This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: In Defense Of Liberty Extremism
Submitted by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,
It’s a safe statement to make that when Mitt Romney is finally crowned the GOP nominee for president during the Republican National Convention, any vestige of liberty will be firmly wiped away from the ballot box come this November. For those who have followed his campaign in the United States, Congressman Ron Paul has been swindled out of the nomination through various underhanded tricks at state conventions. The explanation is straightforward: Paul’s views are not comfortable within the Republican Party establishment. Today’s GOP is a party of banker interests, imperialism, and clandestine state empowerment while claiming to represent small, limited government. Romney embraces this platform while Paul’s decades-long voting record stands in opposition.
For towing the party line, Romney has been anointed the “electable” candidate while Paul has been deemed an extremist. The GOP declares this while the media parrots the message as it does every election cycle. To the pundits and writers who cover political affairs, only moderation can win over a large electorate. The people don’t look kindly upon radicalism or so it’s alleged.
Ron Paul’s campaign manager, Jesse Benton, has even gone as far as to discourage dedicated Paulians from voicing their discontentment with the status quo. In a recent New York Times article, Benton shares his disinterest with so-called “true believers”:
Some true believers want to “dress in black, stand on a hill and say, ‘Smash the state,’ ” said Mr. Benton, who is married to one of Mr. Paul’s granddaughters. But “it’s not our desire to have floor demonstrations. That would cost us a lot more than it would get us.”
The often referred to rule of American political campaigns is that candidates should appeal to the party’s base during primary season but once nominated, should strive to attract the “center.” This strategy is totally befitting for a whorish game like politics because it allows those seeking public office to change their rhetoric and tune in order to attract as many voters as possible. In politics, principle is placed on the back burner for the glory of supreme victory. The “center” electorate is just a term used for the majority looking to government for what they mistakenly believe to be a free lunch.
To Benton, the political establishment, and the state-worshipping press, moderation is the rational choice of anyone looking to be taken seriously.
But what Benton and like-minded thinkers don’t understand or refuse to acknowledge is that ideas don’t make a lasting impact unless they are logically consistent. Ron Paul was unique in that he stuck to his message for three decades and never wavered. He paid the price with being marginalized while his beliefs were portrayed as archaic. Paul is by no means a radical in that he recognizes a proper role for the state to guarantee the liberties of people are protected yet he was rejected just the same. For all the abuse and concessions Paulians have had to make, the Republican Party has awarded state delegations with large numbers of Paul supporters “nosebleed” seats at the National Convention; just behind the delegations from Northern Mariana. Benton’s advice of toning it down and playing nice did little to change the reception from a political party not the least interested in representing genuine liberty. This rejection, while predictable, should serve as an important lesson for advocates of individual freedom. Temperance in philosophy may be the less arduous road to take but it will not bring a lasting change.
Because of the forces pitted against it, the incremental approach toward a free society has little chance of succeeding. For every step forward comes two or more back towards socialism or its ugly cousin of corporate fascism. The ratcheting effect of state power may not be readily apparent but it is in constant motion. The heart of the state lies not with the legislature that is still accountable to voters but within the multitude of bureaucracies that are needlessly large and unaccountable. It is the bureaucracies that are given the authority of law enforcement. They are usually staffed by people who enjoy wielding state power and are always on the search for an excuse to exercise more.
The result has been various states grotesquely inserting themselves into all aspects of Western society. Chipping away at their stranglehold with half-hearted ideals helps little when the statist influence is everywhere. It must be opposed without remorse on all grounds for any headway to be made. Benton’s demeaning characterization of black-clothed activists who refuse to buddy up with what they see as evil undermines liberty’s very cause. It is the radicals, not the moderates, who hold the water for the freedom movement. They provide the intellectual vision for what could be achieved. And when push comes to shove, they will not sell out.
Liberty is far too important to be dumbed down, conceded, or sold for a marginal victory. The case for freedom is to be unapologetic because it embodies the great desire for justice above all else. The ruling class within or closely affiliated with the central state operates outside the bounds of moral law. Murder, theft, and fraud are all dear functions of government. Behind the propaganda, aggression is always the true nature of the state. While it is certainly true that easing the burden of taxation or cutting down on the amount of imperial crusades are laudable goals, they should not be ends in themselves. The goal is liberation from institutionalized coercion and nothing less. Murray Rothbard once likened the cause of liberty to the oppression faced by the people of Ireland by the British when he wrote:
the goal of ending English oppression — that could have been done by the instantaneous action of men’s will: by the English simply deciding to pull out of the country.
The fact that of course such decisions do not take place instantaneously is not the point; the point is that the very failure is an injustice that has been decided upon and imposed by the perpetrators of injustice — in this case, the English government. In the field of justice, man’s will is all; men can move mountains, if only men so decide.
The pervasiveness of the state is the most compelling crisis of our time and is not limited to the Western world alone. Economically and morally, those laws and freedoms which sustain civilized life are withering away. Economists speak in terms of government spending crowding out private investment because the money squandered on political projects must come from the pockets of the public. The effect also applies to the notions of self-responsibility, a natural right to acquired property, and the unwillingness to employ violence which have all been purposefully tamed and made acceptable through the actions of the welfare-warfare state apparatus. In essence, the ability to live life with little interference from Leviathan has become crowded out.
Countering this trend is no easy task. Government attracts large amounts of resources not just through theft but also by attracting power hungry individuals. Those who earn a living through the police state, the educational establishment, the mainstream press, and the central bank-controlled financial system enjoy their state privileges and will do what it takes to maintain them. Educating the public on both the benefits of liberty and to withdraw “consent to its own enslavement” as Etienne de la Boetie put it is difficult to carry on against entrenched interests. It is nonetheless a fight worth carrying on with one clear objective in mind: for all men to live free from coercion. It is a passion best embodied in a quote from 19th century abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison who when asked why he spoke so fervently on the need to end slavery immediately, he retorted
“I have need to be all on fire, for I have mountains of ice about me to melt.”
»
- 13736 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Perhaps but ultimately you end up in the same place. In the UK the difference between the “conservative” and “labor” parties amounts to trifles like whether the VAT should be 21% or 22%.
Stateside this November there will be a contest between a fire-breathing commie president whose flagship program for permanent government expansion was modeled on the program created by his country club Republican, private sector success story opponent.
I can hardly wait to go to the polls...
Well you do wind up the same place, because of definitions.
WFB also defined things as "Liberalism is fast, reckless, foolish change. Conservatism is slow, stodgy, deliberate change."
When the government becomes the #1 determining factor in everything great and small that happens in your life you end up in the same place because of reality.
WFB's more famous definition of conservatism is "standing athwart history yelling STOP!"
The motto of Central Planning may as well be: "standing athwart markets yelling STOP!"
FASCIST not COMMIE.
There is no intent to match needs to means, nor a mechanism. There is no intent, nor a mechanism, to force everyone to be equal.
There is expansion of CORPORATE governance. FASCISM.
What Is Fascism?
Caligula 2012 because there is no lesser evil!
I'm a lib, and I would have voted for Paul the extremist over the imperial incumbent.
Matt Stoller, in reviewing IG Barofsky's book, comments on the Obama administration on Naked Capitalism:
"Think about this for a second. Congress’s approval rating is in the toilet, and the legislature is used as a scapegoat for any number of problems. The public likes the President, broadly speaking, but thinks of Congress as immensely corrupt and inept. Barofsky’s book essentially says that the public has this story backwards – it was Treasury, he argues, who was uninterested in preserving taxpayer dollars from fraud. And it was Congress, figures like Barney Frank, Darryl Issa, Richard Shelby, and others, who were the major forces behind what little accountability there was towards the banks. Even more shockingly, Barofsky notes that actors in the Bush administration, from Hank Paulson to Neel Kashkari, were more honest and reliable than those in the Obama administration. Barofsky, a self-described Democrat, found this surprising."
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/in-bailout-neil-barofsky-reveals-the-key-lie-of-the-obama-administration.html
I'm writing in Ron Paul, even if there's no place for it.
Gary Johnson is a viable alternative, and he is on the ballot... not sure if that includes every state. In many ways he is more libertarian than Ron Paul. Don't get me wrong, either is better than our "choices".
I am leaving my Gary Johnson bumper sticker on my car forever. It's an indirect way of saying "don't blame me" or "sane person on board". Of course, it might also get me killed.
No it wont, no one knows who Gary Johnson is!!
ANY third party on the ballot is a better choice.
Not voting will be written off as apathy.
Third party votes are unmistakably a protest against both of the two majojor parties.
There are apparently a multitude potential choices, based on where you live.
http://www.politics1.com/p2012.htm
Like the old man used to say, "shit or get off the pot."
the problem with Ron Paul is unlike other politicians he is not a slick liar. And consequently is not persuasive enough to mainstream.
The biggest problem is that most voters do not want what he is saying. They want what Obama says--basically I will keep the checkbook open.
Frankly, I don't think most voters KNOW what Ron Paul is saying. Their only source of news is from the MSM and rather than having the intellectual honesty to say they don't know, they parrot back what they heard on the evening news with no real clue of what they are talking about. It is disheartening to hear someone profess to have researched what the candidates stand for...and on the heels of that call Paul a hypocrite because he puts in earmarks. I just roll my eyes and in my head say to myself, "clueless...this person is absolutely clueless."
Those who will "vote for the nominee of their party regardless of who it is" are just as bad. Those folks stand for nothing beyond what they are told to stand for. It isn't about the candidate's record (regardless of how bad it is or how many times that person has flip-flopped or lied or supported horrible ideas), it is about following the herd of their party. The party is the be all, end all, and they haven't the sense to recognize that their party and the other party have shifted to being ideologically the same with the only difference being in the means taken to get there.
Like another poster said below, I'll be just fine regardless of who gets elected (until and unless they come for me...haha). I've worked hard to reach a point where I can keep to myself and watch the two factions driving this country into the ground and not irrevocably impacted by it. Hey, go to it. I'll try to be here to pick up the pieces with other like-minded folks when you are finished playing grown-up.
"They want what Obama says--basically I will keep the checkbook open."
Which, if they would think for two seconds, means your and other people's own wealth, and your and other people's kids and grandkids wealth. The structural evil that allows this to happen started long ago, and was ensconced in American law in 1913.
There is no room for a non-fascist in either party.
Where is John Galt ?
In a book at the library.
Our country tried that. It wasn't so great under Standard Oil and the railroad monopolies.
Sorry, I'm not buying the benevolence of the powerful elite. It just ends up as serfs and lords.
I hope all of you who write in Ron Paul will be satisfied by the outcome of your wasted vote. At least Paul Ryan is giving Ron Paul credit for his economic views. Think about it. We're all here because we are looking out for our livelihoods. Wouldn't it be the lesser of two evils to at least vote in the a** hole who Ron Paul sorted of endorsed? The other guy is a throbbing, pulsating a** hole.
Freedom will be destroyed under Romney, but at a far slower pace. Under Obama the country will be over within a year. The shredding of the constitution will be complete if Obama is re-elected and the USA will cease to exist.
Voting for Romney will give us a little more time to attempt change. The ship could still be steered away from the iceberg.
adr
Too close to call.
Spondoolix,
The right to vote is one of the LAST freedoms that I truly have. Heck, I can't even choose the color to paint my own house without some bureaucrat's approval, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna let somebody else (like you) coerce me into voting for who he/she wants me to vote for, especially by fearmongering. "A vote for anybody other than Romney, is a vote for Obama." Blah, blah, blah.
Guess what? Regardless of who is elected, I'll do just fine. Thanks for asking. As to people like you, many of whom profess to desire Liberty, if you don't have the courage of your convictions to vote for the person who shares your views, then you are just one of the brainwashed sheep, and you'll get what you deserve. When you look around for somebody to blame, instead of blaming people who truly exercise their free choice, you should look in the mirror if you want to see the real problem - knuckleheads like you who have swallowed the false left/right paradigm deception hook, line and sinker. Maybe one day, if things get bad enough for you, you'll re-examine your penchant for supporting a watered down version of an anti-Liberty ideologue.
"If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist."
Joseph Sobran
You can mark me down as extreme, thank you very much!
Our very last freedom will be our right to die.
No, our last freedom is to fight for our life, liberty and property. Death may come, but LIFE is the driving purpose for ourselves and our future generations.
As long as your family can pay the tax on that!
Death is inevitable, freedom is not.
Freedom's just another word for nothin left to lose. And nothin honey cus it aint' free.
+ 1000!
I hope all of you who vote for Mitt Romney will be satisfied by the outcome of your wasted vote. We're all here because we are looking out for our livelihoods. Ron Paul is our chance for freedom and liberty. The other guys are throbbing, pulsating assholes.
Same funding:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
Same positions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38
The only wasted vote is the one not cast.
There is no such thing as an effective vote, so how can it be wasted? You think that vote matters? Who elects the president? Not that ballot in your hot little hand.
I and my family will suffer no matter which sock puppet is elected, and I refuse to legitimize this corrupt and repugnant system by lining up to chose my master. I'll be beat with the same stick no matter who is doing the swinging.
Disagree. Agorists have the right to do what they want. If they want to check out, then good for them. It's their life and their choice, and only they can decide how they want to live in light of the consequences of their choice.
Like not investing is a position, not voting is also a position.
I woke up and will no longer support evil. I will write in Ron Paul as he is the only one who represents me. If that hands Obama the election so be it... if that hastens the colapse so much the better, because nothing will happen until the crisis becomes unbearable. I'm not looking forward to the revolution, but I do realize it is necessary and the sooner the better.
Paul Ryan is giving RP credit because he is attempting to co-opt the zeitgeist surrounding RP in an attempt to inspire those people to vote for his boss (because they know in their hearts that's the only way in hell they have a chance at winning the election).
if you wanna fall for the smoke & mirrors (once again), it's your choice. it's a free country after all (until it isn't).
People like Jesse Benton and Rand Paul are delusional. There will be no libertarian reform from within the Republican Party.
It will collapse from the weight of its own rot and corruption.
You may be correct, but right now there's a grass roots battle going on between the Republican establishment and tea party/libertarians, and while many tea partiers aren't necessarily Libertarians, I have found them to be open to the ideas of Liberty. Don't be so quick to discard them. I was once squarely in the neo-con camp, but I've since come around, mainly through self-education grounded in truth and sound logic. Bastiat and Austrian economics are the 2 sources that I attribute the most to my change of worldview. Statist indoctrination runs deep, and many who despise it still have roots of it running through their own worldview unbeknownst to them.
In my opinion, it's easier to take over a party than to start a new one. If you want a recent historical example, just look at the Democrat party. It's basically all progressives now. All of the old blue dog democrats are gone now. They switched parties and became Republicans. Who do you think makes up the current Republican establishment? I think it's the old blue dog democrats, many of whom like to call themselves conservatives. People have a very short memory. If Howard Taft, Mr. Conservative, were alive today, he'd be horrified by the foreign policy views of today's so-called conservatives - neo-cons basically.
Benton is an asshole.
The only choice left is rebellion. Every general in the US military has the obligation to enter Washington with troops and dispose of every sitting politician. By Obama's shredding of the Constitution, they are under no obligation to obey his orders. In fact by their oath to defend liberty, any member of the US military would be doing their sworn duty by removing Obama and the rest of our government by any means necessary. If the defenders of the Constitution will not act, it then falls to the people.
Writing in Ron Paul with no chance of victory is not rebellion. It is consent to be governed by the facists who are in control. Not voting in protest, is once again consent to be governed by the likes of Obama. The power of a citizen vote has been marginalized to nothing. A vote cast in an Iranian election holds more power than a vote cast in America.
Our government knows the power of the ballot box will never be great enough to overthrow them. Their stockpile of ammunition is a show of force intended to threaten us. The government is telling the citizens of the United States that they can not stand up against tyranny, yet begging us to try. Obama wants a revolution so it can be put down with a heavy fist, cementing a victory and wiping out the idealogy of individual liberty forever.
Good luck with that. When the NOAA or Library of Congress shoots your ass, who's going to bury you?
"Not voting in protest, is once again consent to be governed by the likes of Obama. "
Bullshit! Not voting is withholding consent to be governed by the likes of Obama and Romney. It is the only realistic vote that the people have left at this point in time.
If enough people withhold their votes, at least the fascists in charge will know there are a hell of a lot of unfriendly pitchforks out there and they had better watch their backsides.
While I understand the sentiment, I disagree. The "fascists" in charge are well aware of the unfriendlies - you don't order up hundreds of thousands of rounds of small arms ammunition to sing Kumbaya around the camp fire.
I lean towards voting for a third party candidate as opposed to not voting or a write-in vote that'll never bee seen by human eyes. In my view, the audience for your (or any) protest vote is not TPTB - they don't much give a damn - but rather, the other voters. Remember, on election night, the idiot box will be spouting numbers from exit polls and wags. Computerized vote tallies don't include write-ins initially. Legitimate third-party votes will be counted and have a less likely chance of being skewed/ignored by the decidely biased media.
I support Ron Pauls stand on Liberty and auditing/ending the Fed. I contributed to his campaign, not because he could get the nod, but because he could and did impact the dialog on the issues. If this were not the case, we would not be seeing the desperate convention delegate shenanigans at the state and now the national level to attenuate the RP message.
I suggest to any of you who intend to vote to seriously consider how your vote can be effective in delivering the message that the status quo is unsatisfactory. The enemies of Liberty understand the long game - those who defend it must as well. This is part of Ron Pauls message.
The problem with your philosophy is the voter makes a contract with the controlling agency when he votes. He implicitly agrees to abide by the outcome. I presume you voted in the 2008 fraud? I did not. If you did, you have a President and a leader. I only have an imposter that occupies the Office of President. He is not my leader, because I never entered into this implied contract as you did. The only reason I abide by his edicts is because of his bullying and the guns and other threats that the bullies carry. You, on the other hand, have a moral obligation to follow. If Barry declares war and reenacts the draft by presidential proclamation, it is your patriotic duty as a citizen to go if drafted. I have no such moral obligation.
nicely put.
I never looked at it in that manner before your post.
"Opt out, bicches!"
In many totalitarian fascist-communist countries, voting was/is compulsory. It was that way in the USSR. It's also that way in Australia I'm told. Take your vacation from the polls while you still can. I am.
I disagree. You're thinking too linearly. In your attempt to occupy what comes across as some self-serving moral high ground, you imply or assume obligations, moral and otherwise, where there are none. Irrespective of whether one voted or not in 2008, we the people all are stuck with the feckless puppet. Contracts must be entered into legally, by parties capable of doing so voluntarily and with legal consideration.
In answer to your question, yes I voted, primarily to deal with local and state issues. I did not vote for the red or blue candidate for president.
Dup
A vote for Romney is a wasted vote as nothing will change. Therefore it will be Johnson or Paul.
"If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist."
Joseph Sobran
write-in Ron Paul and let Obama win .....at this point its the only message left to send
a vote for OBAMA is a vote for Obama
a vote for ROMNEY is a vote for OBAMA
a vote AGAINST BOTH is NEVER A VOTE FOR EITHER.
You can fool double unplus retarded sheep-folk with your inverted logic but this is ZEROHEDGE, BITCHEZ.
I WILL vote i will go in there, and cross out everything and write in Ron Paul's name
What we are witnessing with disbelief and horror is the end cycle of all democratic republics. This is the stage where the citizens and the oligarchs have been given the keys to the currency printing presses. The political process has noW been monetized and completely co-opted. It always will end where it began. We shall return to slavery, wandering through a greater depression while the bankers, the professors, the professional politicians cling to the remaining parts of the governmental apparatus. Then the good men who have kept their guns, who value liberty more than life will organize and revolt. Much blood. The country will return to local, maybe state government, and we will begin again with a new central government that will for a while be restrained. There will be a new burst of freedom, faith and prosperity as the cycle starts anew. In the digital, fiat age, this will happen sooner, not later, so we are wise to position ourselves to secure our families. If you have resources, make plans also for your adult chilldren and their families. They will be blindsided.
Systems are always perfectly designed for the results they obtain. Despite a carefully kept delusion to the contrary, the individuals in the various seats make no real difference. We once had a system that achieved the results it was designed for. Idiots, criminals and demogogues have monkeyhammered it beyond any semblance of what it once was over the last hundred years.
Fix or replace? We would need a President, a Senate majority and a House majority all willing to take a chainsaw to the Fed and the DC bureaucracy at risk of their lives and livelihoods. At this point, replace. Time for a reset.
It's called "social heredity" and is controlled by:
churches
schools
media
it's the learned social inputs that are planted in each citizens DNA derived from the concensus of current public opinion. It cannot be passed on to each heir thru physical heredity, it must be re-planted in each successive generation. If you control the churces, schools and media you can control the social heredity of entire generations.
In 1920 Paul would have had a better chance of being more mainstream... More people feared government then. Now, generations have been "nudged" toward the social DNA of trusting government.
until the 3 headed monster of social heredity can be re-claimed and nudged back to a more conservative message, consencus will skew towards communism... And Ron Paul will remain a lone warrior for liberty...
You have noticed that most teachers, preachers and news people are Democrats.
The pattern in code is:
www.genetic-programming.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
Fundamentally ANY storage & transit system for information - memes, chromosomes, network packets - if able to execute & self-modify are subject to the forces of evolution.
http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/mirror/biomorph/
http://mugwump.pitzer.edu/~bkeeley/class/cche/spr03/alife_lab.htm
I will be a benovelent dictator.....a great one...that is what we need....I can change this country in just 4 years...I am willing to make hard painful choices....and if you don´t like it..my military will take care of you...you will be severly punished....painful yes....but I will put people back to work..and work you will....or starve...no strikes..no protests..just the basics....and schools will teach...and we will have faith...and criminals will be punished severly...and lawyers will be looking for other work...my government will be 15% of GDP....everyone will pay a value added tax...or you will be severly punished...this is what we need...but it will never happen....so down we go ....third world country we are......
J.E.Miller
Ditto for Obama and the Blue team.
61%. The best data analysis money can buy. A truly fascinating demographic experiment that will drive another stake in the rotting heart of the empire regardless of the election outcome.
Pay attention and you'll experience the GOP's blatant attempts to bait you into voting for the biggest corporate shill and religious abomination in the history of the US. It's the probably easiest decision you'll make all year. White pride indeed.
What a crock of crap! Sure the Republicans are bought and paid for....and so are the Democrats. Well I have news for you....so are the Libertarians....especially the Rockefeller funded MISES.
I don't know that I consider myself a Tea Party person. I don't like any of the options. I used to be a fan of Ron Paul (put on a Republican hat to vote for him in 2008 as well as opening up my wallet) but after spending more time researching him I think the whole libertarian philosophy is another cooked up aspect of the Hegelian dialect. Look at the libertarian center for economics (John D. Rockefeller funded University of Chicago School of Economics). A major red flag was when "libertarian" Peter Thiel (Paypal, Google, Palantir, Facebook - i.e CIA...as well as GoProud) became his major fundraiser this last go-around.
Mr. Anonymous & The Libertarian Movement
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0812/S00378/mr-anonymous-the-libertaria...
Eyes on the Prize (Sidebar to Mr. Anonymous)
http://www.thebellforum.com/content.php?r=158-Volker-Sidebar-1-%96-Eyes-...
Finally, in his most surprising statement, he [David Rockefeller] revealed he considers himself a follower of the Austrian school of economics. Friedrich Hayek had been his tutor at the London School of Economics in the 1930s.
http://www.mskousen.com/2000/01/interview-with-david-rockefeller/
For further research:
Mont Pelerin Society
"The Case for Gold" by Ron Paul and Lewis Lehrman as well as Lewis Lehrman's derivative works
http://www.thegoldstandardnow.org/images/stories/PDF/Money-and-the-Comin...
http://www.nysun.com/national/plan-to-return-america-to-the-gold-standar...
Is there any deviation between Lehrman's derivative works and Ron Paul's current stand?
"I [Ron Paul] wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
"The ultimate solution will only come with the rejection of fiat money worldwide, and a restoration of commodity money. Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation."
— Ron Paul, Congressional Record, March 13, 2001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dH3_Lcfeac&feature=player_embedded
...haven't the money managers controlled and manipulated gold/silver for over a century now (battle over gold/silver in the late 1800's - The Secret of Oz)??? Hasn't GATA (Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee) been going off about this for years now???
"The gold standard is a modern, digital, information-sharing, global operating standard. Moreover, it is a stable, networking, efficient, price transmission system in the form of a stable international monetary standard," says Lewis E. Lehrman.
Big media is paying attention to proposals for a new Gold Commission. This concept first was floated by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and reported by The Weekly Standard.
"A modern, digital, information-sharing, global operating standard," says Lehrman. Let's boot up that commission and take a really close look as to how gold might be the "golden bullet" to get an American economic miracle roaring. Gold: Dignity, Prosperity, and Liberty.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/a_new_gold_commission.html
Paul supports legalization of parallel currencies, such as gold-backed notes issued from private markets and digital gold currencies.[66] He would like gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies[67] to compete on a level playing field with Federal Reserve Notes, allowing individuals a choice whether to use sound money or to continue using fiat money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
"gold-backed notes issued from private markets" Notes issued by private markets backed by gold?
So don't we have a shell game where they drop the Federal Reserve Notes and go with a global note "backed by gold"...at least until they say otherwise (think Nixon)....where's the change?
Why are China and Russia stockpiling gold all while the US appears to be running on empty? Why would Ron Paul recommend selling whatever we have left to settle our debt with private bankers thus leaving us completely at their mercy economically?
"Fast forward almost 70 years. Ron Paul announces at the Heritage Foundation that the government should sell its gold to reduce the national debt."
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north983.html
http://www.garynorth.com/public/8028.cfm
Rep. Ron Paul Introduces Legislation To Stop Gold Manipulation
http://www.rense.com/general20/ron.htm
If the market is so free then how come Ron Paul is resorting to obtaining government force in order to curb manipulation of gold/silver prices? Ron Paul has introduced legislation (resorted to government force) to correct manipulation of commodity (precious metal) prices in the free market? So is gold/silver really an answer to central banking via private banks? Or is it just more private banking control over the world?
I'm not against using government force to correct market abuses. My problem is with Ron Paul hypocrisy. In Enron's case he claims its just a bad corporation and falls back on his push it down to the states mantra but in manipulation of gold/silver prices he wants Congress (central government) to dictate.
How did that Enron/Bush story go again???
...wasn't it Grover Norquist (CFR man behind two of Ron Paul's campaign chiefs - Jesse Benton & John Tate) and the "Arnold" who privatized CALPERS a few years back???? Flashbacks of Enron and power deregulation in Cali???
Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Unkun3aA2o&feature=player_embedded
Ron Paul is a Voluntaristhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BoUrrlbDoVs
References
http://vforvoluntary.com/ron-paul/
Ron Paul Flip Flops On His Newsletterhttp://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul-flip-flops-on-...
"There’s nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency…"
— Ron Paul, Congressional Record, March 13, 2001
"TO OUR SURPRISE, Paul's financial disclosures reveal no holdings of physical gold, gold coins, or gold equivalents like certain exchange-traded gold funds, which is confounding, given his strident advocacy of the metal as an insurance policy against the almost-certain debasement of the currency by politicians and central bankers. So we dug around a little. In his financial-disclosure form for the years 1994 through 2002, Paul reported holding "semi-numismatic" coins worth between $100,001 and $250,000. But from 2003 onward, they were never mentioned again.
Rachel Mills, the congressman's press spokesperson, said Paul, who generally is garrulous on the topic of hard money, did not wish to comment."
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB500014240527023038229045765161142897...
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2012/01/13/where-is-ron-pauls-gold/
Let's be Realistic about Ron Paulhttp://www.henrymakow.com/ron_paul.html
"A piece appeared in the press noting that businessmen are insisting with increasing zeal on searching the minds and the hearts of their employees by means of polygraph tests. If any arm of government30 were to go so far, they would be met by horrified protests at this vicious attack on individual freedom, and rightly so. What is it that gives ordinary businessmen a power greater than that of the government? It is the capacity for giving or withholding money—nothing else in the world.... There is only one thing in man's world that can offer any check on the unlimited power of money—and that is government. That is why money always accuses government of trying to destroy free agency, when the great enslaver has always been money itself."
- Hugh Nibley
Competing currencies -
"Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded; retrospective alterations in its value might be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and animosities be kindled among the States themselves. The subjects of foreign powers might suffer from the same cause, and hence the Union be discredited and embroiled by the indiscretion of a single member."
- James Madison
Are parallel competing currencies authorized by the Constitution? How does a "competing" currency strengthen and stabilize the currency its competing with? Competition? Doesn't somebody win? What if its the competing global currency that wins?
Is a "digital" gold currency a "hard" money?
Why would Ron Paul resort to the power of government on manipulation of gold prices in the market (somebody obviously won control - i.e. monopoly) yet recommend turning over the creation power of money to private banking? What did Hugh Nibley say? Is he correct?
Why is that in perfect alignment with Lewis Lehrman's report to PNAC? Is it just a coincidence that CIA insider and member of the Bilderberg steering committee, Peter Thiel, is investing in Ron Paul all while being a co-founder of PayPal (the world's leading digital money company)?
"Palantir was founded in 2004 by Peter Thiel, Dr. Alex Karp,[2] Joe Lonsdale,[3] Stephen Cohen, and Nathan Gettings. Early investments came in the form of $2 million from the CIA's venture arm In-Q-Tel and $30 million from Thiel and his firm, The Founders Fund.[4][5][6][7] Dr. Alex Karp is Palantir’s CEO.[8] Palantir’s name comes from the "seeing stones" in the Lord of the Rings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies
"Thiel, who sits on the board and is an avowed libertarian, says civil liberties advocates should welcome Palantir. “We cannot afford to have another 9/11 event in the U.S. or anything bigger than that,” he says. “That day opened the doors to all sorts of crazy abuses and draconian policies.” In his view, the best way to avoid such scenarios in the future would be to provide the government the most cutting-edge technology possible and build in policing systems to make sure investigators use it lawfully."
http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/284106/ashlee-vance-palantir-reihan...
"Ron Paul has some 'right on' stances -- the wars, drug policy. But his Randian take on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental regulation, banking controls, unemployment insurance, child labor laws and unions are ALL either unconstitutional or just "not good for business." That only unfettered free-market capitalism (Milton Friedman Economics) will pull this country from the depths of collapse, that the evil is government itself, is clearly the very political/economic ideology that has driven this country to the depths of ruin.
Government of, by, and for the People is what CONSTITUTES democracy itself. The undeniable fact that government is broken exists not because it IS government, but because it's permeated by the cancer of corporatism. You don't treat cancer by removing the good flesh and feeding the cancer."
www.opednews.com/articles/Ron-Paul-the-Obama-Decept-by-M-J-Welch-111226-...
Thiel wrote: "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
- Thomas Jefferson
"I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
- Remarks at dinner honoring Nobel Prize winners of the Western Hemisphere on 4/29/62 by JFK
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Quotations.aspx
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance."
- James Madison, Father of the Constitution
Ron Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He wants to remove the last vestiges of government control over money (what barely exists).
As I understand it, our money is created by debt. The money for interest is never created thus creating a Ponzi economy reliant on ever expanding debt (new money) in order for the old debt/money to escape whole. The problem is we've reached the debt saturation point. We started to hit it in the mid 90's and Greenspan created the sweeps program that cleared out the demand deposits (checking accounts) and loaning them out (sweeping checking money into a savings account to loan out). We hit it again in 2000/2001 and Greenspan lowered interest rates (the cost of debt) to all time lows which kicked off the housing boom speculation run. Interest rates are now half of where they were in 2008 yet housing prices have fallen 40% and current sales numbers are dismal and continuing to trend down. The reality is we are in desperate need of money in order to get demand going again (gasoline demand at mid/late 90's levels) but the mechanism is broken. So the plot to take over the world is reaching fruition....now what do they do? Do they let the people off the hook after a century of plotting? Isn't it like a monkey with his hand in the coconut in that he won't let go of the the rice in order to get his hand out? I think now comes the war for control. I assume that those who own everything believe that with technology they can control the people. Maybe they can. Time will tell the story....
I don't believe there is any meaningful difference between the two major political parties. Go back to 1913 with the debate over the Aldrich Plan (Republicans) and the Federal Reserve Act (Democrats). Neither party bothered to inform the public that the bills were almost identical except for the names (or that either bill meant the end of the Constitution). There is no meaningful difference between Clinton (CIA drug money launderer in Arkansas), the Bushes (CIA drug kingpins), and Obama (CIA lackey - although he is rarely in uniform). To put the house in order (who's version of order?) requires removing the influence of the international money trust. It requires a people who are willing to constrain themselves to law. A people united and committed to building a more perfect union. A people committed to tranquility, justice, liberty, and life. I've never seen the people more fractured and self driven without regard for others in both short term and long term consequences. Without a people united and driven by common goals (proper goals for the benefit of all)....it makes little difference what happens politically - it will likely create no meaningful change.
I personally believe that God will intervene. Basically stimulus for change (natural disasters, plague, etc). Also the people seeing the results of decisions made over the past century that stimulate a paradigm shift....a change in consciousness. I hope that people will wake up to the reality that wickedness (selfishness without regard for others) never was nor never will be happiness....and thus make different choices going forward (constraining themselves to proper law as well as regarding their fellow man as highly as themselves). I do believe that the American people will rally to the cause as in times past (all is not lost) when it fully hits home.
Well got on my soapbox a bit there....sorry! I'm a bit passionate about having been deceived by Ron Paul and crew.
Is it Tuesday yet?
WTF? You can't just provide a link?
My take away...."What a crock of crap!"
2 posts in 2011, 9 posts in 2012 with 7 of those today in this thread. At least you stopped pimping your blog though.
Yophat,
Just because you lack the intellectual capability to analyze and evaluate a position based upon its philosophical premises and deductive implications doesn't mean everybody else has your impairment.
Spare me your ridiculous funding bogeyman.
LOL
LOL...
“Many readers may be surprised to learn the extent to which the Graduate Institute and then Mises himself in the years immediately after he came to United States were kept afloat financially through generous grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. In fact, for the first years of Mises’s life in the United States, before his appointment as a visiting professor in the Graduate School of Business Administration at New York University (NYU) in 1945, he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.”
– Richard M. Ebeling, The Life and Works of Ludwig von Mises
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_13_01_6_ebeling.pdf
Yawn
Einstein was Jewish, but it would take a special idiot to dismiss his General Theory of Relativity because he was funded by Jewish money (He spent his own money on himself didn't he? ;-) ) Congratulations! I think I have discovered your long lost theoretical sibling, though I'm not calling you anti-semitic, rather only an idiot.
What makes you think that Einstein's own money was "Jewish money"? You appear to be logically impaired. Are you claiming that all of Romney's money is Mormon money?
Furthermore Einstein was not "Jewish". He was of Eastern European Ashkenazi descent. The Ashkenazim are not ethnic Jews. Neither did Einstein follow the tenets of Talmudic Judism as a religion. When asked about his belief in God once, his reply was his god was the god of Spinoza. Spinoza was excommunicated from his Sephardic Jewish religious group and all other members were forbidden to speak to him due to his beliefs.
As a matter of fact, tongue-in-cheek, yes, Einstein's money was Jewish money. His parents were non-observant Jews, so by descent he was Jewish, thus his own money is Jewish. As for Romney, again, tongue-in-cheek, yes, his money is Mormon money. Romney is a Mormon is he not? You couldn't pick that up when reading my post? Sheesh.
Sadly, you speak of "logically impaired," but I do not think that phrase means what you think it means. LOL
A. Einstein was Jewish, thus it follows that his possessions were Jewish.
B. Einstein possessed money.
C. Therefore, Einstein's money was Jewish
Can you follow that? If you feel the need to test it with a truth tree, go right ahead. Do you know what a truth tree is? Nevermind. You completely missed the point of my post, so it's rather obvious that you aren't that bright. Let's recap: The main thrust of my post, tongue-in-cheek syllogism notwithstanding, was that the source of research funding in no way validates or discredits the veracity of the scholarly work produced. Might it reveal a specific ideological bent behind its funding? Of course, but the work produced will stand or fall on its own merits.
Do you get it? Anything illogical with my conclusion regarding validity of scholarly work as it relates to its source of funding?...
I didn't think so.
LOL, I can't even believe I wasted time replying to your post. ROFLMFAO.
Are you implying that, since Romney is republican, his money is republican money as well?
I didn't imply that, but logically, you could deduce that based upon what I said. You do know what tongue-in-cheek means, don't you?
Dude, what's with the Saga's? Jimminy crickets, war and peace and moby dick combined are shorter.
Yes, things will be so much better when it all crashes and there are riots in the streets and we are eating out of trash cans. Freedom at last! We stand on our principles knowing we may well have contributed to the collapse, but as so many of the left leaning bleeding hearts claim, we had but the best of intentions. Part of the problem we have today is that with even the most principled leaders, there seems to be no good choices. So instead they go for the hail Mary pass, hoping for the no pain, miracle solution. Writing in Ron Paul, while sending a message, will ultimately only enable those powers so many seem to hate. People have the power of change within their own hands. Simply how we choose to spend our time and money directs the ultimate outcome. Instead of hoping for a saviour, save ourselves. If you think letting things crash provides the solution, i would suggest you haven't read much history. This is the kind of thing that has lead to totalitarian takeovers that have lasted multi generations. Be careful what you wish as you might just get it!
Well said....its on an individual by individual basis. If we united we could accomplish something....divided we fall.
In the world of blackbox voting...whether write-in or not...it may not make a difference. I believe the greatest individual impact is felt at the local level. Our "representatives" who make law and control the purse are in Congress...not the president.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhBtfiRKaVY
Ron Paul is unelectable.
Then why fear putting him on he ballot? Let us "Paulbots" have our box to check, our voices be heard... the elite fear Ron Paul for one reason only. He is RIGHT and would end the game they play so well.
The fact that rules were changed to stop the man's name from being on the ballot shows very much that Obama and Romney BOTH know Ron Paul is entirely electable.
they are all corrupt!!
survivingsurvivalism.com
Maybe....I would think its closer to the truth to say "we" are all corrupt!! It starts with the man/woman in the mirror...
but nobody wants to hear that. Nah instead they want to blame everyone else. Its the rich...its the poor...its the government workers...its the anarchists....its the statists. Blah, blah, blah....
Oh Ron Paul will save us by selling off the government possessions and shrinking it into oblivion (privatizing government - i.e. the solution to GMO Monsanto is turning over the Department of Agriculture to Monsanto). By completeing the process of turning over he money to private banking (lets kill the front for private banks - Federal Reserve - and go straight to the private banks with a hard "digital" gold currency).
Maybe he won't save us and we can all just dig our holes and wait for something ominous to dig us out....
@ slewie the pi-rat
Ron Paul is not finished; this is not his swan song…Jesse Benton is a campaign manager of a political campaign. He is not a spokesman for the Ron Paul Movement.
This candidate for president is not Harold Stassen; he is not William Jennings Bryan -- the people who walked this country for Ron Paul were not pushing for free silver.
The issue is freedom. And to say freedom dies in Tampa is to misunderstand the entire motivation of the American Republic, what brought it into existence and what will save it from the clutches of a banker cartel.
The movements to stop the “radical” voices for Ron Paul at the Convention are the movements of the dying enslavement of Americans.
State delegations with Ron Paul pluralities were situated on the outskirts of the Convention floor to be as far from television cameras as possible. Rules which would have allowed Ron Paul to be nominated from the floor and given a chance to speak were hastily changed and submerged.
One delegation, Maine, that would have been for Paul was totally disqualified to silence its voice at the convention.
The treacherous John Sununu was given the job to handle Convention mechanics especially to silence any potential disruption against Romney.
The California GOP delegation, a large group and strongly for Romney, was given the job of suppressing on the floor any movement that would have created a Ron Paul moment.
And at the last moment a move to completely change party mechanics on how delegates are selected in the states was intended to stop any such candidacy as Ron Paul’s in the future from overriding the major media-model of selecting delegations in the primary.
These developments are not the beginnings of tyranny; they are the end. These actions are the reason for the Ron Paul Revolution. Freedom cannot be bottled up.
And to say it’s over is to support the abuses of the past.
While well intended...the reality is that if you managed to get Ron Paul into office and he was able to implement his stated plans....your freedom would dissappear much more rapidly than under Obama or Romney. Hegelian Dialect. Ron Paul will likely be back in 2016. His main backers still have an agenda to fulfill. It likely doesn't matter what puppet reads from the teleprompter though....
An excerpt from Secrets of the Federal Reserve courtesy of Estace Mullins -
Later Congressional testimony showed that in the firm of Kuhn Loeb Company, Felix Warburg was supporting Taft, Paul Warburg and Jacob Schiff were supporting Wilson, and Otto Kahn was supporting Roosevelt. The result was that a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President were elected in 1912 to get the central bank legislation passed. It seems probable that the identification of the Aldrich Plan as a Wall Street operation predicted that it would have a difficult passage through Congress, as the Democrats would solidly oppose it, whereas a successful Democratic candidate, supported by a Democratic Congress, would be able to pass the central bank plan. Taft was thrown overboard because the bankers doubted he could deliver on the Aldrich Plan, and Roosevelt was the instrument of his demise. *The final electoral vote in 1912 was Wilson - 409; Roosevelt - 167; and Taft -15.
To further confuse the American people and blind them to the real purpose of the proposed Federal Reserve Act, the architects of the Aldrich Plan, powerful Nelson Aldrich, although no longer a senator, and Frank Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank, set up a hue and cry against the bill. They gave interviews whenever they could find an audience denouncing the proposed Federal Reserve Act as inimical to banking and to good government.
The bugaboo of inflation was raised because of the Act’s provisions for printing Federal Reserve notes. The Nation, on October 23, 1913, pointed out, "Mr. Aldrich himself raised a hue and cry over the issue of government "fiat money", that is, money issued without gold or bullion back of it, although a bill to do precisely that had been passed in 1908 with his own name as author, and he knew besides, that the ‘government’ had nothing to do with it, that the Federal Reserve Board would have full charge of the issuing of such moneys."
Frank Vanderlip’s claims were so bizarre that Senator Robert L. Owen, chairman of the newly formed Senate Banking and Currency Committee, which had been formed on March 18, 1913, accused him of openly carrying on a campaign of misrepresentation about the bill. The interests of the public, so
Carter Glass claimed in a speech on September 10, 1913 to Congress, would be protected by an advisory council of bankers. "There can be nothing sinister about its transactions. Meeting with it at least four times a year will be a bankers’ advisory council representing every regional reserve district in the system. How could we have exercised greater caution in safeguarding the public interests?" Glass claimed that the proposed Federal Advisory Council would force the Federal Reserve Board of Governors to act in the best interest of the people.
Senator Root raised the problem of inflation, claiming that under the Federal Reserve Act, note circulation would always expand indefinitely, causing great inflation. However, the later history of the Federal Reserve System showed that it not only caused inflation, but that the issue of notes could also be restricted, causing deflation, as occurred from 1929 to 1939.
Here's the reality, Ron Paul tells it the way it is... always has. Obamny lives by the addage "When it gets really serious, you must lie." Paul supporters are smart enough to realize one day it will happen -- the SHTF, however some Paul supporters are not smart enough to realize the best way to gain power/control is to bankrupt a nation or world first, insert said psychopath (e.g., Hitler) who promises everyone salvation then rules with an iron fist upon the throne. On top of that, the majority of people have a vested interest in electing Obamny via being entitlement recipients, state/federal employees and most of all ubiquitious stupidity and ZERO critical reasoning skills. I believe most of here can do the math and can extrapolate from it... it will happen because the sheeple will vote for it and when those votes eventually unleash the incredible Hulk, Hulk will smash... smash savings, freedoms and anyone who stands in the way of concentrated unchecked unregulated state power. We are but pawns on the chessboard, accept it and welcome the raging Hulk with open arms.
Yeah like his flip flops on 9/11? His recommendations for holding gold while he has none? His flip flops on his newsletters? His flip flops on favored nation status for China? His flip flops on funding Obamacare. That's just a few off the top of my head.
He's just another lying deceptive politician. Here at 4:06 he clarifies his stance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4
He only uses the Constitution when its useful for attacking government and otherwise completely ignores it (Congressional right to create money - and only one's authorized by Constitution) when it suits his purposes. His agenda is little if any government and turning it all over to private banks and corporations. He wants to sell off all of "our" possessions (to bankers?) in order to satisfy debts while paving the way for single global currency (likely based on gold by "digital"). In other words he's proposing a new world order but taking a slightly different track (welcome to the Hegelian Dialect).
He rants about auditing the Federal Reserve (the eternal bill that goes nowhere) all while stating that we should remove the last vestiges of government control over money thus turning it completely over to the private market (private banks - i.e. same banks that control the Federal Reserve).
I was a sucker for a time swallowing his jargon hook line and sinker.
The war is over control of money. Individuals vs. corporatations and private banks is a dead end battle for individuals. United individuals (government via representatives) has a fighting chance.
As I quoted Hugh Nibley previously -
"A piece appeared in the press noting that businessmen are insisting with increasing zeal on searching the minds and the hearts of their employees by means of polygraph tests. If any arm of government30 were to go so far, they would be met by horrified protests at this vicious attack on individual freedom, and rightly so. What is it that gives ordinary businessmen a power greater than that of the government? It is the capacity for giving or withholding money—nothing else in the world.... There is only one thing in man's world that can offer any check on the unlimited power of money—and that is government. That is why money always accuses government of trying to destroy free agency, when the great enslaver has always been money itself."
Is he correct or off his rocker?
If he's correct then the object should be taking back government and not destroying it....at least that's my take on it. You take back government by getting people involved in the process as well as united in common welfare. This requires a people united and committed to building a more perfect union. A people committed to tranquility, justice, liberty, and life. We haven't had that for quite some time....and likely won't until we get some serious wake up calls (likely at the natural disaster level). Meanwhile the police state becomes an ever increasing necessity as people become a law unto themselves.
But each to their own. Some would rather throw jabs while their train is on the same set of tracks as the others....
The clowns that refuse to vote, as if they are more noble than others, or are making as meaningful protest against the system by doing so... are all full of shit. Don't you morons know that your refusal to vote is the best thing that could happen for the elitist crooks? That Obama will win by proxy, because the welfare/disability/foodstamper/illegal alien scumbags are all going to vote for the Kenyan... while you, sitting on your high horse, watch it happen... Elect Mitt, you fools (he is miles better than the big-eared ape), and work harder next time for guys like Paul.
LOL....like it or not....they vote one way or the other!
Your contempt for negroes is showing... Oh, no, wrong target once again...
Meet Bob, Filthy Racist American Citizenism
For now, the election of 2012 remains a mere pussy riot.
The storm churning through the Gulf of Mexico may remind us just how large and uncontrollable the forces of nature are as the curtain rises on the political season of a grievously misled nation. http://kunstler.com/blog/2012/08/male-energies.htmlIt's TOE THE LINE, for goodness sake!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line
GEEZE DUDE, get your own blog
It all hardly matters. The global Balance Sheet is so far out ow whack that we are headed to a Civil War II no matter who is in power. Ron Paul would be a mere speed bump. http://www.futurnamics.com/civilwar.php
Opposing sactions on Iran, as Ron Paul did, is no way to support liberty. Ron Paul is a dangerous crank who deliberately confuses the public by conflating Fed-created money with government debt. And let's all agree on the gold standard commission, which will surely reject it so we don't waste any more time discussing that which utterly unfeasible to implement.
I'm ready NOW to implement the gold standard. I can accept payment directly in gold for my work & I can pay directly in gold coin for food, utilities, mortgage, etc.
Sanctions are an ANTI-liberty act of war - attacking civilians who have done no wrong and inviting attack directly back at you. Only an idiot directly and deliberately punches a wasp nest. You'll get your damn eyes stung out.
Think of the Federal Reserve as a giant sow, and all of the gubmint entities as little pigs suckleing off of it {and the taxpayers}. Destroy the central bank, and you bring down the whole house of cards. Andy Jackson knew this.
Yeah Andrew was the man!!!
Ron Paul, on the other hand, claims to want to get rid of the Federal Reserve (private banking control of money) out of one side of his mouth while out of the other trying to get people to completely privatize (remove what little power Congress has left) money as well as initiate competing currencies (a handout to the globalists).
Andrew used the power of government to attempt to control the money cartel while Ron Paul would shrink government such that it poses no threat to the global money cartel.
I have read most of your posts and can see that you've devoured everything from Eustace Mullins to bizarre youtube clips. I get it. Ron Paul is evil because he proposes to privatize the monetary system. You believe that only government can provide a bullwark against the machinations of the coporatocracy. How, precisely, do you see this happening? We allow the FED to remain in control, then what? We pass laws against corporate power influencing the process? With all of your blather what are you saying? I'm curious.
"Andrew was the man!!" Andrew Jackson did not use the power of government to end the reign of the money-masters. He simply removed govt. deposits from the bank and vetoed the bill to renew it's charter. You can hardly call that a pro-active use of govt. power. Not to mention Andrew Jackson dramatically shrank the size and power of govt. He sold off federal lands and handed over the monetary system to a hodgepodge of state chartered banks. Did you even read Jackson's veto message? Do you really have any clue what you're talking about?
You oppose competing currencies. Hmm. Why, as free men, shouldn't we be allowed to use whatever we want as money? In the current system competition is a poison pill because it destroys the Wall St. monopoly over the monetary system. You quote James Madison saying that competing currencies would create chaos. My question remains, "if we are free men, why can't we use whatever we want as money?"
Who are you and what are you trying to accomplish? You don't seem to endorse either establishment candidate while you spare no effort to vilify Ron Paul. Just what do you want? Do you really think that 1000 or even 10,000 words trying to make the case that Ron Paul is dishonest will ever gain any traction? While the man may not be charismatic, or while he may not offer the most complex solutions to the monetary system, does anyone REALLY believe he's been lying for 30 years? REALLY? Trying to paint him as some carefully contrived judas, "wolf in sheeps clothing" is a stretch beyond the credibility of the most ardent defender of the status quo. He has spent 3 decades in congress turning down pork, voting no to spending bills, returning part of his annual office budget and rejecting the congressional health insurance and retirement plans. What exactly do you imagine is his end game? Why would he have devoted the 2nd half of his life to public service to further the agenda of the "globalists" while seeing no personal benefit whatsoever?
I am a fair and reasonable guy. I support Ron Paul for 3 reasons. First, he is the only politician since Robert Taft who convincingly proposes to end the warfare state and pull back the reach of the American Empire. Without any other reason, that should be enough to win everyone's support. If that is not part of your agenda then you are a fascist murderer of American chldren on behalf of corporate interests not be mention willing to turn a blind eye to perpetual genocide waged in your name. Second, the man has been speaking truth to the drug war for 30 years and any twisted argument that hopes to keep fighting this war is either tragically naive or dependent on it's tyranny and bloodshed. Third, perfect solutions notwithstanding, without his tireless voice for the last 3 decades, the monetary system would still remain outside the public narrative. Maybe the gold standard is not the perfect answer, but at least the question is being asked. We are now witnessing a generation of kids carrying signs saying "END THE FED". Not since Andrew Jackson has a national voice breathed life into such an obscure yet vital topic as monetary policy.
I ask again, set aside your Ron Paul bashing for a moment, just what the FUCK do YOU stand for? What do you support? What solutions do you offer? Is this just some pathetic tirade because someone convinced you that your original support for the man was gained by fraud and deception? Are you mad because you feel you were lied to?
dude got pwn'd
I appreciate your curiosity.
I am a money man. I believe it begins and ends with the control of money. I don't relish the thought of going back to the days of feudal lords or the priviledges of birthright and royal decree.
US government was initiated by the people for the people. An attempt to create a more perfect union focused on tranquility, justice, liberty, life, and happiness (pursuit of property). The key here is union or government. The attempt was to create a better government. For the most part they succeded. Over time the foundation has been chipped away until it, for the most part, doesn't exist.
Do we throw the baby out with the bath water? If you implemented all of Ron Paul's stated plans what would you end up with? A shrunken government that is mostly privatized. Is that good or bad? Doesn't it depend on who controls the market?
Can you solve a Monsanto problem by turning the Department of Agriculture over to Monsanto?
Let's take your stance on pulling back the reach of the American Empire. Ok so we shrink the American Empire...bring our troops home. Who's going to fill the void? The Russians? The Chinese? Is it the American Empire that is the problem or is it who controls it?
I spent some time in the Persian Gulf as a hard chargin' Devildog. I'd like nothing more than to see my buddies get out of the sandpit and quit supporting the heroin trade in Afghanistan. But the reality (perhaps only mine) is that shrinking American influence in the world isn't going to resolve any of the major problems and would in all likelihood make them worse. Perhaps you see a different side of China or Russia than I do. I'm open to your thoughts on the matter.
Yes I went on a Ron Paul kick. I used to be an ardent supporter of his. Then I was challenged by a friend to consider some research. I dug a little deeper and learned a few things. I thought about the actual implementation of his ideas and what the results would likely be. Needless to say but I'm no longer a supporter and think he's just another leg of the globalist stool. To each their own on it.
As another commentator on here mentioned....I don't post very often. I mostly just read and absorb. I'm a little passionate about this one.
So to address your closing comments. I stand for freedom and liberty. That said I understand that this can only be obtained by a united people who are self constrained to rule of law (justice) that is in alignment with natural law and divinely appointed rights. What does all that boil down to....well that our problems are the result of all of us. Sure there are conspiracies and plenty of little groups seeking power and dominion. But the reality is they cannot accomplish it without dividing and weakening the masses.
I believe the solutions to our problems are resolved in Congress (Representatives of the People). The franchise or right to vote still exists. Congress still controls the purse strings. They can take back their power to create money (abolish the Federal Reserve and the international money cartel). They can fix things. But it requires a united people (common goals) and good men who won't sell out. A very difficult problem considering the payoffs (legal insider trading for starters). But I think the ultimate problem and solution lies within all of us. What motivates us and why? Do we care about each other? Do we want a better future? Are we willing to pay the price and find others who feel likewise and will represent us?
Or do we search for an escape route? A hole to find/dig?
"Let's take your stance on pulling back the reach of the American Empire. Ok so we shrink the American Empire...bring our troops home. Who's going to fill the void? The Russians? The Chinese? Is it the American Empire that is the problem or is it who controls it?"
Wow.
First, I too am an ex marine. I was in at a different time and when I was in, I was part of a different world than you are probably familiar with. I was an NSA spook during the cold war. As such I got a glimpse of a different reality than most people believe exists. That was my first peek into the dark secrets of the "men behind the men".
You say you are a "money man". Without understanding the true heirarchy and structure of capital, you can only discuss ideas and dreams. Andrew Jackson realized 170 years ago that it is the owners of capital who create governments, not to protect the people from men like them, but to give those men a legal framework to plunder the governed. When liberals and conservatives argue about the just power of govt. they are merely arguing about whose form of looting is more just. It's all looting just the same.
Ron Paul talks about corporatism. Do you know what that means? You ask if it makes sense to turn over the dept. of agriculture to Monsanto. You really don't know that Monsanto has owned it from the start? Corporations are persons under the law. They are persons just like you and me. Except they aren't like you and me. They have the same rights but, they don't get sick, they can't go to jail, and they never die. Think about that. The corporation is a new species of life, created by man, for the benefit of man, that is in every real way, omnipotent over man. We have, with the stroke of a pen, created the all powerful dragons of antiquity that will lay waste to our civilization whenever it suits them. What suits them? Profit. No more, no less. Corporations have created govt. to suit their ends. Who owns and controls the FDA? Drug companies. Who controls the FCC? Media conglomerates. At whose beck and call does the SEC jump? Banks and financial giants. Any doubt any of us ever had of these facts should have been completely erased by the bailouts friend. The very same institutions run by the very same men who created this financial disaster created the bailouts and handed them out to themselves. Could anything be more obvious?
Your adolscent faith in congress is touching but fatally naive. Congress is owned and controlled by contributors. As Mark Twain once said, "If voting really mattered they wouldnt let us do it". The Rothschild family alone controls a fortune, by conservative estimates, of over $400 billion. Do you really think your vote means two fucking shits? Grow up kid. Ron Paul offers one all important thing to the people of this country, an ideal we can strive for. A hope that there might be, somewhere among us, a truly honest voice who isn't in the pocket of some special interest group or lobby. He tries to teach about corporatism and it's dark influence. He draws a straight line between that corporatism and the FED whose very existence empowers those corporate interests. It's navie to believe you can vote out the corruption, but it's noble in the extreme to give the one true voice of integrity his time on the platform to speak. When one man leans bravely into the blazing heat of media ridicule and partisan smear campaigns and refuses to back down no matter what, and that man draws a powerful audience in spite of the odds, that is a victory that can't be defined in legislative terms. It speaks of an awakening. A secret hope among us that maybe we have a place to start our fight.
A vote for Ron Paul isn't victory in and of itself. It's that buttefly wing fluttering in the wind that might become a hurricane someday. He never backed down. He never compromised. His message never changed. Sure there might be flaws in the Austrian school or the gold standard. Does that matter? No. What matters is that lobbyists ignored him for 30 years because they knew he was beyond their reach. What matters is that his humble integrity is the highest ideal that any voter could ever realistically hope for. What matters is that he has never stopped urging us to end the warfare state. You talk about the vacuum we might leave in the messes we have created. Why should we care if China or Russia ventures into the quagmire we have made? Do either of them, or even both of them together, pose any real threat to our military might? The most powerful demonstration of our confidence is our willingness to withdraw from the fray and sit back and fold our collective arms and dare any of the new bullies to even glance our way. Who really threatens us? I mean our country? Who? I am not talking about our so called "American corporations" and their interests abroad, I am talkinig about my ability to live my life in my town without the fear of getting molested by foreign invaders, or even terrorists for that matter. Are there real, geniune threats to my neighborhood in Omaha or Spokane or Tallahassee? NO. There aren't. Let's please, after 70 years, heed the advice of Eisenhower and stop letting the military/industrial complex murder our children for profit. Can we at least give it a shot? We've seen almost 9,000 dead and 45,000 wounded since 9/11. When is enough, enough? If you're worried about Israel, fuck it, pull back the foreign aid and state dept. meddling and tell them that Iran is THEIR problem, good luck.
You're a "money man". If you really understood money and wanted to see life for what it truly means then start with peace, until our kids stop coming home in flag draped coffins nothing else is important. After that, lets spend the time to understand what money really means to all of us and realize our true nature. We aren't built to be competitive and devour each other over little green pieces of paper. I know that is a long way to go from where we are but mark my words, if we don't start that journey soon, we might miss the chance.
Ron Paul is a goodness in a world controlled by darkness. You can rant and rave against the details all you want. But a vote for good is ALWAYS better than a vote or pratical. Speaking of which, you still never said what you want out of this election.
Well I reckon we can agree to disagree. As I understand it, the government structure that was established in the United States was set up in such a way as to prevent (to the extent possible) of ultimate power and corruption falling into just a few hands. That mostly came to an end Christmas eve of 1913.
Still we have a representative government. The voice of the people still can be heard. That is if they choose to make their voice heard and they seek after folks who can't be bought. To my knowledge the masses have been led away from recognizing that power that they have. That is if they aren't led away by paid preachers ranting against "the state" (an anonymous figureless entity which is quite meaningless) thus coaxing a few to rebel (become a law unto themselves) and coaxing the majority to sustain a police state as a result of the rebel minority.
Ron Paul is a key part of that (another leg of the stool). Congress created the Federal Reserve and Congress can kill the Federal Reserve. Rather than focus on the power of the people Ron Paul rants about stupid audits when the Federal Reserve is already audited every year. What Ron is really talking about is auditing the member banks but (as Walter Burien, of CAFR fame has pointed out) that is like asking for an audit of every member of the Boy Scouts of America because they belong to the organization. Not very realistic and likely the reason it hasn't gone anywhere for decades. Having young folks ranting about seems nice but ends up going nowhere.
Same could be said for bringing the troops home (i.e. taking on the military industrial complex and those who control it) via one man (president). Not too far back we had a president threaten to break the CIA into a thousand pieces....and we all know the history of November 22, 1963 when Roscoe White (code name Mandarin - part of the ZR/RIFLE program) made the fatal shot.
Convenient that the same folks who control the power structure are the same folks that have funded the libertarian/Austrian economic philosophy movement. Are you beginning to see the picture?
I could give a flying crap about the Presidential election. A puppet dangling from teleprompter strings. What is needed is control of Congress. Congress controls the purse strings. Instead of 1 single person what we need are hundreds of them killing purse strings left and right. Not a Ron Paul who sits on the Banking Committee and does nothing while major banks launder hundreds of billions of drug cartel dollars. He's got like one bill passed in 30 years? Manages to be the NO man yet is in the top tier for personal pork in bills??? Why would the other fella's allow him to put all that pork in their bills knowing that he's going to be the NO man???
Yeah he's goodness all right.....sarcasm off....perhaps you should look into his connections with 9/11 a little more closely. His gold buddy Lewis Lehrman was a signatory to the now infamous PNAC document that got that ball rolling....
FYI - Eisenhower may have warned us about the Military Industrial Complex.....but what he didn't say is that he played a key role in creating it. Certainly he was "The Politician" (highly recommended read by the way). Trick is to get real folks in office and not lying politicians. Ron Paul is another of the latter and not the prior. Ask him if he has any real gold holdings (vs paper stock certificates)....
the only reason the voice of the people is heard is the INTERNET - such variability in protocols & connections it's impossible to be made silent.
IN MEDIA people are yelled at, mics turned off and told never to come back.
IN THE STREET people are arrested without warrants, framed for crimes, beaten.
ON RADIO if you broadcast without the approved licence you are arrested.
If it wasn't for the Internet NONE of us would be very wise to the tricks afoot today. MOST of us would be IN JAIL for speaking about this in an equally large forum on TV or radio or in person.
"zerohedge" would be "zerobail" or "zerosoapdropping"
"I don't relish the thought of going back to the days of feudal lords or the priviledges of birthright and royal decree. "
YOU'RE IN IT.
How blind could you be?
Also you have probably noticed I did not address all of your mentioned issues. The reason is everyone has to do their own homework. There is no shortcut.
I will take the liberty of pointing out a little irony and you can then decide whether you will give it any consideration or do further research on your own.
You mentioned - "He has spent 3 decades in congress turning down pork, voting no to spending bills..."
How is it that he is known as the "no" man and will always turn down pork....yet he gets all that pork included (earmarks) in all those bills whom the creators of the bill know that he is automatically going to be the NO man???
The man has survived for 30 years in Congress because he delivers $$$ in the form of pork/earmarks to his constituents. Why?
http://www.frumforum.com/ron-paul-hates-government-loves-pork/
http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-brings-pork-home...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/ron-paul-texas-federal-spend...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/ron-paul-big-gove...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/10/30/fiscal-conservatives-wi...
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2011/12/ron-pauls-principles/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORJlza7iDAY
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-pauls-personal-pork-project...
Jesus, stop with the never-ending links already. Ron Paul votes NO on the spending bill then uses earmarks to make sure that federal bureacrats don't get to decide how every dime of the money spent. I don't know who got into your head but it's like a fucking brain tumor. If you don't understand the process then please stop blathering about it.
LOL...oh I understand the process. He votes NO but gets the $$$. Very simple but highly ironic. He's the king of pork yet claims to be against it. Of course one is left to wonder just how he gets HIS pork in the bill (versus others) when he is the NO man. Perhaps you can shed some light on that "process"??? Since you've got it all figured out....
I provide links for additional supporting information. If its not wanted don't click'em...I apologize for the couple nanoseconds of wasted time for your eyes to scan over them.
You're failing to match the "ear-marked pork $" to the "out-going tax $" Texas must contribute. Match them & then try opening your yap.
Ron Paul was "swindled"? The reason Ron Paul is not the nominee of the Republican party is that people did not vote for him. Sad, but true.
Ron Paul was "swindled"? The reason Ron Paul is not the nominee of the Republican party is that people did not vote for him. Sad, but true.
clearly those in MAINE who did vote for him were EJECTED - their votes deleted.
Ron Paul hasn't been cheated out of anything. If you studied Ron Paul you'd know he thinks it's OK for Iran to have nukes. Despite the fact that they've threatened to use them against the US and Israel. Ron Paul can be found on a youtube video saying we should treat Iran with more respect. And don't get me started about Ron Paul wanting to make drugs legal. Ain't gonna happen. Ron Paul comes off as a looney tune.
Neocon nonsense. Zionism and prohibition are two of the pillars of the imperial system that is destroying our liberty.
Blue Dog,
Since you're so afraid of Iran getting nukes, let me ask you a simple question: What if China or Russia decides to sell a nuke or nuclear technology to Iran despite US protests? What are we going to do? Thermonuclear war with China or Russia? I don't think so. Iran will eventually get a nuke, whether they develop it themselves or they buy the technology from somebody else. You can take that to the bank. So should we just go ahead and start the war with Iran tomorrow? The clock is ticking...
Oh yeah, and please don't give me some intellectually bankrupt ad hominem attack that would claim I'm for Iran getting nukes. My preference is that they never have nuclear weapons, which is probably your position. In the real world that we live in, how many countries are you willing to run roughshod over, piss off, and how many people are you willing to kill, so the monster living under your bed doesn't scare you so much at night when you sleep?
Oh yeah, and don't forget the N. Koreans. They've got nukes. Better address that. Also, let's not forget what happened to Khadafi AFTER he gave up his nuclear ambitions. Oh yeah, he's dead now. Hmmm, that never happened to Kim Jong Il AFTER he got his nukes. Interesting. No way could US foreign policy have resulted in a positive incentive for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Nah, that'd never happen!
Yeah they have a point. Good ol'Kermit Roosevelt and operation ajax to support BP's interests in Iranian crude. Then when they tossed our benevolent dictator out (the Shah) we retaliated by ordering Saddam Insane to invade and harass them for nearly a decade.
Can't say as I blame them for hating us. Its certainly complicated.
But do we blame the gun (US military) or do we blame the interests who are pulling the trigger? What do we do about it?
Those same interests (international money trust) have built Russia and China. Say they wanna delete the sole country on earth that has the potential to stand in their way? Ron Paul's agenda would dovetail quite nicely with theirs.
I also think it's OK for Iran to have nukes - if Iran can't then NO ONE can.
Israel has no right to nukes as far as I'm concerned. They refuse inspectors, refuse the non-proliferation treaty NNPT though Iran is a member / signee.
Iran has NOT called for any war against the USA despite what rhetoric you hear on Faux (fox) news and Iran has already been attacked with SANCTIONS - AN ACT OF WAR by the USA.
Ron Paul's plans defuse this nightmare, return to peace and drop the unwanted, overly expensive (unaffordable in today's dollars, currency-collapsing in hyperinflated dollars) MILITARY IMPERIUM.
Iran SHOULD be treated with respect - it is NOT A HOSTILE MILITARY NATION and ISRAEL IS, JUST AS RUSSIA IS, THE UNITED STATES IS, BRITAIN IS and that's the facts.
GERMANY got stomped twice so won't do it again for some time.
CHINA understands trade & money well enough to use them for MANY deceptive war-tactics before actual bullets, missiles, tanks & troops.
We get the elected representatives that our neighbors deserve.
The State is the enemy.
Ron Paul understands this although he can't come out and say it directly.
I would encourage all of you who want to write in Ron Paul to vote for Gary Johnson or simply not vote. Ron Paul is great leader but writing him in is pointless as write-in votes are not counted by the machines that tabulate all votes these days. Over all, the best choice is to not vote at all, at least then you have not given your endorsement to a corrupt system.
Democracy was embraced by the founders as a means to an end. The end was liberty. The democratic system can no longer achieve the end for which it was created and therefore must collapse. The only system that can give us liberty in the long run is anarcho-capitalism.
The current system must collapse in order to clear the way for something new. If we as a people want to be free, that something new must be a society that is able to function without the coercive machinery of the state. It is on each of us to make such a system possible by educating ourselves and our friends and family about natural rights and true "Austrian" economics.
READ YOUR ROTHBARD. YOU CAN ALSO FIND MAY SPEECHES AND LECTURES AT THE MISES INSTITUTE AND ON YOUTUBE.
Anatomy of the State by Murray N. Rothbard. This is a must read!
http://mises.org/pdf/anatomy.pdf
James E. Miller:
"The 'center' electorate is just a term used for the majority looking to government for what they mistakenly believe to be a free lunch."
Alexis de Tocqueville:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
At this point, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for ObaMarxism.
If you CAN'T see that, you are an imbecile, and if you WON'T see that then you are most likely a lying sack of Democrat excrement, and incapable of honesty on the internet.
If you can't see that there is no difference between Romney and Obama, you are either blind, stupid, or a lying sack of Republican excrement. The state is the problem, regardless of who is in charge. Romney would only acclerate Imperialism and tyranny. I would much rather see the money that the state steals from me and every other productive American go to socialist handouts (even though I dont support them) than to the military/police complex that is actively using violent coersion to supress freedom in America and self-determination around the globe.
Yes the great enemy "the state"....the solution of course is to all become enemies of the state. That will certainly help matters...sarcasm off.
Government is a tool....not the enemy. Use it or lose it. The choice is yours.
today's government is an active organism, an organically colluding, top-down controlling swarm-beast.
It is NOT a tool and it IS your enemy. It has weapons of DOOMSDAY means - weaponized disease, nerve gas agents and nuclear weapons.
You'd be an idiot to conclude anything else.
Can we go after the republican and democratic parties under the anti-monopoly laws?
What about SuperPACS? How about Special interest groups. How about the government itself? Should they have the right the control everything we do?
Wow. Married to one of Ron Paul's granddaughters and Rand Paul also endorsing Romney.
With family like this, who needs frenemies.
Poor Ron Paul.