John's Blog

Illinois "Precious Metals Purchasing Act" (SB 3341)

posted Jan 8, 2013, 6:58 AM by John Creath

The Illinois "Precious Metals Purchasing Act" (SB 3341) if passed would require...

[...] a person who is in the business of purchasing precious metal shall obtain a proof of ownership, create a record of the sale, and verify the identity of the seller. Provides that a person who is in the business of purchasing precious metal shall not pay for the precious metal in cash and shall record the method of payment. Requires the purchaser to keep a record of the sale for one year or, if the purchase amount is over $500, for 5 years. Provides that a person who violates the Act is guilty of a petty offense and subject to a fine not exceeding $500. Provides that the Attorney General may inspect records, investigate an alleged violation, and take action to collect civil penalties.

{emphasis added}

Learn more here

I wonder how the "shall not pay for the precious metals in cash" bit would comport with "legal tender" laws. Anybody know?

Who Owns the West?

posted Feb 3, 2012, 6:43 AM by John Creath

My thoughts on 999

posted Oct 12, 2011, 9:43 AM by John Creath

Presidential candidate, Herman Cain, released a "jobs plan" a couple weeks ago coined the "999 plan". The three basic tenets are: 9% personal income tax, 9% national sales tax & 9% corporate income tax. This plan is being sold as 'it's just that simple'. 

Here are some of my thoughts on 999:

It *could* be better than what we have now, if passed exactly as it is being presented (even then, I'm not so sure)...however, I'm very skeptical that something will actually be passed exactly the way it is sold...I'm not aware of one piece of major legislation in recent times that has done are some of my concerns with 999:

a) Money that I make, and then use to purchase household goods will be double taxed (9% coming in, and 9% going out) 18%.

b) I'm very wary of opening up a new channel of taxation through the national sales tax component...what is to say that once we give the federal government this new way of collecting taxes, that they don't hike the rates on sales tax (and isn't 9% kinda high?...a 9% sales tax of any kind is unprecedented in the U.S. isn't it?)

c) I don't see how this will shrink the size of the a matter of fact it seems that they'd need to add a new department to manage the collection of a national sales taxes since we have never had to worry about collecting a taxation of this form. 

d) this isn't a flat tax...flat tax would be 'everyone pays x amount regardless of income'...this would have to be an extremely low amount that everyone could afford (kinda like the shekel of the sanctuary principle mentioned throughout the OT). This would shrink the size and manipulation of gov't. 

e) 999 doesn't address our real economic problem (which is primarily monetary, secondarily fiscal). America needs a monetary system that doesn't rob them through false inflationary tactics based on a fiat currency. So far, only Rep. Ron Paul has addressed this issue from a presidential campaign platform.

f) Mr. Cain vouches that 999 will be revenue neutral. What this means is that the federal government, in theory, will not lose any revenue collected through it's current form of taxation if the 999 plan is implemented. The only problem I have with that is that our federal government is already many times larger than it was designed and ought to be! I don't want something that is revenue neutral! I want something that will force the federal government to downsize drastically! The fact that Mr. Cain emphatically states that this will be revenue neutral, but on the flip side says that he wants to eliminate wasteful government programs, even entire departments like the DoE, sends a message that perhaps he isn't as committed to elimination of government waste as he says he is...after all, why would you want a revenue neutral taxation plan if you are trying to eliminate the DoE which annually spends tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars every year? This may not be a fair criticism, because we all know you can't do everything at once, but's food for thought. 

Just know that I say all of this as a former, unpaid campaigner for Herman Cain (U.S. Senate campaign, 2004)...I like the man...I have spent cumulatively many hours with him and have been able to talk to him about issues important to me and he has always been very approachable and candid when conversing with people who approach him. I am not going to trash Herman Cain...however, I do have some concerns with his economic/jobs plan. I know that he cannot feasibly (politically speaking) go back to the drawing board on his economic plan. However, I do hope that he will be impressed with the urgency, should he take office, to address the failed monetary policy that this nation has and not just attempt to fix our economic problems caused by federal intrusion into the market place through regulations and taxation by simply trying to put a fiscal band-aid on minor cut when we are suffering from a monetary policy analogous to having broken back. 

Investing in the Stock Market

posted Jun 3, 2011, 7:06 AM by John Creath   [ updated Jun 3, 2011, 7:10 AM ]

Received this from a friend and had to re-post:

Simple Survival - Investing in the Stock Market

For most people, the headlines jumping off the pages of newspapers and websites would give them pause for thought before taking a leap and investing in the Stock market.  With a seriously bearish market, the dow tanking and economic forecasters projecting nothing but doom and gloom, one might think it wise to stash their money in their mattress - but not us.  Sir Knight and I have come to realize that this is the best possible time to capitalize on our investments.  The stock market seemed like the logical choice. 

A few things you must consider when entering the Stock market for the first time....


Not all Stocks are created equal.  Take the Vietnam era triangle stock, for example.  While proven in the field, and now considered very retro, it may not suit all applications or environments.   After careful consideration, we found that the MOE stock manufactured by Magpul was the perfect fit for our portfolio. 


Dress for success.  While an OD and black tiger stripe stock may be your preference and also be appropriate for your normal, everyday environment, it will falter in a winter/snowy environment.  A prudent investor would be sure to have a diversified portfolio, including a stock finished in snow camouflage. The snow camouflage is sure to round out an investors holdings.  Likewise, an investor living in desert terrain would see the wisdom of acquiring the necessary furniture for his particular region.


Keep it simple.  The standard bedded walnut stock will keep your National Match rifle up to collectors standards, therefore increasing its earning potential in the future. 


Gateway to commodities trading.  Choosing to enter the Stock market will open a conduit for numerous opportunities, not the least of which is commodities trading.  Joining a local group, such as "The Redneck Stock Exchange" will enable an investor to explore the world of trading precious metals such as lead and brass.


Hedging against inflation with tangibles.  The Stock market, in general, is a perfect opportunity to protect our investments against inflation.  You can turn your American Fiat cash into tangible investments, which, of course, can then be used in commodities trading.

Tiger Stripe (OD and black)

Tiger Stripe
Snow Camouflage

MOE Stock by Magpul



Remember, invest carefully.  It's a jungle out there! (Hence, the Tiger Stripe).



Daily Reading: "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (Day 2)

posted Mar 25, 2011, 8:03 AM by John Creath

What Is Law?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all

The Law by Frederic Bastiat

Reading "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (Day 1)

posted Mar 24, 2011, 8:24 AM by John Creath

Life Is a Gift from God

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life—physical, intellectual, and moral life. 

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. 

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and
property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

~ The Law by Frederic Bastiat

Only Two Republican Senators Are Truly Standing up for Freedom

posted Feb 16, 2011, 8:40 AM by John Creath

Voting yesterday to reauthorize and extend three key provisions of the Patriot Act, Senate "bipartisanship" reared up it's ugly head and overwhelmingly voted to approve HR 514 that will allow the government to continue spying on its citizens with little to no restraint. Voting in the 'Yea' to reauthorize this horrendous law were 86 statist Democrats and Republicans...of the Republican mass there were a number of newly elected Senators who, sadly, were elected under the guise of being 'Tea Party' candidates - these are: Senators Ayotte of NH, Boozman of AR, Brown of MA, Coats of IN, Johnson of WI, Moran of KS, Portman of OH, Rubio of FL, and Toomey of PA. Disappointingly, the man to whom is rightly credited for much of the success in getting many, if not all, of the Tea Party candidates elected in the U.S. Senate, Senator Jim DeMint of SC was also amongst the "Yeas" in this vote for tyranny. 

The only two Republicans to courageously stand up against their colleagues were Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah. While it is encouraging to see these two men stand against the machine that is the federal government it is sad that they are the only ones out of the many who were elected under the pretense of being freedom-loving and liberty-protecting statesmen. 

This goes to show that many within the Republican Party will talk the talk but very few walk the walk when tempted with Washington's enticements of power and glory - power and glory that solely belongs to God. God says that man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks upon the heart, judging the wise and the foolish. There is nothing within Scripture that implies that the ability of one man to only judge upon the outward appearances and actions of another is a problem. It is as it should be. Government is to make judgement based upon the actions that one man commits against another. God, in His omnipotence and omnipresence, however condemns men as adulterer based on his thoughts and desires; He deems a man a murderer if he hates his brother. God looks upon heart. 

Washington seems to be ever grabbing for this kind of omnipotence and omnipresence from whence they can be the ones peering into the thoughts and intents of men. From this vantage point though, they will not and do not seek to render perfect justice but perverted manipulations. Washington wants to be God - they want to secure all knowledge of mans whereabouts, transactions and associations. From this they hope to predict and anticipate the future actions and whereabouts of man. God, however, has only commissioned civil government with the task of wielding the sword against evildoers - evildoers who commit, narrowly defined, actionable crimes against their fellow man and against God, with God being the ultimate Judge. The civil authorities are to be ministers of God's justice for the sake of the people, not peeping-Toms behind Rapiscan machines and NSA thugs snooping into peoples business. 

It is a sad state of affairs when 10, mostly likely unbelieving Senators even understand and discern this issue better than the many Senators that pay lip service to the Church and claim to be followers of Christ. 

To see how all of the Senators voted on HR 514, go here

Crippling Debt That Cannot Be Repaid

posted Feb 16, 2011, 8:31 AM by John Creath

Washington Times reports:

President Obama‘s budget, released Monday, was conceived as a blueprint for future spending, but it also paints the bleakest picture yet of the current fiscal year, which is on track for a record federal deficit and will see the government’s overall debt surpass the size of the total U.S. economy.

Mr. Obama‘s budget projects that 2011 will see the biggest one-year debt jump in history, or nearly $2 trillion, to reach $15.476 trillion by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. That would be 102.6 percent of GDP — the first time since World War II that dubious figure has been reached.

And the budget projects the government will run a deficit of $1.645 trillion this year, topping 2009’s previous record by more than $230 billion. By contrast, 2007’s deficit was just $160 billion altogether.

You Know Expansion of Government Is Bad When...

posted Feb 16, 2011, 8:18 AM by John Creath

...the spending of the Health and Human Services Department is currently at what the entire federal government was operating off of back in 1965...that takes into account inflation!

Anyone who doubts that the trend toward socialism is pushing America toward ruin should examine the historical tables President Obama published Monday along with his $3.7 trillion budget.

In fiscal 2011, according to these tables, the Department of Health and Human Services will spend $909.7 billion. In fiscal 1965, the entire federal government spent $118.228 billion.

What about inflation? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator, $118.228 billion in 1965 dollars equals $822.6 billion in 2010 dollars. In real terms, the $909.7 billion HHS is spending this year is about $87.1 billion more than the entire federal government spent in 1965.

Greg Scandlen on Criticizing and Exhorting the GOP

posted Jan 20, 2011, 8:07 AM by John Creath

This from Greg Scandlen: 

Was I Too Harsh?

My last post was pretty critical of the House Republicans in their debate over repealing ObamaCare. Was I too mean to them? Not at all. My skepticism about Republicans and health care is well-earned. Most of the leadership of the Republican Party over the past twenty years has been perfectly willing to discard free markets when it suits them.
I am reading George W. Bush’s book, “Decision Points.” On page 46, he writes, “... I stood with Senators Pete Domenici and Ted Kennedy and signed a bill mandating that insurance companies cover treatment for people with mental illness.” Why did he do this? Because he once had a business partner, Rusty Rose, who had clinical depression. So, it didn’t matter a whit that signing this bill made coverage more expensive for working people, and increased the number of people who couldn’t afford to be covered at all. Good ol’ rich Rusty needed mental health services, so why not make those working stiffs pay for it?
In June of 2008, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and prospective candidate for the Republican nomination for president, said it was “fundamentally immoral” for anyone making over $75,000 a year to be uninsured. He was all for an individual mandate. Gingrich has also been a big proponent of government-mandated health information technology.
The front-runner for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney, of course was the person who signed the Massachusetts mandate into law, and he defends it to this day. Granted he tries to wiggle out of any comparison of his plan and Obama’s plan, but really the only difference is that one is state and the other is federal. The workings of the two are otherwise identical, to the point that Romney’s point man on his plan, Jon Kingsdale, has written, “We should all feel very proud of having created the model for national health reform. The power of the Bay State's example is enormously consequential. I believe that national reform would not have happened without it.”
Former Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is “is urging House Republicans to drop their effort to repeal the health care law,” according to NPR. He went on to wax euphoric over it, saying its elements “need to be preserved, need to be cuddled, need to be snuggled, need to be promoted and need to be implemented... I mean, what came out of Washington, D.C., the vision, the construct, the policy, is beautiful on paper...”
Bob Dole urged Republicans to help pass ObamaCare in October 2009, saying “This is one of the most important measures members of Congress will vote on in their lifetimes if we don’t do it this year I don’t know when we’re gonna do it.” This is the man Republicans chose as their standard bearer in 1996.
These have been the leaders of the Republican Party -- former President, former presidential nominee, former speaker of the House, former Senate majority leader, and front-runner for the nomination in 2012.  All could care less about free markets in health care. All want Washington (or Boston) to dictate the health care system.
Fortunately, they are all former office holders. These are the people who destroyed the Republican brand after Ronald Reagan left office. They are the reason Republicans had lower approval ratings than even the Democrats in Congress.
Fortunately there is a new generation now in office. One example is Paul Ryan, who did exactly what needs to be done yesterday. See this short video of his statement during the debate.
These guys have one opportunity – just one – to show the country they have some principles and some spine.

1-10 of 116