The Art of Understatement
“I believe that concentrating too much on on the Fed “conspiracy,” one that works hand in hand with Congress, gives the system more credit or blame than it deserves and distracts from the more important issue of bad ideology.” -Ron Paul, End the Fed,121
The irony is that the conspiracy mongers (and you know who you are), as well intentioned as they may be, or as seemingly plausible their loosely “connect-the-dots” theories may be, greatly help to perpetuate the Fed and keep its actual freedom destroying function from ever entering into the public consciousness. That’s because those who are always looking to tie everything to some conspiratorial knot make the whole thing so much easier to dismiss as just another product of the fevered minds of wackos.
Explore posts in the same categories: Politics
God's Hammer 
October 13, 2009 at 6:02 am
The issue is that if one idol is pulled down, like the Fed another will be erected in it’s place. Like the song said, meet the new boss, same as the boss. Ron Paul is wrong about it being bad ideology, it’s really bad theology.
October 13, 2009 at 7:27 am
Of course the new boss doesn’t have to be the same as the old boss. Sound money, something Paul has been arguing for to replace the Fed, is rooted in good theology:
“You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt. You shall thus observe all My statutes, and all My ordinances, and do them: I am the LORD.” (Lev 19:36,37)
My point was not at all critical of Paul’s analysis, but that most who have been sounding the alarm about the Fed for as long as I can remember have wrapped their opposition in speculation, some of it pretty wild, and all of it tending to obscure the inherent immorality of fiat currency.
October 14, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Sean,
Do you believe that someone who believes a conspiracy has taken place concerning the FED–it’s establishment and perpetuation–is a conspiracy monger?
G. Edward Griffin has done a book called ‘Creature From Jekyll Island’ in which he describes some ‘elite’ individuals having gone to this ‘resort’ to work out the details of the new monetary system, secretly.
Do you believe the FED (a private corporation) with its secrecy, its hidden tax of inflation, tax on use of the FED note, and interest on FED loans to the Federal government happened by accident? This theft from “We The People” was sold by these elitists and our government as a way of stablizing our monetary but in reality is their way of subtly stealing our wealth!
If this is not a conspiracy I don’t know what is!
It should not concern us how wacked out our statements seem to listeners, we are responsible to tell the truth. Anyone called to preach the gospel should know this. Most of the conspiracy ‘nuts’ so called freely admit that this institution was established to steal from the American people and this addresses the issue of just weights and measures. This IS what they are upset about. At the root of just weights and measures is the commandment: Thou shalt not steal.
Finally, not only is the Bible full of admonitions not to steal it is full of examples of people who conspire. Conspiracy is a reality.
Eric
October 14, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Hi Eric. I’m not saying that there isn’t or even wasn’t a conspiracy. My point is 1) so what if there was, and, 2) some of the conspiracy theories make it way too easy to dismiss the underlying philosophy or simply avoid it. They don’t help their own cause.
Also, the reasoning behind the Fed is not necessarily quite so sinister, but at least from the banker’s perspective makes perfect sense quite apart from wrapping the whole thing in some globalist cabal. See for example North’s What is Money Part 4: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north765.html
It’s not that their actions are any less immoral, or secretive, but it does make perfect sense.
October 14, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Sean,
I’m not sure who the ‘conspiracy mongers’ out there are that you are referring to, but all that I know are upset primarily because they are being stolen from–theft. It is a forgone conclusion that this is a conspiracy and the ‘so what’ of it is indicative of the evil we are dealing with. This information is necessary for us because forwarned is forarmed, i.e., we will know how to prepare for battle with them.
From a Christian perspective this is sinister. Man is dead is his sins. Because he is so calloused that he cannot see he is sinister, in this case the bankers, it does not follow that the Christian are blind to it. As a Christian I see this as sinister and I believe every Christian should see it this way. Sin is sinister.
As far as a globalist agenda it is not too far fetched to believe in it since its adherents have spoken about it openly–George H.W. Bush being one, Clinton another. I think simply calling people to remember the U.N. is enough to silence any objections to ones mention of Global governance. Even in U.S.C. it is stated that an international police force (army) is necessary to enforce universal disarmament. It’s not that they want no arms, they just don’t want us armed. A disarmed global populace is a compliant populace. There is only one reason they want us disarmed, so they can control us easily.
Eric
October 14, 2009 at 7:53 pm
I’ve been working in conservative right-wing grassroots politics most of my adult life and I can tell you many well meaning folks have a desire to blame all of our woes on something or someone and much of what drives them is downright wacky bordering on tin-foil hats.
Saying things like “it is not too far fetched to believe” makes my point. Again, I’m not saying that some theories aren’t plausible or that there isn’t a concerted effort toward one world govt, there very much is, but IMO focusing on these conspiracies, not too far fetch as they may be, only helps to detract from the underlying philosophy and bad economics driving organizations like the FED. It causes people, and I’ll certainly speak for myself, not to take otherwise very valid arguments seriously. My point is these things are bad enough without trying to tie them to some group of self-styled Illuminati dating back to the Pyramids.
FWIW Paul’s book shirks all those theories and simply deals with the economic reality of what a fiat momentary policy entails and how the elites are cleverly robbing the poor and middle class to line their own pockets while obliterating whatever is left of our personal liberty.
Ron Paul has made opposing the Fed downright respectable. 🙂
October 14, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Sean,
“I’ve been working in conservative right-wing grassroots politics most of my adult life and I can tell you many well meaning folks have a desire to blame all of our woes on something or someone and much of what drives them is downright wacky bordering on tin-foil hats.”
I think each claim should be judged on its own merits, and because Americans are not motivated enough to study does not mean that we should not speak truthfully. In this I’m not saying that all claims are valid simply that they should be judged individually.
That said, I do believe this is THE one issue–The Fed–that should be the focal point of our attack. If resolved it will take down most liberty robbing agendas–cut off the money and the beast dies. Dr. Paul is addressing it without wavering and He deserves our respect and support.
“FWIW Paul’s book shirks all those theories and simply deals with the economic reality of what a fiat momentary policy entails and how the elites are cleverly robbing the poor and middle class to line their own pockets while obliterating whatever is left of our personal liberty.”
So, we would agree that it is sinister?
“Ron Paul has made opposing the Fed downright respectable.”
Agreed, but sad. There are many other valid voices out there who have been opposed to this for a very long time, many of whom have died.
Finally, I believe we agree on the focal point of the attack and Ron Paul’s bill in the house is a great beginning; however, I don’t believe we should deny other valid claims while we focus on the central point. If used the argument “it is not too far fetched to believe” myself. I use this argument by bringing up scripture and history to prove my point. If a certain scenario or claim has happened historically and the Bible supports it–conspiracies come to mind–then a statement or claim if anything is plausible. Wouldn’t you agree?
Eric
October 14, 2009 at 9:07 pm
We certainly agree on a lot more than we disagree.
October 14, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Agreed
October 19, 2009 at 12:24 am
Sean,
This whole discussion between you and Eric reminds me of Clark’s essay on historiography. There is NO history outside of Scripture. There are only the opinions of men, some better and some worse–with no way to tell which are better or which are worse. I always thought that history was pretty clear, until I read Clark and was disabused. Santayana said, “those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.” Scripture says, “Those who ignore the Bible are doomed to repeat their mistakes.”
As it pertains to conspiracy theories, they could be legitimate, and then again…maybe their not. But our Sovereign God determines what happens, and Scripture teaches us PRINCIPLES of interpreting history, or human events. One of those principles is that as the visible church goes, so goes the nation. When the house of God is a shambles, then the nation falls. “My people perish for lack of vision…”(Prov) and so the unrighteous rule. Isaiah said that the ultimate political curse is to be ruled by women and children.
So when we speak of this as an age of apostasy, we need to remember that spiritual declension has economic, social and political implications. The American people have the government we want. And Toronto, Canada will now host the 2014 World Pride Day. In my country we have legal abortion, homosexual marriage, prostitution and very soon polygamy and euthanasia. Can bestiality and infanticide, as well as MANDATORY euthanasia be very far behind? Only the preaching of the Reformation Gospel can restore North America. The conspiracies can be left to God. Let the dead bury their dead!
Gus
October 19, 2009 at 10:09 am
Gus,
Your reasoning smacks of that of Job’s counselors as if the church can be judged in its faithfulness by how the culture is doing. The Bible is replete with examples that show that true faithfulness in the church is often in the midst of an ever increasingly corrupt culture. God even uses these incidents (acts of sinfulness) to test the faithfulness of the Church.
Eric
October 19, 2009 at 4:08 pm
eric,
Please deal with the scripture. Show me how I have misinterpreted the W of God, dont engage in abusive ad hominems and prejudicial language. I am not one of Job’s counselor’s–I dont need job to pray for me so that I will be forgiven.
I am simply pointing out, that the rot STARTS in the visible church, and spreads to culture in general. Not always, but often.
Gus
October 19, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Eric, FWIW I think Gus’ point is similar to one that Paul makes toward the end of his book and that liberty requires a “moral people.” Consequently, there are no political solutions. Only a true biblical reformation will provide the necessary foundation for a true restoration of political liberty. IMO the slide toward greater degrees of authoritarianism corresponds to the rise of Arminianism and other false or distorted gospels many now plaguing P&R churches. See for example John Robbins’ Christ and Civilization.
October 19, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Gus,
It is exactly my reading of scripture that causes me to challenge what you wrote. It’s true! You are just like Job’s counselors. Just as they accused Job’s situation of being the result of his evil deeds so you accuse the Church for the sins of the culture. This may, or may not, be true. We do not know!
I remember sitting in a Church of the SBC and the pastor boldly proclaimed from the pulpit as he pointed to the congregants, “You are responsible for abortion!”
I would simply point to some of the Churches in The Book of Revelation as examples of faithfulness amidst sinfulness. Jesus no where blamed them for the sinfulness around them.
We live in a fallen world and the result of preaching belongs to God. If He decides to give increase, praise His name. If He decides that we live during persecution under tyrants and increasing sin, as grievous as that my be, praise his name. Should I blame myself, a member of the church, having preached the gospel, for the sins of my unrepentant neighbor, and more importantly is God holding my neighbors sins against me?
Lot was a righteous man, made righteous by Christ’s righteousness. He was ‘the Church’ amidst an evil culture. Do you blame the iniquity in Sodom and Gomorrah on Lot?
Eric
October 19, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Are you saying that the church abandoning or compromising the Gospel has no consequence? And, FWIW, I do blame the church for abandoning the truth. Who would you blame?
October 19, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Sean,
“Are you saying that the church abandoning or compromising the Gospel has no consequence?”
I never said there were no consequences to the church’s abandoning of the gospel. I would contend that if the ‘church’ abandons the gospel it is no longer a church, it’s apostate and would correctly be labeled ‘Synagogue of Satan.’ This is why church discipline is so important. I am arguing that you cannot blame the church for the sinfulness of the culture. Outside of Christ every man will bear the guilt of his own sins. Further the true church, God’s faithful remnant, will remain until the end. Are you suggesting that God will hold them, the elect, responsible for the sins of the culture?
“And, FWIW, I do blame the church for abandoning the truth.”
There are some distinctions that could be made here one of which I’ve made above, but I agree with this statement for the most part. Yes, the church has abandoned the gospel, vehemently. When it abandons the gospel it can no longer rightly be called a church. I would put the PCA and OPC in this apostate category. Those faithful to the gospel should leave these corrupt institutions.
Who would you blame?
The guilt of sin has been imputed to us in Adam. In this sense I suppose you could blame it on the ‘church’ (Adam) but this is not what was being proposed above.
Both the guilt we inherited in Adam and our actual sins cannot be blamed on anyone else–the church for example, if they could, we wouldn’t need a savior and we could simple say to God, “The church is responsible for my sins, I don’t need to believe in Jesus.”
Eric
October 21, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Although moral decline in the world and in a nation can in part be traced to a decline in the church, that is not always the case, which is what I believe is Eric’s point. Nor should we be brow beating ourselves in thinking we’re not doing enough to influence the world. There are many so called Christian organizations who think they are changing the nation and the world, when all they are doing is stemming the tide a bit. Our nation and government is the way that it is because of prevailing non Christian thought. And much of which stands for Christianity are not true churches.
But I don’t think that the OPC and the PCA are apostate churches. They still hold the marks of a true church.
October 22, 2009 at 1:24 am
Hi everybody,
Jesus said ye are the salt of the earth! The church is the foundation of a sound society. A society that borrows the value system that is derived from the Bible, even if may not be specifically Christian, will be a sound society with things running fairly smoothly. This means, the world in general will go the way of the church! By this I do not mean that the world will accept the Gospel! I mean without a sound church to supply sound thinking, there is no hope for the world! However, I do not think Jesus meant by this that it is the Church’s responsibility to ensure a smooth running world and to keep the good times rolling! The world may reject the message of the Gospel together with the values derived from it and persecute believers, even if the church may be sound in thinking! This was the case in the early church and is the case with the former Soviet Union, Moslem countries and China where Christianity is officially not wanted! Our responsibility is to keep the faith and that means sound biblical thinking! Whether this results in rejection and persecution by the world or a changed society is sovereignly determined and is not our concern!
“Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer. Behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried, and ye shall have tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of Life”.
Revelation 2:9-11
Denson
October 22, 2009 at 10:08 am
Denson,
“Jesus said ye are the salt of the earth!”
Yes Jesus said this, but He did not say
“The church is the foundation of a sound society”
unless the ‘society’ you are discussing is the Church at which point I would say it is the doctrine of the apostles and prophets which are the foundation of the Church.
“A society that borrows the value system that is derived from the Bible, even if may not be specifically Christian, will be a sound society with things running fairly smoothly.”
Yes, this kind of society is responsible for killing Christ and persecuting his people! I suppose the Jews had a fairly sound society, and so did the Catholics of the middle ages. It is too bad we view most of History through American glasses.
“Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer. Behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried, and ye shall have tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of Life”.
Revelation 2:9-11
You’ve made my point.
I suppose we should remember the context of this current debate, and the statement “As the church goes, so goes the nation” made in the midst of a discussion about the FED and whether there be conspiracies, or not.
I have already refuted the notion that the nation does not necessarily reflect the church using the book of Revelation as the basis for my argument.
Next I will refute the notion that Christians shouldn’t concern themselves with conspiracies and “leave them to God.”
Conspiracy: An agreement [between two or more individuals] to commit and illegal act.
Conspiracies are hard to prove because the parties involved act covertly. Yet in our legal system, in the United States anyway, their are punishments for crimes involving conspiracy. These punishments can be more severe because they involve premeditation and secrecy amongst many to undermine others. Since our discussion is about the FED, a secular institution in a secular country, can the Christian operate within the boundaries of the society with laws that are just to bring to justice those who would conspire? I would answer, yes! I would say that a Christian aware of the depth of sinfulness of man is all the more capable of it.
Eric
October 22, 2009 at 11:00 am
justbybelief,
“Yes Jesus said this, but He did not say
“The church is the foundation of a sound society””
I wish you had taken time to share what your view is concerning the church being “the salt of the earth”! My understanding is precisely that Jesus’ words could be paraphrased that way(perhaps not the only way). Preaching the Gospel and letting our light so shine before man …. has had an effect on society in general although that is not the purpose of the Gospel. So, it is not obvious to me in what way you think my understanding of Jesus saying is amiss!
“unless the ’society’ you are discussing is the Church at which point I would say it is the doctrine of the apostles and prophets which are the foundation of the Church.”
No, the society I am referring to is “the earth” in Jesus’ saying which was NOT a reference to the Church but the world at large!
“Yes, this kind of society is responsible for killing Christ and persecuting his people! I suppose the Jews had a fairly sound society, and so did the Catholics of the middle ages. It is too bad we view most of History through American glasses.”
I do not know which Bible you read, but Catholic society and Jewish society did NOT get their values from the Bible. Jesus said the Jews(Pharisees) had replaced the word of God with traditions of man. The Roman Catholic Dark ages were a litany of superstitions, which were not biblical teachings!
Well, I will leave FED conspiracies in your capable hands!
Denson
October 22, 2009 at 11:49 am
“As the church goes, so goes the nation”
Eric, do you agree with this statement.
I’m not sure I understand you, but are you saying that it is the Christian’s duty to expose conspiracies?
And when you say, “can the Christian operate within the boundaries of the society with laws that are just to bring to justice those who would conspire? I would answer, yes! I would say that a Christian aware of the depth of sinfulness of man is all the more capable of it,” are you saying that we should seek to enact stricter laws to deal with conspirators, or that we should endeavor to uncover conspirators? It seems to me that the latter is the police and/or government’s duty to do so and not the citizens.
October 22, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Denson,
This was the statement: “As the church goes, so goes the nation”
Is this an axiom–a teaching of scripture–or not? I am arguing, No! It is not an axiom and have given one example from Revelation that refutes it.
The church is commanded to be salt and light, but from this we cannot conclude that a nation will attend this witness. In fact, nowhere is it guaranteed by God that they will.
Both the Jews and Catholics profess that the Bible is the very Word of God. Yet they reject the gospel of free grace. Both groups have a value system similar to Christianity. Both are vehement about the Ten Commandments. Both groups bear witness generally to the same moral code as Christianity but deny the gospel. The Bible calls this amongst other things “Having a Form of godliness but denying its power.” I might add that those who are religious don’t always persecute Christians but its’ possibility is not outside the teaching of scripture.
“Well, I will leave FED conspiracies in your capable hands!”
I suppose burying our heads in the sand is what got us here in the first place.
Eric
October 22, 2009 at 12:57 pm
“As the church goes, so goes the nation”
I don’t this is intended as an axiom, at least not in an absolute sense. I believe this statement means that generally as the church declines so does the nation. Can a nation remain the same when the church has declined? Possibly, but not likely. Otherwise, the church has no effect on the nation of which it is a part.
October 22, 2009 at 4:52 pm
lawyertheologian,
“But our Sovereign God determines what happens, and Scripture teaches us PRINCIPLES of interpreting history, or human events. One of those principles is that as the visible church goes, so goes the nation. When the house of God is a shambles, then the nation falls.”
It was put forth as an axiom. It is the great club with which many Theonomists and the ‘christian’ right beat others in the Church into submitting to postmillennial pipe dreams of a ‘generally’ christian nation, and world (a golden age), before Christ’s return. Let me clear the air, there is only one Christian nation, the Church, and postmillennialism is a lie from the devil. This is one, of many, problems (apostasies) of the OPC, it won’t take a stand on eschatology just like the PCA.
Further, the problem with this statement is that it lays guilt on the unsuspecting believer, a point you made above. The statement is either true or untrue.
“Can a nation remain the same when the church has declined?”
Yes. An evil nation may remain as evil as it ever was. The Church may even be corrupted by an evil nation surrounding it.
“Otherwise, the church has no effect on the nation of which it is a part.”
Maybe in God’s kindness a nation will be affected and maybe in His wisdom it won’t! Maybe God’s main purpose is to establish the Church–the only truly holy nation by the blood of Christ–and not necessarily to change the surrounding nation, it is to call forth his elect by means of the gospel of grace in Jesus Christ and prepare them for eternity with one another.
Eric
October 22, 2009 at 8:50 pm
A principle is not an axiom. It is not an absolute. A nation with little or no influence from the church is bound to fall. The Church does have a restaining effect on the world/nation. For we are indeed the salt of the earth. We preserve it from utter corruption.
The Church has to have some effect on a nation. For we are the salt of the earth. Unless we are completely silent and live immoral lives, we must have some effect on the nation, even if it doesn’t result in a positive effect in anyone’s behavior. For one has to at least consider an expressed thought if not a different lifestyle. And condemning evil usually will result in some restraining of evil. Apart from that influence a nation will normally go headlong into sin. But yes, sometimes the nation will influence the Church toward evil than the Church will influence it toward righteousness. In fact, history seems to bear out that as the nations and the world gets worse, so does the Church.
October 22, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Pat,
Here is the definition from Merriam-Webster: Principle
1a: a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption.
Eric
October 23, 2009 at 10:14 am
Eric, that definition doesn’t suggest to me that a principle is the same as an axiom. A comprehensive doctrine can be expressed as something general. Some things are referred to as general principles.
In any event, do you really think that the statement was meant to be taken as an absolute rule, that everytime the church has declined, so has or will the nation decline?
October 23, 2009 at 11:40 am
lawertheologian,
Amazing! Just Amazing!
LOL…
Eric
October 23, 2009 at 12:42 pm
If the obfuscation here is any indication of what it might be like in a General Assembly, God have mercy!
October 25, 2009 at 7:15 pm
It doesn’t follow from the Book of Revelations, that just because a congregation is faithful that the same goes for the entire church. There is always a remnant. God’s church will not be destroyed. That said, there are times of lesser and greater obedience on the part of the larger professing church – which like it or not is a part of a political nation or nations.
And whatever you think of Gary “Why No Y2K?”North, his little book Conspiracy; A Biblical View is to the point. Ps 2 tells us about the existence of conspiracies and their final end. But we are not to fear what the world calls a confederacy or think they are more powerful than God Is. 8:12.
In short, while it is a matter of historical detail, if not even more so personal curiosity whether Adolf Hitler himself actually started the Reichstag fire, there is no question Adolf capitalized on the opportunity.
Likewise the fire and collapse of Bldg. 7 at the WTC on 9/11. There is no question Bush and the neocons took full opportunity of 9/11 to pursue their agenda whoever was responsible actively or negligently for 9/11.
Paul in his book on the Fed, correctly will not attribute sovereignty to any evil conspiracy in light of the depravity of man and the unwitting convergence in evil, much more that plainly, regardless of who was or wasn’t in cahoots with the genesis of the Fed, counterfeiting is theft. It is a matter of equal weights and measurements i.e. ethics, regardless of the rabbit trails of history about which the arguments are endless. Again only Scripture is infallible history.
But Scripture also says thou shalt not steal and Paul plainly makes the case that the Fed does just that. It remains to be seen how far that might still resonate in the hearts and minds of what used to be a nation much more in tune with Biblical law. I have might doubts, but we’ll see.
That is, most people still might agree that robbing banks is wrong, but the jury still out on socialism, i.e. it’s OK for the govt. to tax/rob my neighbor for my benefit. If this nation as a rule can’t get abortion and homosexual marriage figured out, it would be no wonder they would also have problems with the implications of the 8th commandment.
October 26, 2009 at 12:04 am
Bob,
“It doesn’t follow from the Book of Revelations, that just because a congregation is faithful that the same goes for the entire church. There is always a remnant. God’s church will not be destroyed. That said, there are times of lesser and greater obedience on the part of the larger professing church – which like it or not is a part of a political nation or nations.”
Each church in Asia Minor is a microchosm of the Church/Nation scenario. Faithfulness in the church may be accompanied by great persecution. I am having a difficult time believing the assertion that as the church goes so goes the nation is even being made. The assertion may be true in some cases, but it is not always so.
“Paul in his book on the Fed, correctly will not attribute sovereignty to any evil conspiracy in light of the depravity of man and the unwitting convergence in evil, much more that plainly, regardless of who was or wasn’t in cahoots with the genesis of the Fed, counterfeiting is theft. It is a matter of equal weights and measurements i.e. ethics, regardless of the rabbit trails of history about which the arguments are endless. Again only Scripture is infallible history.”
The definition of conspiracy:
Conspiracy – An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
Our government is in an agreement with a private corporation to steal money from the American people. This is what they are doing together. This is true whether the nitwit on the street, or a congressman, understands it or not. Whether you like it our not it is a conspiracy. Two parties have agreed together to steal. Or, if you prefer, they’ve agreed together to violate the law of the land, the Constitution.
Two or three credible witnesses are usually enough to get a conviction in a court of law in this country. Biblical revelation, since revelation has ceased, concerning guilt or innocence of a person in this day and age is not only unavailable, but not necessary to convict him/her/them of a crime. Witnesses are enough. If we need a word form God every time we went to court there would be no judicial system because revelation has ceased.
In this country our laws are such that there are penalties for conspiring. If it can be proved in court then a judgment will ensue. An example in the recent past in which conspiracy laws were used to prosecute is trial at Nuremberg of the Nazi leadership. The reason Christians should be open to the notion of conspiracy are 1) it is biblical and 2) we are to seek justice, further, it will open the eyes of the unwitting which is a benefit as a hedge against future attempts at conspiracy. To deny them is naive!
It is absolutely ludicrous to believe that the whole financial system in the United States under the FED was erected and that the ensuing theft was an accidental by-product of unwitting participants. Even so, an unwitting accomplice can still be prosecuted and convicted as a conspirator! It is laughable that anyone in their right mind would be gullible enough to believe that this is just an accident.
“Likewise the fire and collapse of Bldg. 7 at the WTC on 9/11. There is no question Bush and the neocons took full opportunity of 9/11 to pursue their agenda whoever was responsible actively or negligently for 9/11.”
That the story of three steel framed sky scrappers falling into their own footprint at free-fall speed–a feat of great precision for the most experienced demolition company–at the hands of Muslim terrorists in jets, one building of which wasn’t even struck, going unquestioned by the majority of Americans is evidence of the intellectual, not to mention spiritual, bankruptcy of Americans.
“That is, most people still might agree that robbing banks is wrong, but the jury still out on socialism, i.e. it’s OK for the govt. to tax/rob my neighbor for my benefit. If this nation as a rule can’t get abortion and homosexual marriage figured out, it would be no wonder they would also have problems with the implications of the 8th commandment.”
It is irrelevant whether most people can see it or not. The fact is we live in a republic, not a democracy. It would be good if most saw it, but it is not necessary that they do.
Homosexual marriage is an issue that the U.S. government should not be involved in and it is questionable (I’m open to discussion on it) whether it should be involved in the abortion issue at all. These are matters for the states and are questions that should be left to them. This is part of the problem. In our ‘worship’ of government we want it to make all our decisions.
The monetary issue is another matter entirely because coining our money is actually a function of the congress.
Eric
October 26, 2009 at 9:18 am
I am having a difficult time believing the assertion that as the church goes so goes the nation is even being made. The assertion may be true in some cases, but it is not always so.
While there are any number of other sources you can look at, I would recommend John Robbins’ booklet, Christ and Civilization. I’m not sure if this is the whole thing or just a portion: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/200a-ChristandCivilization.pdf
The point is that the civil liberties we enjoy, dwindling though they are, are the direct result of the influence Christianity and its impact on Western culture. Things like laissez-faire capitalism, separation of powers, representative government, liberty of conscience, etc., didn’t spring up in a vacuum and are ideals that can hardly be traced to the some romatic secular “enlightenment.”
Reformation Christianity, as opposed to the sickly version practiced today, or the completely anemic Arminian wasteland of the greater ersatz-Evangelical world, are all contributing to the slide into a new Dark Age, one we’re well into. Conversely, if God were to will another Reformation it’s hard to imagine that it wouldn’t have any impact on our society and political structures. Certainly the belief that thou shalt not steal would put an end to the Fed.
Our government is in an agreement with a private corporation to steal money from the American people. This is what they are doing together. This is true whether the nitwit on the street, or a congressman, understands it or not. Whether you like it our not it is a conspiracy. Two parties have agreed together to steal. Or, if you prefer, they’ve agreed together to violate the law of the land, the Constitution.
And I don’t think anyone would disagree. Yes, that’s a conspiracy and it is certainly one that I think most would accept. What I was referring to is that the conspiracies usually attributed to the corruption of our money are considerably more speculative and nefarious. The net affect has been to cloud issues surrounding the function and origins of the Fed while marginalizing the issue as the fodder for crackpots. I think Paul was wise to avoid the question of conspiracy and focus on the moral question.
It is absolutely ludicrous to believe that the whole financial system in the United States under the FED was erected and that the ensuing theft was an accidental by-product of unwitting participants.
By the same token, it was not necessarily motivated by a secret cabal of puppet-masters and globalists. For example, in a recent series on money by Gary North on Lew Rockwell he argued that the need for a central bank was the logical result of fractionalized banking. The way he explain it made perfect sense, and, while still corrupt, it was hardly rooted in some grand scheme of world domination by a handful of satanic bankers looking for world domination. Of course, world domination may also be a natural result of fiat currency, since the logical end is a single world currency rather than competing currencies, but that too is primarily a question of ideology or philosophy regardless of who might be conspiring to that end.
October 26, 2009 at 10:14 am
“Even so, an unwitting accomplice can still be prosecuted and convicted as a conspirator!”
Really? How is this possible if the person was not in on the conspiracy?
” That the story of three steel framed sky scrappers falling into their own footprint at free-fall speed–a feat of great precision for the most experienced demolition company–at the hands of Muslim terrorists in jets, one building of which wasn’t even struck, going unquestioned by the majority of Americans is evidence of the intellectual, not to mention spiritual, bankruptcy of Americans.”
Are you questioning the fact that it happened that way?
“Homosexual marriage is an issue that the U.S. government should not be involved in and it is questionable (I’m open to discussion on it) whether it should be involved in the abortion issue at all. These are matters for the states and are questions that should be left to them. ”
The reason that the U.S. government, and more particularly the U.S. Supreme Court gets involved with these issues is that it somehow was convinced that there is/was a liberty issue. Prior to that states deal with these issues. Of course, the SC could decide after consideration of the issue, that there is no liberty interest guaranteed by the Constitution that needs to be protected. In essence, it would need to correct itself in the case of abortion.
October 26, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Sean,
“While there are any number of other sources you can look at, I would recommend John Robbins’ booklet, Christ and Civilization. I’m not sure if this is the whole thing or just a portion”
Please prove from scripture that it is always the case that as the church goes so goes the nation. I have expected to find the doctrine of necessary consequence from the Westminster Confession Faith being used to prove this in this thread, but it is not appearing here for whatever reason.
“The point is that the civil liberties we enjoy, dwindling though they are, are the direct result of the influence Christianity and its impact on Western culture. Things like laissez-faire capitalism, separation of powers, representative government, liberty of conscience, etc., didn’t spring up in a vacuum and are ideals that can hardly be traced to the some romatic secular “enlightenment.”
Reformation Christianity, as opposed to the sickly version practiced today, or the completely anemic Arminian wasteland of the greater ersatz-Evangelical world, are all contributing to the slide into a new Dark Age, one we’re well into. Conversely, if God were to will another Reformation it’s hard to imagine that it wouldn’t have any impact on our society and political structures. Certainly the belief that thou shalt not steal would put an end to the Fed.”
I never said it wasn’t possible that there be no impact on the culture (a nation) by Christianity (the Church), by the grace of God anything is possible. I am arguing that it is not necessarily so. There may be pockets of influence but that whole nations necessarily follow when the church is faithful is not a teaching of scripture.
The major issue that concerns me is the notion that arises from this teaching that the churches faithfulness can be gauged by a nation’s current relative morality. And, this is exactly what has and is being done in some circles to guilt the unsuspecting into the social gospel and theonomic agendas, Gary North being a proponent of the later. This is nothing more than legalism.
“Of course, world domination may also be a natural result of fiat currency, since the logical end is a single world currency rather than competing currencies, but that too is primarily a question of ideology or philosophy regardless of who might be conspiring to that end.”
I can’t believe what I’m reading. So, an idealogue cannot be a conspirator?
October 26, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Pat,
“Really? How is this possible if the person was not in on the conspiracy?”
Yes, a person can be involved in a conspiracy according to the law without knowledge of it. I found this with relative ease and suggest you could do the same.
“Are you questioning the fact that it happened that way?”
Do you really need to ask, Pat? Of course I question the official lie, it doesn’t add up.
My point is that bringing down sky scrappers into their own foot-print is a monumental feat that only a few demolition companies can accomplish. It takes exactitude. We are being told that the randomness of burning fires did what the precision of demolition could only do with difficulty. Yes, the American people for the most part have disengaged their brains and buried them in the sand.
“The reason that the U.S. government, and more particularly the U.S. Supreme Court gets involved with these issues is that it somehow was convinced that there is/was a liberty issue.”
Yes, the Supreme Court is complicit in the trampling of the Constitution–usurpation of power. I like Rush Limbaugh’s line, “Abortion is the left’s sacrifice and the Supreme Court is their alter.”
Eric
October 26, 2009 at 7:51 pm
“Please prove from scripture that it is always the case that as the church goes so goes the nation.”
I think we would all grant that is not always the case. Would you grant that the Church is meant to and does have an evil restraining influence in the world?
” that whole nations necessarily follow when the church is faithful is not a teaching of scripture.”
No one here appears to be arguing that. Of course, even if the former were true (as the Church goes, so goes the nation) the opposite wouldn’t follow.
“The major issue that concerns me is the notion that arises from this teaching that the churches faithfulness can be gauged by a nation’s current relative morality.”
You’re right. It cannot.
October 26, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Pat,
“I think we would all grant that is not always the case. Would you grant that the Church is meant to and does have an evil restraining influence in the world?”
Amen! Then we agree.
“No one here appears to be arguing that. Of course, even if the former were true (as the Church goes, so goes the nation) the opposite wouldn’t follow.”
That is indeed good! I have heard the opposite argued many times.
Eric
October 26, 2009 at 8:17 pm
“Yes, a person can be involved in a conspiracy according to the law without knowledge of it. I found this with relative ease and suggest you could do the same.”
Well, I am not a criminal lawyer, but my knowledge of criminal law tells me that the first and basis element to a charge of conspiracy is an agreement. And you can’t make an agreement without knowing that you have. I guess you meant involved in the crime that the conspiracy was about. But strictly speaking, the conspiracy is the agreement to commit a crime. And thus only the co conspirators are “involved” in, that is, are parties to the particular conspiracy.
“Do you really need to ask, Pat? Of course I question the official lie, it doesn’t add up.
My point is that bringing down sky scrappers into their own foot-print is a monumental feat that only a few demolition companies can accomplish. It takes exactitude. We are being told that the randomness of burning fires did what the precision of demolition could only do with difficulty. Yes, the American people for the most part have disengaged their brains and buried them in the sand.”
You’re for real? You really think that it wasn’t a jet crashing into the twin towers that caused all the damage and harm? A real conspiracy theorist. Do you question the Holocaust also? And are you saying that is our duty to search out these conspiracy theories, and do what? Force the gov’t to admit it? Bring the guilty parties to justice? Again, bringing the truth to light and exposing lies is a noble thing, but it is not our life’s goal to investigate every or any possibility of conspiracy.
October 26, 2009 at 9:23 pm
My point is that bringing down sky scrappers into their own foot-print is a monumental feat that only a few demolition companies can accomplish. It takes exactitude. We are being told that the randomness of burning fires did what the precision of demolition could only do with difficulty. Yes, the American people for the most part have disengaged their brains and buried them in the sand.
These are the kind of claims that I’m thankful Paul completely avoids in his book and during his campaign. It’s really the tinfoil, Rosey O’Donnell, Alex Jones with a bull horn type of wacko claims that really obscures the deeper philosophic and economic issues that Paul addresses. It’s stuff like this that makes the immorality of the Fed so easy to dismiss as the territory of conspiratorial nut-jobs. The irony is that it plays right into the hands of those intent on furthering the Fed. If there is a cabal of conspirators, and there are certainly many in and out of gov’t that benefit greatly from the current system, it’s stuff like the above that makes their job so much easier.
I’m sorry to say Eric, but you make my point.
October 26, 2009 at 9:45 pm
lawyertheologian,
“Well, I am not a criminal lawyer, but my knowledge of criminal law tells me that the first and basis element to a charge of conspiracy is an agreement.”
The conspirators can be guilty even if they do not know the identity of the other members of the conspiracy. See United States v. Monroe, 73 F.3d 129 (7th Cir. 1995), aff’d., 124 F.3d 206 (7th Cir. 1997).
“You’re for real?”
Yes! I used to be ashamed to speak about the FED and the 911 conspiracy. These are just two conspiracies, but they are all tied to one–global governance. I am not afraid or ashamed to speak about it anymore! I will not be shamed in the name of political correctness or by the name conspiracy monger into silence. Further, I will not let pastors who misinterpret Romans 13 to manipulate me into godless submission. I have young boys and I don’t want them rounded up and taken to internment camps, or dead. Internment and/or death camps are a by-product of totalitarianism and both democrats and republicans have been complicit in taking us down this road for a very long time. Don’t be fooled, it can happen here. I run into many people who say, “It can’t happen here.” My neighbor from Germany remembers the German people thinking the same thing.
I must be true to myself, my conscience. I cannot say I believe official ‘stories’ when I don’t. Further, I can’t say their stories add up when they don’t. I have no hidden motive. I am simply stating what is on my mind.
“You really think that it wasn’t a jet crashing into the twin towers that caused all the damage and harm?”
No doubt the jets crashed and caused harm to WTC 1 & 2, but they weren’t what ultimately brought these two towers down. These towers were built to withstand multiple impacts of the largest aircraft of the time, the 707, which is equivalent to the ones that hit them, the 757. And, positively, no aircraft hit WTC 7.
“A real conspiracy theorist.”
I suppose you could say that. I suppose if you were using George Bush’s words you’d say, “And, let us not tolerate outrages conspiracy theories,” two days after 911. Or, Bill Clinton who said, “How dare you! How dare you!” when questioned about the official 911 story, with the same indignant tone and vehemency he used when denying that he had sex with Monica Lewinsky. Their lies are transparent.
“Do you question the Holocaust also?”
No, but I do believe that the Nazi’s were funded by this country, those behind the FED, just as I believe Stalin and Mao were funded out of Wall Street too. War is a profitable business for bankers, especially those bankers who fund governments.
“And are you saying that is our duty to search out these conspiracy theories, and do what? Force the gov’t to admit it?”
Not necessarily; however, I would say that you are made in God’s image and have a responsibility to think and reason. God does not want us to be naive but mature. Who better to question ‘official’ stories than those whose minds have been quickened by God’s spirit. One of the by products of sanctification is clear thinking, is it not.
“Force the gov’t to admit it? Bring the guilty parties to justice?”
Hopefully, yes. I want to see those responsible, who aren’t dead, hanged by the neck. Sometimes, when I’m really angry about this, I think the guillotine’s reinstitution would be appropriate.
“Again, bringing the truth to light and exposing lies is a noble thing, but it is not our life’s goal to investigate every or any possibility of conspiracy.”
Indeed, it would be impossible to investigate every possible political conspiracy, but this does not mean we can’t discuss or investigate one. Certainly one of the courses this discussion has taken concern the Christian influence on the country. Who better to investigate this than a Christian.
Eric
October 26, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Sean,
“These are the kind of claims that I’m thankful Paul completely avoids in his book and during his campaign.”
Well…I would hope that Ron Paul would avoid questions about 911 in his book about the FED, but I wish he would be more outspoken about re-investigating the incidents surrounding 911.
“It’s really the tinfoil, Rosey O’Donnell, Alex Jones with a bull horn type of wacko claims that really obscures the deeper philosophic and economic issues that Paul addresses.”
And, yet, I am not afraid to discuss these ‘deeper’ issues as well–both. Nor were Andrew Jackson (in his farewell address to the nation), Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Louis McFadden, Charles Lindbergh Sr., and others.
Actually, Sean, you are obscuring the issue by calling anyone who questions the official story ‘tinfoil.’ There are architects and engineers, ones far better qualified than me, or Ron Paul, who question the official story as well and want a re-investigation.
“It’s stuff like this that makes the immorality of the Fed so easily to dismiss as the territory of conspiratorial nut-jobs.”
Similarly, people like to dismiss the Bible because they can’t believe in miracles.
“The irony is that it plays right into the hands of those intent on furthering the Fed.”
Now that is a statement that turns your whole argument on its head. What possible motive could those who want to ‘further’ the FED have? If they have nothing planned and every evil fallout of this corrupt institution is by accident and unknown to those involved what possible furtherance is there? But now, we know there is a ‘furtherance’ associated with this evil institution, and for a reason, and this indicates an agenda. An agenda suggests a plan, and a plan, especially when there are multiple players suggests a conspiracy. Global governance and depopulation, anyone?
“If there are a cabal of conspirators, it’s stuff like the above that makes their job so much easier.”
We agreed earlier that there is a group (cabal) of conspirators including the government and the FED. If there is nothing secret why does Ron Paul have to introduce a bill authorizing Congress to audit the FED. Why won’t the FED simply open its books? Why do they have to be forced? Congress should have transparency presently. What has taken place in the past that precludes congress from having oversight of the national currency? These are indicators that something is VERY wrong.
“I’m sorry to say Eric, but you make my point.”
Sean, there is a difference between saying this and it being true. The fact that you have not addressed my point but simply implied that I’m of the ‘tinfoil’ order, a handle I am perfectly able to bear ;-), is evidence that your statement is not true.
Eric
October 26, 2009 at 10:56 pm
“The conspirators can be guilty even if they do not know the identity of the other members of the conspiracy. See United States v. Monroe, 73 F.3d 129 (7th Cir. 1995), aff’d., 124 F.3d 206 (7th Cir. 1997).”
This is not what you said. You said “Yes, a person can be involved in a conspiracy according to the law without knowledge of it.”
Not knowing the identity of co members of a conspiracy is not the same as not knowing that one is involved in the conspiracy. As Monroe affirmed “To sustain a conspiracy conviction, the Government must provide substantial evidence that a conspiracy existed and that the defendant knowingly agreed to join that conspiracy. United States v. Carson, 9 F.3d 576, 587 (7th Cir.1993).” Id. Defendant Monroe did know of the conspiracy between 2 other co defendants. His defense was that he couldn’t have been involved in the other 2’s conspiracy because he had never met them. The Court said ” All that is required is that “a participant know of the others’ existence and their activities to further the conspiracy.” Monroe clearly was in on the conspiracy and he knew it. He knowingly agreed to the conspiracy.
October 26, 2009 at 11:13 pm
I wish he would be more outspoken about re-investigating the incidents surrounding 911.
Yeah, that would have really helped further his cause. LOL! Of course, maybe he didn’t talk about it because he thinks the idea that the gov’t brought down the towers is insane and better left for Rosie and the old crows on The View.
Actually, Sean, you are obscuring the issue by calling anyone who questions the official story ‘tinfoil.’ There are architects and engineers, ones far better qualified than me, or Ron Paul, who question the official story as well and want a re-investigation.
Well, I’ve seen dozens of films of professional demolitions and I’ve watched the footage both live and in reruns of the towers coming down. Oddly, in pro demos there is an intense series of explosions synchronized to take the building down in a controlled fall. Yet, in the case of the towers, there were no synchronized explosions,yet the towers came down in a similarly controlled fall. That doesn’t point to a conspiracy, it points to a coincidence.
But, hey, who was the other gunman on the grassy knoll? ;-P
We agreed earlier that there is a group (cabal) of conspirators including the government and the FED.
What we agree on is that many people have a vested interest in the Federal Reserve system and that it benefits gov’t and bankers greatly and hurts the poor and middle class folks in particular. We agree that it is a system based on theft.
If there is nothing secret why does Ron Paul have to introduce a bill authorizing Congress to audit the FED.
I never said there wasn’t anything secret about the Fed, and, yes, they should be audited. Actually, they should be shutdown completely and immediately.
These are indicators that something is VERY wrong.
Something IS very wrong. The system is completely immoral and it’s an evil that is being actively perpetrated on us by the gov’t. The secrecy could simply be because “men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”
Sean, there is a difference between saying this and it being true. The fact that you have not addressed my point but simply implied that I’m of the ‘tinfoil’ order, a handle I am perfectly able to bear
While I have no intentions of going round and round and I’ll grant that perhaps I haven’t addressed your point, I’m happy to leave it with the realization that point you made was mine. 🙂
October 26, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Sean,
“Yeah, that would have really helped further his cause. LOL! Of course, maybe he didn’t talk about it because he thinks the idea that the gov’t brought down the towers is insane and better left for…[tinfoils]”
Well…to desire a re-investigation doesn’t imply that one believes the government perpetrated it, just that the government is lying. Do those in government lie?
If I remember correctly Ron Paul was asked about this in Missoula, MT when he was campaigning and said he would not be opposed to reinvestigation.
And, yes, I’m happy to leave it with the realization that point you made was mine, too. 😉
Eric
October 27, 2009 at 12:00 am
lawyertheologian,
“This is not what you said. You said ‘Yes, a person can be involved in a conspiracy according to the law without knowledge of it.'”
I apologize. I read it and misquoted it. I will try to be more concise in my statements in the future.
Eric
November 6, 2009 at 11:10 am
The Honorable Dr. Ron Paul allows himself to be interviewed by the ‘crazy conspiracy monger’–tinfoil–Alex Jones as he has done many times here:
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8198.
In this interview Alex Jones makes the assertion to Ron Paul that the same moneyed interests behind the FED (central banks) are pushing the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty 2009 and global governance, to which, Dr. Paul does not object, or debate, but affirms. Crazy globalist conspiracy monger? I think not!
The full interview is on http://www.infowars.com
November 6, 2009 at 2:04 pm
What exactly does that prove Eric? That conspiracy junkies are Paul’s natural allies? OK, so what?
The point is that in Paul’s own speeches, articles, and books, at least the ones I’ve read, Paul thankfully avoids discussions of the Rothchilds, the Illuminati, the Jesuits, not to mention the Jews, and whatever other group people claim are trying to take over the world. Instead he focuses on the moral implications of the economics. I think that is wise, because while I don’t mind watching Alex Jones screaming at dignitaries making their way into some hotel for a supposedly “secret” meeting, and I actually quite enjoy it, that is a political strategy that is guaranteed to completely marginalize the anti-Fed movement and allow people like me to dismiss it as the product of the fevered minds of kooks.
That is also why I’m thankful to men like Ron Paul and even John Robbins (see Freedom and Capitalism and his argument against indexation) for focusing on the economics and the morality (not to mention the constitutionality) and for leaving the rest of the junk for Alex Jones and his bull horn along with the rest of the speculators.
Look at it this way, there is no speculation that our monetary system is immoral. Why isn’t that enough? Do people and governments benefit from the current system? You bet they do. Are there very powerful and well connected people including international bankers and politicians trying to perpetuate this corrupt system and expand it globally? Well, of course, they have every incentive to do just that regardless of whether or not they joined the Skull and Bones while at Yale.
November 6, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Sean,
“What exactly does that prove Eric?”
It shows that these global elitists behind the FED are also behind other agendas, one of which is the Constitution nullifying Copenhagen Treaty, all leading to the same place–global governance, something Ron Paul did not deny.
“Look at it this way, there is no speculation that our monetary system is immoral. Why isn’t that enough?”
Because an immoral money system is not an end in itself it is a means to an end (power), the end being global governance–global tyranny! An immoral money system is nothing less than theft, but also, it may be nothing more. However, as the interview made clear, global governance (control) is the agenda–global tyranny. In every tyranny theft is not the only crime one must worry about but also murder, as in concentration camps. One need only look at the totalitarian regimes of this century, many of which have been funded out of Wall Street, to see that death camps, at least in this century, go hand-in-hand with totalitarianism.
More unconstitutional globalist drivel in the U.S. Code (U.S.C.)
TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 35 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 2551
An ultimate goal of the United States is a world which is free from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of armaments; in which the use of force has been subordinated to the rule of law; and in which international adjustments to a changing world are achieved peacefully. It is the purpose of this chapter to provide impetus toward this goal by addressing the problem of reduction and control of armaments looking toward ultimate world disarmament.
The Secretary of State must have the capacity to provide the essential scientific, economic, political, military, psychological, and technological information upon which realistic arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament policy must be based. The Secretary shall have the authority, under the direction of the President, to carry out the following primary functions:
(1) The preparation for and management of United States participation in international negotiations and implementation fora in the arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament field.
(2) The conduct, support, and coordination of research for arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament policy formulation.
(3) The preparation for, operation of, or direction of, United States participation in such control systems as may become part of United States arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament activities.
(4) The dissemination and coordination of public information concerning arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament.
TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 35 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 2552. Definitions
(a) The terms “arms control” and “disarmament” mean the identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control, reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and armaments of all kinds under international agreement including the necessary steps taken under such an agreement to establish an effective system of international control, or to create and strengthen international organizations for the maintenance of peace.
(b) The term “Government agency” means any executive department, commission, agency, independent establishment, corporation wholly or partly owned by the United States which is an instrumentality of the United States, or any board, bureau, division, service, office, officer, authority, administration, or other establishment in the executive branch of Government.
Eric
November 6, 2009 at 4:50 pm
It shows that these global elitists behind the FED are also behind other agendas, one of which is the Constitution nullifying Copenhagen Treaty,
It doesn’t show anything of the sort. It certainly doesn’t show that those behind or even part of the FED are also pushing for “the Constitution nullifying Copenhagen Treaty.” They might be, but just you saying so doesn’t make it so. I agree there is certainly a movement toward world gov’t, but that doesn’t mean that a specific band of elitists all known to one another are conspiring to take over the world. The pope is certainly in favor of one world gov’t and advocates it in his most recent moronic and immoral encyclical. So is he working with Ben Bernanke to achieve world gov’t? I don’t think so. Rather than a worldwide conspiracy I’d rather consider the movement toward globalization and all the Utopian prattle that goes along with it, as a manifestation of God’s ripening the world in preparation for the rise of Antichrist and the Lord’s coming judgment commencing with the Christ’s return in accordance with God’s eternal decree. As an amillennialist it certainly fits with my own eschatology. Not sure what postmills do with it?
Because an immoral money system is not an end in itself it is a means to an end (power), the end being global governance–global tyranny!
Perhaps and I might even agree. But, again, it could just as well be the working out of the logical implications of the immorality of a system of fiat currency, and not the workings of a globalist cabal plotting world domination since the Ice Age.
In every tyranny theft is not the only crime one must worry about but also murder, as in concentration camps. One need only look at the totalitarian regimes of this century, many of which have been funded out of Wall Street, to see that death camps, at least in this century, go hand-in-hand with totalitarianism.
OK, so death camps go hand in hand with totalitarian regimes. Why does anyone need a conspiracy theory to see that, much less blaming it on Wall Street? But, see, when you start saying “many of which have been funded out of Wall Street” it gets into the realm of science fiction. Wall Street is geographic location and traders and investors are not necessarily a bunch of globalist working to secure world tyranny while helping to fund Dachau and the gulag archipelago along the way. Not a lot of profit in death camps.
November 6, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I agree with Sean.
November 6, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Sean,
“It doesn’t show anything of the sort. It certainly doesn’t show that those behind or even part of the FED are also pushing for “the Constitution nullifying Copenhagen Treaty.” They might be, but just you saying so doesn’t make it so.”
And, my point in posting the video was to show that not only do I believe this but so does Ron Paul, as well as Alex Jones.
“I agree there is certainly a movement toward world gov’t, but that doesn’t mean that a specific band of elitists all known to one another are conspiring to take over the world.”
Well…a movement without a plan and collaboration between no one sounds pretty far fetched.
“But, again, it could just as well be the working out of the logical implications of the immorality of a system of fiat currency, and not the workings of a globalist cabal plotting world domination since the Ice Age.”
Again, a movement without a plan and collaboration between no one sounds pretty far fetched.
“The pope is certainly in favor of one world gov’t and advocates it in his most recent moronic and immoral encyclical.”
Agreed! Yes, indeed! Certainly there are competing groups in global domination, Islam being one.
“So is he working with Ben Bernanke to achieve world gov’t?”
I’ve tried to make this connection myself between the pope and the moneyed elite–it has certainly happened before, and the Pope becoming a member of the U.N. is certainly a start. This remains to be seen.
It is certainly true that the moneyed interests that were behind the League of Nations, CFR, and U.N. were also behind the FED.
“…I don’t think so. Rather than a worldwide conspiracy I’d rather consider the movement toward globalization and all the Utopian prattle that goes along with it, as a manifestation of God’s ripening the world in preparation for the rise of Antichrist and the Lord’s coming judgment commencing with the Christ’s return in accordance with God’s eternal decree.”
I wouldn’t even consider global government unless God’s Word spoke about it.
“As an amillennialist it certainly fits with my own eschatology.”
I would agree with that.
“Not sure what postmills do with it?”
They’d make it up as they go–twist the scripture.
“…But, again, it could just as well be the working out of the logical implications of the immorality of a system of fiat currency, and not the workings of a globalist cabal plotting world domination since the Ice Age.”
I suppose this is the major point of disagreement. I believe that what is going on are the logical implications of immorality in conjunction with the workings of a global cabal, but I’m not sure how long or how its passed from generation to generation.
Certainly, kings, the elite and the Catholic church have maintained a ‘lineage of pure blood’ to carry on an ideology the only difference is that the Catholic State-Church’s power is carried on through its unmarried priesthood (something Hitler observed), not through procreation, and has been VERY effective.
Eric
November 6, 2009 at 7:45 pm
lawyertheologian,
“I agree with Sean.”
If I only spoke or wrote when I thought I’d be affirmed, I would never speak, or write. I suppose Jesus wasn’t looking for affirmation from men either.
Eric
November 7, 2009 at 2:15 am
“In this interview Alex Jones makes the assertion to Ron Paul that the same moneyed interests behind the FED (central banks) are pushing the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty 2009 and global governance, to which, Dr. Paul does not object, or debate, but affirms. Crazy globalist conspiracy monger? I think not!”
“It shows that these global elitists behind the FED are also behind other agendas, one of which is the Constitution nullifying Copenhagen Treaty, all leading to the same place–global governance, something Ron Paul did not deny.”
Do we know what a non sequitur is? Just because RP agrees that global governance is where a lot of this is going, does not necessarily mean there is a conscious conspiracy to that end, much more that RP agrees with that conclusion. He has as much said so/denied it. Rather greed alone predisposes men to cheating. It’s not RP’s personality or style to denounce or disagree with somebody like Jones on this. His thing is talking to everybody that wants to talk to him and championing liberty, which he thinks is adequate by itself to the task of foiling the bad guys.
But even if there was a gigantic conspiracy, again, Is. 8:12 is to the point. (I thought Gary North, the False Prophet of Y2K that went South with the Profits mentioned in his book on conspiracy but evidently not.)
Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.
Our job is to do our job. Not get freaked out about how many are against us or get seriously sidetracked figuring out how “they” pass it down generation to generation. Rom. 5 has already got that one covered in principle. It’s called original sin. Total depravity. Don’t let the fine print in the details obscure that fact. Man is in rebellion against God and naturally with or without conferring with others, opposes God.
FTM IMO AJones is somewhat of an opportunistic rabble rouser activist. IOW just like DHorowitx at FrontPage, a former leftist turned conservative, at heart AJ is a pragmaticist. Any means to a good anti communist/globalist end.
That said, his latest(?) Fall of the Republic (YouTube) is pretty good for the most part. He actually lets a bunch of other people talk at length instead of trying to tell us what to think on his say so.
Still the deficiencies/failure of conservative political activism loom large at the end of FOTR. While AJ does well to lament the lack of community, unfortunately he doesn’t have a clue how to restore it. Political activism won’t do it, even if that is his forte. Neighborhood barbecues are not the gospel.
Rather as per Robbins’s Christianity and Civilization, there is no way to recreate the civilization and liberties of the West apart from Biblical Christianity, i.e. affirming and building on the Protestant Reformation.
November 9, 2009 at 10:42 am
“Do we know what a non sequitur is? Just because RP agrees that global governance is where a lot of this is going, does not necessarily mean there is a conscious conspiracy to that end, much more that RP agrees with that conclusion.”
You can dispense with the condescension, Bob. And, like I said before, Bob, a movement without a plan, and collaboration between no one, sounds pretty far fetched. Not only does it sound far fetched, it is impossible. Anyone who would suggest such a thing shouldn’t be condemning a pagan for saying ‘nothing’ brought ‘everything’ into existence.
“Is. 8:12 is to the point.”
I think you should do some homework on Isaiah 8:12, Bob. Don’t pry verses out of context to suit your own needs. This verse is a warning for the people of Judah not to fear the conspiracy between Israel and Assyria (a rather unholy union) against them and give into it. This doesn’t deny conspiracy as you’re suggesting only that it not be feared and given into. Rather, the people of Judah were to put there fear in Christ and stand firm in Him. Nice ‘twist’ on the scripture, Bob. In other words, I am not to give in to this conspiracy between the international bankers and my own government simply because they seem at present to be more powerful; rather, I am to follow Christ and trust (believe) Him in spite of these conspiracies. I am not to go along with their crookedness but expose them for what they are.
“Our job is to do our job. Not get freaked out about how many are against us or get seriously sidetracked figuring out how “they” pass it down generation to generation.Our job is to do our job. Not get freaked out about how many are against us or get seriously sidetracked figuring out how “they” pass it down generation to generation.”
So, Bob, our job is not to investigate any conspiracies? Is this a command from Christ Himself? In fact, Bob, in Christ, being justified by belief alone, my investigation of conspiracies is God honoring. Do you deny this? Does this mean a Christian Lawyer is bound by conscience–by you–not to prosecute on this basis? Are you arguing for ignorance? As “We The People” Americans are the final arbiters of the Constitution and our representatives serve by privilege. In other words we are the sovereigns. In the final analysis and ultimately we have the authority to punish our rogue government and seek justice in as much is it can be accomplished here.
“FTM IMO AJones is somewhat of an opportunistic rabble rouser activist.”
Hmmm… You can’t refute what he says so you attack his character?
“That said, his latest(?) Fall of the Republic (YouTube) is pretty good for the most part. He actually lets a bunch of other people talk at length instead of trying to tell us what to think on his say so.”
Actually, Bob, Alex Jones has the tenacity to do those things you might find uncomfortable. In fact some of the things he does, I find, would be uncomfortable for me. Because of this I don’t think less of him. I just believe he’s gifted differently than I am and I’m thankful for many things he brings to light.
“Still the deficiencies/failure of conservative political activism loom large at the end of FOTR. While AJ does well to lament the lack of community, unfortunately he doesn’t have a clue how to restore it. Political activism won’t do it, even if that is his forte. Neighborhood barbecues are not the gospel.”
Conservatism has lost its mooring to the Constitution, this is why its failing. Political activism may remedy the situation as God decides. He may raise a nation or lower it, as He sees fit, for whatever reason He deems appropriate, all for His own glory.
Alex Jones was telling his audience that the T.V. has replaced the ‘neighborhood’ and this by design. I happen to agree whole heartedly with his statement. There are studies that show how T.V. has a hypnotic affect, by design. This, combined with the fact that most of what comes across it is propaganda is doubly insidious. Alex warns his audience that they are being programed by the medium of T.V., they are being separated from their neighbors–divided-in order that they pose little to no threat to their/our rogue totalitarian government. So, if Alex Jones sees this should he keep his mouth shut? Let’s suppose my neighbors house is on fire. Should I warn him of the fire? In the same way, when my rogue government whores itself out to international bankers (FED), who are also manipulating other governments (Iraq comes to mind), should I keep my mouth shut? I won’t, Bob. I won’t become a mute simply because you choose to be blind.
November 9, 2009 at 11:58 am
“So, Bob, our job is not to investigate any conspiracies? Is this a command from Christ Himself? In fact, Bob, in Christ, being justified by belief alone, my investigation of conspiracies is God honoring. Do you deny this? Does this mean a Christian Lawyer is bound by conscience–by you–not to prosecute on this basis?”
Eric, the burden is on you to show that our job is to investigate conspiracies. And being justified by belief alone does not make your investigation of conspiracies God honoring. At least, you haven’t shown how it follows. Of course, it is the job of prosecuting attorneys (not all attorneys)to investigate possible criminal conspiracies and prosecute conspirators. I guess it’s ok to speculate or raise the issue of possible conspiracies to the authorities, but actual investigation of people and events is up to the authorities. This is what took place in the case of JFK’s murder. The issue of conspiracy was raised and an investigation by the authorities was conducted. In the end, that’s where we have to leave it.
But, as Sean is pointing out, when there’s evil surrounding the ideas and acts, what need or purpose does it serve to speculate and run around trying to find some further evil conspiracy behind those things? It tends to focus attention away from the immorality of the ideas and acts and looks to condemn those things by some greater conspiracy which is far greater to prove.
November 9, 2009 at 12:03 pm
While there is some truth in the above, it is simply another example of the kinds of arguments that make it way too easy to simply ignore the anti-FED folks and why Paul was wise avoiding these “theories” when he wrote his book.
Even TV was intentionally created by a secretive group of globalists in order to disarm and brainwash the public. Reminds me of General Ripper from Dr. Strangelove who said that fluoridation is “the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we’ve ever had to face.”
IMO the moral and economic arguments (i.e., the ideological arguments) are much more effective and persuasive. For one thing, they are much harder to dismiss, whereas the conspiratorial arguments can be positively harmful to the cause (the cause being to end the Fed of course) and make the entire issue very easy to dismiss. FWIW I think folks like Alex Jones hurt their own cause and are a big reason why many people, myself included, have simply ignored the issue for so long.
Frankly, if I were a world bank globalist conspirator I’d hire a bunch of Alex Jones’ in order to help obscure the issue and keep it from the public consciousness. Think about it, guys like Alex Jones are actually the puppets of a globalist cabal. Brilliant.
November 9, 2009 at 1:53 pm
lawyer,
“Eric, the burden is on you to show that our job is to investigate conspiracies.”
This I’ve already done in the following…
“And, like I said before, Bob, a movement without a plan, and collaboration between no one, sounds pretty far fetched. Not only does it sound far fetched, it is impossible. Anyone who would suggest such a thing shouldn’t be condemning a pagan for saying ‘nothing’ brought ‘everything’ into existence.”
“Eric, the burden is on you to show that our job is to investigate conspiracies.”
I did this in my last post, but you were to lazy to plumb it out, so, I’ll repeat myself. You are a member of “We The People.” You are the sovereign and your government is your servant. It is your responsibility to keep them in check and to correct them, even Ron Paul. You are the one who bears the sword. It’s just that many Christians have succumbed to the notion that militias are now somehow evil.
“This is what took place in the case of JFK’s murder. The issue of conspiracy was raised and an investigation by the authorities was conducted. In the end, that’s where we have to leave it.”
That’s the attitude of a lazy populace who leaves everything to an untrustworthy servant.
“But, as Sean is pointing out, when there’s evil surrounding the ideas and acts, what need or purpose does it serve to speculate and run around trying to find some further evil conspiracy behind those things? It tends to focus attention away from the immorality of the ideas and acts and looks to condemn those things by some greater conspiracy which is far greater to prove.”
Because you are to lazy to investigate doesn’t mean that I’m speculating. I don’t know how your separating the act of conspiracy from crime. Focus should be on the act of conspiracy as well as overt acts of crime. Neither should be dismissed. In dismissing conspiracy you dismiss justice.
November 9, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Sean,
“While there is some truth in the above, it is simply another example of the kinds of arguments that make it way too easy to simply ignore the anti-FED folks and why Paul was wise avoiding these “theories” when he wrote his book.”
While Paul didn’t address this in his book he was in agreement with A.J. concerning a global cabal of elite bankers. This was my point in the post that started the current debate in this thread.
“Even TV was intentionally created by a secretive group of globalists in order to disarm and brainwash the public.”
It shouldn’t take much investigation to confirm the strobe effect of T.V. and its hypnotic effect. Also, I suppose a question is in order: Is much of mainstream media news propaganda?
“Frankly, if I were a world bank globalist conspirator I’d hire a bunch of Alex Jones’ in order to help obscure the issue and keep it from the public consciousness. Think about it, guys like Alex Jones are actually the puppets of a globalist cabal.”
I look at anybody who spreads disinformation as a puppet of the bankers whether that person is aware of it, or not. An example of this would be Glen Beck or Sheriff Mack who keep saying that our resistance should be peaceful. This is a direct denial of the Declaration of Independence. It is disinformation–a lie, and denies all means our founders left at our disposal to correct a rogue, totalitarian government.
Another group bent on disinformation is oath-keepers who give a list of things they will disobey if ordered to do. What they deny–police and soldiers– is that they are already involved in enforcing unconstitutional agendas like the war in Iraq and illegal gun enforcement.
Eric
November 9, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Well the silence over the weekend was to good to be true. And true to form . . .
As far as dispensing with the condescension, nice try E but it is not that at all (as if on your own part a repeated use of my name is not what I am accused of). Rather a non sequitur is a non sequitur. The statements given do not prove that RP agrees with AJ on how we got in this mess. RP has as much said so, but beyond that RP agrees things are a mess, does not meant he agrees how we got there.
Is a global conspiracy possible. Yes, I suppose it is, but neither it is not the only possibility or explanation of history, much more over riding.
Neither am I against investigating conspiracies or confederacies per se, another non sequitur, but time’s winged chariot hurrys near. My complaint, in the vein of S’s remarks is the emphasis. God is sovereign – even over evil conspiracies, real or imagined – whatever the non reformed think, hence Is 8:12.
Another way of putting it would be to say, upon becoming a Christian, I long ago departed the Roman Church and the observation of Christmas. To paraphrase the Appendix to the WAssembly’s Dir. for Public Worship there is no warrant for either in Scripture. That said, Hislop’s Two Babylons, which I just recently obtained, does have some interesting ins and outs to on the pagan origins of Christmas and the Roman Church.
IOW the art of understatement in deed. Arguments from history (conspiracy) can be endless/inconclusive as compared to arguments from revelation. Read any internet discussion of history between Protestants and Roman church members.
Thank you.
November 9, 2009 at 2:40 pm
“You are the one who bears the sword.”
No, it is the governing authorities who bear the sword. And we are to submit to them as servants of God. Rom. 13:1. They and they alone are given the responsibility of punishing evildoers and providing for the safety of the people. They and they alone are thus given the job/responsibility of investigating possible conspiracies to prevent their future crime plot and punishing conspirators for that crime as well.
You have not at all shown from Scripture that is our duty to investigate conspiracies.
“Because you are to lazy to investigate doesn’t mean that I’m speculating.”
Unless you can show that you have irrefutable proof that would find the conspirators guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you are speculating.
“I don’t know how your separating the act of conspiracy from crime.”
What act are you referring to? Rarely, if ever, are conspirators caught agreeing to engage in future criminal acts.
“Focus should be on the act of conspiracy as well as overt acts of crime. Neither should be dismissed. In dismissing conspiracy you dismiss justice.”
Again, I don’t get this. No one is claiming that conspiracy is not a crime that should be punished. If we have proof of a conspiracy we should pass that on to the governing authorities so that they can arrest the conspirators.
November 9, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Even with the correction, some might think my opening patronizing (a synonym for another word) rather than an attempt at humor, but it wasn’t meant to be. The topic of c____ does generate ah … discussion, shall we say.
“Well the silence over the weekend was to good to be true. And true to form . . .
[Seriously] as far as dispensing . . .”
November 9, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Bob,
“As far as dispensing with the condescension, nice try E but it is not that at all (as if on your own part a repeated use of my name is not what I am accused of).”
Nice pick-up, Bob! LOL 😉
“Rather a non sequitur is a non sequitur. The statements given do not prove that RP agrees with AJ on how we got in this mess. RP has as much said so, but beyond that RP agrees things are a mess, does not meant he agrees how we got there.”
Don’t take my word for it, listen Ron Paul’s words on the video. My point all along
“Neither am I against investigating conspiracies or confederacies per se, another non sequitur, but time’s winged chariot hurrys near. My complaint, in the vein of S’s remarks is the emphasis. God is sovereign – even over evil conspiracies, real or imagined – whatever the non reformed think, hence Is 8:12.”
It was the sparseness (absence) of your explanation of the verse that led me to believe this is what you were arguing for.
“Another way of putting it would be to say, upon becoming a Christian, I long ago departed the Roman Church and the observation of Christmas. To paraphrase the Appendix to the WAssembly’s Dir. for Public Worship there is no warrant for either in Scripture. That said, Hislop’s Two Babylons, which I just recently obtained, does have some interesting ins and outs to on the pagan origins of Christmas and the Roman Church.”
Bob, no condescension intended ;-), I totally agree. We are not bound by scripture to celebrate Christmas.
“IOW”
Bob, Do you text much?
“…the art of understatement in deed. Arguments from history (conspiracy) can be endless/inconclusive as compared to arguments from revelation. Read any internet discussion of history between Protestants and Roman church members.”
Some conspiracies may be inconclusive, some may not. As I stated earlier a court hearing has no revelation associated with it as to the guilt or innocence, but we have a doctrine in the Bible that allows for the testimony of witnesses. In investigation, and a less formal atmosphere like the internet, one may call on witness also.
Eric
November 9, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Bob,
“Well the silence over the weekend was to good to be true. And true to form . . .”
The by-product of a good hunting trip…
Eric
November 9, 2009 at 3:34 pm
lawyer,
“You have not at all shown from Scripture that is our duty to investigate conspiracies.”
1) God ordains governments.
2) He ordained our constitutional government where you are the sovereign and representatives serve you by privilege to protect your rights.
3) In our constitutional government the militia, of which you are supposed to be a member, has a legitimate function, law enforcement–bearing the sword.
4) As sovereign you are responsible.
5) Rights follow from duty (responsibility).
“Unless you can show that you have irrefutable proof…”
In the Bible witnesses are enough. The Pharisees didn’t like the fact that Jesus called on Himself and the Father as a witnesses. In the same way, many may not like the witnesses to injustice God raises up in our day and age. Like in Balaam’s day, it may even be an ass (pun intended).
Eric
November 9, 2009 at 4:52 pm
“3) In our constitutional government the militia, of which you are supposed to be a member, has a legitimate function, law enforcement–bearing the sword.”
No, this is incorrect. The militia is for defense against an unlawful use of power by those in government. Again, bearing the sword, that is, using force in punishing evildoers is the (sole) function of govrernment. And the militia is not the government nor an aspect of it.
“In the Bible witnesses are enough.”
Again, not exactly. The Bible indicates that AT LEAST two witnesses, that is, eyewitnesses are needed to convict, IF THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE. But if you have two eyewitnesses to a conspiracy, then you should forward that on to the authorities to make an arrest. And it should be enough to convict and hopefully prevent the future crime.
November 9, 2009 at 5:56 pm
I look at anybody who spreads disinformation as a puppet of the bankers whether that person is aware of it, or not. An example of this would be Glen Beck or Sheriff Mack who keep saying that our resistance should be peaceful. This is a direct denial of the Declaration of Independence.
Ron Paul regularly advocates peaceful resistance in interviews and speeches. In a speech on patriotism from 2007, Paul said:
And in an interview with CNN he said:
“Martin Luther King is a hero, because [he] practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience, nonviolence.”
Is Ron Paul the puppet of bankers too?
November 9, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Here is more Paul on peaceful civil disobedience:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/455
November 9, 2009 at 6:57 pm
lawyer,
“No, this is incorrect. The militia is for defense against an unlawful use of power by those in government. Again, bearing the sword, that is, using force in punishing evildoers is the (sole) function of govrernment. And the militia is not the government nor an aspect of it.”
No, lawyer, a well regulated militia is a product of the correct functioning of each of the several states establish by the self-governing people of each state. The militia is an extension of state government therefore it rightly bears the sword. The militia may at times be utilized by the President of the United States. Your distinction between defensive and offensive is ridiculous. While a militia can be used defensively it can also be used offensively as in putting down insurrection.
Perhaps a quote from Edwin Vieira Jr. is in order from this 3 part article on militias http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin61.htm :
“Perhaps the President’s most important constitutional duty is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” the Constitution itself foremost among them. The Militia are the only establishments to which the Constitution explicitly assigns this function: “to execute the Laws of the Union.” Therefore, as Commander in Chief of the Militia, the President enjoys the constitutional authority to employ the Militia to fulfill his duty to “take Care.” And, in light of the numerous problems facing this country, from the current invasion of illegal immigrants to the imminence of a collapse of the monetary and banking systems, President Paul will need the assistance of the Militia at every turn.”
“Unless you can show that you have irrefutable proof that would find the conspirators guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you are speculating.”
And
“Again, not exactly. The Bible indicates that AT LEAST two witnesses, that is, eyewitnesses are needed to convict, IF THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE. But if you have two eyewitnesses to a conspiracy, then you should forward that on to the authorities to make an arrest. And it should be enough to convict and hopefully prevent the future crime.”
First, irrefutable proof and reasonable doubt are two different things.
Second, I used the term ‘witnesses’ which is plural. Plurality in our world means more than one which can be at least two. Your objection here is ridiculous. Are you from another planet?
Third, many of the witnesses, some in the government itself, to the facts in question are being marginalized today by the very government tasked with protecting our rights and cannot get a fair hearing. This does not mean that the witnesses are wrong only that the rogues have gotten away with their crimes a little longer. In other words the testimony is right whether anything comes of it or not. A case in point is the abortion issue. Many witnesses have testified that it is murder yet their witness goes unheeded. Does this mean no crime has been committed?
Eric
November 9, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Sean,
“Ron Paul regularly advocates peaceful resistance in interviews and speeches. In a speech on patriotism from 2007, Paul said…”
If Ron Paul is strictly opposed to force he is opposed to state militias–a necessity to the security of any free state–then he is not a Constitutionalist and must be avoided as a legitimate presidential candidate just as one would and should resist O-bam-O, or Bush.
Hopefully, Ron Paul advocates peaceful petition first without denying the necessity and Constitutionality of the militia which ought be functioning at present in each and every state.
Eric
November 9, 2009 at 9:03 pm
“No, lawyer, a well regulated militia is a product of the correct functioning of each of the several states establish by the self-governing people of each state.”
That only proves my point. We are not the government. And a “well regulated militia” is directed by government. It does not act alone. Thus is not each individual as a member of the militian who bears the sword, but the militia as an arm of the government. Individually we are not granted the use of the sword. Only as directed by gov’t can individuals take up the sword. As individual citizens, it is not our job to punish evildoers, or to even seek them out. The Scriptures again only give that job/duty to governing authorities.
“First, irrefutable proof and reasonable doubt are two different things.”
Well, of course. But where there is irrefutable proof there should be no reasonable doubt. No reasonable doubt is a very high standard, such that the evidence is basically irrefutable and sufficient to convince one as much as can be expected, but short of epistemic certainty, that is, less than certain knowledge.
“Does this mean no crime has been committed?”
Yes. Crimes are defined by law. Where the law has not prohibited an act, no crime is committed. And thus no conspiracy to commit a crime if the act is not deemed a crime.
And in the end, if we can’t get government to pursue and punish things that gov’t does deem criminal, can we really be certain that a conspiracy is underway?
BTW, nothing you have presented regarding conspiracies was beyond physical evidence. You’ve never presented two witnesses who claim that two or more individuals had agreed to executing a future crime. Again, it is just your conjecture. Maybe a conspiracy is likely. But again, even if there isn’t, and we’re not likely to discover one way or another, the fact is that certain things are wrong in themselves.
November 9, 2009 at 9:19 pm
“While a militia can be used defensively it can also be used offensively as in putting down insurrection.”
I would argue that is defensive. Again, the militia is to provide for the safety of each state, defending itself against other states if attacked, against the whole country if necessary, and against its own governing authorities if they act unlawfully.
Originally the militia was a duty, but then it was conceived of as a right, a right to bear arms, both as an individual and as individuals banded together to prevent unlawful acts of governing authorities.
November 10, 2009 at 1:23 am
lawyer,
“Originally the militia was a duty, but then it was conceived of as a right, a right to bear arms, both as an individual and as individuals banded together to prevent unlawful acts of governing authorities.”
As understood by the founders rights proceed from duties. There is no disconnect. The order is as follows: 1) Man is responsible to God, 2) God has assigned certain duties associated with these responsibilities, 3) Man has a right to fulfill these duties because they are God given.
“And the militia is not the government nor an aspect of it.”
And
“That only proves my point. We are not the government. And a “well regulated militia” is directed by government.”
If the militia is a product of the state legislature or a local city council then it is a product and extension of government. Further, ‘We The People’ are self-governing. The paradox is this. When a state or local government ‘regulates’ a militia they are doing so in the knowledge that the militia may one day protect the people from the very government that established it. This is why no government–state, federal, or local–today advocates a militia.
As one of the founders so aptly stated, “When the government fears the people there is freedom. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.”
It is absolutely ludicrous to believe that we would ask a tyrant’s permission to throw off his bands of tyranny when he is acting as a usurper.
“Yes. Crimes are defined by law.”
Our government violates law under the banner of law. And the question was, “Many witnesses have testified that it [abortion] is murder yet their witness goes unheeded. Does this mean no crime has been committed?” In your extra terrestrial thinking it is not a crime because our rogue government calls it a ‘right’ or ‘choice.’ Let another witness (me) set the record straight: Abortion is murder therefore it is a crime no matter what the government calls it.
“I would argue that is defensive.”
Killing (righteously bearing the sword) is an offensive act.
“And in the end, if we can’t get government to pursue and punish things that gov’t does deem criminal, can we really be certain that a conspiracy is underway?”
Yes we can!!! Are you suggesting that the only valid investigations are those performed by government servants? You as a sovereign should know better. I see that you have drunk the kool-aid and are leaving the ‘governing’ up to the experts. This reminds me of the statement Clark made concerning the gas station attendant and the theologians.
One of the functions within a militia was a forum to discuss political matters. How does one discuss without being informed. One cannot in good conscience keep and bear arms (sounds similar to bear the sword doesn’t it?) if study and discussion of issues surrounding their use, is stifled? Bearing arms on an individual level is a right because it is a duty before God. Because it is ultimately a duty it follows that I know the crime I am being called to execute punishment upon.
“BTW, nothing you have presented regarding conspiracies was beyond physical evidence.”
So, I’m right?
“You’ve never presented two witnesses who claim that two or more individuals had agreed to executing a future crime.”
This statement is confusing at best.
“But again, even if there isn’t, and we’re not likely to discover one way or another, the fact is that certain things are wrong in themselves.”
This statement is confusing at best, too.
Eric
November 10, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Eric,
I think we are clearly misunderstanding each other. Let’s take a step back.
You claimed to have shown that it is our duty to investigate conspiracies.
I understood your third premise (3) to be that we all are the government, that we all bear the sword.
This is what I denied.
If you simply meant that we all have a civil duty to take up the sword if/when necessary, then I would agree, but again, that hardly shows that it is our civil duty to investigate conspiracies, any more than it is our duty to investigate any crime.
As to some of your statements:
“Many witnesses have testified that it [abortion] is murder yet their witness goes unheeded. Does this mean no crime has been committed?”
Witnesses testify to facts not as to ideas they believe to be true. The issue as to whether a fetus is a human person is a philosophical one. And again, crime is defined by human laws not by God’s law, though certain things clearly ought to outlawed and criminalized, like murder and stealing for example. Yes, evil has been committed, being violations of God’s law.
“Killing (righteously bearing the sword) is an offensive act.”
Even in self defense?
“Are you suggesting that the only valid investigations are those performed by government servants? ”
Of course not. And one might find it interesting and fascinating work, though at the same time, one might not ever be able to uncover a conspiracy or discover that one didn’t even exist. And again, unless you have some proof that would hold up in court, such as two eyewitnesses, and/or some strong circumstantial evidence, you are simply speculating. That is, it is simply a theory you have, that you believe that there is/was a conspiracy involved.
“Bearing arms on an individual level is a right because it is a duty before God. Because it is ultimately a duty it follows that I know the crime I am being called to execute punishment upon.”
This is confusing. The right to bear arms is fundamentally a right to self defense, and maybe more broadly a right to use deadly force in certain situations. I guess you can say it is our duty before God to do so, in the sense of protecting the lives of ourselves and others, and in fulfilling our civil duty in this country. But how does it follow that having the duty means that I know that a crime has been committed? Or did you mean that I know that what has been committed is a crime?
November 11, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Lawyer,
“I understood your third premise (3) to be that we all are the government, that we all bear the sword.”
We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We The People are the sovereigns, ultimately, over our servants and representatives. They come from among us. We elect them, they serve by privilege, to protect our rights from others while as far as they (our elected representatives) are concerned, our rights are protected by their oath to the Constitution and its restrictions. In my understanding this turns everything on its head. No other form of government in my limited historical understanding, has ever been, or is like, ours.
“If you simply meant that we all have a civil duty to take up the sword if/when necessary, then I would agree, but again, that hardly shows that it is our civil duty to investigate conspiracies, any more than it is our duty to investigate any crime.”
If one is not aware of ‘why’ to pick up a sword then one shouldn’t pick a sword up at all.
We have warnings from past figures including presidents, Andrew Jackson being one, and the founders, Benjamin Franklin another, to be vigilant. Andrew Jackson specifically addresses central banking in his farewell address to the American people and warns that we should be vigilant against them and their scheming. Benjamin Franklin, as heard by someone else, when asked our form of government, stated, “A republic ma’am, if you can keep it.” In both these cases both men understood that even in peace there was war to be waged, a war of vigilance in all its aspects from being informed to a militia. This is why I believe it is our duty as Americans to be aware of conspiracies and investigate them. It is a small part of being informed.
Eric
November 11, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Eric,
No one is debating the uniqueness of our form of government and the rights and duties of its citizens. What I’m saying is that there still is a distinction between our government and its citizens. We as citizens still have a government that we must submit to. We can’t on our own accord take up the sword, but must be directed by government, that is, governing authorities, except where those governing authorities themselves act unlawfully. BTW, when the Scriptures says the government “bears the sword” it means that they are given to punish evildoers to the point of death. No citizen is ever given that right. Rather we are given the right to bear arms, to take up the sword, which means we may use deadly force in trying to apprehend a felon, or resist an unlawful use of force against us.
“This is why I believe it is our duty as Americans to be aware of conspiracies and investigate them. It is a small part of being informed.”
This is so vague. I’m aware that there are drug conspiracies. Does that mean I have a duty to investigate every possible drug deal or every possible illegal transportation of drugs into the country?
November 11, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Again, I’m aware that there are conspiracies regarding illegal drugs, and that there have been many such conspiracies, as well as other conspiracies. But I am not aware of any particular present conspiracy, and neither is Eric. Eric simply has a theory regarding certain events, that a conspiracy underlies them. He may think it is his/our duty to investigate such events to determine for sure if there is a conspiracy. But I don’t see any duty laid upon us Americans to do so, and he still hasn’t shown that there is one. Maybe we have a duty to raise the possibility to the authorities so that they may investigate. But’s that’s as far as I would take it.
November 11, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Lawyer,
“No one is debating the uniqueness of our form of government and the rights and duties of its citizens.”
This is exactly what our debate has evolved to. Our uniqueness is what dictates who is in authority. God has ordained our form of Government and the power and authority resides with the people. The Constitution is a document that governs those who swear an oath to it, representatives. The authority of the Constitution resides in the people and dictates what those who represent them may rightfully and authoritatively do. When they cross their privileged bounds it is the right (rights having their ground in duty towards God) to punish (bear the sword against) those who break the highest law of the land. The Constitution was not written to govern you and me, It was written to govern those who govern. When those who govern no longer govern righteously and the abuses become tyrannical then it is the right of the people to throw of these bounds. This is the clear language of our founding documents. You may not agree with or even like it, but this is what our founding documents mean and this is what they say.
“This is so vague. I’m aware that there are drug conspiracies. Does that mean I have a duty to investigate every possible drug deal or every possible illegal transportation of drugs into the country?”
This was not vague at all if one considers the context within which it was written. The context, if you’ll remember, concerned maintaining our freedoms not drug conspiracies. In one case it was maintaining our freedoms against a cabal of bankers and their schemes (Andrew Jackson’s case) and the other against aggression, both foreign and domestic (Franklin’s case).
Eric
November 11, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Lawyer,
“Again, I’m aware that there are conspiracies regarding illegal drugs,”
Hmmm…The love of drugs is the root of all kinds of evil. Has a nice twist to it, a.
“But I am not aware of any particular present conspiracy,”
Sweet Jamaican pipe dreams…
“…and neither is Eric. Eric simply has a theory regarding certain events, that a conspiracy underlies them. He may think it is his/our duty to investigate such events to determine for sure if there is a conspiracy.”
Golden Acapulco nights…
“But I don’t see any duty laid upon us Americans to do so,”
Then Morocco, and the East,
“and he still hasn’t shown that there is one.”
Fly by morning light.
Wreathed in smoke in Lebanon
Pat burns the midnight oil
The fragrance of Afghanistan
Rewards a long day`s toil
Pulling into Katmandu
Smoke rings fill the air
Perfumed by a Nepal night
The Express gets Pat there….
Eric
November 11, 2009 at 9:12 pm
“This is exactly what our debate has evolved to.”
Only in Eric’s mind. He is debating with himself I guess.
“When they cross their privileged bounds it is the right (rights having their ground in duty towards God) to punish (bear the sword against) those who break the highest law of the land.”
Whose right to punish? Any individual can decide that? BTW, how did “the right to bear arms” transform into “the right to bear the sword against those who break the highest law of the land?” Sure, no one is above the law, and every violater of law needs to be called to account.
“This was not vague at all if one considers the context within which it was written. The context, if you’ll remember, concerned maintaining our freedoms not drug conspiracies.”
Conspiracies, whatever they may be, was what we’ve been discussing, not maintaining our freedoms.
November 11, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Does anybody here have any clue what Eric is talking about in his last post?
November 12, 2009 at 12:24 am
Pat,
Don’t bogart that joint, my friend! 😉
Eric
November 12, 2009 at 11:18 am
I’m thinking that Eric didn’t understand that drug conspiracies are the most common conspiracies, which is why I referred to them, and that we are all aware that such do take place and have taken place and many are presently taking place. But most of us are not aware of any conspiracies presently taking place, unless you are involved in one or are a law enforcement person investigating such crimes.
Eric is also confusing being aware of the possibility of conspiracy with being aware that one is presently underway or that an event was a result of a conspiracy. The latter requires some sort of tangible evidence beyond the idea that it doesn’t seem likely that an event occurred apart from some criminal wrongdoing of more than one individual. Also, he’s not investigating conspiracies but simply possible conspiracies, things which he may reasonably believe have occurred as a result of a conspiracy, but which, again, he has no tangible proof.