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.