Bernard von NotHaus makes an appearance on CNBC's Kudlow & Company, dated November 20, 2007.
Quentin Hardy, a Silicon Valley Bureau Chief for Forbes Magazine, attacks von NotHaus in an arrogant and moronic fashion, resorting to name-calling and accusing him of being a "counterfeiter." While Larry Kudlow was much better to von NotHaus than that moronic Glenn Beck ever was, he didn't have total control over the entire von NotHaus-bashing session provoked by Hardy. Bernard remained calm during the entire time, while Hardy was making a complete ass of himself the entire time.
At least one of the other guests on the show shot back at the jerk: "Candidly, I'm surprised that Quentin Hardy works at Forbes Magazine."
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Posted by Todd Andrew Barnett at 10:51 PM
Here's Bernard von NotHaus talking about the federal government's raid of the Liberty Dollar organization on the Glenn Beck show on CNN.
Beck, as the economically ignorant buffoon he really is, starts the interview by asking von NotHaus why he believes the federal government "is trying to collapse the dollar." Von NotHaus responds by saying that he doesn't believe the government is deliberately collapsing the dollar but notes that, since 1913, our country has had a "strong history" of the devaluation of the U.S. dollar and that, if one studies the history of the dollar since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913 by studying the charts that the Fed has put out, the dollar "has lost 96 percent of its purchasing power" from 1913 to 2001.
Beck, as the economic moron he is, tries to snooker Bernard into admit any wrongdoing on the show by the following statement with a question:
Yes. Now, as I -- as I understand this, you`ve been making the Liberty Dollar. And it`s a barter system, if I understand it right. Where you can buy it and, if you can convince people to take the gold or the silver at the face value, they`ll barter for it. What is the problem of the federal government with you doing this?
Von NotHaus, doing an awesome job of keeping himself calm, answers with the following response:
That`s what we got -- that`s what we`re asking the federal government. I mean, the U.S. Mint posted this warning a year and a half ago, saying that what we were doing was illegal. And we said, "No, it isn`t illegal." You know? And then they didn`t take any action after that, Glenn.
And so what`s a poor boy to do? But I sued the government because I want them to tell me what am I doing illegal?
Then, Beck shots back with the following:
OK. Let me play devil`s advocate with you. Because you know, there are a lot of people in the crazy tree here on the government is going to collapse and, you know, whatever. And from time to time, you know, I get into the shade of that crazy tree myself.
But the -- the government is -- is saying that you are trying to compete with our own currency, that you are trying to fool people into thinking that this is U.S. currency. And quite honestly, if I looked at that -- can we show that again? If I looked at that with the Statue of Liberty, and it says "Liberty" and "USA" on the bottom and then "trust in God," not "in God we trust," it does look like a -- a U.S. minted coin.
Bernard defends the Liberty Dollar, saying, "I beg to differ with you, Glenn. Similitude is what you`re alluding to there. And it is not in violation of any of the similitude statutes at all."
Of course, Beck shot back, saying that he believed that the printing of "similar" money warranted a jail sentence, but von NotHaus corrected him, saying that he and his group had been printing their own money "for ten years." Not only that, he denied that his company had been "fooling people" into thinking that they were minting and printing U.S. currency, considering that the money had been marketed on the fact that it is not government-issued money.
Kudos to Bernard von NotHaus for educating the masses about the Liberty Dollar. Meanwhile, shame on Glenn Beck for trying to take political potshots at an entrepreneur who believes in a gold-and-silver backed, inflation-proof monetary system - a system that he used as the basis for his Liberty Dollar organization.
Despite the smears that Beck tried to throw in there, it didn't work. Von NotHaus did a great job, and he is a patriot to every liberty-loving American who wants to abolish the Fed and restore the gold standard.
Posted by Todd Andrew Barnett at 10:02 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear the murky details of the D.C. gun ban case, a move that hasn't been done within the last 70 years.
Here's more of the story in great detail:
In a decision that could affect gun control laws across the nation, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to carry a gun.
It has been 70 years since the high court has focused on the meaning of the words "right to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment and the case is sure to ignite cultural battles across the country.
The Supreme Court agreed to step in because the issue has caused a deep split in the lower courts. While a majority of courts have said that the right to bear arms refers in connection to service in a state militia, two federal courts have said the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun.
One of those courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, went as far as striking down a decades-long ban on the private ownership of handguns in the District of Columbia. It is this case the court has agreed to consider.
Posted by Todd Andrew Barnett at 9:39 PM
So say the collectivistic, statist, pro-Big Government, Pro-income tax federal prosecutors who are handling the Snipes' alleged tax fraud and tax evasion case.
Posted by Todd Andrew Barnett at 9:32 PM
A pro-medical marijuana group, which bills itself as the Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care, is lobbying to put up a ballot initiative that would legalize pot for medicinal use before Michigan voters on Election Day in November 2008.
According to the following article in the Detroit Free:
Michigan voters may get a chance to vote next fall on whether to decriminalize the marijuana use for medical purposes as supporters of the idea submitted nearly a half-million petition signatures to state elections officials today.
The group, Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care, said it gathered the signatures of 496,000 registered voters, far in excess of the 304,000 required, to put the issue before the Legislature and, if no action is taken, to state voters.
Dianne Byrum, a former state legislator from Ingham County now working with the marijuana coalition, said the use of medical marijuana enjoys broad support around the country and in Michigan.
Twelve states currently allow citizens some access to medical marijuana, allowing seriously ill patients to grow and/or possess and use the drug. Voters in five cities in Michigan — Detroit, Flint, Ann Arbor, Ferndale and Traverse City — have approved similar local ordinances in recent years.
But use and possession of marijuana for any purpose remains illegal under state and federal law.
Byrum said the Michigan initiative has been narrowly crafted to restrict marijuana use to those who have specific, serious illness certified by a physician. It has been endorsed in concept by resolution of the state Democratic Party, said Byrum, a former Democratic state senator and representative who now runs a political consulting firm.
The following sentence from the Free Press states the following:
But it is unlikely Democrats or Republicans in the Legislature will rush to embrace the measure.
While I'm in favor of medical marijuana (meaning the federal government should simply stay out of the issue and end its practice of waging war against drugs altogether), why only limit the use of marijuana for a "specific, serious illness"? And why should it be "certified by a physician"? Why not just call for an abolition of the War on Drugs at the state and federal levels? How about pushing for a referendum that would call for the complete legalization of marijuana and hard-core drugs like cocaine, heroin, etc., which would result in the end of the black market culture propagated by the War on Drugs (which is also fueled by the War on Terror)?
Isn't freedom about putting whatever substances into your body without government intervention and prosecution of any kind, even if those substances could cause direct harm to your person? Isn't this about the issues of private property rights and the right to self-ownership? Don't we own our own bodies? In the eyes of the vile, tyrannical state, we don't. Of course, this is the same state that has no qualms about enforcing eminent domain on us -- a policy which runs roughshod over our private property rights and our Fifth Amendment protections from eminent domain as well.
According to the MCCC's website, this is what the initiative would do:
* Allow terminally and seriously ill patients who find relief from marijuana to use it with their doctors' approval.
* Protect these seriously ill patients from arrest and prosecution for the simple act of taking their doctor-recommended medicine.
* Permit qualifying patients or their caregivers to cultivate their own marijuana for their medical use, with limits on the amount they could possess.
* Create registry identification cards, so that law enforcement officials could easily tell who was a registered patient, and establish penalties for false statements and fraudulent ID cards.
* Allow patients and their caregivers who are arrested to discuss their medical use in court.
* Keep commonsense restrictions on the medical use of marijuana, including prohibitions on public use of marijuana and driving under the influence of marijuana.
Are these people out of their minds? How can we trust law enforcement officials who, if marijuana were "legalized" under the provisions of this initiative, "could easily tell who was a registered patient" and who wasn't, and who could "establish penalties for false statements and fraudulent ID cards"? What if state officials decide NOT to play by the rules? What happens from there? What makes the MCCC think that the feds won't try to circumvent the state law "legalizing" marijuana for "specific, serious illnesses" the same way they've been trying to circumvent California's state law which "legalizes" marijuana for medicinal purposes?
Rather than "legalizing" marijuana for medicinal reasons, it's time to push for an abolition of the War on Drugs. That would be far better than just going for a shoddy quarter step towards freedom or even the same when it comes to a half step towards freedom.
Posted by Todd Andrew Barnett at 5:13 PM
You’ve given up on putting banners on highway overpasses. Not because you don’t enjoy it, but because the overpass isn’t big enough for the banner anymore.
Your Lawn Gnomes are painted over with Revolution T-shirts.
You schedule your third anniversary dinner between a Meetup group planning meeting and dropping slimjims on windshields at the local high school football game.
You don’t know anything about how to keep score, haven’t the foggiest idea who Earnhart, Gordon, and Martin are, and don’t understand the attraction of watching cars drive around in a really big circle for hours on end…but you still go to the Nascar race, just to cheer for the airplane pulling the Ron Paul for President banner high over the stadium.
You and three friends get together, sneak into Fox News HQ, steal the server password off of Hannity’s desk while his back is turned, rappel into the server room in a scene right out of “Mission Impossible,” hack into their polling software in forty-seven-point-four seconds, and give your phone numbers and home computers permission to vote multiple times–so you can spam the votes and make Ron Paul seem a lot more popular than he really is.
You put a widget in Firefox to allow you to see Ron Paul’s donation numbers in real time.
(Apologies to conservative comic Jeff Foxworthy for butchering his famous stand-up routine.)
(Hat tip to Lew for his hilarious post on this today.)
Posted by Todd Andrew Barnett at 5:01 PM
According to the article from PrisonPlanet.com:
32.8 per cent chose the description matching Ron Paul, while just 18.6 percent chose the description matching Rudy Giuliani. Just 12.6 per cent went for Fred Thompson's description while 15.1 per cent went for Mitt Romney.
The results clearly illustrate that the country is crying out for Ron Paul, which is why the establishment have launched a PR offensive to marginalize him in order to suppress the Congressman's name recognition.
The sample used for the poll had mainly never or rarely used websites popular with Ron Paul supporters, such as You Tube, MySpace and Facebook, showing that if Internet users who don't use land lines were more fairly represented, the numbers would be even more in favor of the Congressman.
(Hat tip to Chris Brunner at the LRC Blog for leaking this out.)
Posted by Todd Andrew Barnett at 5:29 AM
Time Magazine scribe Nathan Thornburgh writes on Ron Paul:
Ron Paul and his supporters will surely 'remember, remember the fifth of November.' On the occasion of a British holiday that commemorates the thwarting of a 17th century plot by rebel Guy Fawkes to blow up Parliament (most recently referenced in graphic novel and film V for Vendetta), the libertarian Republican raised $4.2 million in 24 hours. The one-day total sets a record for GOP candidates, besting the previous top haul by more than $1 million.
Posted by Todd Andrew Barnett at 5:06 AM
So writes Ben McGrath on our favorite candidate in the November 19th online edition of the New Yorker.
Posted by Todd Andrew Barnett at 5:00 AM
The Michigan Legislature is looking to replace the state's new extension of the 6 percent sales tax with a 33 percent surcharge on its new business tax, aptly labeled the Michigan Business Tax, which effectively replaces the old Single Business Tax (which was a carbon copy of Europe's old "value-added tax" that applied to the sale of volumes of goods, income, rent payments, remuneration of employees, etc.).
The following excerpt showcases the nightmare after the state's short-lived partial shutdown:
LANSING -- The Senate today will interrupt its two-week November recess to work on a compromise to repeal a new tax on services and replace it with a bigger business tax.
But a final deal with the House must wait until at least next week, when the House returns from a traditional hunting-season break.
Senate Republicans plan to rework a House bill that would kill the service tax scheduled to take effect Dec. 1 and replace it with a 33% surcharge on the Michigan Business Tax (MBT).
The Senate version is likely to reduce the amount of the surcharge and raise the maximum amount any single business would pay. The House bill sets that limit at $2 million, which critics said would benefit the state's largest companies -- especially the three Detroit automakers -- at the expense of midsize businesses.
Senate GOP spokesman Matt Marsden said the Senate proposal, like the House plan, would fully replace the revenue lost by repealing the tax on services.
But unlike the House plan, the Senate proposal would make the business tax increase temporary, he said. That could be problematic because Gov. Jennifer Granholm has threatened to veto any replacement of the services tax that is not a permanent tax increase.
Question to any collectivist who reads this blog: are you sure you want to stick your story that there is a dime's difference between the Republicans and the Democrats? You sure you want to wager on that?
(See Patrick L. Anderson's Single Business Tax piece at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.)
Posted by Todd Andrew Barnett at 4:03 AM