By Cliff Johnson

Money is a representation of someone’s personal production or accumulation of wealth that is accepted as a medium of exchange for goods or services.

Money is a representation of production, and in most cases, production is a result of manual labor.

For thousands of years, Gold and Silver have been widely accepted as money. Why? Of course its desirable beauty must be taken into account, but the real reason is because it represents labor or production. Gold and silver are rare metals where the ore must be mined, processed and worked into a finished product. See Gold Mining

What gives gold its value?

Being that gold and silver are physical representatives of actual labor, its value is based on the labor and resources that were expended to produce the final product.

Gold and Silver acquisition (of the past)

When a person worked or labored to earn money, many were paid in gold or silver. When that person accumulated the gold and silver as their earnings, it became a representation of their past labor and accumulated wealth and could be used as a currency. Some people were compensated with more gold or silver based on intensity of labor or difficulty of expertise. Based on the individual, they saved or spent their earnings, as they saw fit.

The Banker’s Scheme

There were several inconveniences of accumulating gold and silver; among them were two obvious instances: Portability and protection. To protect their wealth, people would deposit their gold and silver into a bank for safekeeping and when they needed funds, they would make a withdrawal.

When someone made a deposit, the bank would issue a certificate or receipt acknowledging the deposit and the receipt was redeemable for their gold or silver on demand.

Before long, people became accustom to accepting these receipts and were trading them instead of the actual gold and silver that they represented. This was a more convenient and secure way to transport and trade their money. After all, if the bearer of the certificate wanted the gold or silver, they would simply go to the bank and redeem.

Simple enough, right? Well the bankers began to realize that very few people were ever redeeming these certificates for the actual gold and silver. They ended up having large reserves of gold and silver on hand so they decided to take advantage of that situation. They began lending bank “notes” to people beyond the gold and silver reserves they had on deposit. A “Note” is a representation of “Debt”, not money. In fact the complete opposite of money. This practice is known as Fractional Reserve Lending. They began to write bank notes that were not secured by actual gold or silver deposits, and then lend them at interest. This is counterfeit money because it is “debt” being represented as “money”. They were actually lending counterfeit money and charging interest. However, no one would know the difference. The banks had enough gold and silver to cover the occasional certificate redemption, and the “bank notes” they were creating, that were not backed by deposits, looked strikingly similar to the previous certificates that were backed by deposits. With the public confidence in the banks, there would never be any question or any issue, and the people unknowingly continued trading these counterfeit bank notes amongst society as if it were money.

By the bank creating this counterfeit money, “bank notes”, they expanded the “Currency” supply by putting more bank notes into circulation than there was actual money (gold and silver) on deposit in their banks. This is known as “Inflation”. They compounded this problem by charging interest on bank notes. After all, where was the money coming from that would be used to pay the interest on the bank note? You must remember, that the money did not exist in the gold or silver deposits to begin with; therefore it had to be created from somewhere. So the banks just created more bank notes “counterfeit money” to cover the interest on the bank notes they had loaned out. The banks literally began creating bank notes (currency) out of nothing. They had no gold and silver securing the bank notes they were creating. As a result of “Inflation”, prices seem to be higher. What actually happens is the currency is loosing value because there is so much of it in circulation. The actual “value” of the goods and services remain the same. The “value” of a hamburger has never changed, it still provides delicious nourishment today just as it did 50 years ago. What has changed is the amount of dollars needed to purchase the same hamburger. There are TRILLIONS more dollars in circulation today. If you think things cost more money today, you are right, but you haven’s seen anything yet. Soon you will start seeing the effects of monetary inflation from tarp, bank bailouts, insurance company bailouts, auto bailouts, $8000 Government funded “Tax credits” to new home buyers, government funded Cash for Clunkers, etc. As I said, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

And so it continued in a vicious cycle that has spiraled so far out of control that we have landed where we are today. Understand that this process is no different than someone making Xerox copies of hundred dollar bills and using them at the grocery store. Or better yet, lending them to people at interest!

Over time, our central bank, The Federal Reserve, has changed the currency to look different and have different wording. But due to the abundance of public ignorance, most Americans are none the wiser that they are trading pieces of paper that represent “debt” not “money”. Our coins (Dollars, Halves, Quarters, Dimes) actually were made with 90% silver prior to 1965. They were actual “Money”. Now all we have is a worthless metallic alloy jingling in our pockets. They began making coins from a worthless alloy that looked the same and switched them out with our silver coins. Effectively robbing all of us of our silver. Let’s not forget FDR’s Executive Order in 1933 making it ILLEGAL for Americans to own gold. He ordered Americans to take their gold (Real Money) to the nearest Federal Reserve Bank and turn it in for paper money (Counterfeit Money).
FDR 1933 Gold Confiscation Act

So you think you have money?

Well, I am sad to say my friend, you don’t. You simply have pieces of inked paper or meaningless electronic digits that populate a computer screen that are now traded for goods and services out of ignorance and fear. The ignorance comes from the people who have no idea what money is, or even the purpose of money. The fear comes from our government who is perpetuating this illusion that the paper dollar is worth something. This scheme has been going on in the US for nearly a century and the Federal Reserve’s ultimate goal of total control of the money supply is nearly complete. The Federal Reserve, a private bank, was chartered in 1913 by The Big Bankers and the Progressives of the US Congress. The Federal Reserve, with the blessing of our federal government, has printed TRILLIONS of bank notes (AKA “The US Dollar”). The current US dollar in your pocket is worth less than 4 cents when it is compared to its value in 1912. We are talking the manifestation of TRILLIONS of counterfeit dollars. In the end, the banks end up with all the real money (gold and silver) and the unwitting depositors are left with nothing more than inked paper. This is how the international bankers have robbed the people of the world of their wealth. These are the bankers that laugh at us as we toil about our daily lives in pursuit of more of their counterfeit money while they hold the real money, gold and silver.

To reverse this a lot must be done. But the first step is to End the Federal Reserve System. The ability of the bankers and our government to print counterfeit money MUST be stopped. We must return to a sound currency of gold and silver and allow for competing currencies. Every state has the Constitutional right to COIN their own money provided that it is created from silver and gold.

America’s general lack of knowledge of monetary policy must also be reversed. Educate as many people you can. Start with yourself and your children. Money is common sense. If your gut is telling you that something is wrong with government monetary policy, trust your instincts.

Guy Tries to Sell Gold Maple Leaf for Face Value ($50)

What is the Big Tent Philosophy that many in politics are espousing today?

With the looming 2010 elections and the recent outcomes of races such as the New York, District 23 congressional race, many are considering what our big tent philosophy should be.

It seem that the “Big Tent” philosophy is a notion that is usually advanced by Democrats and other John McCain types, that Republicans must forsake their conservative and foundational principles, to embrace moderates views, because after all, the moderate can win elections. It seems these types think that this is the only way to be a viable party.

And of course establishment Republicans like Michael Steele, Charlie Crist and others, buy into this argument hook, line and sinker. Steele, for example, constantly feels the need to play down conservative values whenever they begin to define the direction of the party. Often assuring the liberal media that Republicans embrace diversity. In so doing, he allows his opponents to set the terms of the debate.

What does it mean to be a diverse party? Does it mean that in the interest of “diversity” Republicans should nominate candidates who would go to Washington and join the opposition on important legislation? What is the sense of even existing as a political party if you have such lax requirements regarding first principles?

How would you ever differentiate yourself from the opposition? No one expects to agree with any particular candidate on everything.

The question we must answer is where is the line? What issues do conservatives say are their ‘deal breakers’ when it comes to supporting a candidate or staying behind the “party line”?

Reagan had once famously articulated an inclusive philosophy that welcomed all to his party and he was fond of saying things like “somebody who agrees with you 80% of the time is an 80% friend not a 20% enemy.” But, even in this case, his inclusiveness had its limitations. Reagan’s contempt for the Rockefeller wing (what would today be called moderate or liberal Republicans) of the GOP was legendary.

So what should the GOP learn from Reagan’s big tent philosophy?

First, he did indeed have a big tent, especially in 1984, which allowed 59% of the electorate to vote for him, but it was a tent of Reagan’s design in which those who disagreed with him had little say about how the tent was constructed, but were welcome to stay anyway.

In Reagan’s big tent, the likes of Arlen Specter would always have been welcomed, so long as they were willing to go along with Reagan, but the moment they stood in the way, and sought to assert their policies on his vision for the party, they were quickly reminded of the underlying philosophy upon which the Reagan Revolution was born. “In politics it is always wise to construct the largest tent possible so long as the foundation of the tent is not compromised”.

Today, the big tent that Reagan stitched together is in disarray, but if its leaders are to return from political oblivion, they’d do well to remember how Reagan went about constructing the tent and the philosophy that swept him, and two weak Republican successors who rode his political coattails into the White House, and built a tent which stands for key principles, yet never fails to welcome those who disagree, as honored guests.

If Republicans want to hold themselves up as a truly viable party then they must not be afraid to heartily embrace some basic principles, as Reagan did. Namely a return to Constitutional values, individual liberties, property rights, low taxation, sound money, sound borders, equal opportunity through hard work and self determination and of course free market principles.

These are not just conservative principles, they are America’s founding principles and there is no bigger tent! When properly articulated these principles are a proven strategy for electoral victory. Those who would try to reinvent the wheel or seek to embrace progressive policies have given up, and accepted the idea of diminishing liberty and the ever expanding administrative state.

The American people have awoken to the fact that there can be no choice between liberty and the incremental destruction of that liberty as offered by so-called moderates who would compromise first principles for political expediency.

Sources:

www. Salon.com

http://www.liberallyconservative.com

November 11, 2009

Senator George LeMieux
1650 Prudential Drive
Suite 220
Jacksonville, Fl 32207

Re: Federal Reserve Sunshine Act

Senator LeMieux,

All government must be open and transparent like President Obama promised during his campaign. I assume you support this type of open book policy and I would ask that you support the senate bill S604 to audit the Federal Reserve.

Sincerely,

Charles R. Sheppard

November 11, 2009

Senator Bill Nelson
1301 Riverplace Boulevard
Suite 2218
Jacksonville, Fl 32207

Re: Federal Reserve Sunshine Act

Senator Nelson,

All government must be open and transparent like President Obama promised during his complain. I assume you support this type of open book policy and I would ask that you support the senate bill S604 to audit the Federal Reserve.

Sincerely,

Charles R. Sheppard

Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils

The concept of voting for the lesser of two evils is prevalent in American politics. This is the philosophy that when given two poor choices for elected office, the people vote for a candidate that they think will do the least amount of damage.

After years of supporting the candidate that always seemed to be a choice between the lesser of two evils, I have started to study this philosophy.

A few questions come to mind when thinking about the best way to cast your vote:

Is a vote for the right candidate, which may in the end, not be able to win, a wasted vote?

Or is a wasted vote one that is cast for someone that you do not believe in, and will not be the right leader for the country or state?

I have found that the ‘lesser of two evils’ philosophy is fundamentally flawed. When a voter chooses to vote for ‘evil’ it is still evil. Regardless of which of the two they vote for- they are still choosing a candidate that is inadequate for the job

When one of the options is considered the lesser or the greater evil, either choice will be to the detriment of the Country.

When we as citizens cast our vote for the lesser of two evils, what we are basically saying to the candidates is that we support them. The politicians know this, and the parties know this. They do not need to offer other alternatives because the majority will make the choice for the lesser evil, and they can then continue with business as usual.

The ultimate conclusion that I have reached is that when I am presented with two bad choices, I am not going to vote for the choice I think is “less bad”. Evil is evil, a bad choice is a bad choice. One might be slightly better than the other, but in the end they’re both going to do more harm than good. By following this school of thought – that there is a lesser evil – I would be giving into a false dichotomy.

A common response to this conclusion is that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate and therefore at the end of the day pragmatism should win out to idealism. Political pragmatism has its merit as long as decisions are always made from a fundamental set of core principles that are never compromised. Everyone must have a line that cannot be crossed. For example, if you believe that an elected official who supports/votes for authority outside that which is authorized in the Constitution should never be elected, then that is a line that cannot be crossed even in the name of pragmatism.   Each voter needs to know where their line is before determining who they will or will not vote for.

Another common counter argument to not voting for the lesser of two evils is that you have to make a choice when given two poor options, because third party candidates are simply not viable. But as I began to study this philosophy I had a realization: The reality is if all the Americans that felt that they were choosing between two evils, refused to vote for the lesser evil choice, and instead voted for a third party, a third party would likely have a viable chance at winning the election.

With this in mind, in the future, I will encourage voters to break away from the mindset of voting for the lesser evil. I suspect this is the majority of Americans. Not only is this mindset a flawed way of thinking, it degrades our country and slows progress.  If we ever want true change, voters need to wake up and stop voting for more of the same. We need to stop voting for the status quo!

By: Kristi Dunn

mskristidunn@gmail.com