the government wants us to simply trust them. you never trust someone because they want to be trusted. that would be like writing a "moral blank check" to quote Ayn Rand. one gains trust by virtue of the honesty of their actions, not by the voicing of their intentions. just the other day i was told of a girl who snuck into her boyfriend's myspace account and read his private messages, and then said she couldn't trust him. well it goes both ways. okay here is a deal. i won't undermine the government, and they won't spy on me. now which one of us is more likely to live up to their end of the bargain? bah! i've managed yet to make no intelligible point, so here it is. the only purpose to spy on someone is to keep them under your control. no favorable or honest relationship can be achieved through dishonest means. now truth be told i don't want that much of a relationship with our government, but like a crazy ex-girlfriend it looks me up anyway. i just need my space you know. i mean first, it's like, well she wants to know how much i make, then she wants to control my money, then get rid of my gun, then she gets involved in my business, setting racial quotas for my friends. And now she snoops through my Email?! uh boy!

Let's see....MK Ultra... the report that said Sen. John Connelly was wounded by the same bullet that killed JFK... the Bay of Pigs... the Social Security "Trust Fund"... putting the Shah of Iran in power... putting Saddam Hussein in power... the Steve Jackson raid that used an unsigned warrant... Iran-Contra... the Randy Weaver family... the handling of David Koresh and all his fellow kooks in Waco... President Bill Clinton saying anyone with a bumper sticker that says, "I love my country, but I fear my government" is a threat to America... 600+ FBI files that were "lost" in the White house for YEARS while the President was UNDER SUBPOENA to produce them...

...and the list goes on, and on, and on....

Okay, so the assumption that I *should* trust the government is NOT insulting to my intelligence HOW, exactly?

Yes, private corporations spy on us too. And there is a multi-billion-dollar anti-spyware software industry to combat it, too. Does anyone think us poor serfs will be allowed to take any steps to combat government spying on us?

Anyone? Bueller?

The government having a sense of Humor.

Anyone hear the story of a high school student's prank e-mail to a freind simply saying he would "like" to kill the president. He was picked up by the men in suits a few hours later and is currently serving....well nobody really knows what happened to him, but maybe they just sent him to a magical island, I believe it's called Guantanamo Bay.

I'm not even sure I dissagree with the e-mail.... uh-oh, If I don't post anymore, be worried.

Since when has the government ever done anything to prove its trust worthiness? Haven't we see that when the government is given more power it ALWAYS abuses it? The last few lines of this blog tell it true. I hope the government has a good sense of humor..

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-- James Madison

Hey Mr. Libby, just missed you. Here, I'll add this one for you.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Ben Franklin

Tell you what though. This redefining privacy is absurd and IS Orwellian (Doublespeak). Recently in Michigan taxes were raised in response to a government that just can't balance their budget. Of course the taxpayers are P.O.ed. So just like this call to redefine privacy, Michigan's governor said in the media ". . . the trick is to stop thinking of it as 'your' money."

I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're out there Superman, SAVE ME!

OT to the story, but check this out.

Frontal Assault on Freedom: FBI Raids Liberty Dollar
Posted by BJT on Nov 15, 2007

Read this email closely. I just got it this morning. Those of you who consider the gold standard a quaint anachronism, pay extra close attention. If Ron Paul supporters, gold standard advocates and the Liberty Dollar were nothing but harmless kooks, why would the FBI raid their offices when no crime was ever committed? This is a currency competing with the USD, yes, but they never, but never make the claim that it is legal tender or anything other than what it is: private currency. And private currencies are numerous in the USA.

No. This raid happened because the Liberty Dollar, the second most popular currency in the country, threatens to usurp the entrenched power of the Fed’s Almighty Dollar. People can see the buying power of the greenback eroding, and they will choose something else if it is available, and the Liberty Dollar is ready and waiting. And that’s why the government must resort to force in order to protect its stranglehold on the economy.

From Liberty Dollar Headquarters:
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——————-

sorry, liberty buck holders.

I invented a solid data security methodology years ago. I hope to be able to implement it someday. Would do wonders to allay many of these worries.

James A. Merritt, I was thwarted in trying to post the following in the last blog subject:

JAMES A MERRITT WROTE: “..it is also true that, as few as 100 years ago, we still had plenty of circulating gold and silver coin, and NO "electronic dollars" at all…” (END)

I believe you are thoroughly mistaken here..Sure, there were gold/silver/copper ‘coins’ circulating ‘as money’..But not NEARLY enough to back the various (fraudulent) banknotes ‘circulating’..banknotes which bore a (fraudulent) promise to redeem in ‘specie..’ I believe you’ll find ‘the US’ ‘system’ was thoroughly debauched even before the ‘civil’ war..which piled on untold/unknown debauchery..

I’ve read/heard accounts where ‘armed carriage’ services (before Brinks, Wells Fargo, etc.) were employed by banks to run ‘the gold’ from bank to bank just ahead of the stinking government ‘bank examiner$’..

JAMES A MERRITT WROTE: “Today, we deal primarily in paper money and electronic blips, which themselves have only the "value" declared for them by the governments that authorize them” (END)

I believe you’ll have to admit that your description above has LARGELY always been true..I submit Article 1, sec. 8, clause 5, US CON., (which I certainly wouldn’t have signed-but anyway) whereby CONGRESS is ‘authorized’ to ‘regulate the Value thereof.’

“Man is the creature of God and money is the creature of man. Money is made to be the servant of man and I protest against all theories that enthrone money and debase man.”

The right to coin money and issue money is a function of the Government. It is a part of sovereignty and can no more be delegated with safety to individuals, than we could afford to delegate to private individuals the power to make penal statutes or to levy taxes.” (both attributed to William Jennings Bryan)

Is it any wonder why some people want the FBI abolished? Their actions against Liberty Dollar show one example why some people hate that bureaucracy and want it shut down.

In addition, it is not enough to have competing currencies. The U.S. Dollar needs to be put back on the silver and gold standards.

STAN WROTE: "The U.S. Dollar needs to be put back on the silver and gold standards."

AGAIN, STAN, 'the US dollar' HAS NEVER, EVER, EVER, etc., been on any honest 'silver and gold standards'..and if you tried you'd destroy God's creation..ripping apart and poisoning the planet in lu$t of 'the barbarous metal' (apparently math isn't the strong suit of Republicrats and some 'libertarians')

Btw, I realize this isn't what the know-little Republicrat $hmucks at the Kato Institute (apparently founded by Kato Kaelin of OJ fame), the Bong Mises Institute, etceterot, have filled quasi-Republicrat heads with..but... ;o)

SOUTHERNGRITS WROTE: "LP is basically Bush Lite or Republican Lite. Y'all
were for Clinton being impeached back in '96, but no call for Bush's impeachment.

Sounds like us Real Libertarians are gonna hang out with and do Lysander Spooner ideas, Ayn Rand ideas, while the LP just acts like Angry Elephants." (END)

Yes, I must agree here!..The stinking Republiclowns have seemingly infiltrated the LP 'leadership'..Anyone listening to the stinking Kneel Boor show or the Boob Barr show, etceterot, are repeatedly treated to Republican monkey spanks who soil the word 'libertarian!'..These dopes would have people believe there is some important difference between the stinking Democreeps and the stinking Republicreeps..stinking 'liberals' and stinking 'conservatives'..stinking 'left' and stinking 'right'..

Btw, I get a hoot out of numbskull Republicrats warning us 'we're going to lose our right to privacy,' etc...as if that hadn't already happened DECADES AGO!! GET REAL, Republicrats! ;o)

"is" repeatedly treated.... ;o) oh, but for an edit function!

http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/11/17/loretta-nall-sends-troy-king-appropriate-sex-toy/

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/11/17/lat-night-wingnut-crap-of-the-week/

"The NY Daily News tells us that Rudy Giuliani claims he has “200 Reasons” why he would be a better president than any Democrat:

Rudy Giuliani Friday came up with “200 reasons” why he is better than Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat - the 200 judges he would name as President.

“I’m gonna give you 200 reasons” to choose him over Sens. Clinton (D-N.Y.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), Giuliani told applauding strict constructionists from the Federalist Society.

“It’s the 200 federal judges the next President of the U.S. is likely to appoint,” Giuliani said.

The former mayor said that if Clinton won, she would name “judges who will be activist in the sense of trying to legislate social policy.”

The Federalist Society, of course, as the article notes, is an organization dedicated to the principle of “strict constructionism,” a rigorous legal doctrine of constitutional interpretation that emphasizes how women and gays don’t deserve equal rights and how you shouldn’t be able to buy dildoes in Alabama — even if you were planning to use them solely in the ways that Jesus taught His Disciples. (”Do unto others as you would have others do unto you: with plenty of lube.”) Furthermore, by a remarkable coincidence, it turns out that if you squint hard enough and bend your neck behind your calves so you’re gazing upwards and cheekwards, the Constitution says exactly what the Bush administration says it means. Also it has been discovered that the Constitution was written on Hoover Institution letterhead. Who knew.

Anyway, an FDL undercover investigation reveals that these 200 judges (who may be fewer in number than the Spartans at Thermopylae but are almost less into man-on-man sex, and not quite so upfront about it) already exist: they are part of a Conservative Clone Jurist Army currently being housed in the dank basements of the Federalist Society. [.]

But back to Rudy and the Federalists (world’s least entertaining bar band — no dancing, all waterboarding):

Former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who introduced Giuliani, may have provided the gaffe of the day.

Just a week after the indictment of former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, Olson said Giuliani had shown “the wisdom and humility to surround himself with talented, dedicated and energetic people” as mayor.

Well, sure. But to be fair, at least you can’t accuse Bernie Kerik of not being “energetic.” And to keep on with the good news, Bernie Kerik can’t buy dildoes in Tuscaloosa right about now, either. There’s always a silver lining, you know.

http://www.tenant.net/tengroup/Metcounc/Jan02/giuliani.html

"Giuliani’s Legacy:
Lower Crime, Higher Rents, Dancing Ban
By Steven Wishnia

"NO DANCING," reads the sign behind the bar. It’s not some kitschy 19th-century relic. It’s the law in New York City, as revived by our just-departed mayor, Rudy Giuliani.

Specifically, it’s a Prohibition-era cabaret law that bans dancing in bars without a license for it. By the ‘60s, it was only used against gay bars, and that era ended after the June 27, 1969 raid on the Stonewall Inn. But Giuliani--lionized as the mayor who "saved" New York--resurrected it. In the summer of 1998, 70 cops invaded an East Village rock club to shut down a Saturday night dance party. Neighborhood bars have been fined $1,500 because people were dancing to the jukebox.

So some of us who actually live here have a bit of a problem with Giuliani’s canonization since September 11. All he did was act like a compassionate human being for a few weeks--granted, quite a feat for a man who announced his plans for divorce on TV before he told his wife--and people were calling him a hero.

"Racist" and "fascist" are not too strong words to describe him. Giuliani refused to meet with black or Latino elected officials--not the borough presidents of the Bronx or Manhattan, not leading members of the City Council--until after the 41-shot police killing of Amadou Diallo in 1999.

The dancing ban was just one of his petty-fascist initiatives. A 1995 law makes it a misdemeanor for 20 or more people to be in a park without a permit--so far, it’s only been used against witches, rappers, and Lower East Side squatters. Police often almost outnumber protesters at demonstrations. When black supremacist Khalid Muhammad held a march in Harlem in 1998, Giuliani cut off subway service to the neighborhood.

Still, the city’s establishment hailed him as the savior who tamed the "ungovernable" city, and Giuliani drew around 70% of the white vote in all three of his mayoral races. The biggest reason is that crime was dropped dramatically during his term. How much credit he deserves for that is debatable. The crime decrease is a national trend, and probably more due to the lower unemployment of the ‘90s, the decline in the crack trade, and simple police tactics like using computers to chart high-crime blocks, rather than to Giuliani’s much-vaunted "quality of life" initiatives. But what those tactics--attacks on marijuana-smoking, the homeless, squeegee men, etc.--did accomplish was to ease white people’s perceptions of crime. Some of Giuliani’s most ardent defenders are the kind of white people who take cabs everywhere because they’re scared to ride the subway.

Meanwhile, black New Yorkers supported Giuliani about as much as Jews supported Pat Buchanan. The map of mayoral voting patterns almost perfectly matches the city’s racial map. Giuliani got over 80% of the vote in hardcore white areas like Bensonhurst in Brooklyn and Glendale in Queens, less than 15% in most black districts, and generally around one-third in Latino neighborhoods. (Despite the hype about nonwhite voters deserting Democrat Mark Green to elect Mike Bloomberg, this pattern largely held last November.)

White Giuliani supporters were perfectly content to accept a little police brutality as long as crime was down. He was easily re-elected less than three months after the much-publicized sexual assault and torture of Abner Louima. That support cracked slightly after the Diallo killing, and significantly after Patrick Dorismond was shot by another cop in March 2000 and Giuliani released the victim’s sealed juvenile record.

By then, even white New Yorkers seemed weary of Giuliani’s bullyhood. He proclaimed himself the patron of "civility," but couldn’t disagree with someone without denouncing them as "jerky" or "intellectually dishonest." In late 1999, he made it illegal for homeless people to sleep on the streets, and moved to put their children into foster care. "If Giuliani had been mayor of Bethlehem," the Rev. Al Sharpton thundered at a Union Square rally that December, "they would have put the baby Jesus into foster care."

Here's a little somewhat off-track (or is it?) ditty from The CLARK Institute of Monetary Reality to remind you Republicrats and sane people of the importance of 'money.' A Thanksgiving treat for Republicrat turkeys!

At some level even Republicrat slugs understand the importance of money/the control thereof..After all, there's virtually NOTHING you can do without it (except die/go to jail/both), but how many of you Republicrats, sane people, etc. are aware of the following?:

According to Zarlenga in "The Lost Science of Money" (btw, if you know of a better monetary historian in all of Katodom, Bong Misesville, Kneel Boordom, etceterotville ad nauseam, please merely name the name!) what we were 'taught' in stinking Republicrat schools about "the ruination of colonial money" during and after the American Revolution is, at least, thoroughly incomplete..

I was taught that 'colonial scrip' was mismanaged by 'American issuers' ("inflated") mostly as a result of desperate vital necessity:...To pay the costs associated with the Revolutionary War against the British..Some of you may recall sayings from the day: "Not worth a continental"..General Washington's, "A wagonload of money will scarcely buy a wagonload of provisions" etc..

But Zarlenga has put forth a different theory/account: That one of the first things the British did in the execution of the war was to counterfeit "the continental"..They did so by, among other things, harboring a ship, the HMS Phoenix, in New York harbor with then state-of-the-art paper money printing equipment aboard..

Early on, before the treachery was discovered, the British used this phony money successfully to buy provisions, etc. from stinking tories! (the Republicrats, Bill O'Rielly fans, etceterats, of their day)..But eventually many people figured it out and confidence in "the continental" was nearly completely eroded..

Thus, when you read of 12,000 continentals for a barrel of whisky, 700 con$/haircut, etc. tale$ of the day ad nauseam, keep this in mind!..

Also again note the importance of money. And how debauching our money--and therefore 'the economy,'--was maybe THE first consideration of the British warmongers/authoritarians..

But sadly, today not one Republicrat in a thousand has any honest understandings about 'money!'..Especially, it seems, the loudest Republicrat peckerheads, who appear near-constantly opining as to 'improvement' of 'the economy!'..

Ooga freaking booga, Republicrats!..gobble, gobble, gobble..and ho, ho, ho too! ;o)

SHANE THERE IS A POSTING ON HERE REGARDING SEX TOYS< NO NEED TO HAVE THAT ON HERE. PLEASE REMOVE.

THANKS

Republicrats and sane, decent, knowledgeable people.. a holiday treat for thee..from "A Short History of Paper Money and Banking" by William Gouge in ?1833..proof that not all our fellows have been monetary ignoramusses, Republicrats, etc.:..

"Against Corporations of every kind, the objection may be brought that whatever power is given to them is so much taken from either the government or the people. As the object of charters is to give to members of companies powers which they would not possess in their individual capacity, the very existence of monied corporations is incompatible with equality of rights.

Corporations are unfavorable to the progress of national wealth. As the Argus eyes of private interest do not watch over their concerns, their affairs are much more carelessly and much more expensively conducted than those of individuals. What would be the condition of the merchant who should trust everything to his clerks, or of the farmer who should trust everything to his laborers? Corporations are obliged to trust everything to stipendiaries, who are oftentimes less trustworthy than the clerks of the merchant or the laborers of the farmer.

Such are the inherent defects of corporations that they never can succeed, except when the laws or circumstances give them a monopoly or advantages partaking of the nature of a monopoly. Sometimes they are protected by direct inhibitions to individuals to engage in the same business. Sometimes they are protected by an exemption from liabilities to which individuals are subjected. Sometimes the extent of their capital or of their credit gives them a control of the market. They cannot, even then, work as cheap as the individual trader, but they can afford to throw away enough money in the contest to ruin the individual trader, and then they have the market to themselves.

If a poor man suffers aggression from a rich man, the disproportion of power is such that it may be difficult for him to obtain redress; but if a man is aggrieved by a corporation, he may have all its stockholders, all its clerks, and all its protégés for parties against him. Corporations are so powerful as frequently to bid defiance to government.

If a man is unjust or an extortioner, society is, sooner or later, relieved from the burden by his death. But corporations never die. What is worst of all (if worse than what has already been stated be possible) is that want of moral feeling and responsibility which characterizes corporations. A celebrated English writer expressed the truth, with some roughness, but with great force, when he declared that "corporations have neither bodies to be kicked , nor souls to be damned."

All these objections apply to our American banks. They are protected, in most of the states, by directed inhibitions on individuals engaging in the same business. They are exempted from liabilities to which individuals are subjected. If a poor man cannot pay his debts, his bed is, in some of the states, taken from under him. If that will not satisfy his creditors, his body is imprisoned. The shareholders in a bank are entitled to all the gain they can make by banking operations; but if the undertaking chances to be unsuccessful, the loss falls on those who have trusted them. They are responsible only for the amount of stock they may have subscribed.

For the old standard of value, they substitute the new standard of bank credit. Would government be willing to trust to corporations the fixing of our standards and measures of length, weight, and capacity? Or are our standards and measures of value of less importance than our standards and measures of other things?

They coin money out of paper. What has always been considered one of the most important prerogatives of government has been surrendered to the banks.

In addition to their own funds, they have the whole of the spare cash of the community to work upon. The credit of every businessman depends on their not. They have it in their power to ruin any merchant to whom they may become inimical.

We have laws against usury; but if it was the intention of the legislature to encourage usurious dealings, what more efficient means could be devised than that of establishing incorporated paper money banks? Government extends the credit of these institutions by receiving their paper as an equivalent of specie, and exerts its whole power to protect and cherish them. Whoever infringes any of the chartered privileges of the banks is visited with the severest penalties.

Supposing banking to be a thing good in itself, why should bankers be exempted from liabilities to which farmers, manufacturers, and merchants are subjected? It will not surely be contended that banking is more conducive than agriculture, manufactures, and commerce to the progress of national wealth.

Supposing the subscribers to banks be substantial capitalists, why should artificial power be conferred on them by granting them a charter? Does not wealth of itself confer sufficient advantages on the rich man? Why should the competition among capitalists be diminished by forming them into companies and uniting their wealth in one mass?

Supposing the subscribers to banks to be speculators without capital, what is there so praiseworthy in their design of growing rich without labor that government should exert all its powers to favor the undertaking?

Why should corporations have greater privileges than simple copartnerships? On what principle is it that , in a professedly republican government, immunities are conferred on individuals in a collective capacity that are refused to individuals in their separate capacity> . . .

If two individuals should trade with one another, on the same principle that the banks trade with the community, it would soon be seen on which side the advantage lay. If A should pay interest on all the notes he gave and finally pay the notes himself with his own wealth, and if B should receive interest on all the notes he issued and finally pay the notes themselves with A’s wealth, A’s loss and B’s gain would be in proportion to the amount of transactions between them.

This is the exact principle of American banking operations; but, owing to the multitude of persons concerned, the nature of the transaction is not discovered by the public. Regard the whole banking interest as one body corporate and the whole of the rest of the community as one body politic, and it will be seen that the body politic, pays interest to the body corporate for the whole amount of notes received, while the body corporate finally satisfied the demands of the body politic by transferring the body politic’s own property to its credit.

In private credit, there is a reciprocity of burdens and of benefits. Substantial wealth is given when goods are sold, and substantial wealth is received when payment is made, and an equivalent is allowed for the time during which payment is deferred. If A took a note from B, endorsed by the richest man in the country, he would require interest for the time for which payment was postponed. But the banking system reverses this natural order. The interest which is due to the productive classes that receive the bank notes is paid to the banks that issue them.

If the superior credit the banks enjoy grew out of the natural order of things, it would not be a subject of complaint. But the banks owe their credit to their charters – to special acts of legislation in their favor, and to their notes being made receivable in payment of dues to government. The kind of credit which is created for them by law, being equalpollent with cash in the market, enables them to transfer an equal amount of substantial wealth from the productive classes to themselves, giving the productive classes only representatives of credit or evidences of debt in return for the substantial wealth which they part with..."

DOES ANYONE HERE AGREE WITH ME THAT THE DRUG WAR (ON OUR OWN PEOPLE) NEEDS TO STOP? THE ELEPHANTS AND ASSES BOTH IGNORE WHAT IS GOING ON. ALSO, POLICE AND COURTS AND PROBATIONERS HAVE ALL BECOME WAY TOO POWERFUL. THE POOR CANNOT FIGHT CHARGES BROUGHT ON THEM, THEREFORE, SIT IN CELLS AND WORK PROGRAMS THAT DO NOT EVEN HELP THE COUNTRY. IF THEY WERE REBUILDING AFTER KATRINA AND FIRES LIKE IN CALI, AT LEAST THEY'D BE DOING SOMETHING FOR OUR COUNTRY. BUT THEY SIT AND TWIDDLE THUMBS - JUST WAITING TO GET OUT - MORE OFTEN THAN NOT TO REPEAT THE SAME CRAP LIFE - WITH NO MONEY. RICH DO NOT WANT TO SPREAD THE WEALTH (AND POWER) - SO THE POOR STEAL, GET PISSED OFF, COMMIT VIOLENT CRIMES, TAKE DOPE, DRINK, AND WHATEVER TAKES THEIR MIND OFF THEIR SITUATION. I KNOW FIRSTHAND. WHAT WOULD YOU DO? MR. RICH GUY? USE THAT SUPERIOR BRAIN OF YOURS AND BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF!

I disagree about the sex toy posting. It is quite appropriate as it is a severe limitation to our liberty.

...Privacy?!?..A stinking, secretive, Republicrat GOVERNMENT ('government officials') conducts backroom scumbaggery galore whilst hordes of "private citizens"-Republicrat, teevee-addled dopes--cough-up their 'income tax' detail$ in quarterly/yearly/etc. economic diaries, etc. ad nauseam!..(yeah right, Republicrats, you're real ...'secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects'..)

"Privacy" is more like what the/?your stinking back-room Republicrats enjoy in administration of their world-wide warmongerism, monetary debauchery, etc. ad nauseam..

(The brain laundry has Republicrats thoroughly clean, dry, folded, and put away neatly!..) ;o)

It is not regarding sex toys, it is regarding the unnecessary limitation of peacable commerce.

The problem ISN'T one of defining privacy. The Privacy issue is just an aspect of a core problem. Where we lost our way in our definitions, is where lost our definition of Government, and governments place.
Privacy, "Reasonable use of force", "public place" on and on terms are being "Re-defined". but the core problem is that we've forgotten that the government ISN'T a sovereign lord and we are not "subjects" under its divine authority. It is a subject under OUR authority.
Sooo, privacy aside, clear text aside, unless I as a private citizen, have the RIGHT to read your email... and dong so isn't a crime.. then neither does the government. The same would go for searches, Use of force or regulation or private property.
They've redefined and fractured the definitions of privacy, reasonable search, reasonable suspicion, probable cause, justifiable use of force to death. The only Correct definition is one that applies to ALL across the board. The government has the SAME rights as any single individual citizen, beyond that requires a warrant.
Use of force, the "Reasonable use of force" is that which ANY citizen can use on another in a situation. It isn't complex. Why cloud the issue with useless debate of definitions when the root is being ignored. The problem in the broad debate isn't the definition of Privacy. The ROOT important issue is governments power to be above the law, to be unaccountable to do that which citizens are forbidden.
When the court ruled that you had "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in your car or glove box or now more recently even your trunk, do you think they meant that these were now public? If I go and dig through the Judge's car, glove box and trunk, can I respond that "What.. did you Expect privacy?". Of Course not. What was meant was that THEY are above the definition, ANY definition of Privacy as it applies to you and me. They are above the law.
As long as this holds, any debate of the "Definition" is just a milk bone they toss out to distract from the question.

I think our government should be releasing more information about what it is doing, not trying to find out more about us.

We should never trust the government with our information. How many government laptops have turned up missing in the last few years?

Chuck Gooch
Liberty Talk Live Libertarian Talk Show

Off-topic but since there's not a topic yet....

Liberty Decides is brilliant! Thank you.

From Spain.

Congratulations.

Our socialist goverment are killing the freedom.

http://apuntes-liborales.blogia.com

test

Defending NORFED, the multi-tier marketeers to the Patriot Movement? I am no fan of the Federal Reserve, or what the fiscally Irresponsible Republican Party did after they were given free reign, and showed the true rectitude of their intents with: Conservatives Gone Wild.

What troubles me is the claims that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional out of hand. The power can be inferred as a delegation of the Congressional Powers delineated in The U.S. Constitution Article 2; Section 8., using an excerpt of Clause 1, along with the 5th, 6th 10th and 18th clauses:

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

---- ------- --------

Is the Federal Reserve a part of the leviathan, and much larger than the founders' original intents? Assuredly, with the exception of Alexander Hamilton and a scant few others enamoured with an aristocratical class running a powerful central government.

Still the proper methodology of achieving change in America should be the political process in any instance that the challenged governmental actions can be so easily inferred from the Constitution's listing of its rightful powers.

A copy of the Search Warrant used in the Raids of Liberty Dollar aka NORFED is published on the web. [1] There is nothing unusual or outrageous in it. There are allegations of many federal Violations of US Code which are not all about unlawful use of his own manufactured currency. There are some strong allegations that the Liberty Dollar's business practises were not on the up and up. An F.B.I employee swore out an affidavit alleging many criminal activities as justification for asset seizure after a two year investigation into NORFED's actions. It was accepted in a hearing by a Federal Judge. Unless direct evidence can be cited indicating that the F.B.I. employee perjured himself, the warrant was lawful, and before other judgments are made, the there should be a trial regarding the charges alleged in the warrant, plus in all likelihood several more, which were unnecessary for the intent of securing the warrant. To claim a conspiracy against Paul is laughable, given the length of the investigation. There are indications that what prompted the timing of the raid wasn't Paul's campaign, but instead a growing number of complaints and queries regarding Liberty Dollars coming from regional FBI Offices, and local law enforcement agencies

I am always amazed at how so many believe that Randy Weaver is some kind of patriot and hero. He is not. What happened to him was wrong, but Weaver bears a great deal of personal responsibility for what transpired. He was the individual who chose armed rebellion rather than a peaceful courtroom when confronted with a Federal Warrant for his arrest. The warrant turned out to be greatly exaggerated, and was grounded upon an act he performed after being badgered by a snitch, and that the US Attorney had over-stepped his bounds in securing the warrant. Weaver still chose to use lethal force against two Federal Law Enforcement Officers, who believed in good faith they were fulfilling their sworn oath and duty serving the warrant. Weaver decided to rebel with deadly force instead of letting a jury of his Idaho/Eastern Washington peers decide upon his fate. I have visited E.Washington and Western Idaho many times. The people there are good people who would be sure that the prosecutor made his case and proved beyond a reasonable doubt a defendant is guilty as charged before they would convict. It was an Idaho jury who refused the government's ludicrous terrorism charges against University of Idaho Computer Science PhD student Sami al-Hussayen [2] when a trial held against a young Saudi Citizen in the USA that close after 911 would have likely ended in a conviction.

Weaver's armed rebellion was premeditated. The preparation plans included Weaver training his son for the eventuality, yet when the time arrived, Weaver and his son, fighting on their own land with an added element of surprise, and very well armed was only able to achieve a parity of casualties in the skirmish; one Federal officer and Weaver's son. Weaver should properly bear a great deal of personal responsibility for the death of his own son, because of this inadequate training. Weaver chose a violent path which placed his life as well as the lives of his wife and children at risk, out of a irrational fear in the Judiciary pre 911, when the government still felt bound by due process of law.

The government was wrong in their warrant for his arrest, the US Attorney who had gone after Weaver was a bastard, but that did not give Weaver the Right to Use Deadly Force against the two officers, who had no part in the manufacture of the arrest warrant.

It causes me sadness to see this acceptance of unrighteous violence and death advanced on a Libertarian board. My prescription would be more Rothbard for all.

Now to the NORFED warrant's allegations. (All US Code cited in the following are from U.S Code: Title 18; Part I-Crimes.)

The main underlying US Code Violations that formed the basis of the Government's allegation there was evidence which justified an asset seizure pretrial:

------------------------------------
Chapter 25:Counterfeiting and Forgery - ¶ 489. Making or possessing likeness of coins

Whoever, within the United States, makes or brings therein from any foreign country, or possesses with intent to sell, give away, or in any other manner uses the same, except under authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the United States, any token, disk, or device in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States or of any foreign country issued as money, either under the authority of the United States or under the authority of any foreign government shall be fined under this title.
----------------------
The property seizures were justified using
Chapter 46 - Forfeiture; ¶ 981. Civil forfeiture

Four different statutes were cited as forfeiture activating violations under ¶ 981:
Chapter 63 - Mail Fraud
¶ 1341. Frauds and Swindles
¶ 1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television
Chapter 95:Racketeering
¶ 1956. Laundering of monetary instruments
¶ 1957. Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity

As should be expected, Conspiracy charges were alleged too.
Chapter 19-Conspiracy; ¶ 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

--------------------------------
Returning to ¶ 489. Making or possessing likeness of coins: consider that the poster who pasted a Liberty Dollar newsletter onto this board, also offered anecdotal evidence that the government has charged NORFED reasonably:
-----------------------------------

"If Ron Paul supporters, gold standard advocates and the Liberty Dollar were nothing but harmless kooks, why would the FBI raid their offices when no crime was ever committed? This is a currency competing with the USD, yes, but they never, but never make the claim that it is legal tender or anything other than what it is: private currency. And private currencies are numerous in the USA."

---------------------------------------

Here's is a supporter that is admitting that the Liberty Dollar was competing with American Currency. The manufacturers of these competing dollars have clearly stated that they desire to end the Federal Reserve and IRS, and were not attempting to do this through the Electoral system, but instead were conspiring to subvert The nation's Currency value to achieve their political goals. Better look-out, under a strict equal-application of the Bush tyranny, that makes liberty dollar an economic terrorist.

The F.B.I. employee stated in the warrant's affidavit that in their investigation, they had used a cooperating witness, and two under cover agents. From the testimony can inferred that the investigation taped incriminating admissions by executives of Liberty Dollar, most notable among them is Bernard von Nothaus. The F.B.I. Agent's affidavit laid out a strong case for justifying a seizure of assets under current US case law. Granted, the defendants are innocent until there has been a lawful trial finding of guilt as fact, and prosecutors tend to greatly overstate their cast as indictment, but on the other hand, it should be realised the all that was provided in the affidavit was enough evidence to assure the warrant would get judicial authorization that day, and after reading the affidavit, I'd be surprised if many more charges were not forthcoming. Blatant fraud and illegal securities sales come to my mind, since these transactions occurred interstate both by mail and over telephone and computer, each extra charge gets a wire fraud and a mail fraud charged added on.

From the introduction of allegations in the sworn affidavit:

------------------------

NORFED was recently renamed Liberty Services Inc., also known as The Liberty Dollar. the name change came following a United States Mint warning that prosectors with the Department of Justice had determined that the Liberty Dollar currency creation and usage violated federal law. The purpose of the name change ostensibly was the removal of the political goals and language inherent in the name "National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Code" (NORFED). However the name NORFED is located on the minted Liberty Dollar coin. For the purpose of this affidavit the company will be referred to as NORFED.

The Currency, called the American Liberty Dollar a.k.a. Liberty Dollar (ALD), exists in three forms; paper currency called warehouse receipts, coins and Digital or eDollars.

NORFED claims to have approximately $21,000,000.00 in ALD currency in circulation to date.

------------------------------------

There seems to be a misconception regarding Liberty Dollars. They came in three forms, paper currency called warehouse receipts, coins and Digital or eDollars. It was without a doubt better to have the coins, but the silver piece was 1oz .99 fine, which at the time the warrant affidavit was sworn the discount rate of all liberty dollars, paper or metal was over 20%, and was discounted even steeper, while silver was rising in price. When the $20 silver coins were firs sold, the discount was well over 50% of face value. Returning to the affidavit:

-------------------
NORFED markets their warehouse receipts as "100% backed by silver." Audits and the NORFED website at www.liberty.com indicate that each edollar and warehouse receipt are backed by one troy ounce of .999 fine silver. A $20.00 ALD warehouse receipt backed by one troy ounce of .999 fine silver is valued at the daily spot price of silver. As of 11/08/07, according to www.kitco.com, the New York Spot Price of silver is $15.34, which would be a $4.66 shortfall for every eDollar and warehouse receipt issued in the $20.00 ALD denomination. Even under NORFED's own auditing standards, the ALD currency is not "100% backed by silver" as advertised. A one troy ounce coin of the ALD currency is currently minted as a $20.00 denomination coin. The actual value of of the ounce of silver is also the daily spot price of silver. As of 11/08/07, the shortfall for the coins would be the same as the eDollar or the warehouse receipt.

----------------------------

What need be clearly understood is that the $15.34 price was at the very high end for Liberty Dollars. When the spot market for silver reached $16, they intended to mint 1 troy ounce .999 fine silver coins at a face value of $50, and the same would be true for the backing of their script and eDollars dollars.

von Nothaus clearly claimed his funny money was real and was better than the US Dollar, He set up networks of businesspersons as associates to market the Liberty Dollars, and accept them as valid tender for their goods and services. He was able to get them to assent by giving them a decent share of the pie, as he ripped off the end-buyers.

If these allegations are true, von Nothaus was a con man to the patriot movement, ripping them off by flaming their delusive apocalyptic fantasies, and they are so stupid, that they rise to his defense after the Federal Government, that they despise fiercely, stepped in to protect them from having their own gullibility turned upon them like a sword.

It also leaves Ron Paul looking the fool, no matter which way his spin team runs with this. He's a candidate for the US Presidency, but allowed his visage to be printed on unlawful currency, in a con game, or he was a complicit accessory.

All I am left with in all of this is a sense that maybe the individuals who complaining the loudest about the nanny state, are also the ones most responsible for it continuation, by proving there may indeed be a great need for a government as their mommies to keep them from starving to death naked and alone in a free society.

NOTES
[1] A scanned image 2.3mb PDF file of the warrant is available from the johnlocke.org
http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/meckdeck/pdfs/USAVLibdoll.pdf

[2] Maureen O'Hagan, "A terrorism case that went awry", Seattle Times, November 22, 2004
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002097570_sami22m.html

-- the trial of Al-Hussayen should be known to every American. He is a son of a wealthy Saudi family who was working towards his PhD in computer Science at University of Idaho,. He had acquired his BA at Ball St. prior to that. While in Idaho, prior to 911 he had webmastered the site of a Muslim charity in America, Islamic Assembly of North America, which has never been charged by the government. Al-Hussayen was charged with giving material aid to terrorists, because the website published 4 fatwas authored by radical Muslim clerics that advocated violent acts, even though the government had no proof that Al-Hussayen had actually marked them up. In the five he had worked on the website, Al-Hussayen had received a total of $500. He got 8 VISA violation added to 3 terrorist charges, and was held without bail for 1 1/2 years awaiting trial. At trial two big government "terrorist experts" fell flat on their faces. One, Rita Katz, could not even provide credentials she had expertise, and under cross-examination admitted to her own immigration violations after the had come to America, earning a great deal more than $500, in fact well over $100,000. The other witness, Reuven Paz, admitted during cross examination that he had the very same fatwas in question published on his antiterrorism website. The Idaho Jury acquitted on all terror counts and hung on the VISA violations.