Today's front page Seattle Times reprint of a WaPo story serves as a reminder that the bulk of Ron Paul's worst PR comes at the hands of some of his own supporters.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 17, 2007 06:33 PM | Email ThisHere is what they did: they produced gold and silver coins, and sold them at a profit. They produced paper certificates that were exchangable for gold and silver, and kept gold and silver to cover these notes in inventory. Last time I checked, barter was still legal in the US. If someone wants to trade merchandise for these gold and silver coins or certificates, who, exactly is harmed? Isn't it their right to engage in this peaceful business activity? What article in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to prohibit this kind of business activity?
So the feds came in and raided this peaceful business. They impounded inventory and have stopped their business. Orders are unfilled. Employees are not getting their paychecks. Customers who have paid for coins are having their orders delayed and are at risk of not getting their coins or their money back. The feds are harrassing this business, and there is no legitimate charge against it. The feds hope they will just give up. It is a chilling message being sent to others who might try the same thing. It calls to mind the old bumper sticker: "Don't steal, the government hates competition."
Exactly why should fiscal conservatives defend these anti-business moves of the feds?
How is it crazy, or fiscally conservative to fight this violation of our economic liberty?
The fact is that excessive government spending and fiscal irresponsibility have undermined the value of the dollar. This is why inflation is on the rise today and the national debt is out of control. None of this would have been possible had the spending and printing of money been limited by having to back the currency with gold reserves, as we did until Nixon took us off the gold standard in '72.
I'm sorry, but I do not care if defending NORFED makes me look crazy. I'm sure that defending liberty in 1773 made Thomas Paine and Sam Adams look crazy. It is an honor to appear crazy in this way.
I own five or six silver coins made by NORFED. I gave dozens away as thank-you tokens to volunteers for my Senate campaign. They are beautiful, and quite heavy, because they are real silver.
Gandhi made a famous act of civil disobedience by going to the ocean's edge, and picking up a piece of sea salt. This peaceful act had been declared illegal by the British because it competed with their monopoly on salt production. How is this different from my holding in my hand a medalion of silver, or buying this silver from a business, or trading this silver for merchandise from anyone else?
This is the good fight, and I am proud of Ron Paul for sticking by his guns on this one. He is fighting for our economic liberty, for our property rights, and for sound economic policies. He is being a good Republican, and all Republicans should rally to his side on this issue, even if they may disagree on one or two of his other positions on other issues.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 17, 2007 08:11 PMWhy is our government raiding private businesses and confiscating gold and silver?
Travis
Posted by: Travis Pahl on November 17, 2007 08:49 PMDuffman, your ad hominem attack on von NotHaus makes you look bad.
Saltherring, my Norwegian friend, your mere assertion does not make it so. I predict that on 12/16/07, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, Ron Paul will rake in about $6 million in online donations in one day. He already has pledges for that day amounting to over $1.5 million. I will be among the tens of thousands of donors on that day.
Elections, these days are unfortunately mostly about money. Your assertion that Ron Paul is toast is half-baked... :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 17, 2007 09:09 PMCongresses powers include "To coin money, regulate the value thereof..."
Since money is defined as a medium of exchange then if the notes and coins produced are produced with the intent that they might be used as a medium of barter then Congress does have the right to regulate that production.
Posted by: Doug on November 17, 2007 09:29 PMWhere does it say it can regulate or stop others from coining money? It doesn't. It just says that congress has the power to coin money.
Let me ask you this doug, Who did they harm and how?
Posted by: travis on November 17, 2007 09:51 PMSounds to me like lots of consumers were harmed in this case including a deflation of US Currency. Granted, in my opinion this is all peanuts and I wish they'd go after bigger fries, still they have a case and will get a conviction.
Posted by: Doug on November 17, 2007 10:02 PMBruce and other who support Ron Paul, as well as those who support Hillary and Democrats are entitled to their beliefs and opinions. Americans have always "bit" into and "chewed" on ideas and precepts considered revolutionary in their respective periods of time. We traditionally do so in times when we are questioning the present direction of the nation and the leaders who brought us to that point. But biting and chewing are not necessarily followed by swallowing. Americans DID swallow the revolutionary ideas of Ronald Reagan, which led to a resurgence of conservative leadership and thinking. They did NOT, in contrast, swallow the socialist babblings of George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Ted Kennedy or Al Gore. At least not to the point that any of these was elected president.
President Bush has also done a poor job presenting conservatism to the American people, perhaps because he is not a true conservative. He has been a very good president in some aspects (tax cuts, social values, national security), but a disaster in others (border protection, social spending). Therefore the conservative message and manner of governage has been tainted, and in effect compromised, during the last seven years. This, in part, opened the door to Pelosi and Co. in '06.
Republicans MUST, in order to recapture Congress and the White House, bypass the MSM and present, directly to the American people, candidates and ideas that embody the core principles of conservatism, and repeat those principles over and over during the 2008 campaign. That is what won for Reagan in 1980 and gained control of Congress (Newt Gingrich's Contract with America) in 1994.
If we follow these proven tactics, Americans may chew on the socialist ideas of Clinton and Obama, as well as the fringe jibberish of Ron Paul, but will spit them out and re-embrace conservatives. I hope and pray the Republican Party can rise to the challenge.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 18, 2007 06:37 AM
If so, can you remind us how Congress advanced these principles a few years ago when they had not just the majority, but a Republican as President?
Or, are you speaking about a Republican party that excludes those that were in Congress at that time? I hope so.
Posted by: BA on November 18, 2007 08:09 AMI agree with limited government and balanced budgets, but limited government for whom?.....American citizens wishing to restrain big government, or terrorists at Gitmo desiring Constitutional protections?
As to your second question, If you read my post you would have noted my frustration, such as when I stated that President Bush "....is not a true conservative", resulting in the conservative movement being "...tainted and, in effect, compromised during the last seven years".
As to your question regarding "....a Republican party that excludes those that were in Congress at that time?", you will have to clarify yourself. If you are speaking of Democrats, I wish they would have been further marginalized, rather than mimicked by the funding of wasteful spending measures. If you are speaking of members demanding tighter borders and fiscal restraint, I wish our '01-'07 Congressional majority and President Bush would have listened, and acted on their concerns.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 18, 2007 08:43 AMYou may not like Ron Paul. I get that and accept that. But you need to take a step back and look at what our government has just done. They have confiscated gold, silver, and copper from a company that was doing nothing wrong, harming no one, and in fact doing what its customers demanded.
If you think that devalueing currency is their crime, then you need to go after congress and the president and the federal reserve, not this company. His currency has maintained value, the Federal reserve note is a small fraction of what it used to be.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on November 18, 2007 08:43 AMIt is perfectly legal and okay for congress and the govt. to set policies and the like that devalue the US Dollar. They also can set regulations/laws that increase the value of the dollar, that power is wholely granted to them in the Constitution - I have no problem at all with their power to do so. I do have a problem when their power to do so is interfered with by private citizens or corporations. Congress has the specific right to make laws (read regulations) to deny those people that ability.
So I'll refer you again to article I section 8 where the enumerated powers of Congress include "Congresses powers include "To coin money, regulate the value thereof..." and the last sentence of that section which specifically grants them all power to enact laws to carry out that end.
Neither you nor I have protections under the constitution to create our own medium of exchange (def. of money) for use in a bartering system without congressional approval.
Posted by: Doug on November 18, 2007 10:26 AMI totally believe in our system of governance. In my opinion, it is the best system in the world. Still, even though we have the First Amendment guarantees of speech, some ideas as so abhorrent, they must be condemned.
1. Paul, if he does not embrace either David Duke or the Nazis needs to address the questions of Michael Medved and Lonestar. Is any one here saying Medved is not a conservative? Here is why questions need to be addressed:
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
Every time Bruce G and his band of loons posts something, I will ask the question of has Paul answered Medved and Lonestar.
2. Hillary, in my opinion, is truly evil. Using my First Amendement rights now. Unlike Paul, she has a real viable chance of being President. In my opinion, she unlike her partner, is a socialist secular "progressive" and a lot of the ideas I cherish will be swept aside. Bill is more conservative in many respects than Hillary. Europe is secular progressive now and will in 30-40 years be Muslim, not the secular Islam of Turkey, the more radical kind. The new Labour policies of Britain have turned that country into a welfare mess. Right now, about 100,000+ emigrant each year. In this country, Johnson's "Great Society" programs have been a total failure. The largest failed social experiement in secular progressive policies has been the effect of Great Society programs on the Black family. The late Senator Moniyhan, a Phd in his previous life, studied the Black family for over 50 years and charted the decline. I am a social conservative because many of the principles embodied in Proverbs are embraced by the conservative message. That being said, I am
in line with Michael Medved and the great Rev. Martin Niemoller support continually asking questions of both Paul and Hillary about the path the are trying to lead others down. Many lame women who support Hillary because in the phrase of the Seattle Stranger because she has a vagina ought to look carefully at the last debates. If she can't handle pressure from Obama and Edwards is she really capable of handling pressure from Iran's leader, I'm a Nut Job? Does anyone really think that if she hadn't stuck with a serial womanizer, she would seriously be considered for the job. As for Paul, answer true conservative Michael Medved already.
Limited government means less involvement by the State in our lives, period. It is not a concept that has any direct connection to holding terrorists, or accused terrorists, or supposed terrorists, in a foreign country.
As for "true conservative" I'd be interested in your definition, or your favorite definition, of what a conservative is.
I'm sorry that the sentence where I said a "Republican Party that excludes those that were in Congress at the time" was confusing to you and somehow you thought I meant Democrats.
I meant, in the context of a Republican Party that had full control of Congress and the Presidency, those that squandered that power and chose instead to spend like drunken sailors.
Posted by: BA on November 18, 2007 11:05 AMThose Liberty Dollars are the prettiest paper currencies I've ever seen. If they really are redeemable in metals like they claim, then what's the problem?
I can't believe the federal government would simply raid the place & confiscate their assets simply because they were providing an alternate barter currency. They'd never do something so tyrannical as that. There must be some other, legitimate reason.
Right?
p.s. If the Congress is able to "regulate the value thereof" by forcibly preventing people from using an alternate currency to store the value of their barter transactions in order to prevent a bit of deflationary pressure on the dollar, then they should be able to forcibly prevent people from holding gold coins, period. Or prevent them from holding foreign currencies or holding any money in Euro-denominated accounts, etc.
My fellow conservatives here, you really want to support something like that?
(pps Im4Fred. But... geez!)
You wouldn't mistake his work for us currency.
The issue though is the "idea" of what currency represents. At the end of the day those bits of metal, and pieces of paper, have value because we give them value - not because they have intrinsic value.
I think then the Fed's worry about anything that might diminish the value of our bits of official metal and paper, by suggesting that anyone can create similar bits of metal and paper and give them value too.
Not saying this is right or wrong - after all there are plenty of examples in the market place doing this now - coupons, certificates, gift cards, etc, etc, etc.
Emma Lite said this:
"p.s. If the Congress is able to "regulate the value thereof" by forcibly preventing people from using an alternate currency to store the value of their barter transactions in order to prevent a bit of deflationary pressure on the dollar, then they should be able to forcibly prevent people from holding gold coins, period. Or prevent them from holding foreign currencies or holding any money in Euro-denominated accounts, etc."
If one reads the passage below, then the issue is
"It may require the surrender of gold coin and of gold certificates in exchange for other currency not redeemable in gold...."
Girlfriend, I think you are taking the name of a truly great character in vain and you are probably just Bruce G. in drag. Didn't William Jennings Bryan do your schtick, only better in the "Cross of Gold Speech."
This is what the Constitution says:
"Main Index > Cases and Codes > U.S. Constitution Article I
Clauses 5 and 6. Money
FISCAL AND MONETARY POWERS OF CONGRESS
Coinage, Weights, and Measures
The power ''to coin money'' and ''regulate the value thereof'' has been broadly construed to authorize regulation of every phase of the subject of currency. Congress may charter banks and endow them with the right to issue circulating notes, 1281 and it may restrain the circulation of notes not issued under its own authority. 1282 To this end it may impose a prohibitive tax upon the circulation of the notes of state banks 1283 or of municipal corporations. 1284 It may require the surrender of gold coin and of gold certificates in exchange for other currency not redeemable in gold. A plaintiff who sought payment for the gold coin and certificates thus surrendered in an amount measured by the higher market value of gold was denied recovery on the ground that he had not proved that he would suffer any actual loss by being compelled to accept an equivalent amount of other currency. 1285 Inasmuch as ''every contract for the payment of money, simply, is necessarily subject to the constitutional power of the government over the currency, whatever that power may be, and the obligation of the parties is, therefore, assumed with reference to that power,'' 1286 the Supreme Court sustained the power of Congress to make Treasury notes legal tender in satisfaction of antecedent debts, 1287 and, many years later, to abrogate the clauses in private contracts calling for payment in gold coin, even though such contracts were executed before the legislation was passed. 1288 The power to coin money also imports authority to maintain such coinage as a medium of exchange at home, and to forbid its diversion to other uses by defacement, melting or exportation. 1289
Punishment of Counterfeiting
In its affirmative aspect, this clause has been given a narrow interpretation; it has been held not to cover the circulation of counterfeit coin or the possession of equipment susceptible of use for making counterfeit coin. 1290 At the same time, the Supreme Court has rebuffed attempts to read into this provision a limitation upon either the power of the States or upon the powers of Congress under the preceding clause. It has ruled that a State may punish the issuance of forged coins. 1291 On the ground that the power of Congress to coin money imports ''the correspondent and necessary power and obligation to protect and to preserve in its purity this constitutional currency for the benefit of the nation,'' 1292 it has sustained federal statutes penalizing the importation or circulation of counterfeit coin, 1293 or the willing and conscious possession of dies in the likeness of those used for making coins of the United States. 1294 In short, the above clause is entirely superfluous. Congress would have had the power it purports to confer under the necessary and proper clause; and the same is the case with the other enumerated crimes it is authorized to punish. The enumeration was unnecessary and is not exclusive. 1295...."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/37.html
Posted by: WVH on November 18, 2007 12:45 PMAs far as "odd twisting and confusion that you're trying to add", it was you who asked vague question. No one twisted anything. I have never seen you post on Sound Politics before, therefore you are an unknown quantity. You ask vague questions, I scratch my head and try to figure out where this guy's coming from. Does he agree with me? Is he questioning my statements? Does he really have something profound to say? Or is he just another troll? My advice is when you have seldom (or never) posted on a site, state clearly your own beliefs rather than ask vague questions.
And yes, I agree that the Republican Party squandered the best chance we have had, in my lifetime, to put the country on the right path. And from the points you clarified in your second posting, I believe we're on the same page.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 18, 2007 12:56 PMI think that the threat of competing currencies was another check and balance on the power of government.
The mis-interpretations of the Constitution that granted it the power to prohibit citizens from holding gold coins as investments and other nasty violations of our rights to liberty and property were part of FDR's progessive-era usurpation of the Constitution in the '30s, and something that no real conservative could support. I doubt any conservative would support the idea that the Supreme Court is infallible and has never made any bad decisions, or has never made any decisions that were not consistant with the Constitution.
This federal attack on a peaceful, private business is another unconstitutional usurpation of power, and a violation of our rights. Real conservatives understand this.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 18, 2007 02:25 PMReal conservatives believe that the U.S. society can only move forward if there is a healthy respect for the law. Even if the Supreme Court makes a 'bad decision' it still is the lawful and legal interpretation of the constitution - or do you conveniently ignore that section. Until the Supreme Court overturns it's 'bad decisions' those decisions are still the law of the land and every public official including Ron Paul must adhere to them under their oath of office.
Posted by: Doug on November 18, 2007 02:38 PMHugo Chavez in Venezuela has just suspended the Rule of Law. Loons like Bruce G. pick and choose the parts of the Constitution they wish to follow. The Constitution gives the US Supreme Court the power to interpret the Consitution. I sure as hell didn't agree with Plessy v. Ferguson, but that was the law. The same Supreme Court that took rights and personhood away from some of my family, gave it back. If you want the type of government in Venezuela, abandon the Rule of Law and the three part government, Executive, Legislative and JUDICIAL.
Bruce G. has the gutless wonder you support answered Michael Medved or Lonestar, yet?
I don't know that much about Sno or Pierce County, but I do have an opinion about King County. You and Bruce G. seem to be drinking out of the same bottle of Ripple. In King County, the largest county there are diverse districts and the county is in a state of flux. In order to win here, parties will have to tailor their message to the people who live in a locale. Parties have to ask themeselves do they want to be viable and win elections or do they want to be a social club. For, the republicans, that may mean that there are moderates. In certain parts of King County, dems will be more conservative than in Seattle. Loons like you and Bruce G. have about as much chance as an extreme right-winger or for that matter a Cindy Sheehan leftist loon. Most people want problemsolvers with integrity, even if they don't always agree with them.
Oh, has Bruce G. asked Paul if he has answered Medved's open letter, yet?
Posted by: WVH on November 18, 2007 03:32 PMWMD, doesn't that mean weapon of mass destruction?
A few of my friends have hinted I might be in that category, but I'm really quite harmless unless riled.
1. How exactly are you defining a neo-con, what exactly do mean. Can you define the term?
2. You said this:
"They are agents of intolerance.
They prefer War caused funeral services over social services for the poor..
They are a minority here.
Us fiscal conservatives are loon to the neo cons,whom are loons to us."
They prefer funeral services or social services for the poor? Perhaps you missed the thread where Nancy and I blogged forrrrever against Archie and the gang over health care for poor kids.
The problem with labels that are undefined is people talk around each other. So, define neo-con.
I have read enough of Paul to know that he is a loon. Has he answered Michael Medved or Lonestar? What is he afraid of - if he disassociates himself from the Nazis and David Duke, does he lose key support. So, why won't he answer Medved.
Please define neo-con and conservative so that it is clear what you are talking about.
Once I get an apology, I MIGHT consider responding to the tiny minority of WVH's posts that contain a germ of a rational argument. Until then, I will continue to ignore WVH as I have for the last week or so.
Much as I dislike Giuliani, McCain, Thompson and Romney, you will never hear me calling them names. I may call their policies what they are, but I will never issue personal attacks. Such attacks should not persuade a rational person, and only make the attacker look bad. They are not in our rational self-interest.
It is a shame that Eric's headline for this article is also ad hominem. Usually, he does not stoop to this kind of behavior either. But I think he has realized that he gets lots of readership and lots of posts when he attacks Ron Paul. That's fine. It just makes Eric look bad, and serves to help Ron Paul's cause.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 18, 2007 07:46 PMAs I said in a private response to you. Horse Pucky. You don't have to respond to me. The silence of your lame-a$$ed candidate in not responding to Michael Medved or not answering questions speaks volumes. Eric's posts look bad, pleeze, you are supporting, unless you have evidence to the contrary, a Nazi sympathizer and fellow traveler with David Duke. I need to be shunned, oh, so you want people here to support Nazi sympathizers, like you do. Your post is lame because you haven't got the cohones to directly argue the issues. Why hasn't Paul responded to Medved and why hasn't he reponded to Lonestar? Now, this is an ad hominem attack directed at you - you are an intellectual midget wimp that supports creeps like Paul because you are running away from your religious heritage. Guess what wimp, when people like Paul incinerate people like me, you'll be in the oven next to me because you can't outrun who you are.
Posted by: WVH on November 18, 2007 08:07 PMRon Paul does not advocate breaking the law. I don't think any law has been broken in the NORFED case. They certainly didn't counterfeit any money. It is obviously NOT US currency and never claimed to be. I don't think he erodes the rule of law by refusing to repudiate a defendent in what will soon be a federal case in which there is no victim to be found and no rights are suspected of being violated.
But America DOES have a longstanding tradition of non-violent civil disobedience. This recognizes the fact that there is a higher law than the law created by governments. Don't you agree? Are all laws good laws? Aren't some laws bad? And if we have the guts to violate those bad laws, in such a way that no one else's rights are hurt, don't we do society a favor when we engage in peaceful civil disobedience?
Which of these do you think causes more damage to the rule of law:
1) Non-violent civil disobedience such as that conducted by Rosa Parks, HD Thoreau or ML King jr.
2) Members of Congress who vote for unconstitutional laws, create victimless crimes, or otherwise bad laws.
I think 2) is far worse for the rule of law, because it erodes respect for the law. When FDR made it illegal for citizens to own gold coins as investments, he eroded respect for the law among the populace. It was totally unenforcible, and obviously stupid, and in violation of individual rights. It was a totally victimless crime to own gold coins. When the feds break in and disrupt a peaceful business, and impound all of it's inventory, when it has harmed absoutely no one, then it is the feds who have eroded respect for the rule of law.
Someone who would defend whatever the government did, no matter what, is not acting in the American tradition. He is a sort of monarchist, or royalist. But we live in a Republic, where government power is supposed to be limited, and is supposed to be explicitly delegated by the people.
This is an important part of what it is to be an American conservative, don't you think? Or do you think the American revolution of 1776 was an illegal, treasonous rebellion, and that we really should still be a colony of England?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 18, 2007 08:10 PMI am sorry for mistaking your agreement with me.
I am still confused by your interpretation of the constitutition. What law do you think that Norfed violated? I am unaware of any law that states you can not make a coin or print a note that is backed by a precious metal.
Even if there was such a law it would be unconstitutional. Congress does not have the power to restrict such activity.
But again, I have to ask... Do you really favor a government that would prohibit such activity? If yes, why?
Posted by: Travis Pahl on November 18, 2007 08:23 PMThe delusional Bruce G. said:
"Which of these do you think causes more damage to the rule of law:
1) Non-violent civil disobedience such as that conducted by Rosa Parks, HD Thoreau or ML King jr.
2) Members of Congress who vote for unconstitutional laws, create victimless crimes, or otherwise bad laws."
I suppose if one hangs around with Nazis sympathsizers and supports them one would get the operation of the government wrong. I hope the private school parents at the school where you teach are monitoring what is taught to their children.
Now, back to the issue at hand. The key is that non-violent protest was aimed at overturning what were unjust laws, the laws against segregation and Plessy v. Ferguson. If one goes back to founding documents that all men (by inference women) are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. This is what the civil rights protests were about. The non-violent protests were to bring the meaning of Consitutional government into being.
Like Hugo Chavez, you attempt to attack legitimate government insitutions to install your little loon. We have three Constitutional branches of government and a representative democracy. The Legislature passes laws and the Courts decide Consitutionality. The answer to the question is that if one trusts in the legimately expressed Consitutional system of government wrongs will be righted as in the overturning of segregation. Hugo Chavez directly attacked the legislature and Courts. Hugo sounds like paul, doesn't he?
Hugo Chavez/Bruce G. remember when your Nazi sympathizer friend comes for me, you'll be in the next oven. You can't run from who you are.
Posted by: WVH on November 18, 2007 08:26 PMhttp://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=43316
Posted by: Travis Pahl on November 18, 2007 08:33 PM"Home > Federal Reserve Act
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Prev [ 1 2 ] Next Last
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, also called the Glass-Owen Bill, established the Federal Reserve System in the United States. The bill was proposed as a result of hearings held by a Congressional committee, headed by Representative Arsène Pujo of Louisiana, charged with investigating the control of the U.S. economy by influential bankers. The bill was passed by the Senate on the evening of December 23, 1913 by a vote of 43-25, with 27 Senators absent or abstaining. President Wilson signed the bill into law an hour after its passing.
President Wilson later came to regret signing the bill: "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
The Federal Reserve System is an independent central bank. Although the President of the United States appoints the chairman of the Fed and this appointment is approved by the United States Senate, the decisions of the Fed do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive branch of the United States government.
According to the United States Constitution, the United States Congress has the power and responsibility to coin money and set its value. In the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, Congress delegated this power to the Federal Reserve. The constitutionality of this type of action has been controversial many times in the United States, most notably in the early 19th century when Congress chartered the Bank of the United States. Although the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve system has not been a topic of recent judicial or legislative controversy, it has been the target of some who strongly distrust the delegation of power to an unelected and what they see as an unaccountable body.
The Federal Reserve System consists of 12 Federal Reserve Banks....
All banks chartered under the National Banking Act of 1863 were made members of the Federal Reserve System, while others could join. A Board of Governors appointed by the President of the United States supervised the system."
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Federal:Reserve:Act.html
Knock yourself out at the Supreme Court. Oh wait, you think the Supreme Court is an unconsitutional institution which excerizes power illegally. Ron Paul/ Hugo Chavez, whatever.
And of course I am still waiting for anyone to say that it is a good thing our government is rading and confiscating precious metals.
Oh and Ron Paul and Hugo Chavez are about as far opposites that i can think of on the political spectrum.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on November 19, 2007 05:44 AMGezzz give it up. May-be I should be able to build my own A-bomb.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 19, 2007 06:44 AMRon Paul: Crazy Insane or Insane Crazy?
God, I can't wait till the priomaries are over and the wannabe's have gone home... although I will... might miss their moonbat entertainment.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 19, 2007 10:12 AMI suppose you think people that are lawyers are idiots too. Idiot, the specific power to regulate coinage and fiscal activities is found in the Constitution and has been interpreted by the US Supremes granting authority to the feds. For those that know Constitutional law, every law and every executive act has to be grounded in a permissable Constitutional principle. You went to what law school and passed what bar and are licensed to practice where?
Now, let me break down the Ron Paul and Hugo Chavez analogy for you. You and your merry little bad of loons have no clue about the body of Constitutional Law that this nation is founded upon and you have no clue about the principle of stare decisis. So, since you read the Constitution in the way that you feel gives your lame ideas credence, in order to make your ideas legitimate, you have to attack legitimate institutions like the legislature and the courts. This little trick is what all despots do. Mugabe did it in Zimbabwe and Chavez has suspended the Constitution and dissolved the Courts in Venezuela installing cronies that will give him power. He also rewrote the Constitution. You have neither the historical understanding or legal training to know what you are talking about. Paul, like Hitler knows the points where a society in flux is weak and he uses those points to suck unaware people into the vortex. Those points are an economic cycle that may be down and a failing education system with doesn't teach the basics and doesn't impart cultural literacy which bonds a nation together. There are probably many decent people looking for a better life, just as there were many in Zimbabwe and Venezuela looking for a better life in the Paul cult. Paul is a despot and probable Nazi sympatizer and David Duke associate. Maybe you know if he as responded to Medved or Lonestar? Dude, you got sucked in.
You can't build your own A-bomb either, but I would trust Army Medic/Vet with one before I would trust Paul who would use it to extinguish the opposition. Ron Paul/Chavez/Mugabe, whatever.
Posted by: WVH on November 19, 2007 10:26 AMNo I do not think lawyers are idiots, nor have I claimed anyone else is an idiot. I am merely asking for the law that bans private entities from making non legal tender coins. You have yet to cite it. The feds are not even claiming that. They are citing counterfitting.
So I pose once again... What law says you can not make your own coins? And even if there was a law, why do you support it?
As for your Hugo Chavez analogy, It breaks down when you suggest that I am attacking instuttions like the legislature and the courts. I am not. Nor am I suggesting that we not respect the princple of stare decisis. But in order to respect it, you would have to have a law and a case to cite. You have not done so. You are instead repeately claiming that congress has the power to regulate all productions of coins in the country per the consitution. They do not. The constutiion only says they have the power to coin money and regulate the value of it.
Posted by: Travis on November 19, 2007 12:31 PMNo I do not think lawyers are idiots, nor have I claimed anyone else is an idiot. I am merely asking for the law that bans private entities from making non legal tender coins. You have yet to cite it. The feds are not even claiming that. They are citing counterfitting.
So I pose once again... What law says you can not make your own coins? And even if there was a law, why do you support it?
As for your Hugo Chavez analogy, It breaks down when you suggest that I am attacking instuttions like the legislature and the courts. I am not. Nor am I suggesting that we not respect the princple of stare decisis. But in order to respect it, you would have to have a law and a case to cite. You have not done so. You are instead repeately claiming that congress has the power to regulate all productions of coins in the country per the consitution. They do not. The constutiion only says they have the power to coin money and regulate the value of it.
As for the rest of your rant where you try put pauls name next to every no good dictator... It really lacks merit to even respond.
Posted by: Travis on November 19, 2007 12:32 PMWhat is it that you think the Feds were citing as the law being broke? Counterfeiting!?! Try mail fraud, money laundering, CONSPIRACY to undermine the US financial system with the intent to create a non-sanctioned currency for the sole purpose of causing harm to the Federal Reserve and IRS (their intent is to force the removal of those govt. entities), and there were more. I don't believe any of the charges at all had to do with counterfeiting.
Posted by: Doug on November 19, 2007 02:48 PMTry this:
TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3CHAPTER 3--FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
How Current is This? SUBCHAPTER I--DEFINITIONS, ORGANIZATION, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS AFFECTING SYSTEM
SUBCHAPTER II--BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
SUBCHAPTER III--FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
SUBCHAPTER IV--FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE
SUBCHAPTER V--FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
SUBCHAPTER VI--CAPITAL AND STOCK OF FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS; DIVIDENDS AND EARNINGS
SUBCHAPTER VII--DIRECTORS OF FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS; RESERVE AGENTS AND ASSISTANTS
SUBCHAPTER VIII--STATE BANKS AS MEMBERS OF SYSTEM
SUBCHAPTER IX--POWERS AND DUTIES OF FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS
SUBCHAPTER X--POWERS AND DUTIES OF MEMBER BANKS
SUBCHAPTER XI--DEPOSITARIES AND FISCAL AGENTS
SUBCHAPTER XII--FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES
SUBCHAPTER XIII--CIRCULATING NOTES AND BONDS SECURING SAME
SUBCHAPTER XIV--BANK RESERVES
SUBCHAPTER XV--BANK EXAMINATIONS
SUBCHAPTER XVI--CIVIL LIABILITY OF FEDERAL RESERVE AND MEMBER BANKS, SHAREHOLDERS, AND OFFICERS
SUBCHAPTER XVII--RESERVE-BANK BRANCHES
Search this title:
Now, the above law was passed by Congress, the Representatives of the People and signed by the President. As far as I know, the Supreme Court has not overturned it. I don't practice as I devote my time to education reform, but I am a member of two bar associations and my oath as as lawyer requires me to support the Consitution and laws of the United States. So, what is your excuse for not recognizing the above statute?
The Hugo Chavez analogy is apt because you haven't got a clue about Consitutional law and Paul/Chavez/Mugabe rely on mis and disinformation. You don't support the rule of law no matter how much you say otherwise. A validly passed piece of legislation that has not been overturned by the Supreme Court is the law, period, end of discussion.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/12/toc.html
Posted by: WVH on November 19, 2007 03:05 PMThis is the more commonly used defintion of neo-con, although on the subject of rap music and hip hop, I suppose you have me, it is the devil's spawn. The definition:
"Origins of the neo-conservative movement
In their book Right-Wing Populism in America, Chip Berlet and Matthew Lyons wrote that:
Neoconservatives, including many Jewish and Catholic intellectuals rooted in Cold War liberalism, clustered around publications such as Public Interest and Commentary and organizations such as the Committee on the Present Danger. They emphasized foreign policy, where they advocated aggressive anticommunism, U.S. global dominance, and international alliances. Although they attacked feminism, gay rights, and multiculturalism, "neocons" often placed less emphasis on social policy issues, and many of them opposed school prayer or a ban on abortion. In addition, many neocons supported limited social welfare programs and nonrestrictive immigration policies." [1]
Inter-Press Service journalist Jim Lobe noted that the development of a common understanding on the definition of neoconservative "can help distinguish them from other parts of the ideological coalition behind the administration's neo-imperialist trajectory". Lobe identifies the main strands as "the traditional Republican Machtpolitikers (Might Makes Right), such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and the Christian Rightists, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft, Gary Bauer, and Pat Robertson."[2]
Writing in 2002 Lobe and Tom Barry argued that"neoconservatives have a profound belief in America1s moral superiority, which facilitates alliances with the Christian Right and other social conservatives. But unlike either core traditionalists of American conservatism or those with isolationist tendencies, neoconservatives are committed internationalists. As they did in the 1970s, the neoconservatives were instrumental in the late 1990s in helping to fuse diverse elements of the right into a unified force based on a new agenda of U.S. supremacy."[3]
For a list of prominent American neoconservatives, see Neo-conservatives/list.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neo-conservative
You need a definition that is widely used because you are using the term incorrectly. Many conservatives, although they are Jewish or Catholics are not neo-cons, they are simply conservative. Do I sense a little of the Paul/Chavez/Mugabe bias in you, Puppy?
WMD or as you refer to me, weapon of mass destruction.
Posted by: WVH on November 19, 2007 03:15 PMThe law you posted sets up the federal reserve, it does not however deny people the right to coin money on their own.
I am not sure why you are even claiming that they can not do this. The federal government is not even claiming this. THey are claiming that this company is counterfieting.
I am glad you have brought up the Ron Pauls devotion to the constitution. Ron Paul is often cited by even his most ardent critics as the most strict constitutionalist in congress. Perhaps you have confused him with Ru Paul when you likened him to Mugabe and Chavez?!?
Travis Pahl
Posted by: Travis Pahl on November 19, 2007 06:36 PMRon Paul/Hugo Chavez/Robert Mugabe wouldn't get the US Consitution if it fell on him and crushed his anti-semitic David Duke brain. I actually think RuPaul is funny, did you catch their act on Bravo? Ron Paul is a despot and is in league with Chavez and Mugabe, despots of a feather think like together. Here is a principle of Constitutional law you might find useful, not that you care, after all, you Paul freaks like misunderinterpreting the US Consititution. A blog is really the worst place to teach Consitutional law, but the synopsis from Wiki gets the points across:
"The classical statement of a government of enumerated powers is that by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland:
This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted...."
Now pay attention to the following opinion by Rehnquist, he was more than capable of overturning a law that violated the Constitution.
By, the way, he was considered conservative:
"Necessary and Proper Clause
Interpretation of the Necessary-and-proper clause has been controversial especially during the early years of the republic. Strict constructionists interpret the clause to mean that Congress may make a law only if the inability to do so would cripple its ability to apply one of its enumerated powers. Loose constructionists, on the other hand, feel that the elastic clause expands the authority of Congress to all areas tangentially related to one of its enumerated powers. It is often known as the "elastic clause" because of the great amount of leeway in interpretation it allows; depending on the interpretation, it can be "stretched" to expand the powers of Congress, or allowed to "contract", limiting Congress. In practical usage, the elastic clause has been paired with the commerce clause in particular to provide the constitutional basis for a wide variety of expansive federal laws.
Commerce Clause
The use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to justify a wide range of legislation has been the subject of long, intense political controversy. Interpretation of the sixteen words of the Commerce Clause has helped define the balance of power between the federal government and individual states. Congress has cited its authority under the Commerce Clause for the authority to pass laws in realms of human behavior not mentioned in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has nearly always upheld this argument, and taken a broad view of what activities might affect interstate commerce. An example frequently used to illustrate this point is the Wickard v. Filburn (1942) case, in which growing wheat on one's own land for one's own consumption was ruled to affect interstate commerce.
Tenth Amendment
The Tenth Amendment is cited as constitutional ground denying Congress the right to pass any law it sees fit. However, in the courts, the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause has consistently trumped the arguments of those who claim that the Tenth Amendment should set substantial limits on the power of Congress.
Recent case law
The case of United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 held unconstitutional the Gun Free School Zone Act because it exceeded the power of Congress to "regulate commerce... among the several states." Then Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, "We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers." For the first time in 60 years, the Court found a federal statute to have exceeded the commerce power of Congress. Rehnquist's opinion in Lopez thus shocked many legal scholars.
For more details see: The Rehnquist Court and the Commerce Clause...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers
You and your merry little band of loons are clueless about the law. Actually, RuPaul is more fun than Ron Paul/Hugo Chavez/Robert Mugabe. Unlike Paul, he knows when they are out of their depth. Cheers.
Posted by: WVH on November 19, 2007 10:00 PMNow I understand where you are coming from and why you seem so opposed to Ron Paul. It seems though that you are mixing up who is closer to Mugabe and Chavex though. Ron Paul interprets the constittuion to limit the federal governments power. Chavez and FDR intrepret it to allow them to do whatever they want.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on November 20, 2007 06:03 AMUntil you get yourself appointed to the US Supreme Court and convince four of your fellow Justices to join with you in an opinion, then you are just an ignorant twit that hasn't got a clue about US history or the US Consitution. Paul/Chavez/Mugabe rely on ignorant twits like you to get into power. Bozo, the way the system works is you need to either get elected to Congress or President and your actions need to be affirmed by the courts. Dictators rely on ignorance, that is how they acquire and maintain power.
Here is an apt quote from Adolph Hitler, I'm sure that in his closet Dr. Paul/Hugo Chavez/Mugabe bows down at the alter of national identity politics:
Adolf Hitler, quotes about Nazi:
The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.
The big lie is that your candidate cares a twit about the US Consitution or Constitutional government. He tells twits like you the big lie of his brand of the consitution. Our education system has so failed you that you are too ignorant to understand what Constitutional governance means.
How does it feel to be a Hitler-Jugend, oh I mean
Paul-Jugend?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitleryouth.html
Couldn't you have just kept quiet?!?!? I was trying to hide my anti semite nazi tendencies. If only you would have stoppped posting such convincint arguements. Well I will come clean... I am a skin head racist nazi white supremecist anti semite.
And it is because I want a facist evil government that will exterminate all that I dislike and invade all the countries I dislike that I am throwing my support behind Dr Ron Paul. It is his policy of peace, individual liberty and limited government that most attracts me since it is so similar to my racist war mongering anti liberty pro extermination authoritarian disposition.
I really did not want to admit that to everyone but you just made such a good case I could not argue it.
Posted by: Travis on November 20, 2007 09:20 PMJust like Paul/Chavez/Mugabe you won't answer the direct questions. The direct questions in this instance are:
1. Do you believe in the Rule of Law:
a. Do you support stare decisis
b. Do you support a legal system built upon
precedent?
2. Do you support the US Supreme Court as the final arbiter of what is Consitutional in the US?
If not, you are in league with Paul/Chavez/Mugabe as they attack legitimate Consitutionally established institutions and attempt to substitute their will for legitimate Constitutional authority. Sounds like Hilter to me, Dude or should I just say Sig Heil to you and the rest of the loons.
Posted by: WVH on November 20, 2007 09:42 PMHere is my answer. I do not always support the rule of law. Sometimes I support civil disobediance when laws are unjust.
I think this puts me in the camp of MLK and Gahndi. You think this puts me in the camp of Hitler, Mugabe, and Chavez. I'll let the voters decide this coming winter.
Now it is your turn for direct answers. Do you support the government confiscating gold and silver from peaceful americans as done by President Roosevelt and President Bush?
Posted by: Travis on November 20, 2007 10:39 PM1. Give me the facts of the confiscation of gold and silver by Roosevelt and Bush. Do you have a link to the facts of each instance?
2. This site defines rule of law:
"Definitions of Rule of law on the Web:
The principle in which the law applies to government officials as much as to ordinary citizens.
www.mdk12.org/mspp/vsc/social_studies/bygrade/glossary.shtml
One of the cornerstones of democratic society, meaning that everyone is subject to the law. It is not just the rule that everyone is covered by the Criminal Code and must be charged and convicted if appropriate. ...
bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl
A legal system in which rules are clear, well-understood, and fairly enforced, including property rights and enforcement of contracts.
www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/r.html
another phrase for law and order; the principles that require that the powers of the state be derived from and limited either by legislation enacted by Parliament or a legislature or judicial decisions made by independent courts;
www.manitobacourts.mb.ca/definitions.html
3. I have not studied Gandhi, but Martin Luther King believed in civil disobedience as a tactic to get government to enforce the rule of law-ending segregation. See, definitions of the rule of law above.
Provide me with the facts of the gold situation. Under our Constitutional system, the executive in given broad authority subject to Constitutional limits as interpreted by the courts.
I need further clarification. Is the Supreme Court the final arbiter of what is Constitutional
in the US? Both Gandhi and Dr. King dealt with oppressive laws that were targeted at racial groups and denied them Constitutional rights. So, what exactly is your beef that allows you to disobey a valid law of the United States?