Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Ohio needs a state currency!

One buckeye sterling
 I am close to retirement age. Saving for retirement has not been easy for me, as I am sure it has not been easy for many Ohioans. Yet I see that the Federal Reserve is priming to go on another binge of buying federal debt that is, in effect, printing money.

Those of us who have followed the issue understand that, at some point, the dollar will not be accepted abroad because it has lost so much value. When that happens, inflation will rage out of control, and all of our savings in cash or bonds will be wiped out. Gold and silver are good hedges, but could prove impractical to convert in an emergency situation. I also would not rule out an attempt by the federal government to seize individual holdings of gold and silver as it did with gold by Executive Order 6102 (1933).

There is a way to prevent this for the people of Ohio, but it will take political courage. We need a state currency. On the face of it, the idea sounds illegal and highly unconstitutional, but if we handle it correctly, we can pass legal muster and protect ourselves from the hyperinflation to come.

The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10, states, “No State shall … coin money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts…” Of course, we can argue that the feds have violated the Constitution a thousand ways to Sunday; but they will be sure to enforce it on us. So here is the workaround:

I am recommending that the currency of the State of Ohio shall be the “buckeye sterling,” to be defined as one United States dollar according to the Coinage Act of 1837 (412½ grains, 90% silver – the remainder was copper for durability). The silver content is thus 371.25 grains or 0.7734375 troy ounce. Since our currency will consist mostly of pre-1965 United States silver coins, the state will not be minting anything. The State can accept silver bullion in payment of taxes and fees at a fixed rate of 1.2929 buckeyes sterling per troy ounce of silver. Assayers could convert silver in other forms, such as jewelry, into (almost) pure silver suitable for coinage or bullion, which could still be created by private mints under their own names and designs. Keep in mind that the Constitution intended the U.S. dollar to be a measure of the silver content in its currency. There is nothing sacred about the fact that a particular “dollar” was issued by the U.S. Mint.

Most of the circulating money, however, would be in the form of silver certificates, just as one-dollar bills were prior to 1965. They would not have to be stated as “legal tender,” because gold and silver are, according to the Constitution and the Ohio Revised Code (section 5701.04), by definition, legal tender in payment of debts and taxes. For circulating money, the state can issue certificates backed by the silver on hand in the state treasury. Because the certificates are backed by silver, they are not "bills of credit," as our Federal Reserve Notes are now.

There will have to be some provisions to “jump start” the deposit of silver in the state treasury Perhaps a 5% silver discount in payment of taxes would be sufficient – the state will recoup the temporary loss in a short time as the value of silver continues to appreciate. The Treasurer of State might have to negotiate with Ohio banks to begin accepting silver and state-issued silver certificates for deposits, perhaps into separate buckeye sterling-denominated accounts, or converted into dollars at a market rate from a mutually acceptable source.

Such an act will provide a badly-needed inoculation from the deadly virus of inflation. I realize that many Ohioans will think this idea is ridiculous; but now, more than ever, we need vision to avoid the catastrophe. We have no time to lose. As soon as the budget is settled, the General Assembly needs to begin work on appropriate legislation.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Truth about the War between the States

When I first ran into H. K. Edgerton about two years ago, I, like many who have been raised on the politically correct interpretation of the war, was mystified to see a black man who was proud of his Confederate heritage. As I have come to know Mr. Edgerton through his writings, however, his position has come to make perfect sense; especially when one considers that one of the primary purposes of Confederate independence was to essentially maintain the Constitution for its states as it was before that war.

Following is an e-mail from Mr. Edgerton that gives us a little-known, but badly-needed perspective about that war:

On Tuesday, June 14, 2011, the Asheville Citizen Times newspaper would carry on it's front page a story about a Black man who had traced his ancestry and found that his great grandfather had served in the Confederate army, and had received a pension for his service. Nothing uncommon about this, but he would relate that he was so surprised to find this out , and further exclaimed that he could not understand why his relative had joined the Confederate army, and further didn't his ancestor know that the Union army was coming to save him. The paper would go on to say how this was a revelation in light of the ruckus that some pedant who had exclaimed in Virginia that there was no such thing as a Black Confederate soldier. Some more poppycock.
After reading this, my first reaction, and probably that of anyone in the know would be to look at this man in disgust at the revelation of his ignorance. However, as a Christian Southerner with first hand knowledge of how the Federal government quickly established the Public school System, sent it's northern school teachers south after the war to dumb down our Southern populace, and arguably the nation about the real reasons the honorable people of South took up arms against a man who illegally invaded their homeland, raping, burning, murdering innocent defenseless old men, women and children; "total war policy against a defenseless civilian  population. And then systematically excluded from written history the place of honor and dignity earned by not only the Black confederate soldier, but also that of the millions of of Southern Bondsmen, Bondswomen, Freedmen, and Freedwomen who from 1861 to 1865 loyally served and supported the Confederate cause in however humble and noble a capacity.  And  further gave to the North an unwarranted since of virtue for ending the evil economic institution of slavery that they and the whole of the civilized world was complicit in.
Even though the Southern armies had surrendered, the North had not finished their conquest. They began a deliberate policy of poisoning the minds of the former slaves against their former Masters. The White South was ready to do right by their former slaves. They accepted the fact of freedom, even though it was not intent of the North, and were prepared to make provision for the new freedman within the limits of an impoverished and devastated South. The North spread anarchy and hatred through their secret Black societies called the Union or Loyal leagues. By the misrule of the Carpetbag governments, and unknowledgeable Blacks , they spread corruption across the defeated South.
The average Black Confederate understood his duty as God gave him the light to perform it. He performed his duty without expectation of reward or promise of freedom, but knew that if he worked and struggled and fought hard for the Confederate Cause as a loyal subject, the White people of the South would do right by him. Unfortunately for the nation, the North instituted a plan of divide and conquer , coupled with economic strangulation of the South, while duping, bribing, and pandering to a few poverty pimps who willingly to this very day do their bidding because they fear the day when Southern Whites, and Southern Blacks will rekindle the love that they found for each other in lieu of the economic institution of slavery that the whole world was complicit in.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Today is Flag Day

Display the Burgee proudly (and alone)!

Friday, June 10, 2011

Independence is drawing academic interest

Alan Caruba at LewRockwell.com has read the book Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century, a scholarly anthology edited by Donald Livingston of Emory University in Atlanta, to be published in October by Pelican Press.

After reading the book, Mr. Caruba observes that "clearly the central government has grown so large, so unwieldy, so wasteful, and so unresponsive to the problems and costs it has imposed that people are beginning to wonder why 435 Representatives in the House and 100 in the Senate should control the lives, the economy, and the education of more than 300 million people in fifty sovereign States.
The President virtually makes law with 'executive orders' and the nine members of the Supreme Court exercises final authority of the constitutionality of laws. Congress is so divided by raw partisanship it is barely functioning."

“The only remedy,” says Prof. Livingston “is territorial division of the Union through secession into a number of different and independent political units.”

Professor Livingston then observes that the "arrogant social engineers" on the U.S. Supreme Court feel free to strike down state laws at will. He urges the states to "reassert their sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and recall those powers they have allowed to slip out of their hands to the central government."

Mr Caruba continues:
This is not a call for anarchy. It is the realization that the modern presidency has aggregated to itself powers it does not have or, in the case of Libya, is ignoring the War Powers Act that limits its ability to engage the nation in conflicts Congress does not ultimately authorize.
It is the realization that every United Nations treaty the United States signs deprives it of its sovereign rights.

It is a call for consideration that regional groups of States with common interests might provide better government within such groups, leaving to the central government the responsibility to protect the nation via a common military, conduct foreign affairs, and return to the gold standard that would protect the value of a common currency...

When one-in-five Americans give credence to the right of secession, it is clear that the problems being experienced in all fifty States, the massive regulation of all activities within those States, the imposition of a centralized “core” curriculum to be taught in all schools, is arousing a rediscovered sense of liberty among Americans.
Mr. Caruba and Prof. Livingston provide further evidence that an idea that was considered wacky three years ago has entered respectable public debate, precisely because the usurpations of this President and the neglect of this and the previous Congresses to check those usurpations have awakened the American people to the fact that more drastic measures will become necessary, if we are to regain our liberties.

For myself, I would prefer that Ohio go it on its own as an independent Republic. With 11.5 million people, a land area of 40,000 square miles, and what would be about the 20th largest economy in the world if no larger state seceded, we would actually be a bit larger than the average nation out there today. However, I can see some advantages to forming a very loose "Confederation of the Great Lakes," but only if it follows the example of Switzerland and writes a constitution that consciously keeps the confederate government as weak as possible.

The window is opening for a serious discussion of independence in Ohio. My question to the reader is, how do we most effectively introduce it?

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Goshen College decides not to play the national anthem at sports events

From the Glad that Goshen College Won't be Playing the National Anthem Facebook page:
Goshen College is a Mennonite college in northern Indiana.

Because Mennonites have historically understood loyalty to Christ and loyalty to country to be often in conflict -- especially when Jesus' call to nonviolence conflicts with the nation's call to war -- the college has traditionally not played the national anthem at sporting events.

For a year, it reversed that practice. However, on June 6, 2011, the college board of directors returned the college to past practice. This is their statement:

“As a result of a thoughtful, thorough, prayerful period of listening, learning and discerning, it is the Board’s judgment that continuing to play the national anthem compromises our ability to advance the vision together. As a result, the President should find an alternative to playing the National Anthem that fits with sports tradition, that honors country, that resonates with our core values and that respects the views of diverse constituencies.”

This group is for those who are against Goshen College playing the national anthem.

Those who disagree with the purpose of this group and would like to debate/discuss the issue are invited to use the group "Discussion of Goshen College and the National Anthem." There is also a group called "For Goshen College Honoring Our Country with the National Anthem." Posts and comments challenging the purpose of this group will be removed. There are other groups for those comments.

Having lived around Mennonites and having a limited understanding of their tradition, I'm not sure why they should feel obligated to play anything at all; but if the tradition of playing patriotic music before a game is just too strong to resist, I would suggest "God of Our Fathers, Who in Ages Past," sometimes known as "National Hymn."

Blind loyalty to a country is nationalism, not patriotism. In America, patriotism is loyalty to the principles on which the country was founded. When the government of a country betrays the principles on which the country was founded, the true patriot will work to alter or abolish that government. Thomas Jefferson said so, July 4, 1776; reaffirmed by the Ohio Constitution (Article I, Section 2), March 10, 1851.

Sunday, June 5, 2011

Quotation of the day

From Indian professor and social critic Arundhati Roy, speaking in Oxford, England, as quoted by the Calcutta Telegraph:
"I do say the most successful secessionist struggle in India has been the secession of the middle and upper classes to outer space from where they look down at the indigenous people (and) at the poor and say, ‘What’s our bauxite doing in your mountains? What’s our water doing in your rivers?’”
India is far from the only country experiencing this phenomenon. Take our own, for example...

Friday, June 3, 2011

America preaches unity at home, division abroad

The SPLC has "Hatewatch." I think we need a "Hypocrisy Watch." My latest reason for suggesting that is an article by Danny Schechter in the Pacific Free Press.

I will refer you to his article for the details, but here are some examples of what I mean. While most Americans insist that the United States is "one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" (the "liberty and justice for all" a false statement to anyone who can understand what is going on), American foreign policy has sought to divide in many parts of the world:

  • We fought two wars, at the expense of over 100,000 American lives, to keep Korea and Vietnam divided.
  • American pundits are looking for a way to split the European Community by encouraging Greece's moves to re-establish their own currency.
  • American troops helped split Bosnia into two hostile factions, the "Republika Srpska" and the Muslim-Croatian government.
  • We encouraged Kosova to split off from Serbia.
  • We separated Kurdistan from the rest of Iraq during Saddam Hussein's rule, and there are many who feel that Iraq would be better off if split into three states, for the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites.
  • We have always supported the partition of Palestine -- and not just into Israel and the Arabs; but into Israel, the West Bank (under Fatah) and Gaza (under Hamas).
  • Africa's boundaries have never made much geographic or ethnographic sense; but while we support them generally, we were more than happy to see Southern Sudan split off from Sudan, and would be ecstatic if Darfur would follow suit; and there are proposals to split Libya into two or three nations.
So, please explain to me again, why is it such a good thing for 300 million Americans to be forced to remain "one nation, indivisible," but for all of these smaller nations to be decimated, and why what other nations do with themselves is any of our business?

Thursday, June 2, 2011

How the Federal Reserve works

As predicted in a 1912 cartoon:

The tentacles have now reached our pockets in the forms of mortgages and inflation. Only sound money based on gold or silver will reverse this trend.

(Click on the cartoon to enlarge.)