Texas wants its gold back. I say help or get out of the way. Texas is not unique in this interest. Germany and others have recently expressed similar intentions to repatriate their gold2. What makes the Texas bill, HB3505 unique3 is a Texas depository is also proposed that both institutions and later the private investors may use to keep physical gold safe in Texas. It is nice to see a State interested in protecting the property of its people and institutions with equal vigor.

I can think of no place better equipped to protect its property than Texas. If I worked for a Texas institution I would feel comfortable knowing that some of my pension was being kept, or could be kept, in gold, thus protected from the kind of currency risks4 built-in to other investments. It would also be comforting to know that those metals were being protected by Texas, in Texas, not some obscure and distant entity like the Federal Reserve in New York.

This is simply another example of the wisdom and leadership shown by the State in matters of business, finance and property rights. It is no surprise that so many people and businesses move to Texas every year.

If this passes and the depository is opened to personal investors, it will be interesting to see how this will change gold investment and storage across the nation, and perhaps the world.

Please checkout the following. They do a great job of explaining the bill and what it means to you.

Please keep in mind that the U.S. currency strength, as defined by the inflation rate, may not be what it seems. See the Growing Liberty article What can you do if you are being lied to about inflation?.

  1. stock.xchng - Coins (stock photo by iprole) Available at: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1222895 
  2. Germany Repatriating Gold From NY, Paris “In Case Of A Currency Crisis” - Forbes Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2013/01/16/germany-repatriating-gold-from-ny-paris-in-case-of-a-currency-crisis/ [Accessed April 4, 2013]. 
  3. I am not a lawyer or a financial adviser; this article is opinion not professional advice. 
  4. The price of gold, in a particular currency, may change over time, but the intrinsic value seems to stay fairly constant. 
  5. stock.xchng - Lone Star (stock photo by KFleming) Available at: http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=view&id=301087 

When I hear the words gun control I think of control of guns. Gun control is about control, but it is us that are the targets of the control, not guns. Gun control in the U.S. is restricting away the ownership and use of firearms from those with right to them, by those entrusted to protect the very rights being infringed.

Gun control is not about limiting the use of firearms or reducing gun violence by police, military, or other government servants, it is about infringing on the rights of the people. It is about attacking the constitutionally defined alignment between rights and permissions. The police, military and other government organizations are permitted to use firearms in a limited, defined and regulated fashion, to carry out their service to the people. This is in contrast to the people who keep and bear arms because it is their right.

“…right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”2

Is there some kind of epidemic of ignorance about the word infringed? The constitution was written in plain English so that it could be understood by everyone. I know that congress finds reading beneath them, if the frequency they read bills before voting on them is any indication, but there are no difficult words in the second amendment. If a congressperson or constitutional scholar president is unable or unwilling to read and understand the second amendment or any other part of the constitution, then they have no business being in office.

I can not stress enough the importance of the difference between rights and permissions and how these are expressed in the constitution. Gun control laws 3 are put in place to change the balance of power from source of the power, the people, to the servants, the government. Do you think this shift in power and control, this usurpation, this assault on your rights is ever going to serve your interests? If you do then you might as well kiss your rights goodbye! The second amendment is the last protection the people have from a tyrannical government. If the attack on the second amendment continues it could be destroyed such that no other rights will be meaningful because it will simply no longer be possible to defend them.

History proves that tyrants and crooks prefer to victimize the defenseless. Check out some infamous government abuses here. The U.S., and her people, are not so special to be spared the kind of horrors described above. If you want a small scale example, research the “Wounded Knee Massacre”4. The only way to stop the assault on our rights is to take action. This smack-down on rights affects all of us, even those of us who are not gun owners, because the issue is rights, not guns.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.”

 — Martin Niemöller5

Will you speak up before this issue becomes personal for you?

Here is a short video about gun control from somebody with personal experience.

People outside the U.S. likely wonder why this is such an issue for the American people, well here are a few reasons why it is such an issue for me.

First, gun control does not reduce violence. Gun control only disarms law abiding people, the good guys, and prevents them from using effective force to neutralize a deadly threat. Where people are disarmed, such as in the UK6 there is more violent crime. Statistics are never simple so here is a great video explanation.

Read the following respectable opinion piece on gun control by Larry Correia, here, if you are still unconvinced.

Second, it is outrageous that government leaders would use lies, subterfuge, and the misery of defenseless victims, to cheat the people away from their rights. Changing the balance of power from the people to a centralized despotic government is an idea that requires open and honest dialogue, not lies, mind control media manipulations, and other dirty tricks. People will eventually learn of the deceptions and likely will not take kindly to being tricked and having their rights abused.

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” — Abraham Lincoln

A tragedy like Sandy Hook is terrible, but what matters about Sandy Hook7 and other tragedies is that helpless victims were injured and murdered. How we respond to a tragedy like Sand Hook is what makes all the difference. Look at the response by our public servants and the talking heads in the media. Are they helping and empowering the victims, the victims families and ourselves, or are they using the tragedy as a sick opportunity to empower themselves and their cronies at our expense?

A real leader would use his or her power to lend strength to the grieving, not use it as an opportunity to strip them of their defenses and their rights. That is not simply adding insult to injury, it is taking advantage of injury to add more injury. Here is an example of a response to a tragedy by a real leader.


Finally, it is abominable that government leaders with a duty to protect the rights of the people and defend the constitution would attempt to violate both for their personal gain. When our public servants betray their duty so egregiously, as they have been doing, then they need to be immediately removed from office and brought to justice. I am not proposing that they be tarred and feathered, rather I am proposing that we take action in the peaceful, fair and civilized fashion that justice system was intended to be.

We need to wake up, stand up, and speak up! Lets remind our public servants what duty, honor, and country really means! Lets remind them of what it means to be a leader! Lets remind them that we have the rights, and they as public servant exist to protect those rights! Lets take action now, before it is too late!

Please join our email list here, and lets work together.

  1. stock.xchng - Security fence 4 (stock photo by saavem) Available at: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1398073 [Accessed January 11, 2013].
  2. United States Bill of Rights by United States - Project Gutenberg Available at: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2 [Accessed January 15, 2013].
  3. I am not a lawyer but an unconstitutional law seems to me to be null and thus not a law but rather codified crime. 
  4. Wounded Knee Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre [Accessed January 14, 2013].


  5. First they came… - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came… [Accessed January 15, 2013].
  6. TFS Magnum - Archives: Crime in the UK versus Crime in the US Available at: http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html [Accessed January 14, 2013].
    UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html [Accessed January 14, 2013].
    UK shamed as the violent crimes capital of Europe | UK | Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express Available at: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/214775/UK-shamed-as-the-violent-crimes-capital-of-Europe [Accessed January 14, 2013].


  7. Would there be calls for gun control if the weapon was a car, a sword, explosion, poison, or a hammer? http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles 
  8. I have watched this video many times. So impressive. So different than the BS we see here in the U.S. 

There is a lot of buzz right now about petitions at whitehouse.gov for the peaceful secession, of now all fifty, states. The reaction has been mixed. I have seen comments along the lines of

Those proposing to secede should be kicked out of the country!”

A very emotional response, but to what? Would secession not get the people out of the country fast enough? Perhaps it is the “peaceful” aspect of the secession that is objectionable. Who knows? Other comments express a hopeful quality. Such that the person must truly believe there is a possibility that the President, with all his power and wisdom, will somehow magically grant their wish.

Realistically the ability to secede is, of course, a state right. People often point to the example of the American Civil War as a precedent for how states do not have such a right. That is simply ridiculous. War is violence and violence does not prove who’s position is stronger, only who’s forces are stronger. I must say I love how the war is most often referred to as the Civil War. It is such a beautiful manipulation (brain game). It makes one think that the war was civilized or that it was originally about civil rights rather than state rights. That however is a whole different article.

The petitions will not magically release the Federal Government’s despotic control or its contempt for the constitution and rule of law. A petition is an appeal. One does not beg for something from a public servant. The public servant serves as directed by the people or is removed from office. There has been far to little use the impeachment process and recall elections for rouge public servants.

What the petitions will do is what they are doing already, and that is foster public debate. It is encouraging to see so many people taking the time to think about and discuss the issues raised by the petitions.

It is also good to see that people have not lost their sense of humor. I wish Canada all the best in its efforts to secede. :-)

Peacefully grant Canada to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government
<br/> <br/><br/>

  1. stock.xchng - To Sign a Contract 3 (stock photo by shho) [id: 1221952] Available at: http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=download&id=1221952 [Accessed November 15, 2012].

I have no use for the Obama and Romney presidential debates. The only way I could be tempted to watch them would be if some kind of BS-Beer-Bingo were involved. Perhaps drink a sip of beer with every lie or fallacy. Could one even enjoy the beer that way? Nah, if I want to see crazy antics and general silliness I will go for deliberate comedy.

The debates that get attention and support from the mainstream media are those that are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates2 (CPD), an organization created by the Republican and Democrat parties to control presidential debates. These debates appear to be no more than theater designed to make a viewer believe that the only tickets that matter are those of the Republican and Democratic parties, and that the race outcome is not yet determined. I would like to see candidates from all the parties engage in an actual debate of the major issues. The questions should be exposed in advance so that they can be judged prior to the execution of the debate. The debate should be scored where candidates are penalized when they use logical fallacies, evasions and lies. They should also be scored on how well each question was addressed in the time allotted. It would then be up to the viewer/listener to select the candidate that best aligns with their values, not by how funny a candidate is or how great he or she looks on TV.

What I see happening here is a game of divide et impera4 (divide and rule). The idea is that one may overpower an adversary by diluting/dividing the adversary’s strength. This technique has been used effectively for military, political, economic and other conquests dating back to at least ancient Rome. Imagine a ball-game with a home team and a visitors team. If the visitors team can start a quarrel between two of the home team players then the visitors team may gain an unfair advantage over the home team. The strength of the quarreling players would no longer be directed at the visitors team, thus the visitors team would be able to make better use of its strength against the home team.

I believe an interesting slight of hand takes place every election cycle where the conflict between liberty and statism5 is obscured and redirected into a contest between two statists. It is remarkably clever how the majority of the American population can be divided into two teams, a red team (Republicans) and a blue team (Democrats). It seems that the leadership of both teams/parties ensure that the nominees for important seats support a statist ideology. Combine this with the false dichotomy fallacy6 delivered by the main stream media and a statist presidency is virtually assured. A false dichotomy fallacy is used in this case to make one believe that there are only two tickets in the race for presidency, a ticket from the Democratic party and a ticket from the Republican party. The reality is that many other parties continue to exist in the US and support alternative Presidential tickets7. The fallacy is used to manipulate us into believing that if we do not vote for one of the two tickets mentioned above, that our vote will somehow be of less value. I often hear “If you don’t vote for ____, you are throwing away your vote!” The reality is that the only way I throw away my vote is if I cast it for somebody other than the candidate that most closely aligns with my values. Lets get real folks, the presidential election in the US is not decided by the popular vote anyway. We all remember the electoral college system, right? Vote your conscience, vote your values and let your voice be heard! After all, your voice is all you have in the Presidential election. Another element of Divide and Rule is to encourage useless spending to reduce funds available for useful spending. Save your energy and campaign contributions for other races, like the Senate, where your vote actually contributes to the outcome.

The way the divide and rule illusion seems to work is that the elements of liberty are divided between the two major parties. This way one party can not become the party of liberty and thus become a real threat to the status quo. An example would be that currently, social liberty is associated with the Democratic party, and fiscal liberty with the Republican party. I am oversimplifying a bit here because the Republican party also attracts people who support decentralized government and oppose the disarming of the people. The key is often in the statist implementation of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. The two major parties are then separated on emotional issues. Emotional issues are good to keep the focus away from issues than can be debated logically. They are what distract us from needs and interests common to both major parties, and to solutions that address the causes rather than the expression of our problems. They keep the people distracted and divided and thus weaker. Before the election is complete I expect to see many attempts to divide the American people, such as by race, religion, economic status, education or anything else that proves effective, but especially issues that produce a strong emotional response.

It is encouraging to see evidence of the statist paradigm braking down in the Republican party, but only time will tell if it can become the party of liberty. Ultimately the Republican liberty candidate, Ron Paul, did not win the nomination for President at the national convention. The irregularities, such as violations of parliamentary procedure, un-seating of delegates, and many others, discussed at length by Republican National Convention attendees, disenfranchised Ron Paul supporters but did not alter the likely predetermined outcome. This will hopefully motivate the people of future conventions to plan actual conventions rather than theatrical indoctrination ceremonies. Many folks reported issues at the Democratic National Convention as well, so It seems this kind of experience is not a shocking anomaly confined to one party.

In any case, a presidential debate should be an actual debate, of debatable issues, debated by all the candidates expected to be on the ballot of at least one state, not simply Republicans and Democrats. Being less popular before a debate does not lessen the value of a candidate’s position.

I am excited and encouraged to see there will be an alternate presidential debate hosted by Free and Equal Elections8 on October 23rd. More information can be found at freeandequal.org. I wonder how this debate will compare with the CPD debates? Will it be a real debate?

  1. stock.xchng - Horse smile (stock photo by LilGoldWmn) [id: 822158] Available at: http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=download&id=822158 [Accessed October 18, 2012].
  2. Commission on Presidential Debates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates [Accessed October 15, 2012].


  3. stock.xchng - bust (stock photo by myles) [id: 43300] Available at: http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=download&id=43300 [Accessed October 18, 2012].
  4. Divide and rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule [Accessed October 17, 2012].


  5. Statism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism [Accessed October 15, 2012].


  6. False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma [Accessed October 18, 2012].


  7. 2012 Presidential Candidates (P2012) Available at: http://politics1.com/p2012.htm [Accessed October 17, 2012].


  8. About - Free & Equal Available at: http://freeandequal.org/about/ [Accessed October 18, 2012].