ACTION

Une pensée pour tous les AMERICAINS, AMERICAINES qui sont venus combattre et mourir sur le territoire français en ce jour de commémoration.

une pensée pour tous les AMERICAINS,AMERICAINES qui sont venus combattre et mourrir sur le territoire français pendant la guerre 1914-1918.

Bonjour à tous les AMERICAINS patriotes.

(Before It's News)

Perhaps if his most recent statement was a one – off oddity, it could be more easily dismissed, but when Barack Obama threatened to a room full of political donors that he is prepared to simply bypass Congress and pass a whole “drawer full of good ideas”, it should give everyone pause.  Remember, this is the same man who is said to have told staff, “I’m good at killing people” according to a just released book by Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin.

(via Washington Times)

President Obama on Friday night continued throwing his entire second-term agenda against the wall to see what sticks, challenging Republicans to join him and support more federal spending, pass immigration reform and tackle other challenges.

But should the GOP stand in the way, the president indicated he’s willing to use executive orders to accomplish his aims.
“… We have a whole drawer full of good ideas. And some of them I can do on my own, administratively.”  LINK

___________________________________

Now by “good ideas” one must assume Barack Obama is talking about such disastrous policies such as Obamacare, that are now slated to kick tens of millions from their existing health plans and prevent them from seeing the doctor of their choice.  Or perhaps he is indicating his attempt to wage an illegal war against Syria?  Or his lessening of sanctions against nuclear bomb building Iran – something he did in secret.  Or his continued opposition to the Keystone Pipeline – something that would create thousands of high paying jobs and be SAFER for the environment than transporting oil via train or barge.  Then there are his TRILLIONS in deficit spending, the explosion of welfare programs, poverty rates rising, etc.

HOW CAN PATRIOTS SAVE THEIR COUNTRY?
By doing what their enemy will not be doing.  The one thing Americas Founding Fathers claimed gave them the ability, authority and will to write The Constitution Of The United States Of America.  That most critical thing is, Believe in God Almighty, Accept his only begotten Son as your Savior, Repent of your sins and be buried with Christ in Baptism.  Failing to do these things will ultimately cost you far more than your country and Freedom!
Elevengun
I AM PATRIOT and I AM CHRISTIAN!

We at The Future of Eastern Kentucky have started a petition to send to Frankfort and DC demanding them to bring jobs to Eastern, KY so each and every family has a fair chance to achieve a better living. We are poverty stricken from the impact of job loss here; we want a better life for families in this area. We ask each and every one of you to sign our petition and have your voice heard! The recent loss of jobs in the coal industry struck a devastating impact on each and every person in Appalachia. I have listened to many people say they are not affected by coal so why should they worry. What people don’t realize is every dollar that passes through this region has been in either a miner of someone who is related to the industries hand before ours. With the above being said we just want to clarify that our petition only deals with the coal industry as to bringing jobs in to replace the ones lost due to downfall of coal in Eastern Kentucky. We aren’t Anti anything, we are Pro People, Pro Jobs, and Pro Community. Our goal is to get both the Democrat and Republican Parties working together to bring back jobs to our great community we live in. We have KY Congress members, KY House of Representatives, and US Senate KY Representatives that are members of this group willing to listen to our ideas and concerns as well as share theirs. Please join our site and sign the petition if you haven't.

 Thank you

Ray Ratliff

606-477-1301

John Hatfield

606-424-1176

Facebook Group

https://www.facebook.com/groups/thefutureofeasternkentucky/

Fan Page

https://www.facebook.com/thefutureofeasternkentucky/

Website

http://thefutureofeastky.webs.com/

Petition

http://www.change.org/petitions/voice-of-eastern-ky

“We’re just here to have a look around…Uh, you don’t lawfully own a gun or anything, do you?”

Sound crazy? You obviously don’t live in Massachusetts.

Swampscott, MA Selectman Barry Greenfield introduced an enforcement discussion Wednesday that he hopes will lead to the safeguarding of guns in town — keeping them out of the hands of children.

In school shootings around the country, guns have been taken from parents and used by kids, he said.

The selectman said state law requires Massachusetts gun owners to keep their firearms locked away or rendered inoperable.

The problem, he said, is that police do not have the authority, granted by a local ordinance, to enforce the law and inspect the safeguarding of guns at the homes of the 600 registered gun owners in town.

The selectman said he has spoken with Swampscott Police Chief Ron Madigan about this.

“We need the ability to enforce the state law,” the selectman said.

If this incredibly bad goose-stepping attack on gun ownership sounds familiar, it should. The state of Washington considered it earlier this year. Then some lawyer read this thing called the Constitution and it went away.

But we’ve never been big on that whole “Bill of Rights” thing here in Kennedy Country. And so the town of Swampscott is going to decide whether or not to send the local cops door-to-door to visit lawful gun owners and, you know, just have a look around.

What could possibly go wrong?

Am I exaggerating? A year ago if I’d warned about cops being sent to gun owners homes to “inspect” them, you’d have said that was exaggeration.  Five years ago if  I’d said Massachusetts towns would make it illegal to smoke outside you would have said the same.

By the way, nobody should be surprised that this attempt to intimidate gun owners is happening in Swampscott. It’s a town notorious for treating citizens like servants to be ordered around.

I’d just remind Selectman Greenfield that these things don’t always work out well for anti-gun extremists, even in Massachusetts. Just ask former Westford selectman Robert Jeffries.

Julia Davis, a former Customs and Border Protections Officer, was falsely declared a domestic terrorist and subjected to retaliatory efforts against her by the Department of Homeland Security. Her home was raided by a 27 man “special response team.” She was twice falsely arrested and imprisoned, but later exonerated. She is now a national security expert and has put out a historical documentary titled Top Priority: The Terror Within. She claims that the War On Terror by the Department of Homeland Security is a charade and that the agency seems to be targeting concerned American patriots.

The remainder is at the link below.............................

http://dcclothesline.com/2013/05/04/dhs-whistleblower-says-war-on-terror-is-a-charade-real-target-american-patriots/

This was posted last year by Stormbringer. Excellent blog. I suggest that all put it on their favorites list.

Tribute to "Wimpy IV" FU-D

(Before It's News)

Source:  Before It's News

Americans,
You make your own destiny, no one rules when no one complies, RESIST AND DEFY.  If you do not choose your path in life others will choose it for you!
Elevengun
I AM PATRIOT!

While the official motto of the Tenth Amendment Center is “Concordia res parvae crescunt” (Small things grow great by concord), one of our “unofficial” mottoes is “The Constitution. Every Issue, Every Time. No Exceptions, no Excuses.”

It’s a great standard to stick to. Here’s an example why.

Earlier this year, Dr. Gary North put up a short post on his “Tea Party Economist” blog, where he mentioned a topic that a number of people have asked me about:

“In a dozen states, there are bills to make gold legal tender… What is significant is this: there is enough interest in gold today to call forth such bills. It indicates a major shift in the fringes of public opinion. Such bills would have been unthinkable in 2007.”

He’s absolutely correct: thanks to a number of factors (the Crash of ’08, the Great Recession, the monetary policy-focused Presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul, etc.), more Americans than ever have had an “awakening” of sorts regarding gold and silver, and as a result, we’ve had several different types of “sound money” bills introduced in State legislatures across the country. What North is referring to in particular here is what are commonly called “State Legal Tender” bills. These bills have been introduced in a number of States around the country over the last few years. It’s a growing movement (see the main website here), and has already been successful in getting a law passed in Utah declaring gold and silver coins to be “legal tender” (and they were almost successful in Arizona, where both legislative houses passed a similar bill, only to have Gov. Jan Brewer veto it).

Now, before I get into any details, let me start off by making one thing perfectly clear: I like the fact that “State Legal Tender” bills (and gold and silver coin “Sales Tax Elimination” bills, discussed below) are being introduced and passed in the States. I agree with Dr. North that what’s significant is that “there is enough interest in gold today to call forth such bills,” which “indicates a major shift in the fringes of public opinion.” And I agree with a number of my friends who promote these kinds of bills, as being “incremental steps” towards “returning to sound money” in America. But there’s a few things I need to clear up.

I’ve been asked a number of times, “Hey, isn’t this ‘State Legal Tender’ thing the same thing that you’re trying to do, with the Constitutional Tender Act?” Well, no, in fact, it’s not what we’re trying to do, for a number of reasons — some of which North mentions, when he discusses why he doesn’t think these bills will lead anywhere right now. So let’s discuss some of these reasons, starting with his second reason first:

“…most of these bills will not become law this year.”

I’ll grant him that. But that’s not a reason for us to declare, as North does, that “nothing much will come of this.” A lot could “come of this” next year, or the year after or the year after that; it could depend on a lot of things, from grassroots activism in support of various bills, to a currency crisis and the complete devaluation of the dollar, either of which (or some event in between) could bring about passage of sound money-related bills in the States. Regardless, it’s unlikely that Constitutional Tender bills will become law this year, either, so I’m not disagreeing with North here. So let’s look at his third reason:

“…most voters don’t care. People use plastic or currency.”

This is true, too. But one of the goals of both State Legal Tender bills and the Constitutional Tender Act is to enable people to continue using what they’re used to using, only now what they use can be backed by real money (gold and silver). They could use debit cards based on gold or silver accounts, they could write checks based on such accounts, etc. (In fact, the Constitutional Tender Act requires State-chartered banks to create gold- and silver-based accounts.) Or, they could continue using Federal Reserve Notes currency in their everyday transactions, if they like.

So, let’s go back to North’s first reason:

“…the concept of legal tender is anti-free market. A state should not declare anything as legal tender. It should limit itself to declaring the proper currency for the payment of taxes.”

Now, I agree with North, as far as he goes: Congress, for sure, has no Constitutionally-delegated, enumerated power to declare one particular form of money as “legal tender,” and as a conceptual matter, they really shouldn’t do that (which is why the Framers of the Constitution didn’t give them that power, even if the Supreme Court has pretended that they did). But there’s something that is left unsaid, which “strikes at the heart” of this matter: North is talking about the modern definition of “legal tender” here — that is, currency that the law declares may be offered in payment of a debt and that a creditor is supposed to accept. And, in fact, that’s what proponents of “State Legal Tender” bills are talking about, too: having the government make an official declaration that a form of money is acceptable for using as payment. They say that States can declare by law that gold and silver coins are “legal tender,” because the U.S. Constitution says in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”. Therefore, the reasoning goes, a State may make gold and silver coins “legal tender.”

They then go on to say that, like other forms of “legal tender,” no one has to accept legal tender as payment; “it simply designates it as acceptable currency. It is not uncommon for retailers to decline to accept U.S. paper dollars and coins, for example, as a matter of policy (such as a convenience store refusing to accept large denominations). No one is forced to tender or accept gold and silver legal tender coins.”

So, that’s all well and good — if a State passes a “State Legal Tender” law (as Utah did), no one (including the State itself) is required to use gold and silver coins; it only says they can use them. More specifically, it says they can use them at their actual value (the value of their gold or silver content), rather than at the “face value” that the U.S. Mint stamped on them. In addition, it removes the “sales taxes” in any “commodities exchange” of legal tender Federal Reserve Notes for legal tender gold or silver coins (that is, instead of treating such an exchange as “buying gold or silver coins,” it treats the exchange just like you would treat an exchange of legal tender $1 bills for a legal tender $20 bill).

(By the way, there are other States, like Texas and Louisiana, which have also passed gold & silver “Sales Tax Elimination” bills into law, eliminating the State taxation of “legal tender” exchanges as described. This is a “no-brainer” — of course you shouldn’t tax legal tender currency exchanges… but of course, the national government still does. Because the IRS considers “precious metals,” including legal tender gold and silver coins, to be “collectibles,” a special capital gains rate applies to any “profits” on their “sale.”)

So, what’s the problem with any of these State Legal Tender bills? Actually, there are several.

First, as I said earlier, all of these folks are using the modern definition of “legal tender” — when what we need to be using is whatever definition was used by the people who actually wrote the Constitution. Allow me to explain:

In Article I, Section 10, the national government has been given most of the responsibility regarding money in America: to coin it (notice it does not give Congress the power to “emit bills of credit”, the common parlance of “print fiat currency”, nor does it give Congress the power to bestow that power on any other entity); to regulate the value of (literally, “make regular” or “make consistent” – to make sure there is no deviance in the gold or silver specie content of) the money they have coined; to regulate (again, “make regular”) the value of foreign coins (which meant they could be used here, but they had to be of a specific amount of gold or silver content); to fix the Standard of Weights and Measures for circulating coins (grains, ounces, pounds, etc.); and to declare what the punishment should be for anyone who counterfeits what the U.S. Mint coins (which, by the way, was death — that’s how seriously they took the idea of making our money worth less).

Now remember, in reading the Constitution, we should always try to understand it as written, with the definitions it was meant to be understood by, and not by overlaying modern definitions or understandings upon it. (Can you imagine the international uproar if Congress were to “regulate the Value of foreign currency” today, according to today’s definitions? “Congress hereby declares that one German Mark can only buy 50¢ worth of goods!”) If we don’t like what the framers meant, then they gave us the means to change it: the Amendment process.

So, Article I, Section 8 declares specifically what Congress can do (Section 9 makes some specific declarations of what they can’t do); Section 10 declares specifically what the States cannot do. Included in there is that States can’t print fiat currency (“emit bills of credit”), that they can’t coin money, AND that they can’t “make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”. Now, that’s pretty clear: if a State owes money to anyone or anything, it can’t “make a tender” (offer to pay the debt) to those entities in anything but gold or silver coin; and if the State is owed money, the State can’t accept any tender made (any offer to pay that debt) unless it is made in gold or silver coin.

This is a key point here: for the correct (in context) understanding of this phrase “to make something a tender in payment of debt,” see the original 1828 Webster’s Dictionary – “TENDER: In law, an offer, either of money to pay a debt, or of service to be performed, in order to save a penalty or forfeiture which would be incurred by non-payment or non-performance; as the tender of rent due, or of the amount of a note or bond with interest. To constitute a legal tender, such money must be offered as the law prescribes; the offer of bank notes is not a legal tender.”

So the Framers of the Constitution were being very clear here: No State is allowed to make or accept payments in anything but gold or silver coins. It doesn’t matter what the national government does with so-called “legal tender” laws; it’s not up to the national government to determine whether or not States can now disobey that direct prohibition, any more than it’s up to the federal government to determine whether or not States can now disobey the direct prohibition on passing an ex post facto Law or granting any Title of Nobility. The Constitution says the State CANNOT do it – so the State must simply obey the Constitution, NO MATTER WHAT the federal government says or does. It is the duty of every State, and it is the duty of every State’s elected officials, in keeping with their oath of office, to pass laws that conform to the explicit directives of the U.S. Constitution.

And this leads directly to what North doesn’t mention, but what I consider to be the biggest reason why States DO need to pass Constitutional Tender bills rather than State Legal Tender bills: all of the State Legal Tender bills specifically declare that the State can use either gold & silver coins OR they can use Federal Reserve Notes. But the U.S. Constitution specifically says that “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts” — which means that any law that declares that a State can use Federal Reserve Notes (make them “a Tender in Payment of Debts”) is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. By passing such a law, they are making some other “Thing” an offer as payment — they are by law declaring that they will accept, and pay out, Federal Reserve Notes for any debts owed by or to them.

On the other hand, the Constitutional Tender Act takes Article I, Section 10 at “face value” — it unambiguously declares that the State may NOT make anything besides gold or silver a “tender in payment” (which means they cannot “make something else an offer as payment”) for any debts, which would include debts owed by and to the State. It sets up a process by which the State, which is currently in violation of the Constitution (because it accepts and pays out Federal Reserve Notes, which aren’t backed by gold, silver, or anything else), can move back to adherence to the Constitution’s actual “legal tender” provisions. And in doing so, it establishes de facto “competitive currencies” of real money vs. fiat money — and in a level-field playing environment in the free market, real money wins.

Which brings us to the other big reason that I believe States need to pass Constitutional Tender bills rather than State Legal Tender bills: the results. In other words, “What will happen if this or that bill is passed into law?” While no State has passed the Constitutional Tender Act yet (so we can’t know for sure), I discuss the likely outcome in much more detail in the paper I presented at the Mises Institute, “Ending the Federal Reserve From the Bottom Up: Re-Introducing Competitive Currency by State Adherence to Article I, Section 10″:

“Upon going into effect, the Constitutional Tender Act would introduce currency competition with Federal Reserve Notes, by outlawing their use in transactions with the State.  Ordinary citizens of the State, being required to pay their State taxes in gold and silver coins, would find it necessary to open bank accounts in those denominations.  Businesses operating within the State, being required to pay their State sales taxes and license fees in gold and silver coins, would need to do the same; and in order to acquire such coins, they would begin to offer their goods and services in “dual currency” denominations, where customers could choose to pay in Federal Reserve Notes (which would still be necessary to pay Federal fees and taxes) or gold and silver coins (including checks and debit cards based on bank accounts denominated in such coins).  Customers, having found the need to open such accounts in order to deal with the State, would be able to engage in commerce using those accounts.

Over time, as residents of the State use both Federal Reserve Notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve Notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect,  where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve Notes).  As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the State’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the State (as citizens residing in other States carry out their desire to bank with sound money), and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve Notes for any transactions.  At that point, the Federal Reserve system will have become unwanted and irrelevant, and can be easily abolished by the people’s elected Representatives in Washington, D.C.”

And what about State Legal Tender laws? What results would they bring? Well, we have a real-world example to look at there: Utah. In 2011, the Governor signed H.B 317, the “Utah Legal Tender Act,” which declared that U.S. Mint-issued gold and silver coins were “legal tender” in Utah, and monetary exchanges of these coins could no longer be taxed by the State. It allowed banks to set up gold- and silver-based accounts; it allowed people to pay their taxes and fees in gold and silver coins; and it allowed the State to pay its debts in gold and silver as well.

But it didn’t require any of those things — most of which the Constitution clearly states are required. It simply allowed them — and then noted that “A person may not compel any other person to tender or accept gold and silver coin that is issued by the federal government.” Apparently, that includes any “person” who works as a tax collector in Utah, as one man found out who tried to pay his taxes in “legal tender” silver coins:

Carlton Bowen is frustrated.The Orem man says all he wants to do is pay his property tax, but the Utah County treasurer says no. The reason: Bowen wants to pay his taxes in silver.

“When is Utah going to accept its own legal tender?” Bowen asked.

Earlier this year, the Utah Legislature passed groundbreaking legislation, stating that gold and silver coins can be used as legal tender in Utah… The practical impact of the Legislature’s move has been minimal… the Utah County and state treasurers have rejected Bowen’s payment.

“In my mind there’s still no practical way of making this happen,” said Richard Ellis, the Utah State Treasurer. He said the state simply isn’t equipped to accept, authenticate and store gold and silver, and doesn’t see it becoming a reality in the near future.

So, the Utah Treasurer won’t accept payment in “legal tender” gold or silver coins, even though Utah passed a “State Legal Tender” law. And why not?

Ellis, the treasurer, says gold and silver transactions present enormous risks to the state that have to be addressed before he’s comfortable with the idea. How would the state determine the value of a coin? What’s the exchange rate? How do the state or counties secure the precious metals?

“There are a lot of things that put the treasurer in the middle of it, but I’m not anxious to necessarily be in that role,” Ellis said… “Nobody’s fleshed out all these details, and they want to have as little regulation and oversight as possible,” Ellis said. “I haven’t tried to make preparations to [accept payments] because there’s just not a practical way of making this work.”

So, what are the practical results of passing a State Legal Tender law? Apparently… nothing. In the one case where such a bill has become law, the result has been (a) the State still won’t use gold or silver coins, (b) bank accounts still can’t be set up using gold or silver coins, and — most importantly — (c) the State is still violating Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, by making some other “Thing” besides gold and silver coin a “Tender in Payment of Debts”.

I’m sorry. I just don’t see those “results” as being beneficial in any way.

Again, let me reiterate that I like the fact that State Legal Tender bills (and gold & silver Sales Tax Elimination bills) are being introduced and passed in the States. I agree with Dr. North that what’s significant is that “there is enough interest in gold today to call forth such bills,” which “indicates a major shift in the fringes of public opinion.” And I agree with a number of my friends who promote these kinds of bills, as being “incremental steps” towards “returning to sound money” in America.

What I have a problem with is when these bills, in attempting to return States to obedience to the U.S. Constitution, end up violating the very same Constitution — in fact, the very same Clause that they’re supposedly based on. That’s why we’re so strongly encouraging States to pass the Constitutional Tender Act — a bill template that can be introduced in every State legislature in the nation, setting up clear and methodical systems to return each of them to adherence to the United States Constitution’s actual legal tender provisions.

Which, in turn, will “Nullify the Fed” in the long run, which is itself unconstitutional. Not a bad deal.

Apparently we have forgotten the main problem that, we the citizens of the United States,are facing. The amnesty bill that European brought before Congress is so much more dangerous than Obama care could ever be. This  Bill will give amnesty to over 10 million illegal aliens. If this bill passes it would mean  10 million undocumented people would be allowed all rights that any legal citizens enjoys. My wife is third-generation Danish and knows what her grand parents had to go through to be a citizen of this great country. So why not these 10 million free loader have to do the same thing . All citizens must obey the laws of this country. One of those laws is to enter the country legally. They should have to go through the same process that any other alien who wishes citizenship in this country has to go through. That includes entering this country legally.

Megyn Kelly of FOXNews, "The Kelly Files", 11/08/2013, interviewed filmmaker, Dennis Michael Lynch.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2821459991001/ after viewing this interview you will see why there is a problem with illegal in this country. We must not change or add anything to the existing laws we should enforce the ones on the book.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

( Galatians 5:22-23 KJV 1611 AV )

Ye Know Jesus Spoke the TRUTH, so, Please TRUST Him Now!!Jesus is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE, no one comes unto the FATHER, but through Me ( Jesus Christ )!!

Love Always, YSIC \o/

Kristi Ann

Kristi Ann's Haven

And I will Bless them that Bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all Families of the Earth be Blessed.

( Genesis 13:3 KJV 1611 AV )

I am a Member to Christians United for Israel ! You can Join them and be a Member also!! Jesus Christ was Born there and DIED on the CROSS there in Israel!! Jesus Christ is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE, No one comes unto the FATHER, but through Me ( Jesus Christ )!!

Jesus Christ COMMANDED us to LOVE one Another, the WAY He LOVED us FIRST!!! Ye Know there is a God in Heaven, ye also Know His Name is to Praised twenty four hours a Day, His Name is HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, and WORTHY, He is Our FATHER in Heaven Jesus Christ!! 

Love Always, YSIC \o/

Kristi Ann

Kristi Ann's Haven

Ron Paul, in his paper “The Political and Economic Agenda for a Real Gold Standard” (originally delivered at the Mises Institute‘s 1985 conference on the gold standard), discusses the steps which the economist Ludwig von Mises laid out for us to be able to return to a sound currency (which was in his 1952 epilogue to “The Theory of Money and Credit“).

What’s particularly relevant about this discussion is that, where the attempts at the national level to implement these steps have been halting at best, the Constitutional Tender Act actually builds on what HAS been accomplished and uses it to implement those steps starting at the STATE level… where they actually have the chance to SUCCEED.

The first step we need to take, writes Paul, is “Gold Coinage“:

The heart of Mises’s proposal to restore gold to our monetary system is a gold coinage. He wrote,

Gold must be in the cash holdings of everyone. Everybody must see gold coins changing hands, must be used to having gold coins in his pockets, to receiving gold coins when he cashes his paycheck, and to spending gold coins when he buys in a store.[7]

In this one detail — the critical importance of the gold coinage — I believe lies the key to establishing a new gold standard.

We should make no mistake about it: the more progress we make toward reestablishing the gold standard, the more aggressive our opposition will become. Some vested interests, as you know, have a lot to lose if we succeed in getting the monetary system reconstructed on a gold basis. The first political step is, therefore, to get the coinage into circulation.

One objective might be to aim for every American to become a gold owner. We must encourage a broader base of political support for gold ownership and the availability of gold for personal economic objectives. Certainly a broader base of gold ownership in the country would help to reduce the threats of discriminatory taxation or regulation of gold ownership and gold coin transactions, which are seriously favored in Congress today.

Under the Constitutional Tender Act (a proposed State law which re-applies the U.S. Constitution’s negative mandate in Article I, Section 10, that “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”), the State would be required to only use gold and silver coins (or their equivalents, such as checks or electronic transfers) for payments of any debt owed by or to the State (e.g., taxes, fees, contract payments, etc.). All contracts, tax bills, etc. would be required to be denominated in legal tender gold and silver U.S. coins, including Gold Eagles, Silver Eagles, and pre-1965 90% silver coins. All State-chartered banks, as well as any other bank that is a depository for State funds, would be required to offer accounts denominated in those types of gold and silver coins, and to keep such accounts segregated from other types of accounts such as Federal Reserve Notes.

So, with the “ConTen Act”, the foundation is now laid. Dr. Paul goes on:

What we must first do is get the coinage into circulation, and then build the political base to lock the government’s fiscal folly with golden handcuffs. People have always understood the tangible value of gold coins in circulation. They don’t need to agree or even understand the fine points of monetary theory to own gold coins, trade gold coins, or use gold coins to satisfy part of their marginal-utility demand for cash balances.

Most people understand very little about economics or monetary theory. When they see supposed experts in disagreement, the status quo wins by default, because nobody with the power to change it has the courage of conviction. The majority of voters see the debate among experts and hesitate to support any leaders with comprehensive reform schemes. This is why all efforts to rebuild a gold monetary system have met with frustration and stalemate in the past.

And this is the beauty of the Constitutional Tender Act: instead of being a top-down, federal-level effort, it is a bottom-up, State-level effort, thus giving it a higher likelihood of eventual success (see my paper presented at the Mises Institute’s Austrian Scholars Conference, “Ending the Federal Reserve From the Bottom Up: Re-introducing Competitive Currency by State Adherence to Article I, Section 10“). Upon going into effect, the ConTen Act would introduce currency competition with Federal Reserve Notes, by outlawing their use in transactions with the State (as the Constitution requires). Ordinary citizens of the State, being required to pay their State taxes in gold and silver coins, would find it necessary to open bank accounts in those denominations. Businesses operating within the State, being required to pay their State sales taxes and license fees in gold and silver coins, would need to do the same; and in order to acquire such coins, instead of just relying on the U.S. Mint or coin dealers, they would begin to offer their goods and services in “dual currency” denominations, where customers could choose to pay in Federal Reserve Notes (which would still be necessary to pay Federal fees and taxes) or gold and silver coins (including checks and debit cards based on bank accounts denominated in such coins). Customers, having found the need to open such accounts in order to deal with the State, would be able to engage in commerce using those accounts.

Over time, as residents of the State use both Federal Reserve Notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve Notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve Notes). (Gresham’s law may be stated as, “Where legal tender laws exist, bad money drives out good money.” A reverse of this would be, “In the absence of legal tender laws, when people are given the free choice between using and accepting good money or using and accepting bad money, bad money becomes less popular than good money, and is driven out of the marketplace.”) As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the State’s treasury (instead of ever-devaluing FRNs), an influx of banking business from outside of the State (as citizens residing in other States carry out their desire to bank with sound money), and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve Notes for any transactions (because the average citizen will see with their own eyes that it keeps costing more and more FRNs to purchase things, while the cost in real money stays constant). At that point, the Federal Reserve system will have become unwanted and irrelevant, and can be easily abolished by the people’s elected Representatives in Washington, D.C. — and thus open the door for a return to sound money, nationwide.

All of this can take place because Dr. Paul helped bring about the minting once again of legal tender U.S. gold and silver coins, which can now be used to return every State to its Constitutional mandate for honest money. He recognized that this first step was a necessity: “There must certainly be no restrictions on the private production of coins, but I believe that getting the US Mint further into the act, producing a gold coinage with some of the mystique of the government, will be useful in the further political stages of monetary reform. Honest money, after all, is a political objective; it is fitting that people should demand honesty from their government, as well as an economic policy that permits individuals to compete honestly.” Now, with the Constitutional Tender Act, that political objective is within reach.

Thank you, Dr. Paul. Now, it’s up to US to finish the job, in our own States.

07ThursdayNov 2013

Press Release of Senator Cruz

TEXANS LISTEN-UP!
In a law suite Wendy Davis filed a few years ago she claimed she was disabled because of remarks a news report made about her and "mentally incapable of holding political office"!
Elevengun

http://www.endillegalimmigration.com/Report_Illegal_Immigration/

Like any other Patriot who loves their blessed land, I felt it was my responsibility to report two illegal aliens and the agricultural based employer who hired them. I had names, addresses, and every detail I would need to file this report with ICE. Thinking I was doing my part to keep our future safe for our children and grandchildren I went to the website to make my report; however, I was angered when I read the first few paragraphs.

It starts out by saying "Americans Working to Stop Illegal Immigration". That part sounded right but after reading a little more it tells you that 'they always explain that broader political involvement is needed because our government is barely enforcing any of the existing immigration laws at this time." In the next paragraph they tell you that "the chances of ICE taking any actions on your report is slim to none", but they still encourage Americans "to do their part in this struggle".

This sound like a sick joke and an insult to all Americans. It's like they are telling us to go ahead and make our reports (but they'll be ignored); ICE won't do anything so you're wasting your time. I'm not pleased with this and I don't know of anyone who would be. If such government agencies aren't doing their jobs why do they still 'pretend' to exist and waste our tax dollars?

I'm fed up with such stupidity and I'm fed up with Obama. We, the American People, are stranded in an ocean of uncertainty on a raft that could sink anytime. Let's take our country back!