What is Money?

Squishes

New member
It is immoral to do something contrary to the constitution. That's not a debatable point, as I see it.

How is that not debatable?
It is a theory of government, not an ethical theory. It is not immoral to have a different form of government, or even break a trivial component of the constitution. For example:

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."

If a government required 5/8ths instead of 2/3rds, would that government be immoral? Or is it just US citizens that obligated to follow every point of the Constitution?
 

elohiym

New member
elohiym: Yes, I would do so consciously.

Clarify. Are you saying that Congress having the power to coin and regulate the value of money is immoral? If so, on what basis?

You speak of the Constitution the way those who Love God speak of His Word...

Rather I speak as one who loves God, the One who said obey the ordinances of man, the ordinances that are not unrighteous. See my post #56.

When the "existing Constitution" regulated the taxation of imported slaves...

Yes, yes, and Justice Taney was a moron. Blacks are persons, just as the unborn are. I don't disagree with what you wrote. But I thought we were discussing some specific aspects of the Constitution.

elohiym, what would you do if you realized that our U.S. Constitution was itself unconstitutional. I'm wondering. What would you do?

I'd like to say become a banker and make you a slave by your consent. :chuckle: But what you are asking about is implausible.

Look, let's not go down rabbit trails. Just address my post #42 and we can call it quits. I'm not really interested in trying to convince people who want to be slaves that they're being enslaved and how wrong that is.
 

elohiym

New member
I don't know..thats a debatable point, which needs another thread to give it justice

Fair enough. Really, contract law is all we need to prove that fractional reserve banking is immoral.

You do agree that if you and I make a legal contract, and I intentionally violate that contract, it is immoral, right?
 

elected4ever

New member
e4e, then what's the sense of being a dictator? :)
Just google: define:dictator. In the relevant senses, you'll see:
dictator: "a ruler who is unconstrained by law"
dictatorship: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution)
Being a dictator does not prevent the existence of a constitution. Why would you think it would? A constitution may not restrain a dictator as ours does not seem to restrain the powers that be in Washington. A constitution will only permit and restrain those who have a fidelity to it. A lawless person will be lawless regardless.

Perhaps you should call in if you'd like to discuss this. You're all over the map and perhaps we could stay focused if you called in. For example, you seem to think that to show that a monetary system is justified, it has to be consistent with our constitution.
There is a reason for that:

Article VI

Paragraph 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Why would that be? Before our constitution, were there no principles that could identify a just monetary system?
Not relevant to this discussion.

Is it consistency with our constitution that makes something just, or is it consistency with God's principles?
Bad question in that the the constitution makes nothing just, just legal.

Do you assume that something is valid or invalid if it agrees or disagrees with our Constitution? If so, doesn't that put the constitution in the place of God
Assume? See Article 5 stated above. We are all constrained within the boundaries of the Supreme law of the land and we are directed by our King (Jesus) to live peacefully among men and honer those who are placed over us; in this case The Constitution of the United States. This position honers God and does not compete against Him.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
elohiym: Yes, I would do so consciously. You speak of the Constitution the way those who Love God speak of His Word, as though contradicting it is inherently wrong. In the normal course of human events, it's awfully easy to switch loyalty from God's principles to man's rules.

When the "existing Constitution" regulated the taxation of imported slaves, all Christians had a moral duty to oppose the Constitution in it's complicity with what God said was a capital crime: kidnapping. And because the Constitution regulated the selling of kidnapped human beings (among other ungodly practices), Harriet Tubman and the Christians in the Underground Railroad rejected the Constitution's regulation of slavery as corrupt and they boldly violated those parts of the Constitution. That's why they are viewed as heroic Christians today.

elohiym, what would you do if you realized that our U.S. Constitution was itself unconstitutional. I'm wondering. What would you do?

-Bob Enyart, KGOV.com

Bob, it is also true that if a government makes a law to kill Jews, I don't HAVE to kill Jews. Is that not correct. Just because slavery existed against the negro race doesn't and didn't mean I had to own a slave. And as part of the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution, I have or had a right to speak out against such perversion as slavery.
 

The Graphite

New member
What is morally wrong about the U.S. Constitution? Start a thread on that and I'll check it out.
You mean aside from the fact that it disregards the biblically appropriate model of monarchy in favor of an elected executive leader...

... and establishes a legislature, the very nature and purpose of which is to "change the law," something the Lord repeatedly rebukes Israel for doing and which is thus also completely inappropriate and unbiblical...

... and which, itself (the constitution) is even designed to be rewritten repeatedly, which begs the question - if it was moral (or right) when it was written, and it's been changed about two dozen times, how much less moral/right is it today? Or was it immoral/wrong then, and has become more and more moral/right up to this point? Or maybe the whole, ever-changing evolution of it is a wash, in the end? It infuriates the Lord when we make laws that are contradictory to His established example, and when we have the kinds of laws He wants, it infuriates Him all the more when we then go and change them repeatedly...

... and which generally establishes various democratically-based institutions in our government, which are fundamentally humanist in nature and assume the inherent goodness of the masses, in contradiction to the biblical understanding that, at any given time, the majority are in rebellion against God...

Despite the strong Christian principles of many of our founding fathers, they were terribly lacking in their understanding of Christian biblical theonomy, primarily because of their near-obsession with ancient, pagan Greek philosophy which they often placed over biblical teaching. The system was doomed from the beginning, and the only reason it did so well for so long was because America was a morally conservative, predominantly Christian-based culture. But inevitably, our system taught people that they, the citizens, can force the government to change to suit their own selfish desires to dominate and take from their neighbors. Alexis de Tocqueville rightly warned us that our system would come crashing down when our citizens figured out that they could change the government so that they could take their neighbors in order to give to themselves:

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

"A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it."​

Doomed from the start, because overall, our system is designed to be rewritten by democratically-elected representatives of the mostly-wicked masses, so that our system of governmetn is inevitably degraded more and more, over time, and overall our system of government and our laws are a tutor... a tutor that teaches its citizens false and immoral principles, leading people to a sense of entitlement and a generally depreciated value of human life. Well-intentioned, but doomed from the start, and today we are reaping the whirlwind.

REPUBLIC, n. A nation in which, the thing governing and the thing governed being the same, there is only a permitted authority to enforce an optional obedience. In a republic, the foundation of public order is the ever lessening habit of submission inherited from ancestors who, being truly governed [by monarchy], submitted because they had to. There are as many kinds of republics as there are graduations between the despotism whence they came and the anarchy whither they lead.
["The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce]
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
You mean aside from the fact that it disregards the biblically appropriate model of monarchy in favor of an elected executive leader...

Thats pure bunk Graphite!!!!!

Nowhere in scripture does it endorse a man for king. God himself said so in 1 sam...Take a gander at it.
 

The Graphite

New member
DrB, your scriptural citation is... the entire book of 1 Samuel? Really? :squint: Why not just say "It's everywhere from Genesis to Maps!"
 

elohiym

New member
You mean aside from the fact that it disregards the biblically appropriate model of monarchy in favor of an elected executive leader...

You do realize that I am a monarchist, don't you? However, I temporarily live in a country that has laws, and God has instructed me to obey those laws when they do not contradict his instructions.

Any thoughts on post #42? That's all I'm interested in addressing at this point. Explain how Bob can be correct when the Federal Reserve Bank is saying something that completely contradicts Bob's claim.
 

elohiym

New member
Nowhere in scripture does it endorse a man for king.

Christ is our monarch.

12 On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.
14 And Jesus, when he had found a young ***, sat thereon; as it is written,
15 Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass’s colt.
16 These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.

Can we get off this rabbit trail?

What do you think about post #42?
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
DrB, your scriptural citation is... the entire book of 1 Samuel? Really? :squint: Why not just say "It's everywhere from Genesis to Maps!"

I'm not going to derail this thread any longer so feel free to create another thread and you can start here.

This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plough his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." (I Samuel 8:7-18)

And it happened exactly as He said it was, and it doesn't have to be just monarchy.
 

The Graphite

New member
Elo, I know you're a monarchist. I was just trying to remind you that you are. ;)

Elohiym said:
how Bob can be correct when the Federal Reserve Bank is saying something that completely contradict Bob's claim.
You mean the Fed is being completely honest and forthright about what they're doing and how they do it? Whatever they say is true, therefore Bob is wrong?

Earlier, you tried to make your case by saying if Bob calls a bank and asks the questions you suggested, that the bank will lie to him. Strangely, however, you seemed to think this would prove you right. All it does is prove that banks are commonly run by corrupt liars. The banks say A, and you say B, and Bob says C. Bob asks the bank how they operate, and the bank lies. That doesn't prove that B is true; it only proves that A is false and that B or C may be true.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Christ is our monarch.

12 On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.
14 And Jesus, when he had found a young ***, sat thereon; as it is written,
15 Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass’s colt.
16 These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.

Agreed. Doesn't say anything different than what I said.

Can we get off this rabbit trail?

Sure.

What do you think about post #42?

I will look again, but I think I saw it already and am in agreement.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Bob,

If you go to the Federal Reserve Bank's educational website you can download the publication Banking Basics. Please download it now; you will need to have it to confirm what I'm about to tell you, and to do what I am going to ask you to do.

Banking Basics is a propaganda piece designed to intentionally deceive children and adults into believing that banks lend depositor's money rather than what you claim banks do when they lend money. You claim that "lenders bring money into existence when making loans..." In contradiction to that claim, Banking Basics states on page 6:


"Where do banks get the money to lend? They get it from people who open accounts. Banks act as go-betweens for people who save and people who want to borrow. If savers didn’t put their money in banks, the banks would have little or no money to lend.

Your savings are combined with the savings of others to form a big pool of money, and the bank uses that money to make loans. The money doesn’t belong to the bank’s president, board of directors, or stockholders. It belongs to you and the other depositors. That’s why bankers have a special obligation not to take big risks when they make loans."


Now ask yourself, what is the most obvious reason for the enormous discrepancy between what you claim and what the Federal Reserve Bank claims and is using to "educate" the masses? The simplest explanation is more likely to be the correct one, and that is the explanation that I provided you via posts #18 and #33--it's a massive scam, which I explained the substance of.

What I would like you to please do is to call any major credit card company. Tell the representative that you are interested in getting their credit card but have some questions. Record the conversation. Ask the person where the money comes from they will use to advance to merchants on your behalf. Ask them where the money comes from, if it's created out of thin air? I suspect you will be told, as I have been, the same thing you read on page 6 of Banking Basics, which is a lie.

At this point, I believe you should correct your claim that "lenders bring money into existence when making loans..." based on what the Federal Reserve Bank claims in Banking Basics, or concede that banks do not bring money into existence but apparently steal people's wealth by illegally making them depositors (receive money from the "borrower" first without legally owning the note) and then "loan" them back their own money. Conceding the whole transaction is evil and immoral would be in order, too, in my opinion.

:up:
 

elohiym

New member
You mean the Fed is being completely honest and forthright about what they're doing and how they do it? Whatever they say is true, therefore Bob is wrong?

Earlier, you tried to make your case by saying if Bob calls a bank and asks the questions you suggested, that the bank will lie to him. Strangely, however, you seemed to think this would prove you right. All it does is prove that banks are commonly run by corrupt liars. The banks say A, and you say B, and Bob says C. Bob asks the bank how they operate, and the bank lies. That doesn't prove that B is true; it only proves that A is false and that B or C may be true.

They need a reason for such an elaborate lie.

Claim A: banks lend saver's money to borrowers. Proven false by the bookkeeping entries (assets and liabilities both increase).

Claim B: banks create money out of thin air. Proven false by the bookkeeping entries (assets and liabilities both increase).

Claim C: banks steal money from "borrowers" who they make depositors without their knowledge or permission, then return their deposit and call it a "loan." Proven true by the bookkeeping entries (assets and liabilities both increase).

Claim C being true gives the substance, but not form, of claim A some credibility; however, claim C being true makes claim B completely false in both substance and form.
 

elohiym

New member
...you tried to make your case by saying if Bob calls a bank and asks the questions you suggested, that the bank will lie to him. Strangely, however, you seemed to think this would prove you right.

You don't see how?

If Bob enters into a contract based on that misrepresentation the contract is voidable and obviously immoral. Such a misrepresentation is the basis of all fractional reserve banking "loans." Therefore, such a banking system is immoral.
 

Bob Enyart

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
One thing I do like about you is that you are willing to defend yourself even when your opinion is wrong.
e4e, how many people do you know who know when their opinions are wrong? And how many people do you know who don't defend their opinion? I'm just curious about what you're saying about me here, that you wouldn't also say about yourself.
Like you say, Do right and suffer [risk] the consequences.
Thank you e4e, that's exactly what I try to do, just like the saying goes.
...why do you now support a monetary system that enables the socialist state...?
e43, by your own writing, you are the one who supports a monetary system that is run by the government. I don't. You policy seems to directly empower the government in a way that God has not, and also, you putting the government in charge of the monetary system is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Wow, you even think that congress should have the power to regulate the value of our money as you admitted in Post 29. Yikes.

...why do you now support a monetary system that enables the socialist state even when the foundation of the socialist state is basted on a fraudulent monetary system not envisioned by the constitution?
e4e, a first-century description of Nimrod's Babylon indicates that he ran a socialist state, and as far as we know, he used neither fractional banking nor fiat currency. A socialist state is not founded on a particular money system. Monetary policy is either just or unjust based on the how it fares against God's principles, not based upon what socialists or the Constitution's framers might think about it.
A strong dictatorial cental government which is in my estamation [would be] markist in nature.
e4e, it's extremely common for people to confuse political and economic systems (as I think you've done e4e in the post we're talking about here, in Post 2, etc.), and to speak as though they are the same thing. Whether it's ever helpful to do so, it's certainly not helpful when having an important discussion about economic and political principles. Most any political system can implement an economic socialist policy, so that democracies can adopt socialism, as can monarchies, and oligarchies, and dictatorships, and even Republican governments can gradually amend their constitutions to adopt socialist policies (as for sure, our Republican politicians increasingly implement socialist programs). Likewise, various political systems can adopt various economic systems, so that a dictator can implement capitalism, or communism, or socialism, as can a monarchy, a democracy, a dictator, etc. So e4e, if you're trying to help people understand right and wrong regarding public policy matters, you'll find that it's very helpful to not mix political and social systems as though they were synonyms.

You might want to view the second line in our KGOV Political Spectrums chart (the 3rd chart in this pdf): https://media2.kgov.com/files/kgov-political-spectrum-charts.pdf and we talk about this on this radio program: KGOV's Political Spectrums.

-Bob Enyart, KGOV.com
 
Last edited:
Top