Ok what's wrong with the article

[SteveSy]

The Washington Times

Quote:
Article published Nov 28, 2007
Ron Paul and the money cops

November 28, 2007

Richard W. Rahn - Assume you, a Justice Department official, are a secret supporter of Texas Rep. Ron Paul for president and want to help your candidate. You know Mr. Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI, and wants money to be backed by gold, silver and/or other precious metals. You also know his critics claim he is paranoid about the federal government abusing its powers.

You then realize that in one lightening action you can demonstrate Mr. Paul is not paranoid and, at the same time, highlight the issues of sound money and government abuse of civil liberties.

To do so you could have the FBI raid the offices of a Paul supporter who is making and selling "Ron Paul Dollars" made of copper, silver, gold and platinum, and seize all the coins. Bizarre as it sounds, that is exactly what agents of the FBI did last week.

Needless to say, this action of the Feds has energized many Paul supporters and brought more people into his camp.

Despite my scenario above, I doubt the seizing of the coins was instigated by a Ron Paul supporter in the government; more likely, it was taken by overzealous federal agents who neither had the wit to understand the political significance of what they were doing nor a full appreciation of the importance of civil liberties. It should strike all Americans, regardless of political ideology, that seizing objects that bear the likeness of a candidate and are clearly designed to promote that candidate, regardless of what they are made of, is an assault on our basic freedoms and our electoral process.

Can you imagine the outrage from the mainstream press if the Feds had seized metal campaign buttons produced by a supporter of Hillary Clinton with her likeness on it?

The company whose "Ron Paul Dollars" and other private coins were seized by the Feds is "Liberty Services." According to both the Paul campaign and Liberty Services, the company's actions were not part of, affiliated with or authorized by the campaign. The FBI claims it is investigating the company for "making or possessing likeness of coins," mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy. Yet, as of this writing, the company had not been charged with or indicted for any crime, let alone convicted.

To understand the very slippery slope the government is now on, it is important to understand what is legal and what is illegal. The U.S. Code states, "Whoever ... attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned."

Private mints and organizations can legally produce various types of commemorative coins (which the U.S. Mint insists they call medallions) from any metal, including gold, as long as they do not claim they are "money" and as long as they clearly do not appear to be counterfeits of some U.S. or foreign government coins.

Any citizen may possess, buy and sell as many gold, silver or other metal coins (medallions) produced by governments and private mints as he chooses. However, he may not pass off any of them as "money," except the "legal tender" coins minted by the government, such as the U.S. "quarter."

Now, you might be thinking if you can sell the coins in your coin collection for money, whether or not they are U.S. legal tender, what is the difference?

This nonsense only gets worse. The U.S. government mints and sells "American Eagle" gold coins which are "legal tender" even though they sell for about 20 times their face amount these days. You can also buy and sell gold coins produced by foreign governments or private mints (commemorative medallions), with same amount of gold in them as the U.S. government coins, for about the same price as the U.S. legal tender coins (the amount of gold largely determines the price, except for rare coins that have an additional numismatic value).

In addition to the legal tender laws, a major reason precious metal coins or "medallions" are not commonly used in normal transactions is that you are supposed to pay a capital gains tax on any difference between your purchase and sale price, though the gain may be due solely to (Fed-caused) inflation. Yet you are not allowed to deduct the loss of value due to inflation of your government-issued "quarter" or other legal tender from your taxes.

Finally, though some in the FBI appear to have forgotten, anyone can legally produce and give away or sell materials in support of any candidate as long as those actions are independent of the candidate's campaign.

Many great economic scholars, such as F.A. Hayek, have written on the desirability of denationalizating currencies in protecting the value of money, and civil libertarians both right and left have correctly criticized many IRS actions and those of other federal law enforcement agencies.

While other candidates have differences with some of Ron Paul's positions, as I do, they should not continue to ignore the problems of sound money and IRS and FBI abuse. If they fail to come up with their own solutions, they are likely to see his support continue to rise.

Richard W. Rahn is the chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

[SteveSy]

Um, OK. I didn't say anything about his expertise in economics, nor would I based on that article. What I was commenting on was the writer's incredible display of ignorance and stupidity when it came to writing this article. I don't care if he's the smartest person on earth - his article was ignorant and stupid.

Oh and I love how willing you are to use educational credentials when it suits your purposes but totally discredit them at other times. Maybe I'll disclose my educational credentials and see if you'd accept what I said.

Degrees do not impress me personally, I've stated that many times. I've had many degreed individuals sit down with me in an interview discovered that they're morons and college taught them nothing. I've got guys that will run circles around them and all they have is a high school diploma. A Degree doesn't make you smart what you do, how you do it, and what you say does.


I've been lambasted many times on how you or someone in your little group has credentials and I don't so therefore I have no room to argue with you. Apparently that is used only when it suits your purposes.


Regardless, I would like to know what you find so wrong about what he said.

[Quixote]

Assume you, a Justice Department official, are a secret supporter of Texas Rep. Ron Paul for president and want to help your candidate. You know Mr. Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI, and wants money to be backed by gold, silver and/or other precious metals. You also know his critics claim he is paranoid about the federal government abusing its powers.

That's news to me. Paul has been described as crazy, but I've never heard anyone say he is paranoid about the federal government abusing its powers.

You then realize that in one lightening action you can demonstrate Mr. Paul is not paranoid and, at the same time, highlight the issues of sound money and government abuse of civil liberties.

Let me see if I have this right. A Paul supporter, by abusing his position, is going to prove that Paul is right about government abuse?

To do so you could have the FBI raid the offices of a Paul supporter who is making and selling "Ron Paul Dollars" made of copper, silver, gold and platinum, and seize all the coins. Bizarre as it sounds, that is exactly what agents of the FBI did last week.

While not quite a lie, that paragraph creates two false impressions. First, that the FBI raid was ordered by a rogue Paul supporter and secondly, that the siezure of the Paul coins were something other than completely incidental to the purpose of the raid.

Needless to say, this action of the Feds has energized many Paul supporters and brought more people into his camp.

Cite?

Despite my scenario above, I doubt the seizing of the coins was instigated by a Ron Paul supporter in the government;

Despite his strongly implying it was.

more likely, it was taken by overzealous federal agents who neither had the wit to understand the political significance of what they were doing nor a full appreciation of the importance of civil liberties.

Does he know so little about the raid that he doesn't know they had a warrant supported by evidence gained through an extensive undercover operation?

It should strike all Americans, regardless of political ideology, that seizing objects that bear the likeness of a candidate and are clearly designed to promote that candidate, regardless of what they are made of, is an assault on our basic freedoms and our electoral process.

Had he read the supporting documents for the warrant, he might realize that the Paul dollars were clearly designed to separate marks from their FRNs.

Can you imagine the outrage from the mainstream press if the Feds had seized metal campaign buttons produced by a supporter of Hillary Clinton with her likeness on it?

I am always astonished at what does and does not outrage the mainstream press.

The company whose "Ron Paul Dollars" and other private coins were seized by the Feds is "Liberty Services." According to both the Paul campaign and Liberty Services, the company's actions were not part of, affiliated with or authorized by the campaign.

So why does this clown think the raid was about Paul?

The FBI claims it is investigating the company for "making or possessing likeness of coins," mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy. Yet, as of this writing, the company had not been charged with or indicted for any crime, let alone convicted.

As I noted above, "convict first, investigate later" is a strange position for a libertarian.

To understand the very slippery slope the government is now on, it is important to understand what is legal and what is illegal. The U.S. Code states, "Whoever ... attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned."

Private mints and organizations can legally produce various types of commemorative coins (which the U.S. Mint insists they call medallions) from any metal, including gold, as long as they do not claim they are "money" and as long as they clearly do not appear to be counterfeits of some U.S. or foreign government coins.

Yes, that's legal, but it's not what Liberty Services was doing.

Any citizen may possess, buy and sell as many gold, silver or other metal coins (medallions) produced by governments and private mints as he chooses. However, he may not pass off any of them as "money," except the "legal tender" coins minted by the government, such as the U.S. "quarter."

And Liberty Services was attempting to pass theirs off as money.

Now, you might be thinking if you can sell the coins in your coin collection for money, whether or not they are U.S. legal tender, what is the difference?

No, not if I read the preceding paragraph. He just explained the difference. Selling funny coins is legal;spending them is not.

This nonsense only gets worse.

What nonsense? He hasn't discussed any nonsense yet.

The U.S. government mints and sells "American Eagle" gold coins which are "legal tender" even though they sell for about 20 times their face amount these days. You can also buy and sell gold coins produced by foreign governments or private mints (commemorative medallions), with same amount of gold in them as the U.S. government coins, for about the same price as the U.S. legal tender coins (the amount of gold largely determines the price, except for rare coins that have an additional numismatic value).

So he thinks its nonsensical that the US and other governments mint and sell gold coins.

In addition to the legal tender laws, a major reason precious metal coins or "medallions" are not commonly used in normal transactions is that you are supposed to pay a capital gains tax on any difference between your purchase and sale price, though the gain may be due solely to (Fed-caused) inflation.

He seems to forget what he wrote as soon as he writes it. The major reason precious metal coins are not commonly used in normal tranactions is "they sell for about 20 times their face amount these days." No one in his right mind buys a loaf of bread with a $1 coin containg $20 worth of metal.

Yet you are not allowed to deduct the loss of value due to inflation of your government-issued "quarter" or other legal tender from your taxes.

Finally, though some in the FBI appear to have forgotten, anyone can legally produce and give away or sell materials in support of any candidate as long as those actions are independent of the candidate's campaign.

Cool. I'll tattoo campaign materials on some healthy young people and sell them in support of my candidates campaign.

Many great economic scholars, such as F.A. Hayek, have written on the desirability of denationalizating currencies in protecting the value of money, and civil libertarians both right and left have correctly criticized many IRS actions and those of other federal law enforcement agencies.

Huh? Where did that come from? How did the IRS get involved in this?

While other candidates have differences with some of Ron Paul's positions, as I do, they should not continue to ignore the problems of sound money and IRS and FBI abuse. If they fail to come up with their own solutions, they are likely to see his support continue to rise.

Another paragraph from out of left field.

Richard W. Rahn is the chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

Degrees do not impress me personally, I've stated that many times. I've had many degreed individuals sit down with me in an interview discovered that they're morons and college taught them nothing. I've got guys that will run circles around them and all they have is a high school diploma. A Degree doesn't make you smart what you do, how you do it, and what you say does.id.

Degrees do not impress me either because I work in academia and I often see books written by Ph.D. who haven't the slightest idea of what they are talking about. On further research on 99% of these individuals (a) have degrees from diploma mills and/or (b) are arguing in fields outside their areas of expertise.

So let's take a look at the article:
It's author is a lobbyist and head of a libertarian group called FreedomWorks. Lobbyist are not objective, they promote a certain viewpoint, hence this article is an opinon piece.

He begins by pulling a scenario out of his arse so to speak....

Assume you, a Justice Department official, are a secret supporter of Texas Rep. Ron Paul for president and want to help your candidate.

You could futher assume the FBI eats kittens every morning and space aliens control the White House. It wouldn't matter because the scenario is made up.


Next he goes on to tie the raids of the Liberty Dollar offices directly to the candidate Ron Paul. As if Ron Paul was the reason for the raid not the actual crimes of fraud and money laundering:

I doubt the seizing of the coins was instigated by a Ron Paul supporter in the government; more likely, it was taken by overzealous federal agents who neither had the wit to understand the political significance of what they were doing nor a full appreciation of the importance of civil liberties. It should strike all Americans, regardless of political ideology, that seizing objects that bear the likeness of a candidate and are clearly designed to promote that candidate, regardless of what they are made of, is an assault on our basic freedoms and our electoral process.

Amazing since Ron Paul did NOT endorse the minting of the coins and did not recieve any benefit from their distribution other than a small amount of political advertising.

He further obfuscates the fact that this was in fact a REAL crime being commited by pretending that it was a politically motivated act:

Can you imagine the outrage from the mainstream press if the Feds had seized metal campaign buttons produced by a supporter of Hillary Clinton with her likeness on it?

The problem of course would be if those buttons were not evidence in a money laundering criminal investigation and the "government" had not repeatedly warned them that they were breaking the law and to cease and desist said criminal activities. But this is another speculative scenario with no basis in fact.

After implying that the seizures were politically motivated he states the facts of the ongoing investigation which counterdict his claims above:

According to both the Paul campaign and Liberty Services, the company's actions were not part of, affiliated with or authorized by the campaign. The FBI claims it is investigating the company for "making or possessing likeness of coins," mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy. Yet, as of this writing, the company had not been charged with or indicted for any crime, let alone convicted.

Notice the last sentence. This is special pleading. Yes there is no charge, nor inditements. they are investigating, but he words the last sentence as if collecting evidence in an ongoing investigation is somehow a horrible breach of justice.

He then goes on to quote the law which the investigation is centered around and then clouds the issue by claiming that commemorative coin producers are the same as the Liberty Dollar producers, forgetting thet the Liberty Dollar is meant to be spiece while the commerorative coins are to be collector medallions and investment vehicles. There is quite a difference. The Liberty Dollar is designed to be used as money (of course at a profit to the Libery mint which also violates the alternative currency laws which require a $1 to 1 SquirrelBuck ratio backed by a deposit of an equal amount of USD).

He then asks the rhetorical question:

Now, you might be thinking if you can sell the coins in your coin collection for money, whether or not they are U.S. legal tender, what is the difference?

And of course fails to answer it: You are not representing the items as speice, but are agreeing upon a price for them as a collectable. A 1913 Liberty nickel can still be used as a 5 cent piece (well technically that coin is illegal since they were originally stolen, but the mint doesn't care). Still the coins are for collector value/precious metal content only.Liberty Dollars are designed to disrupt the economy of the United States and are forbidden by the Constitution.

He then goes back on the obscufication:

Finally, though some in the FBI appear to have forgotten, anyone can legally produce and give away or sell materials in support of any candidate as long as those actions are independent of the candidate's campaign.

Which of course is not what the FBI is investigating. If a rapist has a tattoo of Hillary Clinton on his back is the Government not allowed to arrest him for rape?

That are the problems I have with the article.

[SteveSy]

Next he goes on to tie the raids of the Liberty Dollar offices directly to the candidate Ron Paul. As if Ron Paul was the reason for the raid not the actual crimes of fraud and money laundering:

Hmmm I didn't get that out of the article. I think what he was saying is that a Ron Paul supporter couldn't have done a better job of proving Ron Paul's the right man for the job.

I don't think he believes Ron Paul's likeness on the coin was the reason, the reason was an over zealous FBI not thinking of the political implications of shutting down a private organization making medallions, that were never represented as legal tender, with Ron Paul's likeness on them. Ron Paul has repeatedly said the FBI, the IRS and the Treasury Dept. are infringing on our liberties, what better to prove his point than to take down liberty dollars, ironically, with his likeness on them.

Liberty Dollars are designed to disrupt the economy of the United States and are forbidden by the Constitution.

Hmmm, never seen that said by anyone involved in the liberty dollar organization before, or even its users. More importantly I honestly can't see how they are forbidden by the constitution. The constitution doesn't say you can't make medallions and barter with them. At most it forbids someone from making legal tender money except for the government.

[SteveSy]

Assume you, a Justice Department official, are a secret supporter of Texas Rep. Ron Paul for president and want to help your candidate. You know Mr. Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI, and wants money to be backed by gold, silver and/or other precious metals. You also know his critics claim he is paranoid about the federal government abusing its powers.

That's news to me. Paul has been described as crazy, but I've never heard anyone say he is paranoid about the federal government abusing its powers.

Boy you really know nothing about his supporters do you or his critics.

You then realize that in one lightening action you can demonstrate Mr. Paul is not paranoid and, at the same time, highlight the issues of sound money and government abuse of civil liberties.

Let me see if I have this right. A Paul supporter, by abusing his position, is going to prove that Paul is right about government abuse?

Ummm, ya because it makes it look like the government abused it powers.

To do so you could have the FBI raid the offices of a Paul supporter who is making and selling "Ron Paul Dollars" made of copper, silver, gold and platinum, and seize all the coins. Bizarre as it sounds, that is exactly what agents of the FBI did last week.

While not quite a lie, that paragraph creates two false impressions. First, that the FBI raid was ordered by a rogue Paul supporter and secondly, that the siezure of the Paul coins were something other than completely incidental to the purpose of the raid.

No, what he said apparently went right over your head....a big WHOOSH for you.

Needless to say, this action of the Feds has energized many Paul supporters and brought more people into his camp.

Cite?

Try google.

Despite my scenario above, I doubt the seizing of the coins was instigated by a Ron Paul supporter in the government;

Despite his strongly implying it was.

Hmmm, seems to me he totally denied being involved or even having knowledge it was going to happen....please back up that allegation.


more likely, it was taken by overzealous federal agents who neither had the wit to understand the political significance of what they were doing nor a full appreciation of the importance of civil liberties.

Does he know so little about the raid that he doesn't know they had a warrant supported by evidence gained through an extensive undercover operation?

The evidence is what he's complaining about goofy, in his opinion its not illegal to create medallions and barter with them or use them to promote a candidate. The evidence is based on a bogus use of the law.


It should strike all Americans, regardless of political ideology, that seizing objects that bear the likeness of a candidate and are clearly designed to promote that candidate, regardless of what they are made of, is an assault on our basic freedoms and our electoral process.

Had he read the supporting documents for the warrant, he might realize that the Paul dollars were clearly designed to separate marks from their FRNs.

Huh?

Can you imagine the outrage from the mainstream press if the Feds had seized metal campaign buttons produced by a supporter of Hillary Clinton with her likeness on it?

I am always astonished at what does and does not outrage the mainstream press.

The company whose "Ron Paul Dollars" and other private coins were seized by the Feds is "Liberty Services." According to both the Paul campaign and Liberty Services, the company's actions were not part of, affiliated with or authorized by the campaign.

So why does this clown think the raid was about Paul?
He doesn't. They made it about Ron Paul unintentionally, hence the "political implications" statement.
The FBI claims it is investigating the company for "making or possessing likeness of coins," mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy. Yet, as of this writing, the company had not been charged with or indicted for any crime, let alone convicted.

As I noted above, "convict first, investigate later" is a strange position for a libertarian.

To understand the very slippery slope the government is now on, it is important to understand what is legal and what is illegal. The U.S. Code states, "Whoever ... attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned."

Private mints and organizations can legally produce various types of commemorative coins (which the U.S. Mint insists they call medallions) from any metal, including gold, as long as they do not claim they are "money" and as long as they clearly do not appear to be counterfeits of some U.S. or foreign government coins.

Yes, that's legal, but it's not what Liberty Services was doing.
Its very similar, its just bartering. The coins and notes never being represented as legal tender, government approved or anything like that. Purely a private medallion used to trade for services and or goods which is perfectly legal.

Any citizen may possess, buy and sell as many gold, silver or other metal coins (medallions) produced by governments and private mints as he chooses. However, he may not pass off any of them as "money," except the "legal tender" coins minted by the government, such as the U.S. "quarter."

And Liberty Services was attempting to pass theirs off as money.
They never tried to pass theirs off as government money or money approved by the government....show where NorFed ever did this.

Now, you might be thinking if you can sell the coins in your coin collection for money, whether or not they are U.S. legal tender, what is the difference?

No, not if I read the preceding paragraph. He just explained the difference. Selling funny coins is legal;spending them is not.

This nonsense only gets worse.

What nonsense? He hasn't discussed any nonsense yet.

The U.S. government mints and sells "American Eagle" gold coins which are "legal tender" even though they sell for about 20 times their face amount these days. You can also buy and sell gold coins produced by foreign governments or private mints (commemorative medallions), with same amount of gold in them as the U.S. government coins, for about the same price as the U.S. legal tender coins (the amount of gold largely determines the price, except for rare coins that have an additional numismatic value).

So he thinks its nonsensical that the US and other governments mint and sell gold coins.

In addition to the legal tender laws, a major reason precious metal coins or "medallions" are not commonly used in normal transactions is that you are supposed to pay a capital gains tax on any difference between your purchase and sale price, though the gain may be due solely to (Fed-caused) inflation.

He seems to forget what he wrote as soon as he writes it. The major reason precious metal coins are not commonly used in normal tranactions is "they sell for about 20 times their face amount these days." No one in his right mind buys a loaf of bread with a $1 coin containg $20 worth of metal.

Yet you are not allowed to deduct the loss of value due to inflation of your government-issued "quarter" or other legal tender from your taxes.

Finally, though some in the FBI appear to have forgotten, anyone can legally produce and give away or sell materials in support of any candidate as long as those actions are independent of the candidate's campaign.

Cool. I'll tattoo campaign materials on some healthy young people and sell them in support of my candidates campaign.

Many great economic scholars, such as F.A. Hayek, have written on the desirability of denationalizating currencies in protecting the value of money, and civil libertarians both right and left have correctly criticized many IRS actions and those of other federal law enforcement agencies.

Huh? Where did that come from? How did the IRS get involved in this?

While other candidates have differences with some of Ron Paul's positions, as I do, they should not continue to ignore the problems of sound money and IRS and FBI abuse. If they fail to come up with their own solutions, they are likely to see his support continue to rise.

Another paragraph from out of left field.

Richard W. Rahn is the chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

[LPC]

Degrees do not impress me either because I work in academia and I often see books written by Ph.D. who haven't the slightest idea of what they are talking about. On further research on 99% of these individuals (a) have degrees from diploma mills and/or (b) are arguing in fields outside their areas of expertise.

In this case, the author of the article has degrees in economics, and has decided to write an article about statutory and constitutional law, as well as politics.

The result is something that would be considered embarrassing if the author had the capacity to be embarrassed.

[notorial dissent]

Or more importantly, the sense!!!!!!

[Nick]

>>Mr. Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI, and wants money to be backed by gold, silver and/or other precious metals. <<

What's wrong is that it is logically impossible.

[webhick]

You could futher assume the FBI eats kittens every morning and space aliens control the White House.

No, no, no. You have it all wrong.

Every afternoon, the White House hosts an ostentatious ceremony where the CIA dons pink capes and performs the ancient dance of "Prancing with Baskets" before settling in for a feast of duck feet a la mode. For those of you not familiar with the "Prancing with Baskets" dance, it looks disturbingly like a combination of a dog seductively doing cabbage patch while chasing its own tail and filling out an employment application 40 pages thick. The use of baskets (namely, the traditional wicker) was discontinued in the early 400s when Sharon got drunk at the CIA Christmas party and impaled the water cooler delivery guy on a hand-spun pencil sharpener. He survived, thankfully, but would forevermore scream uncontrollably at the sight of mistletoe. At first, we didn't know what to do, so we made him stand on an unstable ottoman and balance a set of ginsu knives on his nose until he sobbingly admitted between screams to doing unspeakable things with a wicker basket when he was 14. Ever since then, we have been unable to keep enough baskets in stock to use for the dance.

It wouldn't matter because the scenario is made up.

Well, thank heavens. For a second there, I thought we were going to have to lock you in a rubbermaid container with the rind of a thousand lemons, ten rats on acid, and a deck of playing cards. Beware the Queen of Hearts. She can be a real bitch after she's gotten back from her pottery class on Tuesdays. I think it has something to do with her harrowing fear of extreme heat, and the moisture in the clay which makes her look puffy. Or the inability to move her arms. You know, it could be anything.

You really dodged a bullet there, ESO.

[Imalawman]

Assume you, a Justice Department official, are a secret supporter of Texas Rep. Ron Paul for president and want to help your candidate. You know Mr. Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI, and wants money to be backed by gold, silver and/or other precious metals. You also know his critics claim he is paranoid about the federal government abusing its powers.

That's news to me. Paul has been described as crazy, but I've never heard anyone say he is paranoid about the federal government abusing its powers.

Boy you really know nothing about his supporters do you or his critics.

I'd say that you're right on this one Steve, Ron Paul is paranoid about the federal government abusing its powers. I hear his supporters saying that all the time.

You then realize that in one lightening action you can demonstrate Mr. Paul is not paranoid and, at the same time, highlight the issues of sound money and government abuse of civil liberties.

Let me see if I have this right. A Paul supporter, by abusing his position, is going to prove that Paul is right about government abuse?

Ummm, ya because it makes it look like the government abused it powers.

Which is an absurdity. A strange and incoherent way to begin an article - "Let's imagine for a moment..." huh?

To do so you could have the FBI raid the offices of a Paul supporter who is making and selling "Ron Paul Dollars" made of copper, silver, gold and platinum, and seize all the coins. Bizarre as it sounds, that is exactly what agents of the FBI did last week.

While not quite a lie, that paragraph creates two false impressions. First, that the FBI raid was ordered by a rogue Paul supporter and secondly, that the siezure [sic] of the Paul coins were something other than completely incidental to the purpose of the raid.

No, what he said apparently went right over your head....a big WHOOSH for you.

No, not a WHOOSH, he implies that the Norfed seizure was focused on the Ron Paul coins. For the love of God Steve, the remainder of the article is about how bad it was to seize commemorative coins.

Needless to say, this action of the Feds has energized many Paul supporters and brought more people into his camp.

Cite?

Try google.

Try actually giving a cite yourself and quit being lazy. That is your response to just about every question for a cite. We'll ask, "support that statement". Your response is always some variant of "look it up yourself, its not my job to educate you". Pathetic.

Despite my scenario above, I doubt the seizing of the coins was instigated by a Ron Paul supporter in the government;

Despite his strongly implying it was.

Hmmm, seems to me he totally denied being involved or even having knowledge it was going to happen....please back up that allegation.

Which is what makes this article absurd. He starts off by saying, "let's imagine..." then in the middle of his false story about seizing Ron Paul coins, he says, "Ok, this isn't what happened, but it could have and then this article would be relevant".


more likely, it was taken by overzealous federal agents who neither had the wit to understand the political significance of what they were doing nor a full appreciation of the importance of civil liberties.

Does he know so little about the raid that he doesn't know they had a warrant supported by evidence gained through an extensive undercover operation?

The evidence is what he's complaining about goofy, in his opinion its not illegal to create medallions and barter with them or use them to promote a candidate. The evidence is based on a bogus use of the law.

But there wasn't a bogus use of the law in this case. The Feds might not be correct, (I think they are) but its still a reasonable belief on their part giving the promulgation of the coins by Norfed. In any event, everything they've done has been above board and with a courts blessing. Hardly overzealous feds. The investigation was thorough and proper. The seizure complied with all the laws on the books. But this goofball doesn't take the time to even read the court documents before writing an op-ed piece on the subject.


It should strike all Americans, regardless of political ideology, that seizing objects that bear the likeness of a candidate and are clearly designed to promote that candidate, regardless of what they are made of, is an assault on our basic freedoms and our electoral process.

Had he read the supporting documents for the warrant, he might realize that the Paul dollars were clearly designed to separate marks from their FRNs.

Huh?

uh, just what the sentence means - Nuthouse was attempting to extort people and intentionally violate the law.

Can you imagine the outrage from the mainstream press if the Feds had seized metal campaign buttons produced by a supporter of Hillary Clinton with her likeness on it?

I am always astonished at what does and does not outrage the mainstream press.

The company whose "Ron Paul Dollars" and other private coins were seized by the Feds is "Liberty Services." According to both the Paul campaign and Liberty Services, the company's actions were not part of, affiliated with or authorized by the campaign.

So why does this clown think the raid was about Paul?

He doesn't. They made it about Ron Paul unintentionally, hence the "political implications" statement.

Bullshit Steve and you know it. Quit trying to justify this piece, you know its claiming that the raid was about Ron Paul.

The FBI claims it is investigating the company for "making or possessing likeness of coins," mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy. Yet, as of this writing, the company had not been charged with or indicted for any crime, let alone convicted.

As I noted above, "convict first, investigate later" is a strange position for a libertarian.

Actually this is correct factually, but somehow, this idiot thinks that's illegal or ethically abhorrent.

To understand the very slippery slope the government is now on, it is important to understand what is legal and what is illegal. The U.S. Code states, "Whoever ... attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned."

Private mints and organizations can legally produce various types of commemorative coins (which the U.S. Mint insists they call medallions) from any metal, including gold, as long as they do not claim they are "money" and as long as they clearly do not appear to be counterfeits of some U.S. or foreign government coins.

Yes, that's legal, but it's not what Liberty Services was doing.

Its very similar, its just bartering. The coins and notes never being represented as legal tender, government approved or anything like that. Purely a private medallion used to trade for services and or goods which is perfectly legal.

Well, now we're branching off into norfed and whether that's legal. That's not the point of this thread. The point is that he's pulling stuff out of his ass that has nothing to do with facts in the case. Again, he's assuming the entire raid was concerning the Ron Paul coins. And I don't think they were merely commemorative either. Nuthouse intended that is being used as specie not for fun.

Any citizen may possess, buy and sell as many gold, silver or other metal coins (medallions) produced by governments and private mints as he chooses. However, he may not pass off any of them as "money," except the "legal tender" coins minted by the government, such as the U.S. "quarter."

And Liberty Services was attempting to pass theirs off as money.

They never tried to pass theirs off as government money or money approved by the government....show where NorFed ever did this.

Norfed was doing this and the detailed court documents show exactly how they were doing it. They specifically intended that it be used as money and they designed them to look like US coins. Again, simply reading the court documents would have saved this clown from looking like an idiot. (like LPC intimated he's likely oblivious to it)

Now, you might be thinking if you can sell the coins in your coin collection for money, whether or not they are U.S. legal tender, what is the difference?

No, not if I read the preceding paragraph. He just explained the difference. Selling funny coins is legal;spending them is not.

This nonsense only gets worse.

What nonsense? He hasn't discussed any nonsense yet.

Actually he's right, the nonsense only gets worse. Unfortunately, its the nonsense he's dreamed up and put into this poorly written work of fiction.

The U.S. government mints and sells "American Eagle" gold coins which are "legal tender" even though they sell for about 20 times their face amount these days. You can also buy and sell gold coins produced by foreign governments or private mints (commemorative medallions), with same amount of gold in them as the U.S. government coins, for about the same price as the U.S. legal tender coins (the amount of gold largely determines the price, except for rare coins that have an additional numismatic value).

So he thinks its nonsensical that the US and other governments mint and sell gold coins.

Apparently. Not even Steve can defend this one.

In addition to the legal tender laws, a major reason precious metal coins or "medallions" are not commonly used in normal transactions is that you are supposed to pay a capital gains tax on any difference between your purchase and sale price, though the gain may be due solely to (Fed-caused) inflation.

He seems to forget what he wrote as soon as he writes it. The major reason precious metal coins are not commonly used in normal tranactions is "they sell for about 20 times their face amount these days." No one in his right mind buys a loaf of bread with a $1 coin containg $20 worth of metal.

Yet you are not allowed to deduct the loss of value due to inflation of your government-issued "quarter" or other legal tender from your taxes.

Finally, though some in the FBI appear to have forgotten, anyone can legally produce and give away or sell materials in support of any candidate as long as those actions are independent of the candidate's campaign.

Cool. I'll tattoo campaign materials on some healthy young people and sell them in support of my candidates campaign.

Many great economic scholars, such as F.A. Hayek, have written on the desirability of denationalizating currencies in protecting the value of money, and civil libertarians both right and left have correctly criticized many IRS actions and those of other federal law enforcement agencies.

Huh? Where did that come from? How did the IRS get involved in this?

Their all part of the grand conspiracy that he is implying is there or is he? I get confused with his hypotheticals and what is saying really is taking place.

While other candidates have differences with some of Ron Paul's positions, as I do, they should not continue to ignore the problems of sound money and IRS and FBI abuse. If they fail to come up with their own solutions, they are likely to see his support continue to rise.

Another paragraph from out of left field.

Is there an award for the worst op-ed piece? Maybe the opposite of a Pulitzer?

Richard W. Rahn is the chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

[The Observer]

I am surprised SteveSy posted the article, as he usually has a conniption fit when others use semi-absurd straw-men arguements. Must be mellowing with age, allowing his mind to open up.........

Well, it hasn't improved his bouquet...

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

Next he goes on to tie the raids of the Liberty Dollar offices directly to the candidate Ron Paul. As if Ron Paul was the reason for the raid not the actual crimes of fraud and money laundering:

Hmmm I didn't get that out of the article. I think what he was saying is that a Ron Paul supporter couldn't have done a better job of proving Ron Paul's the right man for the job.

By accusing the FBI of political motives?

I don't think he believes Ron Paul's likeness on the coin was the reason, the reason was an over zealous FBI not thinking of the political implications of shutting down a private organization making medallions, that were never represented as legal tender,

Please read the claims on their website. They are calling it real money and representing it as that.
http://www.norfed.org/

Luckily, now there is a simple and profitable solution to the coming inflation - good old-fashioned, REAL money as the Founders intended. Look at these charts by the US government.

[Quixote]

Assume you, a Justice Department official, are a secret supporter of Texas Rep. Ron Paul for president and want to help your candidate. You know Mr. Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI, and wants money to be backed by gold, silver and/or other precious metals. You also know his critics claim he is paranoid about the federal government abusing its powers.

That's news to me. Paul has been described as crazy, but I've never heard anyone say he is paranoid about the federal government abusing its powers.

Boy you really know nothing about his supporters do you or his critics.

I'd say that you're right on this one Steve, Ron Paul is paranoid about the federal government abusing its powers. I hear his supporters saying that all the time.

I stand corrected. (Moderators, please don't ban me for violating the sacred Quatloos oath to never admit an error.)

[SteveSy]

To do so you could have the FBI raid the offices of a Paul supporter who is making and selling "Ron Paul Dollars" made of copper, silver, gold and platinum, and seize all the coins. Bizarre as it sounds, that is exactly what agents of the FBI did last week.

While not quite a lie, that paragraph creates two false impressions. First, that the FBI raid was ordered by a rogue Paul supporter and secondly, that the siezure [sic] of the Paul coins were something other than completely incidental to the purpose of the raid.

No, what he said apparently went right over your head....a big WHOOSH for you.

No, not a WHOOSH, he implies that the Norfed seizure was focused on the Ron Paul coins. For the love of God Steve, the remainder of the article is about how bad it was to seize commemorative coins.

No the WHOOSH which seems to apply to you also is the person writing the article is simply saying what the Feds did accomplished exactly what a supporter would have wanted to accomplish. That is, show the government is being over zealous and taking away basic liberties and freedoms.

more likely, it was taken by overzealous federal agents who neither had the wit to understand the political significance of what they were doing nor a full appreciation of the importance of civil liberties.

Does he know so little about the raid that he doesn't know they had a warrant supported by evidence gained through an extensive undercover operation?

The evidence is what he's complaining about goofy, in his opinion its not illegal to create medallions and barter with them or use them to promote a candidate. The evidence is based on a bogus use of the law.

But there wasn't a bogus use of the law in this case. The Feds might not be correct, (I think they are) but its still a reasonable belief on their part giving the promulgation of the coins by Norfed. In any event, everything they've done has been above board and with a courts blessing. Hardly overzealous feds. The investigation was thorough and proper. The seizure complied with all the laws on the books. But this goofball doesn't take the time to even read the court documents before writing an op-ed piece on the subject.

It's an opinion piece, it's HIS opinion the use of the law is bogus. He can claim whatever he wants is bogus and then offer more of his opinion based on that. That's what he's doing.

It should strike all Americans, regardless of political ideology, that seizing objects that bear the likeness of a candidate and are clearly designed to promote that candidate, regardless of what they are made of, is an assault on our basic freedoms and our electoral process.

Had he read the supporting documents for the warrant, he might realize that the Paul dollars were clearly designed to separate marks from their FRNs.

Huh?

uh, just what the sentence means - Nuthouse was attempting to extort people and intentionally violate the law.

Jesus....Do you even know what "extort" means? Show where anyone was extorted. More importantly show where the Feds charged his with extortion, which they surely would have if they even remotely thought he could be charged on that. You state it as fact. Why do you resort to making suck baseless allegations? Why do you and others in your camp resort to this type of behavior because your opinion differs?

The company whose "Ron Paul Dollars" and other private coins were seized by the Feds is "Liberty Services." According to both the Paul campaign and Liberty Services, the company's actions were not part of, affiliated with or authorized by the campaign.

So why does this clown think the raid was about Paul?

He doesn't. They made it about Ron Paul unintentionally, hence the "political implications" statement.

Bullshit Steve and you know it. Quit trying to justify this piece, you know its claiming that the raid was about Ron Paul.

Not its not, at least not in the way you're trying to portray it. The point of the article is to say the government is going overboard, they have only shown that Ron Paul and his supporters are not paranoid, this is a perfect example. Ironically it just so happens that the liberty dollars had Ron Paul's likeness on them, giving Ron Paul's supporters even more ammo.

It was a politically bad move by the FBI. That's all it was meant to say in short. Besides even if he was trying to say that, which I do not think he was, he can have that opinion. To claim it wasn't would only be your opinion, you have nothing whatsoever to prove it wasn't.

You and the others on here have blown it completely out of proportion making yourselves look rather silly IMO.

[SteveSy]

Next he goes on to tie the raids of the Liberty Dollar offices directly to the candidate Ron Paul. As if Ron Paul was the reason for the raid not the actual crimes of fraud and money laundering:

Hmmm I didn't get that out of the article. I think what he was saying is that a Ron Paul supporter couldn't have done a better job of proving Ron Paul's the right man for the job.

By accusing the FBI of political motives?

No man, come on...it's not rocket science.

They made a move WITHOUT thinking of the political consequences. It was not intentional by the FBI nor is the writer implying it was intentional political move, rather stupid timing and a thoughtless act. It gave Ron Paul's supporters ammo, lots of it.

I don't think he believes Ron Paul's likeness on the coin was the reason, the reason was an over zealous FBI not thinking of the political implications of shutting down a private organization making medallions, that were never represented as legal tender,

Please read the claims on their website. They are calling it real money and representing it as that.
http://www.norfed.org/

Luckily, now there is a simple and profitable solution to the coming inflation - good old-fashioned, REAL money as the Founders intended. Look at these charts by the US government.

You can make money, you just can't make money and promote it as legal tender money, money approved by the Federal government. Companies make money all the time as do the States in commemorative "coins" and notes. Nothing prevents someone from also using them for barter.

Your interpretation of the law would make checks illegal. Yes checks are a representation of what you have in the account but it isn't a 1 to 1 exchange. To have that account most of the time you have to pay fees and if you write a check with overdraft protection you may have to pay up to $35 per check regardless if it's for $2.00 or $500.00. The bank can also honor or not honor the check, its completely up to them. I honestly see no difference. The government hasn't authorized banks to make money either.

[Nikki]

They made a move WITHOUT thinking of the political consequences.

Ignoring the philosophy of the recently-departed Attorney General, isn't that what DoJ and the FBI are SUPPOSED to do?

I have checked the USC and the enabling documents for DoJ and the FBI thoroughly and I failed to find anything saying they're supposed to analyze political implications and repercussions when enforcing the law.

Did I miss something?

[SteveSy]

They made a move WITHOUT thinking of the political consequences.

Ignoring the philosophy of the recently-departed Attorney General, isn't that what DoJ and the FBI are SUPPOSED to do?

LOL ya, but then I don't see the FBI going on a very public but questionable raid using the patriot act if people were complaining about the FBI abusing the patriot act in a national election, one of the candidates being a republican president trying to get re-elected. If you think the FBI has not or is not ever used politically I think you're more than naive.

btw, I'm not implying the patriot act was used in this case, it was just an example.

I have checked the USC and the enabling documents for DoJ and the FBI thoroughly and I failed to find anything saying they're supposed to analyze political implications and repercussions when enforcing the law.

Did I miss something?

No one said they are required to, are you building a strawman?

[LPC]

That is, show the government is being over zealous and taking away basic liberties and freedoms.

Minting coins as money is a "basic liberty or freedom"?

It was a politically bad move by the FBI.

Letting a group of Ron Paul supporters thumb their noses at federal law would have been a worse move.

You and the others on here have blown it completely out of proportion making yourselves look rather silly IMO.

You're the one obsessed with the article. You posted it, and you're defending it.

[Famspear]

Nikki wrote:

I have checked the USC and the enabling documents for DoJ and the FBI thoroughly and I failed to find anything saying they're supposed to analyze political implications and repercussions when enforcing the law.

SteveSy responded:

No one said they are required to, are you building a strawman?

No, Steve, Nikki is reacting to the comment in the article by Richard W. Rahn, which you yourself posted:

Despite my scenario above, I doubt the seizing of the coins was instigated by a Ron Paul supporter in the government; more likely, it was taken by overzealous federal agents who neither had the wit to understand the political significance of what they were doing nor a full appreciation of the importance of civil liberties

As usual, Steve, you are not comprehending what you yourself posted. Whether Rahn is actually implying it or not, a reasonable reader could infer that Rahn is implying that the federal agents should have had the “wit to understand the political significance of what they were doing” and, by logical extension, that federal agents should consider the political significance -- instead of simply enforcing the law regardless of the politics.