Ron Paul Is Wrong On Return To Gold Standard

It can't be denied that Texas Representative Dr. Ron Paul is one of the most voracious defenders of Constitutional principles in the United States Congress. Having said that, it has been the long-standing position of Dr. Paul that a return to the Gold Standard is the solution to the dire economic calamity American citizens, and by proxy, the majority of economically developed nations, face today.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Honest, patriotic Americans often clamor for a return to the Gold Standard, as this monetary system was the precursor to the Federal Reserve System, now in place in the US. The reasoning behind a return to the Gold Standard is that the system worked to the betterment of the people. Gold reserves were once decentralized, as Americans harvested the natural resource from a land which was predominantly un-mined. Under the US Constitution, Gold Standard coinage was to be the intended medium of exchange. Coins made from precious metals possess intrinsic value, as human labor is required to extract these metals from the Earth and process them into coinage. The US Constitution explicitly states coinage of such nature is the lawful money of the country.

Being that Dr. Paul is such a staunch advocate of Constitutional principles, it is quite reasonable for him to maintain that the Nation return to the Gold Standard. However, there is one important facet of a return to the Gold Standard that has been overlooked.

The International Monetary Fund, according to its own web site, is "one of the largest official holders of gold in the world."

By some estimates, the IMF holds 75% of gold reserves in the world. Currently, the IMF claims to possess 3,217 metric tons of gold in reserve. The Second Amendment to the Articles of Agreement in April 1978 merely dictates the IMF avoid managing or establishing a fixed price for the commodity. It does not prohibit the organization from doing as such. One of the policies of the IMF in regard to its gold reserves is that "The IMF should continue to hold a relatively large amount of gold among its assets, not only for prudential reasons, but also to meet unforeseen contingencies."

Converting to the Gold Standard from the Federal Reserve System would make the IMF the De facto price setter for the precious metal. As gold is a non-inflatable monetary resource, a return to the Gold Standard would place the predominance of wealth directly under the power of the IMF, and allow that organization to set the price for the precious commodity. Being non-inflationary is an issue, for this organization would control disbursement of a monetary article that would be scarce.

As the IMF has sold off a fraction of its gold reserves in 2008 "in an effort to stabilize world markets" (emphasis added by editor), this action merely serves as a precursor to any future role the organization may play in acting as the world's clearinghouse for the precious metal. It would be unwise to believe the IMF will sell off a substantial portion of its own reserves in order to prop up declining world markets, especially if the largest industrialized markets enter a free-fall collapse.

As well, those who advocate the purchase of gold as a hedge against any economic collapse of the Federal Reserve would be wise to note that "hoarding" of the metal was made illegal following the New Deal in 1933. What constitutes hoarding is certainly a matter of legal discretion, however, Executive Order 6102, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, made the possession of more than $100 in gold illegal. This order was later repealed, but could easily be re-enacted.

With many investors scrambling to convert Federal Reserve Notes into gold at this time, we are witnessing a phenomena similar to that which occurred during the Great Depression. Being that Executive Order 6102 was put into effect following that period, it would be a safe assumption that a similar action could be taken should the Federal Reserve System crash due to hyperinflation.

In such an instance, the investment in the metal would prove to be futile unless one wished to acquire outlaw status.

Regardless of such an event, a return to the Gold Standard at this juncture would cause an even greater economic calamity than that which we already face. While Dr. Paul has the best intentions in preserving the dignity of the principles of the Constitution, and is correct about the majority of his assertions in regard to Constitutional governance, times have changed. There is no new frontier in the US to be mined. The control of the majority of the reserves of this commodity is centralized within a single international organization.

In returning to the Gold Standard, the United States of America would be bartering one problematic system for another that would prove to be even more disastrous for the sovereignty of our Great Nation.

Next Week At Force Of Natural Reason

Next week, we will be focusing on topical matter that will assist in putting world events and the mechanisms that control them into proper perspective.

Visit the blog in the days ahead to learn more about Transformational Dialectical Process, The Fallacy Of Duality and The Pervasiveness of Doublethink In American Society.

Thank you for visiting.

Our Constitution Is Not Inspired By Divinity

It's striking that so few truly understand the basis of our Constitution. Arguments that the Constitution is somehow a divinely-inspired document show either a lack of education as to the ideas and principles behind the tenets of the document, or a deliberate attempt to pervert the true intent of the philosophies behind the Constitution. In no way are the Constitution or the Bill of Rights Christian documents. The philosophical underpinnings of each of these documents stem from Locke and Cooke, primarily Locke.

That which is self-evident is only that which can be observed in nature. The sun rises each morning, and sets each evening, and that is self-evident - because we can see the proof of it. This is fact. An omnipotent, omnipresent God is not. This is specifically why the word Creator, acknowledging the conditions and circumstances that have allowed for the creation of Human life, was used by the Forefathers on several occasions. In using this word, it is obvious the intent was a nod toward the principles of Locke's natural law, not the God of Christianity, or of any other religion, for that matter. Those individuals who continue to portray the founding of this Nation or the intent of the Constitution to be of divine inspiration in relation to the presence of a religious God are simply in error. While this Nation has been, and continues to be depicted as a Christian Nation, due to the fact a majority has held and continues to hold a Christian world-view is not germane to the documents that guide our nation. The philosophy of Locke was based strictly in natural Law. These philosophies were shared by Tho. Jefferson, Franklin and others who had a hand in shaping the principles that have directed our country.

This country was not intended to be a democracy, this point is certain. Democracy is merely the method by which elected representatives are chosen, to uphold the principles of the Constitution. It was not intended to be mob rule or Law on the basis of the will of the majority, but Law under the principles contained in these founding documents, with the people of the country electing representatives in a democratic fashion TO UPHOLD THESE PRINCIPLES. It was not intended that this country be directed by the institution of Religion, Christian, Judeo-Christian (Goy religion) or otherwise. It was intended that the United States of America by directed by it's Constitution and Bill of Rights first and foremost and that these documents would supersede the will of religious institutions, everyday politics and Lesser laws, acts, statues and similar decrees.

However, there can be no argument that these documents were the product of divinity. Anyone choosing to lead others to believe this to be the case are mistaken or simply uneducated. That which is self-evident is that which can be seen in Nature and proven in Nature scientifically. Locke was as much a student of Natural Science as a philosopher. Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, with counsel from James Madison, influenced by the works of Paine, John Adams and Jefferson (a student of Locke), chose his words carefully for a reason. He had never intended for Religion to play a role in the principles of the Government of this Nation. Any argument suggesting otherwise remains ignorant of the true foundations behind the guiding principles of the United States of America.

Politics: Regarding American Presidential Debates

As evidenced in last evening's presidential "debate," there's very little true debate on pertinent issues. Instead, what we are witnessing is an orchestrated psychologial operation designed to divide the public into camps, as opposed to unifying the American people behind valid political positions that will serve to further the wellness of the nation.

In no way can any important political position be articulated within the span of a minute's time. Furthermore, debate requires that opponents be allowed to properly question each other's positions in a way that is meaningful. The scripted, timed manner of such a disdoes not allow for prop rebuttal to matters of disagreement, reducing the entire event to a glorified job interview.

As a society, we've been programmed into accepting soundbite politics as opposed to well-structured, intelligent political arguments. In this way, very little critical thought is applied to any specific issue of importance.

While watching facilitator Tom Brokaw "moderate" the Presidential debate of last evening, it remains richly apparent the media has no desire to allow candidates vessels for articulating solid political positions. The sloganism of Orwell's texts has never been more apparent. Allowing such debates to be moderated by media figures is a laughable premise in itself. What credible qualifications does one who merely reports news events have in determining the framework of the debate? Manufactured talking points and false issues have no place in a debate. Even more troubling is the manner of dialectical context in which the debate is presented.

Those viewing the performance put on by Brokaw and the two candidates have little understanding of the nature of this superficial fabrication that's placed before them as valid political discourse.

Both of the selected candidates offered very little fact, a great deal of opinion and further obscufation of the true issues at hand.

We've wrongly learned to accept that which is put before us by so-called "credible" sources as holy fact.

If the American public wished to truly put Presidential candidates on the spot, to learn their true inclinations, we would be better served as a Nation to televise the candidates being asked hard questions by their actual constituents, in the absence of false media facilitation, and without hand-selection of attendees.

American Presidential debates are not debates on positions at all. They are merely opportunities for parroting divisive party platforms. Such illusions have too long been held by the American public to be credible methods of selecting a President.

Economics: Why the Debt Ceiling has to be raised

While the proposed Legislation that’s now passed the Senate and is moving toward a House of Representatives vote this Friday is laden with unnecessary regulation and several points which usurp liberties, the fact is the debt ceiling needed to be raised if Americans are to continue to enjoy a decent standard of living.

On one hand, accosting new federal powers should be lauded. There was little formal debate on many of the new powers contained in the bill, many of which should have been raised separately, if a truly prudent Congress was in session. The focus of the ire of patriotic Americans ought to be on this aspect of the proposal squarely.

However, it is quite unsettling that many are accosting the Fed and the US Government for raising the debt ceiling. This was a prudent decision on behalf of the entities that will ensure many Americans do not experience a rapid decline in their individual standards of living.

Under our current, debt-based monetary system, everything depends on the borrowing of currency and the public trust in the value of it. All Federal Reserve Notes are borrowed, so much for anyone’s argument about passing debt on to future generations. Such has been occurring for almost a century. Suffice to say the Republican argument implying this current generation of Americans has some sort of unique calling or responsibility to not pass debt on to the next generation is one that rings hallow. Via the hidden debt of inflation and taxation on a level that would have been considered as grounds for contemptuous admonishment by the Founders, our currency has lost most of its purchasing power and plenty of value, especially in the last decade.

If the debt ceiling is raised, that will enable the Treasury to issue more bonds so that the Fed may place more money into circulation. More money in circulation allows for payment of debts owed to other countries, earmarking for infrastructure projects, and money for business investors to borrow. As overhead costs are taking up a large share of employer’s budgets, there is less money to provide workers with wages. In a market where rising costs are resulting in rising prices, the workers’ money is worth less as a result. If this were allowed to continue, the continued rising prices would leave Americans with less substantial incomes to be able to afford less utilities, goods and services…right down to the point where workers must choose between paying one essential bill or another.

Americans have passed debt on to future generations since the inception of the Federal Reserve System; this is no secret to anyone with a passing interest in Economics. Most “money” is not in the form of cash, not existing as actual bills, but as ledger entries and commercial paper. More debt exists than there is currency to pay off, even if the entire economy turned in its cash to settle the debt. If the debt that has been passed on to us from generations passed, the point is moot in having an opinion the debt ceiling should not be increased. The increase in the debt ceiling is required in order for the average American to economically survive.

For one to question that fact, they must have a rather dim perspective of the realities of our current economic system.

A Case Against Physical Conflict

Amongst libertarian thinkers, there is a profound division over the advantage of physical conflict as a method of resolving disputes. Many will point to the American Revolution as a justification for armed conflict, however the very nature of warfare has evolved, changed, become different.

Were the libertarians of today to believe such methods could be used successfully, they would certainly be in error. What we must give our attentions to is the idea that people should become well-educated. Our modern socitey has abandoned facts and the realities of our nature for an illusion of living. Instead of education, we receive programming. Our mental intake is largely entertainment-based. We've been afforded a valuable life, yet seemed predisposed in simply killing time.

As for armed conflict, the balance has tipped. While most Americans believe soundly in the Second Ammendment, our Founding Fathers could not have forseen the advances in technology and science which have now become reality. These are advances that can never be bested by rifles and small arms. In seeing that an idea of physical conflict is impractical from a practical standpoint, it should be noted that other contradictions exist within a libertarian argument for such conflict. We need to understand that such actions aren't a valid point of expressing our political opinion on the basis of principle. Such ideas are counterproductive to the goal of the libertarian, who must ensure that principles are accepted on the basis of moral validily, in keeping with the good and just nature of individuals.

Libertarian ideas must become widely accepted simply on basis of common sense based in fact. Those formenting opinions of aggression are none different than the very tyrants they claim to oppose. Such counter-productive oratory should be seen for what is, a perversion upon our ideals and a display of disingenuity which renders many of our principled arguments impotent.

Philosophy: The Force Of Natural Reason

Attorney General Randolph remarked to an unsightly-in-appearance Patrick Henry, who who had swayed the lawyer with truth.

"Behold the force of natural reason," said Randolph. "You have never seen these books; nor this principle of law; yet you are right and I am wrong. ...I will learn to never trust appearances again." (1)

This is the powerful statement quoted from which this effort has been named.

(1)  "Thomas Jefferson - A Strange Case of Mistaken Identity" - Alf J. Mapp, Jr. Madison 1987

Politics - An Analysis Of The Change Issue

As yet another Presidential election season has come due, it is well worth noting that "change" has become a constantly recurring campaign slogan in American elections. Those intellectuals who opt to continue onward with such a tired refrain are well aware that very little will change for the betterment of the American public-at-large, in spite of the media-controlled flood of campaign rhetoric on behalf of the respective nominees. 

Many Americans may well wonder, "Why is it that we desire change in the first place?"

Whereas the Constitution of the United States was originally fabricated in order to give the American citizens a simple guideline for their representative government, more than two- hundred years of incessant Legislation has produced a miasma of orders, acts, statues and laws that are repugnant to the Constitution - each time these ideas have been merged into public policy in the name of change.

Human beings often have a difficult time accepting realities of life. When people are unhappy with that which is in accordance with natural law, instead of accepting the realities placed before them, they are inclined to call for the government to "change" things. For more than two centuries, American politicians have led the citizens down a path that may have been tread with the best of intentions, but leads to the exact despotism the Founding Fathers of this country had went to great lengths to avoid.

We cannot change that which is fact. To attempt to do so is the most futile of endeavors, having no respect whatsoever for the boundaries of Logic and Reason. If we humans do not like the direction in which the Earth spins, should we make effort to change the rotation, masking our dislike for reality in the name of change? Would we be so foolish to endeavor to alter such basic realities of this world in which we exist? A notion such as this is indicitive of the utter worst in the psychology of mankind. 

Now, in these days of the American Republic, intellectuals have bound the political arguments with illusions and fallacies. Certainly, many a modern American has a lust for change, because the condition of the great many has been segregated into artificial social classes through private control of the value of our currency. Those men who labor and toil diligently, only to be rewarded with the lowest standards of living in this Nation, have been placed into serfdom by a parasitic ruling class that performs little of actual benefit to society. The value of hard work has been thus perverted in antithesis to the principles on which this Nation was originally founded.

Self-determination and effort ought to be the qualities rewarded in a just and moral society, not the ability to deceive the masses through programming and manipulative devices. 

This incessant drumbeat for change is a psychological attempt to make Americans believe that the Government has an interest in making the everyday lives of American citizens better, and the public has been buying into the deception for such a great period that they've come to wholeheartedly believe the ruse. 

Use of Hegel's dialectic allows Democrats and Republicans alike to endlessly cause social and economic harm to the populace and evade just oversight by blame-shifting upon the other. What most Americans fail to realize is that as this subtle intellectual game of cat and mouse continues, the actual change that is desired becomes even more elusive.

It is well known that the State shall always act in the best interest of itself, regardless of the will of the people. The Constitution was designed to limit the power of the State to act in its own best interest at the expense of those represented. However, using instruments set outside the context of the framework of the State such as Religion and Banking, politicians have allowed exterior forces to usurp the intent of the Constitution. Whensoever an institution places misery upon the People, that is recognized by the many to be an entity separated from the State, it offers the State the opportunity to intervene in order that things be "changed." 

Thusly, cartels working with the highest and most influential entities, may injure the public trust without responsibility. Government has placed us at the mercy of interests outside the limits of the Constitution. Is there no doubt the masses clamor for change? Is it notable that this theme is allowed to reoccur in our political discourse time and time again without question from the American public? 

The change that is required for this Nation to enjoy true Liberty is a return to the very principles America was founded upon. When vigilance is called for, it ought rightly to be vigilance of the people of America in ensuring their political servants follow closely that framework which was provided to them for governance. Our attention must be turned from false paradoxes and paradigms and toward that which is completely and wholly self-evident truth. Those who wish not to adhere to the limitations put upon the government by the Constitution and the people of the United States should be expelled from public office without the benefit of argument. What the United States of America truly requires is a provision unthought of by our Founders. A method must be developed in which the people place corrupted leaders on trial by referendum, outside the context of the controlled court system. Recall is not an option with enough power to rectify the widespread corruption which now exists, instead a process of affirmation of Confidence ought to be adopted on a regular basis for any public servant at any level of Government. Such affirmation should rightly occur as often as quarterly, to hold politician's corruption in check. If corrupt politicians were removed from office in this manner, on a regular basis, it would make it vastly more difficult for the majority of politicians to become corruptible.

The idea of "change" as resolution to pre-fabricated ills upon the people is one that must be ignored by the American public. Those who tout such political positions must be construed as nothing more than snake-oil salespersons who wish to further pervert this Nation's principles for their own selfish ends. Those who no longer wish to see America as a soverign with a strong Constitution behave exactly as spoken above. Persons such as this have no tolerance of the fact that the mass of humanity lives not for their whims, desires and profit - but the true and natural state of mankind rightly belongs nestled deeply in the arms of Liberty.