It comes from the dead... CORN FLAKE FRIDAY!

When I was still waffling about staying or going re: the Libertarian Party, I did a series of posts here under the header, "CORN FLAKE FRIDAY!" in an attempt to educate and/or shame then-fellow Libertarians into rethinking just how far they were willing to go, and who they were willing to support, to get a toehold in the greater political world.

To recap: a Corn Flake is a person who embarrasses the Libertarian movement, or associated political movements, by doing something egregiously stupid in public. (Blog posts and the like don't count- it has to be in "meatspace".)

And this week we have someone who qualifies, even though I have not only lost all interest in trying to reform the Libertarian Party, but have gone pretty firmly into opposition on most libertarian economic policies. I just had to bring Corn Flake Friday out of retirement for this:

The Massachusetts man charged this week with stockpiling weapons after saying he feared an imminent "Armageddon" appears to have been active in the Tea Party movement, and saw Sarah Palin, who he said is on a "righteous 'Mission from God,'" as the only figure capable of averting the destruction of society.

As we reported yesterday, Gregory Girard, a Manchester technology consultant, was found with a stash of military grade weapons, explosive devices including tear gas and pepper ball canisters, camouflage clothing, knives, handcuffs, bulletproof vests and helmets, and night vision goggles, say police. They believe Girard, who pleaded not guilty at his arraignment, was "preparing for domestic and political turmoil," and feared martial law would soon be imposed.

. . .

Girard's apparent apocalyptic anxiety about a coming effort by federal thugs to crack down on personal liberties surfaced frequently on his Tea Party page. His writings may shed light on the mindset that allegedly led him to assemble his arsenal.

For instance, just last week, after another Tea Partier wrote a post railing against gun registries, Girard responded by invoking a potential "murderous rampage" by "state and Federal gangsta's (sic)," trying to take his weapons.

Federal efforts to take away guns during emergencies were outlowed (sic) after the Katrina incident. And at all times, the Constitution would prohibit such a thing. So, one can know that any such effort is against the Constitution and against specific laws regarding states of emergency, and thus the effort, if it involved breaking into your home, would be no different than any felonious breaking and entry by one or more armed assailants. The Castle law in one's state, or simply the common law of the right to self defense, would ensure that close range discharge of double-ought buck from a 12 ga at the assailant's face (from behind cover!), would be a perfectly legal defense in response to an attack of armed assailants tearing the door from your home and threatening with deadly force, in the form of loaded rifles pointed in your direction. The hard part is not preventing the confiscation, but surviving the murderous rampage of the state and Federal gangsta's (sic) that would almost certainly be very enthusiastic about gunning the defending homeowner down.

. . .

In Girard's view, only one person can save us: Sarah Palin. Later in the lengthy post, he wrote:

I believe that the ONLY ----- ONLY ------ potential presidental (sic) candidate I have seen with the sheer force of will and God-insprined (sic) rightous (sic) determination to bringdown (sic) this "War Powers" evil is Sarah Palin.

So, let's see- a gun rights nut building his own arsenal, expressing enthusiastic anticipation of the opportunity to gun down Federal agents if they try to arrest him or take his guns, a teabagger and worshipper of Sarah Palin, turned in to authorities by his wife after this:

Girard's wife said her husband had recently told her: "Don't talk to people, shoot them instead," and "it's fine to shoot people in the head because traitors deserve it."

And yes, folks I knew quite a few Libertarians who talked- and presumably still do- EXACTLY like this.

This guy is the poster child for weapons bans. This guy is exactly the sort of thing those of us who support the Second Amendment and the right to use deadly force in self-defense do NOT need.

For being so eager to kill law enforcement and other government officials in Armageddeon that his own wife turned him in:

Gregory Girard, this week's Corn Flake!

Conspiracy Theorists Hate Hillary Clinton

I'm all for things that make Hillary Clinton look bad... provided that they're factual and relevant.

This Nation article by Barbara Ehrenreich is almost certainly not relevant, and I'm doubtful that it's factual.

The Family's most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes--knitting together international networks of right-wing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian. In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolf Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs.

. . .

Clinton fell in with The Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the Senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's "most elite cell," the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, The Family's publicity-averse leader, that he is "a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."

And these are the relevant quotes.

Most- hell, pretty much all of Ehrenreich's information comes from a single source- writer Jeffrey Sharlet, who "went undercover" into The Family for a Harper's Magazine article in 2003. The result reads like a conspiracy theorist's wet dream: a group of far-right fundamentalist Christians attempting to bring about theocracy first at home, then globally.

Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as “the Family.” The Family is, in its own words, an “invisible” association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as “members,” as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.

. . .

In the process of introducing powerful men to Jesus, the Family has managed to effect a number of behind-the-scenes acts of diplomacy. In 1978 it secretly helped the Carter Administration organize a worldwide call to prayer with Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and more recently, in 2001, it brought together the warring leaders of Congo and Rwanda for a clandestine meeting, leading to the two sides' eventual peace accord last July. Such benign acts appear to be the exception to the rule. During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand “Communists” killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise. “We work with power where we can,” the Family's leader, Doug Coe, says, “build new power where we can't.”

. . .

“A covenant,” Doug answered. The congressman half-smiled, as if caught between confessing his ignorance and pretending he knew what Doug was talking about. “Like the Mafia,” Doug clarified. “Look at the strength of their bonds.” He made a fist and held it before Tiahrt's face. Tiahrt nodded, squinting. “See, for them it's honor,” Doug said. “For us, it's Jesus.”

Coe listed other men who had changed the world through the strength of the covenants they had forged with their “brothers”: “Look at Hitler,” he said. “Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, Bin Laden.” The Family, of course, possessed a weapon those leaders lacked: the “total Jesus” of a brotherhood in Christ.

“That's what you get with a covenant,” said Coe. “Jesus plus nothing.”

. . .

The regimen was so precise it was relaxing: no swearing, no drinking, no sex, no self. Watch out for magazines and don't waste time on newspapers and never watch TV. Eat meat, study the Gospels, play basketball: God loves a man who can sink a three-pointer. Pray to be broken. O Heavenly Father. Dear Jesus. Help me be humble. Let me do Your will. Every morning began with a prayer, some days with outsiders—Wednesdays led by a former Ivanwald brother, now a businessman; Thursdays led by another executive who used tales of high finance to illuminate our lessons from scripture, which he supplemented with xeroxed midrash from Fortune or Fast Company; Fridays with the women of Potomac Point. But most days it was just us boys, bleary-eyed, gulping coffee and sugared cereal as Bengt and Jeff Connolly, Bengt's childhood friend and our other house leader, laid out lines of Holy Word across the table like strategy.

. . .

We prayed to be “nothing.” We were there to “soften our hearts to authority.” We instituted a rule that every man must wipe the toilet bowl after he pisses, not for cleanliness but to crush his “inner rebel.”

. . .

“Remember that story Cal Thomas told?” he asked. Thomas, a syndicated columnist, had recently stopped by Ivanwald for a mixer with young congressional staffers. He had regaled his audience with stories about tweaking his liberal colleagues, in particular about when he had addressed a conference of nonbelievers by asking if anyone knew where to buy a good “negro.” Jeff C. thought it was hilarious but also profound. What Thomas had meant, he told me, was that absent the teachings of Jesus there was no reason for the strong not to enslave the weak.

. . .

Two weeks into my stay, David Coe, Doug's son and the presumptive heir to leadership of the Family, dropped by the house. My brothers and I assembled in the living room, where David had draped his tall frame over a burgundy leather recliner like a frat boy, one leg hanging over a padded arm.

“You guys,” David said, “are here to learn how to rule the world.”

. . .

He walked to the National Geographic map of the world mounted on the wall. “You guys know about Genghis Khan?” he asked. “Genghis was a man with a vision. He conquered”—David stood on the couch under the map, tracing, with his hand, half the northern hemisphere—“nearly everything. He devastated nearly everything. His enemies? He beheaded them.” David swiped a finger across his throat. “Dop, dop, dop, dop.”

David explained that when Genghis entered a defeated city he would call in the local headman and have him stuffed into a crate. Over the crate would be spread a tablecloth, and on the tablecloth would be spread a wonderful meal. “And then, while the man suffocated, Genghis ate, and he didn't even hear the man's screams.” David still stood on the couch, a finger in the air. “Do you know what that means?” He was thinking of Christ's parable of the wineskins. “You can't pour new into old,” David said, returning to his chair. “We elect our leaders. Jesus elects his.”

He reached over and squeezed the arm of a brother. “Isn't that great?” David said. “That's the way everything in life happens. If you're a person known to be around Jesus, you can go and do anything. And that's who you guys are. When you leave here, you're not only going to know the value of Jesus, you're going to know the people who rule the world. It's about vision. 'Get your vision straight, then relate.' Talk to the people who rule the world, and help them obey. Obey Him. If I obey Him myself, I help others do the same. You know why? Because I become a warning. We become a warning. We warn everybody that the future king is coming. Not just of this country or that, but of the world.” Then he pointed at the map, toward the Khan's vast, reclaimable empire.

. . .

Another document—“Regional Reports, January 3, 2002”—lists some of the nations where Youth Corps programs are already in operation: Russia, Ukraine, Romania, India, Pakistan, Uganda, Nepal, Bhutan, Ecuador, Honduras, Peru. Youth Corps is, in many respects, a more aggressive version of Young Life, a better-known network of Christian youth groups that entice teenagers with parties and sports, and only later work Jesus into the equation. Most of my American brothers at Ivanwald had been among Young Life's elite, and many had returned to Young Life during their college summers to work as counselors. Youth Corps, whose programs are often centered around Ivanwald-style houses, prepares the best of its recruits for positions of power in business and government abroad. The goal: “Two hundred national and international world leaders bound together relationally by a mutual love for God and the family.”

. . .

The Family was founded in April 1935 by Abraham Vereide, a Norwegian immigrant who made his living as a traveling preacher. One night, while lying in bed fretting about socialists, Wobblies, and a Swedish Communist who, he was sure, planned to bring Seattle under the control of Moscow, Vereide received a visitation: a voice, and a light in the dark, bright and blinding. The next day he met a friend, a wealthy businessman and former major, and the two men agreed upon a spiritual plan. They enlisted nineteen business executives in a weekly breakfast meeting and together they prayed, convinced that Jesus alone could redeem Seattle and crush the radical unions.

. . .

Vereide met with Jewish survivors and listened to their stories, but he nevertheless considered ex-Nazis well suited for the demands of “strong” government, so long as they were willing to worship Christ as they had Hitler.

. . .

“He's the question,” Bengt retorted, half-smiling, satisfied with his inversion by which doubt became the essence of a dogma. God was just what Bengt desired Him to be, even as Bengt was, in the face of God, “nothing.” Not for aesthetics alone, I realized, did Bengt and the Family reject the label “Christian.” Their faith and their practice seemed closer to a perverted sort of Buddhism, their God outside “the truth,” their Christ everywhere and nowhere at once, His commands phrased as questions, His will as simple to divine as one's own desires. And what the Family desired, from Abraham Vereide to Doug Coe to Bengt, was power, worldly power, with which Christ's kingdom can be built, cell by cell.

And those are the more sensible and relevant quotes from the article.

When you actually read both articles, you come up with only the following facts:

Fact: The annual National Prayer Breakfast is run by a right-wing organization with its roots in anti-socialist reactionaries during the Great Depression.

Fact: This organization proselytizes aggressively for Christ in a non-denominational fashion.

Fact: The organization believes in a doctrine that calls for obedience to authority.

Fact: A number of high-ranking officials from various nations attend their events, including the annual National Prayer Breakfast and weekly group prayer meetings.

Fact: These is no actual evidence these individuals are involved with this group in any way other than to participate in these prayer meetings.

Fact: The organization has reached out to groups and individuals who normally would not be acceptable to Christian organizations. You know- like Christ did. Remember, St. Matthew was a tax collector?

Fact: For all the spooky "inside dirt" Sharlet deals out- and he's got a whole book coming out this summer- there is no proof of any conspiracy to conquer the nation and alter its laws to make all Americans worship Christ. The closest it comes to conspiracy is an attempt to ensure that world leaders follow Christ's teachings.

And finally, Fact: we only have one reporter's word for all of this.

For my money, rather than a conspiracy to rule the world, the Family is really a small organization with a donor base of wealthy individuals who politicians have used for their own ends for the past sixty years- everything from gaining campaign donations to providing cheap temporary housing for Congresspersons when Congress is in session.

There's nothing here that shows that Hillary Clinton is trying to create a theocracy, or even that she is an active member of the Family- except for one man's reporting filtered through another woman's pen.

And, unfortunately, that woman is an Obama supporter, so there's every reason to accuse her of bias in this article- not just accuse her, but accuse all of us who support Obama.

Friends and neighbors, conspiracy theorists are not solely a phenomenon of the far right. The left is capable of them too- as these two articles demonstrate.

And in honor of having demonstrated this so well, and even though it's a day late, and even though neither person involved is a Libertarian... Barbara Ehrenreich and Jeff Sharlet, this week's Corn Flakes!

CORN FLAKE FRIDAY: Bernard von NotHaus

Yesterday morning I found an email forwarded to me from Bernard von NotHaus, founder of the Liberty Dollar movement. On Wednesday, November 14, at about 8 AM local time, FBI and Secret Service agents raided the Liberty Dollar offices in Evansville, Indiana.

According to von NotHaus:

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

. . .

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

At first glance, it sounds like the evil totalitarian government squashing freedom, doesn't it?

Well, no.

The Liberty Dollar scheme debuted in 1998, when Bernard von NotHaus proposed a new privately-run currency based on silver and gold to compete directly with the official government-issued currency of the United States. His sales pitch took advantage of two interconnected movements within the Libertarian Party: belief that the Federal Reserve Bank is part of a conspiracy to rule the US/world, and belief that fiat money is fraud and should be replaced by a commodity-based currency, preferably the gold standard.

Originally NotHaus marketed the Liberty Dollar as part of a movement to overthrow the Federal Reserve, NORFED- National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act (and the Internal Revenue Code). The organization's name was changed at the end of last year to, in the words of NotHaus, "Since its founding by Bernard von NotHaus, the Liberty Dollar has consistently gathered momentum by becoming more main stream. Along the way, the Masthead was changed from NORFED to The Liberty Dollar when the emphasis was placed on the product (Liberty Dollar) and instead of the company (NORFED). Finally, when it became obvious that the political baggage of NORFED was a hindrance to the Liberty Dollar becoming the everyday currency of choice for millions of Americans, NORFED was dissolved and this site was created as the historic site."

To quote the website:

Remember when gas was only 25-cents a gallon? You could take a dollar down to the gas station and buy four gallons for a buck! At that time our dollar was backed by REAL money, real silver. Guess what? That same amount of silver still buys four gallons of gas! That just shows that real money like gold and silver holds its value and it is the green paper money that is now worth a lot less. As a matter of fact, when you think about it, you realize that gas, food, and almost everything else has NOT gotten more expensive. It only seems that way because the value of the green paper money is worth less and less and so it takes more and more of it to buy the same goods and services. Most people think prices have gone up, but in reality: it is the value of the US dollar that has actually gone down. 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.

. . .

Now you can profit from the coming inflation with the inflation proof REAL money - the 100% gold and silver Liberty Dollar.

. . .

Paper money backed only be government debt is bad for everyone! That's why I created the Liberty Dollar.

The Liberty Dollar is the second-most popular and the fastest-growing currency in America! It's backed by gold and silver instead of being backed by national debt like our familiar Federal Reserve Notes. When you hold the Liberty Dollar, you own silver. When you give this REAL money to someone as payment, they now own silver. Pretty neat, huh?

On the other hand, when you hold a Federal Reserve Note, you own debt that you will eventually have to repay. When you give a Federal Reserve Note to someone as payment, they now have debt. Ouch!

. . .

That analogy is the Liberty Dollar. Liberty Dollars are backed by silver. You can use the front, like cash - or the back, for silver. Silver is a valuable commodity whose price has been going up! Silver is used in photography, jewelry, electronics, and industrial production. You may not use silver yourself, but there's a worldwide market for it! Simply by choosing a more valuable money, REAL money, you can profit!

. . .

Just as FedEx brought competition to the Post Office and it became incredibly successful, the Liberty Dollar emulates the same model by bringing competition to our country's monetary system. Now you can become incredibly successful too.

The Liberty Dollar brings free enterprise to the creation of money. Doesn't it just make sense that when the underlying commodity increases in value the purchasing power of the currency should increase in value? Well that is exactly what happened on Thanksgiving Day 2005 - the Liberty Dollar Moved Up from the $10 Silver Base to the new $20 Silver base and all Liberty Dollars DOUBLED in value. Just imagine, while your US Dollars are losing purchasing power, the Liberty Dollar is rewarding those who have started using the new gold and silver based currency by keeping pace with inflation, caused by the decline of the US Dollar.

The important "unit of accounting" of the Liberty Dollar is exactly the same as the US dollar so it functions dollar-for-dollar with the current Federal Reserve Note (US dollar) and makes it very easy for merchants and customers to use it.

Local merchants find the Liberty Dollar particularly beneficial, as REAL MONEY is profitable, circulates freely, builds traffic, grows their business, and increases customer loyalty.

The Liberty Dollar was specifically designed circulate in the community for the advantage of the local economy and stay in the community, so REAL money may not be deposited into a bank. Because it cannot be whisked away, the Liberty Dollar will remain in your community - and circulate for the good of both the merchants and consumers.

. . .

In the process, of course, the Liberty Dollar would drive the Federal Reserve out of business- never mind the simple fact that this logic flies in the face of Gresham's Law, which states that bad money drives out good from circulation in a legal-tender system.

In any case, let's go back and counter some of these claims...

Remember when gas was only 25-cents a gallon? You could take a dollar down to the gas station and buy four gallons for a buck! At that time our dollar was backed by REAL money, real silver. Guess what? That same amount of silver still buys four gallons of gas!

Well, no, actually I don't remember 25-cent gas. I was born after the 1973 oil crunch. The cheapest gas I can remember was back around 2000, when it was down to about 85 cents per gallon for a brief period. I can, however, look up gas prices historically- along with the price of silver over the years.

The California Energy Commission has a chart of gasoline prices in that state since 1970. In 1970 the price listed at the pump, on average, was about 34 cents- close enough to a quarter, when you allow that everything's more expensive in California. In the same year the average market price for one ounce of silver was $1.64. In 1970 an ounce of silver would buy four and a half gallons of gas.

In 1980 the price of gas in California was about $1.23 per gallon- one year short of its 1981 peak. At the same time the Hunt brothers were cornering the world silver market, driving its price up to $15.65. At that moment in history, one ounce of silver would buy twelve gallons of gas.

In 1990 the price of gas in California was $1.09. At the same time silver cost $4.17 per ounce. In twenty years the buying power of silver, in terms of gasoline, had gone from four and a half gallons to twelve gallons to slightly less than four gallons. In 2000 (1.66/$4.60=2 3/4 gallons) and in 2005 (2.17/8.83=4) the ratio continued to fluctuate. Today, in November 2007, the average nationwide price of gas is about $3.15 per gallon, and the price of silver is $14.51- in other words, one ounce of silver today buys, by total coincidence, the same amount it did in 1970, after nearly forty years of wild fluctuation.

What do these numbers show? First, they show that silver, like any commodity, is volatile in value. It has no absolute value- because there is no such thing as an absolute value. Something is worth only as much as someone is willing to exchange for it, and sometimes people are willing to give more to get silver than at other times. Leaving aside the Hunt brothers, silver (and gold) tend to go up in value during economic declines and down in value during boom periods; investors use the precious metals as a hedge against inflation and deflation alike.

Second, the numbers show that different commodities gain or lose value at different rates. In 1980, while gas prices were going up, silver prices were skyrocketing due to market manipulation. IN 2000, the dot-com bubble economy was beginning to drive gas prices up from their all-time lows in 1998, while at the same time the same economy kept silver prices depressed. Nailing a currency to one commodity does not give it any absolute buying power; instead, it ties that currency to the fluctuations of the commodity, or else ties the commodity's price to the fluctuations of the currency.

Back to NORFED, now:

Paper money backed only be government debt is bad for everyone!

Well, first, that's an absurd statement. Our current currency is not backed by debt; it's backed by the ability of the United States to pay off that debt when it comes due. That means that the more the federal government borrows, the less the dollar is worth on the world market.

We can even use NORFED's own chart to demonstrate this:



If you'll notice, the first (and largest) drop in the value of the dollar coincides with World War 1. The second (and second largest) slide corresponds with World War II. The third major slide, from the mid-1960s through 1977, represents Vietnam and its aftermath. Only in the third case was American currency NOT backed by gold: the United States was on a fixed gold standard until 1971. It was massive borrowing, not just overprinting of currency, that caused the massive inflation of those periods.
Inflation outside these periods can primarily be attributed to banking: whenever money is loaned for a profit, a small amount of annual inflation is generated. If you'll look at the chart again, you'll notice that there are only three upward spikes: the post-war recession of 1919-1921, the Great Depression, the the Great Depression (temporarily overwhelmed, 1933-1937, by Roosevelt's borrowing binge), and the post-war malaise of 1946 (which ended when old New Deal and wartime price controls were removed). Deflation in the 20th Century walked hand in hand with bank collapse and economic crisis.

So it's not unbacked fiat money that causes the dollar to lose value; it's borrowing and loaning, and bankers taking their cut. The larger the cut, the greater the inflation... and bankers charge more to customers whose ability to pay is in doubt. The best way to control inflation would be to pay off the national debt- not to tie the currency being exchanged to some commodity.

(Oh, and by the way: a chart of gold and silver prices can be found in this Wikipedia article. The price of gold was fixed by Federal law to the dollar, as part of the gold standard, until 1971. During that period, when the dollar was in theory backed by gold, the dollar lost 80% of its value since 1913. Since then, gold has fluctuated from lows of about $200 per ounce to highs of $900 per ounce- more volatile even than silver. Never mind the fact that there's not one-tenth the amount of gold needed to back every dollar at current prices in the entire world- the gold standard, plain and simple, is no bulwark against inflation or market fluctuation.)

There's a larger point that von NotHaus misses: the Federal Reserve Note is NOT backed by debt, nor even (directly) by the United States' ability to pay its debts. The dollar's value is determined by what someone else is willing to exchange for it- just like any other commodity. Yes, the Federal Reserve Note, fiat money that it is, is also a commodity- it's a substance people buy and sell in the marketplace. So long as people have a use or desire for the dollar, it has value... just like silver, gold, oil, pork bellies, or any other commodity.

Onward:

Doesn't it just make sense that when the underlying commodity increases in value the purchasing power of the currency should increase in value? Well that is exactly what happened on Thanksgiving Day 2005 - the Liberty Dollar Moved Up from the $10 Silver Base to the new $20 Silver base and all Liberty Dollars DOUBLED in value. Just imagine, while your US Dollars are losing purchasing power, the Liberty Dollar is rewarding those who have started using the new gold and silver based currency by keeping pace with inflation, caused by the decline of the US Dollar.

Well, no, actually that does NOT make sense.

von NotHaus has used, as his prime selling point, that his Liberty Dollar does not suffer from inflation. However, at the same time he wants to offer the Liberty Dollar at par with the Federal Reserve Note- which more or less undermines his argument. In 2005 NORFED revalued its currency from a base of ten Liberty dollars per ounce of silver to twenty L-dollars per ounce. (Its gold certificates also doubled the face amount per ounce of gold.) Although an exchange from the old coinage to the new is available for a nominal fee, the fact remains that the abstract unit called the Liberty Dollar has lost half its value since its beginning in 1998- a track record no better, and by certain measures worse, than the United States dollar.

Onward again:

The Liberty Dollar was specifically designed circulate in the community for the advantage of the local economy and stay in the community, so REAL money may not be deposited into a bank. Because it cannot be whisked away, the Liberty Dollar will remain in your community - and circulate for the good of both the merchants and consumers.

So, if you want to use Liberty Dollars, you have to carry them around with you... you can't deposit them in a bank for safekeeping or to draw interest... you can't write checks or other bank drafts on them... and you can't use them for electronic purposes.

And this is an improvement over the United States dollar... how?

But let's back up a bit...

Just as FedEx brought competition to the Post Office and it became incredibly successful, the Liberty Dollar emulates the same model by bringing competition to our country's monetary system. Now you can become incredibly successful too.

We'll come back to the "incredibly successful" part in a bit; right now let's focus on "compete," which is the core reason why the Feds raided the Liberty Dollar offices.

Although NorFed gives examples from specific low-level representatives of the Secret Service and the U. S. Treasury Department that the Liberty Dollar is not counterfeiting (since it's not identical to US currency, nor does it say "legal tender" anywhere on it), the Department of Justice under Alberto Gonzales declared the Liberty Dollar illegal in September 2006. To quote the official government press release:

Under 18 U.S.C. § 486, it is a Federal crime to pass, or attempt to pass, any coins of gold or silver intended for use as current money except as authorized by law. According to the NORFED website, "Liberty merchants" are encouraged to accept NORFED "Liberty Dollar" medallions and offer them as change in sales transactions of merchandise or services.

NORFED tells "Liberty associates" that they can earn money by obtaining NORFED "Liberty Dollar" medallions at a discount and then can "spend [them] into circulation."

NORFED’s "Liberty Dollar" medallions are specifically marketed to be used as current money in order to limit reliance on, and to compete with the circulating coinage of the United States. Consequently, prosecutors with the United States Department of Justice have concluded that the use of NORFED’s "Liberty Dollar" medallions violates 18 U.S.C. § 486, and is a crime.

von NotHaus responded by suing the federal government.

For those curious, the exact text of United States Code of law, Title 18, Section 486, is:

Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or 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 (amended 1994 to cap fines at $3,000 per offense) or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

von NotHaus's response to this has been threefold: (1) the US Mint has no right or power to enforce law; (2) the Liberty Dollar does not advertise itself as legal tender, and therefore is not in violation of this law; and (3) the federal government is abusing its power to enforce its money monopoly.

First, if you go back and look at that press release, you'll notice that it doesn't say the Treasury or the Mint determined the Liberty Dollar is a crime: the exact quote is, "Prosecutors with the Department of Justice have determined that the use of these gold and silver NORFED "Liberty Dollar" medallions as circulating money is a Federal crime." So much for von NotHaus's first point.

As for the second point, the Liberty Dollar is advertised to be used in place of government-authorized currency, in an attempt to drive the Federal Reserve Note out of circulation entirely. Liberty Dollar owners are encouraged to use them to buy and sell goods and services- in short, as money. 18 U.S.C. § 486 does not contain the words "legal tender" anywhere in it; it is the act of circulating unauthorized coins as money that is the crime, and on that definition von NotHaus is guilty as hell.

As for the final point, the idea that government monopoly is evil appeals to the anarchist mindset... which tends to be wilfully blind of historical fact. In the 19th Century there were hundreds of private currencies- specifically, paper notes issued by banks, authorized but not backed by the state and federal governments of the time. The bank notes competed and fluctuated wildly in value according to the stability of the banks and other economic conditions... and when the banks failed, as they did quite often, the notes became worthless. Competing currencies brought not economic freedom, but economic chaos and destruction. The key to a stable economy is a single, uniform currency. The founders knew this, having had hard experience with competing (and often worthless) state-issued currencies. That's why the Constitution gives the federal government its monopoly on coining money: to protect the property of all American citizens.

And now, for the final, the most contemptible, the most damning aspect of the Liberty Dollar: it's a scam.

When NORFED first began, it set the value of its Liberty Dollar at $10 per ounce of silver and $500 per ounce of gold. At the time (1998) the price of silver was about $4.50 per ounce, and the price of gold about $280. Today the Liberty Dollar is valued at $20 per ounce of silver and $1,000 per ounce of gold... with today's market prices of $14.50 per ounce of silver and $787.00 per ounce of gold.

While von NotHaus decries the mint for making a massive profit on producing money, he's doing the exact same thing... stealing part of the supposed absolute buying value of silver and gold for his own benefit.

Well, now the pigeons are coming home to roost. Federal investigators have shut down the Liberty Dollar and confiscated all the company's assets. Arrest warrants are only a matter of time, and likely not much time at that. When the case comes, it will likely be airtight... and Bernard von NotHaus will spend a few years in the Federal penitentiary.

Tragically, thanks to his slick sales pitch, double-talking, and above all the basic distrust of government that defines libertarianism, he's taking a lot of people with him. Dozens of arrests around the country have been made for people using Liberty Dollars as they would US dollars. People are facing tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and fines- to say nothing of jail time- for purchases as small as $1. These people didn't seek to defraud anyone; they honestly believed that they were using money better than the government makes. They are innocent victims caught up in a scam designed to wring money out of gold-bugs, conspiracy theorists, and others who want less government power in our lives.

The same cannot be said of...

Bernard von NotHaus, for scamming hundreds of thousands of people, for creating funny money and for embarrassing all opponents of excessive government... this week's Corn Flake!

(Oh, and about those Ron Paul Dollars: I had no idea Paul was stupid enough to allow a counterfeiter and con man like von NotHaus to use his name and likeness to promote his scam. This could become another Presidential stumbling block, should Ron Paul openly defend von NotHaus when (not if) he's arrested and brought to trial...)

CORN FLAKE FRIDAY: Ed and Elaine Brown

I've been waiting on this one for MONTHS.

Back in January New Hampshire residents Ed and Elaine Brown were convicted of tax evasion for failing to pay any income taxes from 1996 to 2003- despite having an average of about $240,000 income per year during that period. Their argument? That no law exists requiring individuals to pay income tax. The Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified correctly; the law enacting the income tax was illegal; but mostly, there was no additional law requiring any person to actually pay the enacted income tax. Since the IRS refused to provide reference to the law requiring payment of income tax, the Browns claimed, they were not liable to pay it.

Well, last point first: the IRS has a 64-page document debunking all tax-protest claims in very clear terms here.

As for specific statutes:

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

1. Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
   
2. Gross income derived from business;
   
3. Gains derived from dealings in property;
   
4. Interest;
   
5. Rents;
   
6. Royalties;
   
7. Dividends;
   
8. Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
   
9. Annuities;
   
10. Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
    
11. Pensions;
    
12. Income from discharge of indebtedness;
    
13. Distributive share of partnership gross income;
    
14. Income in respect of a decedent; and
    
15. Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
    

--- U. S. Code of Law, Title 26, § 61

When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary [of the Treasury] any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations. [In other words, IRS regulations not enacted by Congress still have the force of law, and are binding on all persons.]

--- U. S. Code of Law, Title 26, § 6011(a)

If that's not good enough, Section 6012 (which you can read for yourself here) goes into detail on who must file and who is exempt. (Hint: the second category is much smaller than the first.)

As for the most basic argument, that Amendment XVI was never properly ratified... the Wikipedia article on the subject makes it pretty clear that errors of punctuation or capitalization are not sufficient cause to reject ratification by a state. And as for Ohio not really being a state (having been admitted to the Union improperly) and thus being ineligible to ratify... that ignores the fact that other states ratified Amendment XVI after Frank Knox declared the amendment in force a hundred years ago.

And the final, killer argument: if the courts did something they've NEVER done, despite literally HUNDREDS of prosecutions and lawsuits involving tax protesters, and overturned the federal income tax... exactly how long do you think it would take Congress and the states to MAKE the income tax legal?

Answer: not long at all, not when two-thirds of the national government's income comes from the income tax or associated payroll taxes.

So- that disposes of Ed and Elaine Brown's legal standing. When it became apparent that the case was going against them, Ed quit coming to the court hearings, and Elaine destroyed the ankle-cuff tracker that was a condition of her bail. When the verdict came out, they holed up in their home- a structure with surrounding property for which the term "compound" is quite accurate- and threatened to kill any and all law enforcement officers who would try to take them in. A loose siege began in early June, with two incidents where SWAT teams closed in on the compound, only to back off when their presence was reported to the public (and, thus, to the Browns).

If that wasn't daffy enough, they tried to file an order in the courts to dismiss the case- representing themselves as court and judge, and calling themselves "Edward, a Living Soul in the Body of the Lord, of the House of Israel," and "Elaine, a Living Soul in the Body of the Lord, of the House of Israel."

He went on to reject the county property tax bill sent to his home, claiming:

"Nay! Nay! The land . . . at 401 Center of Town Road, Plainfield, New Hampshire, and all that is in and upon it, including the Lords bodies, are in the kingdom of heaven, belonging to the Lord, have been claimed by him, and thus can be claimed by no man, nor can any man have beneficial interest in it . . . Stand down and away from the Lords land and the bodies of the Lord. So it is written. So it is done."

The Browns's defiance of federal and state tax laws drew a lot of supporters from Libertarian circles- most notably a blogger I've referred to here before, Michael Hampton. Some of these supporters backed off once they met Ed Brown or heard some of his *ahem* inspiring rhetoric:

"This is the beginning of one very huge movement. I'm not quite sure you understand the ramifications of what's going on right now. This is massive. This is international. We are fed up with the Zionist Illuminati. That's what this is all about. Loud and clear. Zionist Illuminati. Lawyers, whatever they are, okay, it's going to stop. And if the judge is a member of that, I know that McAuliffe [the Federal judge in Brown's tax case] is, I know that U.S. Attorney Colantuono is, they'd better stop. This is a warning. You can do whatever you want to me. My job is to get the message out, and I'm getting the message out, and I'm warning you guys - not you guys [referring to the radio show hosts], them - to cease and desist their unlawful activity in this country and every other country because once this thing starts, we're going to seek them out and hunt them down. And we're going to bring them to justice. So anybody wishes to join them, you go right ahead and join them. But I promise you, long after I'm gone, they're going to seek out every one of you and your bloodline."

. . .

If federal agents storm Brown's property, he and his supporters will come out shooting. Brown said yesterday [August 9th] that if those agents kill him or his wife, Elaine, his supporters will systematically find and kill Plainfield Police Chief Gordon Gillens, Sullivan County Sheriff Michael Prozzo and others Brown says are sworn to protect him.

Oh, yes. Show the high ground by threatening the lives of the families of law enforcement officers. Show your superior morality by promising vengeance against law enforcement officers who aren't even involved in the case.

To put the icing on the cake, Brown revealed he was an anti-Semite and a conspiracy theorist:

"We're not conspiracy theorists. We deal with conspiracy facts. Freemasonry and Judaism -- that is the truth. That is the fact. That is where all the world's problems come from . . . I know for a fact that they're working together."

This obvious insanity drove off some of Brown's supporters, but he personally ejected others who disagreed with him, including a leader of the Free State Project who opposes the income tax but also opposes violent revolution- a cause Brown advocates. This didn't concern Brown, who felt that (a) God was on his side, and (b) there were always new supporters to replace the old ones.

This revolving-door mentality was what allowed the United States Marshals to capture the Browns, a week ago yesterday, while I was on the road to South Padre Island, TX. on business. Over the course of weeks a marshal went undercover, posing as a supporter of the Browns, and gained access privileges to the Brown home. Finally conditions became right on October 4, and the marshal handcuffed the Browns in their own home and led them out into the waiting arms of the law they defied for over half a year.

Subsequent searches of the Brown compound proved Ed Brown's rhetoric of violence and bloodshed was no bluff. In addition to a large cache of firearms, investigators found a large number of homemade bombs and booby-traps laid around the perimeter. Manufacturing explosives without a license is a federal crime; laying lethal traps for humans is a state crime in New Hampshire. The Browns are highly unlikely to ever see the outside of a prison again for the rest of their lives, except when they are tried for these crimes.

So, what is the net result of the Brown siege? All the laws the Browns claimed don't exist still exist and remain in force. The anti-tax movement has had months with a certifiable lunatic as their most visible spokesperson, and in the process its leaders have said a great many things they can't retract in support of a violent revolutionary... a violent and well-off revolutionary. Despite the fact that Ed Brown was not a member of the Free State Project, he is perceived as such by the media and the residents of New Hampshire, discrediting that organization likely for good.

And prominent among the supporters of Ed Brown, of course, were vocal members of the Libertarian Party, which must also find some way to wash Brown's slime off a reputation already rather stained from involvement with other self-serving or insane tax protesters and conspiracy theorists.

Friends, there's a good case to be made for abolishing the income tax and replacing it with something less unjust. There might even be a case for not replacing it at all, although by and large I don't think that will sell with most of the country, who like having an army and navy, a public highway system, a federal court system to protect individuals from government overreach, etc.

Ed and Elaine Brown, for undermining those arguments and for encouraging the anti-tax movement to associate with nuts, and thereby LOOK like nuts themselves... this week's, possibly this YEAR'S, Corn Flakes!

CORN FLAKE FRIDAY: At Last, Ron Paul

For months now the Ron Paul campaign has been trying to dodge association with "9/11 Truth" conspiracy theorists.

Then, just last week, he said publicly that he suspected George W. Bush and his government of planning a fake terrorist attack as a pretext to raise support for the administration.

He said this, what's more, on a RADIO PROGRAM.

Granted, he was responding to a similar claim made by Cindy Sheehan. Granted, he didn't say- so far as I can tell- that Bush was behind the September 11th attacks. Granted, the US did indeed stage an attack in the Tonkin Gulf, allowing Lyndon B. Johnson to vastly expand the war in Vietnam. I will even grant that, thanks to the criminal actions of George W. Bush and the at least suspicious actions of his predecessor Bill Clinton, the accusation is all too believable.

But when you're trying to dodge claims that you're a conspiracy theory nut, backed by other conspiracy theory nuts, the one thing you DO NOT DO is make accusations of conspiracy!

Not only does this embarrass the Ron Paul campaign, but since about 70% of Libertarians favor Ron Paul as a Republican over any Libertarian candidate for President, it stands a very good chance of embarassing the rest of us, too.

For undoing what little good his campaign had accomplished and making ALL of us look like conspiracy theory nuts... Ron Paul, this week's Corn Flake!

Also: dishonorable mention to LP Presidential candidate Steve Kubby, who has announced his intention to withdraw his candidacy and recommend the LP nominate no Presidential candidate should Ron Paul win the Republican nod.

CORN FLAKE FRIDAY: Justis Richert

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

CORN FLAKE FRIDAY: Pat Dixon

Interestingly enough, it's been rather a slow week for Corn Flakes, especially when you consider why this week's winner has been named. Remember, though, a Corn Flake is a person who embarrasses either the Libertarian Party or the liberty movements the LP is associated with by their actions in public. Corn Flakes are usually extremists and anarchists with no grasp of reality or common-sense politics... but, as this example shows, sometimes a rational person can show Corn Flake potential.

Patrick Dixon, state chairman of the Libertarian Party in Texas, won election to the city council of Lago Vista, TX in 2005. The election was nonpartisan; he was not listed as a Libertarian, and he mentioned the party nowhere in any of his campaign materials. This year he was the only elected Libertarian in Texas seeking re-election... and he failed of election, getting slightly more than 40% of the vote. (Early votes composed two-thirds of the final total and showed him down 25%-75%.)

Now, being defeated in election is not an embarrassment. Very few Libertarians get elected to anything. Even being defeated for re-election is not an embarrassment- although if that 25% number had held up it probably would have been.

No, the embarrassment comes because of Pat Dixon's conduct in office, and the voters' reaction to it. As quoted from this interview on Last Free Voice...

"Like many cities, there is a ruling regime. These people are not necessarily stupid or evil. They want to keep things as they are. These people endorsed me 2 years ago and I won. They must have thought I was going to be more supportive than my incumbent predecessor. When I actually started voting the way I said I would, they discovered that I had no problem dissenting. This year the same “old guard” that endorsed me 2 years ago recruited one of their own to challenge me. It is obvious from the election results that we were outnumbered. Twice as many votes were cast in early voting as on election day. Most younger and working people don’t have time during the workday for early voting, but the retirees can. I was down 70% to 30% from early voting. On election day that margin was too large to overcome... I had a much better run campaign than my opponent, but she was part of the 'old guard' that I was not going to persuade no matter how many advertisements I sent."

So... you got elected by persuading the voters you supported what they supported. Then you voted against the interests of those who supported you. Since you know this, obviously these people spoke to you personally and brought you their grievances... and, apparently, you blew them off. That's what I get from reading this.

Now, this example would seem to demonstrate that Libertarians, once elected, will follow their own agenda and pay no heed to the desires or needs of their constituents. This is NOT a good thing, since the only way a political party can win is by persuading the electorate that its candidates will serve the voters, not themselves, once elected.

But wait- there's more:

"In my first campaign 2 years ago the LP was a significant factor in my victory and I believe it can be for many libertarian candidates in small city municipal races. I did not run around telling everyone I was a Libertarian as this election was non-partisan. There is no reason to use a party label in such a race. However I never deny my affiliation with the LP and because of that I am known as a Libertarian. In that respect the party label can be an impediment."

So, wait. In your campaign you kept silent about your Libertarian association... and because of this you're known as a Libertarian?

And you begin the paragraph saying the LP was of significant aid, but end it by saying it's an impediment?

And finally:

"Additionally, this community is much more aware of the term “Libertarian”. I predict in 2008 that Lago Vista will have a significant increase in Libertarian voters."

Um... the same electorate which brought you in in 2005 threw you out pretty overwhelmingly in 2007, after having experience of you for two years as a person who didn't call himself a Libertarian but was one... and you predict this experience will INCREASE support for the party in Lago Vista?

For blowing an opportunity to show that Libertarians can be office holders that respect those who vote for them... Pat Dixon, this week's Corn Flake!

(Hopefully, though, Pat won't reappear in this feature. What I've seen of Pat is positive- a sensible, businesslike person with a level head on his shoulders. I don't think he's bad or inherently nutty- I just think, in this case, he really, really blew it for himself and our party. And since no Libertarian won in last Saturday's non-partisan elections, it's highly probable that we'll have to wait another two years or so for another chance to prove to Texans that Libertarians can be trusted in power. Hope whoever we have then has a clearer idea of what an officeholder's responsibilities to constituents are than Pat did.)

Michael Badnarik stars in RETURN OF CORN FLAKE FRIDAY!

I missed a lot of chances to point out a lot of people who embarrass pro-liberty folks during my unplanned vacation from politics. However, just as I'm coming back, I get handed a whopper by a man who I've considered a corn flake since at least September 2004.

Michael Badnarik first ran for office in 2000, seeking a seat in the Texas legislature. In a two-way race against a Democrat he got 17% of the vote- about average in a better-than-average year for Libertarians in Texas. In 2002 he entered a three-way race and pulled about 2% of the vote. With this experience, and pretty much nothing else, under his belt he entered the race for the Libertartian Party nomination for President in February 2003, about the same time as talk show host Gary Nolan. Despite raising the least money of the three frontrunners for the nomination, and despite losing seven primary elections to Nolan and winning none, he came from behind at the national convention to win nomination on the third ballot.

I'd heard Badnarik speak before the nomination, and I was less than impressed. Badnarik was actually poorer than I was at the time- he didn't even have a car to his name! His speech centered on a plug for his self-published book It's Good to Be the King, restating its basic premise: you don't have to ask government permission to exercise a right. He took this position to extremes- he advocated the right of felons and lunatics to purchase firearms without restriction, he called for the total repeal of all traffic laws, and he supported the position that persons descended from people who were citizens prior to ratification of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, not being subject to the laws thereof as stated in that amendment, were exempt from all laws passed by the federal government.

After his nomination, things only got worse. The Troika- three activists whose campaign management had led to modest successes in Indiana and other Midwest states- took over Badnarik's campaign and forced him to tone down his message. It came out that Badnarik had not paid a dime of income tax for seven years- had not even filed, despite having more than enough income to make it required. Badnarik had left California for Texas, by his own admission, solely to avoid having to register his firearms. Badnarik had no driver's license- because he regarded government-issued identification as an invasion of privacy.

Despite all this, I endorsed Badnarik and supported him to the best of my ability once he was nominated. (Let's be blunt- the alternatives were Bush, a pro-war Democrat, an elderly and senile if not insane man best known for killing a model of automobile, and a pair of unknowns representing the Green Party and Constitution Party. Compared to them, Badnarik was Solomon without the temple and the 700 wives.) Although Badnarik set a record for Libertarian performance in Texas and especially in my home county, his nationwide result of 0.36% of the vote underperformed both of Harry Browne's runs. I'd thought, at the time, that his career as a Libertarian candidate was over.

Wrong.

In 2006 Badnarik ran for US House, while at the same time making large talk about using a Congressional seat as a springboard for his 2008 Presidential run. This time his campaign manager was one Allen Hacker, an unknown who claimed experience and success as a marketing manager and consultant. (I've posted about him before.) Badnarik's campaign was pitched to Libertarians as the one place to concentrate all fundraising- the one race that could be won on the federal level. The campaign raised over $400,000, draining other campaigns of fundraising opportunities.

In a three-way race Badnarik ended up polling only 4.6%- only slightly higher than average for a three-way race and behind two or three (depending on how you count it) other Libertarians running for Congress in Texas in three-way races, one of whom spent not one penny on his campaign. Although Hacker's blatant misuse of campaign funds did a lot to ensure the defeat, the final blame must be laid at Badnarik's feet- for hiring Hacker, for sticking by Hacker and his "spend big, advertise small, secret plan" policies far beyond the point where they had obviously failed.

For his positions, for his campaign tactics, and for his results, Badnarik deserves the title of Corn Flake. However, that was all long before I began this blog, so it doesn't count... or didn't count, until now.

You see, Michael Badnarik- who has retired from political candidacy- has publicly endorsed Congressman Ron Paul for President in 2008.

Um, Mike?

Ron Paul is a Republican.

Yes, he's a life member of the Libertarian Party, and yes he appears regularly at LP events, but he's said repeatedly that the Libertarian Party should be dissolved and its members join the Republican Party. Furthermore, he's said repeatedly that he will not seek the Libertarian nomination if he loses the Republican race. (In Texas, in fact, he CAN'T be the Libertarian nominee- if he files to run in the Republican primary, he becomes ineligible to appear as an independent or on any other party's ballot spot in November.)

For telling Libertarians to abandon the only party that represents smaller government and support a candidate seeking to directly succeed George W. Bush... plus all the other dumb shit he's done... Michael Badnarik, this week's Corn Flake!

CORN FLAKE FRIDAY: Susanne Kelo

As you read this, remember: a Corn Flake doesn't have to be a Libertarian Party member. They only have to make those of us who support greater liberty look like refugees from the fool farm.

New London, CT wanted to take Susanne Kelo's home and give it to a corporate developer. Kelo and some of her neighbors objected. They went all the way to the Supreme Court... and lost. The court's 5-4 ruling, led by the liberal bloc of judges, stated in effect that the government's right to higher tax revenues trumped Susanne Kelo's right to keep her home.

Now, Libertarians believe that eminent domain, if exercised at all, should only be used for obvious public good, only as a last resort, and never, ever, NEVER to enrich private individuals. Libertarians filed friend-of-the-court briefs in Kelo v. New London, protested the takings, and campaigned on the issue in elections. If we aren't closely tied to the eminent domain issue, it's not for lack of trying on our part.

So when Susanne Kelo casts a curse on those who took her home, it makes everyone who opposes eminent domain look bad.

"Hey, lookit there at dat dumb eminent domain protester person. Y'know, they're all inta that voodoo garbage, castin' spells an' all dat. Tetched in th' haid, y'ask me."

I know of at least one Wiccan who reads this blog. I don't know if she believes in casting curses, spells, or anything like that. I don't even know that Kelo is a Wiccan herself. What I do know, though, is that most people don't believe in magic... and believe that people who do believe in magic, curses, etc. are lunatics. (Exception: sports-related curses exist. Two million Chicagoans can't be wrong.) Casting a curse on your enemies destroys all political credibility you have... and puts you right up there with the shotgun-wielding hillbilly who spits a chaw of tobacco before saying that they ain't gonner be no inner-state across'n his corn patch.

For sending out over thirty curses by the power of will and the United States Postal Service: Susanne Kelo, this week's Corn Flake!

CORN FLAKE FRIDAY: Dave Hollist

Remember, last week I said that it wasn't enough to post something monementually stupid on a web site or blog to become a Corn Flake. It requires an action in public, where the voters can look, point, and say, "See, Martha, that's whut all dem Liberal-tarians iz like."

Today I give you Dave Hollist, bus driver and student of the works of Ayn Rand... who is currently making his third run for President of the United States.

That's right, three.

And to give you some idea of his success, at the 2004 Libertarian National Convention, he got, on the first ballot... one vote.

One.

Out of over eight hundred.

Even Jeffrey Diket, who in his nomination speech said point blank he only wanted the votes of those who agreed with him on every point, got more votes than that. (Four, actually.)

Oh, Dave did a little better in 2000, it's true, but he was never even close to challenging Harry Browne. At this point he's not even taken seriously within the Party... mostly because he's a one-note candidate.

And what is his one note? Contract Insurance. (If you come late to this post and this URL doesn't work, I apologize. This site has moved around a LOT over the years, but the content has remained mostly identical- as has the presentation.)

To cut through a ton of rambling text, here's the core of his message: government should be regarded primarily as a guarantor for voluntary contracts. The cost of enforcing contracts would be paid by "contract insurance", i. e. a stipend paid by everyone who enters into contracts to the government. No one would be forced to pay this stipend. Those who opt out will, instead, be quite simply locked out of the court and law enforcement system. Not to worry, though- civic-minded volunteers will no doubt protect those who cannot protect themselves from murderers, rapists, etc.

Now, this sounds quite anarchist indeed... until you read further down and discover that Hollist has no intention whatever of cutting any government program. Instead he asks that the government make them all voluntary.

So- on the one hand, with a one-bullet solution for the evils of government, he alienates the moderates in the party. On the other hand, with his stated intent to preserve most of government as it is, he alienates the anarchists and radicals. Finally, he has no material support, no campaign organization, and no prior elective experience- alienating the pragmatists in the party.

As the 2004 convention demonstrated, this doesn't leave very much at all...

... but he still goes out and campaigns, actively, outside the party, for the Presidency.

Dave Hollist for President, this week's Corn Flake!

Allen Hacker Follow Up, or Frosted Xenu Flakes

I can't possibly add anything to this:

Third Party Watch: Some Interesting Tidbits on Allen Hacker

It's CORN FLAKE FRIDAY!

What is a Corn Flake (besides a joyless processed foodstuff made palatable to millions only by the addition of milk, sugar, and occasionally fruit)?

A Corn Flake is a person who, through his or her public acts, makes everyone in the Libertarian Party look not merely eccentric or radical but absolutely insane by association.

In order to be named a Corn Flake, a person must meet the following criteria:

* That person must say or do something in a public forum or in some form of mass communication. Merely posting to a blog or discussion group is not sufficient- the outside world must be able to get wind of things.

* What the person says or does must demonstrate exceptional levels of stupidity, insanity, hypocrisy, or utter disregard for the consequences of his or her actions.

* That person's actions must be in some way connected to the Libertarian Party, its positions, or its actions. Lyndon LaRouche or David Duke, not being in any way connected to anything Libertarian, are not the LP's problem; let the Democrats and Republicans come up with their own names for those types. A person who does stupid things in the name of tax protest, eminent domain protest, free speech, etc., however, DOES qualify if he's on the same general side of the issue as the LP- even if said person denies being an LP member.

So, that said, who is this week's winner?

Allen Hacker, as campaign manager for Michael Badnarik's run for Congress (TX-1o) in 2006, helped raise over $400,000- more money than any other Libertarian candidate raised without going into his or her own pocket. (Bruce Guthrie emptied his pockets and took out a mortgage on his home to raise the $1.6 million he needed to qualify for the Oregon debates.) However, Badnarik only polled 4.3% of the vote in a three-way race. Granted, this was about two percentage points better than the average Libertarian performance in three-way Congressional races in Texas... but Patrick Warren, running in District 18, polled 4.26%, and Robert Powell in District 27 polled 4.31%... neither man spending a PENNY on his campaign.

This is not, however, why Hacker is this week's Corn Flake. For one thing, the election is over a month gone. For another, Badnarik's race suffered from an unusually high turnout in his district. 176,755 votes were cast in the US House Dist. 10 race- more than cast in any other Congressional race in Texas. Patrick Warren's race, for example, only drew 86,051 votes- half those in Badnarik's race- and Robert Powell's district turned out just under 110,000 votes.

Hacker earned the honor by how he has run the Badnarik campaign. Despite raising almost as much money as the Democrat candidate in this race, Badnarik's campaign never got off the ground. Many blame Hacker for his decision to spend not one penny on radio, television or newspaper advertising, opting instead for three billboards (in a district that stretches from northeast Austin to northwest Houston), some yard signs, and a number of "meet the candidate" dinners across the district. When people questioned this strategy, Hacker said that the campaign's plans were a secret and would remain that way... but that victory was all but assured.

The thing that finally put Hacker over the top happened just this week, though. According to Austin Cassidy's Third Party Watch, Hacker has sent out another fundraising request to the 2004 Badnarik for President donor list... asking for MORE donations to pay the campaign's estimated $215,000 of debt.

Of that debt, $65,000 is for salaries, office rent, advertising buys (mainly ads at the Libertarian 2006 national convention, attended by fewer than a thousand people) and contracts with outside companies. The remaining $150,000 is entirely Hacker's personal salary, held in abeyance until the end of the campaign, for his expert consulting services.

This is in addition to the $134,250 paid out to Hacker's consulting firm, Articulate Campaigns, by the Badnarik campaign.

Hacker has said that, if he is not paid for his services, his report on what is wrong with the Libertarian Party in general will be greatly delayed. Quoting from his email:

We’ve been accused of risking the LP’s future with this campaign. The argument has been that by raising so much money and talking about winning, We have set everyone up for a huge disappointment, which will in turn stall everyone’s fundraising and support for years to come. Balderdash!

What we have actually done in pushing the envelope so far is to peel back the scab hiding the chronic infection that has been keeping the LP anemic and unhealthy all along. By going for the whole enchilada, we aggravated every failure mode the Party has ever adopted. We incurred so much wrath from some unfortunate souls that they actually began a proactive underground counter-campaign to sabotage our fundraising. And they succeeded, too, to the degree that the Party itself has institutionalized their ways of stopping everything good anyone tries to do as a libertarian activist, officer or candidate.

. . .

I’ll be revealing why, even though these people and what they do will be our most difficult problem to solve, they aren’t even close to being our worst problem. That would be the fatally-conflicted value that’s embedded in the libertarian thought process but must be excised if we are ever to succeed. That’s the one that keeps me smiling to myself, remembering the old Confucian admonition, “Your greatest strength is also your greatest weakness.”

. . .

So, what has your money bought, since it wasn’t victory at the polls in TX CD10?

Well, once the bills are paid and I have the freedom of mind to compile everything, you’ve sponsored a final report and a libertarian manifesto for the future. An analysis and a plan, if you want them. From a top consultant in his field, one who routinely doubles and triples his clients’ operations within the first year or two.

. . .

So here’s the deal. First, we pay the debt. Then we build the party and the movement, and ultimately, we take back our freedom.

When you think about it, there’s no way to put a price on that, yet in our case reality has put a price on it nonetheless. That price is simply what it takes to clear the campaign and free my attention so I can deliver on the future instead of forever deal with the past.

. . .

Again, what do you get for your money? You get the solution to our problems as a party. Cheap at twice the price!

. . .

So, let’s get with it. This is not about your hard-earned hundred bucks, it’s about the LP getting the desperately missing knowledge whose absence has been stifling it all these years.

So, not only did he essentially waste every penny of the Badnarik campaign's revenues, but he's promising a magic pill to cure all the Libertarian Party's ills if only you send him about half as much as the Badnarik campaign raised over fourteen months... by the end of December.

And that report, remember, is based on his expertise as a consultant.

And this went out to over 6500 past donors to Libertarian candidates- many of whom, contacted after the election, have said they'll never donate to the LP again after Badnarik's awful performance.

Mr. Allan Hacker, by making everyone who tries to run a serious, high-budget Libertarian candidacy look like a complete nutjob, this week's official Corn Flake!