What is Money?

What is money? Money is simply a universally recognized medium of exchange; money is simply the highest level of refinement of the system of barter (trade). Cattle and bushels of grain were inconvenient to carry around everywhere one desired to purchase something; man needed a small item of practical and intrinsic value that was nonperishable, and of easily determined quality and purity. Metals met these requirements perfectly.

While iron and steel are useful for tools and weapons, they are relatively commonplace elements. Iron lacks the beauty and rust resistance desirable for daily use items such as cups, silverware, and items worn close to the body. Coins of iron would quickly rust in humid environments.

Gold, silver, and copper are precious metals that fill the need for scarcity, along with the rust resistance and beauty that man desires for some items. In addition to being too scarce to use for farm implements, gold and silver are too soft to work well for tools; however, modern man has found gold and silver useful in electrical applications.

The universal standard for money has been precious metals for thousands of years. While this metal could be in the form of nuggets, dust, or chunks, it was found that coins were the preferred method of trade. A coin has an easily determined weight, country or mint of origin, and purity. Coins have been the money of the civilized world since the days of ancient Greece.

It must be noted that for a people group to adopt money implies that it is able to produce everything that it needs to survive. Once physical needs are met, money is useful to smooth the trade necessary to procure things that individuals cannot make for themselves. Money is only of value in a state of society.

To clarify this, let us imagine: (1) a man stranded alone on a tropical island, (2) that the remote location of the island makes it unlikely that he will be rescued for months, (3) and that the island is filled with small animals. Our hypothetical man will find much more value in a .22 rifle and 100 rounds of ammo (worth perhaps 10 ounces of silver in society) than he would find in 100 ounces of silver.

In truth, the silver would be of no value to the lone man on the island, unless he could melt it down and form some item he needed. However, when returned to a well provisioned society, the silver coins would once again have great value.

As gold is rarer than silver, it has a higher trade value. Silver is the money of the common man. A common man would only rarely need to employ gold to purchase something. This was understood by Americas’s Founders.

I trust that it is now apparent why money is a precious metal coin of a know weight and purity. Paper money redeemable in absolutely nothing -such as Federal Reserve Notes- is a fraud and a lie. The Coinage Act of 1792 specified that a dollar coin would contain 371.25 grains of silver.

The U.S. Constitution specifies that Congress has the power “To coin Money…” and that no State may “make any Thing but gold or silver Coin a Tender in Payment of debts”. Congress may not legally print paper “money”, and it certainly many not delegate this authority (that it does not have) to a private banking corporation.

The Federal Reserve is not an agency of the United States government; it is a private, for profit banking corporation. If that surprises you, perhaps you should go read Eustace Mullin’s Secrets of the Federal Reserve or Griffin’s The Creature From Jekyll Island. Ron Paul’s End The Fed is also worth reading, but does not give the full story. George Bancroft’s 19th century work A plea for the Constitution of the U.S. of America wounded in the house of its guardians is also worth reading.

Copyright (c) 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

Emphasizing Hussein Instead of Barack

Over the weekend I was talking to an acquaintance who is a Vietnam vet and NRA member. Somehow, I think because of the recent highly publicized death of boxer and practicing Muslim Muhammad Ali, Obama was brought up. My acquaintance stated that he thought that Obama, who he referred to as a “Muslim n**ger”, had let the Fort Hood shooter go free because of their Muslim faith. (Note: Nidal Malik Hasan, an ethnic Palestinian, is the man who murdered U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009; he was convicted and is sitting in a wheelchair at Fort Leavenworth military prison awaiting execution).

I simply stated that Obama was not a Muslim. He then loudly proclaimed “bullsh*t”! He stated that Obama gave his first interview to the Muslims. I dropped the conversation at this point.

Where do I begin? First, Barack Hussein Obama’s name is not evidence of him being  a Muslim. While people point out that his middle name is Hussein (of Arabic origin), they miss it that his first name is Jewish! The Hebrew and Chaldee dictionary section of my Strong’s Concordance indicates that Barak is pronounced “baw-rack”, just as one pronounces Barack Obama -which is to be expected as Barack is the Old Testament name Barak with the addition of a “c”.

Next, if Obama is a Muslim then why did he do the following: attend Jeremiah Wright’s church for years, be sworn in on a Bible (not a Koran), not fast for Ramadan, eat pork and drink beer, not require his wife or daughters to wear a burka or hijab, host a Passover sedar (supper) at the White House each year, speak before a Jewish congregation, approve massive military and financial by our government to Israel, and fill many of his high level administration appointments with Jews?

Let us look at Obama’s prominent and verifiable connections to Jews, no fantasy connections to Islam. First, and very enlightening, is Tom Hundley’s December 12, 2008 Chicago Tribune online article entitled Barack Obama: The First Jewish President? Hundley, in a mainstream paper, points out that “it is clear that his political career, from its South Side inception to the audacious run for the White House, was nurtured and enabled by a close-knit network of Chicago Jews”.

In his May 22, 2015 speech to the Adas Israel Congregation in Washington, D.C., Obama stated that: Earlier this week, I was actually interviewed by one of your members, Jeff Goldberg. And Jeff reminded me that he once called me ‘the first Jewish president’. Now, since some people still seem to be wondering about my faith -I should make clear this was an honorary title”. 

Obama’s first Chief of staff was Rahn Israel Emanuel. David Axelrod worked on his 2008  campaign before serving as a Senior Adviser in the White House for several years. Jacob Joseph “Jack” Lew is his current Treasury secretary, and Janet Yellen is chair of the Federal Reserve. Obama’s vice chair of the Federal Reserve is Stanley Fischer, a dual citizen of Israel who used to head Israel’s central bank. Obama’s first Secretary of State was John Kerry (Kohn), who is half Jewish (and a member of Skull and Bones). His point girl on the Ukraine debacle was Victoria Nuland. Even his trusted friend and Senior Advisor, Iranian born Valerie Jarrret, is a 1/8 Jewish mulatto. And this is only a partial listing.

If Jews are the archenemy of all Muslims, and women are to be oppressed by Sharia law, why did Obama appoint a Jewish woman -Elena Kagan- to the U.S. Supreme Court?

The vote of people who think Obama is a Muslim counts the same as that of a well-informed patriot. Democracy does have its flaws.

Copyright (c) 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.



D-Day: Let Us Mourn

Today is the 72nd anniversary of D-Day, one of the saddest days of the 20th century. On June 6, 1944 a massive naval armada lay offshore Normandy, France.

Normandy, named for the Norman tribes that invaded the British Isles a millennium ago, was shelled and invaded by American, British, and French troops -many of them having Norman blood in their veins. D-day began the Battle of Normandy, which ended in late August. The number of those killed or wounded on both sides for the entire two month period may have reached 100,000. Thousands of innocent French civilian non-combatants were also killed in that dark two months.

Why? What quarrel did Americans and Englishmen have with the Germans? None. The Germans did not cross the Atlantic to bomb or invade the United States; we crossed the thousands of miles of ocean to attack them. Average Americans and Germans had no reason to hate or fight each other. Likewise, the American government had no quarrel with the German government. Britain no doubt viewed industrialized Germany as an economic rival, but that is no reason for war.

No my readers, dark forces -alien to both America and Europe- wished for the second World War so that they could make financial profits, decrease the numbers of the white race, and take another step toward their dream the total consolidation of world power.

At D-Day, and through out WWII, weak and physically flawed young men received 4-Fs and did not go to battle, while the healthiest and strongest went -and often died.

Likewise, the most idealistic young men of America, propagandized into believing that they were fighting to restore freedom or somehow defend their country form people who had not attacked it, went and fought -and often died.

American youth were killed or maimed when they threw themselves against the Third Reich -for absolutely no reason. We “liberated” much of Europe from German rule, so that we could turn it over to the nightmarish Soviet Union.

I have not always felt this way. As a teenager, I loved WWII and almost idolized WWII vets. I loved WWII movies, with the 1955 movie To Hell And Back being my favorite. I even had a picture of Audie Murphy on my wall.

To Hell And Back was the story of 1st Lieutenant Audie L. Murphy, the most decorated American soldier of the war. He earned many medals for valor (including the Medal of Honor), and was wounded three times. I remember the climactic scene of To Hell And Back, where Murphy stopped a German unit’s advance by mounting a burning tank and called in artillery strikes while operating it’s .50 caliber Browning machinegun -killing a huge number of German soldiers for no other logical reason than just following his government’s orders to invade Europe. (Murphy, who became a professional actor after the war, portrayed himself in the movie To Hell And Back and also joined the Freemasons and Shriners).

The late Willis A. Carto (1926-2015), a WWII combat vet who received the Purple Heart for wounds received in battle with the Japanese, later realized that the war was unnecessary and spoke out about it, referring to ti as the “suicide of the west”. Most vets cannot face that reality.

Why does America revere the vets of WWII, but pay almost no attention to the memory of the vets of the glorious American Revolution -the morally and philosophically just war that gave birth to our Republic?

Yes, it is D-Day; let us mourn that it occurred.

Election 2016 Shaping Up

Well my readers, the presidential election of 2016 is shaping up. Last month, Canadian born Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz suspended his run for the Republican nomination, leaving New York billionaire businessman Donald J. Trump as the presumptive nominee.

On the Democratic side, we have Hillary and Bernie. Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is a former U.S. Senator and Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton is battling it out with Senator Bernie Sanders, a Jew and self-described “democratic socialist” who is supposedly running against the establishment that he has been a part of in Congress for the past few decades!

This election would be funny if it were not so disastrous for our Constitutional Republic. From a traditional, Constitution and liberty loving patriot perspective there is no good choice, only levels of bad. One of these four candidates, if his often vague and vacillating rhetoric could be trusted, would possibly be less bad than the others, Possibly.

Let us start off with the closet commies, Hillary and the Berne. I suppose that most people old enough to rememebr the presidency of Bill Clinton already know a bit about Hillary.

Hillary was raised a “Goldwater” type conservative, but was a leftist by the time she graduated college. She eventually earned  a juris doctor degree, and advocated for left wing causes -including removing traditional parental authority over children. As first lady she advocated for socialized medicine, something Obama achieved while she was his Secretary of State. Can anyone say Benghazi, Libya, and classified information on a private email server? The top seven campaign donors to Hillary’s 2016 presidential run are all Jews (see the online article Zio-whore Hilary & Her Sleazy Zionist Top Campaign Donor at davidduke.com).

Now on to the self described “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders has an even farther left ideological platform  than Hillary. For example, Bernie wants to give everyone free (state funded) college. In college, Bernie was a member of the Young People’s Socialist League and CORE (Congress of Racial Equality). Bernie was also affiliated with the Socialist Workers Party. In the 1960s, Bernie briefly lived on a kibbutz (socialist collective farm) in Israel. Obviously Sanders, an ethnic Jew, supports the existence of the Zionist Occupation Government.

Both Hillary and Bernie desire the regulation of citizen ow nership of small arms. And of course, both of support the continuance of the FDR and Johnson era socialist programs. Hillary appears to be more of a war hawk than Bernie.

Billionaire businessman Donald John Trump is running as a maverick Republican, beholden to no special interest group. He has openly advocated an “American first” foreign policy, which would be wonderful. Trump does not support totally free trade, as he is appealing to white working class Americans. Trump has spoken out against illegal immigration, and proclaimed  a desire to build a border wall.

Trump’s conservative credentials are weak in some areas. While claiming to be pro-gun, he is not advocating the repeal of all current Federal gun laws. Trump used to be pro-choice, but now claims to be pro-life. Trumps multiple divorces and affairs do not endear him to moral conservatives.

Trump is an outspoken advocate for Israel, as evidenced by his speech at AIPAC in April 2016, where he spoke “that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable” and by his 2013 endorsement of Benjamin Netanyahu for prime minister of Israel.   Trump’s daughter married a Jewish man and converted to Judaism. While the Jews might not fully own Trump, he is not free of Jewish influence and attachments.

(c) Copyright 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

The Recent Entertaining Open Border Tiff Among Libertarians

When I started my blog, I intended to publish one post a week. I soon changed it to two essays per week, a midweek one and a weekend one. I have to make an exception this week, and publish three.

Yesterday, May 31, I published a post entitled Hornberger and Open Borders. Apparently, Jacob Hornberger and the blogger “Bionic Mosquito” (Jonathan Goodwin) have been internet sniping at each other concerning open borders. (I had previously heard of the Bionic Mosquito blog, but never followed it). I shall now reduce their 6 articles totaling about 24 pages into the is blog post!

It appears that it began on Bionic Mosquito’s blog on May 14 with a post entitled Libertarian Open Borders: An Oxymoron in Theory and Practice. The BM argued that with a welfare state open borders will result in more government -very un-libertarian. Hornberger then posted an essay on the website of his organization (the Future of Freedom Foundation) on May 19 entitled Open Borders Is The Only Libertarian Immigration Position. I addressed this article by Hornberger in yesterday’s post.

Then, on May 20, the Bionic Mosquito (BM) posted an article on his blog titled Jacob Hornberger, I See You. I believe it was also published on Lew Rockwell’s website, with a less juvenile title. BM states that he believes that Hornberger’s May 19 article was aimed at him, and BM argues that Hornberger’s theoretical situation of invitation of one individual rancher to another to cross the border for dinner at a private residence does not equate to a government simply opening the borders to all immigrants.

On May 25, Hornberger issued a rebuttal on the FFF website titled Bionic Mosquito Has It Wrong On Immigration. Hornberger points out that he and BM agree that open borders is the libertarian position.

  At this point it becomes clear that we are dealing with a libertarian anarchist (no borders and no governments) versus a limited government libertarian (with an unguarded and fenceless fantasy border that people may cross at will for any reason whatsoever). Hornbegrer’s article also claims, under the sub point “America’s heritage of open borders”, that America’s “founding principles” on immigration was to let in and never repatriate anyone who could escape to America  for a better life. Really? Allow them to stay, maybe; allow them to be citizens, absolutely not! The first two naturalization laws passed into law by the U.S. Congress, in 1790 and 1795, specified that only a “free white person” was eligible for naturalization/citizenship.

Hornberger further argues that despite the initial costs, massive immigration is actually good for a country financially. Hornberger’s lengthy article also manages to mention NS Germany and the holy number 6 million. Are you entertained yet?

Not to be outdone, on May 26 the BM published another article on his blog titled Burnt Toast. He accuses Hornberger on not addressing his core objection to the current practicality of open borders, that countries opening borders does not equate to private individuals making contracts. (Bear in mind that BM does not wish for countries or borders to exist).  

BM also argues that libertarian theory is not a perfect settled theory -comparing the 2,000 years of Christianity giving birth to many sects to the various theories of libertarianism “after basically 50 years (I start counting a whole theory with Rothbard)”. That is an interesting comparison of religion and libertarian theory; it does seem that many libertarians view Murray Rothbard as their god.

On May 30, Hornberger replied to BM with (yet another) long article on the FFF website titled Bionic Mosquito’s Bite Misses The Mark. Hornberger focuses this essay on the violence used by the Border Patrol to capture illegals, uninvited incursion on private land by the Border Patrol, and alleged warrantless searches and roving checkpoints. (I have never been to the border and have not seen any of these roving checkpoints that might {unconstitutionally} exist; I support the 4th Amendment and oppose warrantless searches).

Hornberger also points out that the potential of paying higher taxes because of increased use of the welfare state by immigrants is a light price to pay to defend libertarian principles (such as open borders), though he does not support the welfare state.

In the end, we have two dudes on the internet, both philosophically supporting open borders, arguing over the practicality of fantasy borders versus no borders -with the one philosophically favoring no borders arguing against the massive Middle Eastern immigration that is now occurring in Europe! Both reject the positions of (1) government enforced borders and (2) numbers and ethnicity of immigrants under the control of the central government -the positions which just so happens to be what the Founding Fathers set up.

Most libertarians generally do not care much about the Founders anyway; instead they have a bunch of Jews (Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand/Rosenbaum, Milton Friedman, Walter Block, Sheldon Richman, etc.) to weave them elaborate theoretical games  and tell them how to make money.

There is a reason that I do not waste much time on libertarian website anymore.

Hornberger and Open Borders

I do not spend as much time online or follow all of the various political websites that I did a few years ago. However, I recently went to the website of the Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF), a libertarian website. The FFF was founded, and is headed by, Jacob G. Hornberger, a graduate of VMI, lawyer, former professor, and author.

On the 19th of May, Hornberger posted an article on the FFF site entitled: Open Borders Is The Only Libertarian Immigration Position. Hornberger has written on this topic before, including a July 30, 2010 post entitled An Open Border In My Hometown. Hornberger grew up in Laredo and is the son of a bilingual ethnic Mexican mother and an “Anglo” father.

Hornberger begins Open Borders Is The Only Libertarian Immigration Position by stating: “There is a common misconception in the libertarian movement that there are two positions on immigration within libertarianism : the position favoring open borders and the position favoring government-controlled borders”.

Interesting. I suppose it is a misconception, because I used to think it myself. (I oppose open borders, but I do not have a problem with tourism or limited immigration of culturally compatible people).

Hornberger then explains why he believes that the only immigration position consistent with the libertarian non-aggression principle and private property rights is open borders.

Hornberger gives a hypothetical situation of two brothers owning adjacent ranches, the border between the ranches being the border between Mexico and the state of New Mexico. He postulates the American (ethnic Mexican?) brother inviting his Mexican brother across the border to dinner.

As there is no fence, he just crosses the order of the two countries and ranches. Hornberger then points out that he illegally entered the country, though on invitation of his brother. Hornberger now states that with government controlled borders, the U. S. Border Patrol would have to arrest the Mexican brother, initiating violence and trespassing on the American brother’s private property. But the analogy misses the point, as it ignores what a country is.

The core concept of a country is that a group of people form a set of laws to administer justice to those who would harm others. This has traditionally been done by people who share a common language, culture/ethnicity, and common moral values; when these three criteria are not met, things often do not go well. These people establish legal boundaries (borders) for their government; this is to codify jurisdiction of crimes and clarify who is a citizen -with the right to vote, hold office, etc. The national family may control entry into its collective home, just as a family controls entry into its private home. A country without borders is not a country, and cannot exist.

Some libertarians try to get around this by arguing for imaginary border lines that people may move across, including to seek employment. But at what point do these immigrant resident-workers become citizens -entitled to vote, hold office, and influence the government built by others. From a libertarian-nonaggression-market-oriented position, to hold them out of citizenship as resident aliens would be unfair, as it curtails their freedom to participate in (change) the legal system of their new home. The children of the founders just lost their country.

Libertarianism has a few flaws, open borders being one of them. My utter rejection of open borders and unrestrained immigration is one of the primary reasons that I no longer call myself a “limited government” type libertarian.


Prison with Wi-Fi and Cheeseburgers

As I wrote in a recent essay, we are not free in the original Founding Fathers ideological sense of the term. But it is worse than that.We, for the most part. are not yet being subjugated by an openly tyrannical government. Coerced in some areas, yes; totally subjugated by an open police state, not quite yet.

What is perhaps worst of all is that many of the chains we wear are gilded chains, chains that most people are unaware of. Some even love their chains, having been so mentally colonized that true freedom would be unthinkable to them.

How many patriots would refuse to carry a government issued ID with microchip and tracking transponder as we go about our daily lives, from the moment we get up until we go to bed (and keeping the transponder by our beds at night)? None!

But almost everyone who reads this has a cellphone that they carry constantly, a device that serves as a tracking device and potentially tap-able audio and video recording instrument for the state. Most phones are now “smart phones”, in that they have intent surfing capability. Of course, Google is tracking the sites you visit, just for marketing of course (wink, wink). We choose to carry these phones, and even pay private corporations for the privilege!

Why would the government bother to issue an ID card with tracking device when most people already carry a driver’s license and cellphone? We have paid for our own chains. (I am one of the very few millennials who has never owned a cellphone. I also do not have TV in my house. What is more, I do not have an internet connection in my house; this essay was posted in town from a business with free Wi-Fi for its customers).

We, including myself, eat unhealthy food on a daily basis. This GMO and chemical laced food is making u sick, giving us allergies, and in some cases literally killing us. Whether it  be the packaged and preservative laden box from the grocery store, or the cheeseburger at the fast food restaurant, it is not good for us. Yet we pay to eat it. Why?

We eat it because we have abandoned the farms where most Americans once lived. They left the farms, and the exercise and organic food produced there, so that they could go to the city and factories. They did this for one reason only -money. People wanted money and things, regardless of the costs, regardless of what they were giving up in exchange for this new life.

Give most people wealth (even a false veneer of wealth supported by credit cards and a mortgage that may not be paid off before they die), free public/government schooling for their children, and promises of Social Security when they get old -and most people will meekly submit to political, cultural, and economic slavery. Meekly submit, no, joyfully submit!

When a people cannot even feed or provide basic sanitation for themselves, they are reduced to servitude to their government and corporate masters. Our pioneer ancestors, and even wild animals, can feed themselves. But not modern urbanized Americans.

We cannot drive down the road without a government issued photo ID; but those who comply can drive down that road and eat at any fats food restaurant they wish. You are not free, but that cheeseburger tasted good. You can also acquire as much plastic, Chinese made garbage at Wal Mart as you wish -paid for with the paper script of a private banking corporation.

A virtual slavery that is unnoticed, and even relished, by the masses is perhaps the most dangerous type. If the iron fist of the state were on them, they might actually wake up and refuse to comply, perhaps even rebel.  I guess most people like prison, as long as there is Wi-Fi and cheeseburgers.

Copyright (c) 2016 by Jospeh Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.