The Associated Press has published an article by Ryan Lenz that appears to make libelous claims against the company, Liberty Dollar, who's offices were raided early Thursday morning.  In his report, Lenz states that the company "produces illegal currency and puts it in circulation", a claim that many are arguing could be legally construed as libel.  No judgement has been made against Liberty Dollar, yet Lenz article seems to indicate a proven case of wrongdoing.  Lenz may have committed a pricey legal faux pas, as many libel cases have awarded decisions numbering in the millions of dollars.  And that's in federal reserve notes, not Liberty Dollars.

No word on whether Lenz or the AP are considering a retraction.

The article in question:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jZHepUhX3cYLnSqZV2tm_byrun3AD8SUTRH80

What a free-for-all.  All the Democratic candidates came out swinging, last night.  Edwards and Obama came out hot, with an axe to grind on Clinton.  She swung back, and landed a few good blows.  Then, suddenly, Obama took a wild haymaker swing and almost knocked himself out. 

Edwards spent most of the rest of the debate on the ropes, defending himself, while Obama crawled around, looking for his mouthpiece.  Even Kucinich took a few pops at Edwards, who, despite trying to deflect the blows by saying, "That's funny, Dennis," visibly buckled when Kucinich made the attack.

Chris Dodd made some points, drawing a positive pop from the crowd, that were almost immediately stolen by Bill Richardson, who insinuated Dodd was wrong, while completely agreeing with him.  Richardson looked like he was on the verge of a heart-attack once or twice.  His mouth was moving and he was gripping the podium oddly when he wasn't speaking.  I expected him to ask for some pepto, or something.

Joe Biden won the thing, though.  He was funny, articulate, and irreverent.  After letting all the others beat on one another, he stole the show with some one-liners and by actually having a point to most of his answers.  I would never consider voting for any of these tax-and-spenders, but Biden made the most sense.  I don't understand why he's not a front-runner.

My Dem Debates Ranking:

1. Biden
2. Dodd
3. Kucinich
4. Clinton
5. Richardson
6. Edwards
7. Obama

Unconfirmed reports are coming to me that the offices of the Liberty Dollar, a gold and silver trading group, have been raided by federal agents this morning.  The metals were taken, according to the report, and employees were arrested.  There was no word on whether there was a search warrant, what laws were allegedly violated or when the feds will give a public press conference addressing the raid.

Previously on my blog, I've endorsed usage of the Liberty Dollar.  Liberty Dollar advocates using gold and silver as a barter tool instead of using the reserve note printed by the monopolistic, privately owned reserve banks.  In the recent past, the government has made statements that they believe the Liberty Dollar is a competing currency, although many coins are legally available for purchase in the US from countries all over the world.

The US Constitution requires states to use only gold and silver as currency, although all US states now use the privately owned reserve debt note.  This will set a frightening precedent for the free trade of precious metals.  Reminescent of the confiscation of precious metals by the US Government in the 20th century, it may be that this raid was a first step in forcing Americans to use the defaulting reserve debt note. 

ADDED 9:45AM:

http://www.rabidquill.com/ : Contains an email from the Liberty Dollar company.

I hate to be so hard on Huckabee when there is far more wrong with Giuliani, Romney and Thompson.  I feel I have to be, though, because Huckabee is being pushed as the conservative Christian choice for America.  I have no doubt he's a Christian, but conservative?  I don't think so.  He may be conservative for Arkansas, but not by traditional conservative standards.

Vox Day, over at WND, has a good article on Huckabee:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58629


Here's Tax-Hike Mike singing the praises of Tax and Spend in the Arkansas legislature:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaJW7nXw30A


I hate the 'hit-piece' feeling, but I think if no one comes out and says these things, conservative Christians will think he's a viable alternative to the tax and spend Republicans in the alleged 'top-tier'.

Mike Huckabee, while not the most conservative fiscally, is considered to be a religiously conservative candidate, and probably the 2nd most socially conservative of the GOP field.  He should be the poster boy for the silent majority.  Why, then, are the mouthpieces of the religious right not endorsing him in droves? 

First off, the religious power brokers haven't been impressed by his motivation skills.  The media has given him more than his fair share of face time, but it hasn't seemed to raise his stock.  The people haven't been inspired, of yet, to vote for him with their wallets.  The big names in the GOP want to have a say in a future administration, and someone who can't inspire anyone to give to his cause doesn't seem to be persuasive enough to gain enough power to have enough to distribute to his supporters, once elected. 

It's another symptom of the lack of virtue our society exhibits.  These men, who claim to have ideals and an unwavering agenda of religious, rock-solid core beliefs, are willing to give all that up in the hopes of garnering some say in the power distribution of the greatest nation in the world.  They also want to be the preacher the president turns to for religious and spiritual advice.  If a preacher is president, there is no real need for them.  The hypocrisy is staggering. 

Perhaps the most obvious reason Huckabee is not being endorsed is the religious right's desire to field a candidate that can beat whatever democrat emerges as the nominee.  Giuliani, a social and fiscal liberal, stands a greater chance of being confused with a democrat.  Many believe he stands the greatest chance against them, for this reason.  He has the best name recognition, as well.  That's something you can't buy.  This is why you'll see the religious passing over Mike Huckabee for their endorsements in favor of Giuliani.

What's not obvious, however, is that some of the religious feel they see through Huckabee.  These leaders still have enough virtue to not endorse a Giuliani or a Romney, based on long-held beliefs, and would not endorse Huckabee for the same reason.  These people want what's best for the country, and will not cow to the democratic field.  These people still have faith.  Their endorsements, however, will go unnoticed by the media, who have a stake in covering those who they feel will repay them the most when they take power.

The grass-rooters, the silent-majority, the religious right... none of them are really feeling Huckabee.  I'm sure this leaves Huckabee confused, and feeling forsaken.  To borrow from John's letter to the Laodiceans, "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." 

I heard a story this morning about a couple of voters who have been affected by the campaigns of the two top-polling and most funded candidates in the presidential race.  The first was a lady who just happened to have started her first day on the job when the Hillary Clinton campaign dropped into her restaurant.  The second was a woman who sought out Barak Obama to help her brother, who has cancer.  Neither individual left with their needs met, but both still think the candidates are worthy of presidential consideration.  I don't understand this logic.

Firstly, the lady who met Hillary has had her life negatively affected by being associated with Clinton.  She also said Clinton DID NOT tip her!  After complaining about it, she said she might vote for her!  She indicated she was going to vote democrat, anyway.  I wish I could talk to this lady.  No democrats have suggested anything real to help waitresses.  The only politicians to suggest help for waiters and waitresses are Republicans.  Ron Paul has called for an end to the taxing of tips, introducing legislation that would allow servers to keep all their tips, tax-free. 

In the second case, after following Obama as if he were some sort of faith healer, the lady got an AUTOGRAPH for her brother as payment for the time and effort she expended to meet and talk to Obama.  She should have known that democrats don't actually HELP people, they are the ones that pass laws to take OTHER people's money, not their own!  She still supports Obama and his democratic cronies, even though I don't know if they even helped her.  I do, however, know of a Republican doctor that has spent his own time and money to aid those who could not afford health care...

People are so blinded by the rhetoric of the democrats.  And it hasn't helped that some well-known Republicans refer to the liberals as 'bleeding-hearts', implying that they actually HAVE hearts.  These dems talk about the government giving free health-care... but they want to FORCE you to give so THEY can sort the money.  The reality is that the democrats only want to take from the hard-working person that barely makes ends meet, and give to themselves.  Oh yeah, they'll allow a few of the crumbs that fall from the table to go to the needy, but there's no way THEY'RE going to pay for it.

That's the problem with our country.  We have no virtue.  We want to rely on government to do everything for us.  Meanwhile, those in government are robbing us blind.  We need to start relying on ourselves, and giving to charities that we have researched and trust.  The government isn't a charity, and the democrats certainly aren't trustworthy.  We need to use our common sense to make virtuous, moral decisions.  The free market is the best system ever devised in our history, but it won't work when the people lose their virtues.

*Blogger's note: This morning, 11/9, NPR was slobbering all over itself to try to paint the Clinton campaign in a better light.  They explained that, although the woman still claims she didn't get a tip, someone from the Clinton campaign went by after the story aired yesterday and gave the woman $20.  The campaign now claims it tipped the restaurant $100.  The campaign rep said they used a credit card, but the waitress said their card machine didn't work or allow for tips.  Then, the campaign rep tried to change the story, and claimed they left a $100 bill.  The waitress said no one ever got any money.  That seems pretty damning, but, unbelievably, in spite of the lies told by Clinton and her campaign, the waitress STILL supports Clinton!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STLR6tFP4S4

Check out the above Youtube video.

Change the names of people and countries. Increase the dollar amounts to reflect inflation since 1964.  This could be a speech made by Ron Paul.

On Social Security, the message is the same.  On taxes, the message is the same.  On foreign policy, the message is the same.  On gold, the message is the same.  On government bureaus, the message is the same.  On rights protection, the message is the same.

Pay close attention to Reagan's admonition to avoid giving up freedom for safety.  Note how he criticizes those who would do so.  Sounds like Ron Paul talking about Bush.
If you remember, Reagan didn't agree with Bush on many things.  Bush called Reagan's policies 'voodoo' economics.  Then, after taking over, Bush drove the country into a recession.

How can a Reagan Republican say they don't support Ron Paul?

I awoke, this morning, to a plethora of messages from my Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Constitution and Independent friends.  They all pointed me to a website, www.thisNovember5th.com.  I'm already aware of this site, but the volume of traffic indicated something was really up.  I knew it was supposed to be a big day for Ron Paul fundraising, but I didn't know it would be this quick. 

I've been watching all the candidates' fundraising.  It's important to know who's contributing and how much they give.  This tells more about a candidate's future actions than his platform, in most cases.  Yesterday, I looked at Ron Paul's money thermometer, and it was close to $3 million.  I checked it this morning, and the total was almost $4 million.  $1 million dollars in around 6 hours is something to note.

That's a lot of money.  So, who's giving it?

Before writing my previous entry on Paul's money, I did some research.  The majority of Paul's contributions come from individuals in quantities of less than $200, many of those contributions are less than $100.  From the occupations the contributors list, they're ready for a change in government.  Occupations like "Tax Slave" and "America's Future" are not uncommon on contributions. 

Ron Paul's campaign is also drawing more contributions from the military than any other candidate.  That may surprise some who have stated they oppose Ron Paul because of his long-time opposition to the military presence in Iraq.  As a Congressman, Paul voted to send troops to Afghanistan, but not to Iraq.  Further research shows that Ron Paul is running on a national defense platform very similar to the one George W. Bush ran on in 2000, and his run was sparked, in part, by Paul's dismay with the Bush administration's failure to keep it's campaign promises and Bush's reversal of what many view as traditional Republican ideals.  This seems to have struck a chord with the military.

The other candidates have a lot of money coming from questionable sources and overseas interests.  That worries many americans.  Perhaps this is why they've decided to support Ron Paul financially. 

Whether you support Ron Paul or not, it should be encouraging to see so many Americans getting involved with the process.  Voter apathy has been a mounting issue in previous elections, with voter turnout well less than 50% in the 2004 primaries, in some states, less than 10%.  A flaw with modern American politics is that elections are, in effect, bought.  If Ron Paul is victorious, this election will be bought by the American public. 

*blogger's note: As of 10:20 PM Central, Ron Paul's tote reads $6.9+ million, and is about to roll over to $7 million.
**bloggers note: CNN has reported the gain saying there was no way to confirm the numbers. This is untrue.  The campaign has a feed to thousands of .swf 'widgets' around the web.  This includes name, city, and the amount added to the tote.  This shouldn't be very hard to confirm, at all.  Paul's campaign has raised a record amount; they broke the one-day online fundraising record, without even organizing the event. This should be newsworthy, and a news network of the size of CNN should be thorough enough to check the facts.  CNN is either too lazy to do the slight research to confirm, or they are completely inept.  They also incorrectly reported the gain as $2 million.

This was the most entertaining debate yet.  I couldn't keep up with how many wild things were being said.  What are they thinking?  Almost every candidate had something off-the-wall to say.

Obama says he feels like he's in the movie 'Rocky', but he's not Apollo Creed, he's Rocky Balboa.  Doesn't he know Rocky loses in the first movie?  Is he planning to lose this election, but win in 4 years? 

All of them came after Clinton, with their ears pinned back and teeth showing.  Hillary says yes, but no, but yes I don't want to say no, or yes.  I'm the most experienced because of my record as a First Lady, but you can't see the record, because I don't want you to see it.

Richardson said, "I'm the most qualified to be the President of the North American Union," but Joe Biden one-upped him, claiming Biden was more qualified to be President of the Tri-Lateral commission.  Mike Gravel was outside, trying to convince the people waving Ron Paul signs that he was a 'real' libertarian. 

John Edwards was asking if there was anyone in the room with a dead relative who's name started with a V... he's feeling the letter V.  Hillary was sweating bullets because she thought he was talking about Vince Foster.  On the cusp of Halloween, I don't think she wanted to take any chances.

Finally, Dennis Kucinich brought it all home when he confirmed that the Democrats take their marching orders from Alien Quaida.  "Jimmy Carter saw aliens..."  Chris Dodd said he wouldn't give the aliens a driver's licence, because driving is a privilege, not a right.

Oh, what a night.

I noticed yesterday that there were several sites linking to my blog on Mike Huckabee.  As there were no comments on my blog entry, I thought it strange that it would be linked.  I backtracked the links, and found some things being said about my blog on other forums. 

Here's an example:
To my comment that holding people at Guantanamo Bay without Habeas Corpus "attacks free speech, and denies the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the core beliefs of our country's founders! Who's to say what kind of people Huckabee might find offensive enough to categorize as a 'risk'?" This is what they had to say: Our freedoms are for US, not our enemies!

I hear this a lot. The fact is, our Declaration of Independence declares that EVERY MAN has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Not just Americans, it states that God gives mankind these inalienable rights. 

The scary part is that they don't realize that by giving those who rule over us the power to detain anyone without charging them or giving them a chance to defend themselves sets a frightening precedent. 

To my comment that Huckabee "made the statement that the invasion of Iraq might have been a 'mistake,' but that 'we broke it, we bought it.' We didn't break anything. Saddam broke it. And if you get right down to it, the Iraqi people are responsible for not rising up against a brutal dictator!" they replied:

Whatever the Iraqis should or shouldn't have done is irrelevant. We are under siege by extremists Muslims and we need to take the fight to them.

I hear this a lot, too, but what kind of logic is this?  There were no 'extremists Muslims' (sic) laying siege to us from Iraq.  If there were, we should have declared war on them.  What the Iraqis did or didn't do is VERY relevant.  People who pay no attention to the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat it.

Admitting that we 'broke' Iraq was a huge mis-step for someone who supports the war in Iraq.  I thought the logic was that it was already broken, and we were fixing it... right?  There is no honor, Governor, in continuing a violent occupation when you admit you're wrong to be there in the first place.

As of the last time I checked, I still didn't have any comments posted to my blog.  I don't know why I'd be attacked on another site when there is no ban on posting on MY blog.  I'm not going to post the link to the pro-Huckabee site, because I don't want to drive any traffic to a site that supports beliefs contrary to mine (or logic for that matter).  But, if you want to find examples of these types of comments and attacks on common sense, you can just look at any of the forums or blogs supporting 90% of the GOP candidates for President.

The facts are clear:  Huckabee is a former minister.  He knows how to rouse the Christian right; preachers are good at that.  For this, he is getting a BIG push. 

I STRONGLY favor a Christian leader.  I'm just afraid he's not as true to his convictions as it seems.  His willingness to waffle on fiscal issues and immigration makes his motives seem suspect.  I simply don't want someone who panders to people just to get elected.  I remember seeing Bill Clinton speaking in a church back in 1992.  Hearing Mike Huckabee reminds me so very much of that.  I also think the Governor KNOWS the occupation of Iraq isn't right.  He just won't admit it because he knows it will hurt his campaign. 

The War on Terror has been going on now for about 6 years.  It seems we have pretty good reasons to tout our involvement in the middle east as being successful.  We've toppled two forms of government that were detrimental to the liberty of the people of those countries.  We've protected the people in those countries that would create a democratic process.  We've really done some good things.  Why, then, call into doubt the validity of our involvement in the middle east?

It's been said that fighting terrorism with the US Armed Forces is like trying to wipe out killer bees with a machine gun.  This, while not a perfect analogy, is accurate enough to give one pause when considering expanding the war on terror.  If you continue to expend resources against an enemy that can easily avoid your attacks, you will eventually run out of resources with which to combat that enemy.

Islamo-fascism, an ideology, is what most are touting as the enemy in the war.  As great as it would be to be able to combat an idea with warfare, it's just not possible.  Most of the time, throughout history, when an idea has been attacked with physical warfare, the idea has at least survived, if not emerged victorious.  Even if all the believers of an idea are wiped out, the history and words behind the idea will persist. 

The enemy is like a virus.  The only way to defeat it is to inoculate yourself and others against it.  You do this by disseminating knowledge of the virus and the ways to avoid it.  You inoculate your children and citizenry.  You can't defeat a virus with brute force; defeating a virus requires hard work and cunning.

In the same way, you cannot defeat an evil idea with brute force, either.  Ideas exist in the realm of thought.  You have to think and use logic to defeat an idea.  We need to focus more on changing the way people think than invading their countries.  The evil men who planned the attacks of 9/11 are still at large.  Our invasion and occupation of two nations didn't bring them to justice.  Their ideas have spread throughout the world.  If we don't move our focus to changing the minds of people around the world, the consequences could be dire.

After watching the so-called debate Sunday night, and recovering from the disgust I felt thereafter, I began to realize that Mike Huckabee is really being pushed as the answer to the perceived liberalism of the frontrunners. He's supposedly the conservative answer to the Hillary-esque politicians who are atop the polls.

Well, the facts point to something totally different. I'm afraid you're not going to find much conservatism in the actions of Mike Huckabee. For starters, he increased Arkansas state spending 65.3 percent from 1996 to 2004. While the executive of the state, the number of state government workers in Arkansas increased over 20 percent, and the state’s general obligation debt increased by about $1 billion. And that's AFTER Bill Clinton was governor! How can you increase spending AFTER a tax and spend Democrat bloated the Arkansas state government to astronomical proportions?

And that's not all:

Huckabee signed a gas tax hike in 1999
He called for a state sales tax hike in 2002
He signed a 25-cent cigarette tax hike in 2003
He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002
He increased state spending 65.3% from 1996 to 2004
He allowed a major tax hike package to pass in 2004
He received a "D" grade on fiscal issues from the Cato Institute in 2004
He raised the minimum wage
He favored amnesty for illegal aliens back in 2001, and has done so as recently as 2006
He called No Child Left Behind the greatest education reform effort by the federal government "in my lifetime."
(*some of the above from Wikipedia)

Most frightening to me is the fact he supports the continued operation of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, saying its prisoners are treated well and it is better to make mistakes there than risk the safety of American citizens. The people there have not been given any legal rights, other than basic humanitarian aid. Basically, if the administration deems you to be anti-American, or a 'risk', they can lock you up indefinitely. This is the most dangerous precedent you can set. It attacks free speech, and denies the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the core beliefs of our country's founders! Who's to say what kind of people Huckabee might find offensive enough to categorize as a 'risk'?

He made the statement that the invasion of Iraq might have been a 'mistake,' but that 'we broke it, we bought it.'  We didn't break anything.  Saddam broke it.  And if you get right down to it, the Iraqi people are responsible for not rising up against a brutal dictator!

Huckabee is a liberal who used to be a preacher. That's all. He talks the talk of a good ole' country boy conservative when the cameras are on him, but his record shows the high-contrast liberal streak running up his back. Let him continue his quaint country sayings... as for me, I smell a skunk.

I watched the debate tonight, if it can be called that.  I really didn't hear any debating of any issues at all.  There was some name-calling, and accusations made, but no real debating, save a few points made by Rep. Ron Paul.

Seemed like Fox had decided to get behind Huckabee, giving him a half hour before the debate to make a State of the Union type address. After pitting Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and McCain against each other, Huckabee was tossed a few softballs, and allowed to preach a little mini-sermon. Preaching to the choir wasn't a debate the last time I checked.

The questioners attacked Ron Paul, as usual, not asking legitimate questions, but tossing inaccurate accusations. For example, Chris Wallace asked Ron Paul if he was like Clinton because he opposed our military in Iraq. The fact is, Hillary actually SUPPORTED troops being sent to Iraq. Of course she would... she's a big spending, war-mongering Democrat. That's what they DO. They also didn't give Ron Paul a chance to rebut after Giuliani attacked him on the marriage subject. If the 'Fair and Balanced' crowd can't do any better than that, I'm afraid it's all over for the GOP.

The four candidates who got the most questions were, once again, Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Thompson. They pretty much explained why none of them were qualified for the job. It was amusing.

Huckabee was quaint, as usual, towing the liberal Bushite party line. I wonder if he would outlaw worshipping God in any way but the GOP way, whatever that is. Every time he speaks, I become more afraid for religious freedom in our country. I really hope my fellow Southerners don't flock to him in some knee-jerk reaction, thinking he's the religious hope for the party. He really is a scary person, when you look at what he supports. History is littered with pro-war liberal preachers like Huckabee.

As for the 'bookends', as Tancredo quipped about himself and the others placed at the ends, there were few high points. Hunter had a few pops for Pro-Reagan statements. Of course, so did everyone else. Tancredo almost endorsed Giuliani by accident.

According to attendees, the crowd was hand-picked by the 'top-tier' candidates. I guessed that was the case when I heard the weak booing. Carl Cameron, before the debates, pointed out the seating arrangements. I didn't hear him even give a section for Ron Paul.

Hannity amazes me with his lack of Conservative knowledge. He acts as if libertarianism is a foreign concept, instead of the core of Conservative beliefs, as Reagan himself even stated. I guess Hannity learned all his neo-conservatism at UC Santa Barbara, or whichever of those liberal schools out in California he attended, in the few months before he dropped out altogether.

Anyway, as a whole, the 'debate' was pretty much a farce, as the other Fox debate was. Even the people who work for Fox seem to be getting tired of the spin they're mandated to put on everything

Everyone is talking about healthcare.  Over half the country, they say, supports some form of national health-care aid funded by the federal government.  But we all know government does a lousy job of providing benefits... just ask anyone who's had a relative in a VA hospital, or had to apply for medicare benefits.  As a free-market economy, shouldn't we be able to come up with a better solution?

The Democratic candidates have raised $244,404,140 for their presidential campaigns.  That's about a quarter BILLION dollars, with more pouring in every day.  It seems people with deep pockets want a Democrat.  Why?  Well, the Democrats say it's because they are good to the people in the form of government spending associated with entitlements.  Taxes, of course, being the necessary evil needed to fund said programs.

Back to the quarter billion... That's a lot of money for commercials, staff and airplane tickets.  Couldn't they do something for the people with that money?  Seems to me the logical and ethical thing for these Democrats to do is to take their campaign contributions and start a charity to provide healthcare.  They could probably provide very good assistance to a lot of people, and leave the bumbling, bloated government out of it. 

One by one, they all fall down.  First Tommy Thompson, now Sam Brownback.  According to this report, Senator Brownback will announce his withdrawal from the race this Friday.  One has to wonder how much longer Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and Mike Huckabee will last, as well.  If 2000 is any indication, we know Alan Keyes probably intends to be there for the long-haul, no matter what kind of numbers he gets.  Still, the field will probably be narrowed significantly by the end of December. 

Giuliani is in good shape, financially, as are Thompson and Paul.  Romney has deep pockets, too, although a lot of his money is coming from his own bank accounts.  He may be able to finance himself until the bitter end, but it's doubtful he'll continue without big wins in the early states.  Fred Thompson got a late start, but he seems to be drawing enough money to keep it up until the early primaries, at least. 

Someone has to go, though.  It's already starting.  My question: Who's Next?