SHOULD BARACK OBAMA BE PROSECUTED FOR DOMESTIC TERRORISM?

As you read this, a federal judge, Richard Voorhees, is deciding whether or not to sentence a 68 year-old man to, in effect, a life sentence in federal prison (15 or more years) for being a domestic terrorist.

Almost a year ago (3/18/11), Bernard von NotHaus was convicted by a federal jury for the crime of counterfeiting – of "making, possessing, and selling his own coins" in competition with US federal currency.

NotHaus’ company, Liberty Services -also known as NORFED, the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Code – produced Liberty Dollars, which contained a specified amount of gold or silver (such as one troy ounce).

It is, of course, absurd to claim Liberty Dollars were "counterfeit" US Federal Reserve Notes – for how can something be counterfeit when it contains something of actual value (silver or gold), compared to something that is simply a piece of paper?

But that is not the issue here.  For the purpose of this discussion, we are going to agree with the federales that NotHaus is guilty as charged.

The federal prosecutor in the NotHaus case is Anne Tompkins, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina.  When NotHaus was found guilty, she announced to the press (see "convicted" link above):

"Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism.  While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country."

Keeping this quote in mind, let’s now look at Richard Rahn’s TTP column of two weeks ago (2/14), Is Hyperinflation Obama’s Plan B?

Richard observes that since the US government has reached, or is soon about to, the limits of its capacity to tax and borrow, it has two and only two alternatives:

"There is going to have to be either massive cutbacks in government spending or very high inflation."

"Everyone knows," Richard continues, "that if an individual or a business takes on too much debt, the interest payments on the debt eventually will crowd out all other spending unless one radically cuts spending or declares bankruptcy. Governments differ. The ones that print their own money, such as the United States, usually resort to inflation as a way to reduce the real value of government payments and the real value of the debt."

40% of federal spending is now financed with debt.  Under Zero, federal debt has risen from $11.9 trillion to $16.4 trillion, with absolutely no evidenced intention to reduce the spending.  Unending trillion dollar deficits obviously cannot be sustained for much longer.

Richard worries that Zero has no Plan B contingency plan for when something causes the now hyper-low interest rates to rise, making debt service impossible.  My view is that Zero has no Plan B on purpose.  This is his Plan A, to hyperinflate the dollar and make it worthless, impoverishing everyone on a fixed income, destroying everyone’s savings, and destroying the US economy.  That is his goal, because of his hate for America.

Yet whether my view or Richard’s is correct does not matter.  The end result is the same.  Zero’s multi-trillion dollar deficits and refusal to slash spending must inevitably result in hyperinflation of the dollar.  A number of prominent economists are now convinced that hyperinflation is baked in our economy’s cake.

John Williams of ShadowStats, for example, foresees a hyperinflationary great depression coming no later than 2014, which "will encompass a complete loss in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar; a collapse in the normal stream of U.S. commercial and economic activity; a collapse in the U.S. financial system, as we know it; and a likely realignment of the U.S. political environment."

All one has to do to see what political party will benefit from such a "realignment," is to ask, What party came to dominant power for decades during the Great Depression?

How can a substantial, if not complete, loss in the purchasing power of the US dollar, collapse in the normal stream of U.S. commercial and economic activity, and a collapse in the U.S. financial system as we know it not be, in US Attorney Anne Tompkins’ words, "attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country" which are therefore "a unique form of domestic terrorism"? 

When hyperinflation hits us as it surely will, how can the FBI avoid investigating, and federal prosecutors like Anne Tompkins avoid indicting President Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. for being a domestic terrorist?  How can he not be "a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country"?

Perhaps they could quibble over the extent to which his domestic terrorism was criminally purposeful or criminally negligent, but that would be the only debate.  The result should be the same:  Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., belongs in jail for life at least as much, and legitimately far, far more than Bernard NotHaus. 

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is, in fact, the single greatest terrorist threat to America.  If he is not identified as such by conservatives in general and GOP presidential candidates in particular, then we are all going to learn why the hard and bankrupt way.

Note:

If you would like to help Bernard NotHaus avoid life imprisonment, please consider writing to his sentencing judge, and respectfully remind him of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis words in Olmsted v. the United States from 1928:

"Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face."

Address the letter to:

Richard L. Voorhees
U.S. District Judge
United States District Court
Western District of North Carolina
250 Charles R. Jonas Federal Bldg.
401 West Trade Street
Charlotte NC 28202