The Federal Government's Raid of Liberty Dollar

Liberty Services, Inc., the private company that prints, coins, and distributes the gold-and-silver backed Liberty Dollar, was the target of a federal raid by the Federal Bureau of Intruders....ahem, Investigation (FBI) and the United States Secret Service (USSS), as of 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, November 15. Steve Gordon reports all the details.

Here's the letter that Liberty Dollar founder Bernard von NotHaus sent out on the company's email announcement list Thursday morning at around 9:45 a.m. with the following message:

Dear Liberty Dollar Supporters:

I sincerely regret to inform you that about 8:00 this morning a dozen FBI and Secret Service agents raided the Liberty Dollar office in Evansville.

For approximately six hours they took all the gold, all the silver, all the platinum and almost two tons of Ron Paul Dollars that where just delivered last Friday. They also took all the files, all the computers and froze our bank accounts.

We have no money. We have no products. We have no records to even know what was ordered or what you are owed. We have nothing but the will to push forward and overcome this massive assault on our liberty and our right to have real money as defined by the US Constitution. We should not to be defrauded by the fake government money.

But to make matters worse, all the gold and silver that backs up the paper certificates and digital currency held in the vault at Sunshine Mint has also been confiscated. Even the dies for mint the Gold and Silver Libertys have been taken.

This in spite of the fact that Edmond C. Moy, the Director of the Mint, acknowledged in a letter to a US Senator that the paper certificates did not violate Section 486 and were not illegal. But the FBI and Services took all the paper currency too.

The possibility of such action was the reason the Liberty Dollar was designed so that the vast majority of the money was in specie form and in the people’s hands. Of the $20 million Liberty Dollars, only about a million is in paper or digital form.

I regret that if you are due an order. It may be some time until it will be filled... if ever... it now all depends on our actions.

Everyone who has an unfulfilled order or has digital or paper currency should band together for a class action suit and demand redemption. We cannot allow the government to steal our money! Please don’t let this happen!!! Many of you read the articles quoting the government and Federal Reserve officials that the Liberty Dollar was legal. You did nothing wrong. You are legally entitled to your property. Let us use this terrible act to band together and further our goal – to return America to a value based currency.

Please forward this important Alert... so everyone who possess or use the Liberty Dollar is aware of the situation.

Please click HERE to sign up for the class action lawsuit and get your property back!

If the above link does not work you can access the page by copying the following into your web browser. http://www.libertydollar.org/classaction/index.php

Thanks again for your support at this darkest time as the damn government and their dollar sinks to a new low.

Bernard von NotHaus

Monetary Architect

(Thanks to my good friend Chris Kemp of We The People, who told me about this later in the afternoon on that day.)

The Club for Growth's Seventh Presidential White Paper on Ron Paul

The Club for Growth's official report on Ron Paul.

These Neo-Con cretins, who spew their so-called fiscally conservative rhetoric on many of their reports, really have it in for Ron. They don't mind beaming about the other Big Government, Big Empire, Big Military whackjobs posing as GOP contenders being different from the Democrats, but they sure do have a problem with Ron and his consistent voting record and his principled constitutionalist positions.

But then, what do you expect from former CATO-ite Stephen Moore and his cronies in the CFG?

(Thanks to Max Raskin at Lew's blog.)

Glenn Beck: "Is Ron Paul Really The Best Guy You've Got?"

Neo-Con Extraordinare Glenn Beck, in an October 8th airing of his CNN show, certainly has an axe to grind with Ron Paul in his show titled "The Ron Paul Effect." First, within the first three minutes of his segment on Paul, he appears to wax enthusiastic about Ron's position on the issues when he plasters Ron's statements on the TV screen during his "Name That Candidate" segment. Then he goes on a moronic rant about how Ron is the "same Ron Paul who pulls in a whopping 2 percent in the polls of likely Republican voters." He, in an arrogant fashion, asks, "How does that happen, even though this guy raised over $5 million in the third quarter? Only two percent. Why is that?" He goes on to talk a good game with his Big Government viewer base by saying that, for him, at least "the breaking point are the policies that I don't agree with like pulling out of Iraq and legalizing drugs. But, on the whole, I probably agree with his libertarian, Founding Father, Constitution-focus values more than other candidates. Why then doesn't America consider voting for him?"

Then Beck, in a demagogue-esque fashion, says the following: "Real story is: Maybe, just maybe, because you can certainly judge a book by its cover. And Ron Paul's cover? Not exactly looking like a bestseller, ya know? Uh, I mean, if you're going to tell me you're going to abolish the FBI? Okay, you better do it, ya know? You better wrap that up in a nice, slick wrapper, ya know? You gotta look like you actually can do that. He's got some pretty sane proposals, um, and, and, and if his fundraising is of any indication, he has tapped into the frustation every American feels right now towards the dummies in Washington. But, unfortunately, no matter what he's selling for good or for ill, he's looking like the Mayor of Crazy Town. And that seems to be a little problem." As soon as he says the last sentence, he cuts to some video excerpts of Ron in the debates, in his interviews, etc.

Then Beck levels smears at Ron Paul supporters by saying the following: "Okay, there's one other problem that I see with, uh, the Ron Paul Revolution, and I say this with due respect but the revolutionaries? You kinda scare me a little bit. I mean it's the little sheets that are the banners that you put over the freeways, you know what I mean? And then you crash the web polls so the candidate gets 95 percent of the vote. And then you complain when you're excluded from future polls. Whenever I talk politics on the radio, half the phone calls I get are from people who want to talk about Ron Paul, and I take them. And then the other half of the calls are asking me why I'm part of some media conspiracy to not talk about Ron Paul."

Then he laments more on the Ron Paul supporters: "They also love to say that the mainstream media refuses to interview their candidate. I'll be completely honest with you: I've asked Ron Paul repeatedly to come on this program, never really agreed. I'll offer you fair, I'll give you fair questions, Ron, I really will. He, I should say, he never has agreed except for one time, and then, at the last minute, he bailed on us and stiffed us, which is good on national television to do."

And then Beck, in a hilariously ridiculous and pathetic move on his part, throws in his "I'm-a-libertarian" rhetoric: "I guess my question to all true libertarians is this: your platform has reawakened a disgruntled electorate. I am more libertarian than anything else. Voters are begging for common sense Founding Father types values, and you've got 'em. But you can't sell steak without sizzle. The question is: 'Libertarians, is Ron Paul really the best guy you've got?'" [Emphasis added]

Of course, at that point, David Boaz, Executive Director of the CATO Institute and Peter Fenn, a Democratic strategist and a former Al Gore Campaign advisor, joined him for a discussion on Paul. Fenn gushes about how impressive and amazing Ron has been doing with his campaign. He is amazed about the fact that Paul raised $5 million for his campaign and waxed glowingly about his campaign website, even though he says Ron didn't know what the Internet was (which isn't true). Fenn poignantly notes at one point, "I think part of it, Glenn, that, you know, there is a none-of-the-above quality that's out there by a lot of people. And he kinda, he brings it in. And you remem -- in '88, this guy was on the ballot in 46 states in the District of Columbia. He got 500, a little less than 500,000 votes, not that many, but no one knew who he was then. If he's a libertarian candidate for President of the United States with an cynical, angry electorate, you know, who knows what could happen out there?"

Beck then asks Boaz about if there is a libertarian candidate while paying lip service to a true-blue libertarian candidate. The conversation went this like:

"David, do you know any good -- I mean, good quality -- I mean, our founding fathers were more libertarian than anything else.

DAVID BOAZ, THE CATO INSTITUTE: Well...

BECK: And they were scientists and preachers and everything. They were great. What happened?

BOAZ: Well, that`s right, and I think one thing that happened is that people like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson probably would have trouble in today`s media market, today`s special interest-dominated politics.

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: ... a reason to pull for a libertarian then.

BOAZ: Ron Paul is not necessarily the ideal libertarian candidate, but he`s the one who`s out there running. And it`s interesting. You named a lot of his positions, and I think you like all the ones I don`t. But maybe he can appeal to both of us in different ways."

Interestingly enough, all three of them veer off-topic from Ron, with Beck lamenting on the fact that there is no "moderate" candidate in the race from either side of the aisle. Soon enough, they all talk about their discontent with no candidate out there besides Ron Paul who is "socially liberal and fiscally conservative."

At the end of the blabfest, Beck finally says, "Why can`t we find anyone on either side that`s fiscally responsible? That`s my question. David, Peter, I`ve got to run. Thanks a lot."

In a nutshell, Beck is a fool if he thinks that Ron Paul needs to wrap up his message in "a nice, slick wrapper," as if Ron needs to tone down his anti-war, anti-Drug War message. Beck, a bottom-feeding Bush brownnoser who talks the pro-liberty talk but doesn't walk the walk, is so wishy-washy that he makes Ron look like a true saint, compared to faux saints like Mother Theresa and Princess Diana.

If anything, Ron Paul is the real deal and the best libertarian candidate for freedom. Not only that, he's an eloquent messenger for human liberty. It's not surprising that Glenn Beck doesn't understand that.

As for Boaz, he notes on the air that Beck "likes all of his [Paul's] positions that I [Boaz] don't." Could it be that Ron is far more libertarian on the issues, whereas Boaz and his shady group the CATO Institute is a Big Government, corporatist-supporting Republican front since Bush's first term in office?

Minds with serious inquiries only want to know.

Michigan to Citizens: Pay Higher Flat Income and Sales Taxes

Granholm and her collectivistic thugs have finally won their battle to raise the flat income tax and extend the sales tax on services. The shut-down was "averted," although it hasn't really been averted; it's been postponed to a later date, in actuality. What Granholm and her collectivistic thugs in Lansing have done is that they have merely delayed the inevitable -- the impending financial and economic implosion that will eventually engulf Michigan and every obedient, sheeple we call citizens to go with it.

Of course, it's not a surprise that Granholm and her collectivistic stooges are going along with this, but it is troublesome. With the taxes going up and no changes in state government spending and the state's regulatory code, this state will continue to sink further and further into economic ruination.

It's bad enough that it's a one-state depression; it's going to be worse in the months to come.

The Continuing Michigan Partial Shut-Down Mess

The continuing saga of the partial shut-down mess in my home state proceeds unabated. Apparently the Michigan media is saying that there has been some progress in the talks regarding the shut-down nonsense, but that doesn't say much, as far as I'm concerned.

My governor Jennifer Granholm is not wasting any time trying to blackmail the Legislature into hiking the state's flat income tax rate from 3.9 percent to either 4.3 percent or 4.6 percent, whichever is decided first. She claims to be pushing the tax hike in the state to "close a $1.75 billion gap in the budget," yet she offers no proof that raising the tax rate is going to rectify the mess that the state's in -- a mess that Granholm and the Democrats largely created for the state.

Since she's not even remotely interested in slashing the spending, tax, and regulatory levels statewide, the chance of an impending financial implosion in this state is becoming greater with each passing moment.

Not only does Jenny want to raise the flat income tax, she's also trying to redouble on her efforts to push for an extension of the state's sales tax (which is 6 percent) to services currently not covered under the law, such as movie tickets, performing arts, accounting services, etc. (There's a litany of other services that are targeted to be taxed under the new extension, but that's not a surprise.)

The real answer to this insanity is to dramatically slash spending, taxes, and regulations, many laws that impede in the market process, and truly privatizing many government services and functions that can work better in a laissez-faire free market. A "right to work" law is seriously needed for Michigan, considering many other states do have such laws on the books and their economies are doing far better than states that don't carry them. If the Legislature and the Governor were to sign and pass such a law, there would be a significant turn around economically and financially.

Until such legitimate reforms are implemented, the state will not survive the financial and economic implosion that is yet to come. Even if the Legislature, Granholm, and the special interests get their way, the "fixes" -- that is, the Democrats' beloved "balanced budget" -- will pave the way for the Legislature to boost spending, which can, in turn, lead to higher taxes again. The cycle would just keep continuing. The state will not survive it at the rate it continues to go.

Michigan to Partially Shut Down

Governor Jennifer Granholm, the statist Democrat who thinks that boosting Michigan's flat income tax from 3.9 percent to either 4.3 percent or 4.6 percent is the be-all, end-all to rectifying the state's fiscal budget crisis, has been bribing and blackmailing the GOP and the entire Legislature to either go along with the tax increase or face the dire consequence of their decision. The consequence happens to be a partial shut-down of the entire State of Michigan.

Of course Granholm, in her televised State of the Address speech she gave from her gubernatorial office in Lansing, is demanding that the Republicans go along with a "balanced budget bill," which is a piece of legislation that would call for a 18 percent increase of the flat tax or face a partial shutdown of the state. She sternly said that she would not accept a budget bill that would provide "massive cuts to education, health care, and public safety." (Emphasis only.)

It really all boils down to this: the people as well as Granholm and the entire Legislature made their political beds; now they're going to have lie in them. It's their fault that they brought the state to this point; now they have to deal with it and accept the consequences of their actions.

This state is paying a high economic, social, and political price -- all because of the inexcusable, unjustifable decisions made by the electorate and the pathetic decisions by Granholm and the Legislature.

While I do have some sympathy for the voters on one hand, I don't feel sorry for their stupidity on the other one. They brought this mess on themselves; now, they must live with their decision.

Serve Oversalted Burger to Cop, Go to Jail

[Cross-posted at Libertas.]

Now does that seem like an abuse of police power to you? Or doesn't it?

A young lady working at a McDonald's accidentally spilled too much salt on some of the meat. She and a co-worker and her supervisor attempted to wipe the excess salt off before serving the meat in hamburgers. In hindsight, perhaps they should have thrown the meat away but could they have known in advance that they couldn't get enough of the excess salt off? Well, the police officer in question returned to the fast food restaurant complaining that the burger made him sick. He questioned the young lady and then arrested her for 'serving food without regard for the consumer's well-being." Samples of the "tainted" meat were even sent off to the crime lab.

The young lady, Kendra Bull, gets to the heart of the matter: "If it was too salty, why did (Adams) not take one bite and throw it away?" For crying out loud, it's just salt!

Was Thomas Jefferson an Environmental Alarmist?

[Cross-posted at Libertas.]

Apparently the most recent fad among environmental alarmists is to enlist the venerable Thomas Jefferson to their cause. This latest bit of nonsense was, I gather, started by Dr. James Hansen of NASA (who is apparently unfazed and unrepentant in the face of his recently revealed Y2K error). Even certain faux market environmentalists are following Hansen's lead. The strategic idea here is to bolster support for the CAGW thesis by attaching Jefferson's respected name to radical environmentalism. The hope, at least implicitly, is that resistance and skepticism of Americans, and for some - also libertarians, to the CAGW thesis will wither in the face of their revered Founding Father's environmentalism. The claim is that he believed currently living generations should not bind future generations to living in an environmentally degraded world; therefore, the state should prevent them from doing so. The method by which this claim is made is, you guessed it, by taking quotes out of context and putting a leftist-environmentalist spin on them. Someone else already beat me to it, so I'll simply refer you to Luboš Motl's debunking of this latest environmentalist farce.

Anthony LaCalamita: Insane or Not?

Anthony LaCalimita, a former employee of an accounting firm in Oakland County in my home state of Michigan who reportedly stormed into the building and gunned down three of his former employers and executed a fourth one, is now being "evaluated by a private psychiatrist" to determine whether or not he is "mentally ill."

This is what the Detroit Free Press says in this excerpt of the article:

The man accused of storming a Troy office building in April and shooting three people, killing one, will be evaluated by a private psychiatrist to determine if he was legally insane at the time.

Anthony LaCalamita, 36, has already been found criminally responsible and competent to stand trial by doctors at the state’s forensic center, but today his attorney, Jerome Fenton, asked the trial judge to allow additional testing. Fenton is considering an insanity defense for LaCalamita, who has a long history of mental illness.

Let's cut through the claptrap, shall we? If Calamita is "mentally ill," as some of these psycho-quacks suspect he is, then why is it that experienced and skilled pathologists have never been able to discover and document this so-called illness when they perform routine autopsies?

If anything, LaCalimita knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it. The psychiatric state, including its "private psychiatrists," would love you to believe that LaCalimita was not responsible for his actions and that the culpability of his crime rests on the imaginary hands of a brain disease, which is clearly non-existent. If this brain disorder does exist as these experts contend, did it, in the form of whispering voices, order him to purchase a gun to shoot and kill one of his employers and wound the other three in broad daylight?

The hysteria surrounding this malarkey is revolting to the Nth degree.

Tom Tancredo: Let's Bomb Muslim Holy Cities

Prominent Neo-Con Republican and xenophobe Tom Tancredo declares that America would be a much safer country if we bombed every major Muslim Holy city.

Here's a short excerpt of what he says in his blog on CNN today:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo’s campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good “deterrent” to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday.

“This shows that we mean business,” said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser. “There’s no more effective deterrent than that. But he is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just a means to deter them from attacking us.”

On Tuesday, Tancredo warned a group of Iowans that another terrorist attack would “cause a worldwide economic collapse.” IowaPolitics.com recorded his comments.

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.”

Tancredo and other evil, xenophobic, racist collectivists are the real reason why the terrorists "hate us." And don't give me this bogus garbage that it's because they "hate us for our freedoms."

Ron Paul, the Elephant in the Room

Here's the Texas Monthly's coverage of Ron Paul. The rag's cover shows a nicely-drafted illustrated sketch of Ron on its cover.

(Thanks to Lew for his mention of this.)

Democrats Caving In on Government Surveillance

It seems like congressional Democrats are compromising on the Leviathan's never-ending surveillance program. Well, isn't that just fine and dandy?

Here's an excerpt of today's Washington Post on this story:

Congressional Democrats outlined a temporary plan yesterday that would expand the government's authority to conduct electronic surveillance of overseas communications in search of terrorists.

The proposal, according to House and Senate Democrats, would permit a secret court to issue broad orders approving eavesdropping of communications involving suspects overseas and other people, who may be in the United States. To issue an order, the court would not need to identify a particular target overseas, but it would have to determine that those being targeted are "likely," in fact, overseas.

If a foreign target's communications to a person inside the United States reaches a "significant" number, then an court order based on probable cause would be required. It is unclear how "significant" would be defined.

Under a sunset provision, the authority would have to be revisited in six months.

"Given the continued threat environment and some recent technical developments, I have become convinced that we must take some immediate, but interim, step to improve collection of foreign intelligence in a manner that doesn't compromise civil liberties of U.S. citizens," said John D. Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

In recent days, the administration has proposed giving the attorney general sole authority to authorize the surveillance, suggesting that if Democrats do not act quickly Americans would be at greater risk of attack.

Democrats said that giving sole authority to the attorney general would be unacceptable and insisted that the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have an oversight role.

Some civil liberties advocates were pleased.

"It is vastly better than the administration's bill and preserves the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies.

Others, including some Democrats, said that granting the government authority to intercept calls with broad warrants could allow a large number of phone calls and e-mails of U.S. individuals and companies to be intercepted, as well.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office, contended that Democrats are "capitulating to the politics of fear."

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) said that the proposal, while better than the administration's, "does not have adequate safeguards to protect Americans' privacy."

When it comes to statist Democrats, can we say....cowards?

Minneapolis Bridge Collapses Into Mississippi River

An eight-lane highway interstate bridge, which was jammed with rush hour traffic, collapsed into the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Here's an excerpt of the incident from the Washington Post today:

MINNEAPOLIS, Aug. 1 -- An eight-lane highway bridge clogged with rush-hour traffic buckled and collapsed into the Mississippi River in central Minneapolis on Wednesday evening, pitching numerous vehicles into the roiling water below. At least seven people were killed and dozens were injured, authorities said.

Emergency officials said the toll could rise as rescuers, hampered by burning cars and hunks of broken roadway, scoured the debris-clogged river for survivors. The Minneapolis Star Tribune newspaper reported that 20 people were still missing late Wednesday night, and that officials said efforts had switched from rescue to recovery.

"This is a catastrophe of historic proportions for Minnesota," said Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R). "We are doing everything we can to make sure we respond as quickly as we can to this emergency."

It was not immediately clear what caused the Interstate 35W bridge to break apart. Pawlenty said the structure had been undergoing "cosmetic" repairs, including resurfacing and guardrail and lighting replacement.

Witnesses described a lamppost-shaking rumble at 6:05 p.m. Central time as the concrete-and-steel structure rippled from south to north and then broke apart, its 458-foot-long central section plunging from more than 60 feet into the greenish water.

As massive swaths of concrete sheared off, vehicles on the bridge fell. Some of them plunged into the water, while others, including a school bus, came to rest on slanted sections of pavement at the clifflike edge of the r oadway. Several of the vehicles caught fire and one tractor-trailer was cut in half.

At least one person drowned. Rescue officials said many of the survivors were seriously wounded.

And the kicker is: the government operates, controls, funds the maintenance of, and owns bridges like this one. Are we to be really surprised that, if there is no private property rights on our roads and our bridges and that only the "public" owns these roads, that these bridges like the one in Minneapolis are falling apart at the seams?

EP Will Not Stop Polluting of Lake Michigan

Today's online edition of the Detroit Free Press reports that The Great Leader's own Environmental Pollution -- I mean Protection -- Agency will not take governmental action against a BP refinery based in northern Indiana from dumping pollution into Lake Michigan.

Here's an excerpt from the article which should concern every pro-freedom American across across the libertarian divide:

CHICAGO -- Rebuffing bipartisan pressure from Congress, the Bush administration's top environmental regulator Tuesday declined to stop a BP refinery in northwest Indiana from dumping more pollution into Lake Michigan.

Stephen Johnson, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said he saw nothing wrong with the permit Indiana regulators awarded in June to BP, the first company in years allowed to increase the amount of toxic chemicals pumped into the Great Lakes.

Although the federal government has been pushing for more than three decades to eliminate pollution in the Great Lakes, the EPA didn't object to the BP permit -- part of a $3-billion expansion of its refinery in Whiting, Ind.

This is grossly unethical, not to mention pathetic. It's bad enough that Democrats cop to being socialists and want to control every aspect of all Americans on our own soil; it's worse that the Bush administration -- a GOP administration as it is -- employs libertarian rhetoric to disguise its support for a governmental system of environmental protection....which is more like environmental pollution.

At least there's a significant difference between libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans on the issue of environmental protection. Democrats oppose private property rights and private ownership of land and, for the most part, oppose refineries and oil companies from operating on those rented lands. They also want the government to expand its ownership of the land and act as the champion of environmental stewardship, even if they do pollute the land, the lakes, the rivers, and the oceans as well. Republicans want to subsidize oil companies that lease government property and allow government agencies like the EPA and the Department of Interior to issue permits allowing companies to dump such hazardous chemicals and materials in the lakes and other bodies of water, which are government property anyway. While they go out of their way to oppose government ownership and control of property and handling of hazardous waste and material on the land and employ laissez-faire and private property rights rhetoric, they don't mind the government subsidizing businesses that have no incentive to protect and care for the land on which their businesses reside and don't own, but rather pollute on the property which they are leasing.

Libertarians, on the other hand, believe in private property rights and want the government to stay out of the environmental protection business. At least they want the free market to take over protecting the environment and restore individuals and businesses' ability to exercise their private property rights -- items that have been long since excluded from public debate for the longest time.

Need and Public Policy: Handle with Care

The Foundation for Economic Education's very own Gary M. Galles writes:

"Need" implies agreement on what and how extensive it is. However, needs are in the eye of the beholder, and their perceived extent varies dramatically from person to person. (How much of X does one need?) When we don’t agree on the extent, using the word "need" masks that disagreement. It implies that the beneficiaries' view is the relevant one, even when they are unwilling to offer enough to attract volunteers to supply their needs in the market. The often-different views of those forced to finance those needs are dismissed as irrelevant.

(Thanks goes to FEE for providing these articles online free of charge.)