Constitution, May/June, 1988, p.6.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">"In 1982, explaining one reason why our nation was spending so much for our own military, Senator William Armstrong of Colorado said, ‘In the last ten years alone, the United States and other Western nations have sold to the Soviet Union and its satellites more than fifty billion dollars worth of technical equipment the communists could not produce themselves. In addition, the Soviets have been able to purchase entire factories, designed and built by Western engineers and financed in large part by American and European banks’" (Ibid., p. 94.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We still hear the President wanting to give more money to the Soviets. Congress will, undoubtedly, approve massive amounts of American dollars to be injected into the faltering economy of the socialistic communists in Russia. Can we ask our congressmen how this squares with the definition of treason as outlined in the Constitution? (Article III, Section 3, Clause 1.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />From another sources we get more enlightenment on this monumental subversion of American tax dollars and congressional powers:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Gorbachev announced that he needed a $100 billion gift from the West — mostly American — to survive. Bush a longtime Trilateralist dedicated to the global cause, could then posture for Americans by saying no, only approximately $20 billion only if Gorbachev behaves.<br />"Two days after the Bilderberg meeting, on June 11, President Bush . . . announced that the United States would guarantee $1.5 billion in loans for the communists to buy grain. A ‘loan guarantee’ has become almost synonymous with ‘gift.’<br />"Billions of American tax dollars will be used, in the years ahead, to ensure the survival of the Soviet Union, with its domination of the Captive Nations perpetuated.<br />"Secretary of State Baker was in Geneva on June 8, the second day of the Three-day Bilderberg meeting, promising American dollars to Gorbachev and reaffirming U.S. abandonment of the Captive Nations.<br />"The Bilderbergers endorsed this sellout just days before American’s annual Captive Nations Week, once the occasion for prayers for freedom of the enslaved people and tolling church bells." (<em>The Spotlight</em>, June 24, 1991, p. 3.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Taxes for the U.N.<br /></span></em>Not only is our money going for the purpose of giving "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies, but it is going to support the U.N., which is another enemy. From The Spotlight, previously quoted, we read:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Another important step toward a strong, recognized and accepted world government is taxing power. Presently, the UN operates on ‘assessments’ paid by each country.<br />"At its April meeting in Tokyo, the Trilateralists called for a UN levy of 10 cents per barrel of oil coming from the Persian Gulf.<br />"The Bilderbergers approved of the move by the brother group, in which David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger and others also serve as leaders. Once people get used to a tax, it never is repealed. Ten cents a barrel would have a negligible effect on sales at the pump, and it could be extended worldwide ‘with appropriate increases’ in the years ahead.<br />"Part of the philosophy of a ‘direct’ tax by the UN is already in effect, they noted with satisfaction. The UN is demanding 30 percent of Iraq’s oil profits for ‘reparations,’ and the United States has obligingly taken the position that it should be increased to 50 percent.<br />"From the sum total of all things said, the Bilderberg strategy emerged. . . . Keep the initial tax so low that the public is unaware that it is levied. Then kick it up." (Ibid.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Is this the only threat to our independence? No it is not. Not only are our tax dollars being used for subversive reasons, those dollars may be collected by the United Nations. This is a new twist in the development of things, but when the methods of these secret combinations are understood, they are not surprising. There is a news article alluding to this, but we will have to see what else comes of it. But for now, this is all this author can find on the subject:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"In the name of international cooperation, the UN seeks to combat tax avoidance and evasion. A new treaty, already signed by the Bush administration but not yet passed by the Senate, places the assessment, examination, collection, recovery, and enforcement of all taxes, even local property taxes, under the auspices of the UN, and sets up an international enforcement corps and international data bank." (CBA Bulletin, April 1991, under heading, "International Tax Enforcement Is On The Way...")</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Judicial Branch<br /></span></strong>As we study the Book of Mormon, we find that it was written for us in our day, and that it is a warning to us in many ways. As the Book of Mormon speaks of their problems, with their judges, and in their day, could it have been looking into the future, trying to warn us of a judicial system that they could see might come upon us, as they did with secret combinations? </div><blockquote style="styleDocument: [object]"></blockquote><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">From the book of Alma, we can read where Amulek, speaking of the wickedness of the people, said, "And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges." (Alma 10:27.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Likewise, we might say that "the foundation of the destruction of this people" in America "is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of . . . lawyers and . . . judges." Has human nature changed so much that our generation is better or more righteous than theirs. We find that our modern-day judges are much the same when we realize they, like the ancient Nephites judges, are "Condemning the righteous because of their righteousness — letting the guilty and the wicked go unpunished because of their money. . . ." (Hel. 7:4-5.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, of the Constitution says that "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />One of the duties of the Supreme Court is to determine if a law is Constitutional or not Constitutional. They do not make laws, they are only to determine the Constitutional legality of the laws. The Supreme Court, however, has stretched this clause to such extremes that would perhaps make our Founding Fathers tremble. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Thomas Jefferson had untold problems with the Supreme Court during his administration. On one occasion, in 1821, he wrote concerning this judicial body:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression . . . that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." (Hel. 7:4-5.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The above remarks of our third President, Thomas Jefferson, was not the ravings of a man with a personal vendetta. They are also the sentiments of wise men who know the true purpose of this judicial body and the role they were meant to play in our nation’s government.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />President Benson said, in speaking of some erosions of the Constitution, ". . . this abandonment of the fundamental principles can be found in recent trends in the U.S. Supreme Court. In the first part of this chapter, he spoke of two examples of how our government has abandoned fundamental principles of sound government. The first we covered under the legislative branch. Here is the second from President Benson:</div><blockquote style="styleDocument: [object]"></blockquote><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">"A second example of this abandonment of fundamental principles can be found in recent trends in the U.S. Supreme Court. Note what Lino A. Graglia, a professor of law at the University of Texas, has to say about this: ‘Purporting merely to enforce the Constitution, the Supreme Court has for some thirty years usurped and exercised legislative powers that its predecessors could not have dreamed of, making itself the most powerful and important institution of government in regard to the nature and quality of life in our society. . . .<br />"‘It has literally decided issues of life and death, removing from the states the power to prevent or significantly restrain the practice of abortion, and, after effectively prohibiting capital punishment for two decades, now imposing such costly and time-consuming restrictions on its use as almost to amount to prohibition.<br />"‘In the area of morality and religion, the Court has removed from both the federal and state government nearly all power to prohibit the distribution and sale or exhibition of pornographic materials. . . . It has prohibited the states from providing for prayer or Bible-reading in the public schools.<br />"‘The Court has created for criminal defendants rights that do not exist under any other system of law — for example, the possibility of almost endless appeals with all costs paid by the state — and which have made the prosecution and conviction of criminals so complex and difficult as to make the attempt frequently seem not worthwhile. It has severely restricted the power of the states and cities to limit marches and other public demonstrations and otherwise maintain order in the streets and other public places.’<br />"To all who have discerning eyes, it is apparent that the republican form of government established by our noble forefathers cannot long endure once fundamental principles are abandoned." (CHB, pp. 26-27.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The judiciary of this nation has become almost an "Oligarchy," that is, as we learned earlier, "A name given to designate the power which a few citizens of a state have usurped, which ought by the Constitution to reside in the people." An example of this thesis and the current attitudes of the Court is the following from Senator Harry F. Byrd in 1963:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Power feeds on power. And the Warren Court has equaled, if not exceeded, the executive branch in usurping and centralizing power in the Federal Government. It has handed down two decisions telling schoolchildren when and where to pray. Decisions by the federal Supreme Court have been usurping more and more power for years. They have invaded homes, handicapped police protection, disregarded State sovereignty, interfered with executive authority, and assumed legislative powers. . . .<br />"And, in the face of all this, Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, in a speech before the American Bar Association, August 12, told the nation’s lawyers and judges they should ‘put aside discredited theories of the constitutional law’ and support the Warren Court." (PPNS, p. 188, from <em>U.S. News & World Report</em>, September 9, 1963, p. 51.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />With all the pains our forefathers went through to make sure there was a balance of power in our government, it seems that the branch that was to make the laws — the legislative branch — is abdicating its powers to the other two branches, the judicial and the executive.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Executive Branch</span></strong><br />The President of the United States is the chief executive officer of the nation. It is his duty to see that the laws that Congress passes, and the Supreme Court deems as constitutional, are carried out and enforced. However, before he can take office, he must swear an oath of office, as presented in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8. In part it says that he will "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Let’s see how well he might be doing that. We have touched slightly on some problems, let us just skim the surface of another.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In August of 1970, Congress passed a law authorizing the President to freeze prices in case of an economic emergency. At the time however, President Nixon said he would never do such a thing. On August 15, 1971, Mr. Nixon imposed a price and wage freeze on the U.S. economy. Instead of public discussions on the issues, there had only been denials that any price freeze was being discussed by the President and his staff.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The next day, Secretary of the Treasury John Connally was asked about the lies the Administration had perpetrated during these proceedings and he responded by saying: "Of course we had to lie. If we had told everyone in advance, they would have taken steps to evade everything." (Quoted in <em>Government by Emergency</em>, cover page.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The President’s power of control is practically unlimited. There are orders on record that can enable a President to put the entire nation into chains. These orders are known as "Executive Orders." By such Executive Orders he can freeze prices and bank accounts; confiscate or control business property, radio broadcasting, transportation, food production and distribution, and local police enforcement; or most any aspect of our personal, private or business lives.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The first Executive Orders began with President Woodrow Wilson in 1916, with his "U.S. Shipping Board Act." The 1917 order, the "Trading With the Enemy Act," is still in force and President Franklin D. Roosevelt used it to close the banks in peacetime in March, 1933. These executive orders have a life of their own. The 1917 act by Wilson, the 1950 (Korean conflict) by Truman, the 1970 (Post Office strike) by Nixon, and the 1971 (exchange rates) by Nixon, were not canceled until 1976 when President Ford signed a law doing so in September of that year. Senator Mathias of Maryland has rightly said,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"These hundreds of statutes clothe the President with virtually unlimited powers with which he can affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing ways. This vast range of powers, taken together, confers enough authority on the President to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes.<br />"Under the authority delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens." (Ibid., p. 103.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The <em>Congressional Record</em> is issued daily by Congress and is filled with all sorts of items that any Representative might want to read into it. The Federal Register, on the other hand, is the law of the land (Free copies of the Federal Register can be obtained from: Office of the Federal Register, National Archives & Records Service, General Services Administration, Washington, D.C. 20408.) The Federal Register includes Executive Orders. There IS NO catalogue of Executive Orders. There are literally thousands of these laws on the books, and it would take two-thirds vote of Congress to overturn any one of them — so they do not get overturned. Efforts by Congress to restrict or reverse such powers have been only moderately successful.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />More recently, our President has enacted one of these emergency orders, and as an article in the Star Tribune reports:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"While Congress agonizes over whether to give President Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq, the White House already has extraordinary powers it can invoke on its own.<br />"A hint of those powers came Wednesday when Bush issued an Executive Order giving the government priority delivery of any needed food or industrial materials.<br />"But virtually unnoticed when the Persian Gulf crisis began in August was a step taken by Bush that already has triggered dozens of other laws, which in turn give him the right to exercise sweeping emergency powers.<br />"On August 2, [1990] Bush ordered Iraqi assets in the United States frozen. But, in order to do so, he had first to declare a state of national emergency. That declaration allows Bush to assume most of the extraordinary powers that otherwise would be conferred on him if Congress approved a declaration of war.<br />"The administration has been silent on what powers it might claim, but in invoking his authority under the Defense Production Act of 1950, Bush yesterday asserted the government’s right to claim first priority to a range of products, from oil to machinery to basic foodstuffs.<br />"Either Congress or the President has the authority to declare a national emergency. But virtually all declarations have come from Presidents, who can do so without congressional approval." (<em>Star Tribune</em>, January 11, 1991.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Considering the quote just read, let us follow this possible scenario through, step-by-step. 1) The Bilderbergers want a war to help solidify their hold on the world by way of the U.N. They cannot just start one, there must be provocation. 2) April Glaspie, the American Ambassador, has informed Hussein that the U.S. has no interest in Iraq’s, already existing, border dispute with Kuwait — giving encouragement to Saddam Hussein. 3) The President freezes Iraqi assets on August 2, 1990, causing Hussein to panic. 4) Saddam Hussein, out of economic fear, invades Kuwait on August 4, 1990 — just two days after the President freezes the Iraqi assets in the U.S. 5) Now there is provocation for war by the President and his U.N. friends.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We have barely touched the subject of these Executive Orders and emergency laws which are buried deep in our nation’s Federal bureaucracy. They will remain there, and invisible, until they are implemented through the whims (justifiable or not) of a President for some emergency which, he only, need declare.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Is this the limited power of the Chief Executive of the United States that our Founding Fathers insisted on? Or is this more like the unlimited powers of King George, over which our Revolution was fought?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Seeking Honest and Wise Representatives<br /></span></em>We have seen how our Federal officials are using their office in ways that are designed to take away our agency and turn that agency over to another power.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This discussion has shown how even more precious threads of our Constitution are being severed. We find that, as we observe our officials in Washington, the following scripture comes to mind:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.<br />"Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.<br />"Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and tomorrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant." (Isa. 56:10-12.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />That may seem like a strong indictment against our elected officials, but haven’t our congressional "watchmen," those which we trusted to protect our ship of state, been blind to the effects of their decisions? It is as though they have the attitude of, "All is well is America; Yea, America prospereth, all is well — and thus the secret combinations cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to bondage." (See 2 Ne. 28:20-21.) Ezra Taft Benson wrote about such things:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"In this time of deadly peril we must choose men and women to represent us in our government who have attained an inner attunement of mind, heart and soul with God. Only these people have anchors, firmly rooted and strong enough, to withstand the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. They, only, have the inner sense of direction, stability of spirit and firmness of character essential to our survival.<br />"On my desk in Washington, D. C., for eight years as a Cabinet member, I had these words: ‘God give us men with a mandate higher than the ballot box.’" (TL, p. 17, 84.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />What kind of leaders should we be putting into office? In the Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1, 1988, p. 119, "President Spencer W. Kimball taught that successful leaders must following the Savior’s example: ‘The Savior’s leadership was selfless. He put himself and his own needs second and ministered to others beyond the call of duty, tirelessly, lovingly, effectively. So many of the problems in the world today spring from selfishness and self-centeredness."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We can find this type of leadership in the founding fathers. They were ideal examples of what kind of judges Jethro counseled Moses to choose. Exodus 18:21 reads: "Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them. . . ."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Our first President, George Washington, was a good man; he served his terms as President of the United States without monetary compensation. He wanted it that way. He may be compared to King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon, who — as he said — "labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes. . . ."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Are we putting such leaders over us today? With the foregoing references cited in these pages, we may be hard pressed to find many such leaders who meet the criteria just quoted. We need to follow the commandment given in the Doctrine and Covenants, which says: "Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil." (D&C 98:10.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center">WARNING TO CHURCH MEMBERS<br />The First Presidency<br />(Published in the August, 1939, issue of The Improvement Era.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center">With great regret we learn from credible sources, governmental and others, that a few Church members are joining directly or indirectly, the communists and are taking part in their activities.<br />The Church does not interfere, and has no intention of trying to interfere with the fullest and freest exercise of the political franchise of its members, under and within our Constitution which the Lord declared: "I established . . . by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose," and which, as to the principles thereof, the Prophet, dedicating the Kirtland Temple, prayed should be "established forever."<br />But Communism is not a political party nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government, and it would be necessary to destroy our government before Communism could be set up in the United States.<br />Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support Communism is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a Communist or supporter of Communism.<br />To our Church members we say: Communism is not the United Order, and bears only the most superficial resemblance thereto; Communism is based upon intolerance and force, the United Order upon love and freedom of conscience and action; Communism involves forceful despoliation of confiscation, the United Order voluntary consecration and sacrifice.<br />Communists cannot establish the United Order, nor will Communism bring it about. The United Order will be established by the Lord in His own due time and in accordance with the regular prescribed order of the Church.<br />Furthermore, it is charged by universal report, which is not successfully contradicted or disproved, that Communism undertakes to control, if not indeed to prescribe the religious life of the people living within its jurisdiction, and that it even reaches into the sanctity of the family circle itself, disrupting the normal relationship of parent and child, all in a manner unknown and unsanctioned under the Constitutional guarantees under which we in America live. Such interference would be contrary to the fundamental precepts of the Gospel and to the teachings and order of the Church.<br />Communism being thus hostile to loyal American citizenship and incompatible with true Church membership, of necessity no loyal American citizen and no faithful Church member can be a communist.<br />We call upon all Church members completely to eschew Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America.<br />Signed: Heber J. Grant<br />Signed: J. Reuben Clark, Jr.<br />Signed: David O. McKay</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-956870643734435422009-02-06T06:18:00.000-08:002009-02-06T06:28:10.242-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Chapter 16<br /><span style="font-size:180%;">States Rights or Regionalism<br /></span></span></strong><em>"Unless the mass retains sufficient control<br />over those entrusted with the powers of their government,<br />these will be perverted to their own oppression,<br />and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals<br />and their families selected for the trust."<br />— Thomas Jefferson</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >O</span>n February 10, 1972, President Richard M. Nixon signed an Executive Order, numbered 11647, which went virtually un-commented on in the press. It carried with it all the power of a law passed by Congress. The Congress was not even consulted about this order which divided the United States into ten federal regions to be run by "Federal Regional Councils."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Act was excused as a means of developing "closer working relationships" between major federal grant-making agencies and state and local government. These Federal Regional Councils are to be composed of directors of the regional offices of the Department of Labor; of Health, Education, and Welfare; of Housing and Urban Development; of the Department of Transportation; of the Office of Economic Opportunity; of the Environmental Protection Agency; and of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. The Chairmen of the Councils are to be appointed by the President of the United States and will serve "at the pleasure of the President."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />President Nixon sold his idea as "decentralization." He stated: "I realize that what I am asking is that not only the executive branch in Washington, but even this Congress will have to change by giving up some of its power." (Quoted in <em>Beware Metro</em>, p. 14.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Here we have a "centralization" of power unacceptable to our Founding Fathers. Mr. Nixon took power from Congress, the executive department, and from the states and created ten branches of the Executive department throughout the country. Ezra Taft Benson has had his feelings concerning this type of government. From his writings we read:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"We do not have, under the Constitution, a form of government that is federal, regional, and state. Yet, in recent years, we have been rapidly building up some forms of regional organization with the result that there has been a weakening in the division of functions between federal and state authorities. State governments must be supported ‘in all their rights as the most competent administrators for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against’ tendencies that would weaken our form of government. (TRC, p.149.)<br />"It is a firm principle that the smallest or lowest level that can possibly undertake the task is the one that should do so. . . . This is merely the application to the field of politics of that wise and time-tested principle of never asking a larger group to do that which can be done by a smaller group. And so far as government is concerned, the smaller the unit and the closer it is to the people, the easier it is to guide it, to keep it solvent and to keep our freedom.<br />"It is well to remember that the people of the states of this republic created the federal government. The Federal Government did not create the states." (<em>The Proper Role of Government</em>, pp. 10-11; AEHDT, p. 134.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />When Mr. Nixon determined that the United States was to be divided into ten regions, he was carefully carrying out the plans of those in power over him — the un-elected shadow government of the world — desiring a "New World Order."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In recent years, many new city, county, state and local offices have been created with the purpose of simplifying governments and making them more efficient. However, most are part of the designs of the regional planners. From the following list, which is not all-inclusive, the reader might recognize a few names. Some of these organizations are:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />American Public Welfare Associations<br />American Public Works Association<br />American Society of Planning Officials<br />American Society for Public Administration<br />City Managers<br />Committee for International Municipal Cooperation<br />Conference of Chief Justices<br />Council of Governments<br />Council of State Governments<br />Council of State Planning Agencies<br />County Executives<br />Federation of Tax Administrators<br />Governors’ Conference<br />International City Managers’ Association<br />National Association of Attorneys General<br />National Association of Counties<br />National League of Cities<br />Public Administration Service<br />Public Personnel Association<br />U.S. Conference of Mayors</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Many of us have heard of our governor going to the Governor’s Conference, of our mayor going to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, or of our city manager going to their International City Manager’s Association get-together. The design is to create many positions that are appointed, such as City Managers or County Managers, which are not elected by the people, and therefore, not accountable to them. Is this what our forefathers had in mind?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Concealed Objectives</span></em><br />The objective of regionalism, as envisioned by its creators, is a new America. They want to transform our union of sovereign states into a regionally unified nation. It would be divided into many metropolitan areas which spread across the borders of all of the independent state boundaries.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Their goal is to have each state create a new constitution for itself — a constitution that will not designate any borders, such as the new Constitutions that North Carolina and Montana now have. Such an action nullifies Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States, which reads in part: </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>". . . no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any state be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislature of the States concerned. . . ."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Regionalism, if fully implemented, will throw the world back into the Middle Ages — where people are only an economic unit and land ownership is a thing of the past.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Those that control the land, control the people, as it was under the "feudal" laws of early Europe. The central goal of regional planning is to condition the American people, mentally and emotionally, to be willing to give up their private land and permit the government to decide how the private property is to be used.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Robert C. Weaver, former Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) spoke quite openly when he said, </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Regional government means absolute Federal Control over all property and its development regardless of location, anywhere in the United States, to be administered on the Federal officials’ determination. It [regional government] would supersede state and local laws. . . . Through this authority we seek to recapture control of the use of land, most of which the government has already given to the people." (<em>Beware Metro</em>, p. 13.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Colonel Roberts, in his testimony to the Indiana House of Representatives explains how some of these laws are passed, or at least presented as law:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"You may remember that the Senate of the United States, a couple of years ago, passed a land-control bill and that the following House Bill, called the Udall Bill, was defeated in the House. Remember that? But, what you may not recall, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that, although defeated in the House, the Udall Bill was taken by Mr. Russell Train, head of the Environmental Protection Agency. And Mr. Train inserted the Udall Bill, into the Federal Register. Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a very sophisticated way to pass what is called Administrative Law. . . .<br />"Now, what we are witnessing is that Mr. Train, as an un-elected official, Mr. Chairman, was able to circumvent the will of the Congress and the people by inserting into the Federal Register what is called an Administrative Law — and it became binding upon the people of America. The Administrative Law technique has grown out of the revolutionary philosophy of those who now occupy positions of authority in Washington." (<em>Emerging Struggle for State Sovereignty</em>, p. 44.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Montana Example</span></em><br />To give an example of how deception is used by those officials who advocate regionalism, lets take the case of the State of Montana. To do so, let us turn, once again, to Lt. Colonel, Archibald E. Roberts and his book, Emerging Struggle for State Sovereignty. Colonel Roberts has gone to extreme lengths in his study and research into this subject. The following was given before the Indiana State Legislature as he was speaking about some of the new State Constitutions which are being pushed on the states of this nation. From his findings we read:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Here is one of them. This is called the Montana State Constitution and it was allegedly ratified by the people on the 6th of June, 1972. The people went through a referendum. They were given the opportunity to either vote for or against the new constitution. the people of Montana defeated this constitution by a majority vote of 1,380. But the Governor, Thomas L. Judge, of Montana declared, that because of the necessity of the time, he, by executive order, validated the new constitution for the State of Montana.<br />"Now, we are talking about a criminal conspiracy and this is as good an example as any. By this example I mean to show that elected officials, at the highest level in the State, are being subverted by regional money, free money, and other pressures, into pushing Federal Regional government upon the very people who reject it . . . even when they vote against regionalism, they get it.<br />"Now another interesting facet of this so-called New Constitution for the State of Montana is the fact that the State has no boundaries. Now the State of Montana has no boundaries under the new constitution because it is no longer a sovereign state, you see. The State of Montana has been reduced to a satrapy of Federal Region VIII with a new provincial capital in Denver, Colorado. All real political decisions are now being made at the new provincial capital in Denver, ignoring, by and large, the will of the people acting through their elected officials at the State Legislature." (A presentation made by Colonel Archibald E. Roberts on July 2, 1976, at the Indiana State Capitol Building, in the chambers of the House of Representatives, Indianapolis, Indiana.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Because of Colonel Roberts’ testimony, there was some good news that came out of the Indiana story. After the State Legislature investigated Colonel Roberts’ testimony they passed a bill outlawing regionalism or anyone promoting it. The Bill reads in part:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br />BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY STATE OF INDIANA:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">SECTION 1, The General Assembly makes the following findings:<br />(1) By means of the so-called Executive Order No. 11647, a former President of the United States purported to divide the states of the United States into ten ‘regions’. (2) the so-called Executive Order No. 11647 was void because: (A) It was legislative in nature and thus invalid under Article I of the Constitution of the United States, which vests ‘all legislative power herein granted’ in the Congress of the United States; and (B) neither the states nor the Congress have ever granted authority to any branch or agency of the federal government to exercise ‘regional control’ over the states.<br />SECTION 2. IC 35-26 is amended by adding a new chapter 3 to read as follows:<br />Chapter 3. Enforcement of the United States Constitution with Regard to Federal Regionalism. Sec. 1. (a) Any act by branch or agency of the federal government purported to group a state or states into a so-called region is void in Indiana. (b) A person who purports to enforce or uphold such an act in Indiana commits a Class B felony. No court may suspend the sentence or, or place or probation, a person convicted under this subsection.<br />Sec. 4. (a) A public official of Indiana, or member of the Congress of the United States from Indiana, who violates section 1 of this chapter or breaches an oath or affirmation taken under section 3 of this chapter forfeits his office and is ineligible to hold any other public office for life." (<em>Emerging Struggle for State Sovereignty</em>, pp. 57-58.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Regionalism for the World<br /></span></em>Regionalism is not intended just for the United States, it is also planned for the world. This is brought out from the most recent meeting of the Bilderberg group:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Already Western Europe is to be ‘without borders’ by 1993. By 1996, it is to have a single currency. Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union are to be eventually included. The Soviet Union is to remain intact and the Captive Nations are to remain forever subjugated.<br />"Bilderberg pressure on Congress to pass the free-trade treaty with Mexico is another step toward establishing the Western Hemisphere as another ‘region.’ Free trade with Canada was the first step and Mexico the second. Thereafter, all Latin American nations are to be included.<br />"In the years ahead, a one-currency movement for the Western Hemisphere is planned, identical to that of the European Economic Community and, ultimately, a world government with world currency." (<em>The Spotlight</em>, June 24, 1991, p. 3.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">In Conclusion<br /></span></em>This subject could be expanded for many pages, more executive orders could be cited, and more examples of extensive governmental powers detailed. The preceding, however, should be sufficient to help the reader understand the scope of the secret combinations at work within this nations government.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Thomas Jefferson new the importance of local governments and what could happen if their officials were not controlled. He gives us an idea why it is significant to keep control of local units. He said, "Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust" (<em>The Real Thomas Jefferson</em>, p. 464.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Federal Regionalism is a seditious secret combination that has as its goal the dismantling of local governments, the destruction of personal property, and the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br />We need to be ever alert to the workings of our elected officials. As Jefferson once said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."<br /><br />EITHER CHAPTER 8</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center">"For the Lord worketh not in secret combinations, neither doth he will that man should shed blood, but in all things hath forbidden it, from the beginning of man.<br />"And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not.<br />"Wherefore, O ye Gentiles [latter day Church], it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain — and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.<br />"Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.<br />"For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.<br />— Either 8:19, 22-25</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-26171204718984045002009-02-01T11:39:00.000-08:002009-02-01T12:35:15.604-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Chapter 17<br /><span style="font-size:180%;">Money, Banking, Usury and Debt<br /></span></span></strong>"If men use their liberty in such a way<br />as to surrender their liberty,<br />are they thereafter any the less slaves?"<br />— Anonymous</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >M</span>ost of us may not be totally responsible for the many subversive decisions our elected officials might make, but there is one area in which we are totally responsible, and that is "debt," — both nationally and personally.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Most of us in America have sold ourselves into bondage because we have been free to do so. Most of our national debt is a result of the government offering the people a "mess of pottage," and it was bought by the people. Personal debt, however, arises out of greed and pride — the "keeping up with the Joneses" syndrome. Before we get into the subject of debt, though, let us first briefly examine our monetary and banking practices.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Nature of Money<br /></span></em>To examine the banking situation, we will first read what Thomas Jefferson said about banking and improper money practices. In 1810, he wrote: ". . . we are overdone with banking institutions, which have banished the precious metals and substituted a more fluctuating and unsafe medium. . . ." (<em>The Real Thomas Jefferson</em>, p. 355.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This "fluctuating and unsafe medium" he had reference to was that of paper money. In 1813, as he was writing about the subject, he quoted Adam Smith: "He [Adam Smith] admits . . . that ‘the commerce and industry of a country cannot be so secure when suspended on the Daedalian wings of paper money as on the solid ground of gold and silver.’" (Ibid., p. 551.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Daedalian wings are man made. To get into a little Greek mythology — Daedalus was a skilful artist and inventor who built the labyrinth in Crete for King Minos and was then imprisoned in it with his son Icarus. They escaped by means of wings that he had made. Likewise, paper money is man made — gold and silver is not man made.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The money that is to be circulated in the United States was meant to be gold or silver coin, not printed paper. Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, states, "The Congress shall have Power. . . . To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." <em>Bouvier’s Law Dictionary</em>, defines money in this way:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><strong style="styleDocument: [object]">"MONEY. Gold and silver coins. The common medium of exchange in a civilized nation.<br /></strong>"There is some difference of opinion as to the etymology of the word money . . . but in the United States constitution there is a provision which has been supposed to make it synonymous with coins (Art. 1, section 8, and Art. 1, section 10). . . . Hence the money of the United States consists of gold and silver coins. And so well has the congress maintained this point, that the copper coins heretofore struck, and the nickel cent of recent issues, although authorized to ‘pass current,’ are not made a legal tender beyond twenty-five cents." (<em>Bouvier’s</em>, p. 2238.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Of course, the above quote, was written in the 1913 edition of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. However, President Lyndon B. Johnson authorized the issues of all coin to be made of base metals and President Ronald Reagan did the same with the copper penny.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Our money was to be "coin," and it was called a "dollar." Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, refers to the dollar. Again, let us turn to Bouvier’s dictionary:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><strong>"DOLLAR. The money unit of the United States. . . . It was established under the confederation by resolution of Congress, July 6, 1785</strong>. This was originally represented by a silver piece only; the coinage of which was authorized by the act of congress of August 8, 1786. . . . The law . . . provided for the coinage of ‘dollars or units, each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar, as the same was then current.<br />"The Spanish dollar known to our legislation was the dollar coined in Spanish America, North and South, which was abundant in our currency, in contradistinction to the dollar coined in Spain, which was rarely seen in the United States." (Ibid., p. 912-13.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />There is a difference between money and coin. Money can be any medium of exchange: sea shells, beads, carved rock (like scarabs) wood chips, etc. Bouvier helps us understand this:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><strong>"COIN. A piece of metal stamped with certain marks and made current at a certain value. Strictly speaking, coin differs from money. . . . Money is any matter, whether metal, paper, beads, or shells, which has currency as a medium in commerce.</strong> Coin is a particular species, always made of metal, and struck according to a certain process called coining." (Ibid., p. 519.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This silver dollar coin was originally, in the United States, represented only by a silver piece authorized by an act of Congress, August 8, 1786. It contained three hundred and seventy-one grains and four-sixteenths of a grain of pure silver, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />By the act of March 3, 1849, a gold dollar was authorized to be coined at a weight of 25.8 grains, and of the fineness of nine hundred thousandths. An act of November 1, 1893, declared the policy of the United States to continue the use of both gold and silver as standard money, and to coin both gold and silver into money of equal intrinsic and exchangeable value.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, we read, "No State shall . . . coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." This clause of the Constitution approves of coining money, but not of making paper money. The Founding Fathers had little love for paper money but instead encouraged the value and use of gold and silver coin as the only real and just monetary medium of exchange. Our third President, Thomas Jefferson, said this about paper money:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Specie [precious metals] 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. . . . The trifling economy of paper as a cheaper medium . . . is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted.<br />"We have no metallic measure of values at present, while we are overwhelmed with bank paper. The depreciation of this swells nominal prices without furnishing any stable index of real value." (<em>The Real Thomas Jefferson</em>, pp. 551-552.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Roger Sherman thought their financial crisis and the ensuing Constitutional Convention "a favorable crisis for crushing paper money." (<em>The Making of America</em>, p. 496.) Let us take into consideration two more comments on the evils of this most popular form of financial exchange. Richard Henry Lee commented on paper money in these words: </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"It breaks down the moral character of your people, robs the widow of her maintenance, and defrauds the orphan of his food . . . the poor man, who has the paper in his pocket for which he can receive little or nothing. . . . These unfortunate men are compelled to receive paper instead of gold — paper which nominally represents something, but which in reality represents almost nothing." (Ibid., p. 494.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />And Charles Turner stated: "The operation of paper money, and the practice of privateering, have produced a gradual decay of morals; introduced pride, ambition, envy, lust of power; produced a decay of patriotism, and the love of commutative justice." (Ibid., p. 495.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The above shows what our coinage or money system used to be in the past. But, what have the covetous and greedy appetites of the power hungry done to it? No thanks to President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Gold Reserve Act of 1933, gold was confiscated from the public, and safety deposit boxes, and he left gold certificates in the place thereof.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Ezra Taft Benson, in his true form of defending justice and the liberties of our people had these cutting words to say about the situation:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"I believe in honest money, the gold and silver coinage of the Constitution, and a circulating medium convertible into such money without loss. I regard it as a flagrant violation of the explicit provisions of the Constitution for the Federal Government to make it a criminal offense to use gold or silver coin as legal tender or to use irredeemable paper money." (<em style="styleDocument: [object]">The Proper Role of Government</em>, p. 22; AEHDT, p. 145.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Moral Implications<br /></span></em>From the foregoing comments, we find that using paper money is valueless and immoral. This we see as we reread some of the words just quoted about paper money: Thomas Jefferson when he said, "The depreciation of this swells nominal prices without furnishing any table index of real value; Richard Henry Lee said, "It breaks down the moral character of your people, robs the widow of her maintenance, and defrauds the orphan of his food; and Charles Turner said it has produced "a gradual decay of morals; introduced pride, ambition, envy, lust of power. . . ."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Gold and silver keep their value, paper money does not; it can fluctuate at the will of man. Because there is only a certain amount of gold and silver, and it consists of certain, inherent, intrinsic values, it is relatively stable and viable for an honest exchange. Let us take, for example, the following story:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />A bushel of corn is worth one ounce piece of silver. A man goes to a farmer and purchases a bushel of corn for a piece of silver. This he has done for years, and all is well. The corn stays the same price and the silver buys the same amount at each purchase.<br />But then comes a person who says, "I will give you a printed piece of paper that says it is equal to one ounce piece of silver, and you can go and by corn with it."<br />So the man agrees and gives the person his silver in exchange for paper money, a promissory note. The man takes that paper money, or note, to the farmer and purchases a bushel of corn. The farmer takes the paper money (promissory note) to the person who created it and receives his silver in return for it, and all is still well.<br />However, the person who created the paper money decides, for whatever reason he has, to print up twice as much money as he has silver to back it. Now the paper money is worth only one-half of its original value.<br />The man goes to purchase another bushel of corn and pays the farmer with paper money, as before, which the farmer takes to the exchanger for his silver, as before.<br />However! The person who now has doubled the amount of paper money in relation to the silver on hand, tells the farmer: "I now need two paper moneys for the exchange of a silver coin."<br />Now, the next time the man goes to buy a bushel of corn, the farmer says: "It will now cost you TWO paper moneys for the corn."<br />So now the man has to work harder and longer to purchase the same goods as before, because his money has become "worth-less."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This little story illustrates how inflation works and how paper money can ruin the economy of a people. As we see here, the value of the silver did not change. The value of the corn did not change. But, the value of the paper money did change. So, when we hear in the news that the price of gold or silver has increased, remember, it has not increased. It was the value of the paper money (dollar) that has changed in value. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>Benjamin Franklin understood this. He was concerned about the bad money situation that existed in the State of Maryland at the time, and said, "By its continually changing value, [the money in Maryland] appears a currency unfit for the purpose of money, which should be as fixed as possible in its own value, because it is to be the measure of the value of other things." (<em>The Real Benjamin Franklin</em>, p. 428.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />He said it was to "be the measure of the value of other things." Money is to have value! People are to have values! And when we fool with the value of money, we also fool with the values of the people.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />How is this so? We must realize that the things we value in one area of our life spill over into the other areas of our life. When we tamper with the value of money, which we value to a certain degree, we also tamper with our personal values. If we are willing to cheat someone because of our unethical business methods — though those methods may be legal — we will be willing to cheat them in other ways. We may even be so blind to our faults as to try and think we can cheat God.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Weights and Measures<br /></span></em>The regulation of "Weights and Measures" is part of the duty of Congress, according to Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. This also has to do with value and morality.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Lord, through his prophet Isaiah, was condemning his people, Israel, and at the top of the list of charges was that of the value of their money, and how it had been lessened in value. As a matter of fact, it looks like they even thinned down their wine:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.<br />"Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:<br />"Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.<br />"Therefore saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies:<br />"And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin." (Isa. 1:21-25.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Many know that "dross" is the waste matter which is thrown off from molten metal. It said here in this scripture, that Israel was mixing "tin" (verse 25) with silver, lessening the value of the silver pieces. Their coin therefore, became valueless, or in other words, had less value.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As we notice from this "worth-less" attitude of Israel, other areas of their lives were also affected: thinning their wine, being rebellious and associating with thieving companions, looking for gifts and rewards, the lack of charity, etc.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />During the presidency of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, advised the President to charter the first national bank of the United States. This bank, however was a grievance to the American Republic. Of this problem, in relation to paper money, President James Madison later wrote: </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice of the power which has been the instrument of it." (<em>The Federalist</em>, No. 44.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As we examine the scriptures further we find that the Lord expected Israel to have: "Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have." (Lev. 19:36.) And He also said that: "Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small." (Deut. 25:13.) He then continues in Proverbs with: "A just weight and balance are the LORD’S: all the weights of the bag are his work. . . Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD. . . Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD; and a false balance is not good." (Prov. 16:11, 20:10, 23.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The people of Israel still did not to serve the Lord in the spirit of truth, so He said, speaking of Israel: "Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights?" (Micah 6:11.) Why such an emphasis on weights and measures if such considerations do not influence our daily moral values? They do influence them. Not only the Lord knew that, but our forefathers also knew it.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="styleDocument: [object]">The Banks</span><br /></span></em>Thomas Jefferson was never in favor of Banks. When President Washington signed the first national bank into being, it was against the wishes of Mr. Jefferson, who was the first Secretary of State. Jefferson wrote the following in regard to this "deadly" institution:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution.<br />"This institution [bank] is one of the most deadly hostility existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution. . . . An institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this Bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in time of war? It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or withdraw its aids. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?<br />"Everything predicted by the enemies of banks, in the beginning, is now coming to pass. We are to be ruined now by the deluge of bank paper, as we were formerly by the old Continental paper. . . . I am an enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but coin. But our whole country is so fascinated by this Jack lantern wealth that they will not stop short of its total and fatal explosion.<br />"The evils they [the banks] have engendered are now upon us, and the question is how we are to get out of them? . . . For these are to ruin both Republic and individuals." (<em>The Real Thomas Jefferson</em>, pp. 354-356.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />How did our modern-day banking system come into being? To put things into proper historical perspective, we will go back a few years.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The modern European banking conglomeration was started by Amschel Moses Meyers, who later changed his name to Rothschild. After some success in a small banking house he branched out into Germany, Austria, England, Italy, and France, placing one of his sons at the head of different branches.</div><blockquote style="styleDocument: [object]"></blockquote><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">With this kind of arrangement, he proceeded to influence governments to borrow from his banking establishments, to finance wars, which have always been plentiful in Europe. With a branch in each major country, his sons could convince the reigning King, or Sovereign, to borrow from them to finance his campaign. Thus, the Rothschilds could finance both sides of a war and make money from the interest charged. As Meyer Rothschild, one of the sons of Amschel who controlled the bank in Frankfurt, Germany, said, <em>"Permit me to control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."</em> (<em>The Unseen Hand</em>, p. 140, from Martin A. Larson, The Federal Reserve, p. 10.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Alexander Hamilton married into the Philip Schuyler family of New York, one of the richest and most influential families in the country. George Washington seated him as the first Secretary of the Treasury in 1789, at which time Hamilton was instrumental in convincing Mr. Washington, against Mr. Jefferson’s advice, to sign into being the nation’s first Bank of the United States in 1791.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This author does not mean to say that Alexander Hamilton was purposely involved in a conspiracy against this country he helped found, but that he was only an unsuspecting player in a larger game.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The international banking syndicate conspiracy has been traced back to 1776, with Adam Weishaupt and his Illuminati Order. It may be of interest, at this time, to say that George Washington came into the possession of the book, Proofs of a Conspiracy, previously spoken of, and tried to warn his friends. At one time he wrote a letter to a Reverend G. W. Snyder, wherein he said, "Reverend Sir: It was not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am. . . ." (Quoted in Emerging Struggle for State Sovereignty, p. 148.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr — the same Burr that killed Hamilton in a pistol duel — had helped create the Manhattan Company of New York. This was later merged with the Rockefeller’s Chase Bank, creating what has since been known as the Chase Manhattan Bank.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />After the twenty-year charter ran out for the first Bank of the United States, a second Bank of the United States was instituted to help pay for the War of 1812. This war was a war promoted by the bank, of which the U.S. became a victim. When Andrew Jackson came into office as President, he abolished the bank before its new twenty-year charter ran out. Although banks had their hands in this nation’s Civil War, the country was free of a charted banking establishment until 1913.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Federal Reserve Bank<br /></span></em>In 1911-1912, one of this nation’s biggest economic battles took place between those who wanted to keep a Constitutional money system and those that wanted a system controlled by the financiers.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In order for the bankers to pull it off, they found their man in Woodrow Wilson, a president of Princeton University. When he was nominated by the Democratic convention, that convention went on record as absolutely opposed to any banking system. The appointment from the Republicans was old William Howard Taft who approved of banking for the nation.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Senator Nelson Aldrich, known as "Morgan’s floor broker in the Senate," had a daughter married to John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Mr. Aldrich worked with Paul Warburg, of the Warburg banking dynasty, at Jekyll Island, Georgia, to create what has become known as the Federal Reserve System. This meeting was one of secrecy, and only those who had a need to know were there, or later informed.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Aldrich drew up a bill to present to Congress called the Aldrich Bill, proposing a national banking system. It was killed. Since Congress would not pass it, there were other ways. They had William Howard Taft support the Aldrich plan in Taft’s campaign for President, and had Woodrow Wilson propose a Federal Reserve System — both identical. History has shown that Wilson won the Presidency. And — you guessed it — we got the federal reserve banking system.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Most people believe that the Federal Reserve with its 12 regional banking members are part of the federal government. It is not. Don’t let the word Federal fool you. It is not federal. It is not anymore Federal than the Federal Express mailing system. The name is only a deceptive device to trick people into believing it is federal, and part of our government. As one individual put it, playing on words from Shakespeare: "A thorn by any other name, will stick you just the same."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The following quotes come from a publication put out by the information department of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York entitled, I bet you thought. . .:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Many banks carry very official-sounding names . . . but they aren’t run by, owned, or part of government. . . . Commercial banks are privately owned businesses. . . .<br />"The 12 regional Reserve Banks aren’t government institutions but corporations nominally ‘owned’ by member commercial banks. . . ." (<em>I bet you thought</em>. . . , pp. 15, 21.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As you can see from these quotes from their own publication, they admit that they are "privately owned." Now who are those who own the Federal Reserve? We know it is not the government. The Federal Reserve is owned by ten of the world’s largest banking houses. Eight of them are: 1) Rothschilds of London and Berlin; 2) Lazares Brothers of Paris; 3) Israel Moses Seaf of Italy; 4) Warburg and Company of Hamburg, Germany; 5) Kuhn, Loeb and Company of Germany and New York; 6) Lehman Brothers of New York; 7) Goldman, Sachs of New York; and 8) Rockefeller Brothers of New York.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Our current Prophet, President Ezra Taft Benson, felt most of our national economic troubles started with the government and the Federal Reserve. Of this he said,</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The very beginning of our troubles can be traced to the day when the federal government overstepped its proper defensive function and began to manipulate the monetary system to accomplish political objectives. The creation of the Federal Reserve Board made it possible for the first time in America for men arbitrarily to change the value of our money." (<em>The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson</em>, p. 638.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Interest is Usury<br /></span></em>Banking is business, and the intent of business is to make money. How does a bank make money? By charging interest on loans! That interest is usury.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now the current dictionary will tell us that usury is "an excessive or unlawfully high rate or amount of interest." That comes from one of Webster’s current dictionaries. However, that is not what usury is. Usury is interest — period. From the popular Smith’s Bible Dictionary we read:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><blockquote></blockquote>"The word usury has come in modern English to mean excessive interest upon money loaned, either formally illegal or at least oppressive. In the scriptures, however, the word did not bear this sense, but meant simply interest of any kind upon money." (<em>A Dictionary of the Bible</em>, p. 723.) <blockquote></blockquote>And from Bouvier, we find much the same thing: "USURY. The excess over the legal rate charged to a borrower of the use of money. Originally, the word was applied to all interest reserved for the use of money; and in the early ages taking such interest was not allowed." (Bouvier, p. 3380.) <blockquote></blockquote>Now we go to one more source, A New Abridgment of the Law, so we are sure we have an understanding that interest is the same as usury:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"USURY, in a strict sense, is a contract upon the loan of money to give the lender a certain profit for the use of it. . . .<br />"Anciently it was holden to be absolutely unlawful for Christians to take any kind of usury, and that whosoever was guilty of it was liable to be punished by the censures of the church in his lifetime; and that if after death any one was found to have been a usurer while living, all his chattels were forfeited to the king, and his lands escheated to the lord of the fee.<br />"Also, it seemeth to have been the opinion of the makers of some acts of parliament, . .that all kinds of usury are contrary to good conscience.<br />"And agreeably thereto it seemeth formerly to have been the general opinion, that no action could be maintained on any promise to pay any kind of use for the forbearance of money, because that all such contracts were thought to be unlawful, and, consequently, void." (<em>A New Abridgment of The Law</em>, 1854, pp. 264-65.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now that sheds a whole new light on the subject in which most Americans are involved, that is, the taking of usury (interest) from our fellow man. That would include interest paid on loans from banks for a house, car, education, credit cards, etc.; interest demanded for late payment on accounts from doctors, lawyers and other types of service agreements; and interest paid to any person, or any entity such as a corporation, or some other business.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />When we participate in interest, either in receiving it, or paying it, we are violating one of God’s strict laws. Due to the traditions of our fathers, we have come to believe that such a practice is okay and legal. But writing a law does not change the Lord’s feelings about it. Let’s see what He had to say about the practice. From the Bible, we read the following:</div><blockquote style="styleDocument: [object]"></blockquote><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">"If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury." (Ex. 22:25.) </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">"Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase." (Lev. 25:36-37.) </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">"Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury. Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it." (Deut. 23:19-20.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This last quote is interesting where it says, "Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury." What the law of Israel was, is that the people could not charge interest or usury to their fellow Israelites. They could, however, do so with the stranger from a foreign country. Here is a question to consider: Are we not all, in this LDS Church at least, brothers and sisters in Israel? Are we not descended from those same people the Lord talked to in the Bible? If so, shouldn’t we be obeying the same laws they were to obey since we are of Israel?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Prophet Jeremiah defends himself by saying: "I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury; yet every one of them doth curse me." (Jer. 15:10.) And when speaking of the last days and the Lord’s plagues upon the earth, Isaiah wrote, "And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him. (Isa. 24:2.) Other scriptural references on the subject can be found in Neh. 5:7, 10; Ps. 15:5, Prov. 28:8, and Ezek. 18:8, 13, 17, 22:12.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now how does all this stand in relation to the parable that Jesus gives in Matthew 25:14-28 when He speaks of usury? In that parable, a man delivered unto his servants talents — to one servant five talents, to another two talents, and to another one talent. And then the man left.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />When the man returned, his servants presented unto him an increase in the talents that were entrusted with them. But of the servant with which he left one talent, there was no increase. This last servant justified his actions, or lack of action, with:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.<br />"His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:<br />"Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.<br />"Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents." (See Matt. 25:14-28.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The lord did not say here that the servant should have gained usury or interest upon the talent. What the lord gave in return was a negative response to a defamation of the lord’s character by the servant. The servant said he, the lord, was a "hard man," meaning a strict man. The servant also said that He was "reaping" and "gathering" where he did not sow, or, in other words, the lord was someone who cheats.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The lord, therefore responded by calling him "slothful," and in essence said to him: "If you knew that I cheat people and I am dishonest, then why didn’t you put my money to use, gathering interest, which is also dishonest?"</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />His response to the servant was a question much like the question given to the Savior by one of the thieves on a cross next to Him, who said, "If thou be Christ, save thyself and us." (Luke 23:39.) In the modern day vernacular, we might say it was a "flippant" rebuttal. The Lord’s response to the servant was a negative question for the purpose of making a positive point.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Evils of Debt<br /></span></em>The paying and receiving of interest is evil because it assumes something that does not exist, and that is deception. When we make someone pay us interest, we are taking from him something that we have not earned. And when we pay interest, we are taking the bread out of our mouths. As Cicero, the great Roman statesman, once put it: ". . . it is a usurer which takes bread from innocent mouths and deprives honorable men of their substance. . . ." (Quoted in AEHDT, p. 222.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Interest, or usury, brings debt. Now all debt does not come from interest. But, interest increases a person’s debt by such proportions that it becomes, in many cases, impossible to pay back.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />When a loan is contracted for, only the principle is borrowed, the interest is not borrowed but must be made up from nothing.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Let us make the following illustration: Suppose there are two men stranded on an island. The first man has a one dollar-bill, and the second has none. The second wants to borrow the dollar, to which the first agrees. However, the first man wants the second man to pay 10% interest, which would be 10 cents. The total pay back, including principle plus interest, is $1.10. Question: If the only money available, in the first place, is the dollar the first man had, where will the second man get the extra ten cents to pay the interest? It does not exist, because it was not created — it is an illusionary amount.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now a person might say, "I borrow money, and through my business profits, I earn enough to pay the principle and interest, so what’s the problem?"</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The problem is that the interest was not created in the form of "hard cash." The money the person made through his business profits was the principle someone else earned or borrowed previously.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Let us work out an example using a 30-year mortgage on a $60,000 house. At a current interest rate of 10%, with monthly payments of $527 (figures came from a bank loan officer), the amount paid over the 30-year period, principle and interest, will be $189,720. If we subtract the $60,000 principle from the total paid, we find that the usury collected by the bank is $129,720. Now many people know that they pay three times as much for a house when they finance it this way. That is why many want to pay it off sooner than contracted for, if possible.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Using this same example from above, let’s get into the banks practice of "fractional reserve banking." Fractional reserve banking simply means that a bank must keep on hand a certain amount of the deposits, against which they can make more loans. From the same bank officer that supplied the figures above, we find that the amount needed to be kept against loans is 3-5%. Using the 5% figure, the following is what can happen with the same $60,000 from the house purchase.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />After a person commits himself into a $60,000 bondage contract for 30 years, he pays for the house with that borrowed money. The seller takes the money and deposits it in bank "A." Bank "A" must keep 5% of that $60,000 on hand, which is $3,000 — he can then loan out $57,000 to someone else. The one who borrows the $57,000 purchases something for that amount, and the recipient of the money deposits the $57,000 into bank "B." Bank "B" must keep 5% on hand, and can then loan out the balance, etc, etc, etc. After this author carried this out 50 steps, he came up with a total amount of money that could be loaned out on the original $60,000 — it was $1,063,146, with $5,812 still left to loan.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We must remember that the $60,000 represents the only money available. The other money loaned, is fictitious, and does not exist; it is only a bookkeeping entry or a stroke of a computer key.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Let us consider our current national debt to the Federal Reserve as found in the February, 1993, Federal Reserve Bulletin. The U.S. Treasury had a total gross public debt at the end of September, 1993, of $4,411,500,000,000. That is four trillion dollars. (Federal Reserve Bulletin, December 1993, p. A30.) At the end of September, 1991, it was $3,665,300,000,000. That is an increase of 20%. (The accumulation of all personal debts in the United States is over $12 Trillion.) How much is $4 trillion? Let us put this in perspective: If Noah started at the time of the flood (about 2,400 B.C.), spending $2 million PER DAY, it would take him until 79 years after the millennium (assuming it to be 3,000 AD) to spend the entire $4 trillion. And most of this debt comes from interest or usury. As the Feds tell us themselves: "Almost all Federal Reserve earnings come from the interest paid by the U.S. government. . ." (I bet you thought..., p. 23.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Someone might ask why the U.S. Treasury does not print up more money. Well, it cannot without authorization from the Fed. A statement in the publication previously cited, from the Federal Reserve, states:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The Bureau of Engraving and Printing in Washington, D.C., a unit of the Treasury, is responsible for printing the nation’s currency. But its orders to print come from the 12 Federal Reserve Banks, not the President or Congress. The Reserve Banks, not the Treasury, determine how much currency is printed, based mainly on estimates of depository institutions and public cash demands. Under this arrangement, the government can’t print more Federal Reserve notes to pay its bills or debts." (Ibid., p. 25.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />From this we can understand how money is created out of nothing. Paper money can be created, with out the backing of gold or silver, at the will of the banks, but only in the amount to cover the principle demanded by the populace. The interest, or usury, is not created but is a fictitious amount appearing only on bookkeeping ledgers and in computers — an amount that CANNOT be paid in cash because it does not exist.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />This type of debt is the most seductive and seditious type of debt. It is seductive because people think they are doing well when they appear to prosper, when in reality they are living in an illusion. And, it is seditious because the aim of the bankers is to subjugate the nations of the world into a one-world slave society.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Book of Proverbs tells us, "The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender." (Prov. 22:7.) And Benjamin Franklin said, ". . . ah, think what you do when you run into debt; you give to another power over your liberty." (<em>The Real Benjamin Franklin</em>, p. 348.) President Benson counseled us in the following words:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The Lord desires his Saints to be free and independent in the critical days ahead. But no man is truly free who is in financial bondage." (<em>God, Family, Country</em>, p. 268.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">"No man in debt is truly free. He who has not learned thrift and economy is constantly beset with problems and misgivings about the future. His own freedom and peace of mind are endangered. Those dependent upon him are likewise jeopardized in their self-respect and freedom." (TETB, p. 292.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Federal Reserve confesses that their "earnings come from interest paid by the U.S. government," that is, all of us; because we have authorized Congress to create this banking monster. The interest earnings, as of this writing, is more than four trillion dollars, of tax money. They also control the amount of currency in circulation. With this power, they can inflate it, deflate it, or call it out of circulation, causing extraordinary economic chaos.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Paying the Debt<br /></span></em>As we begin the discussion of paying debts, let us turn to another statement from Ezra Taft Benson. In one of his early books he wrote: "Deficit spending and lending, if continued unabated, will lead us into the Russian trap envisioned by Lenin, who was reported to have said,‘We shall force the United States to spend itself into destruction.’" (TRC, p. 167.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, says, "The Congress shall have Power To . . . pay the Debts. . . ." Bouvier says that a debt is, "A sum of money due by certain and express agreement. . . . All that is due a man under any form of obligation or promise." (Bouvier, p. 786.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />However, Congress has "nullified" this clause in the Constitution because it has relegated its authority to the Federal Reserve, and we have no more gold or silver in the national treasury to pay the debt.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Because of the massive debt the U.S. had accumulated since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, President Franklin Roosevelt put out an Executive Order, issued April 5, 1933. The twenty-year contractual period was up in 1933 and the debt was due. The national government handed over its gold to the Federal Reserve and, to make up the difference, demanded the people of the U.S. to turn over to the government their gold. The Executive Order read, in part:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT, Issued April 5, 1933, all persons are required to deliver ON OR BEFORE MAY 1, 1933, all GOLD COIN, GOLD BULLION, AND GOLD CERTIFICATES now owned by them to a Federal Reserve Bank, branch or agency, or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System. . . . CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER $10,000 fine or 10 years, imprisonment, or both, provided in Section 9 of the order."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />To make sure this order was carried out, the government went into all of the safety deposit boxes and took out gold. However, the people were able to keep jewelry and table flat-ware (knives, forks, and spoons) made of gold.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Thomas Jefferson warned us, long ago, of such a future possibility when he wrote about the disastrous results of the first national bank of the United States:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"With this act, the Treasury of the United States went broke, and this nation has been in bondage ever since to foreigners.<br />"From the establishment of the United States Bank to this day, I have preached against this system, and have been sensible no cure could be hoped but in the catastrophe now happening . . . we must make up our minds to suffer yet longer before we can get right. The misfortune is that in the meantime we shall plunge ourselves in inextinguishable debt, and entail on our posterity an inheritance of eternal taxes. . . ." (<em>The Real Thomas Jefferson</em>, p. 550-551.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Greatest Cause of Debt</span></em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">One of Utah’s notable state legislators said (as well as this author can personally remember) that the greatest majority of calls that are received from constituents represent those who want more welfare and handouts. Why is this? — and in a state which is supposed to be very conservative? A little study can show that Utah is one of the most flagrant abusers of Social Welfare (socialism) and of the people’s rights in the nation.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We as a nation have come to expect a handout, and that our government will take care of us. Such demanding expectations put a burden on the government to produce, and the taxpayer must pay it. By such a program, this nation goes deeper in debt, and the interest piles up. This was not the intent of our Founding Fathers, as Jefferson explains: "I am for a government that is rigorously frugal and simple, and not for one that multiplies offices to make partisans, that is, to get votes, and by every device increases the public debt under the guise of being a public benefit." (TRC, p. 142; TNSE, p. 78.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Our American system of social policies is a major root of our social, economic and moral problems. It is unfortunate that we have chosen to accept the system by way of apathy or ignorance instead of taking time and energy to change the social order for the permanent benefits of self-government. We often fail to determine our own lives because we take the path of least resistance and decline pushing for appropriate social change. We therefore fight symptoms instead of fixing the cause.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It’s hard to fathom why we still desire and vote for social welfare programs, with governmental controls, which keep us in perpetual debt. President Benson said, "One reason for the increase in debt causes great concern. This is the rise of materialism as contrasted with spiritual values." (TETB, p. 290.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Lord has said to us: "Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another," (D&C 101:79.) and that we should, "Owe no man anything," (Rom. 13:8.) therefore we should, "pay thy debt, and live." (2 Kgs. 4:7.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The majority of our national and personal troubles with debt is the desire for someone else to pay our way. Therefore, we borrow into debt and become slaves — a debt our posterity will have to bear. We must remember: the debt incurred today is paid tomorrow. And by whom? — our children, that is who. In 1816, Thomas Jefferson put it in these words: "I sincerely believe . . . that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." (<em>The Real Thomas Jefferson</em>, p. 356.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In the presence of such scriptural evidence, counseling from our prophets and church leaders, and warnings from political and other notable figures in the world, it is amazing that we continue courting this branch of the socialistic conspiracy.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It may be easy to understand why a poor, destitute individual may want the dole because of his desperation, laziness, or greed, and think that socialism, and its accompanying social-welfare state, is the united order. It is not the United Order! It is Lucifer’s worldly counterfeit of God’s righteous program of the Law of Consecration.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We might ask, "Why do so-called intelligent and learned individuals, even we of Israel, choose such socialistic programs?" It is as though Isaiah 29:14 is fulfilled in them: ". . . for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Welfare is Legal Plunder<br /></span></em>It is interesting to consider, that if person "A" takes money out of the pocket of person "B," without "B’s" permission, that is called stealing. But if "A" gets the government to take money out of "B’s" pocket without "B’s" permission, that is called "social welfare." We might ask, "What is the difference?" It seems that theft is theft, no matter what you call it. Frederick Bastiat puts it this way:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it - without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud - to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed.<br />"But how is the legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.<br />"Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.<br />"It is impossible to introduce into society . . . a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder." (<em>The Law</em>, pp. 26, 21, 30-31, 12, respectfully.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />How can the government give something to the people without first getting it from the people? When we ask the government to pay our way, they demand payment from us so they can give it back to us. But with that "give back," there are strings attached — those strings are contracts and agreements — or we do not get our money back. By such contracts and agreements we lien our rights away. We must remember that the Nephites, after the Savior visited them, had no poor among them. This was not because their government supported them, but because they had the faith that the Lord would provide; and He did — until they became puffed up in pride again, and fell, having to depend again on government.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">In Conclusion</span></em><br />We often covet that which we do not have and which is possessed by another. The coveting of possessions can make us willing to go into debt for them. This going into debt can give the elusion of getting something for nothing or receiving that which has not been earned. The debtor is willing to pay much interest for the debt of elusion.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As we have learned in this chapter, both debt and usury (interest) run contrary to God’s principle of free agency. When we are in debt to another we are not free to act for ourselves; we have contracted our freedom away. Debt is bondage, enslavement, and servitude. Interest — compound interest in particular — put the debtor under perpetual contract and the resulting slavery. The coveting of financial wealth, gathering possessions, having others serve us, and the holding of positions, has lead this people, this nation, and this world under the condemnation of the Almighty who has declared, "Thou shalt not covet."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Free agency was the main reason there was a war in heaven. When we are in debt we have to serve our credit masters and we are not free to serve the Lord. When we choose the debt and usury system of credit and interest, we are choosing bondage. We help win the battle of freedom in the pre-earth life, are we going to lose it here?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As we have seen, the usury we pay the big banking system helps to support those principles which destroy lives and enslave nations. By being in debt to the banking establishments of the world, we are literally (and perhaps, ignorantly) taking part in the death and misery of many souls. Our time, talents, the usury we pay, and all that we have, go to support these ungodly principles of which we may be held accountable if we do not change our ways. President J. Reuben Clark, said, "Let us avoid debt as we would avoid a plague; where we are now in debt, let us get out of debt; if not today, then tomorrow. . . . Let us straightly and strictly live within our incomes, and save a little. . . . Let every head of every household aim to own his own home, free from mortgage." (CR, April, 1937, p. 26.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We have gotten ourselves locked into a system of money and banking that have become a way of life — as Ezra Taft Benson said, "We have lived in an atmosphere of inflation for so long that many people now accept the benefits of permanent debt as a firm law of economics." (AEHDT, p. 220.) It is not a firm law of economics, it is the devil’s own plan to enslave God’s children.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now we know that the system of banking, paper money, interest, credit and debt, that we have been warned against for many years by authorities of the Church and our Founding Fathers, is evil. Are we going to continue to support this branch of the church of the devil or are we going to get out of debt and be free as the Lord has commanded?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We have covered a lot of information in this chapter — about every aspect of which many books have been written. It was given with the hope that all of us can become more aware of how "We the People" have permitted parts of our Constitution to be ignored or nullified, and how the evil forces of socialistic-banking is crippling our nation and our personal lives.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We must be aware that, though there are sinister forces trying to overthrow this nation, we alone are responsible. Many of us possess a certain amount of greed, and we have not been vigilant in trying to understand the principle of free agency and how it relates to the Constitution and our eternal welfare. </div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-70730409967299226872009-02-01T11:28:00.000-08:002009-02-01T11:39:00.189-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >Chapter 18<br /></span><span style="font-size:180%;">Balanced Budget Myth and a New Constitution<br /></span></strong>"And as pertaining to law of man,<br />whatsoever is more or less than this,<br />cometh of evil."<br />— Doctrine and Covenants 98:7</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >T</span>he 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.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">No Money for a Budget<br /></span></em>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.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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, <em>I bet you thought</em>. . . , Federal Reserve Bank of New York, p. 15.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">We Borrow into Debt</span></em><br />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." (<em>The Federalist</em>, No. 79.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">It’s Impossible to Pay the Debt<br /></span></em>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.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >What Motive for Such Deception?<br /></span></em>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.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"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." (<em>The Power to Lead</em>, 1984.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">A Constitutional Convention?<br /></span></em>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.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"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 <em>Silent Crisis</em>, by Don Fotheringham, The John Birch Society, Appleton, Wisconsin.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">What Is Behind It?<br /></span></em>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:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"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." (<em>Emerging Struggle for State Sovereignty</em>, p. 200.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"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.’<br />"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.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"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.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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).</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">There Can Be No Balanced Budget<br /></span></em>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?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />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.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><br /><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:130%;" >J. REUBEN CLARK, Jr.<br /></span>On Interest, Long Time Debts,<br />and Installment Buying</strong></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"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?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"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.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"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."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="right">— J. Reuben Clark, Jr., <em>Conference Report</em>, April 1938, p. 103.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"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.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"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."</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="right">— J. Reuben Clark, Jr., <em>Conference Report</em>, April 1938, p. 104.</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8214452033238489942.post-5647617260164179792009-02-01T11:07:00.000-08:002009-02-01T11:28:34.857-08:00<div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="center"><strong style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Chapter 19<br /></span><span style="font-size:180%;">The Communist Manifesto - The American Way of Life?<br /></span></strong><em>"There always comes a time when unpleasant truths must be retold,<br />even though the retelling disturbs the ease and quiet of a luxurious error.<br />Today seems to be such a time."<br />— J. Reuben Clark, Jr.</em></div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><span style="styleDocument: [object];font-size:180%;" >B</span>ecause of common beliefs in America about communism, most individuals link communism with outright lying, subtle deception, treason, allegiance to a foreign state, hatred of religion and contempt for the God-given rights of individuals, murder, slave labor, concentration camps, and the despotic control of every phase of human life. But these are only methods to achieve an end and that end is socialism. The following is a quote from President J. Reuben Clark, Jr. which was used in a previous chapter. In consideration of the subject discussed in this chapter it might be well to make the quote again. President Clark was a man well educated in government and the dangers to free agency. He said this about the relationship of communism to socialism:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The plain and simple issue now facing us in America is freedom or slavery. . . .<br />"Our real enemies are communism and its running mate, socialism. . . . And never forget for one moment that communism and socialism are state slavery. . . .<br />". . . the paths we are following, if we move forward thereon, will inevitably lead us to socialism or communism, and these two are as alike as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effect upon our liberty. . . ." (Quoted by Ezra Taft Benson, CR, April 1963, pp. 111-112.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We will also repeat another statement, this one by the Prophet Joseph Smith, who was aware of this socialistic philosophy. He wrote in his History of the Church: "I attended a second lecture on Socialism, by Mr. Finch [a Socialist, from England]; and after he got through, I made a few remarks. . . . I said I did not believe the doctrine." (HC, 6:33.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />There are two approaches to socialism: </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">1) Revolt and revolution through armed aggression, and </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">2) Subversion of a people through subtle and deceptive means. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"> </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify">Karl Marx, in a paragraph of the manifesto that precedes the section where he enumerates the ten planks, writes that, "These measures will of course be different in different countries. Nevertheless in the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable." (<em>Communist Manifesto</em>, Henry Regnery Company, 1954 edition, p. 36.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Planks of the Manifesto</span></em><br />The ten points that follow are the ten planks of the manifesto. (Ibid., p. 36-37.) Let’s consider them here and then discuss each in the light of our present-day policy in the United States.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.<br />2. A heavy, progressive or graduated income tax.<br />3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.<br />4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.<br />5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.<br />6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.<br />7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.<br />8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.<br />9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of population over the country.<br />10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />At another place in the manifesto he also said, "Communism abolishes eternal truths; it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis." But we find the Lord stating,"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." (Matt. 12:30.) And so it has been. The philosophy of Karl Marx has caused much scattering throughout the world where people, desiring to retain their liberties, have fled to foreign nations for freedom. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It is important to know that Marx did not say that these measures should be put into effect by armed revolt, but, using his own words, by "winning the battle of democracy". Once this has been accomplished by legal and democratic elections, the "political supremacy" was to be used as follows: ". . . to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie;" and "to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State." </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Note he said by "degrees" and not by the sudden revolution, but by the slower democratic process. Communism came to Russia by violent revolt and most of us in American thought that the same method would be tried in the United States. Actually, Marx taught only the "slow-decay-from-within" philosophy. In 1903, it was Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Lenin is sometimes known as Nikolai Lenin. His original surname was Ulyanov.) who broke from the Fabian Socialists and used violence as a means of achieving his goal. But most of the thinking of socialistic-communism continues to follow the ideals of Marx. This was and still is the communistic, or socialistic, philosophy towards the developed nations of the world today.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It might be proper at this point to say that the Communist Manifesto could be called the "Socialist Manifesto." This is because, as was discussed earlier, the only difference in the two is the method of implementing total control of people and property. Most people have believed that the goal of communism, which is socialism, was to be achieved by illegal means — such as bullets and a few evil persons — not by legal means such as ballots and the vote of the people. The sad thing is that we have exercised our rights to vote and have used these votes to elect many corrupt representatives.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Manifesto for Comparison<br /></span></em>With these thoughts in mind we may find that we have been choosing the wrong battlefield and the wrong enemy. While we may be trying to fight the communist military thousands of miles away, socialistic-communism is marching steadily forward here at home with the uninformed and uninterested help of the American people.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Communism, as a word, is dying, but the goals and philosophy are coming closer to reality. When Marx’s plan was drawn up, none of his ideas were popular in America. Now, let us see how those ideas have progressed during the past century as set forth in this, the communist or "Socialist Manifesto." </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><strong>PLANK 1.</strong> Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.<br /></em>One of the great principles that this nation was based upon and the intent of our Founding Fathers, was absolute title of land and property in the hands of the private owner. The government is permitted to hold land but on a constitutionally limited basis. The practice now is for government to take as much land as possible from the private owner and the states and to use it for "public purposes." </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Most of the current acquisitions are east of the Mississippi River. There isn’t too much left to acquire west of the Mississippi. And the trend is steadily upward. The Federal Government now owns one-third of all the land. How long will it be before it owns one-half, and then all of it? </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />On top of that, we actually rent the property we think we privately own. The rent money is called property taxes. This tax is used for "public purposes." What happens if we do not pay our property tax or rent? The government confiscates the property.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The property is further controlled by zoning laws which dictate how the property, or land, is to be used. Is this what our Founding Fathers had in mind? No, it is not. It is also not what the Lord had in mind either. The right to property was one of the things that made ancient Israel a peculiar people. Ezra Taft Benson once wrote:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The right to property is again based on scriptural precept. It recognizes that the earth belongs to the Lord, that He created it for man’s blessing and benefit. Thus man’s desire to own property, his own home and goods, his own business, is desirable and good. Utopian and communitarian schemes that eliminate property rights are not only unworkable, they also deny to man his inherent desire to improve his station. They are therefore contrary to the pursuit of happiness.<br />"No property rights! Man’s incentive would be diminished to satisfying only his barest necessities such as food and clothing.<br />"No property rights! No incentive to enter individual enterprise, to risk one’s own capital, because the fruits of one’s labor could not be enjoyed.<br />"No property rights! No contractual relationships to buy or sell since title to possession of goods could not be granted.<br />"No property rights! No recognition of divine law that prohibits man from stealing and coveting others’ possessions. One cannot steal that which belongs to everyone, nor can he covet that which is not another’s!<br />"No property rights! No possibility of the sanctity of one’s own home and the joy that comes from creation, production, and ownership.<br />"A free-market philosophy recognizes property rights as sacred. Because the individual is entitled to ownership of goods and property that he has earned, he is sovereign, so far as human law is concerned, over his own goods. He may retain possession of his goods. He may pass his wealth on to family or to charitable causes.<br />"Charity, that greatest of godly virtues, would never be possible without property rights, for one cannot give what one does not own.<br />"No liberty is possible unless a man is protected in his title to his legal holdings and property. . . . Remove this right and man is reduced to serfdom. Former United States Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland said it this way: ‘To give [man] liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave.’" (<em>This Nation Shall En</em>dure, pp. 84-85.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><strong>PLANK 2.</strong> A heavy, progressive or graduated income tax.<br /></em>The Constitution provided for duties, imposts, and excise taxes to help finance our government, not "progressive or graduated income tax." That iniquity was first imposed on Americans in 1913 with the supposed ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment; in 1933 with the adoption of Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code), with the incorporation in Delaware of the Internal Revenue Tax and Audit Service; and in 1936 with the instigation of the Social Security. The sole purpose of these measures, they said, was to produce revenue. However, it is being used, as originally intended by Marx, as a punitive measure to achieve equalization of status; to take from the thrifty by force, if necessary, in order to give to the thriftless; to act as a powerful deterrent to the formation of private capital, thus making it easier for government to step in with public capital. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />To this income tax can be added the state income taxes. This process of progressive confiscation of income is, of course, in complete accord with the communist plan of "wresting, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie [owners of private property]." Ezra Taft Benson once said, "the Sixteenth Amendment introduced the Marxist graduated income tax," and at another time he commented on the graduated income tax:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"I deem it a violation of the right of private property guaranteed under the Constitution for the federal government to forcibly deprive the citizens of this nation of their property through taxation or otherwise, and make a gift thereof to foreign governments or their citizens. (<em>The Proper Role of Government</em>, p. 23; AEHDT, p. 146.)<br />". . . the elementary principles of justice set forth in the Constitution demand that all taxes imposed be uniform; and that each person’s property or income be taxed at the same rate.<br />"I consider it a violation of the Constitution for the federal government to levy taxes for the support of state or local government; that no state or local government can accept funds from the federal government and remain independent in performing its functions, nor can the citizens exercise their rights of self-government under such conditions." (TETB, p. 618.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><strong>PLANK 3.</strong> Abolition of all right of inheritance.<br /></em>Another tax, the estate or inheritance tax of 1916, is a most effective way of removing capital from private ownership and placing it in the hands of the government. The Lord’s way is perfect inheritance and possession of property. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In the case of very large estates, some may disregard this action, saying, "Oh! Well, there is plenty left." But there is a basic moral principle, the right to retain private property, which applies to all of us, regardless of the amount involved. Those who wish merely to "soak the rich" should know that the history of the inheritance and income tax, in our country as elsewhere, shows clearly that once it is established, the tax collector quickly moves into the lower income brackets. His appetite for more revenue is insatiable.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />To this inheritance tax we can add the gift tax and also the state requirement for marriage licenses. These latter two Marx apparently overlooked, but our astute politicians didn’t. So now, what occurs when a spouse dies? The state tries to move in and control the distribution of the property. Unless some protection is afforded the property owners, the state takes a large portion of the inheritance. In like manner, children born of marriages, legalized by a marriage licenses, become subject to state control instead of being an inheritance of the Lord.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><strong>PLANK 4.</strong> Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.<br /></em>In America, this is usually done only under the emotional stress of war. When the war is over, the property may or may not be returned to its rightful owner. American citizens of the Japanese race, during World War II, were deprived of their property and placed in concentration camps. The Government compensated these people for the loss of their property by a contemptible small percentage of its real value. Speculators and political favorites got the rest.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />One such recent law is the RICO Act (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) established in 1970. Another is Public Law 99-570 of 1986, ("war on drugs") and the confiscation of drug-merchant property. Those found to be in question can have their property confiscated before they are found guilty, and if not convicted, they may loose part of what was taken unlawfully.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It is common knowledge that those who object and resist the unlawful and unconstitutionality of the IRS and other governmental or pseudo-governmental agencies, have their property confiscated without due process of law. Such rebels today are much like those who rebelled against King George III. Though just in their feelings and actions, they are singled out as anti-American by the grossly apathetic and those who choose to remain ignorant of truth and righteous principles.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><strong>PLANK 5.</strong> Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.<br /></em>The trends, since the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, of our centralized-government controls in banking, credit, and interest rates would appear to be exactly what Karl Marx had in mind. This monopolistic banking practice and the issuance of printing press money, instead of gold and silver that the Constitution mandates, recalls the dictum, attributed to Lenin, that the surest way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch its currency. This philosophy prompted the late Lord Keynes, high-priest of the "easy money" cult, to state: "Lenin was certainly right. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." (Quoted in Ben Moreell’s, <em>To Communism. . .via Majority Vote</em>, p. 11.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Speaking of this gross practice of our government, Ezra Taft Benson states, "The creation of the Federal Reserve Board made it possible for the first time in America for men arbitrarily to change the value of our money." (AEHDT, p. 214.) Many a quote from our Founding Fathers can be found on their disapproval of this type of monetary system. Among other things, Thomas Jefferson said about this practice of governmental control of banking and money:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution. (<em>The Real Thomas Jefferson</em>, p. 354.)<br />"He [Adam Smith] admits . . . that ‘the commerce and industry of a country cannot be so secure when suspended on the Daedalian wings of paper money as on the solid ground of gold and silver’." (Ibid., p. 551.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) of 1933 also expanded government’s monopoly in the banking industry. Current indicators show that the FDIC is headed for a more serious tragedy than the Savings and Loan debacle.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It may be pertinent to state here again, as stated elsewhere, that the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on the banking system has helped to create a U.S. debt more than four trillion dollars ($4,411,500,000,000) with the currency in circulation at only three-hundred and sixteen billion dollars ($316,400,000,000). That leaves an impossible debt of almost four trillion dollars ($4,095,100,000,000) with no means to pay for it but to give up our property and/or go into bondage. (<em>Federal Reserve Bulletin</em>, December 1993, pp. A14, A30.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><strong>PLANK 6.</strong> Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.<br /></em>We have come far in the achievement of this objective. The Interstate Commerce Commission of 1887 has been granted vast powers. At various times the federal government, through its departments involved in transportation and commerce, takes over and operates some of the differing modes of transportation, and at other times it merely controls them. They can control what travels on the roads, what is being transported, who transports it, where it goes, and how it is to be received.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Federal loans and subsidies for highways, bridges, steamship lines, truck lines, airlines, airports, etc., (with strings attached), are added evidences of the encroachment of government on this area of private enterprise. The establishment of the U.S. Civil Aeronautics in 1938 and the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) of 1958 gives added power and control to the Federal Government.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />What about the centralization of communication by way of the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) regulation and control on programming, advertising, etc., on all forms of radio and television broadcasting? Has Marx’s plan for the "centralization of the means of communication" been accomplished? Yes, it has, and it is a blatant disregard of the First Amendment to the Constitution which states, in part: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . ." Now it didn’t say anything about radio or television because they were not heard of, or possibly not even dreamed of, by our Founding Fathers. If they had been, they also may have been included in this First Article of Amendments. What does Elder Benson have to say about this one?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"By 1962 some American liberals had almost completely neutralized the resurgence of American patriotism. They had frightened uninformed citizens away from study groups and patriotic rallies. They had made it popular to call patriotism a ‘controversial’ subject which should not be discussed in school assemblies or churches.<br />"From Washington, D.C., the Federal Communications Commission issued an edict to radio and television stations that if they allowed the controversial subjects of ‘Americanism,’ ‘Anti-communism,’ or ‘States rights,’ to be discussed on their stations they would be required to give equal time, free of charge, to anyone wishing to present an opposite view." (<em>The Title of Liberty</em>, p. 32.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />By having government control the means of communication, they can control some of our rights and introduce philosophies foreign to our Constitutional guarantees. The government could teach anything it wanted to and our news media would only present to the American people what government wanted them to present and the way it was to be presented. This also holds true to the newspaper industry when they are controlled by special interest groups who want to slant news in a specific way, hiding the truth from the unsuspecting public.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The sad thing in America is that we have all come to depend on and trust in these forms of mass communication. We have not availed ourselves of the other forms of education to learn if there are other opinions or options to consider. We have become as sheep, trusting in the wolf who wears sheep’s clothing.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><strong>PLANK 7.</strong> Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.<br /></em>Most people are aware of the many factories and other instruments of production now owned by the federal government; for example, the production of electric power by atomic energy is now a complete government monopoly. Our government’s planning and controls for the "improvements" of swamps, deserts, river valleys, and national forest would make Marx smile. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational, Safety, and Health Act (OSHA), Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Anti-trust Acts, Department of Labor, Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and a host of other regulatory agencies, control businesses and the farming industry.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />One way they control our private business is through the requirement of a license or permit. When a permit or license is obtained, the business then becomes an extension of the government body issuing the privilege. We must realize that whoever gives privileges can take them away unless the business complies. Thomas Jefferson understood this power of government when he said, "Agriculture, manufacture, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise." (PPNS,, p. 177, from Thomas Jefferson’s First Annual Message.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><strong>PLANK 8.</strong> Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.<br /></em>"Equal liability of all to labor." In simple terms it means every person is at a liability to work if the state tells him to work. It means "all" are, or can be, required to work, regardless of their ability or desire to do so. It is a forced-labor program more popularly know as "slavery." </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It also means government control over labor. The Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) of the early New Deal years of President Franklin D. Roosevelt made a good beginning on this plank. The recent recommendations by government agencies for the institution of compulsory unionism also contain the nucleus of this Marxist philosophy. Again, what does Ezra Taft Benson, a man of experience and inspiration, say?</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Do you borrow money from a bank that is in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation system or the Federal Reserve system? Have you an FHA or VA loan? Have you a Small Business Administration loan? Are you interested in schools and colleges? Are you a farmer who has anything to do with the Farm Credit Administration, Commodity Credit Corporation, Soil Conservation Service, Federal Crop Insurance, REA, Agriculture Research?<br />"If you are any of these, or participate in any of these, then under this Act the Federal Fair Employment Practices Commission will dictate to you whom you may hire, whom you may fire, whom you promote, whom you demote, and how you may handle your employees.<br />"Not only that, but it brings in almost every profession and every business — lawyers, realtors, doctors, small establishments, restaurants, gasoline stations, theaters, hotels, motels, and lodging houses, — and the Federal control will never end. . . ." (TL, pp. 76-77, from John C. Satterfield, past president of the American Bar Association, over the Manion Forum, weekly broadcast No. 468, September 15, 1963.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The establishment of the Socialist Unions in 1869, and the International Workers of the World in 1905, helped pave the way for the "affirmative action" approach of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This 1964 act is more encompassing and far-reaching than most realize. It can control and tie the hands of businesses if they do not comply with the dictates of the government. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />It is pertinent to note that we now have federal laws regulating the wages and hours of labor and other conditions of employment. Such a condition is the requirement of a Social Security number before employment can be obtained. Is this the free government for the "pursuit of Happiness" that was mandated by the Declaration of Independence? What happens when a free citizen does not comply with the regulations as prescribed by one of the multitude of agencies, as mentioned above? These agencies come to enforce, arrest, and confiscate with weapons. It might be stretching it a little, but could this be what Marx meant by "industrial armies?"</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><strong>PLANK 9.</strong> Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of population over the country.<br /></em>Governmental aid to both farmers and consumers is a vicious scheme to lock a large segment of agricultural production in the vise of bureaucratic controls. The entire scheme of agricultural subsidies based on "parity," or a percentage thereof, thus linking farm prices to industrial wages, is certainly part and parcel of that "combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries" intended by this plank of the manifesto.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />With the enactment of Title 17, the "zoning" laws, and the establishment of large corporate farms, the private farmers started losing land to the suburb encroachment, the manufacturing industry, and the perverted corporate-farm philosophy.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Not only does the government attempt to control manufacturing and agriculture, but there are multiples of thousands of farm foreclosures each year, due to bank failures, the bankers claim. The larger and controlling banks then finance large corporate farms which control production and prices while many of the smaller farmers have to relocate to the cities to work in other industries. With so many farm foreclosures each year, a warning from Thomas Jefferson may come true: "Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread." (Quoted in PPNS, p. 177.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><strong>PLANK 10.</strong> Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.<br /></em>John Dewey, 1870-1910, was a strong advocate for socialized and progressive education, and his influence has reached far into this twentieth century. With the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937 there has been an abolition of private apprenticeships and the creation of state-controlled programs. The state now has tight restrictions in regard to child labor. With the sway of men like John Dewey, and government controls over children, the way was set for government intervention into the vocational affairs and minds of our children. In a booklet called The Soviet Art of Brain Washing, which was used since 1936 to train members of the American Communist Party, it mentions the plans to control child labor by government and by what they call psychopolitical operators. The operators, or agents, are not only to be in government but also in other key positions such as education. Among other revealing things the book says:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"To destroy loyalty to the State all manner of forbidding for youth must be put into effect so as to disenfranchise them as members of the Capitalist state and, by promises of a better lot under Communism [Socialism], to gain their loyalty to a Communist [Socialist] movement.<br />"Denying a Capitalist country easy access to courts, bringing about and supporting propaganda to destroy the home, creating a continuous juvenile delinquency, forcing upon the state all manner of practices to divorce the child from it will in the end create the chaos necessary to Communism [Socialism].<br />"Under the saccharine guise of assistance to them, rigorous child labor laws are the best means to deny the child any right in the society. By refusing to let him earn, by forcing him into unwanted dependence upon a grudging parent, by making certain in other channels that the parent is never in other than economic stress, the child can be driven in his teens into revolt. Delinquency will ensue.<br />"By making readily available drugs of various kinds, by giving the teen-ager alcohol, by praising his wildness, by stimulating him with sex literature and advertising to him or her practices as taught as the Sexpol, the psychopolitical operator can create the necessary attitude of chaos, idleness and worthlessness into which can then be cast the solution which will give the teen-ager complete freedom everywhere — Communism [Socialism].<br />"The role of the psychopolitical operator in this is very strong. . . . He can teach the lack of control of this child at home. He can instruct, in an optimum situation, the entire nation in how to handle children — and instruct them so that the child, given no control, given no real home, can run wildly about with no responsibility for their nation or themselves.<br />"The mis-alignment of the loyalty of youth to a Capitalistic nation sets the proper stage for a realignment of their loyalties with Communism. Creating a greed for drugs, sexual misbehavior and uncontrolled freedom and presenting this to them as benefits of Communism will with ease bring about our alignment." (<em>The Soviet Art of Brain Washing</em>, pp. 26-27.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />As we can surmise from the foregoing, all of the problems with drugs, sex, crime, and teen-age indolence, may not just be the result of fads but of a long established plan. We must remember that the Soviets are the worlds greatest chess players. They know how to plan six or more moves far in advance of the average people.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Now we come to governmental ownership or control of schools, with compulsory attendance, compulsory curriculum, and compulsory support. It is quite clear that Marx intended that government ownership of schools should be exclusive; the government-monopoly control of minds and bodies of our children. Many teachers can testify of the fact that they were not permitted to use text-books of their choosing to teach the truth about history or to teach moral principles because it conflicted with the philosophy of the school district or the state.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Not only has the federal government moved into this area by means of its federal aid to education programs (with states bending to the wishes of the federal government to qualify for such funds) but most states require a license or permit to operate a private or home school. The history of totalitarian governments indicates clearly that when government moves into education there is great danger to freedom of opinion and true liberal education for our children. The late J. Edgar Hoover once wrote:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"There can be no doubt that the great majority of American teachers are loyal citizens, yet a witness who formerly held a high position in the Communist Party recently testified that the Party has members at work in every kind of educational institution, from nursery schools to the universities.<br />"For example, Communist teachers or fellow travelers are subtly persuading children ages 2 to 5 not to believe in religion, and are poisoning their minds with contempt or dislike for other ‘Capitalistic institutions’. . . .<br />"Being good tacticians, the Communists realize that one concealed Party member in education may be worth a dozen in less strategic fields, and some of their more successful propagandists in this area have influenced and are influencing the ideas of thousands of impressionable young people." (PPNS, p. 182, from American Magazine, October 1954.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We are all well acquainted with the moral degeneration of our youth due, in part, to the godless educational standards advanced in our nation’s school systems. A recent example is that of the state legislature of Michigan that passed a law that mandated all school teachers, effective April 28, 1991, to teach the youth, from the sixth through the twelfth grades, how to get an abortion without notifying their parents.</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />In light of the foregoing thoughts, imagine what could happen because of the proposed federal daycare bills: </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"1) All day care and babysitting of preschool children will be done only by government trained personnel in government licensed and regulated centers, regardless of the wishes of the parents.<br />"2) Families get no benefits at all, but must pay higher taxes to subsidize public day care slots for other people’s children, and these taxes will be heavy until parents will be forced to put their children in public day care.<br />"3) Discrimination against mothers who stay at home, against religious day care centers, and against all unlicensed and informal babysitting by relatives and neighbors. This is partly accomplished by a $1,000 tax credit for every preschool child ‘without discriminating against mothers who stay at home.’"</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Will all mothers who stay at home get a tax credit? No! Only those who put their child in federal day care. The other mothers will have to pay higher taxes to support the day care centers for other children and to pay the $1,000 tax credit paid to those mothers. It’s wondered if Marx, himself, could have planned it so well. </div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br /><em style="styleDocument: [object]"><span style="font-size:130%;">Our Critical Situation<br /></span></em>We have been warned, encouraged, and commanded to educate ourselves and resist all involvement in these threats to our God-given liberties. Our great patriots and Prophets, David O. McKay and Ezra Taft Benson, have counseled us in these ways:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />(David O. McKay) . . . "Latter-day Saints should have nothing to do with the secret combinations and groups antagonistic to the constitutional law of the land, which the Lord ‘suffered to be established,’ and which ‘should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh according to just and holy principles.’" (Gospel Ideals, p. 306; The American Heritage of Freedom - A Plan of God, p. 12.)<br />(Ezra Taft Benson) ". . . we should accept the command of the Lord and treat socialistic communism as the tool of Satan . . . wherever they are found — in the schools, in the churches, in government, in unions, in businesses, in agriculture." (TL,, pp. 190-193.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />We, as citizens, must recognize what was proposed by the opponents of God and how these objectives have been foisted upon the American people, to a large extent, by deception. To promise security, conveyance, and affluence, while at the same time planning insecurity, hardship, and bondage is Satan’s way of government. Marion G. Romney, in a conference report, has made this point:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />"Free agency is the principle against which Satan waged his war in heaven. It is still the front on which he makes his most furious, devious, and persistent attacks. That this would be the case was foreshadowed by the Lord . . . (Moses 4:1-4.)<br />"You see, at the time he was cast out of heaven, his objective was (and still is) ‘to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will.’ This he effectively does to as many as will not hearken unto the voice of God. His main attack is still on free agency. When he can get men to yield their agency, he has them well on the way to captivity. . . . We must be careful that we are not led to accept or support in any way any organization, cause or measure which, in its remotest effect, would jeopardize free agency, whether it be in politics, government, religion, employment, education, or in any other field. It is not enough for us to be sincere in what we support. We must be right!" (CR, October 1960, pp. 74-75.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />Another of our great patriots, and one whom we have quoted previously, has a warning and some very sobering words to speak to us today. Hear again, and consider, the words of J. Reuben Clark, Jr., in the spirit in which he gave them:</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />". . . I say unto you with all the soberness I can, that we stand in danger of losing our liberties, and that once lost, only blood will bring them back; and once lost, we . . . have more sacrifices to make and more persecutions to endure than we have yet known, heavy as our sacrifices and grievous as our persecutions of the past have been.<br />"We face a war to the death, a gigantic worldwide struggle. We must face it, enter it, take part in it. In fact, we are all taking part in the struggle, whether we will or not. Upon its final issue, liberty lives or dies. (Quoted by Ezra Taft Benson, CR, October 1966, p. 124, from The Improvement Era, May 1944.)<br />"There always comes a time when unpleasant truths must be retold, even though the retelling disturbs the ease and quiet of a luxurious error. Today seems to be such a time. On such occasions, the criticism, slander, misrepresentation that one gets, are of no consequence." (Quoted by Ezra Taft Benson, CR, April 1963, p. 111.)</div><div style="styleDocument: [object]" align="justify"><br />The ten planks of the Communist Manifesto, or the "Socialist Manifesto," we have just discussed, could be covered in greater detail. However, the facts cannot be denied by the interested and studious individual that: since Marx announced his social philosophy about 150 years ago, we Americans have adopted, with varying degrees, his entire program. Surely, Karl Marx would be pleased.</div>Joseph Warren Grammerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795589798825424327noreply@blogger.com0