Thursday, May 28, 2015




Gold and Silver Currency Bills: 

Will States Nullify the Fed's Money Monopoly?

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The New Hampshire state legislature will soon consider a bill making gold and silver legal currency in that state.
The bill was drafted by constitutional scholar and contributor to The New American Edwin Vieira, Jr. Vieira’s measure would reduce New Hampshire’s dependence on the Federal Reserve, ultimately leading to its complete independence from the unconstitutional central bank and its fiat Federal Reserve notes that masquerade as money.
Sponsors of the bill describe the process that will restore sound money to the Granite State:
The idea is to use the state as the “pump” to prime a transition and make the transition work in a systematic, relatively slow fashion, so the market can equilibrate to this new alternative currency. We don’t want to change the system over night — that would create chaos. We want to bring in a relatively small amount of the state’s revenue in gold as a tax.
New Hampshire has a tobacco tax. The tobacco tax reserve is about 7% to 9% of the state’s total revenue. This is a good amount because it’s not to much so that you scare people, but enough so that you get a sufficient amount of revenue to start integrating gold and silver into the system.
The New Hampshire Alternative Currency Statute states that the people who are taxed, the tobacco distributors, are going to be required to pay their taxes in gold. 
New Hampshire’s earlier effort to establish gold as the state’s sole currency met with opposition from the state treasurer, who issued a Fiscal Impact Statement wherein he laid out the obstacles he sees in the bill’s path to enactment.
The treasurer reported three objections: First, the bill did not provide for the safe storage of the gold; second, the cost of bonding state employees would be prohibitive; and, finally, the overall cost of implementing the system would be exorbitant.
Supporters say they have answers for all these previously filed fiscal concerns, specifically:
The New Hampshire Bill was modernized to used electronic gold currency. Electronic gold currency is exactly that — in a vault some place, your gold is there. And simply by “electronic check” you can transfer your gold to somebody else. There is a provision in the bill that that requires the electronic gold currency provider to allow the account holder to “cash out” in actual gold coins if they choose, so there we have the Constitutional problem solved. In this electronic gold currency system, you can go down to as low as 1/10,000 of a gram of gold, so it allows users to make very small change. This solves a common problem with coinage, that people could not make change. This is why we had pennies (i.e. token coinage). This is also why the Spanish Milled Dollar was cut into eight pieces. Electronic gold currency solves that whole problem. The treasury in New Hampshire was fine with the electronic gold currency system as it was just another computer account entry.
website maintained by promoters of the proposal offers graphical representations of the entire process of moving from “money” to money.
The bill also provides a method of circulating the gold, obviating the need for a miniature Ft. Knox in every town and county in New Hampshire.
Over the past several years, at least eight states have considered or enacted some version of a sound currency bill. Others are debating proposals aimed at abolishing or auditing the Federal Reserve. 
By placing the lion’s share of the blame squarely at the feet of the federal government, particularly its unrepentant, unchecked, and (most importantly) unconstitutional manipulation of the monetary system of the United States through the creation and perpetuation of the Federal Reserve system, Vieira’s bill reasserts the sovereignty of the state of New Hampshire and re-enshrines the 10th Amendment to the Constitution wherein the Founding Fathers intended to erect an impregnable barricade around the self-determination of the sovereign states.
In 2011, then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, weighed in the issue of restoring gold and silver as legal currency.
"You need to be attentive to where the economy is and not move too quickly to reverse the policies that are helping the recovery," Bernanke said, apparently without being purposefully facetious.
The only hope of a recovery lies where hope for liberty has always lain: with the people and the states.
If any state authorizes gold and silver as an alternative to Federal Reserve notes, economists say that the economy of such a state would stabilize and increase. A happy side effect of such a system would be the weakening of the Federal Reserve notes and a strengthening of the appeal of gold and silver.
This genuine recovery (as opposed to the “boom and bust” pseudo-recovery espoused by Bernanke) would obliterate the fiat money monopoly exercised by the Federal Reserve. The history of that monstrosity was described most ably in G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature From Jekyll Island. Griffin writes:
The American Heritage Dictionary defines fiat money as "paper money decreed legal tender, not backed by gold or silver." The two characteristics of fiat money, therefore, are (1) it does not represent anything of intrinsic value and (2) it is decreed legal tender. Legal tender simply means that there is a law requiring everyone to accept the currency in commerce. The two always go together because, since the money really is worthless, it soon would be rejected by the public in favor of a more reliable medium of exchange, such as gold or silver coin."
And that is the key to restoring fiscal soundness to the once-enviable economy of the United States.
In 2008, Representative Ron Paul of Texas echoed Griffin’s predictions:
Gresham's Law states that bad money drives out good money. Meaning, if someone is forced to accept your bad money, it is to your advantage to pass it off, like a hot potato, in exchange for something of value. Any good money you have, you will hoard. Eventually, real money is driven out of circulation and under people's mattresses, so to speak. In the absence of legal tender laws, people are free to accept the medium of exchange of their choice, and are likely to insist on payment in something of real value.
Of course, despite the obvious benefits of a return to sound money, the federal government will not sit idly by and watch its monopoly be rendered irrelevant by state governments. In a host of issues, the plutocrats on the Potomac have demonstrated that they will go to any length to maintain their monolithic economic status.
There is some precedence, though, for support of sound money from one branch of the federal government.
A brief recitation of the facts of the case of Lane County v. Oregon (1868) is provided on the bill’s sponsor’s website:
At the end of the 19th century in Oregon, the state was collecting its taxes in gold, requiring payments of taxes in gold. There was a taxpayer who claimed they could pay in Greenbacks, because Greenbacks were “legal tender for all debts.” The Supreme Court gave two reasons why the taxpayer was wrong:
1) A tax is not a debt, a tax is an involuntary contribution to the government.
2) But even if that weren’t true, a State is a quasi-sovereign entity. It does not have all the sovereign powers it had at the War of Independence, because some powers have been limited by the Constitution. But it retains sovereign powers in the areas of taxation, borrowing, spending, eminent domain and judgements in the courts.
Regardless of past decisions and sound reasoning, the federal government will not back down and Americans should not rely on the federal courts to sustain state sovereignty, principally as they have shown that they will not commit political suicide by weakening the power of those that give them power.
The key to restoring sound money in the manner prescribed by the Constitution is to call on Congress to abolish the Federal Reserve and to elect state lawmakers committed to nullifying the Fed's fiat money monopoly by enacting gold and silver currency bills like the one being brought in New Hampshire. 

The alternative currency movement in the states:
Uploaded on Jun 10, 2011
Watch the whole 44-minute video at Edwin Vieira, consitutional scholar and author of 'Pieces of Eight' and James Turk talk about sound money bills in New Hampshire, Utah, South Carolina, Indiana, Colorado, Montana and many other states. They comment on Utah's approval of their sound money bill and how their example will spread to many other states. Edwin expects at least a dozen states to approve alternative currencies, putting pressure on Federal tax authorities to prevent the IRS from taxing gold currency transactions.


WTO Ruling Blasts U.S. Sovereignty; 

TPP Threatens More of Same

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

As the World Trade Organization delivers another blow against U.S. sovereignty, President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is poised to add more international judicial attacks against American liberty and independence.
The May 18 ruling by a WTO appellate tribunal declaring a U.S. federal law illegal should have caused giant shock waves across America and should have sunk any hopes of congressional passage of the TPP, which, twinned with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), forms the centerpiece of the ObamaTrade globalist agenda.
Both the TPP and the TTIP would create international courts that could (and would) override American federal, state, and local laws, as well as federal and state court decisions, and even federal and state constitutions, as The New American has reported previously (see here and here).
The May 18 WTO ruling was the fourth time in three years the organization has struck down the United States’ country of origin labeling (COOL) law, ruling that it violates international trade laws.
In an article in March, we provided this summary of the WTO-COOL battle:
A few short months ago, on October 20, 2014, the World Trade Organization ruled that the U.S. Country Of Origin Labeling (COOL) law is illegal, even though a U.S. federal court had upheld the law. COOL, which requires imported foreign meat to carry a label naming the country of origin, was challenged as discriminatory by meat exporters from our NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada. It should be noted that the COOL law does not prohibit or restrict any product; it merely says American consumers have a right to know where foreign meat is coming from so they can make an informed decision on whether or not to buy it. To most Americans that probably sounds not only reasonable, but also an issue that we have a right to decide for ourselves, without international interference. That was also the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The U.S. court ruled against Canada and Mexico and concluded that COOL complies with the U.S. Constitution and that Congress had authority to enact the law.
But WTO considers itself above the U.S. Constitution, above U.S. laws, and above U.S. courts. Not surprisingly, the WTO ruled against COOL and the right of Americans to know if the food they’re eating was produced in a foreign country.
“More cases are pending before NAFTA and WTO courts,” we noted. “And if the TPP is passed, we will, most assuredly, be afflicted with new TPP tribunals that will offer even more potential for subversive attacks on every aspect of our political and economic systems.”
Will Congress Surrender on COOL?
So, how has the U.S. Congress responded to the WTO ruling? Did our senators and representatives tell the international bureaucrats to go take a flying leap? No, the main response, thus far, has been to whimper and knuckle under. On May 19, the day after the WTO ruling, House Agriculture Committee Chair K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), introduced H.R.2393, “To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal country of origin labeling requirements with respect to beef, pork, and chicken, and for other purposes.”
“In light of the WTO’s decision and the certainty that we face significant retaliation by Canada and Mexico, we cannot afford to delay action,” Conaway said. “This bill is a targeted response that will remove uncertainty, provide stability, and bring us back into compliance. I appreciate the support of so many colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we work quickly to ensure our economy and a broad spectrum of U.S. Industries do not suffer the economic impacts of retaliation.”
Representative David Scott (D-Ga.), urged passage of the bill, claiming that a vote for H.R. 2393 would show strong support for American agricultural interests. “Retaliation is real,” said Scott. “We’re talking billions and billions of dollars.” The measure does indeed have the full support of corporate ag interests. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Pork Producers Council, the American Meat Institute, the North American Meat Association, and the National Grocers Association — all dominated by mega-corporations — have praised the WTO ruling and support repeal of COOL. However, organizations more representative of family farms and ranches and consumers — U.S. Cattlemen’s Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Farmers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, and Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) — support retaining COOL.
Speaking against repeal of COOL, Representative Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) pointed out the European Union has labeling rules that require indication of the country of birth, fattening, and slaughter. Imported beef can be labeled as “non-EU.” He asked the committee to slow down and investigate all options before rushing to repeal the law. “I just don’t think that repealing it two days after the ruling is going to get us the resolution all of us want,” Peterson stated.
Nevertheless, H.R. 2393 passed the committee May 20 by a vote of 38-6, and the bill is expected to be taken up by the House of Representatives in June.
Sovereignty, Liberty at Stake
R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard expressed the sentiments of many farmers and ranchers in a critical statement issued by the organization on May 18. “It is amazing that the WTO is accusing COOL of impeding live cattle imports when such imports from Canada and Mexico under the COOL rule hit a 7-year high in 2014 and when imported Canadian and Mexican cattle are commanding historically high prices,” said Bullard.
“It is equally amazing that after our U.S. court system has ruled that our U.S. COOL law is constitutional, the leadership of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee appears willing to surrender our COOL law to this international tribunal without even completing the WTO dispute process,” Bullard added.
The R-CALF executive said that because Congress decided to cede U.S. sovereignty by subjecting our domestic laws and regulations to an international tribunal, it should at least follow the WTO process all the way to the end. He said there is still an arbitration process where Canada and Mexico actually have to prove they have suffered financial harm before the WTO will authorize those countries to impose retaliatory tariffs.
“Surrendering our COOL law at this early juncture would be an unprecedented concession by Congress that it reveres preliminary actions by the WTO more than it reveres our nation’s Constitution,” Bullard said. He noted the WTO COOL ruling should dispel the myths that neither the Fast Track bill being considered by Congress nor the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) soon to be considered by Congress will undermine U.S. laws.
“This COOL ruling demonstrates that the consequence of ceding constitutional authority to the WTO through fast track and free trade agreements is that our domestic laws are undermined,” Bullard commented.   
He said another unintended consequence of capitulating to the WTO’s effort to weaken COOL is that when or if the ongoing efforts to begin importing live cattle from Australia, Brazil, and Argentina are successful, then the resulting beef from those much cheaper sources of livestock will sit indistinguishable from U.S. beef in our nation’s grocery stores. “This could cause the demise of the independent, commercial U.S. cattle producer, just as it has already devastated the independent, U.S. commercial sheep producer,” Bullard said.
“We are urging Congress to take no action as a result of this ruling and are encouraging the U.S. Trade Representative to continue defending the sovereign interests of the United States in the next step of the dispute process in which the U.S. can dispute Canada’s and Mexico’s claims of financial harm,” Bullard concluded.
The following day, May 19, the R-CALF exec took aim at the House Agriculture Committee Chairman. “Conaway is misleading Congress and the American people,” said Bullard, adding , “Conaway’s bill is nothing more than a Siren call by the one percent:  He is trying to coerce the public into supporting something that will ultimately cause them harm.”
Bullard made note of the fact that Conaway’s bill calls for the removal of chicken from COOL requirements even though the WTO ruling had nothing to do with the labeling of chicken meat. “This is proof that Conaway’s bill is not a ‘targeted response’ to the WTO; but rather, Conaway is exploiting the WTO ruling to support the multinational meatpackers’ decade-long effort to hide the origins of food from consumers,” Bullard said.
The Senate’s Republican leadership joined with the Obama White House to push the “Fast Track” Trade Promotion Authority through the Senate on Friday, May 22, just before the Memorial Day weekend. The Fast Track/TPA bill will now go to the House. If it passes there, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) bill will soon follow, loaded with more judicial bombs aimed at blasting U.S. sovereignty to smithereens.
Related articles:



Central banks aim to institute "governmental approval" for all purchases and sales
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Economist Martin Armstrong claims there is a “secret meeting to end cash” set to take place in London before the end of the month involving representatives from the ECB and the Federal Reserve.
Armstrong, who is known for successfully predicting the 1987 Black Monday crash as well as the 1998 Russian financial collapse, expressed his shock that no news outlet has reported on this upcoming conference.
“I find it extremely perplexing that I have been the only one to report of the secret meeting in London. Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University, and Willem Buiter, the Chief Economist at Citigroup, will address the central banks to advocate the elimination of all cash to bring to fruition the day when you cannot buy or sell anything without government approval,” writes Armstrong.
“When I googled the issue to see who else has picked it up, to my surprise, Armstrong Economics comes up first. Others are quoting me, and I even find it spreading as far as the Central Bank of Nigeria, but I have yet to find any reports on the meeting taking place in London, when my sources are direct.”
Armstrong first brought attention to the alleged meeting earlier this month when he revealed that representatives from the Federal Reserve, the ECB as well as participants from the Swiss and Danish central banks would all be attending a “major conference in London” at which Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University, and Willem Buiter, the Chief Economist at Citigroup, would give presentations.
“We better keep one eye open at night for this birth of a cashless society that is coming in much faster than expected. Why the secret meeting? Something does not smell right here,” concludes Armstrong.
Discussions and moves towards banning cash have repeatedly cropped up in recent weeks.
Willem Buiter, who Armstrong claims is speaking at the secret meeting, recently advocatedabolishing cash altogether in order to “solve the world’s central banks’ problem with negative interest rates.”
Last year, Kenneth Rogoff also called for “abolishing physical currency” in order to stop “tax evasion and illegal activity” as well as preventing people from withdrawing money when interest rates are close to zero.
Striking a similar tone, former Bank of England economist Jim Leaviss penned an article for the London Telegraph earlier this month in which he said a cashless society would only be achieved by “forcing everyone to spend only by electronic means from an account held at a government-run bank,” which would be, “monitored, or even directly controlled by the government.”
Big banks in both the United Kingdom and the U.S. are already treating the withdrawal or depositing of moderately large amounts of cash as a suspicious activity. Reports emerged in March of how the Justice Department is ordering bank employees to consider calling the cops on customers who withdraw $5,000 dollars or more.
Meanwhile in France, new measures are set to come into force in September which will restrict French citizens from making cash payments over €1,000 euros. Armstrong suggests that “financial police” could enforce this new law by, “searching people on trains just passing through France to see if they are transporting cash, which they will now seize.”
As Armstrong notes, banning cash in order to eviscerate what little economic freedoms people have left to avoid disastrous Keynesian central bank policy is nothing short of economic totalitarianism.
“In the mind of an economic tyrant, banning cash represents the holy grail,” writes Michael Krieger. “Forcing the plebs onto a system of digital fiat currency transactions offers total control via a seamless tracking of all transactions in the economy, and the ability to block payments if an uppity citizen dares get out of line.”


JAMES 2: 1-13

FROM GARY GILLEY AT: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Endorsed by everyone from Rick Warren and Bill Hybels to Dave Ramsey, Steven Furtick and Jeff Foxworthy,Deep and Wide reveals Andy Stanley’s “secret sauce” (p. 17) which he believes makes his church not only great but a model others should adopt. Stanley’s goal has been to create a church that unchurched men, women and children love to attend (p. 11) and by all accounts he has succeeded. The first of five sections tells the story of the birth of North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Georgia, first as an extension of his father’s (Charles) church, then as a split, in which several thousand people eventually left the mother church to join Andy’s. Andy knows this is not the best way to start a church, but is honest and transparent enough to admit that this is what happened. Conflicts with his famous father were inevitable and Andy chronicles those as well.

Deep and Wide promotes the seeker-sensitive, market-driven approach of “doing church.” There is virtually nothing in the book that hasn’t been said or done by his “hero” Bill Hybels and others that teach the paradigm. From basing North Point’s programming on surveys and secular management (p. 14), to seeing people as consumers (p. 16) and a target audience that must be attracted and pleased (p. 15), to erroneously believing that the unbeliever should like us because they liked Jesus (pp. 12-13), to virtually every aspect of what they do, Stanley is parroting the philosophy of Hybels. Ironically this model is the same one that Hybels and Willow Creek recently admitted did not accomplish their goal of making followers of Christ (see my book This Little Church Had None, pp. 23-35).
Of course, the real issue is not whether something works, but if it is biblical. Therefore, in section two, Stanley attempts a scriptural justification for his church model. This is easily the most disappointing aspect of the book as Stanley, who has a master’s degree from Dallas Seminary, makes no attempt to engage the key Scriptures dealing with the doctrine of the church. His only venture into biblical exegesis is a feeble, terribly flawed and out of context examination of the counsel at Jerusalem in Acts 15 (pp. 85-91). Stanley comes up with a strained interpretation of the text because he uses what some call rhetorical hermeneutics in which Scripture should be interpreted based upon the characters actions, not their words (pp. 86, 90-92, 298-299). Using this interpretative method, Stanley believes, “Everything [Paul] taught should be defined within the context of what takes place in Acts 15.” And since the conclusion drawn by the council was minimalistic: “You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell” (p. 91), the church today should require very little as well (p. 92). Wrapping (or, better, ignoring) everything else in the New Testament pertaining to the church around this concept, Stanley offers this strained understanding as the biblical foundation for the local church.
Stanley is attempting at this point to address two important questions and, because he turns to culture, pragmatism and a marketing model, he fumbles the answer to both. The questions are, “What is the church and who is it for” (p. 55)? He rightly states that the church is not a place but a people (p. 39) but he does not grasp theekklesia as the people of God. This of course skews his answer as to who is the church for? To Stanley, the church is an evangelistic center in which the focus is on the unchurched, as he calls unbelievers. Stanley will do virtually anything to attract non-Christians and retain them. This includes putting new Christians and even unbelievers into positions of ministry and leadership (pp. 79, 94-95, 127-130). A person can even join North Point online, without talking to anyone (p. 81). And North Point has virtually no classroom instruction as teaching of Scripture is consistently belittled throughout the book (see pp. 111-116, 190). Relationships, especially through small groups, are dominant. These groups, sometimes led by new Christians and even unbelievers, are obviously not centered on Scripture or even Christ, as biblically understood, but on relationships. This is hardly the model found in Acts 2:42-43. Too bad Stanley did not choose Acts two, rather than Acts 15, to develop his ecclesiology.
Section three showcases North Point’s “secret sauce” for spiritual formation (p. 17). There are five ingredients to this sauce and, importantly, Stanley admits that none of them is found in Scripture (pp. 107-108). The importance of this admission cannot be stressed enough. Having laid a foundation for the church on the arbitrary selection of Acts 15 he now builds his church on five ingredients not found in Scripture. From where then are these ingredients drawn? From the “faith stories” of people and his experience (p.107). The five ingredients for Stanley’s “secret sauce” are:
  1. Practical teaching (pp. 111-116). Here Stanley claims that no one is on a truth-quest (p. 115). People are far more interested in what works than in what is true (p. 114), so pragmatism, not truth, should be at the heart of our teaching and preaching.
  2. Private disciplines (pp. 117-123).
  3. Personal ministry (pp. 124-130).
  4. Providential relationships (pp. 131-136).
  5. Pivotal circumstances (defining moments) (pp. 137-149).
When the sauce is stirred and cooked, the product (people) come out with at best a superficial understanding of the Word of God, but strong relationships in small groups and dedication to a “church unchurched people love to attend.”
The fourth section of Deep and Wide promotes the creation of irresistible environments (pp. 157-192). While some helpful ideas can be found, Stanley is once again reading from Hybel’s playbook. The church is turned into a production at every level in which the question at the end of the day is whether or not the presentation was engaging (p. 172) and met felt-needs (p. 185). Bottom-line, Stanley and his staff are after a “win” in everything they do (p. 194). Their short-term wins are based on attendance and other external factors such as people desiring to invite friends to come to North Point (see pp. 331-335). A win is when they create a weekend experience in which they can say, “Wow, we killed it” (p. 195). A long-term win is life change (p. 197) although, given the overall philosophy of Stanley, what life change looks like is questionable.
The final section of Deep and Wide is devoted to transitioning a traditional church to a seeker/market/consumer-driven model. Stanley knows this is volatile and potentially destructive (p. 198), but he believes it is necessary. His arrogance in this regard is clear (pp. 258-259) as he attempts to intimidate those using a different approach. He proudly proclaims his program has worked; his church is huge; he is changing the world, so everyone needs to get on board. This means women are allowed to minister at every level (p. 269); churches don’t need pastors, they need leaders (p. 294); unbelievers are placed into ministry and even those living in openly gay lifestyles are as well (this is alluded to in the book – see p. 70, but more recently has been made explicit (see
Deep and Wide offers nothing that has not been said before by seeker-sensitive leaders. This philosophy of ministry which first gained traction in the 1970s via Robert Schuller and Bill Hybels has changed the church in the Western world. The unsaved consumer is now king, marketing strategy sets the direction, and pragmatism rules. And the system works, at least numerically, for many like Andy Stanley. But is this God’s design for the church? A careful examination of the New Testament would shout “no!” God should get the first word, and the last, on what He wants His church to be. This reviewer would encourage readers to use real discernment when encountering materials such as this one.
Reviewed by Gary E. Gilley, Pastor-teacher, Southern View Chapel