Re: Ron Paul for President?

If Ron Paul is kosher, I'm outta here!

No kidding, he also wants to take us back to the gold standard : WRONG idea! (it's just going back to an older form of the same old banking kontrol).

The makers of Money As Debt and The Money Masters warned us clearly and loudly against this false good idea oif going back to the gold standard.

Re: Ron Paul for President?

this is not a real ADL site:

    “The Anti-Defamation League Salutes Congressman Ron Paul -- July 10, 2007”

    That site is registered to "Boris Pribich", who has several other sites, such as:

    We apologize to Ron Paul and his supporters for falling for this deception.

    However, Ron Paul should realize that because he promotes the official lie of 9/11 in which Arab terrorists attack us and fire caused the buildings to collapse, it will be easy for Boris Pribich to fool people into thinking that the ADL approves of Ron Paul. We invite Ron Paul to speak on The French Connection to explain his opinions.

I agree with them. If Ron Paul is interested in explaining himself about his gold standard pied piper theme, and his belief in islamic terror behind 9/11...

Re: Ron Paul for President?

druid wrote:

No kidding, he also wants to take us back to the gold standard : WRONG idea! (it's just going back to an older form of the same old banking kontrol).

The makers of Money As Debt and The Money Masters warned us clearly and loudly against this false good idea oif going back to the gold standard.

What system of money do you recommend we use if gold/silver and green paper are not options?

Re: Ron Paul for President?

People in the past tried to introduce silver as counterweight to the monolithical power of the gold standard, which was used for total kontrol by the bankers.

Greenbacks money made by the governement is a solution, just like Abraham Lincoln and Kennedy tried to do. we know what happened to them and what the bankers thought about this revolutionary idea...

As long as we go along with the solution proposed by the bankers, we won't get out of this mess.

Re: Ron Paul for President?

Skyalmian wrote:

What system of money do you recommend we use if gold/silver and green paper are not options?

Hi Skyalmian,

It's been referenced before on here but the Money Masters video provides a very good background understanding of this issue.

Money Masters - part 1
Money Masters - part 2

(There are several versions of varying quality on Google Vid... these links are reasonably good fidelity.)

"The unknown does not incite fear, but dependence on the known does." - J. Krishnamurti


Re: Ron Paul for President?

druid wrote:

If Ron Paul is kosher, I'm outta here!

No kidding, he also wants to take us back to the gold standard : WRONG idea! (it's just going back to an older form of the same old banking kontrol).

The makers of Money As Debt and The Money Masters warned us clearly and loudly against this false good idea oif going back to the gold standard.

You can issue gold /silver money without it being  "debt money" upon which interest will accrue to the Federal Reserve bank, President Kennedy did this with Executive Order 11110

"(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12,1933, as amended (31 U.S.C.821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denomination of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption (Executive Order 11110, June 4, 1963, John F. Kennedy) "

37 (edited by druid 2007-07-14 15:36:29)

Re: Ron Paul for President?

But still, bankers own the gold.

The makers of Money Masters and Money As Debt are very serious about this: forget about going back to gold standard: this is no solution to any of our problems.

They said it loud and clear in an interview with Daryl Bradford Smith … r2007.html


Re: Ron Paul for President?

Here is an interesting article i found about Lincoln and greenbacks

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

When Abraham Lincoln first entered politics in 1832 he announced to Illinois voters that "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." These three things – central banking, protectionism, and what we today call corporate welfare (for the railroad and road-building industries) are what Lincoln would devote the next twenty-eight years to achieving, working tirelessly in the political trenches of the Whig and Republican parties. In doing so he became a master politician, a designation that the founding fathers warned all citizens to be fearful of.

The year 1832 is significant because that was the year of the big showdown over the rechartering of the Bank of the United States between President Andrew Jackson and the bank’s president, Nicolas Biddle. Jackson won the showdown, the bank became defunct, and the Whig Party was created largely in response to it and in response to Henry Clay’s failure to prevail with the "Tariff of Abominations," which would have raised average tariff rates to nearly 50 percent.

A central bank was the potential political lifeblood of the Whig Party, and no one was more devoted to resurrecting it than was Lincoln. As University of Virginia historian Michael Holt writes in his treatise, The Rise and Fall of the Whig Party, during the 1840, 1844, and 1848 elections Lincoln "crisscrossed the state ardently and eloquently defending specific Whig programs like a national bank . . . . Few people in the party were so committed to its economic agenda as Lincoln." In 1848 Lincoln stumped for Zachary Taylor, promising that if he were elected he would revive the central bank. He would continue to criticize Jackson and advocate central banking for the rest of his political career.

In Monetary Policy of the United States Richard Timberlake clearly explained the paramount importance of central banking to the political ambitions of Lincoln and his fellow Whigs: "To the Whigs . . . a national bank was their life – the vital principle – without which they could not live as a party – the power which was to give them power . . . . To lose it, was to lose the fruits of the election, with the prospect of losing the party itself." In other words, the Whigs always intended to use a central bank, and the printing of paper money not backed by gold or silver, as the means of financing massive patronage schemes ("internal improvements") that they hoped would keep them in power indefinitely. This is precisely why the Jacksonians were so opposed to it.

Andrew Jackson and the Bank War

The best published account of the "bank war" between Andrew Jackson and Nicolas Biddle is Robert Remini’s Andrew Jackson and the Bank War. Jackson considered fiat money to be "the instrument of the swindler and the cheat. For Andrew Jackson, hard money – specie – was the only legitimate money; anything else was a fraud to steal from honest men." (Remini, p. 19). Jackson also believed that the doctrine of states’ rights meant that a central bank was unconstitutional. This view was quite pervasive, especially in the South. As Timberlake writes (p. 83): "The states . . . . were properly jealous and fearful of encroachment by the federal government. Since a central bank would necessarily be a federal bank and would maintain and operate state branches from a distant center, proponents of states’ rights found opposition to a national bank almost mandatory."

Jackson suspected that a central bank would be controlled by Northern bankers and would be used to manipulate politics. Remini does point out that the strongest support for the bank came from New England, whereas the fiercest opposition came from Southern politicians like Jackson.

Jackson had good reason to fear political manipulation by a central bank. The first president of the Bank of the United States (BUS) was Navy Captain William Jones, who had no banking experience and who had just gone personally bankrupt. Murray Rothbard blames him for the Panic of 1819 in his book of the same title, which is cited by Remini.

The Second BUS was run by Nicolas Biddle, who continued to politicize the bank in many ways, including granting low-interest loans and "consulting contracts" to politicians who would support the bank’s expansion. Jackson’s Treasury Secretary, Roger B. Taney (the future chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) complained of the bank’s "corrupting influence" and "its patronage greater than that of government" for good reason. As Henry Clay biographer Maurice Baxter wrote in Henry Clay and the American System, Clay (Lincoln’s political role model) left Congress for two years in 1822 after having incurred $40,000 in personal debt to become general counsel of the BUS. His income from this caper "apparently amounted to what he needed" to pay off his personal debts, writes Baxter. "When he resigned to become Secretary of State in 1825, he was pleased with his compensation."

Another prominent Whig, Daniel Webster, did not even bother resigning from Congress before collecting bribes. He simply demanded a "retainer" from Biddle "If it be wished that my relation to the Bank should be continued."

Biddle proved Jackson’s charges of political corruption to be correct when, during the 1828 election he spent more than $100,000 of the bank’s money in support of Jackson’s political opponents; promised BUS money to friendly politicians to spend on "internal improvements" schemes; paid for the reprinting of Henry Clay’s speeches in support of the BUS; and paid for newspaper ads that promoted himself and the bank and attacked Jackson.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a central bank was constitutional, but it is important to keep in mind that, prior to the War for Southern Independence, it was not at all universally agreed that the federal government itself should be the arbiter of the limits of its own powers. That is, Supreme Court decisions were viewed by many, including President Andrew Jackson, as mere opinions and not Holy Writ, as they are today. As Jackson said in response to the Court’s decision:

To this conclusion I cannot assent. Congress and the president as well as the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution . . . . the opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the president is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the executive when acting in their legislative capacities.

For the next several decades the political battle would continue over central banking, with such advocates of a more centralized and omnipotent state as John Quincy Adams, Webster, Clay, and Lincoln on one side, and John C. Calhoun and the Jacksonians on the other. As Remini writes, "Calhoun argued in favor of a system that would convert the United States to the gold standard exclusively."

The Independent Treasury System

The demise of the BUS led to an alternative banking system known as the Independent Treasury System, which was put into place in 1840, ended by the Whigs in 1841, resurrected in 1846, and ended finally during the Lincoln administration. As Jeffrey Hummel wrote in an essay on President Martin van Buren in Reassessing the Presidency, the Independent Treasury System, under which the only legally recognizable money was gold and silver coins and all currency was redeemable in specie on demand, "ushered in an era of financial deregulation at the national level." It was probably the most stable monetary system in American history, according to Hummel. Timberlake writes that "The Independent Treasury may well appear in retrospect as the optimal monetary-fiscal institution within the basic framework of a gold standard."

Lincoln the Bank Whig

Abraham Lincoln was fiercely opposed to the Independent Treasury System. On December 26, 1839, he gave a speech in opposition to it and in support of central banking in Springfield, Illinois. The speech was Clintonian in length and charged that the system would generate economic instability, be extremely expensive to operate, would be an insecure depository of money, and would "reduce the quantity of money in circulation." These turned out to be red herring arguments.

Lincoln’s speech was quite extreme and even bizarre in some respects. He quite hysterically claimed, for instance, that under a gold and silver standard "All [will] suffer more or less, and very many will lose everything that renders life desirable."

Lincoln was not a religious man, and many of his contemporaries believed he was an atheist. But being a consummate politician he frequently invoked Scripture in his speeches, including this one. "The Savior of the world chose twelve disciples, and even one of that small number, selected by super-human wisdom, turned out a traitor and a devil. And, it may not be improper here to add, that Judas carried the bag – was the Sub-Treasurer of the Savior and his disciples." An Independent Treasury System would supposedly be a "traitor" to the American public just as Judas betrayed Jesus, said Lincoln.

About a year later Lincoln had become a leader in the Illinois legislature and he repeatedly opposed proposals by Democrats to audit the Illinois state bank. In December 1840 the Illinois Democrats wanted to require the bank to make payments in gold or silver instead of paper. The bank was authorized to continue its suspension of specie payment through the end of the year. Lincoln wanted desperately to avoid this outcome, so he bolted for the door and instructed his fellow Whigs to follow him. Without a quorum the legislature could not vote to adjourn, and the suspension of specie payment would continue.

But the door was locked and guarded, so Lincoln literally jumped out of the first-floor window, followed by his lemming-like Whig followers. The Democrats ridiculed him as "Lincoln and his flying brethren," and his stunt failed anyway.

In What Has Government Done to Our Money? Murray Rothbard explained the significance of the phrase, "suspension of specie payment." This explanation clarifies just what it was that Lincoln and the Whigs (and later the Republicans) were fighting so vigorously for.

The bluntest way for government to foster inflation . . . is to grant the banks the special privilege of refusing to pay their obligations, while yet continuing in their operation. While everyone else must pay their debts or go bankrupt, the banks are permitted to refuse redemption of their receipts, at the same time forcing their own debtors to pay when their loans fall due. The usual name for this is a "suspension of specie payments." A more accurate name would be "license for theft," for what else can we call a government permission to continue in business without fulfilling one’s contract?

Richard Timberlake was right: The Whig Party failed to revive the BUS and, without an ability to promise taxpayer-financed subsidies to its big business supporters, the party imploded in the early 1850s. Many of the same special interests that had supported the Whig Party then supported the new Republican Party. Lincoln assured his Illinois constituents that there was not policy difference at all between the Whig and Republican Parties.

Lincoln’s Banking Legislation

As soon as Lincoln took office the old Whig coalition finally controlled the entire government. It immediately tripled the average tariff rate, began subsidizing the building of a transcontinental railroad in California even though a desperate war was being waged, and on February 25, 1862, the Legal Tender Act empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to issue paper money ("greenbacks") that were not immediately redeemable in gold or silver. The National Currency Acts of 1863 and 1864 created a system of nationally chartered banks that could issue bank notes supplied to them by the new Comptroller of the Currency, and a 10 percent tax was placed on state bank notes to drive them out of business and establish a federal monetary monopoly. The government’s paper money flooded the banks so that by July 1864 greenback dollars were worth a mere 35 cents in gold.

Ever since the days of Andrew Jackson American presidents had opposed a fiat money system. The Jacksonian opposition to central banking was ended, literally, at gunpoint. Lincoln’s main role was to avoid doing what presidents had done for the previous three decades: veto central banking legislation. There was no chance of that since Lincoln, unlike Jackson and President John Tyler, was a career-long advocate of central banking and fiat money.

Financing the American Empire

The Republican Party establishment, led by Lincoln, was very clear on what it hoped to achieve with a central bank. As Heather Cox Richardson recounts in The Greatest Nation on the Earth: Republican Economic Policies During the Civil War, Senator John Sherman, brother of General William Tecumseh Sherman and chairman of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, declared, "nationalize as much as possible, even the currency, so as to make men love their country before their states. All private interests, all local interests, all banking interests, the interests of individuals, everything, should be subordinate now to the interest of the Government." This is a perfect rendition of the collectivist philosophy that would plague the twentieth century with its insistence that citizens are to be the mere servants of the state, rather than the other way around.

The sponsor of the banking legislation in the House of Representatives was Congressman Elbridge G. Spaulding, a New York banker. Spaulding clearly argued that the new fiat money system would finally clear the way for the mercantilist system of massive "internal improvement" subsidies. The New York Times published a celebratory editorial on March 9, 1863, in which it said, "The legal tender act and the national currency bill crystallized . . . . a centralization of power, such as Hamilton might have eulogized as magnificent."

Kentucky Democrat Lasarus Powell was not as enthusiastic. "The result of this legislation," he said, "is utterly to destroy the rights of the states. It is asserting a power which if carried out to its logical result would enable the national Congress to destroy every institution of the States and cause all power to be consolidated and concentrated here [in Washington, D.C.]." But of course it would; that was always the intention of The Party of Lincoln.

The Party of Lincoln wanted to transform the American government from the limited, constitutional republic of the founding fathers to an empire that would rival Great Britain’s, and they knew they needed a central bank to achieve that task. Empires are very expensive propositions, as they require sending armies and navies all over the globe. As Richardson explains: "By 1863 the Republicans envisioned a dominant international role for a unified American nation, and [Senator John] Sherman promised that the bank bill, with its implicit strengthening of the national government, would advance that goal" (emphasis added). The Republicans under Lincoln "were building a new economic role for an increasingly powerful national government, permanently involving it in the country’s monetary affairs."

Re: Ron Paul for President?

The fact that Ron Paul even brings the idea of the gold standard into the public consciousness is a good thing.  It will get people thinking of "what if", and quite probably make them wonder how it is that certain people got so much gold. 

"Hey who robbed Fort Knox?"

I see Dr. Paul as a great catalyst for change and awakening in our country.

Re: Ron Paul for President?

If by some miracle he did become President he would have great difficulty in obtaining life insurance.

41 (edited by Lakme 2007-07-26 21:12:57)

Re: Ron Paul for President?

U.S. Presidential elections are nothing but DISTRACTIONS. Presidents are just puppets anyway, and no one is allowed to veer from the script.  On the rare occasion when that happens, they are either assassinated (think Kennedy, Lincoln, McKinley, and others) or forever disgraced (Nixon for one).  That's not to even mention the rampant fraud inherent with the computerized voting machines, which serve to (more blatantly) make "elections" themselves pretty much a joke to begin with anyway (they always were at least on the presidential level, but just less obviously so).

With that said, what does it matter if Ron Paul is "legitimate" or not.  And in the end, even if he was (which he is not), how long do you think he would be allowed to serve even one day of his term?  It's all rhetorical.

In fact, If Ron Paul wasn't serving SOME purpose for TPTB, (which he is, as part of the CONTROLLED OPPOSITION) he wouldn't be allowed ANY mainstream forum of note to express his views, let alone being included in mainstream television debates.   

Again, in any event, the elites (S)ELECT who will be President anyway.  If Paul were for real, how far do you honestly think he would get?  You can bet he certainly wouldn't have made it this far if he was genuine.   

THE one glaring and very apparent way he so obviously serves the agenda of the elites can be found in his answers to questions concerning 9/11.  When asked about the events surrounding 9/11, he doesn't even come close to saying that it was an inside job, but instead implies that the Iraqis/Arabs/Muslims were actually the culprits by saying that American foreign policy in the Mideast is responsible for the attack!  There it is right there.  Hello?  Big clue. 

He knows better for sure, and that is the evidence that he's a big phony.  This is the HUGE giveaway -- Ron Paul is promulgating the lies of 9/11! 
Controlled opposition can get away with alot of truth-telling as long as they go along with the really big lies put forth by the elite cabal that runs things.  I read somewhere that controlled opposition is like rat poison -- 99.5 % of the ingredients are nutritious and tasty for the rat, and if it weren't, the rat wouldn't nibble.  The same thing about controlled opposition -- they tell so much truth, that the lies are believed or overlooked.   

Again, I pose the question: if he was for real, do you think for one minute that he would be allowed a prominent stage to speak the truth, let alone "win" an "election" by this crowd who runs things?  Think again.

And the same goes DOUBLE for Dennis Kucinich, the other controlled phony that somehow is perceived as "real" by many who should know better. 

This is what I wrote about Kucinich in another thread:

"Kucinich is a NWO pawn extraordinaire, a left gatekeeper who praises the United Nations at every turn, and who just recently introduced legislation in Congress that will completely ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians.  If that's not a dead giveaway as to who controls Kucinich I don't know what is.

Kucinich's role is to serve as one of the many "steam vents" out there to distract and lead many of those who question the outright lies spoon fed them by TPTB down the wrong "rabbit hole."...along with his "pretend concern" and posturing concerning the lies surrounding 9/11. Classic shill."

My 2 cents.

42 (edited by DanB 2007-07-27 01:48:55)

Re: Ron Paul for President?

The political structures in the U.S. and around the World are about to implode.

The lying, cheating, stealing and murdering ways and means will have
no ways and means without participants or an audience.

If Ron Paul survives the be it!
Within 2 or 3 years there will be no energy left in the process.

Creation is speeding up...exponentially soon.

Politics being the antithesis of creation will simply dissolve...
it is already well on the way.

The politicians that remain will be playing musical chairs
amongst themselves until ALL the chairs are gone...
and ALL the chairs will be gone and soon.


Re: Ron Paul for President?

Ron Paul in a hour long interview with google. … ;plindex=1

44 (edited by Piece_ofnothing 2007-07-30 13:06:24)

Re: Ron Paul for President?

druid wrote:

But still, bankers own the gold.

The makers of Money Masters and Money As Debt are very serious about this: forget about going back to gold standard: this is no solution to any of our problems.

I'll admit I know little about the money system that keeps the bankers in power.  But how is it better to have a fiat system (the Lincoln greenback for example) where a privately owned central bank just prints as much money as they want out of thin air.  This is what kept Lincoln's party in power for so long (forget the name of it).

Ron Paul said he doesn't support going back to the gold standard by the way, I know he does want paper money backed by something , I'm just not sure how his ideas of the money system are somewhat different than the gold standard. 

If getting rid of the federal reserve and having the currency compete with a gold/silver currency is SO bad why hasn't it been implemented by any currupt pololiticians in the past??? Or why don't we have this policy today for the matter?

By Ron Paul wrote:

Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy

Statement at Hearing of the House Financial Services Committee, February 15, 2007

Transparency in monetary policy is a goal we should all support.  I've often wondered why Congress so willingly has given up its prerogative over monetary policy.  Astonishingly, Congress in essence has ceded total control over the value of our money to a secretive central bank.

Congress created the Federal Reserve, yet it had no constitutional authority to do so.  We forget that those powers not explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution are inherently denied to Congress – and thus the authority to establish a central bank never was given.  Of course Jefferson and Hamilton had that debate early on, a debate seemingly settled in 1913.

But transparency and oversight are something else, and they're worth considering.  Congress, although not by law, essentially has given up all its oversight responsibility over the Federal Reserve.  There are no true audits, and Congress knows nothing of the conversations, plans, and actions taken in concert with other central banks.  We get less and less information regarding the money supply each year, especially now that M3 is no longer reported.

The role the Fed plays in the President's secretive Working Group on Financial Markets goes unnoticed by members of Congress.  The Federal Reserve shows no willingness to inform Congress voluntarily about how often the Working Group meets, what actions it takes that affect the financial markets, or why it takes those actions.

But these actions, directed by the Federal Reserve, alter the purchasing power of our money.  And that purchasing power is always reduced.  The dollar today is worth only four cents compared to the dollar in 1913, when the Federal Reserve started.  This has profound consequences for our economy and our political stability.  All paper currencies are vulnerable to collapse, and history is replete with examples of great suffering caused by such collapses, especially to a nation's poor and middle class.  This leads to political turmoil.

Even before a currency collapse occurs, the damage done by a fiat system is significant.  Our monetary system insidiously transfers wealth from the poor and middle class to the privileged rich.  Wages never keep up with the profits of Wall Street and the banks, thus sowing the seeds of class discontent.  When economic trouble hits, free markets and free trade often are blamed, while the harmful effects of a fiat monetary system are ignored. We deceive ourselves that all is well with the economy, and ignore the fundamental flaws that are a source of growing discontent among those who have not shared in the abundance of recent years.

Few understand that our consumption and apparent wealth is dependent on a current account deficit of $800 billion per year.  This deficit shows that much of our prosperity is based on borrowing rather than a true increase in production.  Statistics show year after year that our productive manufacturing jobs continue to go overseas.  This phenomenon is not seen as a consequence of the international fiat monetary system, where the United States government benefits as the issuer of the world's reserve currency.

Government officials consistently claim that inflation is in check at barely 2%, but middle class Americans know that their purchasing power – especially when it comes to housing, energy, medical care, and school tuition – is shrinking much faster than 2% each year.

Even if prices were held in check, in spite of our monetary inflation, concentrating on CPI distracts from the real issue.  We must address the important consequences of Fed manipulation of interest rates. When interest rates are artificially low, below market rates, insidious mal-investment and excessive indebtedness inevitably bring about the economic downturn that everyone dreads.

We look at GDP numbers to reassure ourselves that all is well, yet a growing number of Americans still do not enjoy the higher standard of living that monetary inflation brings to the privileged few.  Those few have access to the newly created money first, before its value is diluted.

For example:  Before the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, CEO income was about 30 times the average worker's pay.  Today, it's closer to 500 times.  It's hard to explain this simply by market forces and increases in productivity.  One Wall Street firm last year gave out bonuses totaling $16.5 billion.  There's little evidence that this represents free market capitalism.

In 2006 dollars, the minimum wage was $9.50 before the 1971 breakdown of Bretton Woods.  Today that dollar is worth $5.15.  Congress congratulates itself for raising the minimum wage by mandate, but in reality it has lowered the minimum wage by allowing the Fed to devalue the dollar.  We must consider how the growing inequalities created by our monetary system will lead to social discord.

GDP purportedly is now growing at 3.5%, and everyone seems pleased.  What we fail to understand is how much government entitlement spending contributes to the increase in the GDP.  Rebuilding infrastructure destroyed by hurricanes, which simply gets us back to even, is considered part of GDP growth.  Wall Street profits and salaries, pumped up by the Fed's increase in money, also contribute to GDP statistical growth.  Just buying military weapons that contribute nothing to the well being of our citizens, sending money down a rat hole, contributes to GDP growth!  Simple price increases caused by Fed monetary inflation contribute to nominal GDP growth.  None of these factors represent any kind of real increases in economic output.  So we should not carelessly cite misleading GDP figures which don't truly reflect what is happening in the economy.  Bogus GDP figures explain in part why so many people are feeling squeezed despite our supposedly booming economy.

But since our fiat dollar system is not going away anytime soon, it would benefit Congress and the American people to bring more transparency to how and why Fed monetary policy functions.

For starters, the Federal Reserve should:

Begin publishing the M3 statistics again.  Let us see the numbers that most accurately reveal how much new money the Fed is pumping into the world economy.
Tell us exactly what the President's Working Group on Financial Markets does and why.
Explain how interest rates are set.  Conservatives profess to support free markets, without wage and price controls.  Yet the most important price of all, the price of money as determined by interest rates, is set arbitrarily in secret by the Fed rather than by markets!  Why is this policy written in stone? Why is there no congressional input at least?
Change legal tender laws to allow constitutional legal tender (commodity money) to compete domestically with the dollar.
How can a policy of steadily debasing our currency be defended morally, knowing what harm it causes to those who still believe in saving money and assuming responsibility for themselves in their retirement years?  Is it any wonder we are a nation of debtors rather than savers?

We need more transparency in how the Federal Reserve carries out monetary policy, and we need it soon.

February 17, 2007

Re: Ron Paul for President?

lyra wrote:

They're all in on it.  All of them.  If they're on a podium, paraded in front of you, they're in on it.   

I turn my back on all of it and walk the other way.

I don't understand how this can be absolutely true.  For this to be so, there would have be some sort of process where when someone registers to run for president, the Federal Elections Commission (or whatever) says "oh, John Smith, you'd like to run for president?  Let me just look on this list, I don't see you on my Illuminati list.  You're not one of us, sorry, you can't run."  Because (I could be wrong) I think more or less anyone can run for president who meets a few criteria (at least 35 and natural born citizen) and they pay something like an application fee to the FEC.  If that person is a Republican or Democrat, then they get lumped in with everyone else from that party that's running, and get behind a podium, paraded in front of you. 

So it would seem to me that it's quite possible for someone who's not "in on it" to be amongst the candidates.  Since this can happen, there are doubtlessly measures in place for dealing with someone who dared to think that anyone truly could just run on their own.  Primarily, they would be ignored and/or mocked by the media.  This is exactly what is happening with Ron Paul. 

Now, I may have misread what you meant.  You might have meant that only one of "them" would ever want something like to run for president.  That may be.  Or you may have meant that someone could be genuine, but by being involved in the whole process they will be corrupted and become, effectively, one of "them."  But while I think both of these possibilities *are* true much of the time, they can't be considered absolutes.

Also, this isn't directed specifically at you, lyra, you just had that great quote I could use to introduce a point-of-view shared by you and several other previous posters in this thread.

For the record, I am really excited about Ron Paul.  I still think political change is possible, but its a long shot.  It seems to me that the elites are genuinely frightened of this man, which makes me like him all the more.  OF COURSE, it is a huge possiblity that can't be considered enough, that "they" know the discontent is so high right now, that they need one of their own to look like an outsider, look like someone that frightens the establishment so people like myself will put our hope and support behind the agenda nonetheless.  I don't (right now) think this is the case, however.

"Isolation, mis-education, and for the very clever there is looming liquidation."  -Catch Twenty-Two "Bad Party"