On so many issues, we are running headlong into many globalist agendas during the course of each legislative session. Special interests from across the country are putting forward model legislation at the state level which so many of our legislators are all too happy to sponsor without having any real knowledge of what is in these sometimes fifty(plus) page bills.
One example is the 2022 UCC Amendments being pushed to all 50 states by the Uniform Law Commission. In Tennessee, those amendments are found in HB 640 / SB 479. So far, that amendment package has passed in only 15 states and we have been opposing these bills in Tennessee since last year. These amendments have yet to be introduced in Texas and Florida.
Of course, the mantra by GOP leaders is that in our opposition, we are just fearmongering, supporting conspiracy theories, spreading misinformation and that there is no real inherent danger to these amendments and no connection to the UN Agenda 2030.
And despite the fact that Tennesseans have sent over 15,000 emails to the General Assembly in opposition to this legislation, the band plays on. SB 479 has already passed the Senate UNANIMOUSLY and HB 640 is scheduled for a vote on the House Floor on Thursday, April 11th.
Apparently, the message is not getting across. So, as this bill comes up for a final vote, we will give it one more shot.
This bill indeed sets up the regulatory scheme for a central bank digital currency. It does not “create or recognize” one. But it certainly sets up the foundation of its promulgation and subsequent regulation.
Amendments have been filed on the bill to address this. On March 12, 2024, the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee passed the following amended language adding a SECTION 121 to the bill:
47-1-207. National digital currency not created or recognized.
Chapters 1-9 of this title do not endorse, create, or implement a national digital currency.
As we have contended, the issue is not “creating” a digital currency, but “setting the regulatory scheme” for a future digital currency to be acknowledged in Tennessee law. In any case, that amendment was taken off of the bill on the Senate Floor on March 21st, and a new amendment was adopted changing the definition in SECTION 1 of a “deposit account” to:
(29) “Deposit account”:
(A) Means a demand, time, savings, passbook, or similar account maintained with a bank; and
(B) Does not include:(i) Investment property;
(ii) Accounts evidenced by an instrument; or
(iii) A United States central bank digital currency;
The sentiment of many who support this bill is that the amendment has taken care of the concerns over any future recognition of a central bank digital currency. With that, I will make one last effort here as to why it is critical that we oppose this bill and hopefully see many members of the House vote NO on the floor.
Those who have been following concerns over a central bank digital currency understand that the central issue is control. The very nature of digital currency allows them to be easily manipulated by a central authority. And when considering something like China’s social credit score, one might even face a complete loss of control of their digital assets.
With that in mind, the 2022 UCC Amendments account for that issue with this definition of what it means to have “exclusive” control over “electronic money.”
(b) Meaning of exclusive. Subject to subsection (c), a power is exclusive under subsections (a)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) even if:
(1) The electronic money, a record attached to or logically associated with the electronic money, or a system in which the electronic money is recorded limits the use of the electronic money or has a protocol programmed to cause a change, including a transfer or loss of control; or
(2) The power is shared with another person.– HB640/SB479, page 29, SECTION 67. § 47-9-105A(b)
Let’s make sure that we are crystal clear about what is being acknowledged in this bill. And remember, this language has already passed the Tennessee Senate UNANIMOUSLY, which I find astounding.
The bill will put into law an acknowledgment that any kind of electronic money (i.e. a future digital currency like CBDC) is fungible and able to be used as security of a note along with other tangible assets even though it may be transferred out of your control. In other words, it is legal and binding for digital assets for which you suppose that you have “exclusive” control to be reprogrammed or transferred out of your control, potentially without your consent.
I am unsure of what it would take to get someone to recognize that their liberties and future financial well-being are threatened if this explanation does not suffice. It certainly sounds alarm bells for me.
