10/6/19

So you think Trump wants to get rid of the Fed?

By: Publius Huldah

Yes he does.  The Federal Reserve System is collapsing due to the inherent instability of a monetary system, not based on gold & silver, but on the Fed’s “right” to create “money” out of thin air1 which it then lends to the US Treasury (and is added to the national debt),2 in order to fund the federal government’s massive, grotesquely unconstitutional, and out of control spending.

This process of allowing the Fed to create “money” out of thin air with nothing behind it has been going on since 1933, when the promise (set forth in §16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) to redeem Federal Reserve Notes in gold was revoked as to domestic holders;3 and culminated during 1971, when redemption of the Notes in gold to international holders was also suspended.4

Once the statutory promise to back Federal Reserve Notes with gold was rescinded, the sky was the limit on how much fiat “money” the Fed could create, lend to the US Treasury (and be added to the national debt), in order to fund still more massive, grotesquely unconstitutional, and out of control spending by the federal government.

Now we have reached the point where the federal deficits are so huge and increasing at such a furious pace that our entire fiat “money” financial system is coming apart.5

So what are we going to do about it?  Does Trump want to get rid of the Fed so we can return to the constitutional money system described in Point 2 below?

Trump may say that he wants to return to the gold standard;6 but the USMCA “Trade Agreement” he signed doesn’t do that.  The Globalists’ Plan, which is advanced by USMCA, is to ratchet up the fiat “money” system created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, from a national to a global level with a central bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) managing and enforcing an international monetary system.  And as Edwin Vieira, Ph.D., J.D., warned 8 years ago [here]:

“The true perversity of the present situation lies in the indication … that this scheme for a new supra-national monetary order will be sold to a doubting world by attaching some sort of “gold standard” to it….”

  1. The IMF and the international fiat “money” system

The IMF is an institution in the United Nations system.

The IMF has already created (it was done during 1969), out of thin air, an international fiat currency called “special drawing right” (SDR).  The stated purpose of SDRs was to increase liquidity in settling international accounts by making short term loans to member countries to cover their balance of payments, and other temporary financial problems.

USMCA Art. 33.1 shows that the IMF is to monitor our compliance with the IMF’s Articles of Agreement (please let that sink in).

  • Article III of the IMF Articles of Agreement provides that the IMF assigns “quotas” to members [that would include the United States], representing the amount the member must pay into the IMF [members may pay their “subscriptions” using their own unbacked currencies]; and in exchange, they get an equivalent amount of SDRs [also unbacked by any precious metal] issued by the IMF.
  • Article IV, Sections 1-3 of the IMF Articles of Agreement provide that the IMF is to manage the development of an international monetary system [to which we shall be subject]; and is to oversee the member countries’ [that includes the United States] underlying economic and financial conditions and policies in order to promote “sound economic growth” and “financial and economic stability”. i.e., the IMF is going to manage our economy.

USMCA Chapter 17. Financial Services harmonizes the Banking, Insurance, and Investment Practices of Canada, the United States, and Mexico.  This harmonization removes previously existing barriers to global regulation of those areas and to merging regional currencies into a global currency.7

As anyone who reads USMCA can see, the purpose of USMCA is to remove barriers to global regulation of all the areas covered by USMCA, and to advance development of a new global “money” system which will replace our collapsing Federal Reserve System.

Look at the Table of Contents for USMCA:  All those areas:  agriculture, textiles and apparel goods, customs administration, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, telecommunications, intellectual property (patents), labor (which includes immigration and gender & sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace), the environment,  etc., are to be made subject to global regulation.

And we exchange our fiat “money” for the IMF’s fiat “money”; the United States loses control over our monetary system; and the IMF, instead of the Fed, will manage the new monetary system – and our economy.

Trump may give grand speeches before the United Nations saying he opposes globalism and supports nationalism, but the USMCA “Trade Agreement” he signed moves us into global government.8

And the claim that USMCA is about getting favorable tariff agreements for the United States is the Biggest Lie since the Garden of Eden.

  1. What our Constitution provides about money

Our Framers created a Constitution which delegates only “few and defined” powers to the federal government.  This one page chart lists those powers.

Accordingly, except for national defense, our federal government doesn’t need much money to fund its constitutional powers.  So our Framers created a taxing system wherein the funds needed to operate the federal government were raised by the import tariffs and excise taxes authorized at Article I, §8, cl. 1, and by the apportioned direct assessments on the States authorized at Article I, §2, cl. 3.9

Congress is also authorized at Article I, §8, cl. 2, to borrow money on the credit of the United States; but our Framers intended borrowing money to be restricted to funding national defense.10

Our Framers also established a money system based on gold & silver:

  • Article I, §8, cl. 5: “The Congress shall have Power …To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,…”
  • Article I, §10, cl. 1: “No State shall … coin Money; emit Bills of Credit;11 make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”

Accordingly, during 1792, Congress passed an Act establishing a mint and set the standards for the amounts of gold and silver in our coins.  Congress took so seriously the purity of our coins that §19 of the Act provided the death penalty for debasement of coins.   During 1793, Congress passed an Act regulating the value of foreign coins.

A money system based on gold & silver and a limited taxing system were perfect for a federal government of “few and defined” powers.  Furthermore, such systems – if adhered to – would have prevented the emergence of the totalitarian socialist regulatory welfare state we have today.

  1. Why the Federal Reserve System was established

“…A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project…” James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

Why does Madison refer to paper money as an “improper or wicked project”?  Because, among other evils, paper money provides governments with access to unlimited amounts of credit – and that is what was needed to finance the totalitarian socialist regulatory welfare state we have today.

When the Progressives12 took over our Country during the early 1900’s, they needed lots of “money” to fund their unconstitutional regulatory and “welfare” schemes.  But the federal government didn’t have enough gold and silver coins to fund the regulatory welfare state they wanted.  So the Federal Reserve System was created in 1913 to set up a central bank – the “Fed” – which (thanks to fractional reserve banking) would have the power to supply the federal government with the “money” it wanted.13

So it was access to this credit which enabled the federal government to exceed its constitutional limits.

With this easy credit, the federal government was enabled to “buy” the States by giving them fiat “money” to implement unconstitutional federal programs:  State governments literally sold the retained powers of the States and the People to the federal government.  A particularly malignant example is U.S. Senator Marco Rubio’s “Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019” (“red flag” law), which appropriates $20 Million for each of FY 2019-2023 to pay to States and Indian Tribes which pass the “red flag” legislation set forth in Rubio’s bill.  If a Respondent, whose arms have been taken from him in an ex parte hearing [i.e., a hearing Respondent wasn’t notified about until after the Order had been issued to seize his arms], wants his arms back, he must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he does not pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or others by having arms in his possession.

Rubio’s bill puts the burden of proof on the Respondent.  For eons in Anglo/American Jurisprudence, it has been the task of the government to PROVE GUILT.  But Rubio would reverse that and require Respondents to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE. This is evil.

Rubio’s bill is also unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government; and it violates the “Privileges and Immunities clause of Article IV, §2; violates the 2nd Amendment; and violates the “due process” clauses of the 5th Amendment and §1 of the 14th Amendment.

How many States and Indian Tribes will surrender their Citizen’s Right to THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE by passing Rubio’s “red flag” law in order to get the “money” from the fed gov’t?14 

If we had preserved the monetary system set up by our Constitution, the federal government wouldn’t have been able to become the totalitarian monster it is today.  If you want a limited government, don’t give it unlimited “money”.

  1. What States can do

In Part 4 of his “A CROSS OF GOLD” series at sub point [3] and in Part 5, Dr. Edwin Vieira shows how States can protect their Citizens from disaster by setting up an alternative gold currency.

The Tenth Amendment Center has model legislation for States to take some steps in the right direction:  See THIS under the heading, “End the Fed from the Bottom Up”.

Open your eyes, Americans.  Time is running out.

End Notes:

1 See excerpt from testimony before Congress on Sep. 30, 1941 by the then Governor of the Fed.

2 Robert P. Murphy, Is Our Money Based on Debt?

3 HERE is the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  §16 promised redemption of the Federal Reserve Notes in gold.  During 1935, §16 was amended to remove that promise:  HERE is the amendment, codified as 12 USC §411.

4 See 31 USC §5118.

5 The Fed Has Lost Control

6 The quiet campaign to reinstate the gold standard is getting louder

7 See Joan Veon HERE:

“Globalization is the process of breaking through the protective barriers designed to separate the nation-states from the world system. Between 1944 and 2008 [Bretton Woods I & Bretton Woods II] all the nation-state barriers have been removed with exception of the national regulatory laws governing financial institutions, insurance companies, mortgages, and Wall Street. The real purpose of BWII is to establish the framework for a global regulatory system.  This also presents the possibility of merging all regional currencies into a global currency.”  [italics added]  You can also see her video HERE.

8 See:  USMCA and the Quest for a North American Union  and The USMCA “Trade Agreement” violates our Constitution and sets up Global Government.

9 HERE is the Act of 1813 where Congress laid a direct tax of $3 Million upon the United States.  It shows how Congress apportioned the tax (based on population) as required by Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3.  (See page 93 of the linked pdf edition.)

10 In Federalist No. 41 (5th para up from bottom), Madison says:

“The power of levying and borrowing money, being the sinew of that which is to be exerted in the national defense, is properly thrown into the same class with it. This power, also, has been examined already with much attention, and has, I trust, been clearly shown to be necessary, both in the extent and form given to it by the Constitution. …”

11 Congress is not authorized to create paper money.  In “A CROSS OF GOLD”, Dr. Edwin Vieira says:

[at Part 2]: “…America’s Founding Fathers, realists all, denominated redeemable paper currency as “bills of credit”. They knew that such bills’ values in gold or silver always depended upon the issuers’ credit—that is, ultimately, the issuers’ honesty and ability to manage their financial affairs.…” [boldface added]

[at Part 3]: “…every form of “redeemable currency” put out through the Federal Reserve System is, by definition, a governmental “bill of credit”, which Congress has no authority to emit, directly or indirectly.” [boldface added]

When, in 1933, the promise to redeem Federal Reserve Notes in gold was repudiated, the federal government dishonored their “bills of credit”.  We should have listened to our Founding Fathers.

12 In the 1880’s, the Fabian Society was founded in England.  Fabians advocate a gradual transition to socialism [as opposed to violent revolution].  They also hold that the elite – and they are the elite – should run everything [as opposed to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.]  In the early 1900’s, Fabians took over our Country – here they went by the name, “Progressives”.  Teddy Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson were Progressives; and the Fabian socialist ideology has dominated our Country ever since.

13 For an education in the basics of the Fed, fractional reserve banking, and the creation of “money”, see Robert P. Murphy’s article at end notes 1 & 2; and Dr. Edwin Vieira’s fascinating explanations of these issues in his “A CROSS OF GOLD” series HERE.  Dr. Vieira also shows why we must not accept a new global fiat currency and central bank to replace the collapsing Federal Reserve System.

14 And all that money used to bribe States and Indian Tribes to pass Rubio’s “red flag” law, will be added to the national debt.

09/4/19

Read the Commerce Clause in the Light Cast by the Other Parts of Our Constitution

By Publius Huldah

The parts of our federal Constitution are so interrelated that it is impossible to understand a single clause therein without considering all of the other provisions of our Constitution.

Article I, §8, clause 3, US Constitution, states:

“The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

The original intent of the power to regulate commerce “among the several States” is proved here:  Does the “interstate commerce” clause authorize Congress to force us to buy health insurance?  That paper proves that the primary purpose of the power is to prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – goods & commodities – merchandise – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling.

But recently, some have asserted that since “foreign Nations”, “the several States”, and “the Indian Tribes” are grouped together in the same clause, it necessarily follows that Congress’ power to “regulate commerce” with each of them is identical.  And since Congress has broad powers over foreign commerce, they conclude that Congress has those same broad powers over interstate commerce, and may lawfully, for example, ban the movement of physical goods [such as firearms] across state lines.

So let’s look at that clause in the Light cast by the rest of the Constitution.

Continue reading

08/12/19

State Gun Control in America: A Historic Guide to Major State Gun Control Laws and Acts

By: Ammo.com

Gun Control in America: A Historic Guide to Major State ActsThe Second Amendment guarantees American citizens the right to bear arms, but both federal and state governments determine how citizens may legally exercise that right. And while both federal and state gun control laws regularly change, laws at the state level change more frequently and often without the media coverage that surrounds changes at the federal level.

This results in a constant challenge for gun owners to keep up with the latest state laws, especially for those who carry their weapons across state lines. Because while some states have more restrictions than others, state gun control policies across the country are diverse and can change quickly – too easily putting responsible gun owners on the wrong side of the law.

This guide is a timeline of major state gun control acts throughout the history of the United States – not only to help gun owners understand the state laws that have influenced our nation, but also to showcase how one state’s gun laws can set an example for others, creating a domino effect of gun control policy for the entire country.

Colonial America: Slavery Versus The Second Amendment

Pre-Constitution, the original Articles of Confederation established that “every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia.” The Bill of Rights’ Second Amendment holds that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” However, those rights were at that time granted specifically to white males.

Fear of slave and Native American uprisings prompted many colonial states to establish laws banning “free Mulattos, Negroes and Indians” from having firearms. By the antebellum period, southern states like South CarolinaLouisianaFloridaMarylandGeorgiaNorth CarolinaMississippi, and even Delaware all had various laws denying guns to people of color and allowing search and seizure of weapons as well as punishment without trial. Crucial to all of this was the Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sanford.

Previously a slave, Dred Scott sued for freedom based on the fact that he’d lived in the free state of Illinois and a free area within the Louisiana Territory for a decade. When his suit was unsuccessful in Missouri, he appealed to the federal courts. The contention was whether “a free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves,” was a citizen with protections under the Constitution. The Supreme Court decision on Dred Scott v. Sanford in 1857 denied “a free negro of the African race” citizenship – a milestone its issuer cited as “the most momentous event that has ever occurred on this continent,” excluding the Declaration of Independence. In that moment, those denied citizenship were also excluded from any of the rights associated with it.

After the Civil War: The Postbellum Era, Emancipation, Reconstruction, and the Black Codes

While President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed all slaves, President Andrew Johnson’s failing leadership brought with it all the struggles of the Reconstruction Era. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision still denied people of African descent citizenship.

Former Confederate states enacted Black Codes to define and restrict freedmen’s positions within society. Along with mandating legal responsibilities, land ownership rights, contract labor wages, and harsh criminal laws, nearly all the Black Codes effectively and pointedly banned “persons of color” – anyone “with more than one-eighth Negro blood” – from possessing firearms. MississippiSouth CarolinaLouisianaFloridaMarylandAlabamaNorth CarolinaTexas, and Tennessee all enacted Black Codes, attempting to maintain the status quo and deny weapons to people of color.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments banned slavery, provided all citizens equal protection under the law and ensured voting rights for all citizens. The 14th Amendment was particularly important, as it defined citizenship as “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” overturning the Dred Scott decision, establishing people of color as citizens and overriding state statutes denying them the right to possess firearms based on their heritage.

Continue reading

08/12/19

Birthright Citizenship is NOT in the Constitution

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

This topic has long been debated with no resolution including at the Supreme Court level. Much has been written about what ‘birthright’ is including in the New York Times as recently as in 2015.

The simple requirement is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, not subject to a foreign power. A birth must be to parents who were legally domiciled to the United States as citizens themselves. There is no such thing legally as an anchor baby. There must be a provable bind to the United States.

President Trump has ordered a team to investigate the definition of the 14th Amendment leading to his possible signature of an Executive Order which would lead government agencies to act in accordance with the clarification and regulations around the Citizenship Clause.

Continue reading

07/18/19

Giving Credit Where Credit is Due

By: T F Stern | Self-Educated American

We were watching a movie the other day on one of the regular channels where you get to see a few minutes of the movie followed by several minutes of commercials.  The efforts of the moviemakers got lost somewhere between combining car, house and life insurance, more comfortable jockey shorts and deciding which brand of whiskey best matched the outdoor sportsman in us.

At a certain point, you consider yourself ‘invested’ in watching the movie until its conclusion while attempting to ignore interruptions.  Maybe this is how cable companies have figured how to get folks to pay for adding movie channels; just interrupt the programming on the regular channels enough and people will pay not to see commercials.

The movie was ending as the credits began to roll across the screen, a chance to give individuals who’d put the movie together credit.  Did I say roll across the screen; I meant sprint past at nearly the speed of light.  Evelyn Woods Speed Reading Course had not prepared me for this particular exercise.  To make it more challenging, they split the screen so that the credits for the previously viewed movie, now in a tiny box in the corner of the screen, could play out while introducing the next feature.

Continue reading

06/25/19

Dwindling Right to Freedom of Movement

By: T F Stern | Self-Educated American

Hello America, it’s a little over a week until we celebrate our Independence Day and consider all the rights and privileges associated with citizenship.  What did our founders have in mind for this Great Experiment in self-governance and, have we kept that vision?

Some folks call me a dreamer for holding on to my belief that America is the land of promise, that our constitution was divinely inspired and if applied properly would allow us all to achieve the highest level of personal freedom available on the planet; but according to the news media that term should be reserved for young illegal aliens who claim they are immune from immigration laws or that they shouldn’t be deported simply because their parents violated our immigration laws.

Maybe our sense of history needs to be ignited, like the fuse of a 4th of July bottle rocket sent into the night sky, a chance to remind us of battles long ago fought for… for what?  I know they fought for something; must have been for lower prices on Dr. Pepper so we could enjoy grilled hamburgers with a stack of crunchy potato chips.  They fought so we could send a women’s soccer team to represent our country in the World Cup Games; well, most of the athletes on our team acknowledge and stand when our National Anthem is played…

Those battles were fought to define us as a nation that honors and respects inalienable rights of individuals, generally defined as Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  These rights were later specifically defined as the Bill of Rights in our Constitution; however, among the individual rights so defined, the individual’s right to freedom of movement within these United States wasn’t listed because our founders didn’t think individual freedom of movement would ever be in question.

Continue reading

06/19/19

Socialism: A Warning from the Dead

 

Socialism Destroyed Venezuela — This is a warning for America!

BlazeTV Presents a Glenn Beck Special – Socialism: A Warning from the Dead. An in-depth look at the Top Down Bottom Up tactics used by Communists in the past and are being mimicked today.

06/11/19

Trending Fascist: Pinterest Shuts Down Pro-Life Live Action’s Account After Listing Them As A Pornographic Group

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Well, if you weren’t incensed over the censorship and bannings at Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube before… maybe this will get you there. Pinterest had a whistleblower out them over censorship of pro-lifers, Christians, and conservatives. Project Veritas has exposed them and now the crap has hit the fan. This is all out war and it won’t end the way the left envisioned. It will mobilize the right and bind them with a righteous cause – a constitutional one.

Pinterest blacklisted a top pro-life site by labeling it as “pornography.” Even after a complaint was filed, they left it there. Eventually, it was removed and Live Action was banned permanently from Pinterest for ‘misinformation’ because they posted the truth over abortions. They were exposing infanticide and the left just can’t have that don’t cha know. The whistleblower also revealed the platform’s “sensitive terms list” which reveals that Pinterest considers the term “Bible verses” to be “brand unsafe.”

JOHANNES EISELE/Getty

The Pinterest insider gave an interview to James O’Keefe of Project Veritas and said, “Somebody happened to notice that LiveAction.org was blocked. I was pretty surprised,” the whistleblower said, after discovering the national pro-life organization was added to a “porn domain block list,” a compilation of pornographic websites that Pinterest has gathered to ensure porn is not posted on the platform. The insider also stated that websites on a “domain block list” cannot be linked in posts made by users. Gee… sounds like Facebook and Twitter.

Project Veritas reported:

“While investigating, Project Veritas tried to post the LiveAction.org link on Pinterest and failed to do so, receiving an error message that read, “Sorry! Your request could not be completed.”

“Project Veritas reviewed the list of websites from the “porn domain block list” and was able to confirm that along with LiveAction.org, websites like zerohedge.com, pjmedia.com, teaparty.org, and other various conservative websites were also listed. The majority of the document lists pornographic websites.” Ben Shapiro of The Daily Wire is also on that list and he was censored under a “zero tolerance moment” for discussing Islam and Muslims.

Continue reading

06/6/19

Social Media Fascism: Steven Crowder Demonetized By YouTube Because Vox Columnist Gets Feelings Hurt

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

The Internet is arguably one of the biggest blessings and curses to ever come along for a myriad of reasons. It started out as a platform for free speech and ideas but fascist leftists and others just couldn’t leave it alone. Then social media became part of all our lives and the leftist developers treated us just like a bunch of pigs that they feed and build a pen around for years and then eventually shut the gates, imprisoning the pigs. A whole community of fat, happy, clueless pigs led to slaughter.

First, they came for Alex Jones because he was extreme and could be denounced. Then they came for John Hawkins and Right Wing News… the largest conservative site on the web. Then they came for me as the editor and one of the lead writers of Right Wing News and shut my sites down on Facebook. Then they went after Brian Kolfage, a triple-amputee veteran who now oversees #WeBuildTheWall. They went after Laura Loomer and a myriad of others they wanted to silence. Now, YouTube has demonetized Steven Crowder of Louder with Crowder and he is just the opening salvo to the demonetizing of thousands of accounts over there. It’s sheer censorship.

From The Daily Wire:

“On Wednesday, one day after they stated that the videos of comedian Steven Crowder did not violate their policies, YouTube suddenly shifted and decided to demonetize Crowder’s videos, a chilling decision that engendered fierce criticism from defenders of free speech. YouTube was prompted to take a look at Crowder’s videos by Vox’s Carlos Maza, who reported the comedian for making jokes about his ethnicity and sexuality.

“That prompted YouTube to respond on Tuesday:

“Thanks again for taking the time to share all of this information with us. We take allegations of harassment very seriously–we know this is important and impacts a lot of people. Our teams spent the last few days conducting an in-depth review of the videos flagged to us, and while we found language that was clearly hurtful, the videos as posted don’t violate our policies. We’ve included more info below to explain this decision: As an open platform, it’s crucial for us to allow everyone–from creators to journalists to late-night TV hosts–to express their opinions w/in the scope of our policies. Opinions can be deeply offensive, but if they don’t violate our policies, they’ll remain on our site.Even if a video remains on our site, it doesn’t mean we endorse/support that viewpoint. There are other aspects of the channel that we’re still evaluating– we’ll be in touch with any further updates.

Continue reading