Archive for the ‘Ron Paul’ Category

GOLD: THE MONEY OF THE PEOPLE (Ron Paul 1983)

December 13, 2007


Source: Mother Earth News

March/April 1983

THE PLOWBOY INTERVIEW

Politician Ron Paul discusses national economics and federal banking money.

<div class=”related-tab”><div align=”center”>
Image Gallery </div></div>

by RON PAUL

GOLD: THE MONEY OF THE PEOPLE

As this issue of THE MOTHER EARTH NEWS(R) approaches deadline, over 12 million men and women in the United States are unemployed, and our cities are filled with thousands of homeless, hungry people. Asofthe endof1982, production had dropped for 17 months in a row, the longest consecutive fall since the Great Depression. And our national debt has exceeded $1 trillion. Furthermore, such tragedies are compounded by the fact that eastern-bloc Communist and Third World nations owe over $850 billion on loans … which, if not repaid, could cause some of our nation’s biggest banks-and perhaps even the international banking system itself-to collapse. And all this is happening in a country that just a short time ago had the world’s highest living standard and its strongest economy.

The blame for this disastrous state of affairs has been laid at many doors. OPEC, the World Bank, Japanese imports, high interest rates, Reaganomics, and so on. But Ron Paul-a gentleman who has served in the HouseofRepresentatives in the 94th, 96th, 97th, and now the 98th Congress and is also a memberofthe House Banking Committee-thinks that these “causes” are all just symptoms of a much greater evil, and he’s been predicting our present economic chaos for years. Unlike most doomsayers, however, Paul claims to have a solution to our fiscal woes.

Recently, staffer Sara Pacher went to Washington, D. C. to talk to the Congressman, a gracious and articulate doctor who studied internal medicine at Detroit’s Henry Ford Hospital, and obstetrics and gynecology at the UniversityofPittsburgh … served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force … and has a private medical practice in Lake Jackson, Texas, where he lives with his wife Carol and their five children.

After spending a few hours with this advocate of individual freedom and sound currency, Sara concluded that it’s probably no coincidence that “In God We Trust” first appeared on American money in 1864, at the end of the Civil War … which was another period in our history when the government tried to passoffworthless “greenbacks” as valuable currency.<span ..”font-style: italic;”>
</span>

<span ..”font-style: italic;”></span>PLOWBOY: Most Americans are aware-many because the truth has touched their very lives-that our economy is facing its worst crisis in 50 years. Just how did we manage to get into such a mess?

PAUL: Well, in some ways, the story is a complicated one, but a major factor in our economic downfall-if not the most influential -has been the deliberate destruction of our money. You simply cannot have a healthy economy without a sound currency. Consider, if you will, how difficult it would be to build a house if your yardstick were to change its length each day: Can you imagine what kind of structure would result if a carpenter used a “standard” measure that was 16 ” one day, 32 ” the next, then 56 “, then 43 “? And that’s essentially what we’re trying to do … run an economy using a value measurement that continually fluctuates.

In the 1784 debate concerning the handling of our country’s currency, Thomas Jefferson said, “If we determine that a dollar shall be our unit, we must then say with precision what a dollar is.” But now, just like that poor carpenter with a changing yardstick, we don’t know from day to day what a dollar will be worth. And this lack of knowledge keeps us from projecting realistic economic calculations. You have to have a unit of measure if you’re to make such calculations, and we’ve destroyed the necessary system of measurement: our money.

PLOWBOY: And you believe the solution is to back our currency with gold?

PAUL: It’s very clear-at least to those of us who advocate hard money-that if you have something real, such as an ounce of gold, it remains the same from day to day … year to year … century to century. As we’ve seen-particularly in the past few years-gold’s value in terms of the dollar fluctuates, but that’s the dollar fluctuating, rather than the gold itself.

Karl Marx, in his 1848 Communist Manifesto, urged the “centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly”. Sixty-five years later, the United States followed his advice and passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which made possible the massive inflation necessary to finance our entrance into World War 1.

Since 1913, we’ve gone on to destroy our money … to the point that in 1971-when Nixon “closed the gold window”-we totally separated the dollar from gold. And ever since then we’ve had very, very chaotic conditions . . . marked by a tripling of the money supply and a deterioration of the economy.

PLOWBOY: When Nixon took that step-that is, made it impossible for anyone to cash in U.S. dollars for gold-a number of people predicted just such an outcome. So why was the gold window closed.) Were we bankrupt?

PAUL: In effect, yes … but it wasn’t quite the same thing as, say, Mexico’s going bankrupt today. You see, in 1944 the U.S. attended an international conference and helped draw up the Bretton Woods Agreement. We said, “We’re rich. We have 745 million ounces of gold. We’re so rich, in fact, and we have so much gold backing our dollar, that there’s no way we could ever print too much money. Therefore, our dollar is as good as gold. From now on, just trust us. The metal is here, but it’s old-fashioned to swap it back and forth.”

That agreement, of course, allowed U.S. politicians to print unlimited supplies of paper money. In fact, they did just that for years … in order to finance such things as the Great Society and the Vietnam War. Finally, though-in 1971-other countries called our bluff and started cashing in their dollars … to the point that our gold supplies dropped to 263 million ounces. It was then that we had to renege on our promises. When Nixon closed the gold window, it was an admission that the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement was dead, and that the gold standard was dead … and at that point the dollar took one more step toward its final destruction.

Still, we weren’t bankrupt then in the same sense that Mexico is today … but that’s coming. That last stage-when you have no redeemability of money-is the result of a total loss of trust. During one weekend last year, everyone lost trust in the Mexican peso and dumped it.

Back in 1979, though, as we moved into an age of runaway inflation, the United States did come close to experiencing what has happened in Mexico … that is, the rampant dumping of currency. That’s why our government had to change the rules, and cut back on the money supply and raise interest rates to save the dollar. Although we do have some remaining public trust in our currency, I claim it’s a false trust, and I’m afraid it won’t last. Sure, the government says it’ll protect your money, and a lot of people don’t really understand what’s been happening, so the system still works. But in a moral sense, at least, 1971 was the year we completely destroyed our currency.

In summary, then, the dollar still functions in the economic sense … but it may be that some weekend, some day in this decade, the world will finally reject our worthless paper and dump it. Then you could see gold go up to $5,000 an ounce in a very short time and silver to $100 or $200, and total chaos would follow. It’d be a real calamity, even worse than Mexico’s crisis. There, you see, we were able to go in and bail that country out, because-in terms of pesos our dollar was still strong and could be used to prop up the Mexican currency. But if the dollar fails, no one else will be able to do that for us.

PLOWBOY: I’ve heard that, under the Monetary Control Act of 1980, our government can actually use such currency bailouts to back our own money. Maybe you could explain how that law works.

PAUL: OK. The Monetary Control Act was the most significant change in the Federal Reserve System since 1913. It allowed reserve requirements to drop to zero, if desired … which means that a massive expansion of money became possible. It also put 15,000 institutions (instead of 3,000) under the Federal Reserve System … which, in effect, lets them go to the discount window and borrow from the government in case of emergencies. And most important, it permitted the Federal Reserve to use foreign bonds as backing for our own currency. And where does the Fed get these bonds? Well, believe it or not, it usually creates Federal Reserve notes out of thin air … exchanges them for foreign currencies … buys the bonds … puts them in the bank and calls them assets . . * and then prints more Federal Reserve notes that are “backed” by those deposits!

The Fed used to give me information on all that, and I’d keep tabs on what it was doing. But after the Mexico crisis, the agency’s people quit answering my questions. Finally, they did admit that we’ve purchased Mexican pesos with dollars, and-under the lawwe can monetize those . . . that is, use them as backing for our currency. So here we sit, talking about backing our money with gold … while the Fed backs our currency with next-to-worthless Mexican pesos! It’s actually able to do that!

PLOWBOY: I’m sure the Monetary Control Act hasn’t alleviated any international anxiety.

PAUL: No, there’s a growing worldwide loss of confidence in the international banking system. In fact, Secretary of the Treasury Regan has been talking about getting together with all the larger countries to try to come up with a new Bretton Woods-type agreement. And when officials start talking about convening international conferences, you know darn well they’re a little scared. They’re also afraid to tell you the truth … but there are already signs of concern among the public, despite the fact that much is being kept from them. We’ve seen gold and silver prices ‘jumping up again … and who knows what tomorrow will bring? I have to hope the “tricks” that the government is using will work for a little while … mainly to give us more time. But even if the current reinflation seems to improve our economy, we shouldn’t be deceived … because it will be only a temporary solution. Let’s say interest rates and unemployment go down in 1983. It’s all going to be the result of deception, and will have occurred because we’ve inflated the money supply some more.

PLOWBOY: But we have seen the dollar strengthen on the world market over the last two years.

PAUL: Yes, that was a result of the 1979 scare, when we cut back on the money supply and caused the highest real rates of interest seen in the last 2,000 years. The government, you see, tried to control the crisis by introducing the concept of monetarism. This is the view that the federal government should manage the nation , s money system and supply by limiting the increase in the number of dollars printed each year to between 3% and 5%. But that’s been a complete failure, and the administration has now totally rejected those limits. Last August, it switched tactics and went back to the old method of trying to get out of trouble by printing more and more greenbacks.

The plain truth is that the only thing that creates real wealth is hard work and effort. You can’t create wealth by printing money. After all, if you want a house, you have to build it, and if you want something to eat, you have to raise crops … or at least you have to produce something you can exchange for those things. Right now, though, the U.S. government requires Americans to accept paper money-cash without any intrinsic value-in payment for real work and real products.

PLOWBOY: So each time the Federal Reserve increases the money supply, it actually lowers the value of the dollars in our pockets and savings accounts.

PAUL: That’s right. I’ve likened it to diluting milk with water, an it might not be an accident that I use that analogy, since I was raised on a dairy farm. As we brought milk in from all the different farmers, you see, we’d run across somebody once in a while who’d try to rob us by diluting the milk with 5% to 10% water.

And I think that can be compared to what’s been done to our money … the moral nature of both actions is the same. If a farmer tries to steal by diluting milk, that person is a thief. And if you have a savings account, and a politician up here in Washington, in order to stay in office, votes for programs with no means to finance them other than printing up more money, that person-by lowering the value of the money you’ve saved-is stealing from you.

Of course, a lot of politicians who do such things don’t quite understand the nature of money, but the outcome is just as bad, regardless of whether the act results from ignorance or evil intent. Most public servants, in fact, avoid thinking too seriously about the whole question, because it’s very nice for them to have the tool of inflation to use in paying for the programs that keep them in office.

But, I guess, as despicable as debasing the currency is (and I honestly feel it’s the most immoral action a government can take, short of deliberate warfare), I would at least concede that many who participate are not doing harm intentionally. There are economists who actually think they can control the economy, and some people see inflation as a legitimate means of helping the poor … what they don’t see are the long-term consequences. But such actions are still immoral, even though there might be various motives among those who are responsible for them.

PLOWBOY: You say that politicians vote for inflationary programs in order to be reelected. Yet you fight such programs-in fact, the National Taxpayers Union named you “The Taxpayers’ Best Friend in Congress” for your work in cutting taxes and spendingand you seem to have no trouble being reelected.

PAUL: True, and that shocks a lot of people. My colleagues can’t believe it! Many of them worry about future elections on a day-to-day basis, and fight and struggle to keep their seats. Such individuals can’t see where I have a constituency, yet my opponent actually dropped out in the middle of the last election.

PLOWBOY: Since you endorse the gold standard, aren’t you automatically labeled as a right-wing conservative?

PAUL: By some people, maybe, but that’s not totally accurate. It’s true that many of our votes up here are economic market votes, and I vote for the free market, which puts me on the conservative side of the question. However, I consider myself a classical liberal-that is, a Jefferson type, an Andrew Jackson-who is not in favor of any special interest. I’m here to stand up for our freedom and to protect our individual liberties … and that platform is about as liberal as you can get.

And certainly, I don’t keep any secrets about how I vote. I oppose boondoggles and advocate the gold standard. Everybody in my district knows exactly where I stand on spending, social issues, military issues, welfare for business, and gold. So I think the American peopleat least those in my constituency-are a little more attuned to what’s happening than some politicians realize.

PLOWBOY: But politicians, obviously, aren’t the only ones who benefit from inflated money.

PAUL:No, anyone who’s on the receiving end benefits, whether he or she is an industrialist who gets a military contract or someone on welfare who can and won’t work … because both such individuals are recipients of this inflated currency. It’s the person still working for a living, or saving for his or her retirement, who’s getting robbed. These people are already being taxed . . . but the government can’t tax without limits, because there’s a point where people usually rebel. So the politicians and the special interest groups resort to this very, very convenient tool of inflation to take a little more from the pockets of working Americans.

And it’s got to be tempting to use this tool, because-in the early stages, at least-the public can’t quite see what’s happening. People are being robbed, and they don’t know it, because the ill effects aren’t obvious right away. But in the long run, as more and more people become increasingly dependent upon receiving from the government, the monetary system will be destroyed. Those who are still producing will lose their incentive, and-toward the end-production will drop off rapidly.

You can compare an inflationary society to an alcoholic who needs that next drink in order to feel good. The new money makes everybody feel good at first. It may temporarily lower interest rates, for instance … but as soon as its effects wear off, the country will have to have another “shot” of inflation, or it’ll begin to go through painful withdrawal symptoms. So there’s absolutely no easy way to get out of the predicament we’re in.

PLOWBOY: I’ve heard some economists say that we face an “inflate or die” situation, and they talk about needing an inflation rate of 25% or 30% to turn our economy around effectively.

PAUL: Yes . . . in each cycle you have to inflate more in order to convince people that there’s enough money. In each cycle since World War 11, the inflation rate, interest rates, and unemployment rates have been progressively higher. But who can say how much inflation we’ll end up with? We might go into a sustained period of 30% or 40% inflation for several years. And we should never forget that Richard Nixon imposed price and wage controls in 1971 because the government was panicking at a 4.5%-per-annum rate of inflation. Now, we’d probably consider returning to that rate tantamount to reaching a state of nirvana, and ten years from now we can expect cheering in the media when the inflation rate falls below 50%. And our ever-worsening problems are all a result of our having printed too much paper money.

PLOWBOY: Psychologically, we’re already living as though inflation is a fact of life. Yet as you’ve often pointed out, from 1833 to 1933 wholesale prices increased only nine-tenths of 1%, while since 1971 they’ve gone up 148%!

PAUL: Those figures should give you a very strong message. In fact, if I ever had to use just one chart to try to demonstrate to the American people the danger we face, I’d choose the one [accompanying this interview] that traces and parallels gold and the dollar. There were, as you’ll notice, some separations and dips between the two in the past-such as during the Civil War-because we had an imperfect gold standard. But for the most part, the dollar and gold either stuck together or paralleled each other. They separated for a bit in 1933, when private ownership of gold was unconstitutionally prohibited. But our currency still had some connection with the metal … until 1971. And that’s the point at which you see the dramatic change, because all of a sudden the purchasing value of gold went straight up, and the purchasing power of the dollar went straight down.

In fact, since 1971 we’ve been sailing uncharted economic waters, because this is the first time in 1,500 years that the world economy has had to function without a single nation’s operating on a gold standard. We’re facing conditions that we’ve never experienced before … not since we’ve had our Constitution. Our present crisis is actually worse than the Civil War situation, and similar to the runaway inflation that hit this nation in colonial times. And it’s all due to the fact that we’re disobeying the constitutional law that nothing other than silver and gold can be legal tender. We’re finally approaching the climax. We don’t have to wonder whether or not a collapse will come, because economic law dictates that it will come. Between 1944 and 1971-when we said, “We’ll honor the dollar, but we’ll print all we want”-we defied economic law.

PLOWBOY: Aside from designating silver and gold as legal tender’ didn’t our Founding Fathers also pass a law stating that anyone who debased the currency could be put to death?

PAUL: Yes, and that piece of legislation is still on the books. It was a reflection of how strongly those men felt about the question of debasing money. You see, between 1781 and 1787-after we won our independencewe were loosely held together by the Articles of Confederation … and there was a depression, because all the dif ferent states had different money, and it was all paper and all inflated. So two of the most important jobs for the Federal Constitutional Convention (the body that wrote our present Constitution) were to create sound money and to pass an interstate commerce clause … not to regulate commerce, but to deregulate it, so nobody could put up trade barriers between states. And in 1792, when our forefathers passed the first Coinage Act, they ruled that nobody be allowed to mess with the money by diluting the metal, upon penalty of death … and that law has never been repealed. Now, of course, we’re more sophisticated about methods of debasing our currency: We have computers that can do it very rapidly!

PLOWBOY: Since the Constitution already seems to require hard money, why do you think we need to add an amendment in order to return to a gold standard?

PAUL: Well, even though the Constitution is very clear on the subject, the point has been abused, and we haven’t lived up to that law. It needs to be restated in the form of a precise amendment so that nobody can confuse its meaning.

PLOWBOY: And you believe that the destruction of our money was deliberate?

PAUL- Yes, it was deliberate on the part of those who stood to benefit … even though they constitute a very small minority. There may be only 15 members of Congress who really know how the monetary system operates. But most of those who benefit from the inflationary policy understand it, as do many intellectuals. You see, there’s considerable intellectual support for paper money. Some individuals look at the inflation of the money supply as a legitimate way to stimulate business. After all, if we “counterfeit” the money and throw it into circulation, nobody knows it’s counterfeit. It looks as if it’s stimulating things, because people are spending that money, and business picks up. But eventually people come to realize that the value of the currency drops as the supply increases.

And both conservatives and liberals are to blame for this state of affairs, although each group supports it for a different reason. The liberal needs to get rid of the sound dollar because he or she wants government to spend to do good for everybody. And a lot of basically well-motivated people think that this is a legitimate risk. They don’t realize that in the long run they’re going to destroy the poor people as well as the middle class.

On the other side, the conservative isn’t really quite ready for pay-as-yougo building of the military machine that’s needed to police the world. So you’ll find both conservatives and liberals endorsing foreign aid programs, propping up banking institutions and Third World nations, and so on. Such individuals are all in favor of destroying sound money, because that action gives them the power to do what they want to do.

The men and women who will be the strongest supporters of the gold standard will be average Americans who are willing to work for a living and take the responsibility of caring for themselves. In fact, during the few times in our history when gold has become the key issue, it has been the ordinary workers who championed gold

… not the industrialists, not the welfare people, not the bankers, not the government. It’s always the average person who’s willing to work and save who supports hard currency.

PLOWBOY: Isn’t gold sometimes called “the people’s money”?

PAUL: It is. And it will always win out when people understand the issues. Events are moving more quickly in that direction every day, too. In this decade, I’m convinced, gold will again be the great issue … just as soon as the American people realize that their friend is honest money, something the government can’t merely print as needed.

PLOWBOY: Yet a lot of people still don’t understand why we can’t rely on paper.

PAUL: And I tell them paper currency will work-on a long-term basis-as soon as we can get people to cherish paper jewelry. People do cherish gold, and if something is cherished, it can serve as money. This isn’t an idea that I, or a few economists, have concocted … history has demonstrated it over the centuries. The human being cherishes precious metals, and that’s a fact of life. It’s about as authentic a fact as that we need red corpuscles to carry oxygen in our blood. We need gold to circulate as money in an economy that requires money.

Now we can bring that about only if we have enough people in this country who will assume self-responsibility. If we want to live off the dole, we can’t support gold. But with a gold standard, we wouldn’t even have to have a balanced-budget amendment, because we can’t print gold, and people will accept only so much taxation … so limited government and sound money go together.

Actually, the gold standard is related to a freedom philosophy, to the free market, and to honesty in government. Paper money is the weapon that’s used by the people who want power … who want to be kingmakers and to control others, and who-in turn-are generally manipulated by special interest groups.

Economic controls, you see, are actually people controls, because as inflation gets worse, governments resort to such things as wage and price fixing to hide the effects. And I expect that before this crisis is over, wage/price controls will come in again, and the scapegoats will be the workers who are seeing their real spendable income diminish, and the honest business people who are trying to make a profit. Of course, such controls limit our freedom. That’s the great threat. The loss of sound money really boils down to a loss of liberty. The overriding issue here is freedom.

PLOWBOY: In your book The Case for Gold, you documented a comparison of the last ten years with the decade from 1880 to 1890, when the dollar was strongly connected to gold. That pairing-off makes a very impressive case for hard money!

PAUL: I thought so, too. I kept looking at that gold/dollar chart I mentioned earlier and seeing how badly things have gone for us, economically, in these past ten years … and then comparing the last decade to the ten years following the 1880 resumption of the gold standard. As you may recall, because of the Civil War we were off gold from 1861 to 1879. Then we reestablished the standard, and in the following decade economic growth was up … production was up … employment was up … the number of new farms was up … and price levels were down.

Many people are under the impression that if we go to a gold standard, we’ll be faced with years and years of chaos, and that we’ll have a great depression … but that’s not true. Naturally, there would have to be an adjustment period, but I believe we could see a revitalization of the economy within six months.

Unfortunately, I don’t think government will revert to gold swiftly and cleanly under today’s conditions, because not enough people endorse changing the whole role of the welfare state or the international role that allows us to protect other countries from themselves. So the government is likely to come up with a partial gold solution … and that’s very dangerous, because it probably won’t work, and it will discredit the whole idea of gold-backed currency.

However, if we supported our currency 100% with gold, limited the government, balanced our budget, and allowed the economy to operate freely … everything would be all right in a short period of time. At least that’s the lesson history teaches.

PLOWBOY: But the 1880′s were years of tremendous westward expansion, and we don’t have that new territory to explore now.

PAUL: Geographically, no. But we have all the frontiers we need. just look at computers! I think the frontier ahead of us is a thousandfold richer than it was in colonial times or in the nineteenth century. We have all kinds of things we could develop, including hydroelectric and solar power.

In that same vein, as an example of how government interferes with the frontier, lookat the history of wind power. Farms had windplants when there were no wires out in rural areas. But what did government do? It mandated that utility companies send electricity to the farmer at a discount rate. He or she couldn’t afford to pay for those lines, so the city people had to defray the cost of sending long lines way out in the country, and they said, “Isn’t it wonderful that the farmer now has electricity!” But what did it do to the market for wind-generating systems? It destroyed the incentive to develop it! [EDITOR'S NOTE: See "Wind Chargers: Building Tools From the Nation's Past" on page 116 of this issue.] I think that if the market had been allowed to mature, wind power would have developed wonderfully by this time. Instead, we killed the market, and now-decades later-the government has to build windplants, run by bureaucrats, which are probably too big to be practical.

The same thing happened with solar power. People in Florida and California were using solar heat in the 1920′s. And again, the government interfered by mandating that natural gas prices be lower than the market value of the energy the fuel produced … making it advantageous for folks to shift from solar heat to natural gas.

The government has also, of course, subsidized the development of nuclear power. It does ail the research, pays for the insurance, and has even become responsible for waste disposal. Nuclear power was imposed upon the nation … we’ve never seen whether there’s actually a market for it.

So I think the frontiers are available, but a government that’s not responsible enough to give us good money can hardly be counted on to develop those frontiers. It’s just a matter of getting the government out of the way and letting people take care of their own needs.

PLOWBOY: What are the chances of getting an honest currency?

PAUL: Well, politicians rarely do what they should do in a responsible manner. They live only for the next election. Also, they are under the influence of the economic intellectual community, and the conventional economist is still an enemy of gold.

PLOWBOY: Why is that?

PAUL: I think it’s sometimes, at least, the result of an ego trip. Many economists like to believe-just as Communists do-they can plan an economy that’ll work better than one that simply adjusts itself to supply and demand. I’m inclined to think that in a polite, academic way they’re little dictators. They figure that if they design an economy and control the money, they have some superiority over others … while the person who really believes in freedom has no desire to feel above anybody else.

Besides, bad ideas have a way of lasting a really long time. In the 1920′s, practically every economist in the country endorsed gold. When the Great Depression came, however, many said that the gold standard and the free market caused it . . . though what actually caused and perpetuated that tragedy was Federal Reserve inflation, combined with economic intervention on the part of both Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet the economists, flocking together just like sheep, all became Keynesians.

Now, the market is proving that Keynesianism (the advocacy of governmental management of currency and budgeting to stabilize the economy and maintain higher employment) doesn’t work, and that paper won’t work. Therefore, you could see an equally rapid change in the other direction … and we must eventually have an intellectual endorsement of gold. Right now, it’s hard for the average person out there, who knows something’s wrong, to get information and to be reassured that he or she isn’t a kook. That’s the reason I’ve established the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education. I think its work is probably more important than my little political activities up here in Washington.

Under today’s condit ions- which are the conditions that always exist when you have inflation-we can’t get adequate support for hard currency. I think, then, that the chances of our government’s opting for gold right now are nil. An educational effort that could turn things around might be possible … say, in 1985, when things become a lot worse than they are now but are not yet totally chaotic. Even that’s a slim chance, however.

The most likely time to restore sound money would be during or following a collapse … and that’s very dangerous. After Germany experienced its 1921 collapse, the nation quickly restored its currency. In fact, by 1924 the money was pretty good again. But the social consequences of that trauma were so great that they created a fertile field for Hitler. Within ten years, resentment and hatred had built up for those individuals in the business community who had protected themselves from the crash … especially the Jews. Of course, the hatred was turned in the wrong direction, because the real evil was inflation. The destruction of the wealth of the middle class was a result of an inflationary government policy, not of any actions taken by Jewish business people. But that feeling led, as you know, to the rise of Nazism.

Again, we’ve never before lived under monetary conditions similar to those we’re experiencing today … so we could encounter political conditions that we’ve never faced before, either. We really live in great danger, and yet we’re not supposed to talk about it. We’re allowed to say-under our breath-only that the economy is in a hell of a mess. We aren’t permitted to get on the air and tell the nation the truth, though I think a lot of people would accept the truth if they could hear it.

PLOWBOY: Meanwhile, we’ve become a nation of speculators.

PAUL: Yes, we live in an age of speculation instead of true investment. And interestingly enough, governments often turn on the speculator and say that he or she creates the problem … when federal policy actually creates the speculator, who’s simply trying to survive. If government hadn’t destroyed the system and the money, we would invest. We’d be buying and building plants instead of speculating and earning interest on government securities.

Of course, if we did go back to the gold standard, all that speculation would come to a halt, and some people would be hurt. For example, let’s say you’re buying land, expecting it to go up 20% a year so that you can sell it at a profit. If we return to a hard currency, the property’s value will not go up 20% … real estate will probably be very stable after that. So you’d want to buy land to make use of it . . . not to speculate on it.

PLOWBOY: I’ve heard it argued that if our dollars were backed by gold, the Common Market countries combined would have about twice as much of the precious metal in reserve as we do, and they could use that to buy dollars and control the U.S. economy.

PAUL: But we wouldn’t have to think about dollars and gold as being different! On a 100% gold standard, they’m one and the same thing. And if those countries wanted to spend their gold in this country, they could put it in our treasury, and we would issue them Federal Reserve notes. Now those nations would have to spend the currency, so the whole exchange would be a boon to our economy. We’d have more gold, and other nations could purchase our products.

PLOWBOY:Another argument is that South Africa and Russia could keep us hostage’ . . . that if we needed gold to increase our economic growth, they might hold it back.

PAUL: Well, that’s a fallacy, too. You don’t need an increase in money to have economic growth. With a gold dollar, a car might cost $600 instead of $6,000, but the exact amount of the medium of exchange used wouldn’t matter. Let’s say you had a fixed amount of gold, and production went up 10% … then prices would drop somewhat. But any amount of gold will work, as long as you allow the prices to adjust. That’s why you wouldn’t want rigid prices, because you don’t know exactly what the gold level might be.

Others fear that South Africa or Russia might dump their gold. But suppose the Russians did try to do that. It would take them 100 years to produce and save enough gold to double our money supply. And they’re not going to do it, because they want to sell their gold gradually … they need to spend it for goods.

The very real danger, of course, is much closer to home in the form of the Federal Reserve, which tripled our money supply in the 1970′s. That’s where the real risk is! With a tripled money supply, you’re holding a piece of paper that nobody trusts. The Russians’ gold wouldn’t be any danger at all, because it would still have value. People would just use it, and the prices would adjust.

PLOWBOY: You keep talking about prices adjusting, but I’ve always thought the main purpose of establishing a gold standard would be to create stable prices.

PAUL: No, even though gold does tend to stabilize prices, that’s not why we want a gold standard. What we want is a freely adjusting market , which means that prices can go up and down according to the supply and demand status of particular products. If there’s good economic growth, prices will drop. So you never want to aim at some preconceived notion that prices should be at a certain level.

In fact, this is the single biggest difference between hard-money advocates and the Keynesians/monetarists, who seek a goal of stable prices but-instead-create the most vicious upswings and distortions. Our goal is to have honest, trustworthy money … which would result in economic growth and relatively stable prices. Currency has to have quality … whereas paper money can only react to the money supply and the interest rates. Under the gold standard, interest rates traditionally range between 3% and 5%.

PLOWBOY: And how would this change affect banking? I understand that you believe there should be a separation of banking and the state.

PAUL: My ultimate goal would be to allow the marketplace to handle banking. The government would be involved only in prohibiting fraud. That is, you couldn’t really deceive your depositors. If you claimed to be holding their deposits, you’d have to do so. But the marketplace should handle the amount of credit that’s extended. Such a system would be very competitive, though, and today’s big bankers wouldn’t welcome that competition.

PLOWBOY: It seems, then, that you’re up against some very powerful forces.

PAUL: Oh yes, but I believe that I have the people and truth on my side, so I feel very confident.

PLOWBOY: But if we do adopt the gold standard-which you seem to think is inevitable, though it may be some years away-how would this transition be handled?

PAUL: Well, it’s not likely to come about in a deliberate way, and we’ll certainly have to be on our toes if there’s a total collapse. But let’s not be* so negative. Let’s think about what we could and should do right now. First, we should immediately take steps toward reducing the size of government by 50%.

PLOWBOY: Wasn’t a similar cutback accomplished once before?

PAUL: Yes, after World War 11 we reduced spending, over a period of three years, by 75%. We’d also have to balance the budget immediately and make it illegal to monetize debt … that is, if the government spends more than it takes in, it can’t print the money. It would have to borrow it.

In addition to that, we’d have to reduce taxes drastically, including those on savings and dividends. If you have sound money, you want to encourage people to save and invest. Instead, we’re now withholding taxes on savings and making it more and more disadvantageous for people to save. As a result, the level of savings is very low right now, but there’s no reason in the world why we can’t have a 20% to 25% savings rate. And that’s where true capital comes from … not out of a printing press.

So if we reduce the size of government … eliminate taxes on savings … and-then- establish a gold standard so that all of our paper is 100% redeemable, we’d rapidly get out of this dangerous situation. There’s no doubt in my mind whatsoever.

Now when we talk in generalities, people are inclined to agree that, yes, we ought to reduce the size of government. But let me give you a more specific idea of what I’m talking about: I’m saying-for instance-that we should have no more government farm programs … period. I mean no subsidies whatsoever. After all, today we’re subsidizing tobacco, and then turning around and spending millions of dollars to advertise how terrible smoking is … that kind of nonsense! And we pay farmers millions of dollars not to grow wheat, and if they do grow too much, we artificially keep the price up so people have to pay more for it. It’s absurd!

I think we’d have to get rid of all such programs in order to get back to a sound currency. But as I’ve said, we’re just not quite ready to do that, so we’re back to the risky alternative of waiting for the collapse and hoping we have enough votes to turn the tide then.

There is, however, another option, and that’s to introduce competition … by allowing another currency to be developed in par allel to our paper money.

PLOWBOY: How would that work?

PAUL: Look at it this way: If we wanted to get rid of the U.S. Postal Service, we wouldn’t have to abolish it tomorrow. We could simply legalize more competition, so that private industry could massively compete with that institution in delivering first class mail inexpensively and efficiently. What would likely happen is that the Postal Service would gradually dwindle, and private industry would take over. It wouldn’t be a radical abolition … we’d probably go through a transition of maybe one to five years, during which the present post office system would be phased out.

It’s the same with money. Politically and economically, it would be very difficult just to cut off today’s system and have a perfect one in place tomorrow. But we can pass some laws that will introduce competition and allow another currency to be used.

Some people think such a move would result in total chaos, but we’re dealing with different currencies internationally all the time. We have fluctuating rates that are measured every minute. It’s amazing how it all works!

And we are also well able to adjust to two currencies! It doesn’t take the average American tourist long to figure out another country’s exchange rate … and it would be the same if we had two internal currencies.

In fact, we had this situation during the Civil War years. We went off the gold standard and printed greenbacks, but gold still circulated. Today, however, it’s illegal to have a competing currency, so we need to pass a law that would let people really deal in gold and silver. Then if someone owed a debt that was determined in ounces, he or she would have to pay it in ounces. In order to do that, though, we’d have to repeal the legal tender laws. They would be the biggest obstacle.

PLOWBOY: I don’t think all of our readers are aware of what those laws involve.

PAUL: Put simply, legal tender laws protect the government’s money monopoly. One was passed during the Civil War, guaranteeing that, when the government began to pay its debts, it could do so in greenbacks. Now some of its creditors had gold-clause contracts, which specified repayment in gold. And such individuals wanted to be paid in the precious metal, of course, since it had gone up tremendously in value against the paper dollars … so the government’s legal tender law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. At that point, though, the administration stacked the deck by changing Supreme Court justices … tried the same suit all over again … and got the ruling reversed to say that the government could pay off all of its debts with greenbacks. And ever since that time we’ve had legal tender laws, insuring that nobody has the protection of the gold standard. So those laws would have to be repealed.

In the meantime, there’s one very practical step that could be taken … and it’s something that might even be accomplished this year. If one out of every two of your subscribers would write to Washington, we could probably get a law called the American Eagle Gold Coin Act passed, and I think that piece of legislation would be very helpful. It was the only recommendation made by the recent U.S. Gold Commission that was favorable to gold. [EDITOR'S NOTE: The United States Gold Commission was created by Act of Congress in 1980. It studied, and rejected, the case for the gold standard.]

Essentially, this act would authorize the U.S. Treasury to mint one-ounce and half-ounce gold coins to compete with the South African Krugerrand and such. It even goes one step further and says

that if these gold coins are to serve as money someday, they shouldn’t be taxed. So if you were to exchange an American gold coin for dollars, and if it had gone up in value since you first purchased it, you wouldn’t have to pay taxes on the profit! That fact alone would be a real encouragement for people to purchase our coins instead of Canadian Maple Leaves, Krugerrands, and Mexican gold pesos. I think Americans would like to have that option.

At present, the politicians here don’t feel that there are enough people who really care about the act, but if a member of Congress were to get 500 letters on this subject, he or she would be totally convinced that there was a real movement going on.

Now the American Eagle Gold Coin Act is not the same as a gold standard, you realize … far from it! But it would be a transition, introducing a lot more people to the idea of holding gold. The coins could provide an emergency medium of exchange during a time of crisis, too, and be a tremendous aid in getting the American people to understand what hard money is.

PLOWBOY: Is that act coming up in this session of Congress?

PAUL: It’s been introduced in the Senate, and I’ve introduced it in the House, and we’ve already had hearings on it. But not enough pressure is being exerted for it right now. And that’s why I’m saying that all we need is public demand, because we can get acrossthe-board support for it. The pro-gold people would say it’s good for gold … the anti-gold people say we don’t need gold anymore, so we might as well get it out of the Treasury … and those who despise the policies of South Africa would be glad to be able to purchase American coins. So the act is attractive to a lot of people across the political spectrum … but we do need a little more pressure if we’re to get it through.

PLOWBOY: Aside from writing to their Senators and Representatives about the American Eagle Gold Coin Act and/or about going back on the gold standard, what else should citizens do?

PAUL: Oh, there’s a lot they have to do. First, they ought to know what’s happening economically and politically. If half of what I say is true, we’re in for big trouble! I hope I’m all wrong, but I’m scared to death that I’m right. Americans have to educate themselves about economics … there’s plenty to learn! And they need to know why a free market is better than a controlled economy … and why freedom is better than slavery … and why gold is better than paper. Then, once they’re well informed, they should inform others … their family and friends.

Then they must all take the steps necessary to protect themselves … with knowledge and survival goods. They need to know how to feed, clothe, and house themselves and how to continue trading if the system breaks down.

In addition, people have to get involved in politics. A lot of individuals are turned off by the system, and I am sometimes, too! It’s a terrible business … except that I’m very thankful that I can still play the game. Frankly, I didn’t expect that I’d find enough people who would endorse my views to send me here. But I’m grateful that I’ve had the opportunity to speak out and that others can have their views represented through what I do. It’s quite different from living in Poland, where I wouldn’t have this chance.

In short, as bad as U.S. politics may seem on the surface, we can still educate ourselves, be concerned, be involved, run for office, and write letters that can influence Congress. We still have freedoms left, and that’s very important. If we neglect them, we could lose them. After all, as we destroy our monetary system, we may well also lose other rights. There’s a lot more at stake than our monetary assets. In fact, I could probably protect my financial future better than I’m doing now by concentrating on the practice of medicine, but I happen to value the system 1 live under much more than that.

Do you realize that probably fewer than 1% of the people in the U.S. ever write their Congressman or -woman? Yet if just 3% of those who believe in hard money would take some action, we could get a gold standard established … and still restore some sanity to the world’s economy.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you’d like to receive Freedom Report, the free newsletter published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, Inc., send your name and address to FREE, Dept. TMEN, P.O. Box 1776, Lake Jackson, Texas 77566. To find out more about Dr. Paul’s views on the gold standard, you might want to read his bookGold, Peace, and Prosperity: The Birth of a New Currency (available for $5. 00 postpaid from the same address). And for an in-depth study of the same subject, order The Case for Gold by Ron Paul and Lewis Lehrman ($8.95 postpaid).

Bombed if you do, Bombed if you Don’t By Ron Paul

December 12, 2007

Bombed if you do, Bombed if you Don’t By Ron Paul

Dandelion Salad

By Ron Paul
12/11/07 “ICH

The latest National Intelligence Estimate has been greeted by a mixture of relief and alarm. As I have been saying all along, Iran indeed poses no quantifiable imminent nuclear threat to us or her neighbors. It is with much alarm, however, that we see the administration continue to ratchet up the war rhetoric as if nothing has changed.

Indeed nothing has changed from the administration’s perspective, as they have had this latest intelligence report for some time. Only this week has it been made known to the public. They want it both ways with Iran. On the one hand, they discredit the report entirely, despite it being one of the most comprehensive intelligence reports on the subject, with over 1,000 source notes in the document. On the other hand, when discrediting it fails, they claim that the timing of the abandonment of the weapons program, just as we were invading Iraq, means our pressure must have worked, so we must keep it up with a new round of even tougher sanctions. Russia and China are not buying this, apparently, and again we are finding ourselves on a lonely tenuous platform on the world stage.

The truth is Iran is being asked to do the logically impossible feat of proving a negative. They are being presumed guilty until proven innocent because there is no evidence with which to indict them. There is still no evidence that Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has ever violated the treaty’s terms – and the terms clearly state that Iran is allowed to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful, civilian energy needs. The United States cannot unilaterally change the terms of the treaty, and it is unfair and unwise diplomatically to impose sanctions for no legitimate reason.

Are we to think that Iran hasn’t noticed the duplicitous treatment being received by so-called nuclear threats around the globe? If they have been paying attention, and I think they have, they would see that if countries do have a nuclear weapon, they tend to be left alone, or possibly get a subsidy, but if they do not gain such a weapon then we threaten them. Why wouldn’t they want to pursue a nuclear weapon if that is our current foreign policy? The fact remains, there is no evidence they actually have one, or could have one any time soon, even if they immediately resumed a weapons program.

Our badly misguided foreign policy has already driven this country’s economy to the brink of bankruptcy with one war based on misinformation. It is unthinkable that despite lack of any evidence of a threat, some are still charging headstrong into yet another war in the Middle East when what we ought to be doing is coming home from Iraq, coming home from Korea, coming home from Germany and defending our own soil. We do not need to be interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and waging war when honest trade, friendship, and diplomacy are the true paths to peace and prosperity.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Cheering for Ron Paul

November 26, 2007

Cheering for Ron Paul

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20071120_ron_paul_does_the_math/

Posted on Nov 20, 2007

By Robert Scheer

What can you get for a trillion bucks?  Or make that $1.6 trillion, if you take the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as tallied by the majority staff of Congress’ Joint Economic Committee (JEC).  Or is it the $3.5-trillion figure cited by Ron Paul, whose concern about the true cost of this war for ordinary Americans shames the leading Democrats, who prattle on about needed domestic programs that will never find funding because of future war-related government debt?

Given that the overall defense budget is now double what it was when President Bush’s father presided over the end of the Cold War—even though we don’t have a militarily sophisticated enemy in sight—you have to wonder how this president has managed to exceed Cold War spending levels.  What has he gotten for the trillions wasted? Nothing, when it comes to capturing Osama bin Laden, bringing democracy to Iraq or preventing oil prices from tripling and enriching the ayatollahs of Iran while messing up the American economy.

That money could have paid for a lot of things we could have used here at home.  As Rep. Paul points out, for what the Iraq war costs, we could present each family of four a check for $46,000—which exceeds the $43,000 median household income in his Texas district.  He asks: “What about the impact of those costs on education, the very thing that so often helps to increase earnings?  Forty-six thousand dollars would cover 90 percent of the tuition costs to attend a four-year public university in Texas for both children in that family of four.  But, instead of sending kids to college, too often we’re sending them to Iraq, where the best news in a long time is they [the insurgents] aren’t killing our men and women as fast as they were last month.”

How damning that it takes a libertarian Republican to remind the leading Democratic candidates of the opportunity costs of a war that most Democrats in Congress voted for.  But they don’t need to take Paul’s word for it; last week, the majority staff of the Joint Economic Committee in Congress came up with similarly startling estimates of the long-term costs of this war.

The White House has quibbled over the methods employed by the JEC to calculate the real costs of our two foreign wars, because the Democrats in the majority dared to include in their calculations the long-term care of wounded soldiers and the interest to be paid on the debt financing the war.  Of course, you need to account for the additional debt run up by an administration that, instead of raising taxes to pay for the war, cut them by relying on the Chinese Communists and other foreigners who hold so much of our debt.  As concluded by the JEC report, compiled by the committee’s professional staff, “almost 10 percent of total federal government interest payments in 2008 will consist of payments on the Iraq debt accumulated so far.”

However, even if you take the hard figure of the $804 billion the administration demanded for the past five years, and ignore all the long-run costs like debt service, we’re still not talking chump change here.  For example, Bush has asked for an additional $196 billion in supplementary aid for his wars, which is $60 billion more than the total spent by the U.S. government last year on all of America’s infrastructure repairs, the National Institutes of Health, college tuition assistance and the SCHIP program to provide health insurance to kids who don’t have any.

On this matter of covering the uninsured, it should be pointed out to those who say we (alone among industrialized nations) can’t afford it that we could have covered all 47 million uninsured Americans over the past six years for what the Iraq war cost us.  How come that choice—war in Iraq or full medical coverage for all Americans—was never presented to the American people by the Democrats and Republicans who voted for this war and continue to finance it?

Those now celebrating the supposed success of the surge might note that, as the JEC report points out, “[m]aintaining post-surge troop levels in Iraq over the next ten years would result in costs of $4.5 trillion.” Until the leading Democratic candidate faces up to the irreparable harm that will be done to needed social programs over the next decades by the red-ink spending she supported, I will be cheering for the libertarian Republican.  At least he won’t throw more money down some foreign rat hole.

Rupert Murdoch fucks Ron Paul

October 15, 2007
Smear Campaign Against Ron Paul Goes Into Overdrive
Corporate media peddles ridiculous conspiracy theories that Ron Paul’s meteoric popularity is entirely fake
reddit_url=’http://www.infowars.net/articles/october2007/121007Smear.htm&#8217; reddit_title=’Smear Campaign Against Ron Paul Goes Into Overdrive’

digg_title = ‘Smear Campaign Against Ron Paul Goes Into Overdrive’; digg_bodytext = ‘The smear campaign against Presidential candidate Ron Paul has hit an all time high with the corporate media today ludicrously declaring that the Congressmans immense worldwide popularity is all a huge con emanating from Dr Pauls own office.’; digg_topic = ‘politics’;

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Fri
day, Oct 12, 2007
 
 
 
 
 

 

The smear campaign against Presidential candidate Ron Paul has hit an all time high with the corporate media today ludicrously declaring that the Congressman’s immense worldwide popularity is all a huge con emanating from Dr Paul’s own office.

Rupert Murdoch owned Australian outlet News.com.au has today disseminated the most insidious and farcical report concerning Ron Paul to date.

Headlined Republican Ron Paul in possible ‘fake online campaign’, the article attempts to convince the reader that every aspect of Ron Paul’s popularity, from his you tube website, to his dominance of online polls and debate polls has been totally faked by his own staff!

The astounding accusation reads:

A CANDIDATE for the US presidency is being buoyed by a massive online campaign that may be a fake grassroots movement organised by party staff.

Head of Flinders University’s Department of American Studies Don De Bats told NEWS.com.au that it “sounded like” an astroturfing campaign.

Astroturfing is the term used to describe a fake grassroots campaign, where members of an organisation create the illusion that “ordinary people” are behind the movement.

(Article continues below)

Note how the author of the article uses words such as “possible” and “may” and sounded like” to cover the fact that its content is total baloney from start to finish and could even be considered libelous.

From what I can make out (please correct me if I’m wrong because this trash is almost incoherent) the author, Mark Schliebs, then makes a pathetic rambling attempt to sell the notion that because popular youtube videos of Ron Paul were uploaded by the same person with the username RonPaul2008dotcom this means it is some sort of massive fake conspiracy???!

As blogger Darryl Mason points out in this excellent rebuttal, “The RonPaul2008 channel is an election channel, which every presidential wannabe who is seriously pursuing an online audience also has, including Billary, Giuliani and Barack Obama. It’s an online campaign, so of course Ron Paul supporters or Ron Paul’s own office is going to post clips, just as the teams behind Giuliani, Billary and Obama are now also doing.”

Ron Paul’s most popular clips on youtube have received tens of thousands of views, where as figures for Rudy Giuliani’s most popular clips are in the low hundreds or even in the 90′s. Ron Paul’s youtube channel has been viewed 4.5 million times by supporters, is youtube in on this mass conspiracy too? Is youtube fixing its viewing figures for Ron Paul?

To add insult to injury Schliebs then throws in the “expert analysis” of an American studies professor. Not a technological expert or an experienced internet campaigner or someone within another successful grassroots organisation, but a guy who lectures about Abe Lincoln to 17 year olds:

Professor De Bats said that for a relatively unknown candidate like Dr Paul to have so much prominence online was suspicious.

“I would not put any credibility on those results,” Prof De Bats said.

“I find it terrifically surprising and unlikely (that Dr Paul would attract that level of response).”

I find it terrifically surprising that such awful journalism can make it into umpteen nationally syndicated newspapers, but it still has.

The piece reads like Schliebs has been ordered to attack Ron Paul and has just taken a wild stab in the dark with no foundation of evidence or substance and then had the gall to find some unwitting person with the letters “PhD” after their name to agree with him.

Similar claims denying reality have been made about Ron Paul’s dominance in polls after Republican debates. Despite the fact that most major media organisations only allow one vote from each IP address or mobile phone, for text messaging polls, corporate media outlets keep suggesting that their own polls are being rigged and hijacked by Ron Paul spammers.

In a familiar move CNBC even removed its own poll on Tuesday night just hours after the debate had ended when they realized Ron Paul was winning by such a wide margin.

Today CNBC Managing Editor, Allen Wastler, responded to demands for an explanation by clearly stating that CNBC pulled the poll because Ron Paul was winning. Wastler then also spouted the conspiracy theory that every poll is being rigged for Ron Paul to win:

Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven’t seen him pull those kind of numbers in any “legit” poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.

The next day, our email basked was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can’t help but admire that.

Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed “few” can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of “the many,” I get a little worried. I’d take it down again.

What kind of twisted logic is this? Ron Paul has more fans and is attracting more committed and organised supporters than any other candidate, so it’s not fair? We are talking about the lead up to a democratic election for crying out loud, THAT’S THE POINT OF AN ELECTION, TO DETERMINE WHO IS THE MOST POPULAR!!

Dear Mr Wastler, some Ron Paul detractors take issue with the fact Ron Paul is trouncing the opposition. Fine. But when a well-organized and committed “few” can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of “the many,” I get a little worried.

——————————————————————————————
ALEX JONES’ ENDGAME will be released on the WEB OCT. 26 and on DVD on NOV. 1
View High Quality Trailers at www.endgamethemovie.com
—————————————————————————————-

If a huge mass of people vote for Ron Paul and don’t vote for Giuliani, too bad for Rudy, that does not mean the poll has been “hacked”! If you don’t show up to vote, your vote doesn’t get counted my friend.

If a football teams scores more points than their rivals because their players come out more committed and stronger, does it mean the game was rigged?

Many Neo-Con blog sites now do not even include Ron Paul in their polls anymore, pretending that he doesn’t exist because too many people are voting for him!

How ridiculous is this going to get? If Ron Paul won the primaries and won the election would he then be stripped of the presidency because too many people want him to be president?

And I guess every other facet of Ron Paul’s campaign has been rigged too. I guess the 5.1 million dollars he has raised is totally fake. I guess the fact that Ron Paul is the only Republican who is gaining in campaign funds is also fake. Ron Paul has won more straw polls than any other Republican candidate, that’s fake naturally. The sun that came up this morning, that’s fake too.

Corporate media outlets and interests are clearly frightened to death that the Congressman and his campaign of freedom and limited government has quickly become a huge phenomenon and that there is now a very serious chance for a Ron Paul candidacy.

 

 

************

 

 

Republican Ron Paul in possible ‘fake online campaign’

By Mark Schliebs

October 12, 2007 12:32pm

Article from: NEWS.com.au

Font size: + -

Send this article: Print Email

  • Ron Paul’s online campaign may be fake
  • Receiving thousands of hits
  • Suspected of being an astroturfing campaign

A CANDIDATE for the US presidency is being buoyed by a massive online campaign that may be a fake grassroots movement organised by party staff.

YouTube footage of Texan Republican Congressman Ron Paul, whose candidacy has been overshadowed in the media by competitors Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and John McCain, has been viewed by tens of thousands of people in the last week.

As of 11am (AEST) today, a compilation of different clips of Dr Paul was the “Top Rated” video of the past 24 hours.

The clip had been viewed nearly 60,000 times since it was uploaded yesterday.

Watch the video:

But it was not the only clip of the Congressman receiving kudos from Youtube users, with another 10 videos appearing in today’s list of the site’s 100 “Top Rated” recordings.

Of the 11 featured clips of Dr Paul, only one user uploaded more than one of them in the last 24 hours.

Just one of the 11 clips in the list was actually featured in today’s top 100 “Most Viewed” videos.

Head of Flinders University’s Department of American Studies Don De Bats told NEWS.com.au that it “sounded like” an astroturfing campaign.

Astroturfing is the term used to describe a fake grassroots campaign, where members of an organisation create the illusion that “ordinary people” are behind the movement.

Professor De Bats said that for a relatively unknown candidate like Dr Paul to have so much prominence online was suspicious.

“I would not put any credibility on those results,” Prof De Bats said.

“I find it terrifically surprising and unlikely (that Dr Paul would attract that level of response).”

Earlier this week, the Republican’s campaign team issued a press release that said: “Dr Paul’s video channel has been viewed 4.5 million times by supporters who embrace his message of freedom and limited government, making him one of the most-watched presidential candidates in internet history.”

Click here to visit Ron Paul’s official YouTube channel.
Those figures were only based on clips uploaded by one user, RonPaul2008dotcom, who didn’t have any clips in today’s 100 Top Rated list.

 

Surrender Should Not Be an Option By Congressman Ron Paul

September 10, 2007

Surrender Should Not Be an Option By Congressman Ron Paul

Dandelion Salad

By Congressman Ron Paul
ICH
09/05/07

Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us? This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage.

In any case, we have achieved the goals specified in the initial authorization. Saddam Hussein has been removed. An elected government is now in place in Iraq that meets with US approval. The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is our military presence. Why are we still over there? Conventional wisdom would dictate that when the “mission is accomplished”, the victor goes home, and that is not considered a retreat.

They claim progress is being made and we are fighting a winnable war, but this is not a view connected with reality. We can’t be sure when we kill someone over there if they were truly an insurgent or an innocent Iraqi civilian. There are as many as 650,000 deaths since the war began. The anger we incite by killing innocents creates more new insurgents than our bullets can keep up with. There are no measurable goals to be achieved at this point.

The best congressional leadership can come up with is the concept of strategic redeployment, or moving our troops around, possibly into Saudi Arabia or even, alarmingly enough, into Iran. Rather than ending this war, we could be starting another one.

The American people voted for a humble foreign policy in 2000. They voted for an end to the war in 2006. Instead of recognizing the wisdom and desire of the voters, they are chided as cowards, unwilling to defend themselves. Americans are fiercely willing to defend themselves. However, we have no stomach for indiscriminate bombing in foreign lands when our actual attackers either killed themselves on 9/11 or are still at large somewhere in a country that is neither Iraq nor Iran. Defense of our homeland is one thing. Offensive tactics overseas are quite another. Worse yet, when our newly minted enemies find their way over here, where will our troops be to defend us?

The American people have NOT gotten the government they deserve. They asked for a stronger America and peace through nonintervention, yet we have a government of deceit, inaction and one that puts us in grave danger on the international front. The American People deserve much better than this. They deserve foreign and domestic policy that doesn’t require they surrender their liberties.

http://www.house.gov/paul/

Surrender Should Not Be an Option By Congressman Ron Paul

September 10, 2007

Surrender Should Not Be an Option By Congressman Ron Paul

Dandelion Salad

By Congressman Ron Paul
ICH
09/05/07

Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us? This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage.

In any case, we have achieved the goals specified in the initial authorization. Saddam Hussein has been removed. An elected government is now in place in Iraq that meets with US approval. The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is our military presence. Why are we still over there? Conventional wisdom would dictate that when the “mission is accomplished”, the victor goes home, and that is not considered a retreat.

They claim progress is being made and we are fighting a winnable war, but this is not a view connected with reality. We can’t be sure when we kill someone over there if they were truly an insurgent or an innocent Iraqi civilian. There are as many as 650,000 deaths since the war began. The anger we incite by killing innocents creates more new insurgents than our bullets can keep up with. There are no measurable goals to be achieved at this point.

The best congressional leadership can come up with is the concept of strategic redeployment, or moving our troops around, possibly into Saudi Arabia or even, alarmingly enough, into Iran. Rather than ending this war, we could be starting another one.

The American people voted for a humble foreign policy in 2000. They voted for an end to the war in 2006. Instead of recognizing the wisdom and desire of the voters, they are chided as cowards, unwilling to defend themselves. Americans are fiercely willing to defend themselves. However, we have no stomach for indiscriminate bombing in foreign lands when our actual attackers either killed themselves on 9/11 or are still at large somewhere in a country that is neither Iraq nor Iran. Defense of our homeland is one thing. Offensive tactics overseas are quite another. Worse yet, when our newly minted enemies find their way over here, where will our troops be to defend us?

The American people have NOT gotten the government they deserve. They asked for a stronger America and peace through nonintervention, yet we have a government of deceit, inaction and one that puts us in grave danger on the international front. The American People deserve much better than this. They deserve foreign and domestic policy that doesn’t require they surrender their liberties.

http://www.house.gov/paul/

Hannity Lies To Discredit Ron Paul After Debate

September 6, 2007

Hannity Lies To Discredit Ron Paul After Debate
Claims “Paulites” flood voted to skew text poll, yet only one vote per phone number was allowed

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, September 6, 2007

digg_title = ‘Hannity Lies To Discredit Ron Paul After Debate’; digg_bodytext = ‘Fox News and Sean Hannity tried to discredit Ron Paul last night after the latest debate by claiming the Texas Congressmans runaway success in the subsequent text messaging poll was due to “Paulites” flood voting, when in fact only one vote per phone number was allowed.’;

Fox News and Sean Hannity tried to discredit Ron Paul last night after the latest debate by claiming the Texas Congressman’s runaway success in the subsequent text messaging poll was due to “Paulites” flood voting, when in fact only one vote per phone number was allowed.

Ernest Raposa, a viewer in New Bedford, MA, decided to text in his support for Ron Paul and received a message back stating, “FOX News UVOTE: Thank you for voting! Watch Hannity & Colmes for the results.”

“As the show progressed, it became obvious, as we have seen previously, that Ron Paul had the most support, hovering around 33 per cent,” writes Raposa. “Around 11:25pm EST Hannity declared that though Ron Paul had DOUBLE the support of the tied for second place Giuliani and Huckabee it was clear that the “Paulites” were simply dialing in over and over again, devaluing his lead.”

Aiming to test Hannity’s theory, Raposa attempted to text in a second vote for Ron Paul from the same cellphone. He received a message back saying, “You have already voted on tonight’s debate. Thank you for your participation.” Only one vote per cellphone was allowed, therefore Hannity’s contention that Ron Paul supporters were “were simply dialing in over and over again” was nothing more than a brazen lie intended to dismiss the Congressman’s widespread popularity. No one at Fox News bothered to correct Hannity and no retraction was issued.

Here’s the nuts and bolts in a You Tube clip.

Debunkers continually claim that Paul’s success in text message and internet polls is merely a result of a small group of supporters zealously “spamming” or “flooding” the polls when in fact votes are limited to one per IP address and one per cellphone number.

Such dirty tactics from Neo-Con stooge Hannity and Fox News were merely a continuation of Fox’s policy to attack Ron Paul throughout the broadcast.

Despite the fact that the New Hampshire audience broke out in spontaneous wild applause at almost everything the Congressman said, Fox News deliberately boosted the microphones of the other candidates when Paul was speaking, making sure the snickers of Giuliani, Romney and the rest were clearly audible.

Establishment darlings were once again afforded shed loads more time and even nobodies like Huckabee and Brownback got twice the amount of questions compared to the Congressman. Paul got the chance to answer just three direct questions in a 90 minute debate.

Fox News moderators weighed in with glee in an attempt to ruffle, smear and sidetrack Ron Paul. His first question revolved around a purposeful misquote of the Congressman’s position on allowing pilots to be armed and it only went downhill from there.

“The second question though revealed the unbelievable bias of Fox News,” writes Anthony Wade. “In response to a question about Iraq and troops, Paul reiterated that we needed to pull the troops home, period. He has consistently said that we need to address the entire foreign policy and start protecting our own borders and our own country. In response to the false notion that there would be a “bloodbath” if we just pulled out, Paul quickly reminded everyone that the same people speculating that there would be a bloodbath are the same people who said Iraq would be a “cakewalk” and a “slam dunk.” He then correctly pointed out the faulty logic that says we need to stay for stability when it is widely reported that our presence on the Arabian Peninsula is what prompted the attacks of 911. The response from Chris Wallace was to pose his own follow up question which was, “So you are saying you would take your marching orders from al Qaeda?”

“Are you kidding me? The inherent bias in the question was disgusting during a debate forum and Chris Wallace revealed himself as nothing but a whore for the machine and not a credible newsperson. Thankfully, Dr. Paul was up to the task by responding that he would take his marching orders from the Constitution.”

The last question was another manufactured “hypothetical” in which Iran had nukes and was threatening to use them on Israel. Fox News were sure to go to Ron Paul first in order to have the other candidates gang up on him after.

As soon as the debate was over, Giuliani and Hannity were busy attempting to mock Congressman Paul with more sophomoric barbs.

The desperation of the Neo-Cons and the establishment to ridicule Ron Paul again highlights the sheer terror that they are experiencing in light of the fact that a real candidate communicating about real issues is putting the rest of the shills to shame.

By continuing to smear, lie about and dismiss the Congressman, Hannity, Fox and their ilk are nervously praying that they can keep the lid on the Ron Paul Revolution and prevent the Texan from breaking into the vaunted “top tier” and obliterating the bought and paid for competition.

Congressman: Stock Market Will Eventually Collapse

August 29, 2007

Congressman: Stock Market Will Eventually Collapse
Ron Paul says martial law provisions in place to deal with economic discord

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, August 29, 2007

reddit_url=’http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/290807_eventually_collapse.htm&#8217; reddit_title=’Congressman: Stock Market Will Eventually Collapse’

digg_title = ‘Congressman: Stock Market Will Eventually Collapse’; digg_bodytext = ‘Texas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul says that attempts to rescue an ailing stock market last week, during which the Fed pumped in billions in liquidity, were merely a stop gap measure – and that an economic collapse is all but inevitable.’;

Texas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul says that attempts to rescue an ailing stock market last week, during which the Fed pumped in billions in liquidity, were merely a stop gap measure – and that an economic collapse is all but inevitable.

“They think that they can control it but eventually they can’t, as powerful as they are eventually the markets are more powerful,” the Congressman told the Alex Jones Show yesterday.

“The dollar can’t be kept in check because eventually it will come unwound,” he added. “But I think the most significant figure we’ve heard in the last few weeks is the measurement between 2000 – 2005, the clear cut admission that real income has gone down, which is a reflection of the dollar.”

Paul explained that recent attempts to pump liquidity into the markets are only a temporary fix and that the long-term effects of doing so spell disaster for the economy.

“The dollar is plunging no matter what you read and hear about and no matter how hard they work to keep the bubble going the only way they can do that is creating more money….causing the dollar to go down even faster, the market seems to be reassured – there’s a contrivance to try to hold this together….but it won’t last, eventually it’s going to collapse,” said Paul.

The Texas Congressman cited the repeal of the Insurrection Act as opening the door to a declaration of national emergency and martial law which could be instituted for any number of reasons, including civil disobedience in the event of an economic downturn and a run on the banks.

“If in 6 months or a year there is total chaos who knows what they might try to do,” said Paul.

The presidential candidate also slammed the abolition of Habeas Corpus as a “very dangerous sign” that plans were being laid for martial law.

“Why would they change them (the laws) if they didn’t plan to use them,” concluded Paul.

Suspicions were raised last week when a mystery trader risked billions of dollars after buying 245,000 put options on the Dow Jones Eurostoxx 50 index, in effect a speculation that the market would crash by a third before September 21st.

The Fear Factor by Ron Paul

July 31, 2007
The Fear Factor
by Rep. Ron Paul

While fear itself is not always the product of irrationality, once experienced, it tends to lead away from reason, especially if the experience is extreme in duration or intensity. When people are fearful they tend to be willing to irrationally surrender their rights.

Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an essential component of those who would have us believe we must increasingly rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.

The statement “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin. It is clear:, people seek out safety and security when they are in a state of fear, and it is the result of this psychological state that often leads to the surrender of liberty.

As Washington moves towards it summer legislative recess, indications of fear are apparent. Things seem similar to the days before the war in Iraq. Prior to the beginning of the war, several government officials began using phrases like “we don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” and they spoke of drone airplanes being sent to our country to do us great harm.

It is hard to overstate the damage this approach does psychologically, especially to younger people. Of course, we now know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, let alone any capacity to put them to successful use.

To calm fears, Americans accepted the PATRIOT Act and the doctrine of preemptive war. We tolerated new laws that allow the government to snoop on us, listen to our phone calls, track our financial dealings, make us strip down at airports, and even limit the rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury. Like some dysfunctional episode of the Twilight Zone, we allowed the summit of our imagination to be linked up with the pit of our fears.

Paranoia can be treated, but the loss of liberty resulting from the social psychology to which we continue to subject ourselves is not easily reversed. People who would have previously battled against encroachments on civil liberties now explain the “necessity” of those “temporary security measures” Franklin is said to have railed against.

Americans must reflect on their irrational fears if we are to turn the tide against the steady erosion of our freedoms. Fear is the enemy. The logically confusing admonition to “fear only fear” does not help; instead, we must battle against irrational fear and the fearmongers who promote it.

It is incumbent on a great nation to remain confident, if it wishes to remain free. We need not be ignorant of real threats to our safety, against which we must remain vigilant. We need only to banish to the ash heap of history the notion that we ought to be ruled by our fears and those who use them to enhance their own power.

Military Favors Ron Paul Over McCain

July 17, 2007

Military Favors Ron Paul Over McCain

July 16th, 2007 · 39 Comments

The US Federal Election Commission has released the Selected Presidential Reports for the 2007 July Quarterly, and there are a few surprises. No surprise, of course, is that people in the armed services and veterans overwhelmingly support the Republican Party. However, after digging through individual candidates’ contributions by employers, we find an elating (or disturbing, if you’re rooting for Rudy McRomney) trend. The breakdown? Here you go.

Army Navy USAF USMC VET TOTAL
Ron Paul 6975 7765 4650 1500 1250 22140
McCain 6225 6480 1570 1600 800 16675
Romney 2051 0 1500 0 1000 4551
Giuliani 1450 370 250 0 250 2320
Hunter 0 1000 0 0 0 1000
Richardson 50 750 0 0 0 800
Huckabee 250 0 500 0 0 750
Tancredo 350 0 0 0 0 350
Brownback 71 0 0 0 0 71
Thompson 0 0 0 0 0

This table expresses in dollars the total campaign contributions that each candidate has received from individuals who marked “Air Force,” “US Marines,” “USMC,” “Army,” “Navy,” or some other such permutation of letters as their employer that gives the appearance that they are a member of the armed services. The “veteran” column was derived by looking for “retired ______,” “______ retired,” or anything containing the word veteran, with the exception of Veterans’ Affairs (or the like).

What conclusions can be drawn from this surprising, exciting information? One might jump to the conclusion that the troops are tired and demoralized and angry to be fighting in the desert sand, and willing to leap on the only Republican candidate who wants an immediate end to the war. But that’s an insufficient explanation, since veterans favor Ron Paul as well.

Our military forces have a strong tradition of valorization and an implicit belief that they have served to protect the freedom of private citizens in the United States. So profound is this belief that it ranks as the #1 reason that veterans and active duty say they joined (even though education ranks as the #1 reason prior to enlistment).

This culture of pride in service particularly to safeguard American liberties and freedoms — regardless of whether it is true or not — disinclines those in service to contribute to candidates like Romney and Giuliani who want to expand Executive power and increase spying on Americans. This is why Ron Paul and John McCain are the clearest front-runners in terms of contributions. Well, that and the fact that McCain was a Captain in the Navy and Ron Paul was a flight surgeon.

Or … (one final thought) … does it run in the other direction? Does the military favor Paul and McCain because they were military, or do Ron Paul and John McCain have a favorable set of values for military servicemen and women because they themselves have served?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 156 other followers