Arizona making gold legal tender

[dennislmay]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/01/arizona-returning-to-gold-rush-roots-with-bill-making-gold-legal-tender/?test=latestnews

Arizona is returning to its gold rush roots with a bill that would make precious metals legal currency.

The GOP-led Senate gave final approval Tuesday to the bill that could make Arizona the second state in the nation to recognize gold and silver as legal tender. If signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer, the measure would take effect in 2014.

Utah became the first state to allow gold or silver payments in 2011.

*****

There are many views held by Mike Church [siriusXM radio host] that I don't agree with but he seems to be a leader on issues of state rights.

The eventual dissolution of the USA into regional powers and some individual states seems likely given the failure of the federal government in so many areas of governance - not the least of which is the failure to obey the Constitution.

Church noted the other day that the civilian populace arming up has no precedent in US history since the election of Lincoln in 1860. Either the government is coming after our guns and/or the government has become a potential enemy. In any case the situation has many parallels to those that lead to Civil War I.

The Progressives won't allow their power to be diminished so they are likely to prefer Civil War over putting the federal government back in its place under the Constitution. It is likely too late for the states to reassert themselves under the 10th Amendment.

Dennis

[KacyRay]

I guess we're screwed.

[BaalChatzaf]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/01/arizona-returning-to-gold-rush-roots-with-bill-making-gold-legal-tender/?test=latestnews

Arizona is returning to its gold rush roots with a bill that would make precious metals legal currency.

The GOP-led Senate gave final approval Tuesday to the bill that could make Arizona the second state in the nation to recognize gold and silver as legal tender. If signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer, the measure would take effect in 2014.

Utah became the first state to allow gold or silver payments in 2011.

*****

There are many views held by Mike Church [siriusXM radio host] that I don't agree with but he seems to be a leader on issues of state rights.

The eventual dissolution of the USA into regional powers and some individual states seems likely given the failure of the federal government in so many areas of governance - not the least of which is the failure to obey the Constitution.

Church noted the other day that the civilian populace arming up has no precedent in US history since the election of Lincoln in 1860. Either the government is coming after our guns and/or the government has become a potential enemy. In any case the situation has many parallels to those that lead to Civil War I.

The Progressives won't allow their power to be diminished so they are likely to prefer Civil War over putting the federal government back in its place under the Constitution. It is likely too late for the states to reassert themselves under the 10th Amendment.

Dennis

The Civil War was about secession (in the immediate sense, and chattel slavery in the indirect sense). I will believe a Civil War is brewing when a State attempts to secede from the Union and is opposed by military force from the Central Government.

BTW no matter what Arizona enacts all debts are repayable in Federal Reserve Notes or checks drawn on bank accounts based on Federal Reserve currency.

I imagine that Arizona could legalize barter contracts in which goods or services are bartered for bullion. If I can trade my goods for cooked fried chicken I see no reason why I can't trade my goods for lumps of gold.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

BTW no matter what Arizona enacts all debts are repayable in Federal Reserve Notes or checks drawn on bank accounts based on Federal Reserve currency.

That is where it becomes interesting. There are 118 companies that will do no business with government entities [state and local] that restrict the rights of the people in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Those are producer boycotts.

Can producers boycott those who will not purchase using legal gold/silver approved by the state? There is no "debt" until the producer agrees to sell. Arizona already exempted payments to government so I see no legal reason why producers can't refuse private business not done in gold/silver.

The federal government abandoned the Constitution when it created the Federal Reserve. States should do all they can to correct that error.

Dennis

[KacyRay]

Dennis,

Are you advocating for state secession or rebellion? I'm catching a subtle whiff of the undertone there.

[dennislmay]

Dennis,

Are you advocating for state secession or rebellion? I'm catching a subtle whiff of the undertone there.

I am advocating limited government. The people and the states need to make that happen - the federal government is out of control.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

Dennis,

Are you advocating for state secession or rebellion? I'm catching a subtle whiff of the undertone there.

I am advocating limited government. The people and the states need to make that happen - the federal government is out of control.

Dennis

If limited government is not restored soon authoritarian rule is inevitable in the short run as financial collapse occurs.

Dennis

[syrakusos]

First, you should get some facts. Gold has always been a small part of Arizona history, and was last actively mined in 1998. So, it is not far back to "return" to.

Wikipedia here: In 2006, all of Arizona's gold production came as a byproduct of copper mining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_mining_in_the_United_States#Arizona

One "Legal tender" is only a declaration of that this or that issue of the government is intended as money in payment and will be accepted by the government in payment. If you have ever seen a UK Gold Sovereign, then you know that it has no statement of value on it. Similarly, the US Gold Eagles originally had no "dollar" value on them. They were, however, intended as money, to be used by the government in payment. They would be accepted by the government in payment in return, for taxes, duties, purchase of public lands, etc. By comparision, the Congressional Medal of Honor looks a lot like a coin. So do the Inaugural Medals, the medal given to Lindbergh, and many others. They are not legal tender. So, too, with paper, does the government issue tons and tons of paper documents. Only some are "legal tender."

Contrary to myths created by right wing dreamers, you are not required to accept "legal tender" in payment; and refusing it does not negate the contract. "We accept no bills larger than $20" is a common sign all over America today. It is perfectly legal. And you still have to pay for what you buy. And it must be in a form of money that they want to accept: FRNs, gold, apples, horses,...

Making gold "legal tender" is a symbolic act of no semantic importance.

Two American states are every bit as oppressive as you dream that only the Federal government is. Dennis L. May himself here posted a rant against some small town Texas police who tried to take a soldier's rifle. He claimed that they must have been Big City Marxists. No, they were just police. We have them, sheriffs and deputies, district constables, state police, rangers, the State Department of Public Safety, a d slew of independently commissioned "peace officers." We have no shortage of law enforcement in Texas.

And we have a government as active as that of Massachusetts. They have their fingers in everyone's pie. Every business is regulated. The government sells bonds and gives the money to special businesses with special relationships. We have a $3 Billion Cancer Institution (CPRIT) scandal going, but only the leftie Austin Chronicle complains about the $5 billion given to the Formula One Racers over 10 years (1 down; 9 to go).

The difference is that Texas has a different culture than Massachusetts, just as New Hampshire is different from Vermont, and New Mexico is different from Arizona. New Mexico has a part-time legislature and they are nonetheless dirt poor. When the Southwest Territory was stolen from Mexico, it was divided North-South. After the Civil War, that north-south thing was painful, so they divided the Southwest Territory East-West. Same land: a huge god forsaken wilderness. But for whatever reasons, New Mexico is poor and Arizona is prosperous. But it has nothing to do with "rights" or "constitutions" and a lot to do with intangibles of culture.

Three States violate your rights. The 8th Amendment provision against torture was incorporated to the states only in 1936. (See Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, (1936).) The 1st Amendment provision for freedom of religion applied to the states finally in 1997. (See Silverman v. Campbell, et al. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Argued October 3, 1996, 1996. Decided May 27, 1997.) (In fact, the State of Massachusetts collected taxes on behalf of the Congregational Church until 1840.) And we all know how the City of New London, Connecticut, stole private property and gave it to Pfizer Pharmaceuticals.

States do not have rights. If I advocated for research into ESP, someone would point out the logical contradiction in "extra" sensory perception. Fair enough. We need also to remember that states do not have rights.

[dennislmay]

First, you should get some facts. Gold has always been a small part of Arizona history, and was last actively mined in 1998. So, it is not far back to "return" to.

Wikipedia here: In 2006, all of Arizona's gold production came as a byproduct of copper mining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_mining_in_the_United_States#Arizona

One of my friends is currently mining gold in Arizona. Small mines have existed all along.

Dennis

[syrakusos]

Michigan's "copper country" reports gold every now and then. When I visited a friend in Colorado, he showed me people panning for placer gold in a stream. You only underscore my point: it remains that Arizona has no "gold rush days" to return to.

But lets talk about states' rights... Do you really want states to have nore power than the federal government? ... Sounds like a bad idea...

Or let's discuss "legal tender." Do you really know what it is?

[dennislmay]

But lets talk about states' rights... Do you really want states to have nore power than the federal government? ... Sounds like a bad idea...

I said no such thing - there is a Constitution where the federal governments role is limited and the rest is reserved to the states and the people. The federal government is in gross violation of the basis of law.

Until the basis of law is restored the states need to do what they can to restore minimal government.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

But lets talk about states' rights... Do you really want states to have nore power than the federal government? ... Sounds like a bad idea...

I said no such thing - there is a Constitution where the federal governments role is limited and the rest is reserved to the states and the people. The federal government is in gross violation of the basis of law.

Until the basis of law is restored the states need to do what they can to restore minimal government.

Dennis

The Constitution died in 1865. The only way minimal power is going to be restored is by blood and blast.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

But lets talk about states' rights... Do you really want states to have nore power than the federal government? ... Sounds like a bad idea...

I said no such thing - there is a Constitution where the federal governments role is limited and the rest is reserved to the states and the people. The federal government is in gross violation of the basis of law.

Until the basis of law is restored the states need to do what they can to restore minimal government.

Dennis

The Constitution died in 1865. The only way minimal power is going to be restored is by blood and blast.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Likely true, but one always hopes another way will be found. Blood and blast often leads to

authoritarianism as bad or worse than what was in place before. Too many variables leading

to an unknown outcome.

Dennis

[KacyRay]

Dennis,

You're pretty unambiguous in your belief that the USA is in the brink of collapse/destruction/hostile-takeover/outright-socialist-nightmare. Have you started making plans for what you will do when that happens? I'm curious how you see your life going after this Armageddon takes place.

Will you move to another country? Canada, maybe?

Will you take to the underground? Maybe live in a bunker off of whatever rations you can find until Dictator Obama comes and takes your guns?

Will you attempt to restore this country to its glory days via blogging and internet dialogue until Obama comes and arrests you?

I'm just curious what your game plan is.

[dennislmay]

I'm curious how you see your life going after this Armageddon takes place.

I expect to be part of the 10% or more killed when the socialists take power - the 10% number coming from Obama's friends in The Weather Underground. After they have control another 5% [their own base] will be killed when they don't like the authoritarian hand of socialism around their neck either. This doesn't take into account the hundreds of millions around the world who will die of starvation as the export of US crops is interrupted - causing skyrocketing commodity prices.

The US is the last stand for freedom and Western civilization - going to another country might buy you a few years or none at all.

In general those who constantly post Progressive talking points don't need to know anything about the plans of those who do not support Progressives.

Dennis

[KacyRay]

I'm curious how you see your life going after this Armageddon takes place.

I expect to be part of the 10% or more killed when the socialists take power - the 10% number coming from Obama's friends in The Weather Underground. After they have control another 5% [their own base] will be killed when they don't like the authoritarian hand of socialism around their neck either. This doesn't take into account the hundreds of millions around the world who will die of starvation as the export of US crops is interrupted - causing skyrocketing commodity prices.

The US is the last stand for freedom and Western civilization - going to another country might buy you a few years or none at all.

In general those who constantly post Progressive talking points don't need to know anything about the plans of those who do not support Progressives.

Dennis

I don't think anyone in here asks questions because they "need to know". I think it's because we are in a discussion forum.

But thanks for being explicit. I was afraid that people might think I was being overly harsh or engaging in ad homs when I refer to folks like you as alarmists who prophecy impending doom for the entire world. Thankfully, by explicit statement, you've agreed that this is exactly what you believe.

Can you, ah... put this catastrophic takeover into a general time-frame? Say... give-or-take 10 years?

[dennislmay]

Can you, ah... put this catastrophic takeover into a general time-frame? Say... give-or-take 10 years?

Like the elections of 1980 and 1994 it is possible there will be a political turn around in 2014 delaying the problem. If it looks like the Progressives will be in trouble in the 2014 elections things could actually start improving just on the hunch they will lose big.

Because of our fragile economic position unpredictable events can facilitate the start of a collapse at any time. The big money Progressives have already moved their money out of the stock market and made themselves liquid - ready to buy things up cheap following a downturn [the secret of becoming super-rich is to have insider information and political and Federal Reserve connections]. Big money and foreign governments are betting the collapse is happing sooner rather than later.

Progressives win big in 2014 means an economic collapse soon thereafter. The recession/stagnation goes into deep depression - flight of capital from the US.

Progressives lose big in 2014 means a delay for 2 years to see what happens in 2016. If Progressives lose big again the collapse could be delayed 8 years or more if there is no major wars in the mean time.

If the 2014 election is a mixed bag like today the situation will remain unstable and 2016 will be the make or break election deciding the collapse or not. The stagnation will continue through at least 2016.

Unless the Progressives lose big in 2014 and it is predictable in advance there remains a good chance of collapse at any time. Any little event could set off a run on the banks and a flight of capital.

Too many variables to predict out very far. The next big turning point is the 2014 elections.

Dennis

[KacyRay]

Okay, so let's say the Progressives win big in 2014.

- Can you define "win big" please

- Then, can you state the conditions necessary to identify the economic collapse when it arrives, so that there's no doubt it's here

- Then, I'd like to know what you are prepared to say if those conditions are not met in 2016 after the progressives win big in 2014. In other words, if the progressives "win big", and your prophecy of doom does not materialize, will you consider it a repudiation of your thesis, or will you rationalize it away by continuing to insist that the end is just around the corner?

I'd also like to know (and this will require full, honest disclosure on your part) if you predicted an economic collapse if Obama were to win a second term. I'd like to know what predictions you made in the event that he did win, and how many of them have materialized after he won.

I notice every scenario you describe is basically a doomsday scenario, except some are more distant than others. How must it feel to live with this cloud of doom hanging over you head at all times? I couldn't imagine living that way.

“It's just a ride. But we always kill the good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok … But it doesn't matter, because it's just a ride. And we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one.” - Bill Hicks

[BaalChatzaf]

The fact that the U.S. economy has not collapsed completely even with the bungling of the Bush Administration and the following Obama Administration indicates that there is a fiber of strength in our system.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Serapis Bey]

"And we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. "

Robert Baratheon confronts Kacy Ray in public (true story!):

[KacyRay]

"And we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. "

Robert Baratheon confronts Kacy Ray in public (true story!):

Nice of you to use media that I cannot watch.

[KacyRay]

The fact that the U.S. economy has not collapsed completely even with the bungling of the Bush Administration and the following Obama Administration indicates that there is a fiber of strength in our system.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I agree, and it pains me to see so many Americans that feel the USA is irredeemably weak and doomed to collapse under the weight of its own bumbling incompetence.

The clear implication here is that this government "by the people, of the people" can't succeed because Americans are just too dumb/evil/sinister to make it work.

[syrakusos]

I expect to be part of the 10% or more killed when the socialists take power - the 10% number coming from Obama's friends in The Weather Underground. After they have control another 5% [their own base] will be killed when ...

I began expecting that in 1969 but the first threat came from G. Gordon Liddy and President Nixon's other conservative advisors. The repression at every anti-war protest, the killings at Kent State and Jackson State -- KSU is famous, because the victims were White -- made it clear that Amerikkka was on the horizon.

All through the 70s and into the 80s, I expected the collapse of the US economy with concomitant dictatorship. The election of Ronald Reagan signaled a change. You have to appreciate that when a group wanted to bring The Beach Boys to Washington DC for a party on the Reflecting Pool, Secretary of the Interior James Watt said that they represented "the wrong element" and he tried to bring in Wayne Newton. The Beach Boys had a lobbyist: Nancy Reagan.

Remember that when he was pursuing the nomination, Ronald Reagan used the word "libertarian" so often that the LP offered him their nomination.

... and my fears sort of evaporated....

The US Mint began selling gold coins in 1986. It is a defacto gold standard: you give them Federal Reserve Notes, they give you gold at the market price. (It's a bit more complicated, actually, but that's the gist.)

Last year, I interviewed some professors in the classics department here at UT for an article. One of them specializes in the so-called "Dark Ages." Even as Rome was being sacked by the Visigoths, new villas were being constructed around the old port of Ostia.

[BaalChatzaf]

“It's just a ride. But we always kill the good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok … But it doesn't matter, because it's just a ride. And we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one.” - Bill Hicks

That is not an easy choice.

[KacyRay]

No, but it is a simple one.