Church Condemns Peaceful Protest?

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

calm;

 

Please read my National Review link carefully. The conspiracy to hide evidence of illegally killing deer is very weak and please comment as to the government's conduct in the case. Was the government peaceful? Are these protestors not peaceful?

They were found guilty by a jury of their peers of arson to hide poaching. Governments have the legal authority to use violence, if necessary to enforce the law. The illegal use or implied use of force to achieve a political end is by legal definition terrorism.

[longview]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

They were found guilty by a jury of their peers of arson to hide poaching. Governments have the legal authority to use violence, if necessary to enforce the law. The illegal use or implied use of force to achieve a political end is by legal definition terrorism.

No.  What the government is doing is sometimes called subversion.  What the Bundys are doing is called insurrection.  The same thing that the Founding Fathers were doing in protest against the British Overlords.  Now the government is taking FAR more from the Middle Class than did the British then.  When you add up all the local, county, state, federal taxes and fees, you can be paying over 2/3 of your annual income.  We are in fact slaves forced to support the indulgence of the ELITE class (mostly bureaucrats and many educrats in public schools and universities).  The Founding Fathers knew about tyranny and worked hard to put in MANY safeguards against it.  That includes the First and Second Amendments (both of which are currently routinely encroached upon and violated).  There are some verses in the BoM that consider an overall tax of 20% to be very oppressive.

Consider the example of  the Social Security program.  The people paid a modest monthly amount of money into the program (the so-called LOCK BOX TRUST FUND) over the course of their working years.  Upon retirement, the "owners" (those that paid into the program) were to receive monthly annuities for the remainder of their lives.  This was an actuarially sound program based on mortality tables (insurance aspects), savings (reflecting the level of income of each participant), and conservative investments (the magic of long term compounding of interests and better protection against inflation).  BUT LBJ signed legislation during his presidency to allow the government to STEAL the money out of the "LOCK BOX TRUST FUND" which was NEVER paid back.  Liberals make the cynical excuse that IOUs would be paid back.  As you know, the government has the nasty habit of running deficits for most years (the debt is now a staggering tens of TRILLIONS of dollars).  Now we have two results:  1- government is forced to pay retirees with income tax from current workers (used to be several workers per retiree, but now approaching just two workers per retiree without the benefit of long term compounding of funds);  2- retirees are only receiving 1/3 of the annuity that they should have gotten if the LOCK BOX had not been breached (the government WASTED the other 2/3).  If the LOCK BOX had been preserved, it would NOT have mattered how many retirees there are compared with the number of workers.  The "Baby Boom" bulge would not have mattered because the compounding fund would have covered ALL of them.

Beware the subversion of government.  Beware the modern day "Amlicites" (those that want more oppressive governments).

[Calm]

It is, imo, inappropriate to compare taxes without adjusting for what that income can do for one.  When one is at subsistence level and can barely survive on what one produces, any tax is a hardship.  When one has a life of luxury and convenience, one might be able to survive quite well with a tax of 99% in comparsion to those who lived in the past.

There are some decent arguments that the revolution was a selfish choice, but even assuming it was the right one for the time, people in this time and place have a number of other options to appeal to that they did not.  Justifying armed insurrection in this case because it worked in others is not a wise thing imo.

[Bob Crockett]

49 minutes ago, longview said:

No.  What the government is doing is sometimes called subversion. 

Subversion?  Of what?  

Before and after LBJ the social security was just a tax.  A retiree did not ever have any sort of vested interest in the revenues of the program. If there isn't enough money in the program, the feds make it up by printing money or deficit spending.  Conservatives foolishly try to claim that at one time the social security program was something special and different. It wasn't.  Conservatives don't understand monetary policy, deficit spending and tax policy.  They just like to worship their guns, their massive defense spending, their foreign wars and such.  Government has no business providing for retirement incomes.  Government has foolishly bred an entire dynasty of welfare babies like Ammon Bundy who thinks he should be able to use federal land to extract a living to compete against cattle ranchers who own their own land.

But, you make a good point about the book of mormon, with rebellion coming when the Lamanites wanted more than one-tenth/one-third/one-half from the Nephites.  The difference, of course, is that we have a Republic and the Republic has voted in those taxes.  You have your Congressman and Senator to blame.  Orrin Hatch, in particular.  

Edited January 6, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[longview]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is, imo, inappropriate to compare taxes without adjusting for what that income can do for one.  When one is at subsistence level and can barely survive on what one produces, any tax is a hardship.  When one has a life of luxury and convenience, one might be able to survive quite well with a tax of 99% in comparsion to those who lived in the past.

There are some decent arguments that the revolution was a selfish choice, but even assuming it was the right one for the time, people in this time and place have a number of other options to appeal to that they did not.  Justifying armed insurrection in this case because it worked in others is not a wise thing imo.

Beware the "narcotic" of security.  If you choose security over freedom, then you really do not understand the blessings of true liberty.  Because of our Constitutional Republic (with its protections of property (keeping the fruits of hard work) and other rights (see Anglo Saxons' Natural Laws and the writings of Cicero), this country has experienced astonishing prosperity.  It is only due to cronyism (not to be confused with Capitalism) and misuse of the banking system that there were set backs and depressions.  Read the classic book "Free to Choose" by Milton and Rose Friedman (there was a PBS series based on it a few decades ago).

Edited to add:  read also this Ensign article by President Romney back in 1984, the "Gullible Gulls":  https://www.lds.org/ensign/1984/06/the-celestial-nature-of-self-reliance?lang=eng

Edited January 6, 2016 by longview

[Calm]

Longview is from Colorado.

[Bob Crockett]

I still want to know how he thinks government is subversion.  Subversion of what?  In Latin, the term means to overthrow.  Overthrow what, exactly?

As a libertarian, I fully subscribe to Milton Friedman's work.   But, one must articulate one's thoughts rather than spout conservative (which is not libertarian) propaganda (i.e., "subversion" with no particular social order described).  Conservatism is just another excuse not to change to adapt to circumstances, to keep one's fellows in power, to avoid integrating the principles of Christianity into political thought, to have guns, to spend big.   I believe the Book of Mormon plainly teaches a libertarian view -- freedom from government oppression, compulsion (except in defense) and taxation.   Freedom to worship.  Freedom leads to prosperity.  The Book of Mormon teaches that the best economic system is voluntary communism, not compelled by government.

There is nothing in the Book of Mormon which talks about big government defense programs, worship of guns, making pro-gun memes every time an elementary school is shot up, etc.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[saemo]

13 hours ago, Darren10 said:

The Hammond family was arrested under federal regulations prohibiting setting fire on federal land. The Hammonds set fire on their own ranch and have done so n the past to control potentially large, out of control fires in the future and to get rid of certain pests which could damage their livelihood. Since their property is on federal land they were charged for violating the federal regulations.

 

Does the federal government have respect for laws of private property? That's what the Bundys are fighting against and citing scripture against. I agree prison time would be justified but there's a question of when has the federal government "overdone it". When it comes to seizing land, don't count on the federal government to check the federal government. yes, the US Constitution does allow for the government to take land for public use. The sticking point is what of private ranches that have already been on that land before the federal government took it?

Ummm, where are you getting this information? The Hammonds set fire to BLM land, twice. The first time to erase evidence of poaching. The second time they claimed to do so for fire prevention, but in so doing, did not get permission from the actual fire departments who were fighting a nearby fire. Not to mention, there were people camping nearby, who were not notified that a fire was being started near them.

Add to this, that during the investigation incidence of child abuse were reported and documented, by a teenager, who had been "disciplined" by the Hammond family.

They are loony Sovereign Citizen-types. Believing themselves to be sovereign from federal laws and regulations. Bundys also adhere to, and are spouting, Sovereign Citizen rhetoric. 

Edited January 6, 2016 by saemo

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, longview said:

No.  What the government is doing is sometimes called subversion.  What the Bundys are doing is called insurrection.  The same thing that the Founding Fathers were doing in protest against the British Overlords.  Now the government is taking FAR more from the Middle Class than did the British then.  When you add up all the local, county, state, federal taxes and fees, you can be paying over 2/3 of your annual income.  We are in fact slaves forced to support the indulgence of the ELITE class (mostly bureaucrats and many educrats in public schools and universities).  The Founding Fathers knew about tyranny and worked hard to put in MANY safeguards against it.  That includes the First and Second Amendments (both of which are currently routinely encroached upon and violated).  There are some verses in the BoM that consider an overall tax of 20% to be very oppressive.

Consider the example of  the Social Security program.  The people paid a modest monthly amount of money into the program (the so-called LOCK BOX TRUST FUND) over the course of their working years.  Upon retirement, the "owners" (those that paid into the program) were to receive monthly annuities for the remainder of their lives.  This was an actuarially sound program based on mortality tables (insurance aspects), savings (reflecting the level of income of each participant), and conservative investments (the magic of long term compounding of interests and better protection against inflation).  BUT LBJ signed legislation during his presidency to allow the government to STEAL the money out of the "LOCK BOX TRUST FUND" which was NEVER paid back.  Liberals make the cynical excuse that IOUs would be paid back.  As you know, the government has the nasty habit of running deficits for most years (the debt is now a staggering tens of TRILLIONS of dollars).  Now we have two results:  1- government is forced to pay retirees with income tax from current workers (used to be several workers per retiree, but now approaching just two workers per retiree without the benefit of long term compounding of funds);  2- retirees are only receiving 1/3 of the annuity that they should have gotten if the LOCK BOX had not been breached (the government WASTED the other 2/3).  If the LOCK BOX had been preserved, it would NOT have mattered how many retirees there are compared with the number of workers.  The "Baby Boom" bulge would not have mattered because the compounding fund would have covered ALL of them.

Beware the subversion of government.  Beware the modern day "Amlicites" (those that want more oppressive governments).

Counterpoint: Federal tax rates are at their near lowest since the Second World War.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Beware the "narcotic" of security.  If you choose security over freedom.

Where in my comment did you get the impression I was suggesting do nothing and just sitting secure in the face of inappropriate government?  I just find it extremely inappropriate to present our current tax situation as greater hardship or oppression just because of numbers when the vast majority of Americans are likely leading more comfortable lives than even the elite of BoM times.  That does not in any way mean that I am suggesting people shouldn't work towards better government, including peaceful protests.  It is the 'we have it so bad' mentality that I find preposterous and especially when implying that those who were likely starving even after working every hour of their waking time had it easier....this attitude is one that church leadership frowns upon btw, the lack of gratitude for our blessings.

Or are you suggesting that there are only two options, do nothing or an armed insurrection?  If you didn't notice, my claim was there are a number of other options of response now that do not require guns and I was not considering do nothing as one of them.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Calm

[saemo]

On 1/5/2016 at 7:01 PM, Darren10 said:

Trespassing is a good start for acting illegally.

Question: Federal land essentially belongs to the people but only authorized people may run that land. This protest is to control that land so their trespassing would be illegal only because they are not authorized personnel, correct?

 

Question: Is it not peaceful because they are armed?

From what I gather, the Bundy's (claiming sovereign citizenship) do not recognize federal lands as federal lands. Believing that they can just squat on it as being unclaimed or not owned, and claim it for themselves. Thereby in their eyes, making a National Refuge their private land.

But who knows, sovereign citizens tend to make up their own laws as they go along and expect law enforcement to recognize their made-up sovereign "laws".

These types are known for being violent against federal and other law enforcement. Believing that they are fighting for their sovereignty and are self-stylize "freedom fighters", they tend to view wounding and killing law enforcement officers as something they have to do to protect their made up laws and "sovereignty".

They aren't staging a peaceful protest, but a claiming federal lands as their own and then invoking their "right" as sovereign citizens to protect their land.

Legally, no, the land is not theirs. Legally, no, they are not each a sovereign nation unto themselves. Legally, yes, they are trespassing.

They don't recognize federal law as binding on their sovereign selves.

As I already said. Loons.

 

Edited January 6, 2016 by saemo

[Cold Steel]

On the one hand, the founders advocated armed resistance to oppressive government. On the other hand, the apostles of old (and today) say we should be subject to the laws of the land. At what point does righteous opposition become juustafiable? Is our government so corrupt that armed resistance is the only option? The church says no. This country's leaders are corrupt, and though our present administration is soft on terrorists, illegal immigration and other things, our leaders are fully prepared to tough when it comes to their own power and gain. Try not paying your taxes and bragging about it. 

In a real sense resistance is futile. For now, though, we still have an enormous amount of freedom and the last thing the church needs is an atmosphere where missionary work grinds to a halt and the country becomes unstable. (That will eventually happen, but in the Lord's own time and at his discretion, and when it comes it will come as a whirlwind.) But staging an armed resistance will ultimately fail and work against the cause one is espousing. The church has to, and should, distance itself from this particular cause without prejudice. And latter-day saints should never drag the church into their cause...ever, by using scripture or quoting church authorities. 

 

 

 

[Zakuska]

2 minutes ago, Cold Steel said:

On the one hand, the founders advocated armed resistance to oppressive government. On the other hand, the apostles of old (and today) say we should be subject to the laws of the land. At what point does righteous opposition become juustafiable? Is our government so corrupt that armed resistance is the only option? The church says no. This country's leaders are corrupt, and though our present administration is soft on terrorists, illegal immigration and other things, our leaders are fully prepared to tough when it comes to their own power and gain. Try not paying your taxes and bragging about it. 

In a real sense resistance is futile. For now, though, we still have an enormous amount of freedom and the last thing the church needs is an atmosphere where missionary work grinds to a halt and the country becomes unstable. (That will eventually happen, but in the Lord's own time and at his discretion, and when it comes it will come as a whirlwind.) But staging an armed resistance will ultimately fail and work against the cause one is espousing. The church has to, and should, distance itself from this particular cause without prejudice. And latter-day saints should never drag the church into their cause...ever, by using scripture or quoting church authorities. 

 

 

 

According to some past Government Employees... income tax is Illegal.

 

 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Zakuska said:

According to some past Government Employees... income tax is Illegal.

These people are properly called morons.

[Zakuska]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

These people are properly called morons.

Would you consider Henry "tax rebel" Thoreau ... a "Moron"?

Edited January 6, 2016 by Zakuska

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Would you consider Henry "tax rebel" Theorue ... a "Moron"?

 

4 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Would you consider Henry "tax rebel" Theorue ... a "Moron"?

Thoreau was arguing that taxation was a violation of his conscience. The people who I were calling morons are arguing taxation is illegal based on spurious legal arguments. Thoreau was a misguided naturalist while the morons are amateur lawyers advocating criminal behavior based on persnickety readings of law.

 

 

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Cold Steel said:

On the one hand, the founders advocated armed resistance to oppressive government.

Wouldn't "non positively responsive oppressive government" be a more accurate way of putting it?  Didn't they first try other means to remove what they saw as oppression first?

[longview]

9 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I still want to know how he thinks government is subversion.  Subversion of what?  In Latin, the term means to overthrow.  Overthrow what, exactly?

There is nothing in the Book of Mormon which talks about big government defense programs, worship of guns, making pro-gun memes every time an elementary school is shot up, etc.

I do not equate government with subversion.  Modest government under control of a moral and vigilant people is good.  It could be parts government that is subverted from doing its intended job.  Subversion can be perpetrated by bureaucrats, outsiders, or jointly.  For example, we have seen in the last few years of the IRS (under Lois Lerner) making outrageous policy of giving conservative organizations a hard time but at the same time greasing the sleds for progressive entities.  One form of subversion is for the government to rob the people of their Constitutional Rights in a systematic manner, such as Asset Forfeiture schemes.  The victims are left reeling with no due process or having to struggle with a long tedious process of getting accountability.  Sometimes the local police play tandem "rope-a-dope" with the feds in keeping the victims from finding resolution.

Examples of an enlightened society with protections of liberty:  period of the Judges in the early days of Israel;  King Mosiah II giving the land of Zarahemla democratic judges;  Anglo Saxon traditions;  etc.   All were heavily armed with determination for self defense and preservation of property rights.  You never know when Amlicites will rise up to impose a more totalitarian government.  Or when roving bands of Lamanites will suddenly swoop in from the wilderness to raid a farm on the outskirts of a Nephite city.

Edited January 7, 2016 by longview

[longview]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Counterpoint: Federal tax rates are at their near lowest since the Second World War.

I don't think so.  They were the lowest during the Reagan administration.  Obama has been raising taxes in the last few years.  There is a whole raft of NASTY taxes imbedded within ACA.  Such as surcharges on medical supplies and equipment (which Obama has unilaterally postponed for a few years, others have taken effect).  It is very disturbing how Obama has been tinkering with provisions of ACA without going thru the necessary legislative changes that should be done by Congress.

[Bobbieaware]

9 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I still want to know how he thinks government is subversion.  Subversion of what?  In Latin, the term means to overthrow.  Overthrow what, exactly?

As a libertarian, I fully subscribe to Milton Friedman's work.   But, one must articulate one's thoughts rather than spout conservative (which is not libertarian) propaganda (i.e., "subversion" with no particular social order described).  Conservatism is just another excuse not to change to adapt to circumstances, to keep one's fellows in power, to avoid integrating the principles of Christianity into political thought, to have guns, to spend big.   I believe the Book of Mormon plainly teaches a libertarian view -- freedom from government oppression, compulsion (except in defense) and taxation.   Freedom to worship.  Freedom leads to prosperity.  The Book of Mormon teaches that the best economic system is voluntary communism, not compelled by government.

There is nothing in the Book of Mormon which talks about big government defense programs, worship of guns, making pro-gun memes every time an elementary school is shot up, etc.

Subversion of the Constitution of the United Stated of America. You know, the same one that was prophesied to hang by a single thread?

By the way, there were no guns in the days of the Nephites. But there were a great many swords and other weapons of war; and they kept those weapons close at hand (even slept on them) to be ready in an instant for the next inevitable attack that would come from those who wanted to destroy their government, freedom, families and religion.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I still want to know how he thinks government is subversion.  Subversion of what?  In Latin, the term means to overthrow.  Overthrow what, exactly?

As a libertarian, I fully subscribe to Milton Friedman's work.   But, one must articulate one's thoughts rather than spout conservative (which is not libertarian) propaganda (i.e., "subversion" with no particular social order described).  Conservatism is just another excuse not to change to adapt to circumstances, to keep one's fellows in power, to avoid integrating the principles of Christianity into political thought, to have guns, to spend big.   I believe the Book of Mormon plainly teaches a libertarian view -- freedom from government oppression, compulsion (except in defense) and taxation.   Freedom to worship.  Freedom leads to prosperity.  The Book of Mormon teaches that the best economic system is voluntary communism, not compelled by government.

There is nothing in the Book of Mormon which talks about big government defense programs, worship of guns, making pro-gun memes every time an elementary school is shot up, etc.

Milton Friedman was wrong. Every country that has tried his formula has gone morally bankrupt, and/or economically bankrupt.

SEE https://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/milton-friedmans-distortions/

Communism works fine if everyone is equally poor. The minute someone by their own merits, or accident of birth, has something more then communism falls apart. The most successful countries are democratic socialist. 

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, longview said:

I don't think so.  They were the lowest during the Reagan administration.  Obama has been raising taxes in the last few years.  There is a whole raft of NASTY taxes imbedded within ACA.  Such as surcharges on medical supplies and equipment (which Obama has unilaterally postponed for a few years, others have taken effect).  It is very disturbing how Obama has been tinkering with provisions of ACA without going thru the necessary legislative changes that should be done by Congress.

 

14 minutes ago, longview said:

I don't think so.  They were the lowest during the Reagan administration.  Obama has been raising taxes in the last few years.  There is a whole raft of NASTY taxes imbedded within ACA.  Such as surcharges on medical supplies and equipment (which Obama has unilaterally postponed for a few years, others have taken effect).  It is very disturbing how Obama has been tinkering with provisions of ACA without going thru the necessary legislative changes that should be done by Congress.

You would be wrong. Federal tax rates are easy to look up. Taxes have gone up very slightly under Obama in the highest tax brackets but tax rates are still historically low. For most of Reagan's administration the highest marginal tax rate was 50%. It is currently just under 40%.

In the 70s it was 70%. In the 50s and 60s it hung around 90%.

In the Roaring 20s it went down to 25% putting the lie to Reagan's being the lowest.

I do not understand how conservative blowhards get away with these outright lies when a single Google search disproves them.

[Darren10]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

Did they or did they knowingly lightfires when such fireshad been banned for the safety of firefighters in the area?

Yes, they did light fires knowing of the ban that was done *in the name of* ensuring the firefighters' lives and the Hammond family served their time sentenced to them, and will serve their mandated 5 years. But, in the courts, they served only a small portion of the 5 year sentence since the courts ruled that serving 5 years would be cruel and nusal punishment. Well, after they served their time, the federal government took them back to court to demand the full five years and got it.

 

Was it "peaceful" for the federal what the federal government did?

[Darren10]

Calm;

 

It seems to me that the federal government is making opposing them so burdensome that people will simply not try. that they'll give up and sell their land to the federal government. Is that a peaceful approach by the government since no guns are involved?

[Darren10]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is the government's job to protect federal property. Including from these terrorists.

WHAT??? Is not the citizen's job to protect citizens from and overreaching government? If not why in the world would the Founding Fathers place the 2nd amendment into the Constitution?

This reaction of surprise is in light of the article I just posted. The Hammond family was declared a pillar of their community by the court that originally sentenced them. These protestors took over and abandoned federal building far from any other building and way far from any inhabitable area. They are armed and willing to fight and die for their cause. The US government is armed and willing to fight and die for its cause yet these protestors, who have threatened no one are terrorists whereas the federal government is justified since it is doing its job? If these protestors are terrorists then why not the federal government? If the federal government is justified in killing for their cause, then why not these protestors? If the federal government is to kill for their cause and it be a social good then why are these protestors "terrorists"?