Posted by Break your chains on 01/27/10
Last updated 01/27/10

 I'll start out with this disclaimer: I am not an economist. I'm an "average Joe," who has an avid interest in Austrian economics, and knows the basic essential rule of Economics: Supply and Demand. Most of what I write here is just my thoughts, and is purely based on some trends I've noticed. For that matter, if you agree or disagree, I'd like to hear your comments so that I can better understand what the hell is going on. I'd also like to know if, had the Constitutional Tender Act been implemented, A) would we be in a better position today than a year ago? B) would it been about the same? (no harm, no foul), or C), would things be worse? Any and all criticism, accolade, and/or input is welcome.

 We can safely suspect that over the past few years there's been a drastic increase of the supply of U.S. Dollars flowed into the markets (even without an audit of the Fed, we know they're up to no good), and I suspect that there is a great amount of money currently sitting in bank vaults waiting to be loaned out and further circulated into the economy (which, when eventually loaned out, will quicken the realization of inflation). We've seen a change in attitude among many Americans that spending during a recession is not a solution towards recovery, but rather that saving is the most responsible way to bring about a stronger economy (despite the fact that our government is near to forcing us to go out and borrow, consume, and repeat). I know little about the various details associated with economics, but I, like many others here at the Campaign for Liberty and students of Mises, know that you cannot double the supply of phoney money in circulation and expect there not to be a very real drop in our currency's value. In that regard, we know more than the Federal Reserve's board of governors, who are crossing their fingers and hoping that they can keep the rate of inflation/deflation in check indefinitely (which, looking to the history of Germany's Weimar Republic, they certainly have their work cut out for them).

 During Georgia's last legislative session, a few great patriots created some ruckus over an idea that money should be backed by a sound commodity. They scoffed at the philosophy that money should be created at whim, with no labor and savings involved, to be distributed for the sole purpose of creating economic growth through a system based—not on hard work, carefully planned investments, and weighed risks, but instead—on a 'borrow and spend', living-beyond-the-means, live-for-today Keynesian usury scheme. Those patriots got some gears turning, and even though the Committee of Banking and Finance here in Georgia apparently did not see a clear path to—and were perhaps politically fearful of—a Constitutional return to Gold/Silver backed currency, hopefully, we were at least able get them to start considering why the monopoly of creation of a fiat currency is not the sturdiest foundation for a strong economy.

 Let's take a look at the Kitco value of Gold to the U.S. Dollar today, versus that same figure a year ago, around the time when the Constitutional Tender Act was first brought to attention:

 As you can see the gold price/oz. on January 27, 2009 was $897.50/oz.

 Fast-forward to January 27, 2010, and the price of gold/oz. in terms of U.S. Dollars was, at today's New York closing, $1,087.20/oz.

 That's quite an "increase" (I emphasize "increase" because I know that the value of gold in relation to the dollar is mostly a reflection of what the dollar's purchasing power is; Basically, gold cannot be created out of thin air, while paper dollars can, so in reality, it should be that gold has a mostly fixed value, whereas the Federal Reserve could create $20 Trillion tomorrow and we'd almost immediately feel the pain of inflation—I'd like to meet a guy who could create bars of gold out of thin air, but alchemy is a dead science.) [If that makes no sense, it's because I don't know how to put into words how I perceive this phenomenon. I'm no economist.]

 Now, I understand that this is an overly-simplified way of looking at things. I haven't taken into account the intricate market forces that determine the price of gold as denominated in U.S. Dollars (speculation, foreign transactions, central banking manipulation schemes, gold-mining, the perspective I just mentioned in the previous paragraph) but it is safe to assume that as the Federal Reserve continues to devalue the U.S. dollar by increasing the supply in circulation, gold's value will continue on its relative upward trend.

 What politician in the Georgia General Assembly would not relish in his/her ability to boast that they gave fiscally-responsible Georgians an alternative—a way to help protect their savings from inflation, and give them the freedom of choice in transactions? I think it would have been a win-win scenario, even if we had simply broken even in some way. We can continue to predict that a 'failure' of the gold-standard will not occur so long as the Federal Reserve keeps its head up its butt, and even in the event that the dollar again begins to rise in relation to the market value of gold (unlikely), we will still be left with a currency that is backed by a commodity and is legal in accordance to the U.S. Constitution.

Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution states:

"No State shall . . . coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; . . ."

The several states are as much in violation of this mandate as they were a year ago, as they were since the very first time the gold standard suffered its first blow to the gut as states began using fiat currency to pay off debts. The question is, "Will we continue to violate this wise practice of using honest money, or will we continue to place all hope on the Federal Reserve Note to make an insurmountable comeback?" The latter sounds like high-apple-pie-in-the-sky, at this point. Let's remind our state legislatures of their power (and DUTY!) to protect our savings. Let's re-invigorate the desire to create honest, real economic growth. Let's not do it simply for the sake of ourselves, but most importantly, let's do it for our posterity, who will be born into a world of debt that they never asked for. It's not too late to take that first step.

I've included a poll for readers to participate in after you have hopefully given careful consideration to the state of our economy. I'm not trying to say that I've gotten it all right, and that anyone else is totally wrong, but for the sake of sound currency, I think a civil debate is warranted as to how to proceed with the Constitutional Tender Act. Comments are welcome!

 EDIT #2: Poll question should read: How do you think things would be today if your state *had* passed a "Constitutional Tender Act"?

EDIT #3: I figured out how to get the gold price chart to show up.

Posted 01/27/10 Bill Greene Amelia Court House, VA

Fantastic assessment. I could only do a cursory reading, but I'm going to read more in-depth shortly.

Posted 01/27/10 Break your chains Byron, GA

Thanks Bill. I'd appreciate the feedback. I know that a lot of you had put a lot of effort into seeing this bill introduced, and it seems like those efforts fell on deaf ears. In a way, I don't know if that was the case as much as it was that our politicians in ATL don't know how exactly they'd handle the transition to sound money (I don't even know that it could be done totally smoothly, without hang-ups; and they'd have to practically risk their political careers on the plan that could potentially be derailed by the Federal Reserve minions/opponents of the gold-standard). In any case, we'll need a representative body that is committed to addressing any arising issues as soon as they are realized, once the transition is underway. I DO think that it is becoming a more pressing issue with every passing day, as the Federal Reserve presses on with reckless abandon. I updated the gold price/oz. to reflect today's closing. Do you know if Bobby Franklin reads up on the Campaign for Liberty's website? I'd like to help him get more 'ammo' for the sound-money argument, if he's willing to take up the issue again, but I'd like to get my analysis a little less cluttered and a bit more fact-based (although, I can't say that I'll be able to give him a better argument against the Federal Reserve fiat money system than the Federal Reserve makes against itself with its proven incompetence; sometimes it is best to just let your adversaries destroy themselves, but unfortunately, that means dragging the rest of America down with them; of course, we want a way out—an alternative).

Posted 01/27/10 Bill Greene Amelia Court House, VA

I don't know if Bobby Franklin reads the C4L site much, but he's on his Facebook page a lot: http://www.facebook.com/rep.bobby.franklin We're finishing up an update to the ConTen Act that Bobby's going to put in as a "substitute bill" for the current HB 430, and that Sen. David Shafer is going to introduce on the Georgia Senate side (at least, he said he would). A couple of things I'd like to point out here: The ConTen Act isn't calling for a return to a gold- or silver-backed currency; it's calling for a return to the Constitutionally-mandated practice of the State using *only* gold and silver *coins* for all of its transactions (taxes, fees, payments to vendors, etc.). To accomplish that, the Act also mandates that State-chartered banks offer the type of accounts necessary to enable those transactions. So the ConTen Act isn't a direct attack on fiat money or the Fed at the national level; but it IS an indirect attack on them from the "bottom up" at the State level. If we can bring Georgia (and every other State) back into compliance with Article I, Section 10, citizens will be re-introduced to sound money, and we will see a reverse Gresham's Law take effect: good money will drive out bad, as people begin rejecting the quickly-depreciating Federal Reserve Notes for gold and silver coins that keep their value over time. End the Fed - starting in Georgia! :-)

Posted 01/28/10 Break your chains Byron, GA

Thanks for the update, Bill. I just listened to Montana's Sound-Money hearing from a while back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s1bGv6CIJM You may have heard it before, but it is worth a good listen. Dr. Edwin Vieira gives a great testimony over the phone, but the person who recorded the youtube video cuts it off after a while, for some reason.

Posted 02/05/10 im4liberty Avondale Estates, GA

I think it was good to have people talking about the failure of fiat money and the value of gold as money. However, anything that would put more resources in the hands of government including Georgia at the expense of regular people is bad. The bill proposed would have required us regular people to pay Georgia in US gold and silver coins. As you showed it would cost more of the fiat money we receive for salaries. Read the current Federal rules for who can purchase US gold and silver coins. It is a closed short list. Regular people are not on the list. Ron Paul and others favor allowing competing moneys for good reason. Governments have proven they cannot be trusted control our money. Until all fiat US currency is gone all taxes should be payable with it. As it inflates the governments will command less resources and have to raise taxes but always coming up short and further angering the tax payers. If more competing private mints were generating gold and silver coins and we all started using them in our payments for goods and services with each other it would make the tax system based on fiat money hard to operate. These coins would not be official currency, but simply quantities of gold and silver. The transactions would be barter transactions.

Posted 02/24/10 DaMartyr Milton, GA

I agree with im4liberty that it should allow us to pay with Federal Reserve Notes too until we can abolish it. If Georgia (and other states) started minting legal tender gold / silver coins that could be used in the states they were minted to pay debts (private and public) it would piss off the Feds, but would be very beneficial to the people. I bet if GA offered 1000 Georgia dollars for every ounce of gold provided, gold would overtake FDRS quick and the program would pay for itself (the state taking a fee of course for minting). The one issue we have is that it would work at 1000 for now, but there could be issues if there was heavy inflation or deflation or a dramatic change in the price of gold. Also, we'd have to figure something out with Federal Taxes as they only take FDRS.

Posted 04/24/10 luke2261 Cumming, GA

Federal Taxes, nothing to figure out.... the last several generations have been screwed since 1913..... http://www.constitutionalincome.com/key_facts.php The same people who are trying to rip you off with Global Warming, etc, have been doing it since 1913. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. C. S. Lewis

Posted by Break your chains on 07/04/09
Last updated 07/04/09

To the U.S. Senators Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss:

A Petition Established by Residents of the State of Georgia

Concerning Monetary Policy, S. 604 "The Federal Reserve Sunshine Act"; to address the Responsibilities of the U.S. Senate; to Inquire of the Federal Reserve; and to preserve the Integrity of the Constitution of the United States

Whereas, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States it is written:

Congress shall have the power . . .

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Whereas, at no point in time was this Clause repealed. The Constitution was never Amended to allow for a Delegation of monetary Responsibilities and Duties to the Federal Reserve, or any Entity other than Congress itself;

Whereas, the original intent of creating the Federal Reserve to 'remove political pressure from monetary policy' has clearly Inflicted upon the American People the accompanying and equally Intolerable side-effect of having No Accountability for their Currency;

Whereas, the basic and natural Laws of Supply and Demand dictate that an Increase in supply of Money will lead to a Decrease in Value-Crippling the Savings of the American People via Inflation during a time of Economic Hardship, and

Whereas, the exact amount of new Federal Reserve Notes—allegedly: trillions of new Dollars and Credit created without substance—in circulation since the economic fallout hit our nation severely in the Fall of 2008 is Unknown to Congress as well as the American People;

We the Signers of this petition hereby Grant the following Permission(s) to

Senators Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss:

As United States Senators representing the Citizens of the United States—Voters in the State of Georgia—you are hereby authorized and expected to co-sponsor Senate Bill 604, known as the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act, to push for a roll-call vote, and to pledge commitment to transparency in Government and Monetary policies by conducting a thorough accounting of the Federal Reserve's actions and associated fiscal commitments, both overseas and domestic, to be made public to the U.S. Citizenry and their Elected Officials upon completion.

You are not authorized to make or support amendments to S. 604 which will, or might in any way, weaken the intended effect of the bill, or to protect any element of the Federal Reserve from scrutiny. The American taxpayers have the right to know how their tax dollars are being spent, and the vested responsibility of seeing to it that we do not burden our posterity with further debt and theft by inflation.

Signed, informed and watchful Citizens of the United States, committed to securing for Ourselves and our Posterity the Blessings of Liberty, and hope of Peace and Prosperity,

(Signature)           &nb
sp;             
;             &
nbsp;            &nb
sp;             
;             &
nbsp;             (City)            &n
bsp;                         (Area Code)

Posted 07/10/09 jbstoudenmire Albany, GA

We deserve to pat ourselves on our backs. We at least got our Senators, even if Bishop will not co-sponsor yet...

Posted by Break your chains on 01/31/10
Last updated 02/01/10

See update.

I want to call attention to HB 615, a GA bill that will specify the currently existing and rather ambiguous definitions for off-limits carrying of firearms with permits. Sponsored by Tim Bearden, the same representative who pushed for a similar bill two years ago—which was unfortunately watered-down to the point of being practically neutered by the time it was passed in the General Assembly.

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/sum/hb615.htm

Overall, I think this bill will be a drastic improvement to our current law, which still contains the particularly subjective "public gatherings" clause, and leaves many law-abiding gun owners scratching their heads over certain locations in which they may (or may not?) be allowed to carry.

This bill removes the 'public gatherings' clause and lessens those restrictions to essentially three places: Jails, prisons, and courthouses. Private property is also respected as those business owners who wish for patrons not to bring guns onto their property are allowed to ask carriers to leave, which becomes a trespassing issue if the carrier refuses to do so.

The Examiner has a great article on the bill (without the typical gun-control twist in most media outlets) here:

http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d30-GA-Bills-
HB-615-a-bill-to-repeal-the-public-gathering-law

(The author even goes into the history of "Jim Crow" gun-control laws, when gun-control was used to keep former slaves from carrying guns).

I do have one issue, though, and that is the suggestion to remove the task of issuing permits from local probate judges and instead handling permits through the Secretary of State (this change is found throughout the bill, but is an omitted detail in the summary in the previous article I linked). I personally do not feel that this will be any more efficient, and will remove local accountability and checks on power between levels of goverment. This morning, I sent an email to Tim Bearden asking him why this change was suggested, and I hope to get a reply.

Mr. Bearden has been a great ally of 2nd Amendment rights of Georgians. I encourage everyone to contact him and thank him for taking up this issue once again.

Mr. Bearden

I'll start by saying that although I'm not a resident of your district, I wanted to take some time to commend you for your efforts to preserve the natural right of self-defense of GA residents. You may or may not recall that I sent you a few emails the last time this issue came up in the General Assembly. I'm happy to see that you and others are once again picking up the task of clarifying/simplifying the restrictions placed on firearms permit holders. I have read through the bill, and for the most part, I am satisfied. I do have one minor area of concern, and that is the decision to remove the application process from local probate judges and shift the responsibility to the Secretary of State. When I applied for my permit at the courthouse here in Peach County, it was a fairly swift process, and took about as long as I was told it would take to be processed and returned to me, so at least there were not any surprises. I'll also say that there was a sense of confidence that my privacy rights would be respected when the sheriff's deputy who fingerprinted me was an acquaintance of mine. I'm just not so sure that the office of the Secretary of State will be better able to carry out this task, and, I must explain my bias here: I was one of the few hundred thousand Georgians who had their state income tax refund delayed last year, so I do NOT believe that the state bureaucracies are necessarily more efficient than local goverments.  

If you could, please explain the decision to let the Secretary of State take over this responsibility, because perhaps there might be an angle in this that I haven't considered. My first impression, though, is that this will hurt the concept of limited-government and remove the accountability that is more prevalent at the local level of government.  

Understand that I'm not intending to nit-pick this bill. I think it is, overall, a GREAT IMPROVEMENT to what currently exists. Removing the entirely subjective "public gatherings" clause will put law-abiding citizens like myself at ease to know that we are not inadvertently violating the law in some way. No one wants to be convicted and thrown in jail because a judge had a different interpretation of what a "public gathering" constituted than the permit holder. The law should be amended for clarity.   Please keep up the good work, Mr. Bearden. Feel free to share this email with your fellow legislators, if you think the information is pertinent.  

Thank you,  

Andrew Jones  

I wish I had caught wind of this bill sooner, as I would have gladly attended the hearing for it on Jan. 7, 2010. It is still not too late to call/email your representatives and inform them that you'd like to see this bill passed. Let's try not to let the bill get 'gutted' this time.

There is also a similar bill in the Senate, which I will research and post on when I find some more free time.

Update:

I received a reply from our friend Mr. Bearden. He informed me that the suggestion to move the responsibility of handling permit applications to the Secretary of State office has been dropped and left to the Probate Judges, for now. He is trying to find a way to improve the process, but doesn't know the best course of action to take at the moment.

I now know that Mitch Seabaugh is the sponsor of the Senate bill. We should send him messages of encouragement as well.

Posted 02/03/10 treylaramore Thomasville, GA

Andrew, Have you seen The Georgia C4L Position Statement on HB 615? I'd love to go over it with you, and also see how interested you'd be in working with us a little closer on it and other issues.

Posted by Break your chains on 10/27/09

US Armed Services oath of enlistment:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

The following is not my idea, but I'm passing the word along.

Caught this article over at Daily Paul: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/111764

 Posted October 22nd, 2009 by Michael Nystrom

I received the following email at the inbox of the Daily Paul.

Dear Daily Paul:

I'm an Army 2LT at an AIT unit in Fort Sill Oklahoma. I've noticed that there is no training of Soldiers on the Constitution that they are sworn to defend. Although I cannot modify our Soldier's training schedule, I am in a position to give away pocket copies of the Constitution.

If your readers would like to donate pocket copies of the Constitution to U.S. Army Soldiers I can ensure that they will be distributed fairly. Our unit processes approximately 60 Soldiers a week.

The address to send them to is:

Commander
Bravo Battery, 1st Battalion, 78th Field Artillery
428th Field Artillery Brigade
Fort Sill, Oklahoma 73503-6202

Until RJ Harris can get elected to congress and propose his bill to make constitutional training mandatory at basic training, this may be the best way to move forward. I would appreciate your support.

I must also ask that you understand I am NOT requesting a donation, but rather informing you that I can distrubte Constitutions to Soldiers. If you feel you can share some version of this on your website, I would appreciate it. Anonymity would be preferred, as well as re-stating that I am NOT asking for donations. I am merely hoping that the concerned citizens who want to make a difference are aware of an opportunity to make a difference.

Thank you.

Pocket Constitutions for the soldiers. Seems like a good idea.

Posted by Break your chains on 06/22/09
Last updated 07/04/09

. . . history teachers? —Not so much.

War on Drugs suffers another self-defeating blow, President Obama signs the FDA enlargement bill

I dedicate this post to the bootleggers, moonshiners, the original gangsters, and the era of romanticism in which they reigned supreme; to the thousands of back-alley speak-easies that sprouted up as a result of the attempted prohibition of freedom; and the citizens whose both passive and active sympathy for the most rebellious of hot-blooded Americans allowed me the liberty to unwind with a cold one following a long Saturday of mowing the lawn; and yes, even to the politicians of old who at least found it necessary to amend the Constitution before attempting to regulate drugs at the Federal level—even though I still wouldn't have voted for them.

Nostalgic photographs from a bygone era, for your viewing pleasure:

First they fight you:

Then, you win?:

On the topic of gangsters, I guess I'll be looking forward to Johnny Depp's new movie, Public Enemies. I mean, who hasn't wanted a good old fashioned movie about bank robbers, especially at this point in time when the banks are robbing the taxpayers.