Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Freedom of the press

The New York Times (as well as the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal, but only the NY Times was mentioned) ran stories exposing America to what the papers found. They found government's secret programs to monitor the personal-banking records of unsuspecting citizens.

The Conservative Voice, and many other conservative publications, are steaming mad.

President George W. Bush called the exposing by the NY Times as "disgraceful". He said, "The fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror. We're at war with a bunch of people, who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm to the United States of America."

"Some in the press, in particular the New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programs," said Vice President Dick Cheney.

They will take it so far (Sen. Jim Bunning and Rep. Peter King) as to accused the New York Times of "treason".

As for treason, treason is a particular crime that is found in the Constitution. In Art. III, Sec. 3, Clause 1, treason is defined only as levying war against the US, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy of the US. That's it. Writing words on paper and publishing it is not levying war nor giving aid and comfort.

Now, the main point. In the First Amendment, as relevant to the New York Times, it states, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press". That is simple as you can get; it is a no-brainer. What part of "no law" do you not understand? "No law" doesn't mean "some law", it doesn't mean "a few laws", it doesn't mean "one law". "No law" means "no law"; even a pre-school child can understand the concept. And to whom did the First Amendment refer? Congress. Congress is vested by the people through the Constitution to make laws; not the executive nor the judicial. But the press is taboo, and neither Bush nor Cheney nor Bunning nor King can do anything about it.

If the New York Times gave politicians convulsions, wait until they get a load of Aaron Russo's new movie, America: Freedom To Fascism. It will open in select cities exactly a month from now. At its name implies, A:FTF exposes the government and the things the government has done to the people right in front of their own eyes. It will expose the fallacy of the Federal Reserve. It will expose the fallacy of the income tax. It will show computer voting with no hard copy. It will show the National ID. And it will show the danger of V-chips. In other words, it will show how government used to be a servant and the people are the masters, where their rights are protected by the Constitution, to an omnipotent all-powerful state, where the people think they are free, but the roles are reserved. The press doesn't report about it, so the people haven't got a clue. It reminds me of a quote by Johann Goethe: "None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free." If the critical mass gets to see this movie, they will finally wake up to see the truth. If enough people start to take action (like this film ends), we will finally see a change for the better; we will turn the tide towards a free society.

If that happens, President Bush will make a speech and call this film "disgraceful". He will say, "The film, lying about us, instead of focusing the film on the real danger (the terrorists) makes it hard to win the war on terror." Vice President Cheney will say, "Some in the film industry, in particular A:FTF, made it harder inside America, and thus, have made the job of defending terrorists even more difficult." And Sen. Bunning and Rep. King will accuse Aaron Russo of "treason".

I hope and pray this will happen.

Monday, June 26, 2006

The benefit of the right to bear arms

The UN is spreading propaganda about the dangers of the use of firearms, and the NRA is outraged. They say the UN shows statistic after statistic that (falsely) proves that a gun in the house is a danger to anybody in that house.

That reminds me of Thomas Jefferson.

As one might expect from a man so brilliant, the Founding Father had a perfect answer to modern politicians itchy to disarm the ordinary citizen.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

In other words, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws (and government--but I repeat myself) will have guns.

This is an entry in his Commonplace Book, dated sometime between 1774 and 1776.

Can anyone argue with his logic? Criminals are, by definition, lawbreakers and don't obey gun-control laws. It will be no consolation to you that police may later charge the man who murdered you with the additional crime of possession of a firearm by a felon. That won't buy you a ticket out of the cemetery. You're history.

Even in our modern society, 99 percent of the time police don't get to the scene until after the crime has been committed. Between the time you first perceive yourself as the pending victim of a crime until the police arrive (if they do at all), you are on your own. Self-defense is no longer a theory. Running away is rarely an option. Your choice is to fight or suffer what the criminal has decided to do to you.

Having a gun won't guarantee you'll win a gunfight, but it will certainly guarantee you will have a chance of winning. Having a gun and having the experience using it will increase your chances. And the government respects the 2nd Amendment (i.e., it is legal to carry a gun without a permit) will increase your chances even more. If the criminal is armed and you are not, you will have no chance at all. Some younger men who keep in shape might imagine they can handle their assailant, so I will simply pass on to them the advice of a tae kwon do master who was a member of the South Korean intelligence agency. "If your life is in danger, use a gun," he said.

Any honest martial artist will tell you about the principle of distance. You can't hit a man beyond the distance of your outstretched arm. You can't kick a man beyond the length of your leg. But a man with a gun can stand 15 yards and shoot you. And unlike Jackie Chan or Chuck Norris, you don't have a scriptwriter who will determine how the fight will end.

I'm not suggesting everyone go out and buy a gun. Owning a firearm for self-defense is a serious business. A gun is an inanimate object. If it's loaded, cocked, and the trigger is pulled, the gun will kill or main anybody who happens to be in front of the barrel when the firing pin strikes the cap. You want to be dead certain the person who gets the bullet deserves it, because killing is an act of finality. You can't undo it. You'd better be sure you can live with it. And for God's sake, don't leave a gun--loaded or unloaded--where children--yours or a neighbors--can get to it.

Because you can't rely on the modern justice system to produce justice, I will also pass along some advice an old country lawman gave to me.

"Son, if you ever have to use that thing," he said, "make sure the judge can hear only one version of what happen." In plainer language, if you have to shoot somebody, kill him. Otherwise, in these crazy times, the perp can sue you even though he is a career criminal who initiated the assault. Or some prosecutor who doesn't believe people should defend themselves might to indict you. In Oklahoma, using a deadly weapon inside your home against an intruder, you can feel safe...but you can never be sure.

The human race hasn't changed over the millennia. There are still good people and bad people, kind people and cruel people. There are still predators who will prey on people that they think are too weak to defend themselves. There is a lot more to self-defense than I have space to talk about, so I will end with a tongue-and-cheek saying:

God made men (and women), but Sam Colt made them equal.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Free-market kidneys

What would happen if one would put out a kidney to sell on the free market? How much money would you take for it? An article in the LA Times asks the exact same questions. It raised some interesting questions for me.

Now, I am a steadfast libertarian, and I believe in the principle of self-ownership, including my own property. One property I have a right to more than anything else is my body, and, my kidney is a part of my body. If I want to sell my kidney to the free market, I have no reason why I shouldn't.

This article explains the benefit of selling one's own kidney. Now, I personally choose to keep my kidneys to myself. But, that's my opinion, and I have a right to my opinion. Others see it differently than me. Should my belief impose upon others? Absolutely not! I have a right to do with my body, and each individual has a right to do with one's body, but I have no right to impose upon others, and vise versa.

In this article, some people want to act like me. Others only want to give kidneys to family and/or friends. While others will give kidneys to a perfect stranger. That is their individual choice. Now, if someone I love or I care about started on a dialysis machine, and my kidney is a perfect fit, I probably would give it to him/her; the question is how much do I care for this person.

But society frowns on donating a kidney to a stranger, especially if you are healthy. Doctors don't want to give kidneys without a good reason first. Family and friends frown on it, too. But, there is one important fact: my kidneys are not the doctors, family, nor friends. My kidneys are mine alone, and I alone make the decision on what to do with my kidneys.

The article said, "The most obvious way to increase the supply of any scarce [is] paying more for it", and they are exactly right. I would be motivated to sell my kidney than to give it. And the recipient would love to buy a kidney than to be hooked up three times a week or more to a dialysis machine. But federal law makes transferring kidneys for money illegal, so the buyer and buyee can't buy. What a waste.

Like I said it before, I believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility. You can be urged to take responsibility with you own decisions. But, if you are willing to give or sell your kidney, and that recipient wants to receive or buy, and the money (if applicable) is mutual, the government should get out of the way.

Friday, June 23, 2006

Flag-burning amendment

There is an op-ed by Dianne Feinstein in the USA Today, warning the people about the coming disaster to our nation. No, it is not al-Qaeda; it is not Iraq either; it is not Iran; it is not WMD; it is not even the debasement of our currency. According to Feinstein, it is more sinister than that. According to Feinstein, it is this: we have to protect the degradation of our precious American flag...that's it.

The American Flag symbolized our country and all our country represents. But, that's just it: the American Flag is a symbol; it is nothing but red, white, and blue nylon or cloth, like the British flag, the French flag, the Confederate Flag, even the state flag (like Texas).

The ideas that the flag represents, that's what matters. America represents is freedom, backed by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. And the second right espoused in the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". That is in opposition to Feinstein's Flag Protection Amendment.

Feinstein disagrees. She says, "There is no idea or thought expressed by the burning of the American flag that cannot be expressed equally well in another manner. This Amendment would leave both the flag and free speech safe." In other words, you will have free-speech intact...with one exception. Make that two exceptions: you forgot the President's "free-speech zones".

Let's make something clear: my rights doesn't include exceptions! Rights with exceptions are not rights. My rights are UNALIENABLE; that means they are a gift from God which cannot be altered in any way. Like Michael Badnarik said, wherever I happen to be standing is a "free-speech zone". Taking a note from Badnarik, what I happen to own, I have a right to degrade, including my flag.

Also, Feinstein said something peculiar. At first, Feinstein praises the idea of the Flag Protection Amendment in the Constitution. But, at the 3rd paragraph from the end, Feinstein says, "The Flag Protection would not prohibit flag burning. Rather, the Amendment would simply return to Congress the ability to protect the flag as it has been protected throughout most of this nation's history." Talking about speaking out both sides of the same mouth!

I first remember a libertarian-leaning trait in my personality when I was in the Naval ROTC during my freshman year in college (OU). Oklahoma is a very conservative state, but OU is the most liberal place in Oklahoma. In warm weather, when we drilled outside, an anti-war group protested us. Some of them take it so far as to rip the American flag. A majority of my fellow midshipmen (and a few officers) would get steamed. They wanted to ring the group's neck. However, I had a different view. Sure, I despise what the group is doing. But, I represent the USMC, and the US represents liberty. That liberty means to me liberty to do whatever one wants with one's own property, including ripping one's own flag. I would feel the privilege to fight for American's liberty, even though I don't like what they are doing. Feinstein could take a lesson from a 18-year-old midshipman from the University of Oklahoma. I feel that I know the concept of being an American than an over-70 Congressman from California.

Why don't we ammend the Constitution to protect from burning the Constitution itself. The Constitution, like the flag, is also a symbol of America. But Feinstein wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole, and I can see why. With checks-and-balances, three equal branches of government, and adding a Bill of Rights before ratification, the underline principle of the Constitution is that the greatest threat to the people's freedom and liberty are with our own government.

Sunday, June 18, 2006

Financial hurricane near and waiting

Of what is in store in the future from what was happening in the recent past, it is not good. Like the article said, the experts use words like "Financial Train Wreck", "Deep Funk", "Great Disruption", "Category 6 Fiscal Storm", "Economic Earthquake", "Serious Collapse", "God-Awful Fiscal Storm", "Debt-Driven Meltdown", "Major Upheaval", "Demographic Tsunami", "Rude Awakening", "Economic Pain", "Systematic Banking Crisis", "An Accident Waiting to Happen"...a scary thought indeed!

What is happening is what all nations are happening when they switch to a fiat-paper money (America, it's called the Federal Reserve). With all that money to spend, the legislature grants special favors to its constituents, in order to get that constituent's vote, and that legislative will be re-elected. When that legislature spends more than it will collect in taxes, the bank will print money to pay the difference. When there is too much money in the supply, that money is worth less (i.e., inflation). When the banks print money like it's going out of style, the money is worthless (i.e., hyperinflation), and the nation will collapse by its own weight. That is what Dr. Alexander Tytler foresee before the birth of America, in his theme, Cycle of Democracy.

I am not alone. The financial experts used words found in my original paragraph. To protect my portfolio, there are many different opinions. Tony Allison, a Registered Representative at Puplava Securities, likes stocks and gold. "In our opinion the sectors that will best weather the storm that is approaching will be natural resources [including precious metals], as well as stable, high dividend-paying companies."

Bill Bonner of The Daily Reckoning and author of Empire of Debt, likes cash, gold, and stocks. "Preserving capitol is paramount and in a deflationary environment having assets in cash, gold, and various types of hedge equity funds is the way to go."

Larry MacDonald, publisher of "Market Trends" for Money Sense Magazine and, likes stocks, bonds, and cash. "Investments selling far below their historical average are to be invested in, those selling far above are to be avoided or sold. It is buying low and selling high for long-term investors. That being the case, it is time to be wary of overweighting growth/cyclical stocks and to seek shelter in defensive stocks, bonds and cash."

Paul Mylchreest, an Investment Analyst with Cheuvreux, likes gold, and the lesser extent stocks. "Gold and precious metals are the only asset class that should perform well in either an inflationary or deflationary scenario. As such, gold and gold mining stocks are poised for an unprecedented rise in prices and profile."

Now, not only does Richard Russell, publisher of Dow Theory Letters, likes what he likes, he used percentages. "We do it by trading in a portion of our paper--our 'fantasy money'--for real money, for real wealth. That 'real wealth' is called gold and silver. I'd put 15% in gold, coins, or GLD, the exchange funds. I'd put 25% of what's left in two-year T-notes and the rest in six-month T-notes."

I, myself, would add 10% to gold, for a total of 25%. The remaining 75%, I would invest equally in stocks, bonds, and cash; in other words, the entire portfolio will be equally balanced and diversified. What we will have is Harry Browne's 100% Bullet-Proof Permanent Portfolio.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

Freeing commerce

Jacob Hornberger has a wonderful article called "The Separation of Economy and State" that is superb. By separating economy from the government, every wonderful thing will happen. Hornberger's main point is government is a roadblock which restricts human action.

One is occupational-licensure laws. Now, government will tell you it will produce quality individuals in certain professions. But, the real reason for licenses and permits are to protect the licensees from competition. Hornberger talks about a profession which he knows best--lawyers--on account of he practiced law for over 10 years. Now, I am not a lawyer, but I use attorneys in my life, and except for one, I can do better than an attorneys I hire, who are license by the bar. In fact, in a child-custody suit, I argued myself for more visitation than my lawyer. Geeze!

One of a few professions which doesn't allow licenses is journalism. The reason why is found in the 3rd freedom in the 1st Amendment. And with blogs, every Joe-on-the-street (including my daughter) will have a forum to write. And the professionals, like Hornberger, Lew Rockwell, Sheldon Richman, Robert Higgs, Jim Bovard, etc.; will find employment. None of those listed will say, "There is too much competition! There ought to be a law!"

Another is the minimum wage. Government will tell you it will protect the workers from receiving a "just" or "fair" wage. Hornberger asks, "But what is 'fair' or 'just'?" I say, and Hornberger agrees, that "just" or "fair" is whatever amount the employer and employee can agree on, whether it is $1,000 per hour, or $1 per hour. Raising the minimum wage locks out the workers whose work is valued below the minimum (e.g., teenagers and persons who are new in the workforce).

And it stifles innovation. Look at Moller International's M400 Skycar. This "skycar" will be ready in around 2010. But, the FAA certification and all government meddling, I don't know. There website said, "The timing of the models available to the public will depend on the speed of the government in certifying the vehicle as airworthy. Moller has little or no control in this process." Make that 2020(!) If we lived in a free society where the free-market doesn't have government control, the Skycar will already be in every garage (he began construction of the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft [VTOL] in 1962).

Now, I have two problems with Hornberger's article. First, it's just philosophy. In his 3rd paragraph, he said, "[Let's] adopt the following amendment to the U.S. Constitution". I stay away on "adding" anything to the Constitution. Instead, I say we erase Art. V (amendments). The amendments destroy the original meaning of the Constitution. If the Framers proposed the Constitution without Art. V, but with the Bill of Rights, especially concluding with Amendment 9 and 10 (some states wouldn't ratify the Constitution without [and rightfully so] the Bill of Rights), the Constitution will last for a long, long time, and America would again be free.

The other is this: "[I]magine combining those two features [to freely enter into occupations and to freely enter economic transactions with others] with repeal of the federal income-tax amendment". I am implying that the "federal income-tax amendment" is the 16th Amendment. The Supreme Court already said, in 8 decisions, that the 16th Amendment conferred no new power to tax. In other words, if government could not tax before the 16th Amendment was ratified, government still could not tax after the 16th Amendment was ratified. Read my post to be sure. But, except those exceptions, Hornberger did a wonderful job.

Friday, June 16, 2006

What the price of gold is telling us

This is very important for you to read about Representative Ron Paul and the price of gold. Between you and me, it is not too good, if we don't back our currency with precious metals.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

A democracy versus a republic

The City of San Francisco will appeal an order from a state Superior Court Judge James Warren. That order overturns a city gun ban vote in 2005 in which made San Francisco a "gun-free zone" (i.e., no guns allowed in S.F.).

"I respectfully disagree with the courts reasoning, and believe that San Francisco voters acted within their authority to restrict handgun possession and firearm within their own city," City Attorney Dennis Herrera said. "Gun violence is a grave problem in this city, and our citizens have a right to do what they can legislatively to reduce it."

Let's get something straight: America is not a democracy. I repeat: America is not a democracy. America is a republic. Look at the Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 4 to be sure. Democracy isn't anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the 27 Amendments thereafter.

A "democracy" simply means "majority rule". If this country is a democracy, then the judge should be overruled. 58% of the people of San Francisco voted for this ban. But a "republic" means "rule by the law", and the "Supreme Law of the Land" is the Constitution. And, the pesky little-old amendment, called the Second Amendment, reads in part, "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What the Second Amendment means that the government should not interfere with the people's right to carry a weapon. The people have an "unalienable" right, even when 99.9% of the people thinks it's not okay. Add to that the 14th Amendment (Section 1), that means the states shall not infringe on the rights/priviledges listed in the U.S. Constitution. I know, "priviledges or immunities" (found in the 14th Amendment) are not the same as "rights" (found in the Bill of Rights), but it is a whole other can of worms altogether. Besides, Article VI (Clause 2) gives the Constitution the same power as the 14th Amendment, but without the words "priviledges or immunities". But, the government today has drifted away from a republic and towards a democracy, and our country is headed for a fall.

Monday, June 12, 2006

An outline for his film, A:FTF

Aaron Russo's new trailer for his movie, America: Freedom To Fascism, is the best one yet! Now, it is only 15-minutes long, but he outlines the story from beginning to end. If the film is just as good as the trailer, I can't wait to see it! Wake up, America!! You are blinded by the truth. Wake up and see the truth staring at you in your face...before it's too late.


Geno's Steaks owner Joseph Vento posts a sign on the front door of his business in South Philadelphia. The sign says, "This is America - when ordering, 'speak English'". That move raised the eyebrows of some city's officials. Acting executive director of Philadelphia's Commission on Human Relations Rachel Lawton said, "It's discouraging patronage by non-English speaking customers because of their national origin or ancestry."

But Vento won't remove the sign. Vento, 66, whose grandparents struggled to learn English after arriving from Sicily, said he has no intention of giving in. "I would say they would have to handcuff me and take me out because I'm not taking it down," he said.

Now, personally, I have a different opinion than Vento. But, there is no getting around this fact: I am not the owner, Joseph Vento is. And the owner makes the rules. In 2000, when talking about T-Bell Sound (my defunct business), I make the call. But I am not talking about T-Bell Sound, I am talking about Geno's Steaks.

And, in a free society, the government will have nothing to do with peaceful business. But Philadelphia is not a free society. The city's Commission on Human Relations will file a complaint later on Monday, effectively opening a case against Geno's. The business will have two weeks to respond.

He said no one is refused service and no one is discriminated against. So what? He can discriminate all he wants; he is the owner, and he makes the rules. If the customers don't like it, then don't eat at Geno's. Take their business elsewhere; that's their choice. If enough people don't eat at the business, Vento will change the rules, or go out of business. That's free-enterprise. But the City of Philadelphia should have nothing to do with running his business. That's the voluntary relationship between the owner and the customers, end of story.

Sunday, June 11, 2006

The solution to the evils of the Federal Reserve

There are many things I would do to change America in order to live in a free society. I would end many wars: the war on Iraq, the war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on immigrants, the war on ignoring the Constitution, the war on the police state, the war on guns, the war on tax nauseam. The 2nd Amendment (guns) and the Tax Honesty Movement (taxes) are the two of the three most important reasons I fight the battle for liberty. But, both are not number one. My strongest reason for being an advocate for a free society--bar none--is to repeal the Federal Reserve and return the people to sound and honest currency.

Now, I wrote a long article before about the perils of the Federal Reserve, so I will skip what's in my last post. But, a recap is in order. Between the start of the Constitution to legally function in 1789 and the creation of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, America had the soundest money supply in the world. Art. I, Section 10, Clause 1 in the Constitution reads, in part: "No State shall...coin Money...[and] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". The Constitution did two things with that statement: it required only the federal government to make money, and the states will only accept money as "legal tender" in the form of gold and silver. No fiat paper, no I.O.U.'s; only real gold and silver.

What happen in the mean time was America grew to become the most prosperous economy in history. Like I said in the earlier post, real wages doubled between 1800 and 1850, and doubled again between 1850 and 1900, while the value of the dollar remain the same (of course; the money back then was backed by gold and silver).

The country, land-wise, grew too. Between 1789 to 1913, America grew from 13 states from the Atlantic, to 48 states, the whole continental United States.

That was it means to be an American in the 19th century. That was it means to be truly free. And to be truly free is to have real and honest money that government can't inflate.

All that changed two days before Christmas in 1913. What happen is down right criminal. The fact is Congress delegated its money to a private bank. "Now wait!", you say, "Congress can't delegate anything," and you are right. Congress can't delegate what they don't own. We the People ordain and establish this Constitution, and this Constitution vested certain privileges to certain government officials. The government cannot delegate privileges owned by the people to someone else.

For example, I own a car. That car is mine. Let's say I want to loan my car to you. Can I do it? Of course. I own it, so I can do anything I want with it. Let's say you borrowed it for tonight. Your friend asked you to borrow the car to do errands. Can you do it? Absolutely not. It's not your car. I own the car, and I loaned it to you, period. I didn't loan it for you to loan it to someone else.

Congress did not own the money. We the People own everything, including the money. Through the Constitution, we delegated the money to Congress, with some stipulations (i.e., the money must be gold and silver). We did not let Congress delegate the money to a private bank, with no strings attached.

But it did. Although at first, money was still backed by gold and silver, but FDR made it illegal to own gold, and Nixon separated the dollar/gold relationship entirely. What we have now is fiat-paper money; the dollar backed by...nothing. A worthless piece of paper, that's it. It is not what the Constitution demanded. That makes it criminal. Then, since the US dollar isn't backed with anything, the printing presses make money out of thin air. When there is an increase of money supply, prices will rise, and money is worth less (i.e., inflation occurs). In 1913, a dollar is worth a dollar. But over time, the dollar loses value. In 2001, that dollar is worth 4 cents. In 2006, the dollar is worth two cents. And there is nothing you and I can do about it. That makes it evil. The only thing to do is to abolish the Federal Reserve.

I am not alone. Aaron Russo videoed a 35-minute interview in which he said the number one reason he made this movie, America: Freedom To Fascism [watch the FULL movie here], is to "shut down" the Federal Reserve. But, Russo didn't have an answer on what other currency to replace Federal Reserve Notes with. I have the answer. You replace the notes with Liberty Dollars.

Like Harry Browne's Permanent Portfolio, NORFED Monetary Architect Bernard von NotHaus is a genus for tranferring Federal Reserve Notes (FRN-worthless fiat paper) to Liberty Dollars (LD-REAL money). NORFED stands for the National Organization for the Repeal of the FEDeral reserve (Russo's #1 goal). We all know what the dollar is. There are $1, $5, $10, $20, etc. On the front side of the LD, you see the exactly the same thing: $1, $5, $10, $20, and $500. All but $500 are silver certificates ($500 is for gold). You will trade dollar for dollar, 1 : 1 (e.g., $20 FDN for $20 LD).

But unlike the FRN counterparts, you can trade Silver Certificates for pure silver (Silver Liberties). You can trade FRN for...another FRN, another worthless fiat paper. Silver and gold are REAL money. I know, the assumed value is higher than the spot price, whether it is Silver or Gold Liberties or Silver or Gold Certificates. The spot price of a Troy-ounce of silver (worth $20 LD) today is $11-12. That's okay. The LD is for spending, not saving. The REAL worth of a $20 FRN is...squat. $11 sure beats squat!

And best of all, LD are inflation-proof. As silver and gold rise in value, LD rises too. That is what the back side is for. When the spot price of silver breaks the threshold, the front side will double. You trade a $10 silver currency (liberty or certificate) to get back $20 silver currency. I know; I was there, and it's all true. However, the back side (the weight of silver/gold) will stay the same (1 Toz = 1 Toz, etc.). Now, the spot price of gold is over $600. I am in the process of trading $500 [1 Toz] gold currency for $1000 [1 Toz] gold currency. Not a bad trade, huh? If I can get Russo to meet von NotHaus (they both know G. Edward Griffin and Michael Badnarik quite well), the Federal Reserve will be history, and the people will have an honest, sound, and constitutional currency...again.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Either obey, or get impeached

Now, he is going too far. When a bill goes before the President to sign into law, he signs, every time (no veto during Dubya's term), and then he ignores it. So far, George W. Bush has ignored more than 750 laws he had signed personally. He says he has the "power" to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with "his interpretation of the Constitution". He says he gets his power because he is the "Commander in Chief". No wonder Attorney General Alberto Gonzales thinks the way he thinks.

Just like Gonzales, I want to teach you a valuable lesson on doing your job. This lesson is called "Constitution 101". The Constitution, the document where you took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" it before taking office. First, let's go to the preamble. The preamble said, in part, "We the ordain and establish this Constitution". In other words, we (the people) created the Constitution. In the beginning of Art. I, it said, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress". In the beginning of Art. II, it said, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President" (that's you, George). And in the beginning of Art. III, it said, "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court". In other words, the Constitution created the legislature, the executive, and the justices--i.e., the government. The legislature makes the law, the executive enforces the law, and the judiciary interprets the law. The Constitution doesn't give the government (i.e., Congress) the authority to delegate powers to someone else (e.g., to declare war to the President, and to coin money to the private, for-profit Federal Reserve), or specially forbid state legislatures to completely abolish what is demanded in the Constitution (e.g., to make those Federal Reserve fiat-paper notes as "legal tender"). George W. Bush, as President, as the Commander in Chief, as "the Decider!"; his "interpretation of the Constitution" means nothing. Only justices interpret the law. The President only enforces the law; that's it, end of story. This is called "checks-and-balances". And this last sentence reminds me of the most important reason why we need the Constitution. With the Constitution's three separate but competing branches of government, checks and balances, and adding the Bill of Rights before ratification, the underlining principle behind the Constitution is the greatest threat of the people's liberty and prosperity is within our own government.

If we (the people) created the Constitution, I can safely say we have power over the Constitution. And thus, if the Constitution created the government, the Constitution has power over the government. Looking at the chain-of-command, if the people have power over the Constitution, and the Constitution has power over the government, then the people will have power over the government, not the other way around, as the elected officials always have claimed. There is no other way to explain the Constitution than this.

President Bush, you work for me, not the other way around. I don't work for you, you work, when working as the president, for me, the people. Do you understand the principles of being an American President? You obey the Constitution, not (in George's own words) the Constitution is "just a g--d---ed piece of paper!". An ordinary civilian can say that, but you, Mr. President, the Commander in Chief; the Constitution is the alpha and the omega! If you don't change your mindset, you don't deserve to hold that office.

Sunday, June 04, 2006

For nothing

Last November, after a Marine lance corporal was killed by a roadside bombing, his buddies went ballistic and swept through the area and shot point-blank every one they can get, including old men, women, and children, and killed over 24 innocent Iraqis in Haditha. The massacre in Haditha reminds me of the massacre at My Lai in 1968. But the federal officials explain, "This was an isolated incident. Most American military are good. The people from Haditha don't hate us for this. They hate us for our freedom and values". Yeh right.

In March, US troops attacked a safe house in Ishaqi and killed 11 Iraqi civilians, including 5 women and 4 children. But the US officials argued, "The soldiers alone are bad, but don't count the action of a few soldiers. Let's not focus on the massacre in Ishaqi. The other American troops are performing heroically." Here we go again.

What about Abu Ghraib? From 2004 to 2006, pictures after pictures after pictures kept coming from the prison. American officials, on the other hand, said, "These pictures are a few bad apples. Most US troops are honorable, and the Abu Ghraib prisoners know that. They hate us for our way of life." Please.

And you forgot to mention before the war, where the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children died from the 10 years of brutal sanctions the US and UN imposed on the Iraqi people. When asked by 60 Minutes was the sanctions are worth it, US ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright responded, "I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it."

So, there you have it. And what we achieved out of dying in this war? Not a damn thing.

Friday, June 02, 2006

New York and Washington's budget reduced

When Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was appointed, New York City--Chertoff's "neck of the woods"--will be taken care of. But Chertoff did the opposite, and the City doesn't like it at all. He slashed New York's budget by 40%, from $207 million to $124 million. Washington did no better, cutting $77 million to $46 million. Chertoff said he would divert the funds to somewhere more effective.

"He assured us before we supported him that he would fully support New York. Now that seems to have gone completely down the drain", said Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat from NYC. "I want to meet with him to hear his explanation, but this sure looks like betrayal to me."

I believe 40% is a nice beginning. But, do you want to make NYC and Washington feel the most secure from terrorists? Liberty! We would slash $207 million from New York and $77 million from Washington. And we will erase anti-terrorism funds from Miami, Dallas, Los Angeles, Seattle, Boston, as well as the rest of the United States.

"But, what about the terrorist striking us?" To be sure that terrorist don't have any reason to attack, we would bring the troops home from over 130 countries across the world. The United States will never again meddle with foreign nations.

However, we would let the private sector loose to trade with the rest of the world. Like Frederic Bastiat observed, "When goods don't cross borders, armies will." The opposite is also true. When you trade with someone, you trade in peace; you never start a conflict. The old saying fits: you never bite the hand that feeds you. As Thomas Jefferson once said about foreign relations, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." If you want to reduce or eliminate terrorists attacks from our country, the libertarian paradigm of individual liberty, free-market economy, and limited-government republic holds the key.