Posted by Rachel Kopec Executive Power, Federalism
On Friday, March 23, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed into law a bill demanding that the federal government return about 30 million acres of public lands by 2015. This is a serious issue for western states, who in some cases have 30%-65% of their land in federal hands.
Federally owned lands date back to the nation’s foundation. The lands of the Northwestern Territories were conceded to the federal government as a stepping stone towards statehood. The federal government was in charge of surveying the land and selling it to pioneers. Once enough pioneers moved in, a new state would be formed and admitted into the union. The federal government was meant as an intermediary. It was not supposed to own the land in perpetuity. However, with the dawn of the Progressive Movement, more and more empty lands started being claimed by the federal government, to the point that 65% of Utah is held by different federal agencies.
The federal government retaining control of two-thirds of our land mass was never in the bargain when we became a state, and it is indefensible 116 years later. – Utah Governor Gary Herbert
Western Senators, members of Congress, and Governors have tried throughout the years to reclaim some of the lands on behalf of their states. The most prominent group of advocates became known as the Sagebrush Rebels. In 1976, the enactment of the Federal Land Policy Management Act made it clear that these lands would not be returned to the states or transferred to private hands. Responding to this federal act, the Sagebrush Rebels launched a campaign to reclaim these lands that continues to this day. While you might not remember the Sagebrush Rebellion, you certainly know its most famous member: President Ronald Reagan.
We’ll see if the state and the federal government can restore the balance of power. The dispute over Western lands is particularly important to the economy because federal lands hold vast stores of energy that are yet untapped:
At the core of the issue in all of the states is limited access to federal land, which hurts energy development, recreation and grazing. There are approximately 28 million acres of federal land in Utah, accounting for about 50 percent of the state. State lawmakers claim the federal lands cost the state millions of dollars every year, although no comprehensive studies have quantified those losses. Associated Press article by Josh Loftin
Utah Gov. Herbert signs bill demanding state control of federal lands by 2014
By Associated Press
SALT LAKE CITY — Gov. Gary Herbert signed a bill Friday that demands the federal government relinquish control of public lands in Utah by 2014, setting the table for a potential legal battle over millions of acres in the state.
House Bill 148, which easily passed the Legislature, is saddled with a warning from legislative attorneys that there is a high probability it will be found unconstitutional. But Republican lawmakers and Herbert are optimistic about their chances in court, especially if they can persuade other western states to pass similar legislation.
Ideally, state and federal officials should work together to improve access and increase development opportunities and improve conservation on public lands, Herbert said. Alternatively, the state’s congressional delegation would be able to work through Congress to give the state more control.
If those approaches fail, Herbert said a lawsuit to answer the constitutional question needs to remain an option.
“It’s not a slam dunk, but there is legal reasoning and a rational thought process,” Herbert said. “But this is the first step in a long journey. There is a lot of education needed to raise awareness.”
Opponents, including Utah Democrats and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, said the bill is not only unconstitutional but bad public policy. If implemented, they said, it could eliminate important protections from development and vehicle use for wildlife refuges, forests and other sensitive areas.
“The state has proven itself time and again to be a bad manager of public lands … This is a political stunt,” said David Garbett, an attorney with the environmental group. “It’s amazing that in one quixotic act they’ve offended the U.S. Constitution, the state constitution and the state’s enabling act.”
Legal experts have also said the state has no standing, noting that Utah, Arizona and other states passed similar legislation during the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion in the 1970s and 1980s.
So far, only Arizona has joined the fight, with legislation that has passed the state Senate. State Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, who sponsored the measure, said it’s designed to put the federal government on notice.
Melvin said federal regulations are killing industries like mining and timber, and the state could collect more money in property taxes if some of that land is sold.
The sponsor of the Utah law, Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, said the issue carries weight on a national scale and is extremely important to the entire region.
“This isn’t just a matter of chest-thumping in Utah,” Ivory said. “It’s time for us to stand as the model for the Western states, and for the nation, to show what it means to be self-reliant and free.”
At the core of the issue in all of the states is limited access to federal land, which hurts energy development, recreation and grazing. There are approximately 28 million acres of federal land in Utah, accounting for about 50 percent of the state. State lawmakers claim the federal lands cost the state millions of dollars every year, although no comprehensive studies have quantified those losses.
The Utah bill exempts national parks, military installations, Native American reservations and congressionally approved wilderness areas and monuments. It primarily focuses on lands controlled by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
Most notably, the state would lay claim to the 1.9-million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah, which President Bill Clinton designated in 1996. Since that declaration, state officials and residents of the rural area, which is dominated by red rock landscapes, have waged an endless battle with federal authorities over land use.
“The current situation is not what was intended to become of the West, yet greedy Washington bureaucrats have decided that hoarding land in the federal estate is more important than education,” said U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah. “Like most Utahans, I disagree.”
Utah Firearms Revisions Bill Could Prevent ‘Open-Carry’ Gun Owners From Facing Criminal Charges
Last year, around this time of year, Philip W. Taylor was peacefully walking along the sidewalk adjacent to University Mall in Orem, Utah.
The 51-year-old Orem resident was carrying an assault rifle slung over his shoulder and a handgun.
Shoppers in the nearby mall called the police on Taylor. The police shortly arrived to the scene.
“Keep your hands where I can see them,” an officer shouted at Taylor.
“Utah is open carry, officer,” Taylor calmly replied.
The officer asked why Taylor was carrying a gun?
Taylor repeated his earlier reply, “Utah is open carry, officer.”
“Not open carry for an assault rifle,” the officer reprimanded.
The police swarmed in and handcuffed Taylor. After checking his firearms, they determined that they were unloaded.
And although Taylor was not breaking any laws for openly carrying his firearms (despite the officer’s claim), the police labeled his actions as reckless and he was charged with disorderly conduct, a class C misdemeanor. He called Caldwell Kearns PC attorney to set up defense.
According to Orem Police Sgt. Craig Martinez, it wasn’t the first time Taylor was stopped for lawfully carrying his firearms.
“We dealt with him in the middle of December (2010), two days back-to-back for the exact same thing, walking down the street with guns that were not loaded, and in both of those circumstances, we checked him out and let him go like we did here,” said Sgt. Craig Martinez told KSL.com.
This time the charges would stick. Taylor was convicted of disorderly conduct, fined $500 and placed on 12 months probation.
He was also ordered to seek a mental health evaluation as part of his probation, according to court documents.
Hearing of this story and others like it, Rep. Paul Ray, R-Clearfield, decided to propose a bill for the 2012 Utah Legislature that would prohibit a person who is lawfully carrying a firearm in public from being charged with non-firearm related crimes such as disorderly conduct or failure to disperse (for a more detailed breakdown of what’s included, click here).
The bill is entitled H.B. 49, “Firearms Revisions,” and states “… in the absence of additional threatening behavior, the otherwise lawful possession of a firearm visible or concealed” would not constitute a violation of Utah’s various criminal provisions and statutes.
In short, if the bill is passed law enforcement can’t arbitrarily charge one with a crime for lawfully carrying a firearm – as in the case with Taylor.
According to KSL.com, “other provisions of the current HB49 say that local authorities may not enact laws that place any restriction on the lawful possession of firearms without explicitly referring to the specific state law that grants them such authority. And any law that does not meet that requirement would become void, according to the bill.”
Not everyone is on board with Rep. Ray’s “Firearms Revisions” bill.
Steven Gunn, a board member of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, told KSL.com, “The bill appears to be an attempt to clarify ambiguities in existing Utah statutes about open-carrying firearms; however, it seems to expand the rights of gun owners to display such weapons, not merely to codify the status quo.”
Gunn added that the bill would “make it harder for private property owners, such as store and mall owners, to exclude someone from their property who is openly carrying a gun.”
“Representative Ray chooses to cater to extremists rather than those who seek public dialogue and open expression of unpopular views,” Gunn wrote in an email to KSL.com.
These States Will Suffer the Most in the Event of an EU Collapse
by Becket Adams
Some analysts believe that a collapse of the EU will have a calamitous effect on the U.S. economy. But exactly how will that play out, that is, who will get hit the hardest?
Although every state would feel the effects of a possible EU collapse, as a halt of billions of dollars in exports to the EU could prove to be disastrous, analysts believe there are some states in particular that will bear the brunt of the burden.
As it turns out, Utah, South Carolina, Indiana, Alabama, Washington state, and West Virginia, all relying heavily on exported commodities, will most likely suffer the worst, according to a new study by Wells Fargo Securities.
“We don‘t think it’s enough to pull us into recession, but exports have been one of the lone bright spots in our economy,” said Mark Vitner, senior economist at Wells Fargo Securities who co-authored the report.
In Utah, which has an economy that relies on selling gold and silver produced in nearby states, European exports comprise 46 percent of all exports and 5.6 percent of the state’s economic output, according to the Wells Fargo report, writes the Post.
Or consider the case of South Carolina, an automobile manufacturing hub, where European exports make up 4.1 percent of the economy.
West Virginia’s economy is closely tied to the coal industry. Exports to Europe make up nearly 4 percent of the state’s GDP. So as Europe’s economy sinks, so too — the argument goes — will West Virginia’s GDP, reports the Global Post
Eight of the U.S.’s top 30 trade partners, according to the Department of Commerce, are European countries. However, some remain optimistic and maintain that a lower demand for exports would not necessarily plunge the U.S. deeper into recession, since exports account for just 11 percent of the U.S. economy, according to the World Bank.
“Slow growth in Europe has already restrained U.S. economic growth,” said Vitner, according to the Huffington Post. “U.S. economic growth would have been 2.5 percent in 2012 — in contrast to Wells Fargo’s current prediction of 2.1 percent — if the European economy was growing at a healthy pace.”
Although an absence of exported goods due to a collapse of the EU could prove harmful to the U.S. (and some states in particular), just think about the economic fallout for the banks.
In the word’s of Harvard historian, and as reported earlier on The Blaze, Niall Ferguson writes:
Europe’s problem is not just that governments are overborrowed. There are an unknown number of European banks that are effectively insolvent if their holdings of government bonds are “marked to market”—in other words, valued at their current rock-bottom market prices.
Because of the existence of our present global economy, some U.S. financial institutions will naturally be affected by the euro banks collapsing.
Consider the fact that some of the biggest U.S. banks have some sort of “exposure” to euro bonds and banks. If the euro banks become “effectively insolvent,” this will affect the U.S. banks that have investments in those bonds.
United States of Shame – What’s YOUR State Worst at?
Whether it’s the highest rate of bestiality (We’re looking at you, Washington) or the most environmentally unfriendly (Let’s hear it for Indiana!), every state has something to be ashamed about. The full list of shameful, shameful superlatives is below.
Rationale and statistics:
Most stats taken from http://www.americashealthrankings.org/ and http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/rankings.html (unless otherwise noted)
1. Alabama: highest rate of stroke (3.8 percent) (tied with Oklahoma)
2. Alaska: highest suicide rate (23.6 suicides per 100,000 people in 2004)
3. Arizona: highest rate of alcoholism
4. Arkansas: worst average credit score (636)
5. California: most air pollution (15.2 micrograms per cubic meter)
6. Colorado: highest rate of cocaine use per capita (3.9 percent total population)
7. Connecticut: highest rate of breast cancer
8. Delaware: highest abortion rate (27 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44)
9. Florida: highest rate of identity theft (122.3 reports per 100,000 people)
10. Georgia: sickly based on highest rate of influenza
11. Hawaii –highest cost of living (tied with California)
12. Idaho – lowest level of Congressional clout
13. Illinois: highest rate of robbery (284.7 incidences per 100,000 people)
14. Indiana: rated the most environmentally unfriendly by NMI solutions
15. Iowa: highest percentage of people age 85 and older (1.8 percent) (tied with three other states)
16. Kansas: poorest health based on highest average number of limited activity days per month (3.5 days)
17. Kentucky: most cancer deaths (227 per 100,000 people) (BONUS fact: Kentucky also has the highest rate of tobacco smokers – 25.6 percent)
18. Louisiana: highest rate of gonorrhea (264.4 reported cases per 100,000 people)
19. Maine: dumbest state claim based on lowest average SAT score (1389)
20. Maryland: highest rate of AIDS diagnosis (27.6 people per 100,000 people)
21. Massachusetts: worst drivers claim based on highest rate of auto accidents
23. Minnesota: highest number of reported tornadoes (123 in 2010)
24. Mississippi: highest rate of obesity (35.3 percent of total population)
BONUS facts: Mississippi ranks last in the most number of categories. These include highest rate of child poverty (31.9 percent), highest rate of infant mortality (10.3 percent) lowest median household income ($35,078), highest teen birth rate (71.9 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19) and highest overall rate of STDs.
25. Missouri: highest rate of bankruptcy (700 out of every 100,000 people)
26. Montana: highest rate of drunk driving deaths (1.12 deaths per 100 million miles driven)
27. Nebraska: highest rate of women murdered annually
28. Nevada: highest rate violent crime (702.2 offenses per 100,000 people). BONUS fact: Nevada also has the highest rate of foreclosure (one in 99 houses)
29. New Hampshire: highest rate of corporate taxes
30. New Jersey: highest rate of citizen taxation (11.8 percent)
31. New Mexico: antisocial claim based on lowest ranking in social heath policies
32. New York: longest average daily commute (30.6 minutes)
33. North Carolina: lowest average teacher salary
34. North Dakota: ranked last in ugliest residents report as chosen by The Daily Beast
35. Ohio: nerdiest state claim based on highest number of library visits per capita (6.9)
36. Oklahoma: highest rate of female incarceration
37. Oregon: highest rate of long-term homeless people
38. Pennsylvania: highest rate of arson deaths (55.56 annually)
39. Rhode Island: highest rate of illicit drug use (12.5 percent of population)
40. South Carolina: highest percentage of mobile homes (18.8 percent)
41. South Dakota: highest rate of forcible rape 76.5 per 100,000
42. Tennessee: chosen most corrupt state by The Daily Beast
43. Texas: lowest high school graduation rate (78.3 percent)
44. Utah: highest rate of of online porn subscriptions
45. Vermont: infertility claim based on lowest birth rate of any state (10.6 births per 1,000) (tied with Maine
46. Virginia: highest number of alcohol-related motorcyle deaths
47. Washington: most cases of bestiality (4 reported in 2010
48. West Virginia: highest rate of heart attack (6.5 percent of population)
49. Wisconsin: highest rate of binge drinking (23.2 percent of population)
50. Wyoming: highest rate of deadly car crashes (24.6 deaths per 100,000)
Thanks to Pleated Jeans for the best darn detective work about the worst damn things in our country. SOURCE
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 10th Amendment
BY MICHAEL BIESECKER – Staff Writer
RALEIGH — Cautioning that the federal dollars in your wallet could soon be little more than green paper backed by broken promises, state Rep. Glen Bradley wants North Carolina to issue its own legal tender backed by silver and gold.
The Republican from Youngsville has introduced a bill that would establish a legislative commission to study his plan for a state currency. He is also drafting a second bill that would require state government to accept gold and silver coins as payment for taxes and fees.
If the state treasurer starts accepting precious metals as payment, Bradley said that could prod the private sector to follow suit – potentially allowing residents to trade gold for groceries.
“I think we’re in the process of inflating a dollar bubble that could be very devastating,” said Bradley, a freshman legislator elected in November’s GOP tide. “The idea is once the study commission finishes its work, then we could build on top of the hard-money currency with an actual State Tender Act that will basically [issue currency] in correspondence to precious metals stored in the state treasury.”
Bradley’s bill has yet to attract any co-sponsors among his fellow Republicans.
Mike Walden, an economics professor at N.C. State University, said the notion of North Carolina reverting to having its own currency is outlandish.
“We dealt with this issue about 100 years ago when the Federal Reserve was established,” Walden said. “If North Carolina were to have its own currency, that would put us at an extreme competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis other parts of the country and other parts of the world.”
State Treasurer Janet Cowell joked that Bradley’s precious metals proposal could increase efficiency in state government by providing a good use for her department’s old basement vault, which is currently used for storage.
“I look forward to engaging in an important public policy debate about whose face should be on the gold coin,” quipped Cowell, a Democrat.
But Bradley predicts that world events could soon prove him prescient.
“I don’t necessarily believe [the Federal Reserve] is about to collapse right now,” said Bradley, 37. “There are still a few things they can do with qualitative easing to sort of extend their survival. It’s just a question of how long. Right know we have a lot of sovereign debt going to China and Japan. When that debt stops being purchased by foreign countries, that currency is going to flood back onto American shores, potentially creating hyperinflation and bursting the currency bubble we have coming in Federal Reserve notes today.”
The Austrian School
Bradley, a self-employed computer technician and former Marine, attended Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest until he could no longer afford tuition, he said. While he has not taken any in-depth classes in economics, Bradley described himself as a devotee of the Austrian School, a branch of economic thought that originated in Vienna and was influential before World War I.
Back then the value of most of the world’s currencies were tied to the amount of the gold amassed in their national treasuries. The United States abandoned the gold standard in 1933, after it was blamed for worsening the Great Depression.
Though the ideas of the Austrian School have been rejected by mainstream economists for much of the last century, they are in vogue with Libertarians and some supporters of the tea party movement.
The language of Bradley’s House Bill 301 predicts a dire future for the U.S. economy.
“Many widely recognized experts predict the inevitable destruction of the Federal Reserve System’s currency through hyperinflation in the foreseeable future,” the bill declares. “In the event of hyperinflation, depression, or other economic calamity related to the breakdown of the Federal Reserve System, for which the State is not prepared, the State’s governmental finances and private economy will be thrown into chaos. …”
Asked who are the “widely recognized experts” to which his bill refers, Bradley cited U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Peter Schiff, a precious-metals dealer and investor who regularly appears as a commentator on Fox News.
Walden, the economics professor, said the views espoused by adherents of the Austrian School are well outside the mainstream of modern economic thought.
Bradley’s ideas for taking the state back to the Gilded Age don’t end at economics.
About Commerce Clause
A strict Constitutionalist, he has also introduced bills to exempt North Carolina agricultural products and firearms manufactured in the state from federal regulation as long as they are not sold or exported across state lines, measures that fly in the face of more than a century of U.S. Supreme Court rulings interpreting the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
“They’re wrong,” Bradley said confidently of generations of justices. “The 10th Amendment is quite clear that those powers not reserved in the Constitution for the federal government are reserved to the states. It’s doesn’t take a high-priced lawyer to interpret the Constitution.”
Rep. Becky Carney, a Charlotte Democrat, said she found Bradley’s currency bill “perplexing.”
“There has absolutely been no indication of the collapse of the Federal Reserve system,” said Carney, who serves on the House banking committee. “It sounds like the Chicken Little story about ‘the sky is falling.'”
The office of House Speaker Thom Tillis declined to say whether the GOP leadership supports Bradley’s proposal to create a state currency. His bill has been referred to the House rules committee, where legislation is sometimes sent to die.
“There are a lot of diverse opinions and diverse views in our caucus,” said Jordan Shaw, Tillis’ spokesman. “I don’t think we’re going to forecast what will happen.” [email protected] or 919-829-4698
If you’re not convinced the threat of inflation in the U.S. is real, there’s a handful of Utah senators (17 to be exact) who respectfully disagree. The Utah Senate passed HB317 yesterday, 17-7, moving the state a few steps closer to a gold and silver standard. The bill allows businesses and individuals to exchange federally issued gold and silver coins instead of paper dollars in financial transactions.
The gold and silver would be valued at their current market price, meaning cashiers would probably need a calculator and a running Kitco ticker beside the register when processing transactions.
A state committee will now look at whether Utah should recognize an official alternate form of legal tender. Utah Governor Gary Herbert, who has not taken an official stance on the bill according to the Washington Times, will have the final say to veto or sign it into law.
If the bill ultimately becomes law, the implications would be interesting. On one level, it’s a symbolic move designed to send a message to Washington. On another, actually using gold and silver as legal tender would be difficult as users would have to file federally required transaction reports, according to the Deseret News.
If inflation becomes a reality, though, the appeal of such a system might be worth the headaches. Just last month, J.P. Morgan announced it would take gold as collateral for loans. It’s a sign that more sophisticated gold and silver transactions could be on the way.
Here’s a hypothetical: what if employers could pay employees in gold and silver? That amount could be electronically deposited into employee accounts not in USD but in XAU (the currency symbol for gold) or XAG (the currency symbol for silver). Banks could then issue special debit cards so that purchases could also be made in XAU and XAG.
If a business didn’t directly accept gold or silver as tender, credit card companies could apply an exchange rate for the gold or silver in the account, charge a fee to the purchaser and convert the purchase amount to USD at prevailing prices.
If the dollar were in the midst of a free fall, the consumer who’s holding gold or silver in the bank rather than dollars, would win. It’s almost enough to make me want to move to Utah.
Not enough gold in the world to return to a gold standard, Bernanke says
Rumblings that the U.S. should return to a gold standard have started trickling into the media as the public grows wary of a ballooning budgetary deficit. In an appearance before the Senate Banking Committee earlier this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was asked directly about the possibility of the U.S. returning to a gold standard.
“It did deliver price stability over very long periods of time, but over shorter periods of time it caused wide swings in prices related to changes in demand or supply of gold. So I don’t think it’s a panacea,” Bernanke said.
The soft response to questioning from Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) – a long-time Bernanke detractor – leaves a tiny window of hope that a gold standard might be something the Fed’s actually considering. “It’s not a cure-all, but it could be helpful,” Bernanke seems to be saying.
It’s difficult to imagine Bernanke would endorse a gold standard. He’s long maintained that the Federal Reserve kept too tight of a grip on the money supply by raising interest rates during the Great Depression. Once the public began losing faith in the dollar, they were all too eager to trade greenbacks for gold, which further contracted the money supply and ultimately led to deflation.
Linking the dollar to a fixed amount of gold would constrict the Fed’s ability to prop up the money supply. Bernanke himself pointed to another flaw he sees in a gold-backed currency: namely, that there’s not enough gold in the world to go around.
“I don’t think that a full-fledged gold standard would be practical at this point,” Bernanke said.
He could be implying a watered-down gold standard of sorts is possible in the future, but I’m not convinced Bernanke believes that. Inflation is one of the few tools the Fed has to spur growth (or at least the perception of growth). Giving power up is always more difficult than accepting it, and – so long as the public retains faith in the dollar – it would serve little purpose.
To understand the Gold Standard you have to understand money. To understand money you have to understand other things. Permit me to explain:
1. Money is a symbol for something that has a universal value. Most societies have only permitted gold and silver as money. Even our Constitution forbids the States to recognize anything else as legal tender:
Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
If you are looking for a legal way to challenge the Federal Reserve, this is it. It appears that you could file a motion in your home state under this section of the U.S. Constitution to force your state to stick to gold and silver as legal tender. The U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land. Nothing trumps it. However, there are ways around this provision. One is the so-called “Gold Standard”. In other words, we can use pieces of paper that actually represent gold or silver.
Some of you might even recall “gold and silver” certificates that floated around in past century. These were redeemable in actual gold and silver at your nearest Federal Reserve Bank. So, if you had a $1 certificate, you could redeem it for $1 worth of silver or gold. This is one of the reasons why Kennedy was assassinated, by the way.
MYTH 1: The Gold Standard is the Answer to our Economic Woes.
The fact of the matter is that there is only a limited amount of gold out there. In fact, you could put all the available gold produced in one year in your living room (about 50 million troy ounces.) That would have a market value of about 80 billion dollars. If we estimate all of the gold available to us today from previous mining operations, we are looking at a cube about 1/3 the size of the Washington Monument.
In other words, we would have about 10 billion ounces of gold. We would have about 10 trillion dollars worth of gold if we put the entire amount into circulation. With a global economy of about 60 trillion dollars, we would be about 50 Trillion short. Or, we could contract the global economy by 50 trillion dollars and be right there.
But, here is the problem:
1. People hold onto things of value. That means they pull it out of circulation. Gold is used for much more than just currency, so it would be fair to estimate that half of the 10 trillion would be pulled from circulation in the first year and reallocated for other uses.
2. It would eliminate all third party transactions. Using gold itself as a physical means of exchange would make it impossible for you to buy anything that was further than you could drive.
Which brings us back to the “Gold Standard”.
If every dollar were backed by the equivalent amount of gold than you have eliminated the problem of third party transactions, but you still have the problem of scarcity. There were about 829 billion US dollars in circulation as of December 2007 according to the US Treasury. That means we would need 20% of the available gold to back our currency. Europe would need another 20%. That means the rest of the world would have to fight over the remaining 60%. So, the question remains, what currency would they use to conduct business with the rest of the world and how would it be backed?
Now, if we throw silver in the mix, we have something we can work with.
MYTH 2: The Gold Standard Will Stop the Banksters from Stealing Our Money.
I wish it were true. But, it is not:
1. The Knights Templar were the first bankers of Europe. They would take in deposits of gold and silver and issue “wooden chits” that could be redeemed at any Templar facility in Europe or elsewhere. This was the “gold standard” in action. But, Banksters will be banksters and they figured out that very few people actually redeemed the “chits”. Instead they stayed in circulation.
2. Pretty soon, they started lending money to kings and Popes alike. They handed out wooden “chits” and demanded to be paid back in gold and silver. Thus, they leveraged the “gold standard” by issuing “notes” that actually had nothing behind them. All because they knew that 98% of the wooden chits would remain in circulation and very few would ever be redeemed for the gold and silver they kept on deposit.
3. Inflation is always the result of what we call “fractional lending”. The Banksters end up with the gold and silver, and we end up with a worthless currency that continues to decline in value.
The Real Problem is the Federal Reserve System Folks!
1. The Federal Reserve System is a private corporation controlled by Illuminati Jews and the literal descendants of the Knights Templar. Most of the families that own the Fed are not even American Citizens.
2. The Fed uses the Treasury to print its privately owned currency and then charges us interest just to keep that currency in circulation.
3. The IRS and Federal Income Tax were created for the sole purpose of paying off the Interest owed to these Private Bankers for Using their currency.
Imagine what life would be like without an income tax. The divorce rate would plummet. One spouse could support a family. America would truly be the “Land of the Free”.
John F Kennedy was Murdered for trying to shut down the Illuminati Banksters:
1. He actually created a publicly owned currency that was backed by gold and silver. Some of you might recall the gold and silver certificates of the early 60s.
2. The currency was owned by “We the People” and it was interest free!
3. If he would have lived, and his program would have succeeded none of this current mess would have happened.
But, they killed him. If you remember nothing else, remember this: Anyone that calls for a gold standard without also calling for the abolishment of the Fed and a “Silver Standard” is throwing you a “red herring” and either stupid, or employed as a mouthpiece by the Illuminati Banksters. You need gold, silver and an interest free currency if America is to be truly free.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” – The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution
With the big Republican wins in the November 2010 elections, there seemed to be a common thread among the victorious candidates: Spending needs to be reined in on the national level.
In Utah, a state already dominated by a conservative legislature, and considered by most to be very well run, the new lawmakers elected to serve in the Utah statehouse aren’t necessarily riding the same “rein in spending” wave that their peers on the national level are. When talking to several new and more senior members of the Utah House of Representatives, however, it quickly becomes clear what will join boilerplate hot issues like education, the budget and public safety as a key item this year: The 10th Amendment.
One need not look further than a recent event hosted by the Utah Tenth Amendment Center, where a room packed full of Utah residents gathered to watch Utah lawmakers line up and present bills that they will sponsor in the 2011 Legislative Session that, they hope, will reassert Utah’s state rights.
The bills range from one sponsored by Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, that would allow Utah to assert itself on the matter of the federal government attempting land grabs in the state to a bill sponsored by Rep. Bill Wright, R-Holden, that would exempt food grown and sold within Utah’s boundaries from new regulations by the FDA.
Collectively, these lawmakers are sponsoring bills that use the Constitution to scrutinize a range of things the federal government does that they believe the feds shouldn’t be involved with. Ultimately, they want Utah as a state to be responsible for what the Founding Fathers intended states to be responsible for.
“Now is the time for state legislators to actively take a role in protecting your rights,” said Utah Rep. Chris Herrod, R-Provo, at the recent Tenth Amendment Center legislative briefing. Herrod referenced an experience he had some time ago teaching in the former Soviet Union.
“I remember asking my students in class, ‘How do you enjoy your new freedoms?’” Herrod told the group. “One of the students spoke up almost immediately and said, ‘Chris, until we have the right to own and control property, we are not free.’ Property was of essence to them.”
With that, Herrod noted, 67 percent of Utah is owned by the federal government.
“We are not what I consider a full state,” he told the room. “We are still a state in infancy.”
Going into the 2011 Legislature, new lawmakers like Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, are passionate about having Utah take control of the things states are meant to control. In the weeks leading up to the 2011 session, Ivory has been speaking to many groups around the state on the issue of state sovereignty, asking the simple question of “Where’s the line?” between what the feds can control and what states should control.
Ivory quotes the Founding Fathers in depth during his speeches, noting among other things that Thomas Jefferson once stated that state governments must be strengthened and states themselves must erect barriers at the Constitutional line.
“We’ve got big issues,” Ivory told Sutherland Daily. “Should we (Utah) not be the model of what it means to be self-reliant?”
Ivory notes that Utah has a solid foundation of charity, service and hard work, and as a result is in prime position to set the example for the rest of the country in redefining what states’ rights are. He tells the story of a special education teacher in Tooele, Rebecca Ford, who is worried that her weekly bake sales to raise money for field trips and other activities will no longer be allowed under the Hunger-Free Kids Act, which would require schools to make any foods sold to students during school hours healthier.
“If they can do that, what can’t they do?” Ivory asks. “If (Secretary of the Interior) Ken Salazar can take 6 million acres at the stroke of a pen, what can’t they do?
“Where’s the line? Where’s the line?”
Rep. Jeremy Peterson, R-Ogden, will join Ivory as a freshman lawmaker on Capitol Hill this month. Peterson echoes the thoughts that Utah can and should be a leader in asserting states’ rights.
“There is a feeling in the body that Utah almost has an obligation to stand up and do something just because [budget-wise] it’s well managed and it seems with our house in order, we have the opportunity to be able to stick our necks out and exercise some leadership,” Peterson said. “I guess it just comes down to who wants to be first the most.”
To be certain, Utah will not be the only state with proposed legislation asserting states’ rights this year. In fact, many states, including Idaho, Montana, Texas and Virginia, have introduced several pieces of legislation in recent years addressing 10th Amendment issues. Previous bills that have found success in legislatures, including Utah’s, have included opting states out of portions of Obamacare and exempting firearms manufactured and sold within a state from federal gun laws.
It was that firearms legislation, in fact, that served as some of the inspiration for a Utah Intra-state Commerce bill that will be sponsored by Rep. Wright. The bill, which exempts any foods grown and sold within the state of Utah from new stringent FDA food safety regulations, was actually written by Boyack.
“This is a commerce issue; it’s a constitutional issue,” Boyack said. In late 2010, federal lawmakers approved the Food Safety Modernization Act, legislation that enacts much stricter safety standards on food produced and sold to people in the United States. Boyack argues that increased regulations could seriously hurt food producers.
“The regulatory burden that is being imposed on them threatens their very livelihoods,” Boyack said. “It’s (his bill) a very proactive stance to allow Utah to stand up and say, ‘On this issue, for agriculture, we will uphold the Constitution.’”
Perhaps the most ambitious of 10th Amendment agenda items on the docket of Utah lawmakers is a bill proposed by Wimmer that would change the way Utahns pay their federal income tax. Under Wimmer’s proposal, Utah residents would pay their federal income tax to the Utah State Tax Commission. The state would then have a board set up to determine which parts of the federal government are constitutional, and then tax dollars would be sent to those agencies.
“Immediately the fed is going to come in and try to overthrow this,” Wimmer said. “Then, we have to go to the next step, and is the next step nullification? Quite possibly.”
Wimmer said he was outraged last year when federal officials bypassed the power of the Utah Legislature in giving the state $100 million to use for one-time education funding.
“’You can’t refuse it,’ they said to the states,” Wimmer told those at the Tenth Amendment Center’s legislative briefing. “‘If you refuse it, we’re still giving it to you; we are going around the Legislature.’
“I have never seen that in my entire life, never in my entire life have I ever seen the federal government so brazen in its complete overthrow of state legislative bodies,” Wimmer said. “It offends me because it took away your power to elect your representatives and to have representation at the local level.”
Wimmer, who has established an exploratory committee for a potential 2012 congressional run, acknowledged that this type of legislation is a one- or two-year process for him.
“We’re losing the battle,” he said. “But I believe we will win the war.”