So, 67-year-old Bernard von NotHaus faces what essentially will be a life sentence in prison for creating silver coins (in other words, coins made from something other than the government's pop metal), and the federal prosecutor, Anne Tompkins, declares:
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. We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.
So, the government which deliberately inflates the currency, thus engaging in a form of stealing from people who have monetary assets, and they call a man who makes a silver coin a terrorist? Mr. NotHaus never forced anyone to accept his "money," unlike the "legitimate" government that apparently is so afraid of an elderly man that it seeks to murder him, and gets a jury to do its bidding. So, tell me, who employs the use of terror here, and who doesn't?