The U.S. Constitution (USC) Sucks, The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) is Better: Part 6 of an Open Debate—NAC’s Article IV Confederacy vs. USC’s National Government

From the Articles of Confederation entry on Wikipedia:

On January 21, 1786, the Virginia Legislature, following James Madison’s recommendation, invited all the states to send delegates to Annapolis, Maryland to discuss ways to reduce interstate conflict. At what came to be known as the Annapolis Convention, the few state delegates in attendance endorsed a motion that called for all states to meet in Philadelphia in May 1787 to discuss ways to improve the Articles of Confederation in a “Grand Convention.” Although the states’ representatives to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were only authorized to amend the Articles, the representatives held secret, closed-door sessions and wrote a new constitution.

So, they were supposed to fix the Articles of Confederation (AOC) but the nationalists among them decided to scrap the Confederacy that the AOC established and write something new, without authorization from their States, which thing would create a national government.  Most Americans say, “So, what?  The U. S. Constitution (USC) is the greatest political document in the world.”

You must look at the Constitution in this way

Those who defend the USC do so without understanding, for they do not separate the USC, which was written by the nationalists, from the Bill of Rights, which was a product of the minds of the federalists.  The nationalists who wrote the USC in secret wanted to impose a strong national (centrist) government upon the States and saw no need for a Bill of Rights to protect the people from the monster they were creating.  In fact, they argued that having a Bill of Rights would be bad!  Luckily, (or speaking more truthfully), by divine grace, God inspired the federalists to insist upon a Bill of Rights, which were added as the first 10 Amendments.  But the nationalists ever thought their creation (the USC) was perfect as is, without the Bill of Rights.

When you look at history, think about how abusive the national government has been, encroaching on the rights of the people just about every chance it has had.   Now, think about what is the only thing that has somewhat checked these tyrannical abuses of power.  Has it not been the Bill of Rights?  Yes, of course it has.  Now, imagine how history would have been different had those nationalist conspirators—who usurped their delegated States’ authority and wrote the USC in secret—had their way, and released it upon the American people without a Bill of Rights.  Can you imagine the horrors we would have had from the very beginning?  We see horrors among us today and say that the government has grown too large and too centralized, but this growth took hundreds of years to occur because of the restraints the Bill of Rights put upon government.  Without the Bill of Rights, government would have ballooned overnight and the horrors we see today would have existed two hundred years ago.

When you look at the USC, then, you must see it as its creators saw it: sans a Bill of Rights and about as perfect as mortal man could make it.  And that, in fact, is the problem with the USC.  It is man-made law, which God has said brings men into bondage, for this is what the laws of men have always done and been designed to do: to bring men into all types of bondage, so that men can rule over their fellow man and enrich themselves with other men’s goods.

So, all those who extoll the virtues of the USC are not praising the USC, for there is nothing particularly good about it, but their praise is for the Bill of Rights, which is cause for celebration.  And that is the part that was inspired of God.  For God needed to restrain this thing that had been created in secret, for a time, until, when it became the behemoth it now is, gobbling up every right and power it can find, God could work a work of restoration and bring us back to where we first went awry.

The NAC is a reset

It was always the intention of God that those delegates fix the AOC, but they didn’t do it.  So, God is going to fix the AOC with the NAC (or something like it), because God’s purposes are never frustrated.  In the end, He always get what He wants.  In this case, we are going to be taken back to a Confederacy, as if we were transported back in time to May 1787.  It is going to be as if those unfaithful delegates actually did their appointed job and corrected the AOC under inspiration of God.  It is going to be as if the USC never existed (save for all the history we had under it).  It will be a complete reset.

A Confederacy is superior to a National Government

The NAC’s Confederacy has token similarities to the national government established by the USC.  There is a bicameral Congress composed of a Senate and a House of Representatives.  There are two Senators per State and multiple Representatives per population apportionment.  But that is pretty much where the similarities end.

In essence the NAC is a pure Confederacy of States.  The Congress represents the States and their interests, not the people.  No one is popularly elected, like under the USC, but all are appointed by the State governments.  Nevertheless, there is interaction with the people because they (the people) get to approve or disapprove of all those appointments.  This corresponds, basically, to the law of common consent.  Thus, the NAC’s Confederacy has perfect legitimacy on all levels.

Unlike the USC, which has enormous powers, the NAC’s Confederacy has extremely limited powers that deal with State issues.  The Confederacy is mainly concerned with defense, but also has power to make treaties, regulate the border crossings of foreigners, provide a sound monetary source, a post office, resolve disputes between States, and little else.  This Confederacy, in fact, might seem weak on the surface, but it makes for an extremely dynamic and diverse society, which is fully protected from any foe, whether foreign or domestic.

The so-called “dynamic” American economy currently under the USC is but the symbol or shadow of the economy that would exist literally under the NAC.  The USC has the economy under a whole lot of restraints at present, yet it still chugs along “dynamically” (so-called).  The NAC, though, unleashes the full American economy, freeing it from its restraints, allowing the Lord to finally give the Gentiles a taste of what the Nephites had.  Everything becomes, or will become, literally dynamic, on all levels, in a never-ending spiral of (non-miraculous) prosperity.  (And yet, even this won’t be what God has in store for us.  But you have to start somewhere, right?  So, the NAC shouldn’t be considered the prosperity miracle, but just a set-up for the prosperity miracle which is to come.)

Again, the national government under the USC restrains, while the Confederacy under the NAC will set all things free of restraints.  Yet it also will keep us safe and secure, so there is no trade-off.  We need not choose between the security of the USC and the freedom of the NAC.  The NAC will secure us more fully than the USC does and will also give us greater freedoms, so it is superior to the USC on literally every point.

Secret combinations, political parties and special interests

Do you remember what happened a mere five years after king Mosiah did away with the monarchy and established a system of judges?  Sure, the people rejoiced in their new-found freedom, but a certain set of men were ticked off at this change of events because there was no longer a centralized position of power in the government from which to rule over men.  They wanted to be kings over men, but they couldn’t because king Mosiah changed the dang laws!  Everything was too decentralized for power hungry people to be able to control anything.  So, just five years into the reign of the judges, Amlici of the Nehors appeared on the scene:

And it came to pass in the commencement of the fifth year of their reign there began to be a contention among the people; for a certain man, being called Amlici, he being a very cunning man, yea, a wise man as to the wisdom of the world, he being after the order of the man that slew Gideon by the sword, who was executed according to the law—now this Amlici had, by his cunning, drawn away much people after him; even so much that they began to be very powerful; and they began to endeavor to establish Amlici to be a king over the people.  (Alma 2:1-2)

In like manner, there are to be wicked and conspiring men among the Gentiles:

Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you:

In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—  (D&C 89:4)

These same conspiring men, who have genetically modified our food, who have poisoned our water supplies, who have conspired to put toxic chemicals into our bodies and the bodies of our children, in the name of science and medicine, who have promoted sexual liberation and abortion that they might be able to farm human body parts (of the aborted children), etc., all for gain, fame, honors of men and power, these very same men (and also women) have a vested interest in the national government, for although it is not a monarchy with a king, it still nevertheless represents kingly authority over men, which is what these conspiring men need and desire in order for them to obtain their riches and dominion over men.

So, it should not come as a surprise that there will be intense opposition to the NAC once it starts to gain traction among the people.  And it should not come as a surprise that even after the NAC (or something like it) is installed as the Supreme Law of the land, that just a short time afterward there will be calls for it to be changed into something that allows for either a king-type of office or kingly authority over men.  In other words, these same men aren’t going to go away without a fight, and even after their power and control is taken away from them by the NAC, they will use every means in their power to re-gain the lost ground and powerful positions they had, even if it means conspiring with our enemies to wage war against America, to bring it back to a national government.

This means that on the one hand the NAC will destroy secret combinations and conspiring men, during the time that it is the law, but on the other hand, so all-pervasively destructive will the NAC be to tyranny that all would-be tyrants will be forced to use excessive measures to restore their thrones, so war will be inevitable under the NAC.  There will be forces both within our borders and also outside of them trying to take the NAC out.  Even if the conspirators in this country are all arrested and put down, the conspirators in other countries will not sit idly by and watch the great prize of America be literally snatched from their fingers by the NAC.

The NAC foresees all of this

Although it could be technically correct to say that the NAC’s Confederacy is weaker than the national government under the USC, the powers vested in the Confederacy by the NAC are specific and sufficiently powerful to deal with these conspiring enemies of the people.  The NAC already foresees that such secret combinations will exist, and that they will attempt to destroy the NAC and return the people to the USC, or to bring about an even stronger government, such as a world government, and the NAC plans for these conspiracies.  In other words, although the specific powers of the Confederacy are extremely limited, they are also extremely powerful and perfectly requisite in dealing with all enemies whether foreign and domestic.  Even if the entire world conspires against America under the NAC, and decides to wage war against us, the NAC provides for this contingency and will be able to see us through it.

The USC’s national government has no power to restrain conspirators

In contrast, the national government under the USC is a breeding ground for conspiring men and corruption.  Not only is there a continual push to consolidate all power under the executive branch (the President), for that is the office that most closely matches a king, but all branches of government routinely grab at whatsoever new power and authority they can steal from the people, representing the continuous manifestation of kingly authority over men.  Additionally, although having a real king would be magnificent to these evil people, they would really love to have a world king, and so they also push for world government and to do away altogether with the sovereign nation-state.  These things happen, or can happen, under the USC, because it is man-made and has no foresight whatsoever.  In other words, fore-sight comes of the Spirit of freedom, even the Holy Ghost, which is the spirit of prophecy and revelation.  Man-made documents can’t see the future and so must just guess as to what is actually needed.  Most times these guesses are all wrong because of the change in conditions that inevitably comes, which no one ever saw coming.

The USC doesn’t provide for conspiring men because why should it?  It was crafted by conspiracy and conspiring men, after all!  Why in the world would conspiring men put safeguards in the very document they are creating to make it impossible for conspiring men to take control?  The USC, then, as a creation of conspiring men, was designed to be a vehicle that could be used to control the States, not to free them or the people.  (The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, was designed to be a vehicle that could be used to control the USC.)  The USC didn’t make the States or their people any freer than they already were under the AOC.  Its sole function was to consolidate stolen State power in the hands of a few men (Congress, the Justices and the President) under the guise as this would make us safer or more protected, militarily, and also more prosperous if commerce could be regulated.

But all of this was just false propaganda playing on men’s fears.  This is even the tactic used by evil men today.  If you can instill a false fear in the population, you can make them give up anything, even their rights and privileges.

The NAC keeps State rights intact, the USC doesn’t

The States are sovereign and were ever meant to be.  Contrary to what people might think, God does not approve of sameness.  He likes diversity.  Thus a male is a male and a female is a female.  They are not designed or intended to be unisex, or the same.  Diversity is the name of the game in the divine economy of God.  “Sovereign States in a Confederacy” creates diversity among the States.  They become more nation-like under a Confederacy, while under a national government there is a certain conformity that takes place with much less diversity and no sovereignty.  The rights and independence and sovereignty of the States is fully intact under the NAC.  They can freely enter the pact and freely leave it, all done peacefully.

Not so under the USC.  The national government is over the States, just as kings were over men.  It is the same principle.  The national government, then, exerts kingly authority over the States and also over their people.  When a State tries to break away, we end up having a civil war or a war between the States.  Thus, the national government doesn’t give a hoot about the States or their people.  The Feds are in charge and as each day passes, they are more and more in charge, stealing authorities from both the States and their people.

But make no mistake about it, the States are just as tyrannical as the national government, and those in State governments are also trying to do what the Feds are doing, creating their own police state and trying to consolidate what they can steal from the people, under their own authority.  This is why the NAC doesn’t just abolish the national government, but also restrains the States from exerting kingly authority over men, like the national government does.

A final word

One more thing about Article IV that makes it stand out is the fact that Congress under the NAC is paid by their respective States.  In other words, Congress under the NAC won’t be able to vote themselves a pay raise.  Some States will pay more and some States will pay less, to their respective Representatives and Senators.  Thus, each State will get what it pays for.

In my next installment I will discuss Article V, which covers monetary issues.  Feel free to disagree on any point mentioned in this post. Bring your strongest reasons against the NAC and let’s have an open debate. And for those who like the NAC and want to install it as the Supreme Law of the land, here is my advice and prediction (and also see this comment, and this comment and this comment) :

A continual strategy of debate will install the NAC in this country and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I say that Americans will jump at the chance to debate the NAC and to show that the Constitution is better, but, according to the rules of the debate, they will have to read the NAC first, and once read, they will be hard pressed to defend the Constitution. Thus, everyone who hears, or watches, or reads, or participates in, a NAC debate, will become convinced that the NAC is what this country needs.

To read the other parts of this series, click any of these links:

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,

Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10,

Part 11, Part 12, Part 13.

Also see: The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) and The Right to Abolish, Revert and Replace Amendment.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The U.S. Constitution (USC) Sucks, The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) is Better: Part 5 of an Open Debate—The NAC’s Family Sections

Article III.

Section 2.

Neither the united States in Congress assembled, nor any State, shall have power to raise up a king over men, nor to exert kingly authority over them or their house, for it is not right to esteem one flesh above another, or that one man shall think himself above another, but every man alone shall bear rule in his own house; and as that which is governed by law is also preserved by law, whereas that which breaks a law, and abides not by law, but seeks to become a law unto itself, cannot be preserved by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment, every man shall have power to set his house in order, having his children and house in subjection to him alone with all gravity, even as unto a king, according to the bounds and conditions of his law, that this shall be a land of liberty, and that every man shall enjoy his rights and privileges alike, and that every man shall set in order his family, and that every man shall bear his part.

Section 4.

Neither Congress, nor any State, shall abridge, or regulate in any way, a woman’s right to give birth at home, with our without assistance.

Section 5.

No State, nor any of its agents, shall issue or keep certificates of live birth, except in cases in which the child’s mother has died giving birth and the child has no living relative, for only the father and mother of a child, or the father alone if the child’s mother has died giving birth, or the mother alone if the father is dead or otherwise absent, or some other living relative if the child’s parents are dead or otherwise absent, shall have power to issue certificates of live birth, and to keep the same, except in the case in which the child’s mother has died giving birth and the child has no living relative, and such certificates shall be as equally valid and effective and binding, in the eyes of the law, as those which are issued by any State or its agents.

Section 6.

In order that the people may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law, and in all things that are expedient to understand—of things both in the heavens above and in the earth beneath, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and perplexities of nations, and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—and that all the people may study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues and people; the right and duty of parents to teach their children at home shall not be abridged, nor regulated in any way, neither by any State, nor by Congress, nor by any other branch of government, that children may be brought up in, and taught, truth and words of wisdom out of the best books, by their parents, and that the people may organize themselves and prepare every needful thing, and that every home may be established as a house of learning; but parents shall also have the privilege of performing this duty by sending their children to a school.

Section 7.

Neither Congress, nor any State, shall assign a number to the name or person of any of the inhabitants of Confederacy lands.

As explained in my previous post, the NAC creates a new (really an old) jurisdiction by re-introducing (restoring) the ancient concept of manus, so that a married man now has his own law:

Article III. Section 3.

No State shall have power to divorce men who exercise their right to marry wives with manus, from their wives, nor shall the right and power of such men to issue a writ of divorcement, on their own authority, be abridged or regulated in any way, and such writs shall be binding and valid and final and unalterable decrees in the eyes of the law, so that the law shall view a wife so divorced as loosed from the law of her husband.

This makes the man a legislator.  All government has three branches: legislative, executive and judicial.  The national government established by the USC has these three branches which are separated, but the new jurisdiction created by the NAC restores the ancient concept of men as kings.

The NAC’s Article III. Section 2.

From the dictionary, a king is “a male monarch of a major territorial unit; especially :  one whose position is hereditary and who rules for life.”  Under the NAC, men become minor kings, or male monarchs of a minor territorial unit, namely, over their house and family.  As kings, they have both legislative, executive and judicial powers.  Thus, Section 2 says, “every man alone shall bear rule in his own house,” and “every man shall have power to set his house in order,” and “every man shall set in order his family,” which clauses embody executive and judicial powers, while the clause, “according to the bounds and conditions of his law” shows that he also has legislative power.

This is yet another restoration, for from the very beginning men were made kings.  But as the NAC puts restraints on all levels of government, even the fundamental level of a man’s house law is said to have “bounds and conditions,” thus allowing an interaction between the fundamental law of a man and the laws of society in general.  This is important, for tyrants can appear anywhere, but all men are re-empowered by the NAC, as men were from the beginning, to reign over their house and family, and over their children in particular, to judge them, and to make laws for them, and to set them in order, using his executive power, being endowed with those masculine powers and strengths that actually allow him to subdue and subject whatsoever is around him.  As I stated in a previous comment concerning rebellion, this duty to deal with rebellion falls principally upon fathers, and should fathers become emasculated to the point where they can no longer subject their children (as it is today under the USC), society must crumble into a mob of criminals.

The NAC, then, deals with criminality at the fundamental level, by re-empowering the men, and fathers in particular, so that everyone that leaves his or her father’s house will have learned to respect the laws of society, having already been made subject to their father’s law.  Under the USC, criminality is fostered, for fathers are emasculated, creating rebellion and dissent in their house, and it is the police state which then has the responsibility of dealing with these now rebellious adults who do not respect any authority, at all.

Just as I stated in the first post of this series, concerning the super-armed citizens becoming a sort of unofficial police force, even so the men and fathers of society, under the NAC, are likewise empowered to police their own, even as kings.  There are very valid reasons why God has endowed men with all that they have been given, meaning all the incredible physical strength and prowess and mental powers.  These things are needed, in order for them to set their families in order and deal with whatsoever obstacles come their way.  It is to the benefit of society as a whole that such powers are returned to men, therefore, the NAC restores them.

And the NAC doesn’t mince words, either, using the phrase “even as unto a king” to describe the subjection that children are supposed to have to their fathers.  But kings over men are expressly prohibited.  And even kingly authority over men is prohibited.

Now, certainly we Americans can claim we have no king over men, but there can be no doubt that kingly authority is being exerted over them and their house.  Currently men can be hauled off to jail for a great many things if they seek to set in order their house.  And the State is increasingly interested and seeking to control all aspects of a family and house, so that the State becomes the parent or father.  The NAC does away entirely with these tyrannical power grabs, but without leaving a vacuum.  No, in the absence of false State “fatherly” powers, the real fathers are given back the powers the State stole from them in the first place.  So, the NAC shows itself superior, yet again, to the USC.

The NAC’s Article III. Sections 4-6.

The State’s stolen “fatherly” powers, inappropriately called by people, “the nanny State,” currently reach (or try to reach) into all levels and areas  of the family.  Without going into a lengthy discussion on the topic, the first two sentences of the entry of Communism from the New World Encyclopedia are instructive:

Communism refers to a theory for revolutionary change and political and socioeconomic organization based on common control of the means of production as opposed to private ownership. While communism or Marxism-Leninism, as it is known, champions economic justice, it views social revolution and the violent overthrow of the existing social order as essential components in the process.

So, the State seeks, in a very great many instances, to control everything it can, including the family itself, by these stolen masculine powers.  Children, then, are not viewed as belonging to parents (“private ownership”), but to “society,” which the above entry calls “common control” (meaning the State.)  Those children are fodder for the State organism.  They represent both future taxpayers and future soldiers.  Thus, knowledge about the children of America, and about Americans in general, is needed by the State, in order to plan for the future.  Specifically, it needs to know how many people are in America, and how many are men and how many are women and what their ages are, and when they were born and so on and so forth.  This information is vital to the growth of every State that wishes to control all things.

The NAC combats the tyranny of central control of all things by restoration, restoring to parents their private rights over their children, and also by prohibition, prohibiting the State from knowing much of anything, and also by disclosure, causing the State to disclose all its business to the people.  In other words, it essentially says to the State, “I know what evil is in your hearts and what you are planning in secret places, and it ain’t gonna work.”  It supplies to the people a set of tools that completely undermine such tendencies toward consolidation of State power.

The State wants to know how many births there are in this country, and how many are boys and how many are boys.  The NAC says, “Women have the right to home birth, even without an assistant, and you, State, can’t regulate this.”  This keeps the State completely in the dark concerning these numbers, for there are a great many home births in this country, but if there is no assistant, there is no one to report to the State these numbers.  The State, then cannot get an accurate handle on births, because of Section 4 of Article III.

“But,” says the State, “many people go to hospitals, therefore, there we will get the rest of the numbers, so we can have some accurate projections for our secret plans.”  But Section 5 stops the agents of the State from keeping birth certificates, except in rare cases, as stated in the Section, therefore the State is once again left in the dark.  As it should be.

“Ah, but when the children go to school, then we will know the numbers!” says the State.  Well, not really, because parents have a right to homeschool their kids, per Section 6, and that also can’t be regulated, so it sucks to be you, State, but the NAC has stopped you yet again.

What ends up happening, then, is the State is left with inaccurate numbers and a lot of guesswork.  But what about the enumeration that is supposed to occur every 10 years?  Surely that is where the State will gets its handle on the numbers, right?  The U.S. Census Bureau to the rescue!  Unfortunately for the State, the NAC says this:

The Number of Representatives in the House shall ever be no less than Four Hundred Ninety. 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. 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, but as all population enumerations pose a danger to the lives, liberty and property of the people, all such enumerations shall consist solely of the whole number of inhabitants, and of the number of said inhabitants which are Indians not taxed, and of the number of non-Indians not taxed which are males aged twenty years or older, and in no case shall names, or sexes, or ages, or citizenship statuses, or any other data be gathered in the enumeration. At all times, regardless of enumeration, each State shall have at Least one Representative.

Yet again, the State is stopped in its march towards centralization of power and war, by taking away its power to actually know anything much about the people.  (And in case anyone is wondering, yes, I did have Monty Python’s Holy Hand Grenade scene from their Holy Grail movie in mind when I wrote the above paragraph of the NAC: )

“Ah, but what about driver’s licenses?” you might ask.  “Everyone uses a car to drive around, right?  That is how they’ll get the numbers!”  Well, as explained in the previous post, the State can’t license the right to travel under the NAC, either, so driver’s licenses are out, too.

The NAC’s Article III. Sections 7.

Now, Section 7 stops the State from assigning a number to people.  So, if the State tries to use the records of the previous national government, or some other means that the NAC hasn’t thought of, to get around all these restrictions, they still can’t attach a number to a name or person.  It is really hard to keep track of a population if you can’t put a unique number to each person.  So, I wish any State that tries to do so the best of luck.

The result of these sections

The NAC’s family sections firmly establish the family as the fundamental unit of society and the father as the fundamental governmental unit.  The NAC, then, fulfills the imperative of The Family: A Proclamation to the World, “to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”  The USC, in contrast, is silent on all these topics, and under it, all we have seen is “the violent overthrow of the existing social order” (the family unit and its government.)  Under the USC, the family has been broken apart and re-defined and its government has been fully disMANtled.  Women empowered by the strong arm of the State, as well as the State (for the State empowers no one without strings attached), now “govern” the family, which allows children to grow up in rebellion, following in the footsteps of their rebellious mothers, all with State sanction and approval, (for the destruction of the family is one of the not-so-secret plans), and emasculated fathers and husbands, unable to deal with the State’s strong arm, are beginning to become wise to the situation and are “opting out.”  But State deception has men completely fooled and so the angst and frustration these men feel is directed at the usurping women, and not at the State which falsely empowers them with stolen masculine rights and authority.  Men must wake up and see the deception around them.  They must recognize that women are not to blame, for they are simply following after their natures, as they always have.  It is the false empowerment of the State that is the primary cause of the situation.  The State must be emasculated and the stolen powers returned to their rightful owners: the men.  But this is impossible under the USC.  So the USC must go and in its place the NAC will restore both the family and its original and legitimate government.

Now, for those who take issue with the NAC over the establishment, or re-establishment of men over their families, as kings, it must be understood that from the beginning, from the very first family, and onward, the fundamental governmental unit has always been, and ever shall be, the king over his kingdom.  Not a democracy, not a confederacy, not a republic, or anything else.  All these other forms of government were later inventions.    The first and best form of government has always been the just king:

Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you.  (Mosiah 29:13)

I will not expound this principle in this post.  Suffice it to say that for the fundamental unit of society, which is the family, the father-king is the original and best form of family government, and, in point of fact, the only divinely approved form for that unit.  The NAC, then, abolishes one form of government, (the national government under the USC), and replaces it with a multitude of father-kings, which is a restoration, for from the beginning the world was filled up with father-kingdoms.  At the same time, the NAC prohibits the later invention of “king over men” and also the even later invention of “kingly authority over men,” while allowing the States to continue functioning as democratic republics on the macro level and as a Confederacy between States.  The NAC allows these because they do not interfere with the rights of the fundamental units and governments, whereas “king over men” and governments which exert “kingly authority over men” do interfere.  Thus, every part of the NAC supports that principle of freedom which maintains rights and privileges.

A story

Once upon a time, there was a land of many kings, which bordered a forest infested with ogres.  The forest also contained a unique specimen of antelope, whose antlers only grew on the right side of their heads.  In ancient times the kings discovered that if they ate these animals, they became endowed with mighty strength, and so it became a practice among them to corral all the various types of this specific specimen of antelope in a certain place in the forest and from time to time the kings would feast on them to renew their strength.  The ogres, for their part, craved human flesh and would attack the kings when the urge struck them, but the kings would ever be victorious due to their greater strength.  In these wars, here and there a king would fall, while ogres would die in droves.

Now ogres were always very stupid, but one day a new type of smart ogre was born, and when he came of age, he said to his fellows, “Listen to me and I will deliver all the humans into our hands.  Behold, it is unwise to attack the humans in their strength.  They must first be weakened.”

“How?” asked his brother.

“Behold, the antelope is the source of the kings’ strength.  We will steal the antelope and men will become weak,” replied the wise ogre.

“But they will know they are missing and will attack us and slay us and take the animals back,” said another.

The smart ogre continued, “They will not know, for they are not numbered, and so we will wait until dark, and when their watch is sleeping, we will take but one antelope, a small one, even the smallest we can find, and we will bring it back and raise it among us as our own.  They will think it has run off and, being insignificant, not worth the effort to retrieve it.  Thus, they will begin to become weak.  We will wait an entire year…”

“A whole year?” exclaimed a stupid ogre.

“Yes, a whole year, and in that year’s time they will begin to forget they ever had it.  None of us will attack them during this time, but we will wait a year and then we will steal another small antelope from them, of the same kind, and we will breed the two we have, to make more for us.”

“But what for?” asked a bewildered ogre.

The cunning ogre continued, “Once we have bred a sufficient number to sustain a population, we will feast upon our antelopes as the humans do.  This will make us stronger.”

“Antelope tastes gross!” exclaimed an ogre.

“It is an acquired taste,” continued the genius ogre, “and we will grow to like it.  Using this same strategy, each year we will take one more small antelope, and breed, and feast, and wait for man to forget all about the animals we will have stolen, and we will afflict him with peace, so that he doesn’t even realize how weak he has become and how strong we have become, and he will no longer see the need for the antelope.  And thus, when we have stolen everything, and feasted, we will attack anew and feast on sweet human flesh!”

And so the ogres put their plan into effect, and became very successful at stealing the antelope.  From time to time a king here or there would notice that the antelope were missing and that the now peaceful ogres were ten feet taller than they used to be, and would sound an alarm that the kings were now weak and in danger, but because it was a time of peace, no one paid any attention.

One day, however, a wife of a king had a chance meeting in the forest with the cunning ogre, and as they talked she began to complain about all the work she did while her husband did nothing but boss her and the children around, and how she would love to give him a taste of his own medicine and rule over him!  The ogre agreed how unfair and unequal it all was and offered to set things right.  Later that night the wise ogre called another ogre meeting and said, “The plans have changed slightly.  Instead of attacking the humans from the forest, and have to deal with their strongholds, we will attack them from within their cities and lands.”  And he unfolded to them the new plan.

The next day all the ogres walked into the human cities, denouncing human inequality, and declaring that the gores, as impartial and unbiased entities, could set human affairs in order better than the humans themselves, and so the ogres ought to be put in charge.  Not everyone was convinced at first, but soon the majority agreed that the plan seemed fair and the ogres began to rule over the humans.  In time, their reach invaded all areas of human life and the kings soon realized that they were no longer kings, but servants and slaves to the ogres.  Anytime one of their wives or children complained to the ogres about them, the ogres would side with the wives and children and lock the king away, to be devoured secretly by the ogres.  In this way, the ogres had a steady supply of sweet human flesh to feast upon from time to time, without a single ogre casualty.

The women and children did not care what happened to their kings, for the ogres let them have their way, something the kings never did, but, despite the new freedoms offered by the ogres, neither the women, nor the children, were happy.  In fact, happiness was at an all time low, for everyone, (except the ogres).  The women resented the fact that their previously mighty king-husbands, who used to slay ogres for breakfast, were now pushed around by both ogres, women and children.  The children resented the fact that their previously mighty king-fathers, who used to have stuffed ogre trophies in their dens, were now made the servant of all.  The women and children all secretly desired that their husbands and fathers could and would return to their former strength and authority, but they had become addicted to power and had grown accustomed to the lifestyle afforded by the ogres, in which they could do whatever they wanted, like spoiled brats, and so none voiced these secret desires, but all continued on living out their lives in unhappiness, and blaming the former kings for all their misery.

The men, on the other hand, were also miserable, and put the blame on their wives and upon women, in general, for the women had changed from their former submissive state to a contentious one, in which the ogres were used to threaten the kings into submitting to the women and children.

About the time of the secret great feast, which was when the cunning ogre had planned to throw off the façade and eat up not only most of the men, but also many of the women and children, something new came into the cities of men.  It was an idea from the past, concerning the antelopes.  It spoke about how in the distant past men were mighty kings because of the antelope and how the ogres had stolen the animals, etc., exposing the whole affair exactly as it had actually happened.  It also put forth a plan whereby men could go into the forest, find the antelope, feast upon it, and return to the cities re-empowered, to throw down the rule of the ogres and re-enthrone themselves as kings of their wives and children.  It even had a map showing exactly where the ogres were keeping all the antelope.  Just a short journey to the spot and all the oppressions and unhappiness would end in an instant.

Most men, at first, upon hearing of this new thing, were skeptical.  “It cannot be that easy,” was everyone’s thought.  “How could feasting on an antelope fix the situation?”  But those who believed the plan persisted until everyone was convinced of its truth: the antelope was the key.  An army of men was gathered, forming a majority, all convinced, and they went to the spot on the map.  Sure enough, the antelope were there.  But would these animals give the men their former strength?  The men feasted, hoping the plan would work, then returned to the cities to fight the ogres.  In the ensuing battle, here and there a king fell, but the ogres were killed in droves, as before, only this time the ogres were made almost entirely extinct, the few remaining stragglers fleeing back into the forest.  Having re-established their kingdoms, the kings ordered the antelopes moved into each city, where they could be properly guarded and protected and numbered, never again to be lost to ogres.

Final words

Once again, more sections of the NAC show its superiority to the USC.  Feel free to disagree on any point mentioned in this post. Bring your strongest reasons against the NAC and let’s have an open debate. And for those who like the NAC and want to install it as the Supreme Law of the land, here is my advice and prediction (and also see this comment, and this comment and this comment) :

A continual strategy of debate will install the NAC in this country and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I say that Americans will jump at the chance to debate the NAC and to show that the Constitution is better, but, according to the rules of the debate, they will have to read the NAC first, and once read, they will be hard pressed to defend the Constitution. Thus, everyone who hears, or watches, or reads, or participates in, a NAC debate, will become convinced that the NAC is what this country needs.

To read the other parts of this series, click any of these links:

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,

Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10,

Part 11, Part 12, Part 13.

Also see: The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) and The Right to Abolish, Revert and Replace Amendment.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The U.S. Constitution (USC) Sucks, The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) is Better: Part 4 of an Open Debate—The NAC’s Marriage Sections

The Right to Travel

Before I get into the marriage sections, I want to address Section 3 of Article II, which says, in part:

…the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and to and from other countries, by any mode of conveyance whatsoever in which they desire to exercise their right to travel, without abridgment, regulation, restriction or license…

The right of travel is nearly non-existent in this country under the USC, though I happen to know a guy who has continually won in the courts each time the cops pull him over and find that he doesn’t have a license, but is merely traveling, and the cops now, when they pull him over, recognize him and just tell him to keep on traveling.  But that is in my area.  In your area, they may be quite adamant that there is not, nor ever was, any right to travel, but under the original Articles of Confederation, it was written right into it, though not as expressly as the NAC has it.  Therefore, the NAC is orders of magnitude better than the original Articles. Under the NAC, people are going to finally know what real freedom feels like…

NAC Article III. Section 1.

Neither the united States in Congress assembled, nor any State of this Confederacy, shall have power to abridge, regulate, or license, a man’s right to take a wife, for men shall always be free to marry wives, without restriction and without permission from ecclesiastical or secular authorities, but, for the resulting marriage, whether confarreatio, or coemptio in manum, or usus, or any other form, with or without manus, and with or without a vow, every State shall issue certificates upon presentment of statements or affidavits by the man and his wife, which shall certify the marriage and its form, and such certificates, if available, shall be used in all marriage controversies at law, which controversies shall be judged according to the marriage form and the covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations or expectations that were made and entered into by the persons involved.

This section ought to be considered a restoration, for in the beginning marriage was ordained unto man (and not unto woman) by God:

and again

verily I say unto you

that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God

for marriage is ordained of God unto man [not woman]

wherefore

it is lawful that he [man] should have one wife

and they twain shall be one flesh

and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation

and that it might be filled with the measure of man

according to his creation before the world was made

(D&C 49:15-17)

So, at the beginning of time, God gave to man a right to take a wife.  He (man) could do it under his own power and authority.  He didn’t need God’s permission, nor permission from other men, or from governments or anything.  This authority and right to take a wife was in him alone.

(Now, I will not explain in this post exactly what marriage is, and although I have written on this blog much about marriage, I have yet to tell what it is, and for those of you who have read my previous writings, don’t think you know what I teach from my previous writings, because these teachings are not there, but are yet to be published…)

Anyway, Section 1 restores this right and power and authority, which was had from the very beginning.  Another thing it restores is the power of manus.  Manus existed from the beginning and was the only form of marriage practiced by man from the start.  Manus was the form given to men by God.  Later on, a new form, developed by man, came forth, which was marriage without manus.  As man had a right to marriage, he also had a right to the form of marriage he chose, therefore with or without manus were equally valid forms of marriage.  Up until quite recently, almost all marriage was assumed to be with manus, but there has been a radical shift in the laws and in the interpretations of the judges, and now all marriage is assumed to be without manus.  The LDS temple ceremony, however, is manus marriage, keeping the ancient form.  Thus, there is a huge contradiction, because the temple sealing is with manus but the civil portion of the ceremony is considered to be without manus.

Also anciently, all marriage was without a vow*, and all marriage was considered to be without a vow.  Taking a wife without a vow was the form of marriage God gave to man at the beginning, but, as man had a right, he later added a form of marriage with a vow.  When a man takes a wife with a vow, he vows to [fill in the blank].  When a man takes a wife without a vow, he doesn’t promise a thing.  At some point in history, marriage with vows became the norm and every marriage was considered, and still is, to be entered into with a vow (by the man).  Again, the LDS temple ceremony keeps the ancient form of marriage, and thus all temple marriage sealings are entered into by the man without a vow, yet the civil law considers that marriage as made with a vow (of monogamy, specifically) anyway.

The disharmony between the LDS temple ceremony and the civil law comes because the LDS Church requires a marriage license from the State before they will marry or seal people in the temple.  The marriage license is marriage by privilege, without manus and with an (assumed and unstated) vow (of monogamy).

The NAC, then, restores the right to marry, as well as the ancient forms of with manus and without a vow, but also keeps the more recent forms of without manus and with a vow.  In other words, men are given their full rights in marriage, and can decide what is best for them, or which form of marriage is best for them to enter into.  Currently, men do not have such a choice, but must choose only one form: without manus and with a vow.

(* The Nephites, although commanded by God not to take more than one wife, did not marry with a vow.  Those Nephites who engaged in polygamy broke God’s commandment, but did not commit adultery.)

No marriage license

The NAC forbids marriage licenses for marriage by right.  Notice that I wrote “marriage by right.”  The NAC does not prohibit “marriage by privilege.”  A marriage license is a marriage privilege, granted by the State.  It gives one permission to do something that otherwise would be illegal to do.  It can be granted and it can be revoked.  If a man wants to marry by privilege, he may still do so under the NAC, by paying the State some money and getting a marriage license.  But if he wants to marry by right, he needs no permission or license from any entity.  Perhaps you might wonder, “Why in the world would a man choose to marry by privilege if he can marry by right?”  Well, if the woman he wants to marry refuses to marry him unless he gets a marriage license (marriage by privilege) and he really wants this woman, he might do that.  Marriage by privilege, of course, means that you marry without manus and with a vow, and also that the State is the arbitrator in the case of divorce, etc.  So, the NAC will still allow marriage licenses.

The State certifies

Another restoration from the very beginning is the role of the State as certifying agent.  That’s right, in the very beginning, according to my understanding, the man entered into a marriage with manus and without a vow and whatever government he was under acknowledged his marriage as validly performed under his own authority.  The governments of the world, in the ancient world, were servants of the men in this regard.  They recognized that all men had power and authority in and of themselves from the very beginning to marry wives and recognized all such marriages as marriages.  They never did as States do today and refused to recognize this or that marriage because there was no marriage license.  Such nonsense, committed by the governments of today, is a usurpation of masculine authority, which has occurred over time until the States of today now totally control marriage and man has no more power or authority over it.

The NAC, then, restores these ancient orders by taking the usurped masculine powers from the State and giving it back to men.  The effect of this can only be that marriage will increase among men again, for many men are avoiding marriage because it is no longer beneficial to them.  It has become a raw deal, one in which the risks out way the benefits.  Once the NAC is installed, marriage will be a benefit and blessing to men again, and they will begin to marry again in droves, choosing whichever form they deem best for them.

Same-sex marriage (SSM)

What of same-sex marriage?  Well, the NAC doesn’t address same-sex marriage, except for this part:

Article X. Section 5.

As the decisions of the supreme court of the former national government were made according to that law which was the United States Constitution and its treaties, which law is no longer binding upon the States, nor upon the people thereof, neither shall such decisions be binding upon any of the States, nor upon their people.

Now, under the USC, which doesn’t mention marriage, at all, the Supreme Court was able to determine that the U.S. Constitution did not allow plural marriages.  Under the USC, which doesn’t mention marriage, at all, the Supreme Court was able to determine that the U.S. Constitution allows a man and another man, or a woman and another woman, to be married.  The U.S. Constitution, which doesn’t mention marriage, at all, apparently still has much to say about which forms of marriage it permits, and which it doesn’t, without ever using the words “marry” or “marriage.”  The USC, then, is a magical document with magical powers beyond my comprehension.  But thank goodness the Supreme Court can comprehend such magical things!  Perhaps it is because they themselves are wizards performing some sort of magic?

The NAC, on the other hand, is not magical.  It takes a simplified approach.  It encodes heterosexual marriage as a right of man and does not seek to restrict that right in any way.  It also does not mention anything other than marriage by right.  Therefore, under the NAC, States are still free to permit SSM (by issuing a marriage license), or ban it altogether (by refusing to issue a marriage license); free to permit polygamy (by issuing a marriage license) or ban it (by refusing to issue a marriage license).  But they are not free to restrict in any way man’s right to heterosexual marriage and are required to recognize such marriages, as governments did anciently.

So, the recent decision of the Supreme Court on SSM is null and void under the NAC, meaning that SSM will become a State’s matter, each State deciding whether they will permit (license) SSM or not.

Divorce under the NAC

The NAC changes the game for divorce, too, at least for manus marriages:

Article III. Section 3.

No State shall have power to divorce men who exercise their right to marry wives with manus, from their wives, nor shall the right and power of such men to issue a writ of divorcement, on their own authority, be abridged or regulated in any way, and such writs shall be binding and valid and final and unalterable decrees in the eyes of the law, so that the law shall view a wife so divorced as loosed from the law of her husband.

This is yet another restoration, for anciently there was no power (outside of the man himself) to divorce a man who married with manus, from his wife.  Only he (the man) had power to divorce, using the same power he used to marry: his own.  Thus, the power to divorce wives was always in men from the beginning.  When Moses allowed men to issue bills of divorcement, he did not confer any more authority than men already had.  He just gave them divine permission to use their rights, power and authority in this way.

Now, under the USC, there is an unfavorable environment for men to marry.  Why?  Because if they marry by privilege with a marriage license, without manus and with a vow, and the marriage goes south, they can lose their house, their money, their kids and even their liberty (jail time).  The risks far out way the benefits of current marriage practices under the USC and many men are walking away.  The NAC, though, creates a favorable environment for men to marry, because they not only get to set all the terms of the marriage from the get-go, as men did anciently, but also all the terms of the divorce, even controlling whether a divorce can happen or not.  This minimizes, or altogether eliminates, risk and gives men who marry by right (with manus) only benefits.  Men will not walk away from such marriage, but will rush into it, reversing all current marriage and divorce trends.  New marriage statistics will shoot sky-high and divorce statistics will become nearly non-existent, under the NAC.

State divorces still can happen

The NAC doesn’t speak on other forms of divorce.  A man is still free to marry by privilege and go through the courts for a divorce and lose everything.  The NAC doesn’t say you can’t sell yourself to the State and then get dragged through the mud by a wife wanting a divorce.  Some men are masochists by nature, so the NAC leaves intact all these other forms and merely gives men more choices, while still allowing the masochists their fun.

Conferral of citizenship by manus

Article XII. Section 2.

Men who are natural-born citizens of any State, that marry wives by right, with manus, shall have power to confer naturalized citizenship upon their wives, provided a wife first passes an English proficiency test and enters into a covenant to obey, honor and sustain the laws of the State of which her husband is a resident, both of which shall be administered by the State of which her husband is a resident; and such men shall naturalize their wives by issuing a writ of citizenship, which writ shall be certified by the State of which her husband is a resident, which certified writ shall be binding and valid in the eyes of the law.

This also is a restoration, for this power existed in olden days and in ancient times.  Thus the NAC returns these stolen powers and rights back to the men and codifies them.  All of these things, taken together, rearrange the centers of power found in the national and State governments, creating a new center of power and jurisdiction, held by men, which really isn’t a new jurisdiction, but an old jurisdiction, for men always held these rights and powers and jurisdictions, in ancient times and from the beginning.

This stuff is in the NAC because I wrote it with a view of the restoration of all things.  It may not seem readily apparent just how important these things are, but their effect will be huge in both shackling the State, re-empowering the people and in furthering the restoration of all things.

Conclusion

The marriage sections of the NAC, I suppose, will be controversial, but they need not be, for they do not force change in current practices, merely adding ancient practices to the modern ones, giving people many more options.  Feel free to disagree on any point mentioned in this post.  Bring your strongest reasons against the NAC and let’s have an open debate.  And for those who like the NAC and want to install it as the Supreme Law of the land, here is my advice and prediction (and also see this comment, and this comment and this comment) :

A continual strategy of debate will install the NAC in this country and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I say that Americans will jump at the chance to debate the NAC and to show that the Constitution is better, but, according to the rules of the debate, they will have to read the NAC first, and once read, they will be hard pressed to defend the Constitution. Thus, everyone who hears, or watches, or reads, or participates in, a NAC debate, will become convinced that the NAC is what this country needs.

To read the other parts of this series, click any of these links:

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,

Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10,

Part 11, Part 12, Part 13.

Also see: The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) and The Right to Abolish, Revert and Replace Amendment.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The U.S. Constitution (USC) Sucks, The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) is Better: Part 3 of an Open Debate—USC 4th-8th,13th Amendments vs. NAC Article II, Section 2.9-2.24

An awful lot of stuff to go over in this one…

USC Amendment IV

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.

 NAC Article II, Section 2.9

(9) to abolish the abomination of general warrants forever, the right of the people to be secure and private in their persons, houses, papers, data, metadata, communications, and all other effects, whether invisible, intangible or otherwise, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but from a judge, upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized;

NAC Article II, Section 2.10

 (10) the right of grand juries to file presentments shall not be abridged or regulated;

USC Amendment V

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.

NAC Article II, Section 2.11-2.15

(11) 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, air or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;

(12) no person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

(13) the right to remain silent shall not be violated, and shall be self-executing, being claimed merely by refusing to speak or communicate, and no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself nor to communicate in any way;

(14) no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

(15) private property shall not be taken for public use;

NAC Article II, Section 2.16

(16) in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed to be innocent, until proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty, and the government shall have the burden of proof, not the accused;

USC Amendment VI

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.

NAC Article II, Section 2.17-2.19

(17) 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;

(18) in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him;

(19) in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense, but there shall be no compulsory process for obtaining witnesses, neither for the accused nor for the prosecution, for the conscription of witnesses shall be abolished forever;

NAC Article II, Section 2.20

(20) the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended;

USC Amendment VII

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.

NAC Article II, Section 2.21

(21) in suits at common law, 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 this Confederacy, than according to the rules of the common law;

USC Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

NAC Article II, Section 2.22

(22) excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

USC Amendment XIII

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.

NAC Article II, Section 2.23

(23) as it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, slavery and involuntary servitude shall not exist within any of these United States nor within any place subject to any of their jurisdictions;

NAC Article II, Section 2.24

(24) the right of the people to nullify a law by their voice shall not be abridged;

Okay, so here I go…

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.9 vs. USC’s 4th Amendment

Section 2.9 restores both the intent of the 4th Amendment and corrects its deficiencies.  The intent is included as “to abolish the abomination of general warrants forever.”  Had that wording been in the 4th Amendment, we wouldn’t have general warrants today, yet as everyone should now know, they are still being issued.  Deficiency number one is corrected by the wording: “data, metadata, communications, and all other effects, whether invisible, intangible or otherwise.”  Basically, that covers everything, making absolutely no room to wiggle around the restriction.  Deficiency number two is corrected by the wording, “but from a judge”.  Requiring an unbiased judge to be the one that decides what is or is not probable cause does away with the current tyrannical practice which allows biased people to decide the same.  The NAC’s wording comes out the winner on this one.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.10 vs. USC’s nothing

The USC has nothing on this.  Current practice removes the right of grand juries to file presentments.  The NAC restores it.  Why is that important?  Because grand juries have the power to root out corruption in all levels of government, by filing presentments.  Take away this right, and government corruption can thrive unchecked.  So, the NAC re-empowers grand juries, making sure that the new government established by the NAC, stays just as squeaky clean as the day it is born.  Under the NAC, government corruption can and will be targeted and destroyed by grand juries.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.11-2.15 vs. USC’s 5th Amendment

Section 2.11-2.12 is almost identical to the wording in the 5th Amendment.  But Section 2.13 expands the Amendment’s wording, “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”, into a self-executing right to remain silent.  This, then, is the Miranda right made self-executing.  It is kind of retarded to say that you must expressly state that you are going to exercise your right to remain silent before you are considered exercising your right to remain silent by remaining silent.  So the NAC corrects this lunacy.  Section 2.14 has the same wording as the 5th Amendment.  But Section 2.15 alters things quite a bit by leaving off the words, “without just compensation.”  What does this do?  It eliminates eminent domain.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.16 vs. USC’s nothing

Hear about all those university students being accused and presumed to be guilty before being proven innocent?  Well, that is the future we are heading into.  That is what is being planned and worked toward.  That is what tyrants want for us.  The NAC nips this trend in the bud before it really gets going.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.17-2.19 vs. USC’s 6th Amendment

Section 2.17-2.18 is more or less the same as the 6th Amendment, but Section 2.19 makes a very big change by abolishing the conscription of witnesses, for both prosecution and defense.  In effect it does the opposite that the 6th Amendment does, for the 6th Amendment allows the defense to have the same compulsory power that the prosecution has.  But, as such compulsory power is intrinsically evil, the NAC does away with this abomination altogether.  This shows, yet again, that the NAC is superior to the U.S. Constitution in every single particular.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.20 vs. USC’s Art.I.Sec.9.Para.2

Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution says the following:

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.

Section 2.20, has the same wording, but leaves off the exception.  Also, even foreigners have access to this privilege:

This Confederacy is also created to ensure that that principle of freedom, which maintains rights and privileges, which is justifiable before God, and which belongs to all mankind, be befriended, be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, citizens and foreigners alike, and be supported throughout the United States.

What would this do to the current practice of indefinitely detaining “illegal combatants”?  Like I previously stated on this blog, the NAC completely destroys tyranny.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.21-2.23 vs. USC’s 7th, 8th and 13th Amendments

Section 2.21 is essentially the same as the 7th Amendment, except it leaves off the wording, “where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars.”  Section 2.22 is precisely the same as the 8th Amendment.  Section 2.23 is essentially the same as the 13th Amendment.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.24 vs. USC’s nothing

Now, this Section 2.24 is a doozy.  A DOOZY.  The right to nullify a law by the voice of the people is such a gigantic power, that this little bit here alone, once read by the powers that be, will give them nightmares and they will use every means within their power to stop the NAC from becoming the supreme law of the land.  This allows the people to nullify taxes (!) and anything else they think is wrong!  Simply put, this section says that ultimately, the people are the ones in control, and no law the majority disagrees with can oppress the people, for they have the final say in all matters.  The tyranny of the shrill minority cannot oppress the majority because of this section.

Conclusion

These sections of the NAC, (listed here and also in the first two parts of this series), contain “the constitution of the land” established by the Lord.  The constitution of the land, spoken of in the revelations, is the Bill of Rights, as I wrote 8 years ago.  (See What the Lord has said about the Constitution?)  The NAC includes the Bill of Rights, but corrects them and fully restores them, and adds other rights which fully empower the people against any and all tyranny that might show its head in the new Confederacy.  So, the installation of the NAC does not destroy the constitution of the land, but actually more fully establishes it.  The NAC, then, is essentially, a sort of new Title of Liberty.

In the next installment of this series, I will move on to Article III of the NAC.  Feel free to disagree on any point mentioned in this post.  Bring your strongest reasons against the NAC and let’s have an open debate.  And for those who like the NAC and want to install it as the Supreme Law of the land, here is my advice and prediction (and also see this comment, and this comment and this comment) :

A continual strategy of debate will install the NAC in this country and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I say that Americans will jump at the chance to debate the NAC and to show that the Constitution is better, but, according to the rules of the debate, they will have to read the NAC first, and once read, they will be hard pressed to defend the Constitution. Thus, everyone who hears, or watches, or reads, or participates in, a NAC debate, will become convinced that the NAC is what this country needs.

To read the other parts of this series, click any of these links:

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,

Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10,

Part 11, Part 12, Part 13.

Also see: The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) and The Right to Abolish, Revert and Replace Amendment.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The U.S. Constitution (USC) Sucks, The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) is Better: Part 1 of an Open Debate—USC 2nd Amendment vs. NAC Article II, Section 2.1-2.3

USC Amendment II

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.

NAC Article II, Section 2.1-2.3

(1) as a well-armed populace, skilled in the use of all weapons, is essential for the security of the United States—in order to wage warfare against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that should threaten any of their rights—the right of the people to make, keep, bear and carry all manner of weapons of every kind, openly or concealed, shall not be infringed nor regulated;

(2) all men shall be justified in defending themselves, their wives, their children, their friends, their neighbors, their property, their homes, their lands, their country, their government, their rights, their privileges, their liberties, their religion and their all, and the all of their neighbors, even unto bloodshed, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded;

(3) because of the extreme danger posed to liberty, there shall be no standing army in times of peace, and military conscription shall be abolished forever;

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.1 vs. USC’s 2nd Amendment

Sec.2.1 creates a super-armed society with no regulation by any branch of government.  No permits or licenses can be required of the people.  They are unrestricted in all ways.  They can even make their own weapons.  Sec.2.1 covers every kind of weapon, including firearms and swords and everything else.  The purpose of this right is given as warfare, both to enemies foreign and domestic, to protect all the other rights of the people.

The 2nd Amendment creates a partially armed society, regulated by the Federal and State governments.  You need permits and licenses.  You are denied access to certain types of weapons and certain types of ammunition.  You cannot make your own weapons without permission and regulation.  The 2nd Amendment only covers firearms, not swords, so that no one can go around bearing a sharpened sword, etc.  The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is debated, some believing it is only to allow people to hunt, and others believing it is just for self-defense, and others believing it is for warfare.

Under the 2nd Amendment, the police state thrives.  Jack-booted thugs can and do regularly enter into homes in unannounced raids.  An agenda of gun control and regulation is promoted, with the end goal of disarming the people, all except for the police and other governmental authorities.  People actually do have their weapons (private property) routinely confiscated.  (Remember Katrina?)  People are also taught to rely upon the police for protection.  And criminals, who go after the weak and unarmed, are able to perform all manner of crimes.  All of this makes the 2nd Amendment extremely weak in its protections.

On the other hand, the super-armed society created by Sec.2.1 (and Sec.2.2) entirely does away with the police state.  Literally everyone is armed, or assumed to be armed, to the teeth.  The government is completely in the dark as to what weapons the people have, how many weapons they have, how much ammo they have, etc.  The people are free to conceal their weapons on their person, therefore, the only way to know is when they are bearing weapons openly, but that is not an accurate measurement, as a person may also have additional concealed weapons.  This unknown variable creates an environment unfavorable to a police state, and also to other types of criminals.  Simply put, the government authorities must at all times assume they are outmanned and outgunned by the citizens that surround them.  Everyone, essentially, becomes a potential threat with no clear advantage to the police state, because citizens live everywhere and thus, surround all the cops.  The authority of the police state is one of intimidation, the firearms of the police being a perceived threat.  “Do what I say or this firearm you see at my side is going to come out and point at you.”  But a super-armed society is not intimidated, neither by police nor by criminals.  On the contrary, a super-armed society intimidates all police and also all criminals.

Thus, crime increases under the 2nd Amendment, with a corresponding increase in the police state, to deal with all the crime, whereas crime will decrease and almost entirely be eliminated under Sec.2.1, with a corresponding decrease in the police state, until the police state disappears altogether.

In conclusion, the 2nd Amendment can be considered as an abridgment of the real weapons right.  It is better than nothing, but still falls short of the actual right.  Whereas Sec.2.1 is a full restoration of the weapons right held by the ancient people of this land, and also by those who lived at the beginning of time.  The restoration of this right fully secures the land from tyranny, both from non-governmental and governmental criminals.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.2 vs. USC’s nothing

That’s right, the USC has nothing in it for defense.  There is no right to defense in the United States Constitution, whatsoever.  Nevertheless, apart from the USC, there are federal and State laws that put forth a right of women to defend themselves from other women, and from men, and that put forth a right of men to defend themselves from other men, but not from women.

In fact, if any woman attacks a man, hitting him, slapping him, pulling his hair, spitting on him, kicking him, pushing him, throwing his property, verbally insulting him, destroying his property, and so on, even publicly, first of all, no one would help the man out (not even off-duty cops), secondly, the men in the area would think the man was a wimp, allowing himself to get beaten up by a girl, and third, some of the women in the area would cheer, and all of the women would think that the man had the beating coming to him and that he must be at fault (even though they have no idea of the circumstances.)

But if that man were to attempt to defend himself against her, even if it was only to restrain her from hitting him again, all the men in the area who are what are known as white knights would immediately jump to the woman’s defense and start pounding on the man, because of the rule they were taught by their single, or separated or divorced mothers, (and even some of their fathers), namely, that it is always wrong to hit a woman.  He defending himself against her attack would cause all to view him as a monster and as “not a man.”  Should the cops be called, they would arrest him, and not her, even though she attacked him and he only defended himself, and he would be the one going to jail.  Thus, not only society says that a man does not have a right to defend himself against a woman, but also the law says so.  Think I’m wrong?  Watch this:

Notice that in the video the off-duty cop didn’t help him.  Also notice that the psychology professor says, “Men create more damage, but women hit more than men do.”

Now, in olden times and more particularly in ancient times (and I am writing here according to my understanding), a man had a right to defend himself against all persons, even women.  Not only did he have a right to defend his person, but also his honor, against attacks, be they verbal or physical.  Thus, when a man was verbally insulted or abused, and I don’t mean an argument or difference of opinion or a debate, but when words were used to insult and abuse the man, the man felt pain, for his honor was under a humiliating attack and thus the insults were considered fighting words.  In other words, although only words were used, it was nevertheless considered a fight.  Such a man had three options.  If he were a Christian saint, then he might simply suffer the persecution (what we today would call harassment) and just turn the other cheek, and no matter how many words he was afflicted with, he would not retaliate in kind.  Nevertheless, he had the right to defend his honor, and his second option was to retaliate in kind, afflicting verbal insults upon the attacker, so that his enemy would become humiliated, too, and thus, he might “win the fight” by getting the public observers to side with him as the winner.  But there was also a third option, and that was to take it to the next level, and to physically stop the attacker from continuing to insult and abuse him verbally.  This was perfectly acceptable in the ancient world, and also in olden times, because if a man was so brash as to insult another man, then he had to be able to deal with the consequences of his actions, which might lead to a physical altercation, according to the right of the man attacked to defend himself and his honor.  In other words, the right of a man to defend his honor from verbal abuse, even physically, was universally recognized.  This was the prerogative of a man.

Anciently (and also in olden times), it was unmanly for a man to allow another man to verbally abuse him, without defending oneself, either verbally or physically.  Thus, when insults were thrown about by men, it might lead to a duel of pistols or a clash of swords, to the wounding or death of one of them, for a man’s honor was everything to him and it was to be defended, at all cost.  But over time, pistol duels were outlawed, as well as gunfights and sword fights.  Now, all that is left, legally, is fisticuffs, and even that comes with a penalty from the law.

Anciently, if any woman were to verbally assault a man’s honor, insulting and abusing him with words, she “crossed the line” into man’s territory, for women were to act as women and men were to act as men.  Men could insult a man, and then they would have to face the consequences, but women were not expected or allowed to act as men and insult men, but if they did, they were always treated with the very same treatment that other men received, except with one difference.  This similar treatment of women, by men, when the women acted as men, put a permanent stop to all women abusing men, either verbally or physically.

It is a universal fact that men are mightier in every way than women.  An average man put into a fair fight with an average woman, and neither of them pulling their punches, would result in either the critical wounding or death of the female.  All females crumple under male power.  The Hollywood myth of the dominant, strong female that can kick a man’s butt is merely a clever fiction meant to deceive the masses.  You could put 50 females in a line, each one facing that man in a fair fist fight, and that man would destroy each and every female, from the first to the last.  The male body and his testosterone fueled muscles gives almost god-like strength to him, or at least, that is what it seems like to any female who has ever been hit hard by a male.  All females, once hit hard by a male, cease their bickering.

Now, the ancients knew this, and they knew that male strength is much too powerful to be used in its full capacity, upon females, as it was used upon male antagonists, but they also knew that unless a woman is checked by male power, she would continue to verbally and physically assault and abuse men, for this is the nature of unchecked women.  So, the ancient solution was to use the closed hand (the fist) against males and the open hand (the palm slap) against women.  The muscles on the palm of the hand softened the blow, so that even though the slap was delivered in a hard manner, so as to make a point, it was not enough to destroy the woman.  To the woman on the receiving end, it still felt like a brick wall had fallen on top of her, and the realization that this was only a slap, caused every woman to respect, submit to, and not fight, male power and authority.  In other words, the ancient women, so checked, fully respected the men around them, once they felt just what kind of god-like power and strength God had endowed to the males of the species.

Now, this was the way of the ancients, according to their right of defense, and this practice created peace between the sexes, for the women, once checked, submitted to the men and did not fight them, and the men, for their part, did not initiate much violence towards women, because their women were mostly submissive.  Violence towards men by women was virtually non-existent, and the little insulting words thrown about by women were quickly stopped by this hard slapping check by the men.  This was, for the most part, the extent of the domestic violence.

Domestic violence, however, in modern times, is widespread.  Women hide behind, and promote, the false teaching of “men should never hit women” in order to get away with hitting and otherwise abusing men.  And then the same statistics show up, namely, that women initiate the lion’s share of the violence and arguments and verbal abuse, except that they are never checked, because the law will throw a man into jail if he makes the attempt to put his woman in her place.  This causes pent up anger in the emasculated males, as the abuse continues, until in some males, instead of a checking slap that would have put an abrupt end to the female-initiated violence, we get an explosive reaction that destroys the female.  In other words, the males that do such violence actually end up looking upon these women as fully male and so exert full male power at them, destroying them.

Now, I will not expound the heart of the matter in this post, for that is not the topic.  Suffice it to say that devilish forces have removed the ancient rights of men to defend themselves and their honor from all persons, including from women, and thus, in this emasculated state, the prophecy of Isaiah is brought to pass:

As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.  (Isaiah 3:12)

Thus, the devil has turned the ancient order upside down.  But the NAC turns it right-side up again, through restoration, by restoring the ancient rights of man to defend himself from all persons.

From all persons

Remember those jack-booted thugs dressed in the garb of the State’s authority?  Well, Sec.2.2 allows citizens to defend themselves and their property, too, against all those unannounced raids.  Instead of a man opening fire on DEA agents raiding his house and then going to prison, the man would be set free, for he was merely exercising his right.  This curtails all unlawful encroachments, no matter where they originate.  Men are re-empowered to defend their all, against all, and the police state suddenly cowers before all the masculine power the State stole from the men.  Raids will stop.  Girlfriends and wives destroying a man’s property because they are upset with him, without any consequences, will stop.  Even conflict in general will largely cease, because a super-armed society in conjunction with the right to defend creates a powder-keg of masculine power that is unfavorable to conflict.  In other words, civility becomes the societal law, because any conflict can potentially escalate into great bodily harm or even death.  Contentious persons, of both sexes, will cease their contention quite rapidly, or be eliminated.  It just isn’t wise to be contentious in such a society.

Bad cops also will leave the police force, or never enter it to begin with.  Cops need to be extra kind and polite and considerate and careful not to trample on people’s rights when dealing with super-armed citizens who have a right to defend their all against all persons from encroachments.  Any infringement by a cop upon a citizen may not make it to the judge.  This will cause only the manliest and pleasantest of men to take the position of police officer, because of the unfavorable environment to nervous and contentious men.  A cop’s main job in such an environment would be to show up and protect the nabbed criminal from the citizens who have caught him in the act of the crime and have him pinned down at gun or sword point.  The citizens themselves would be a sort of unofficial police force, for they are empowered to protect the all of their neighbors, too.

Abortion

A man can protect his all under Sec.2.2.  This may be interpreted to include his unborn fetuses.  NAC Article X., Section 5 reads:

As the decisions of the supreme court of the former national government were made according to that law which was the United States Constitution and its treaties, which law is no longer binding upon the States, nor upon the people thereof, neither shall such decisions be binding upon any of the States, nor upon their people.

This negates Roe vs. Wade and makes the legality of abortion a States issue.  Nevertheless, Section 10 of the same Article says,

These articles of Confederation, and all the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the united States in Congress assembled, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Laws or Constitution of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, the States will be bound to the NAC.  Sec. 2.2 in conjunction with Article III. Section 2 may make a case for permission from the father being necessary before an abortion can be legally performed:

Neither the united States in Congress assembled, nor any State, shall have power to raise up a king over men, nor to exert kingly authority over them or their house, for it is not right to esteem one flesh above another, or that one man shall think himself above another, but every man alone shall bear rule in his own house; and as that which is governed by law is also preserved by law, whereas that which breaks a law, and abides not by law, but seeks to become a law unto itself, cannot be preserved by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment, every man shall have power to set his house in order, having his children and house in subjection to him alone with all gravity, even as unto a king, according to the bounds and conditions of his law, that this shall be a land of liberty, and that every man shall enjoy his rights and privileges alike, and that every man shall set in order his family, and that every man shall bear his part.

Certainly that fetus could be considered part of the “all” of a man, and also part of his family.  These things will be worked out in the courts, but the NAC provides a legal basis for the reproductive right of the father to extend its manly protection over his unborn offspring. And if the courts rule in this very way, that the father’s right to defend his all extends to his fetuses, then all men in this country can be empowered to save all these children, regardless of the legality of abortion in any State.  Additionally, even if a woman tries to circumvent the law’s requirement of a father’s permission for abortion, by going to an illegal clinic, the father is still empowered to defend that unborn life, his all, even unto bloodshed, if you get my drift.  This will create a very unfavorable environment for illegal abortion practitioners, as they may be faced with an irate and fully armed father seeking to protect his unborn young.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.3 vs. USC’s nothing

Once again, the Constitution comes up flat.  The USC allows for a standing army.  And for military conscription.  But the NAC disallows both.

Now, it may not be readily apparent just how important these three items are (Section 2.1-2.3) but together, they put a shackle on the State and any would-be tyrants in it.  Despots and dictators and would-be tyrants need some things in order to tyrannize a populace.  They need a standing army during peacetime.  The USC gives it to them.  The NAC doesn’t.  They need military conscription, so as to rapidly expand their army by forcing men to fight for them.  The USC gives it to them.  The NAC doesn’t.  They need the populace either fully disarmed or mostly disarmed, or at least regulated to the point where they could fully disarm them at some point through such regulations.  The USC gives this to them.  The NAC doesn’t.  They need the men, representing the masculine power of the population, to be emasculated to the point that they can no longer defend themselves, legally, against anyone, but must rely upon the police and other armed State officials, for their defense and protection.  The USC gives this to them.  The NAC doesn’t.  They need to have a police state in place, to intimidate and threaten the populace into submission.  The USC gives it to them.  The NAC doesn’t.

So, the USC supports tyranny, or allows it to flourish, while the NAC destroys it.  Just this little bit of the NAC proves that the NAC is superior in every way to the USC, but I will go over other NAC sections in future posts.  Feel free to disagree or debate on any point mentioned in this post.  This is, after all, an open debate.  And for those who like the NAC and want to install it as the Supreme Law of the land, here is my advice and prediction (and also see this comment, and this comment and this comment) :

A continual strategy of debate will install the NAC in this country and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I say that Americans will jump at the chance to debate the NAC and to show that the Constitution is better, but, according to the rules of the debate, they will have to read the NAC first, and once read, they will be hard pressed to defend the Constitution. Thus, everyone who hears, or watches, or reads, or participates in, a NAC debate, will become convinced that the NAC is what this country needs.

To read the other parts of this series, click any of these links:

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,

Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10,

Part 11, Part 12, Part 13.

Also see: The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) and The Right to Abolish, Revert and Replace Amendment.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Ideas for fighting gun rights infringement

Note: Due to recent anti-American voices, which seem to have reached a fever pitch, and I feel constrained, yet again, to write about gun rights infringement.

To all American gun rights advocates

I am addressing my words to everyone who is a gun rights advocate, not just to the latter-day saints (Mormons), so the intended audience is much wider than usual. Use any of these ideas as you see fit, in your fight to protect American rights.

Use the proper terms

Gun control is a misnomer, so never use it. Instead, begin a conversation with the term, so-called “gun control,” and then label it correctly as gun rights infringement. Continue to use the proper term for the rest of the conversation. Remember, so-called “gun control” is not about controlling guns, but about controlling people by infringing on their right to keep and bear arms.

Gun control advocate is another misnomer. When someone says they are a gun control advocate, call them instead a gun rights infringer. (It does not matter that the word infringer is not in the dictionary, everyone will understand its meaning. Sometimes creating a new word is the best option. Shakespeare did it many times, so can you. Besides, used enough times, you can be sure it will eventually make it into the dictionary.)

When someone says that he or she is an American in favor of gun control, refer to him or her ever afterward as an anti-American in favor of gun rights infringement, or just as an anti-American gun rights infringer. The term anti-American fits, for only anti-Americans attack or seek to weaken the constitutional protections of the rights of American citizens.

When referring to behavior that undermines the Bill of Rights protections, call it un-American. That is, after all, what it is.

These terms: gun rights infringement, gun rights infringer, anti-American, and un-American, make people immediately think of criminals and communists seeking to undermine or subvert the American system and way of life. Because they themselves make the connection between infringement and crime and anti/un-American and communist, these terms have a more powerful effect upon the minds of the people hearing them. Never, ever, label someone a criminal or communist or socialist or whatever, for if you do, people’s doubt will come into play and they will not believe the rest of what you say.

Use the terms undermining and subversion liberally in a conversation when describing actions that promote gun rights infringement. No one wants their rights undermined, nor does anyone want the Constitution subverted. These are descriptive terms that paint an immediate picture in one’s mind of spies trying to overthrow the government.

Use the term subversive as a label for anyone who promotes gun rights infringement. When a person calls someone else a subversive and describes their actions as subversive behavior, those that listen to the conversation immediately think of cloak and dagger stuff, such as an enemy trying to destroy the American way of life.

These terms are effective because they are based upon word associations. The words criminal, communist, spy and enemy, all pop up in people’s mind automatically, as soon as you start using these terms. Because they themselves do the associations, or because they themselves make the connections, or think of the associated words themselves, they believe them. Now, everything you say about the person you have just labeled will be more receptive to the audience listening in, for they now will view the gun rights infringer with suspicion.

Use “no infringement” as the standard

Never call so-called “gun control laws,” gun control laws. They must always be called, gun rights infringement laws. Everything must be brought back to the central issue: the infringement of unalienable rights.

Every gun rights infringement law on the books must be regarded and labeled as illegal. Never, ever refer to them as legal. They are all illegal, unconstitutional laws, and always refer to them as such. As long as people think of these illegal gun rights infringement laws as legal, they will be accepting of so-called “legal” gun rights infringement. People need to be presented with contradictory information, before they wake up out of their sleep. They must be presented with two, opposing “realities,” one side saying, “gun control laws are legal” and the other side saying, “gun rights infringement laws are illegal.” They must understand that there is no such thing as “legal” gun rights infringement.

“No infringement” must be the standard. Partial infringement is unacceptable. A full infringement of one’s right to life would be immediate execution. A partial infringement of that same right might consist of poison administered over time so as to shorten one’s life. Full infringement of the right to property would be taking it all, partial infringement might consist of taking only half. The right to liberty could be partially infringed upon by requiring that you be confined three days out of every week. Partial infringement of the right to free speech might be that your mouth be taped shut every Monday and Tuesday. If this all sounds absurd, it is because it is. Infringement is infringement, whether it is partial or full, and it is all unacceptable, tyrannical behavior. This same principle applies to the right to keep and bear arms.

Needs have nothing to do with rights

If a person wanted to administer poison to you, to shorten your life span from 75 to 65 years old, while telling you, “Oh, but you don’t need those last ten years of life!” would you let him? Does your right to life have anything to do with your needs? Are not your years yours, to do with as you want? Does the argument that you don’t need 50% of your property, or you don’t need seven days of freedom because four days is enough, or you don’t need to speak your mind on Mondays and Tuesdays, make it alright to infringe upon these rights? Of course not! So, in like manner, no one has the right to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms because a person doesn’t “need” another gun, or more ammo, or a bigger and more powerful weapon. His or her needs have nothing to do with the matter.

So, toss the needs argument right into the trash from the get-go and keep the conversation eternally focused on the rights of man.

Get yourself some weapons and keep them

Get enough firearms and ammunition for every able bodied person of age in your family. Get the weapons you feel are appropriate, including so-called assault weapons. (Notice I used “so-called.”) Make sure your family is trained in their proper use and safety.

Bear your weapons

Rights that are not asserted will inevitably be encroached upon and eventually taken away. Firearms must, of necessity, be borne. In other words, when you go around town to do your daily business, go packing heat. Now, there may be an illegal law against that in your area. If so, then another strategy must be taken. But if there is no illegal law against that, start doing it, and keep doing it.

Educate your neighbors on gun rights

The best means to do that is the following document:

REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES SENATE, NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, Second Session, February 1982, Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

Just print it out as a hard copy and hand it out or snail mail it, email it, or share it online using its 120+ share functions. The video, Innocents Betrayed: The True Story of Gun Control World Wide, is also an excellent teaching tool to use.

Meet with other gun rights advocates

Your local gun and ammo supply store may be able to hook you up with other local gun right advocates. This is an important step to take in order to begin the formation of citizen militias.

Begin to form and regulate a local citizen militia

In conjunction with other local gun rights advocates, begin to form a local citizen militia. It is necessary that citizen militias be “well-regulated.” That of course means that everyone needs to possess weapons, perhaps of a specific kind, and also sufficient ammo, but it may also mean that everyone should have the means to communicate with each other, perhaps through ham radio or whatnot. Each militia will decide how best to regulate itself.

When meeting together as a militia, to conduct business, bring your weapons with you. Bearing arms is the key to gun rights (and all other rights) protection.

Do not keep it local. In other words, seek to establish other “chapters” of citizen militias in the regions round about, and work to have each local militia capable of communicating and working with other militias. This is all part of being “well-regulated.”

Citizen militias are for both local and common defense, so they need to be able to co-ordinate efforts with other militias.

Let the Bill of Rights be the common thread that unites all the citizens in the various militias, so that race, color, creed, customs, dress and all other differences are set aside. The only requirement to unite with a citizen militia ought to be that one be law-abiding. Law-abiding should simply mean that a person supports a “no infringement” stance on the Bill of Rights.

Expect infiltration. G-men get antsy about the prospect of an armed citizenry, and especially about organized, citizen militias, so expect that some undercover agents may be joining your group, to spy on it or even to sabotage it or create false flags.

There is safety in numbers and weapons

When these militias grow in sufficiently large numbers, they ought to meet out in the public, packing heat, in peaceful assembly, exercising two of their rights simultaneously: bearing arms and peacefully assembling. In fact, at every public protest or peaceful assembly, of whatever group, the armed citizen militia ought to be there as a show of force, in support of the people’s rights to protest and assemble.

In areas where there are illegal laws on the books, prohibiting or restricting the right to bear arms in public, several local militias could organize peaceful assemblies using this principle*, with thousands or tens of thousands of armed militia men in attendance, as a public demonstration that illegal laws that prohibit or infringe upon the bearing of arms should not be obeyed. This ought to be done quite frequently and only in large numbers, until the police decide not to enforce the illegal laws and they are removed from the books.

*Btw, in case this comes up in the comments, yes, I am fully aware that Ghandi, who was a supporter of this principle, wrote in Chapter XXVII, “The Recruiting Campaign,” in his autobiography, My Experiments with Truth:

“I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: ‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.’ The Commissioner referred to this and said that he appreciated my presence in the conference in spite of the differences between us. And I had to justify my standpoint as courteously as I could.”

Solutions for statists

These ideas of mine will appeal to those who do not look to the government to solve gun rights infringement, but for any statists who read this blog, who want to change the government via legislation, you may wish to use the Gun Owners of America lobby group as a tool. By becoming a member and giving them money, they will lobby Congress for zero infringement of gun rights. If enough people join them, and if they get enough money, perhaps they will make a difference. Here is their web site:

gunowners.org

I suggest the GOA and not the NRA, because the NRA does not appear to have a strict, zero infringement policy. They are as likely to lobby for partial infringement, as for no infringement, which would be a waste of money.

The other thing you can do is contact your representatives and senators and tell them that if they support any infringement on gun rights, you will not vote for them. Personally, such tactics seem useless to me, but perhaps they are worth a try.

To latter-day saints

Now I would like to turn my attention to the latter-day saints who might read this blog.

The Lord has given us a charge to befriend the Bill of Rights, therefore, any LDS in a governmental position of authority cannot justifiably violate the rights of any law-abiding citizen while performing government duties. This means that latter-day saint police officers, FBI agents, CIA officials, military personnel, border patrol and any other position of government authority, takes second seat to the Bill of Rights. Should you confiscate a law-abiding citizen’s weapons (and the definition of a law-abiding citizen is one who does not infringe upon the Bill of Rights) by command of a superior, you have broken your covenant with God to obey His commandments, which includes His words about befriending these Constitutional protections.

Righteous LDS are prohibited, then, from infringing on a law-abiding citizen’s rights, by God’s laws. They still have their agency, of course, and can choose to sin, but in order to remain justified before the Lord, they must obey this instruction.

The Lord has said that if we keep His laws, we have no need break the laws of the land. This does not refer to the endless laws on the books, but to those justifiable laws that maintain rights and privileges, which are in the Constitution, which are known as the Bill of Rights. That is all He meant by that. (For more information on all of this, see these previous posts: It is a SIN to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, Talking to myself and What the Lord has said about the Constitution.)

However, the Lord has also said that we are to be subject to the powers that be until He reigns. The question must be asked, then, what are the powers that be?

The applicable gospel principle is the voice of the people, as taught by the seer Mosiah:

It is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

The voice of the people are the powers that be that the Lord referred to. We are to be subject to the voice of the people, we are to observe the voice of the people, and we are to make the voice of the people our law, to do all our business by that voice.  This commandment is an actual law of the Lord and must be obeyed for justification before the Lord.

This means that latter-day saints are only justified insofar as they submit to the voice of the people. If that voice is for the government, then latter-day saints must submit to the government. If the voice ever turns against the government, then latter-day saints must submit to the people and stand with the people against their government. Those who do not submit to the powers that be according to this pattern and principle must remain unjustified before the Lord.

Mosiah also said:

And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

Therefore, if the time ever comes that the voice of the people chooses iniquity by turning against the Bill of Rights, then destruction will come upon the people, from the Lord. But as long as the voice of the people is in support of the Bill of Rights, latter-day saints can only remain free by aligning themselves with that voice. And by extension, all latter-day saints who oppose the just voice of the people will find themselves brought down into captivity.

Therefore, based on these principles, it is possible for latter-day saints to engage in every idea listed above while remaining justified before the Lord, if the voice of the people is with them. Nevertheless, even if the voice of the people has not spoken, no latter-day saint is justified in violating anyone’s rights, whether acting under government or citizen authority.

Citizen militias in Nephite times

To more fully explain why the Bill of Rights is justifiable before the Lord, it is necessary to look to the Book of Mormon. The Bill of Rights was inspired by the Spirit of freedom (see Talking to myself), meaning that it embodies principles that align with laws that the Lord Himself had given to His people who lived on this land anciently.

The Nephites were organized, from the beginning, as citizen militias. Thus, we find Nephi using the sword of Laban to create weapons of war for his people, so that everyone was armed. In the case of the Nephites, they had both a right and a duty to keep and bear arms. Nevertheless, they did not have a standing army. Whenever the Lamanites would invade their lands, the Nephites would stop their daily pursuits, take up their arms, and wage war. When the war was over, they would go back to their normal endeavors. (See The Strength of the Lord.)

The Nephites had no police force, only citizen militias. So, when Korihor was going around telling lies, which was a punishable crime in Nephite law, he was arrested by citizens. It was the citizens, not a police force, that was responsible for making sure that no one’s rights were infringed upon.

Mormon dissed the Nephites of Zarahemla because when Korihor first began spreading his lies there, the citizens did not arrest him, as was their duty. Instead, they left him free to roam about and deceive the people and he was able to cause many souls to sin. Later, he entered the land of Jershon, but the Lamanites who lived there arrested him because, according to Mormon, “they were more wise than many of the Nephites.” Later he went over to the land of Gideon and was again arrested by citizens (this time by Nephites.) Finally, he was arrested yet again and brought back to Zarahemla for trial and judgment.

No pacifism among the Nephites

The Nephites were operating under commandments of God, from the beginning, from the time of Lehi and Nephi, in which they were commanded to keep and bear arms. That they both kept and bore arms as a routine is shown by the fight between Nehor and Gideon, which began as two men talking religion and ended up with each one reaching for his sword, ending in Gideon’s death. Now, Gideon was a man of God, even a teacher in the church of God, yet he was armed, as were all the Nephites.

The law of the Lord, as given to the Nephites, is the same law that has been given to the latter-day saints, as recorded in D&C 98, which was given as the pattern for all Gentile nations to follow. (See D&C 98:38.) That section starts out by talking about justification before the Lord and befriending the Bill of Rights, which, as we know, includes the right to keep and bear arms. It then ends with a “fourth offense” warfare doctrine, giving latter-day saints warfare laws by which they might remain justified before the Lord. Thus, there is no pacifism in the section, nor was there any pacifism manifested among the Nephites.

The only so-called “pacifism” manifested in the Book of Mormon comes from the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, who took an oath not to take up arms against their brethren (the other Lamanites). This was an exception because they had not previously entered into the same covenant the Nephites had entered into, in regard to the laws given to the Nephites, which included warfare instructions. In other words, the Nephites had to take up arms in defense of their country, according to the covenant they made, otherwise they would be guilty of breaking their covenant and sinning.

The Lamanites, though, did not have such restrictions, so after they had entered into their covenant to take up no arms against their Lamanite brethren, and had joined the Nephites, they could not break their first oath without sinning, so exception was made for them and they were excused from the typical covenant that every Nephite had to make as a citizen, according to the laws given to the Nephites, as revealed to them by the Lord.

That pacifism was not considered a so-called “higher law” by these Lamanites is evidenced by what they taught their children, for they did not teach their children to enter into the same oath that they did, but they taught them to take the Nephite oath and covenant. Thus, the children of these Lamanites, even the 2000+ stripling warriors, were not taught to be pacifists by their fathers, but were taught the same laws given in D&C 98.

Additionally, the Lamanite Anti-Nephi-Lehies, who had taken this oath, voluntarily supported the war efforts of the Nephites with their sons, with their money and with supplies, including retreating inward towards the center of the land so that the Nephite armies could battle the Lamanites, their brethren.  At one point, in fact, the Lamanites became so concerned with how the war was going, and the destruction of their new Nephite brethren, that they considered breaking their oath and covenant and taking up arms to defend the Nephite nation against the Lamanites.  None of this behavior can be labelled as pacifism.  So, why did they lay down their weapons and never take them again?  It was because of the oath they took, not because of the philosophy we call pacifism.

This shows that the Anti-Nephi-Lehies were an exception to the rule, manifested under a different set of circumstances and conditions, and to a different group of people, and was never meant to be taken as a pattern for the Gentiles. They were held up by Mormon as a standard of keeping one’s oath and covenant even unto death, and of brotherly love, but not as a standard or pattern for Gentile pacifism.

The Gentiles must obey the instructions given to them by the Lord, which are the same ones given to the Nephites, otherwise they will incur the displeasure of God upon them. Mormons, then, cannot justifiably be pacifists, in the sense of refusing to bear arms in defense of their country, like the king-men did. They may choose not to bear arms for individual or family circumstances, as explained in D&C 98, but when their people is threatened by any nation, tongue or people, if, after the third time of offering peace, the offering is not accepted by the invaders, they cannot justifiably refuse to take up arms. They must defend the nation, just as the Nephites had to.

Modern pacifism, then, is a philosophy of men, and is not of God. All Mormons who claim to be pacifists, and who claim that the scriptures justify pacifism for the Gentiles, or who lift it up as the standard for the Gentiles, or who denounce the law of God as written in D&C 98, denying gun rights, self defense and our duty toward common defense, is either in error, having not understood the scriptures, or is intentionally trying to deceive people.

Befriend the Bill of Rights

I bring all of this up to show latter-say saints that they can justifiably befriend the Bill of Rights. They can justifiably keep and bear and use arms. They can justifiably engage in warfare, self defense and common defense. They can justifiably form themselves into citizen militias. And so on and so forth. It is not sin to do these things, but righteousness, for this is all according to the word of the Lord, as given in the scriptures.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

It is a SIN to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms

In DAC 98:2, the Lord states the following:

and now | verily | i say unto you |

concerning the laws of the land |

it is my will | that my people should observe to do all things | whatsoever i command them |

and that law of the land | which is constitutional | supporting that principle of freedom | in maintaining rights and privileges | belongs to all mankind | and is justifiable before me | therefore | i | the lord | justify you | and your brethren of my church | in befriending that law | which is the constitutional law of the land |

and as pertaining to law of man |

whatsoever is more or less than this | cometh of evil |

The constitutional law of the land which supports that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges is known to us as the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. (For more information, see What the Lord has said about the Constitution and also Talking to myself.)  The Bill of Rights, according to the Lord’s own words, is “justifiable before [Him]” and He justifies the church brethren “in befriending that law”.

Justifiable and justified = no sin

The word justifiable means “capable of being justified, or shown to be just.” To justify means “to pronounce free from guilt or blame.” Someone or something that is justified, then, is guiltless or blameless. While I’m at it, I might as well define befriend, which means “to act as a friend to; to favor; to aid, benefit or countenance.”

The Second Amendment reads as follows:

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.

There are two assertions made in the text itself: 1) that people have the right to keep and bear arms and 2) that this right shall not be infringed. These assertions are justifiable (shown to be just) before the Lord. Also, the Lord justifies (pronounces free from guilt or blame) anyone who is a friend to, favors, or aids BOTH assertions.

Unjustifiable and unjustified = sin

The Lord also stated that “whatsoever is more or less than this cometh of evil.” By this we know that any of the following assertions MUST, of necessity, be unjustifiable before the Lord:

The people do not have a right to keep and bear arms. (Unjustifiable)

The people have a right to keep arms, but not bear arms. (Unjustifiable)

The people have a right to bear arms, but not keep arms. (Unjustifiable)

Keeping and bearing arms are privileges, bestowed by the government through licensing, which may be revoked at any time. (Unjustifiable)

There is nothing wrong with infringing on people’s right to keep and bear arms. (Unjustifiable)

And so on and so forth. Such assertions are all unjustifiable before the Lord. Additionally, the Lord DOES NOT justify anyone who is an enemy to, does not favor, or provides no aid to BOTH of the Second Amendment’s assertions. Such people who fight this right, promoting against it, are UNJUSTIFIED, meaning that they are in a SINFUL state.

Servants of sin

All those who seek to infringe upon this right, in any degree whatsoever, through whatever means used—whether by forcefully getting the populace disarmed through gun control legislation, or through the repeal of the Second Amendment, or by nullifying the amendment through deliberate misinterpretation, or by spreading lies and deceitful propaganda against it—are the servants of sin.

Misunderstandings everywhere

We see by the above that latter-day saints have been given the charge, by the Lord, to befriend the Second Amendment, otherwise, they will remain unjustified before Him. There is a lot of false propaganda going about, both from within and without the church, concerning the Second Amendment and it appears that many people are confused over what this right is for. So, I will attempt to lay it out for the reader, in the hope that once we understand its purpose, no latter-day saint will find themselves on the wrong side of the argument. But before I begin, I want to stress that for latter-day saints, the Second Amendment IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE. This is a matter of salvation, or of remaining justified (blameless) before the Lord. All those who wish to retain a remission of their sins, then, must befriend this amendment. With that said, let’s take another look.

What this right is for

Here is the text of the amendment again:

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.

The following definitions come from the 1913 Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language:

regulate : To make regular.

regular (a.) : 6. Mil. a. Designating, or pertaining to, the regular army (see below) of a state: as, a regular soldier.

regular army, Mil. The permanently organized body constituting the army of a state, often identical with the standing army. Cf. REGULAR, a., 6

militia : 3. A body of citizens enrolled as a regular military force for periodic instruction, discipline, and drill, but not called into active service except in emergencies.

keep : 6. To retain in one’s power and possession.

bear : 1. To support and move; to carry; to convey. 4. To manage, wield or direct. 5. To possess and use, as a function or power; to exercise. 6. To possess or carry, as a mark of authority or distinction; to wear; to show, esp. as a characteristic feature; as, to bear a sword, badge, name.

to bear arms, To serve as a soldier.

infringe, v.i. : To encroach; to trespass.

In other words, the intention was to make the entire citizenry of the United States regular, or permanently organized as constituting the regular army of the state—to be called into voluntary, active service only in emergencies, namely, when there were threats, both foreign and domestic, to the security of American freedoms—by not infringing upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

The American people are the people’s army

To be even clearer in writing, the right to keep and bear arms is specifically for warfare. It was codified to make sure that the American people, being armed, could wage warfare against any enemy that threatened any of their rights, whether that enemy was foreign or domestic. The call to warfare would not come from the government, for the government could not call civilians, or forcefully enroll civilians, into the government army, but would come from the people themselves when they saw their rights being threatened.

This right would serve as a protection of all the other rights that the Americans have, and as a deterrent to tyranny, whether that came from the domestic (American) governments, foreign governments, or non-governmental tyranny. The American people themselves are both the first army—or people’s army, whose sole purpose is to protect the people in their rights—they being the army that preceded the governmental armies (which protect the privileges of the government), and also the army of last resort, so that when all else fails in stopping tyranny through peaceful means, the people’s army can be called upon to save the day.

What this right is NOT for

The Second Amendment is NOT the right of self defense. That’s separate. Everyone has the right to self defense. You can defend yourself with anything that happens to be at your disposal: your hands, a rock, a stick, whatever. It also is not a right to hunt. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with hunting. It doesn’t have anything to do with collecting guns, or the sport of marksmanship, or any other past time that uses guns.

Its sole purpose is to prohibit gun control, so that Americans (the people’s army) can remain armed, to form themselves into their own little or big companies (militias), separate from the government, to fight tyranny wherever they see fit, even if that tyranny is from the government itself.

A list of reasons

Here’s a list of reasons for why the early Americans wanted this right protected.

Training expense reduced

Warfare is expensive and training soldiers is a costly, time-consuming affair. Since every citizen had the right to possess, carry and use weapons, if left un-infringed this right would guarantee that the entire population would be armed to the teeth and knowledgeable and skilled in all forms of weaponry. By having the citizenry already trained in arms, this would cut down training costs substantially, when it came time for the creation of a war-time government army.

Originally, the United States Congress didn’t have a perpetually enrolled military which was called into continually active service. It had to authorize a direct tax (by apportionment) to organize an army for a certain length of time, depending upon the war circumstances, and then enroll the already trained American citizenry, which already knew how to use weapons and already possessed weapons, into active service on a voluntary basis.

Voluntary enrollment

The voluntary nature of military service would regulate the justness of the war, for if a war were not just, no one would volunteer for it, except those who themselves were not just (mercenaries), or those who were deceived by war-time propaganda (lies). Wars of aggression, then, would not be waged by a just population, since they would not volunteer, whereas defensive wars would see large numbers of recruits and volunteers. This would serve as a constraint upon the government, keeping unjust government men from consolidating their power by waging unjust wars.

A check and balance to tyranny

The armed citizenry would serve as a check and a balance to the Congress, President, Justices and all other government levels, making sure that nobody tried to tyrannize the people by creating a large, very well armed, perpetually standing government army that could strong arm an unarmed populace into compliance and submission with unjust laws and edicts. An armed populace serves as a deterrent to would-be dictators and dictatorial oligarchies.

Direct and indirect tax limitations

Government armies are expensive to maintain, and taxes were hard to come by, for originally, taxes for armies had to come via direct taxation, which was a very difficult thing to do. The other type of tax, called indirect taxes, such as excise taxes, were hit and miss in bringing in revenue, depending on the economy and the amount of trade, whereas direct taxes, when collected, obtained a very specific amount of revenue. Therefore, direct taxation was the only practical way to support an army, nevertheless, the U.S. Constitution required apportionment when collecting direct taxes, which was intentionally difficult to do. In this way, direct taxation, which was vexatious to everyone, would serve as a constraint to the growth of the government and its army. It would be used only when it was absolutely necessary to obtain these funds. For all other government purposes, excise taxes, or indirect taxes, would be used. This would keep government nice and small, or growing in proportion to the growth of the population and economy.

Tax corruption, which lead to mercenaries

With the advent of the income tax, which is a direct tax on the people interpreted by the Supreme Court as an indirect tax, thus not needing to be collected through the difficult process of apportionment, Congress suddenly had access to an easy way of obtaining unlimited revenue, allowing for the creation of a perpetual, standing government army. This corruption of the tax laws, through the corrupt interpretation of the Supreme Court, allowed for the rapid creation of very big government and a very powerful army, opening the way for the creation of a police state, for when there is money for the creation of an armed executive branch, mercenaries—who wage war or engage in enforcement for money, regardless of the justifications, or lack thereof, involved—will be drawn to enroll.

The current state of affairs

Now we have a situation in which a bloated central government, with large coffers of stolen tax and fiat money, has created a perpetual, standing government army, and other police state forces, all armed to the teeth, with no monetary or volunteerism constraints for waging foreign or domestic wars. Decades of corrupt Congresses has created decades of corrupt laws, all of them concentrating power in the Executive branch of the central government, paving the way for the emergence of a dictator. Mercenaries abound in the land, eager to join the military or police forces. The laws continue to be corrupted, whittling away at all the other Bill of Rights amendments, encroaching everywhere they can.

There is only one thing, and one thing only, that keeps the would-be dictators from seizing complete, totalitarian control of the American people: the Second Amendment.

A bloodbath to exceed the Civil War (or War Between the States)

Everyone is well aware of the history of the French Revolution, none more so than those who conspire to overthrow our freedoms, enslave us and destroy us. (See Ether 8:25.) How did the French react to the aristocracy that they felt were the cause of their woes? By beheading every last one of them they could get their hands on. When people are enraged with their government, to the point that they take up arms against them, the only appeasement they get is from spilled blood, from the ones they label as tyrants.

The U.S. armed forces is, indeed, mighty. I am including every government official, not just the military but also the police and other agencies, as “armed forces.” Yes, they are trained. Yes, they are armed. But when facing 380 million people, a large part of which is also armed, the hundreds of thousands on the government payroll pale into insignificance.

None of the would be dictators want to attempt to enslave the American people through the use of arms, meaning through the armed forces, because it will create another, even greater Civil War, and they know there is the very real possibility of two things: 1) of them losing, and 2) of a portion of the armed forces (who are also American citizens) of defecting to the other side (to the people’s army). They also realize that should they lose such a war, the American people, still enraged, would seek them out and butcher every last one of them, just as the French did.

Thus, with this very real fear in their hearts, those who seek power consolidation and the destruction of the rights of the American people desire to first disarm the public. Once that is accomplished, then, and only then, will they unleash the armed forces on the now unarmed populace.

Deceitful propaganda

All the talk of gun control is not a reaction to the recent events, but is part of the plan to capitalize on every opportunity to disarm the populace. The conspirators do not care about the safety of school children, or the mental health of people. They only care about their agenda and they will use every means necessary to deceive the people into giving up their guns.  For example:

To understand why the above video is so hypocritical, see this.

Other voices

These collectivist liars are not the only ones voicing their opinions. Some voices also understand what is at stake, though they may not be familiar with (or believe) the Book of Mormon prophecies regarding this land and the secret combination. For example, the following is from the Lew Rockwell blog :

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal protection. Owning a gun back in colonial times was like owning a knife and fork. The idea of needing a law to protect one’s right to own a gun would be as ridiculous back then as the idea of needing a law to protect one’s right to own a knife and fork would seem ridiculous to us today. In fact, a number of colonies had laws requiring one to own a gun.

The Second Amendment is about the right of the people to form a militia to fight Federal government tyranny. That being said, the FIRST sort of weapon to do that today would be an assault weapon, i.e., NOT a .38 caliber pistol. So EVERYONE—including the NRA—is wrong when they claim that the Federal government can ban (or even regulate) assault weapons. It would be like Hitler claiming he had the right to ban or regulate the U.S. military during WWII, i.e., telling the U.S. military which weapons it could and could not use against the Wehrmacht.

The fact that the Federal government does regulate firearms is just one more glaring proof that the U.S. Constitution is meaningless. It also proves that government itself—because it is a forced monopoly of force—will always become more and more abusive and tyrannical as time goes on.

Here is another voice, in the form of a video:

and also this:

It is wonderful to hear such voices, but extremely embarrassing, for the latter-day saints have been given the commission to befriend the Bill of Rights, yet there is nary a peep from us. Our voices ought to be the loudest of them all. We ought to speak as one in our defense and promotion of the right to keep and bear arms. Our leaders ought to be right now issuing a public statement that we have received such a commission and that the church is strongly in favor of gun rights and strongly opposed to any measure that would infringe on this right. The clarion call ought to be:

NO INFRINGEMENT!

ARM THE PEOPLE’S ARMY!

and other such catchy phrases that people can get behind and promote as a movement to make the American people’s army the deadliest peaceful army on the planet, one that no one in their right mind would mess with or even think of infringing upon.

And yet we either hear nothing but silence, or we hear Mormons arguing amongst themselves, one for total infringement, one for no infringement, and another for partial infringement.

What needs to be done

The latter-day saints need to repent of this sin. We need to learn the word of the Lord concerning this commission and take it very seriously, otherwise, captivity may be our future lot. I speak not of the captivity of the entire nation of Americans—for there are many American who have befriended the Second Amendment, even if they do not understand why it is so important, and these Americans will not be brought down into captivity—but of the Mormon portion of her, of the ones who refuse to take this commission seriously, and also of all those in America who fight against this right. All such must, of necessity, come into captivity, for the Lord’s words have never been retracted, and the law of the harvest applies. If we, and our American brethren, do not embrace and support and promote this right, we will remain guilty (unjustified) before the Lord, and the enslavement that we will end up receiving will be what we deserve.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Methods of Scriptural Interpretation

Constitutional Interpretation:

Judicial interpretation explains how a judge/court should interpret specific statutes of law, particularly in constitutional documents and legislation.

There are two main camps with regard to how this legal interpretation should work:

• Originalism/strict constructionism – which would be characterized as “conservative” or “judicial restraint”.
• Functionalism – which would be characterized as “liberal” or “judicial activism”.

Simply speaking, the former emphasizes fidelity to the original meaning [or originally intended meaning] of the words in the constitution.  It seeks to be loyal to the authors’ original intent by looking at things like what the words used generally meant at the time they were written and looking at what reasons the authors had for using particular phrases, etc.

While the latter would argue that the constitution was deliberately written to be broad/vague and flexible to accommodate social or technological change over time.  It seeks to be loyal to the author’s original intent by looking at what the words have generally come to mean in applicable ways to people today, etc.

The Constitutional Example of “Cruel and Unusual Punishment”:

In the 8^th amendment of the US constitution, there is a clause that states:

nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

This seems cut-and-dry – however, there is controversy as to how to apply this clause/standard in specific judicial cases.  To look at it from the point-of-view of the two above schools of interpretation, we could interpret the clause in terms of:

• What were generally accepted as “cruel and unusual” punishments during the late 1700’s?  What were the specific conceptions the founders had in mind when barring “cruel and unusual punishments”?  Etc.
• Or what do we, as 21^st century Americans, understand to be “cruel and unusual” ways to punish criminals?  How did the founders want us to be guided by the general concept of “cruelty” or “unusualness” in assigning punishments?  Etc.

In this way, one group has ground to argue, based on the idea of original intent, that hanging is not a cruel and unusual form of capital punishment because it would have generally been accepted at the time the constitution was written.

While the other group, still based on the idea of original intent, can argue that hanging is cruel and unusual at a time when we have developed more humane technologies for capital punishments – or that we have come to view the taking of human life as a form punishment itself as being cruel and unusual.

Scriptural Interpretation:

Scriptural interpretation can be seen as very similar to this constitutional/judicial interpretation.  There are different ways to approach the “original intent” question of passages that may seem quite vague when one attempts to apply them to particular circumstances.  These mirror to two schools of thought on judicial interpretation:

• Strict textual/contextual interpretation – which would be characterized as “fundamentalist” or “conservative”.  Wherein this group focuses on the specific context of the scripture, what the author was addressing in that scripture, what did the words used mean at the time they were written, etc.
• Liken the scriptures to yourself interpretation – which would be characterized as being more “liberal” with interpreting passages.  Wherein this group focuses on personal circumstances and concerns, what general concepts did the author outline in that scripture, what do the words used in the translation mean to me or what can I conclude from them personally, etc.

The former approaching scriptural intent by focusing on original context – the latter approaching the same goal by focusing on application to modern issues.

The Scriptural Example of Adultery:

Many directives in the scriptures seem cut-and-dry at first glance.  Take:

thou shalt not commit adultery

as an example.  What seems straight-forward can be really quite vague as we start to look into applying this “statute” to specific cases.  For example:

Alice is in an “open relationship” with Barry.  Both she and Barry have agreed to allow the other to seek extra-marital sexual partners for one-time flings – given that consent is granted prior to any intercourse.  Alice has had sexual relations with men other than Barry [her only husband], but she has always sought and obtained his permission for each of the encounters.

Barry [from the above example; married to Alice] has had some sexual relations with women other than Alice [his only wife], but maintains that – based on the original meaning of the Hebrew word “na’aph” – a man is not able to commit adultery.

Connor is married to two women.  Both know about the polygynous arrangement and both consented to it and find joy in it.  Connor engages in sexual relations with both women separately.

Darren is Christian.  Though he is married to only one woman and has only had sexual relations with his wife, he has imagined lust in his right-brain-heart towards other women.  Jesus Christ said:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Earl is Catholic.  Though he is married to only one woman and has not imagined lust in his right-brain-heart towards other women, he has imagined lust in his right-brain-heart towards his wife.  According to Pope John Paul II:

Adultery “in the heart” is committed not only because man “looks” in this way at a woman who is not his wife, but precisely because he looks at a woman in this way.  Even if he looked in this way at the woman who is his wife, he could likewise commit adultery “in his heart”.

Who in this group committed adultery – which did not?  For what reasons did that person commit or not commit adultery?  Answering these specific cases suddenly reveals how vague a simple command of “thou shalt not commit adultery” can really be.  Am I bound by what adultery would have meant to Moses when he wrote it – or by what the church currently interprets “adultery” to entail – or by what my wife and I have agreed would violate the terms of our marriage covenant?

The Scriptural Interpretation of Hot Drinks:

Another example is:

And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.

The current church method seems to be the “strict textual/contextual interpretation” method, wherein essentially all official exposition on the subject default to this quote from Brigham Young:

I have heard it argued that tea and coffee are not mentioned [in D&C 89]; that is very true; but what were the people in the habit of taking as hot drinks when that revelation was given?  Tea and coffee.  We were not in the habit of drinking water very hot, but tea and coffee — the beverages in common use.

However, Brigham Young is going thru some contextual reasoning.  He is answering the question in terms of what the saints were generally in the habit of drinking very hot.  He is not laying down a clear-cut definition of “hot drinks” so that “tea and coffee” simply can just be substituted in for the words “hot drinks” to make the revelation read:

And again, tea and coffee are not for the body or belly.

However, given Brigham’s line of reasoning, it could be argued that the Lord is counseling against habitually drinking things very hot — which for the early saints happened to be tea and coffee.  However, it doesn’t necessarily follow that those are the only two specific conceptions the Lord wanted the saints to be guided by.

Putting this into the perspective of the two schools of interpretive thought:

• Are we bound by the specific conceptions of “hot drinks” – meaning we, today, should just not drink the things that people in the 1830’s were in the habit of drinking very hot [As Brigham was arguing] — such that even though tea and coffee are now often consumed cold, we still must avoid them?
• Or are we bound to the general concept of “drinks that are hot” – meaning we, today, should not be in the habit of drinking anything very hot [regardless of what the early saints were habitually doing] — such that if the saints became in the habit of drinking apple cider or chocolate as “hot drinks”, then we must avoid those too?

Questions:

• How do you interpret scripture?
• Are you an “original meaning” kind of reader – or a “liken it to myself” kind of reader?
• Might one be appropriate at some times, while the other more appropriate for others?
• What are the implications of favoring one school of thought over the other?
• How might an “original meaning” person give extra insight to a “liken it to myself” person.  What about the other way around?

Next Article by Justin:  The Healing Gifts
Previous Article by Justin:  The Will of God and Faith

“And Thus They Did Obtain the Sole Management of the Government”

Thanks goes out to dark_matter, who made a comment that inspired me to expound upon this principle.

The title of this post comes from Helaman 6: 39, speaking of the Gadianton robbers.  The full scripture reads this way:

And it came to pass that the Lamanites did hunt the band of robbers of Gadianton; and they did preach the word of God among the more wicked part of them, insomuch that this band of robbers was utterly destroyed from among the Lamanites.  And it came to pass on the other hand, that the Nephites did build them up and support them, beginning at the more wicked part of them, until they had overspread all the land of the Nephites, and had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils, and to join with them in their secret murders and combinations.  And thus they did obtain the sole management of the government, insomuch that they did trample under their feet and smite and rend and turn their backs upon the poor and the meek, and the humble followers of God.  And thus we see that they were in an awful state, and ripening for an everlasting destruction.  (Helaman 6: 37-40)

I wonder, does anyone still doubt that we are in the same situation?

Documenting the Most Abominable of the Secret Combinations

Here I present some non-LDS researchers who are documenting in minute detail the main secret combination, the one which Moroni referred to as seeking “to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries”.  (See Ether 8: 25.)  These men and organizations have been doing our work for us and we LDS have largely been ignoring and mocking their findings and conclusions:

Cutting Through the Matrix with Alan Watt – Clearing the rubbish from the road to reality

– suggested by what4anarchy

Bob Chapman’s The International Forecaster

– suggested by PallasAthena

Alex Jones’ Prison Planet – The truth will set you free!

– suggested by a lot of people

To be fair, not all LDS are turning a blind eye to the secret combination:

LDSFreemen.com

LatterdayConservative.com

– recommended by no one (I just stumbled upon them)

There are also a lot of 911 truth sites that point to the existence of a secret combination among us.  For example:

911 Truth Seekers

In addition to the above, there are many other web sites and researchers who are documenting the plans, words, actions and membership of the chief secret combination, both its supporting organizations as well as its main players (the ones actually calling the shots).  But the above web sites should be sufficient to get an idea of what is really going on and who is really in control of our government.

September 2008 Was Our Wake-up Call

Moroni’s warning to us about the multinational secret combination in Ether 8 prophesied that there would come a time “when ye shall see these things come among you” (Ether 8: 24.)  September 2008 was the time when everyone, the world over, finally and plainly saw the handiwork of the secret combination.  It was our wake-up call.  That call is also accompanied with a commandment from the Lord to wake up:

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. (Ether 8: 24)

The Secret Combination and Those Who Build It Up

I think it is safe to say that most LDS are not a part of the secret combination.  (At least, I hope not.)  But do we build it up? If you say, “No,” then I ask you, How is it even possible to build up the secret combination?  What is the chief means used by secret combinations to obtain power and authority over men? There is only one scriptural answer to these questions.  It is government.

The Secret Combinations of the World Gravitate to Government

Government control is always what they seek, from the lowliest, local, organized crime gang to the largest multinational combinations.  They want to rule and only government provides them the means to lord it over the people through the use of force.

This is why the first Nephite secret combination, started by Gadianton and Kishkumen had, as its goal, to elect Gadianton to the judgment seat so that he could cause the members of the gang to also have government jobs.  Here are Mormon’s exact words describing Gadianton’s plan:

“If they would place him [Gadianton] in the judgment-seat he would grant unto those who belonged to his band that they should be placed in power and authority among the people” (Helaman 2: 5.)

Gadianton Profiled

Some years ago, I started to write a script for a movie called, The Sons of Helaman, based upon the Book of Helaman.  The script was going to tell the story of the Gadianton robbers and so I had to develop the character of the first robber.  Here was my description of him (not a direct quote from the script, which I no longer have in my possession)  :

Gadianton wasn’t some two-bit thug, such as a local mugger or gang-member, he was an illustrious man of the community, a self-made man of means, a prominent businessman, having utilized the capitalistic system to further his wealth and influence upon the people to the point where he could no longer make the profits he wanted to make and do the things he wanted to do because of government interference. Honest people in government stood in his way to making more money and getting more power and control.  He was a well-known and influential citizen that felt that the amount of money you made and the amount of education you had (he was “exceedingly expert in many words”) ought to determine who ruled and who did not, not the voice of the people. It wasn’t enough that he owned a lot and influenced many, he needed to own everything and influence (rule) all things.

Some in government could be bought, while others (like Pahoran and Helaman) could not.  So, the plan was to put Gadianton directly in government instead of going through front-men or puppets.

Kishkumen and his gang assassinated Pahoran so that Gadianton would be put in power.  This means that they fully expected to get him into office after the assassination, indicating that Gadianton was a viable and visible candidate for the judgment-seat.  Helaman, though, was voted in by the voice of the people (and not Gadianton), and then he (Helaman), too, was targeted for assassination, with the thought that this would finally get Gadianton in.  So, the profile painted by the scriptures is that Gadianton was popularly known, had campaigned for the highest government office in the land, possibly already held a governmental office, was a man of means and influence, was highly educated and was not just some thug or assassin.  In other words, Gadianton was a member of the Nephite elite, or at least thought of himself this way.  The other robbers also were elites as they thought they had sufficient influence over the people to get Gadianton elected.

Additionally, the plan of Gadianton wasn’t his own.  This strategy—which consisted of infiltrating the government by a shadow government that has its own “citizens”, secret laws, trials, code words, covenants, oaths, signs and wonders (see Alma 37: 27) by which to recognize a brethren of the order, and then, once members obtain positions of power and authority, they use their influence to grant other members government jobs until they can use the combined influence to change the government into one that more closely matches the shadow government they belong to, essentially establishing a monarchy—was directly revealed to Gadianton from Satan himself.  (See Hel. 6: 26-29.)  So, this secret plan and strategy is the master blueprint that all secret combinations rely upon, including that most abominable one that is among us now.

Gadianton, then, became the Master Mahan of the Western Continent, when Satan likely appeared to him as an angel of light and revealed to him the ancient plans of how to obtain “kingdoms and great glory” (Ether 8: 9).  Kishkumen and his band adopted the plans of Gadianton when it became apparent that these were the real (satanic) deal, the actual blueprint from the black soul of the devil himself.

So, while Shiblon was conferring the sacred records upon his nephew Helaman (in Alma 63), Satan was conferring the cursed plans upon Gadianton.  Nevertheless, although blackhearted, in all outward appearances Gadianton was still the upright and “moral” citizen, after all, he was blessed materially so he must have been blessed by the Lord, right?  (The pure doctrine of “If ye keep the commandments of the Lord, ye shall prosper in the land” was perverted into the satanic doctrine of “If ye are prosperous in the land, it shows that ye do keep the commandments of the Lord.”  To this very day, all robbers use the riches = righteousness defense.)

The Gadianton Robbers Were all Elites, as Is the Present Combination

Every Gadianton robber thought that it was his right to rule (and to literally own) the people and their lands and property and this is consistently shown from the time of Gadianton to the end of the Nephite civilization.  Their means of rule was always the government and consistently their tactics were to infiltrate the judgment-seats with their own members and work to consolidate all governmental power into an executive branch, to eventually appoint a king.

Although Anthony E. Larson’s Nephite-American harbinger theory (see parts 1, 2, 3 & 4) explains that the Gadianton robbers paralleled Islamic terrorist cells and organizations in our own day, the Nephite combination only used these gorilla tactics when they were forced from their government positions of power and from the community itself.  While they still resided among the people, they infiltrated and sought to control, not fight, the government and to change it from within.  The Islamic terrorists do not work this way.

The Gadianton robbers are the pattern for the secret combination in our day.  The combination we have among us is comprised of elites.  They come from families of power, prestige, wealth, education, influence, fame, etc.  They feel, like the ancient Gadiantons, that they were born to rule and they use government as a means to that end.

The modus operandi and goal is always the same.  Compare, for example, Giddianhi’s words (threats) with President Bush’s words (threats) concerning the need for a 700 billion dollar robbery, er, bailout:

And behold, I am Giddianhi; and I am the governor of this the secret society of Gadianton; which society and the works thereof I know to be good; and they are of ancient date and they have been handed down unto us.  And I write this epistle unto you, Lachoneus, and I hope that ye will deliver up your lands and your possessions, without the shedding of blood, that this my people may recover their rights and government, who have dissented away from you because of your wickedness in retaining from them their rights of government, and except ye do this, I will avenge their wrongs. I am Giddianhi.  And now it came to pass when Lachoneus received this epistle he was exceedingly astonished, because of the boldness of Giddianhi demanding the possession of the land of the Nephites” (3 Ne. 3: 9-11.)

And now for President Bush.

How We Build Up the Secret Combination

Just as the ancient robbers sought to consolidate governmental power into one executive branch, so the current combination seeks to do the same.  Every law or action taken by the Congress, by the President or by the Justices that builds up executive power and reduces the power of the legislative and judicial branches, and/or reduces (or eliminates) the checks of power put into the government by the Constitution, builds up the secret combination.

Below the level of the Federal government, all robbers and their accomplices in State, county and city governments have the dual job of consolidating power into the executive branches of these governments, with the intention of eventually handing over the reigns to the Federal handlers.  Thus, we see robbers on all levels performing their secret work of destruction as they intentionally destroy their local economies and stall budget deals (sound familiar California?), so that local governments will need federal bailouts, becoming federalized (or nationalized) and consolidating power into one central location.  With their mouths they speak lies, saying they are working to save us, while in reality they work to destroy and enslave us.

This work of destruction of liberty has gone on since the beginning, but as time goes on it becomes more pronounced due to greater numbers of robbers (and their accomplices) and more infiltration of all levels of government.  Eventually, they reach the point where they in fact do obtain the sole management of the government.  It is then that they rape, pillage, murder and rob the people with impunity and in full view.  We are at that point now.

As the secret combination has been in government since the publication of the Book of Mormon, and as it uses government to accomplish its goals, if you have supported or voted for anyone at all in government who has concentrated power and authority in the hands of the President (or any of the executive branches), or you have supported or voted for any measure, proposition, law or policy that does the same thing, you have built up the secret combination. Whether it was done knowingly or unknowingly, directly or indirectly, the effect is the same.

The Hands of the LDS and of the People of this Nation are NOT Clean

If you are like most LDS, you have probably voted for people or issues that have concentrated governmental power into the hands of the secret combination.  You may think Moroni’s prophecy of vengeance “upon those who built [the secret combination] up” (Ether 8: 24) doesn’t apply to you, because you did not do it intentionally to build it up, but the Lord at the last day will show you that it does.  (This brings to mind the saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”)  We are an unclean people and have largely sought to build up power bases and authority instead of seeking, like Moroni, to pull them down.

Repentance is Our Only Option

I believe the literal and complete and final fulfillment of the following prophecy is about to burst upon us:

Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments;  and also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world; and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets—the weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—but that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world; that faith also might increase in the earth; that mine everlasting covenant might be established; that the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers. (D&C 1: 17-23)

Moroni has given us the solution to this major problem on our hands: “Repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you.”  If we do not follow this counsel, the penalty is destruction, for the weak are about to break down (destroy) the strong.  Destruction will be upon the secret combination (for the Lord will not allow it to accomplish its goal in this nation) and also upon all those who built or who are building it up.

Next Secret Combinations article: Opening old wounds

Previous Secret Combinations article: Is the topic of “secret combinations” taboo in the LDS church?

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The Root Cause of the Current Financial (Monetary) Crisis and Its Solution

Ever since I learned of the biblical prophecies—and later of the additional prophecies of the LDS—concerning these days in which we live, I’ve always wanted to be an observer of the affairs of men, watching the winding up scenes unfold before my eyes, without participating in the iniquities, frivolities and foolishness of men, nor in the judgments of God upon them.  However, I believe that the Lord wants more than this:

And now, as I spake concerning my servant Edward Partridge, this land is the land of his residence, and those whom he has appointed for his counselors; and also the land of the residence of him whom I have appointed to keep my storehouse; wherefore, let them bring their families to this land, as they shall counsel between themselves and me. For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.  Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; for the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.  But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.  (D&C 58: 24-29)

Notice that the Lord didn’t say we should be engaged in good causes (plural) but in a good cause (singular).  Many will interpret this passage to mean that we can be engaged in any cause that is good, but I believe that the Lord had reference to only one cause which is defined by Him as being good: the cause of Zion.

For thus saith the Lord God: Him have I inspired to move the cause of Zion in mighty power for good, and his diligence I know, and his prayers I have heard.  (D&C 21: 7)

Zion holds the solution to all of the world’s problems.  Zion is not just for the saints, but for all men and the time will come that many of the wicked will flee to it (see D&C 45: 68 and 133: 12) to escape the wrath of God and the judgments upon Babylon.  Every LDS, then, after escaping Babylon themselves, should also be helping others escape.  After all, as saints, we are supposed to be a light unto the world, setting an example of godliness to all those that view our good works, so that they can glorify God.

So, when I see the crisis happening on Wall Street and the $700 billion dollar solution our president is providing, I wonder what the latter-day saints will do.  Will we accept the solution provided us by our Gentile, Babylon-based government and be cast out as good-for-nothings?  Or will we provide the Zion solution and become the temporal saviors of men, even saviors upon Mount Zion?

For they were set to be a light unto the world, and to be the saviors of men; and inasmuch as they are not the saviors of men, they are as salt that has lost its savor, and is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.  (D&C 103: 9-10)

The Financial Crisis

By now everyone should be aware that there is a financial crisis happening in America.  It is no longer a question of whether bad financial times are upon us, but how bad they are and how long they will last.  The doomsayers predict a financial depression that will last many years and make the American Great Depression of the 1930’s seem like a walk in the park.  The optimists say we can ride this wave out because America is still dynamically very strong.

On everyone’s mind is both how to fix the situation and who will do the fixing.  Specifically, the question is, “Which presidential candidate, Obama or McCain, can fix it?” The two, major, political party candidates have become the saviors of men in the eyes of the masses who support them.

As an anarchist and a latter-day saint, my view is that government is usually the one that causes these problems to begin with, and therefore, should never be called upon to fix them, as it usually only ends up making things worse.  If there is a solution to our economic situation, it will come from the people themselves, working independent from the government.

But before a solution can be offered, the problem must be identified, not just the symptoms of it.

A financial crisis is a monetary crisis

A financial problem is a monetary problem, it usually being either that there isn’t enough money going around (deflation) or that there is too much money going around (inflation).  That seems to be simple enough to fix.  In deflation, you just print more money and circulate it.  In inflation, you just stop or slow down the printing presses and also destroy money that comes into your hands.  Yet, despite (more or less) being in control of the amount of money in circulation, by being in control of the printing presses, the Fed has failed to stabilize the economy, bringing us into the Great Depression of the 1930’s twenty years after it (the Fed) was created and now bringing us into an even greater depression known by some as the Global Systemic Crisis seventy-eight years after that.

So, owing that the Fed isn’t really doing the job we were told it was supposed to do (stabilizing the economy), maybe we ought to look a bit further and deeper and consider that the problem is not how much money is going around, but whether what is going around is actually money.

The Lord talked about money

In 17 of the revelations given to Joseph Smith, the Lord mentioned money.  Here are the specific scriptures: D&C 24: 18 given in July, 1830; D&C 48: 4 given in March 1831; D&C 51: 8, 11, 13 given in May, 1831; D&C 54: 7 given in June, 1831; D&C 56: 9-12 given in June, 1831; D&C 57: 6, 8 given on July 20, 1831; D&C 58: 35-36, 49, 51 given on August 1, 1831; D&C 60: 10 given on August 8, 1831; D&C 63: 40, 43, 46 given in August, 1831; D&C 69: 1 given in November, 1831; D&C 84: 89-90, 103-104 given on September 22 and 23, 1832; D&C 90: 28-29 given on March 8, 1833; D&C 101: 49, 56, 70, 72 given on December 16, 1833; D&C 103: 22-23 given on February 24, 1834; D&C 104: 26, 68, 84 given on April 23, 1834; D&C 105: 8, 30 given on June 22, 1834; and D&C 124: 70 given on January 19, 1841.

The above scriptures cover the time between July 1830 and January 19, 1841.  This means that whatever currency was used by these Americans during that time was considered by the Lord as actual money.

But what was money during the years 1830-1841?

The 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language was the dictionary in use among Americans during this time and defined money in the following manner:

MONEY, n. plu. moneys.

1. Coin; stamped metal; any piece of metal, usually gold, silver or copper, stamped by public authority, and used as the medium of commerce. We sometimes give the name of money to other coined metals, and to any other material which rude nations use a medium of trade. But among modern commercial nations, gold, silver and copper are the only metals used for this purpose. Gold and silver, containing great value in small compass, and being therefore of easy conveyance, and being also durable and little liable to diminution by use, are the most convenient metals for coin or money, which is the representative of commodities of all kinds, of lands, and of every thing that is capable of being transferred in commerce.

2. Bank notes or bills of credit issued by authority, and exchangeable for coin or redeemable, are also called money; as such notes in modern times represent coin, and are used as a substitute for it. If a man pays in hand for goods in bank notes which are current, he is said to pay in ready money.

3. Wealth; affluence.

Money can neither open new avenues to pleasure, nor block up the passages of anguish.

(Money entry of the 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language)

The Lord talked about talents

Within this same time period, the Lord also mentioned talents in two of the revelations given to Joseph Smith:

But with some I am not well pleased, for they will not open their mouths, but they hide the talent which I have given unto them, because of the fear of man.  Wo unto such, for mine anger is kindled against them.

Behold, they have been sent to preach my gospel among the congregations of the wicked; wherefore, I give unto them a commandment, thus: Thou shalt not idle away thy time, neither shalt thou bury thy talent that it may not be known.

(D&C 60: 2, 13; revelation received on August 8, 1831)

And all this for the benefit of the church of the living God, that every man may improve upon his talent, that every man may gain other talents, yea, even an hundred fold, to be cast into the Lord’s storehouse, to become the common property of the whole church—every man seeking the interest of his neighbor, and doing all things with an eye single to the glory of God.

(D&C 82: 18-19; revelation received on April 26, 1832)

But what is a talent?

TALENT (Lat. talentum, adaptation of Gr. τáλατον, balance, weight, from root ταλ-, to lift, as in τληναι, to bear, τáλας, enduring, cf. Lat. tollere, to lift, Skt. tulã, balance), the name of an ancient Greek unit of weight, the heaviest in use both for monetary purposes and for commodities (see Weights and Measures).  The weight itself was originally Babylonian, and derivatives were in use in Palestine, Syria and Egypt.  In medieval Latin and also in many Romanic languages the word was used figuratively, of will, inclination or desire, derived from the sense of balance, but the general figurative use for natural endowments or gifts, faculty, capacity or ability, is due to the parable of the talents in Matt. xxv.

(Talent entry of the 11th Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, published in 1910)

(See also the talent entry of the 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language.  That entry explains: “Among the ancients, a weight, and a coin. The true value of the talent cannot well be ascertained, but it is known that it was different among different nations.“)

So, the talents mentioned in D&C 82: 18, which were “to be cast into the Lord’s storehouse, to become the common property of the whole church” could be a reference to money, specifically, a unit of weight used for monetary purposes.  But what American unit of weight used for monetary purposes was in use on April 26, 1831?

The Lord talked about dollars

In two of the revelations received by the Prophet, the Lord mentioned dollars:

Or in other words, if any man among you obtain five dollars let him cast them into the treasury; or if he obtain ten, or twenty, or fifty, or an hundred, let him do likewise; and let not any among you say that it is his own; for it shall not be called his, nor any part of it.

If it be five dollars, or if it be ten dollars, or twenty, or fifty, or a hundred, the treasurer shall give unto him the sum which he requires to help him in his stewardship—until he be found a transgressor, and it is manifest before the council of the order plainly that he is an unfaithful and an unwise steward.

(D&C 104: 69-70, 73-74; revelation received on April 23, 1834. See also the Book of Commandments XCVIII: 12, page 244, which used the word talents in stead of dollars.)

And they shall not receive less than fifty dollars for a share of stock in that house, and they shall be permitted to receive fifteen thousand dollars from any one man for stock in that house.  But they shall not be permitted to receive over fifteen thousand dollars stock from any one man.  And they shall not be permitted to receive under fifty dollars for a share of stock from any one man in that house.

Verily I say unto you, let my servant Joseph pay stock into their hands for the building of that house, as seemeth him good; but my servant Joseph cannot pay over fifteen thousand dollars stock in that house, nor under fifty dollars; neither can any other man, saith the Lord.

(D&C 124: 64-66, 72; revelation received on January 19, 1841.)

From the above it becomes plain that the words dollars and talents are interchangeable, meaning the same thing.

But what is a dollar?

DOLLAR, n. [G.] A silver coin of Spain and of the United States, of the value of one hundred cents, or four shillings and sixpence sterling. The dollar seems to have been originally a German coin, and in different parts of Germany, the name is given to coins of different values.

(Dollar entry of the 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language)

DOLLAR, a silver coin at one time current in many European countries, and adopted under varying forms of the name elsewhere. The word “dollar” is a modified form of thaler, which, with the variant forms (daler, dalar, daalder, tallero, &c.), is said to be a shortened form of Joachimsthaler. This Joachimsthaler was the name given to a coin intended to be the silver equivalent of the gold gulden, a coin current in Germany from the 14th century. In 1516 a rich silver mine was discovered in Joachimsthal (Joachim’s dale), a mining district of Bohemia, and the count of Schlitz, by whom it was appropriated, caused a great number of silver coins to be struck (the first having the date 1518), bearing an effigy of St Joachim, hence the name. The Joachimsthaler was also sometimes known as the Schlickenthaler. The first use of the word dollar in English was as applied to this silver coin, the thaler, which was current in Germany at various values from the 16th century onwards, as well as, more particularly, to the unit of the German monetary union from 1857 to 1873, when the mark was substituted for the thaler. The Spanish piece-of-eight (reals) was also commonly referred to as a dollar. When the Bank of England suspended cash payments in 1797, and the scarcity of coin was very great, a large number of these Spanish coins, which were held by the bank, were put into circulation, after having been countermarked at the Mint with a small oval bust of George III., such as was used by the Goldsmiths’ Company for marking plate. Others were simply overstamped with the initials G.R. enclosed in a shield.  In 1804 the Maundy penny head set in an octagonal compartment was employed. Several millions of these coins were issued. These Spanish pieces-of-eight were also current in the Spanish-American colonies, and were very largely used in the British North American colonies. As the reckoning was by pounds, shillings and pence in the British-American colonies, great inconveniences naturally arose, but these were to some extent lessened by the adoption of a tariff list, by which the various gold and silver coins circulating were rated. In 1787 the dollar was introduced as the unit in the United States, and it has remained as the standard of value either in silver or gold in that country. For the history of the various changes in the weights and value of the coin see Numismatics.  The Spanish piece-of-eight was also the ancestor of the Mexican dollar, the Newfoundland dollar, the British dollar circulating in Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements, and the dollar of the South American republics, although many of them are now dollars only in name.

(Dollar entry of the 11th Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, published in 1910)

The American Dollar is a Silver Coin

This may come as a surprise to many LDS (and Americans), but nowadays we don’t use American dollars, which is a quantity of silver, usually coined for ease of use.  What we use today are Federal Reserve Notes, otherwise known as fiat currency.  In all of the modern revelations quoted above, whenever the Lord was referring to money or talents or dollars, He was referring to the commodity currency then in use, specifically, a quantity of (usually coined) silver.

Silver is the only legal, American money

Douglas V. Gnazzo of the Honest Money Gold and Silver Report web site wrote an excellent article entitled Honest Money and published in 6 parts, in which he went over the history of American legal currency.  In it, Douglas explained that a “dollar” is defined both by the Constitution and by the Original Coinage Act of 1792 as being a specific quantity of silver, namely, 371.25 grains of silver.  This legal definition has never been changed, meaning that what we are currently calling a “dollar” is not real American currency.  To read the entire Honest Money article, click the following links:

Honest Money, Part I: The Constitution and Honest Money

Honest Money, Part II: Silver Standard with a Bimetallic Coinage System

Honest Money, Part III: Coinage Acts of 1834-1900

Honest Money, Part IV: Treasury Notes

Honest Money, Part V: History of American Money and Banking

Honest Money, Part VI: The European Connection

Honest Money, Part VII: The Moneychangers – Secrets of the Temple

Honest Money, Part VIII: Final Summary and Conclusions

You will recall, for example, that Congress has power to “coin money.”  It doesn’t have power to “make money” or to “print money,” but merely to coin it.  The money referred to in the U. S. Constitution is silver, thus, a power to coin money is a power to coin silver.  The two phrases are synonymous.  In fact, in many Latin American countries the word for money is plata, which is the word for silver. We can see from this that the Spanish milled dollar, which is what our American dollar is based upon, has had influence in many countries.

Fiat Currency, Fractional Reserve Banking and Usury is the Problem

Like evil bedfellows, fractional reserve banking and usury almost always accompany a fiat currency.  (See the above Honest Money article for an explanation about these banking practices and why they are so evil.)  Usury is condemned in the scriptures (both ours and others’ scriptures) and religions past and present have spoken against it as a great evil.  However, all three principles have been generally accepted among today’s society and even among most Latter-day Saints.  In fact, even in the church we find usury among ourselves (e.g. Perpetual Education Fund), though many do not consider it so as they interpret usury to mean excessive interest and not just any interest.

Notice that the current financial problem has nothing to do with regulation (or lack thereof) of the banking institutions by the government.  As long as a currency is metal-based, society naturally regulates itself without any need of government intervention, eliminating the practice of usury and making sure that only full-reserve banking occurs.  So, the roots of the financial crisis go deeper than mere de/un/regulation.  They go all the way to the currency itself, for fiat currency will always result in financial instability and prosperity for the few at the expense of the many.  This is a long way off from the Zion ideal of all having all things common.

Commodity Currency is the Solution

The use of metals as money has historical precedent and is the surest foundation upon which to build.  The following is part of the money entry of the 11th Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, published in 1910:

The Metals as Money. Reasons for their Adoption. Superiority of Silver and Gold. – The employment of metals as money material can be traced far back in the history of civilization; but as it is impossible to determine the exact order of their appearance in this capacity, it will be convenient to take them in the order of their value, beginning with the lowest.  Iron – to judge from the statement of Aristotle – was widely used as currency. One remarkable instance is the Spartan money, which was clearly a survival of a form that had died out among the other Greek states; though it has often been attributed to ascetic policy. In conjunction with copper,  iron formed one of the constituents of early Chinese currency, and at a later time was used as a subsidiary coinage in Japan.  Iron spikes are used as money in Central Africa, while Adam Smith notes the employment of nails for the same purpose in Scotland.  Lead has served as money, e.g. in Burma.  The use of copper as money has been more extensive than is the case in respect to the metals just mentioned. It, as stated, was used in China along with iron – an early instance of bimetallism – and it figured in the first Hebrew coins. It was the sole Roman coinage down to 269 B.C. and it has lingered on to a comparatively recent date in the backward European currencies. It even survives as a part of the token coinage of the present.  Tin has not been a favourite material for money: the richness of the Cornish mines accounts for its use by some British kings. Silver holds a more prominent place than any of the preceding metals. Down to the close of the 18th century it was the chief form of money, and often looked on as forming the necessary standard substance. It was the principal Greek money material, and was introduced at Rome in 269 B.C. The currencies of medieval Europe had silver as their leading constituent; while down almost to the present day Eastern countries seemed to prefer silver to gold.

The pre-eminence of gold as money is now beyond dispute; there, is, however, some difficulty in discovering its earliest employment. It is, perhaps, to be found in ” the pictures of the ancient Egyptians weighing in scales heaps of rings of gold and silver. ” According to W. Ridgeway’s ingenious theory gold comes into use as a currency in due equation to the older cattle unit, the ox. It was certainly employed by the great Eastern monarchs; its further development will be considered later on. Metals of modern discovery – such as nickel and platinum – are only used by the fancy of a few governments, though the former makes a good token coinage.

The preceding examination of the varied materials of currency, metallic and non-metallic, suggests some conclusions respecting the course of monetary evolution, viz.: (I) that the metals tend to supersede all other forms of money among progressive communities; and (2) that the more valuable metals displace the less valuable ones. The explanation of these movements is found in the qualities that are specially desirable in the articles used for money. There has been a long process of selection and elimination in the course of monetary history.

First, it is plain that nothing can serve as money which has not the attributes of wealth; i.e. unless it is useful, transferable and limited in supply. As these conditions are essential to the existence of value, the instrument for measuring and transferring values must possess them. A second requisite of great effect is the amount of value in proportion to weight or mass. High value in small bulk gives the quality of portability, want of which has been a fatal obstacle to the continued use of many early forms of money. Skins, corn and tobacco were defective in this quality, and so were iron and copper. Sheep and oxen, though technically described as ” self-moving,” are expensive to transport from place to place. That the material of money shall be the same throughout, so that one unit shall be equal in value to another, is a further desideratum, which is as decidedly lacking in cattle-currency as it is prominent in the metals. It is, further, desirable that the substance used as money shall be capable of being divided without loss of value, and, if needed, of being reunited. Most of the articles used in primitive societies – such as eggs, skins and cattle – fail in this quality. Money should also be durable, a requirement which leads to the exclusion of all animal and most vegetable substances from the class of suitable currency materials. To be easily recognized is another very desirable quality in money, and moreover to be recognized as of a given value. Articles otherwise well fitted for money-use, e.g. precious stones, suffer through the difficulty of estimating their value. Finally, it results from the function of money as a standard of value that it should alter in its own value as little as possible. Complete fixity of value is from the nature of things unattainable; but the nearest approximation that can be secured is desirable. In early societies this quality is not of great importance; for future obligations are few and inconsiderable. With the growth of industry and commerce and the expansion of the system of contracts, covering a distant future, the evil effects of a shifting standard of value attract attention, and lead to the suggestion of ingenious devices to correct fluctuations. These belong to the later history of money and currency movements. It is enough for the ordinary purposes of money that it shall not alter within short periods, which is a characteristic of the more valuable metals, and particularly of silver and gold, while in contrast such an article as corn changes considerably in value from year to year.

From the foregoing examination of the requisites desirable in the material of money it is easy to deduce the empirical laws which the history of money discloses, since metals, as compared with non-metallic substances, evidently possess those requisites in a great degree. They are all durable, homogeneous, divisible and recognizable, and in virtue of these superior advantages they are the only substances now used for money by advanced nations. Nor is the case different when the decision has to be made between the different metals. Iron has been rejected because of its low value and its liability to rust, lead from its extreme softness, and tin from its tendency to break. All these metals, as well as copper, are unsuitable from their low value, which hinders their speedy transmission so as to adjust inequalities of local prices.

The elimination of the cheaper metals leaves silver and gold as the only suitable materials for forming the principal currency. Of late years there has been a very decided movement towards the adoption of the latter as the sole monetary standard, silver being regarded as suitable only for a subsidiary coinage. The special features of gold and silver which render them the most suitable materials for currency may here be noted.  “The value of these metals changes only by slow degrees; they are readily divisible into any number of parts which may be reunited by means of fusion without loss; they do not deteriorate by being kept; their firm and compact texture makes them difficult to wear; their cost of production, especially of gold, is so considerable that they possess great value in small bulk, and can of course be transported with comparative facility; and their identity is perfect.” The possession by both these metals of all the qualities needed in money is more briefly but forcibly put by Cantillon when he says that “gold and silver alone are of small volume, of equal goodness, easy of transport, divisible without loss, easily guarded, beautiful and brilliant and durable almost to eternity.” This view has even been pushed to an extreme form in the proposition of Turgot, that they became universal money by the nature and force of things, independently of all convention and law, from which the deduction has been drawn that to proscribe silver by law from being used as money is a violation of the nature of things.

(An excerpt from the money entry of the 11th Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, published in 1910)

So, when the Lord told the kings of the earth and the saints to bring their gold and silver to Zion, He was referring to commodity money, as that was the commodity money of the time.  (See D&C 124: 11, 26 and 111: 4.)  Have we complied?  Do we contribute commodity money to the cause of Zion, or do we contribute fiat money?

We need a private, LDS, commodity-based (gold and silver) currency

I am among those who believe that we are currently witnessing the beginning of the eventual (and planned) break-up of the United States of America.  We may also soon witness a corresponding break-up of the Church.  Regardless of what happens, though, the prophecies must be fulfilled, which means that when we cast our talents “into the Lord’s storehouse, to become the common property of the whole church”, upon living the law of consecration, we will be casting in commodity money, specifically, gold and silver money, and not fiat money.

In anticipation of the complete break-up of the USA, the total devaluation of our current fiat currency, the attempted introduction of another currency and another type of government, even regional government, and, after all these (and other) tribulations, the cleansing of the church and the establishment of the law of consecration, we ought to be pro-actively engaged in the good cause of Zion.

Zion needs a currency, independent of the governments of the world, meaning that it must be a private currency.  As private currencies are legal in this country, there is nothing to stop the LDS from creating one.  To get us started in that direction, in the Establishment of Zion Think Tank Forum I gave some examples of what can be used as this private, LDS currency.

The corporate Church won’t do it

Many members wait for Salt Lake to issue the instructions, but the Lord has already told us that “it is not meet that I should command in all things.”  Besides, I have reason to believe that the dissolution of the corporate Church is on the horizon.  So, if a silver and gold-based commodity currency is to be had again among the saints, in fulfillment of prophecy, the saints themselves must be the ones to create it.  Such a currency would not only stabilize all LDS communities who use it among themselves, but would also allow non-LDS to escape the financial wrath of God upon all those who transact in fiat currency.

A side benefit

Having a private, LDS, precious metals-based currency will also allow those using it to get around the mark of the beast prophesied by John in the Book of Revelations.  (See Rev. 13: 16-18; Rev. 14: 9-12; Rev. 19: 20; and Rev. 20: 4-6.)

Next Anarchism/Anarchy article: Introducing a new bartering currency—the first coin: 1/2 Troy oz pure silver .999 fine

Previous Anarchism/Anarchy article: If voting could change things, it would be illegal

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist