Meet Ron Paul

October 1, 2007

This thorough article on Ron Paul can be found in issue #2 of Republic Magazine.

Update: I just now noticed that same issue has a “truther” style article in it about 9/11.  This means I DO NOT endorse this magazine as an activist tool for Ron Paul.  Ron Paul has said explicitly that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job, and it’s unfortunate that he’s going to get the guilt by association treatment because of this magazine lumping that article in with an issue largely about Ron Paul.  But, the article on Ron Paul is still good so I’ll leave it up on the blog.

Meet Ron Paul

     
Written by Lee Rogers

Presidential candidate Ron Paul, Congressman (R-TX), has been called “Founding Father Material”, “Champion of the Constitution”, the “Leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capitol” and even “Dr. No”. These titles are not typically associated with many of today’s politicians who rarely speak about liberty and the Constitution. Even for those who disagree with Congressman Paul’s politics, there is no debating he is a man of principle. With a consistent voting record that falls directly in line with true Constitutional principles, he upholds his oath unlike others. Congressman Paul has clearly distinguished himself from the other Presidential candidates in either party with the message of liberty and the Constitutional rule of law.
But, who exactly is Ron Paul and how did he finally become the “Champion of the Constitution”? Before Ron Paul became known as “Dr. No” he was born and raised in Green Tree, Pennsylvania just outside of Pittsburgh. In high school, Congressman Paul was a standout athlete winning the Pennsylvania State Championship in the 220-yard dash. Upon graduation from high school in 1953 he attended and graduated from Gettysburg College. From there he went on to gain his medical degree from the Duke University School of Medicine. It was during the time that he attended Gettysburg College that he married his wife Carol. He and his wife have had five children and seventeen grandchildren.

Dr. Paul is a traditional ‘baby doctor’ by trade, but his medical training is actually much broader. His formal medical training was interrupted during the Cuban Missile Crisis when he was drafted into the United States Air Force. He served honorably as a flight surgeon from 1963 to 1965. He then continued to serve in the Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968 while he completed a medical residency specializing in obstetrics and gynecology.

Following his military service he began practicing medicine working in an emergency room in San Antonio, Texas. He eventually went on to start his own medical practice. As a physician, Dr. Paul has delivered thousands of babies and performed numerous surgical procedures.

His decision to get involved in politics followed the August 15th 1971 announcement by then President Richard Nixon. Nixon announced the United States would end the issuance of money based on the gold standard. Until that time the United States still honored foreign redemption of U.S. Dollars for gold in accordance with the post World War II Bretton Woods Agreement. Foreign redemption of U.S. Dollars for gold gave the United States the right to print the world’s reserve currency. This effectively meant the end of the honest money system that the United States had enjoyed since its inception. This perplexed Dr. Paul after having studied the Austrian School of Economics, which advocated a laissez-faire economic system based on sound money.

Dr. Paul was quoted in Texas Monthly discussing the end of the gold standard stating, “After that day, all money would be political money rather than money of real value. I was astounded.”

The founding fathers agreed with Dr. Paul’s belief that money should be based on something honest and tangible like gold and silver. With Nixon taking the U.S. Dollar off the gold standard, it meant that the Federal Reserve would have carte blanche to create as much money as it wished. This was in direct contrast to the principles of sound money demanded by the Constitution. Sound money principles were specifically elaborated on in the Coinage Act of 1792, which established our Mint and regulated the coins of the United States.

The founding fathers were well aware of the dangers that stemmed from the issuance of paper money with no backing by gold, silver or other tangible assets. During the Revolutionary War a currency called the Continental was issued. The Continental was a paper currency with no backing by gold or silver that was easily counterfeited. The popularization of the phrase “not worth a continental” was a direct result of the inflation and devaluation of the Continental because more and more Continentals were chasing the same goods and services.

The founders also knew about the threat of allowing private bankers to issue money. Take for example the following quote from Thomas Jefferson.

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around (the banks) will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

After 1971, we not only had a private central bank issuing our currency but the currency no longer had any ties to gold or any other precious metal. This was of great concern to Dr. Paul as he sought to reverse the damage that this sort of irresponsible monetary policy would cause. He first ran for Congress in 1974 and despite failing to win the seat the first time around he later would win a special election for that same seat when it was vacated in 1976.

Congressman Paul would become one of four Republican Congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan in his run against Gerald Ford for the nomination for President. By supporting Reagan, it was clear that he did not buy into President Ford’s “Whip Inflation Now’ campaign. Ford’s campaign encouraged the American people to fight inflation by enacting personal saving policies and better spending habits. Congressman Paul knew the Federal Reserve, not the American people, was the cause of inflation. Paul knew this because the Federal Reserve had the power to issue America’s currency since 1913 and that determined the amount of inflation. Although, he would lose in the general election six months later, Dr. Paul ran for Congress again and won a full term in 1978. He was re-elected again in 1980 and 1982.

During this time, Congressman Paul gained the reputation as “Dr. No” for refusing to vote for laws that he saw as unconstitutional. Amazingly, he continued to deliver babies in private practice while he served in Congress. The issue of monetary policy remained a primary focus as he served on the House Banking Committee where he spoke out against the policies of the Federal Reserve. During this time, Congressman Paul also wrote several books on the subject of monetary policy encouraging the return to an honest money system.

Dr. Paul made the suggestion of forming a commission to determine what role gold should play in the economy. In 1982 the U.S. Gold Commission was formed as part of a response to the near inflationary collapse of the U.S. Dollar that plagued the U.S. economy in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The Commission’s report made suggestions as to what role gold should play in the U.S. economy.

Dr. Paul would go on to make a failed run for Senate in 1984 before returning to his medical practice. He would not stay out of politics for long, however, making a run for President on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988. During the campaign Dr. Paul endorsed the same message of liberty and Constitutional government that has now become the foundation of his 2008 presidential run. Despite being an early supporter of Reagan, Dr. Paul was critical of the huge deficits that occurred during the Reagan administration and sought to inject the limited government and freedom message into the 1988 presidential campaign. He ended up placing third in the election with 431,750 popular votes.

Following his 1988 run for President, Dr. Paul stayed out of politics until the Republicans regained control of Congress in 1994. He believed that the message of limited Constitutional government would be more effective with the political shift. Even though that has not proven to be the case as government has expanded to become more intrusive since the 1994 Republican take over of Congress. However, Dr. Paul has remained steadfast with the principles of limited Constitutional government.

Since his return to Congress in 1996, Congressman Paul has truly been the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. He has maintained a perfect Constitutional voting record continuing to vote “No” on any legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution.

Congressman Paul’s politics are refreshingly simple and honest. Follow the Constitution, emphasize local control and allow liberty and free markets to work. These principles are true for any of the important issues that are facing this country today.

It would be impossible to detail Congressman Paul’s stance on every issue in the space of this article, but what is clear is that he is a man of integrity and principle. Over the ten terms that he has served in Congress, his voting record and message of freedom, liberty and adherence to the Constitution has remained the same.

Let’s now run down Congressman Paul’s stance on a variety of issues and how it pertains to the Constitution and the message of liberty. This list will be prefaced with a brief history of U.S monetary policy.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Currently, the U.S. economy is manipulated by a private central bank called the Federal Reserve. The Constitution specifically prohibits the issuance of bills of credit and demands that honest money like gold or silver be issued. The government in 1913 allowed for the establishment of a private central bank called the Federal Reserve to print the money for the government. As time went on, this allowed the Federal Reserve to gain a monopoly on printing money, which is the system that we currently have in place today. Today’s money is not backed by any sort of tangible asset like gold or silver and much of it is manipulated by the Federal Reserve in secret. In layman’s terms, simply put, the Federal Reserve is given legal authority to print counterfeit money and loan it back to the U.S. government at an interest rate that it sets. The Federal Reserve is entirely unconstitutional and through their policies, they create the booms and busts that have plagued our economy since its inception. The current mortgage meltdown that is causing tremendous problems with our economy is a symptom of the policies implemented by the Federal Reserve.

Through the government giving this group of private bankers legal authority to create money out of thin air, we as a nation have facilitated a dramatic increase in the size and scope of government as well as the erosion of individual civil liberties. Congressman Paul has previously introduced legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve because he understands, like the founding fathers did, the dangers of emitting bills of credit under the control of a private banking system.

When referring to the central bank during the interview, Paul stated, “The Federal Reserve creates money and that is inflation. When you create new money the rest of the money goes down in value and people’s prices go up.”

Congressman Paul is 100% correct as bankers at the Federal Reserve can manipulate the money supply to steal wealth from the American people by way of inflation. Under a gold and silver standard it would take effort and work to increase the money supply by finding more gold and silver. Under a gold and silver standard it would be impossible for bankers to steal wealth from the American people by simply issuing additional currency. Such a system would also constrain the ability of politicians to increase the size of government without having access to the money making machine that the Federal Reserve currently provides. The issuance of money should rest with the people as the Constitution demands, not in the hands of a private, for-profit institution like the Federal Reserve. If elected, Congressman Paul would introduce competition to the Federal Reserve by encouraging the use of private money like the Liberty Dollar and potentially authorizing the Treasury to issue gold and silver as money. This would effectively put the Federal Reserve out of business because honest money in the form of gold or silver that is also legal tender would win out in the marketplace over Federal Reserve Notes that have no intrinsic value.

When asked how he would restore an honest monetary system Congressman Paul replied, “You should turn it completely over to the marketplace and let private money evolve and use gold and silver or if the government is to be involved they should issue a currency and define it as a weight of gold or a weight of silver but not fix the ratio. That to me would be a better standard than we had in the 19th century.”

Congressman Paul recently introduced legislation to the 110th Congress in the form of H.R. 2755 which would abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve. His clear statements and legislation make Congressman Paul one of the only politicians in Washington who actually understands how our monetary system works and knows what needs to be done to fix it.

THE INCOME TAX/IRS
Another important issue pertaining to the economy is the income tax, a tax considered by many as direct government theft. The income tax, like the Federal Reserve, is believed to be unconstitutional because the Constitution demands that taxes be apportioned or equally divided. The income tax is not apportioned and therefore unconstitutional. The same can be said for filing an income tax return. The requirement of filing an income tax is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment because it forces the individual to provide evidence to the government that later can be used to incriminate the individual. Congressman Paul recognizes that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the income tax are both unconstitutional and has previously introduced legislation to abolish the IRS and end the income tax.

In the first Republican Presidential debate of the 2008 campaign, Congressman Paul said that he would immediately move to abolish the IRS and end the income tax if elected to office. Furthermore, Congressman Paul has stated many times in various campaign appearances that upon abolishing the income tax, he would replace it with nothing. Congressman Paul contends that if government operated within its lawfully defined limits as provided in the Constitution, there would be no need to have an income tax.

What hard working American citizen wouldn’t welcome the abolishment of the IRS and Income Tax?

FOREIGN POLICY
Congressman Paul refers directly to the Constitution on issues of foreign policy. The Constitution advocates a policy of non-interventionism, which simply means staying out of entangling alliances and the internal affairs of other nations. Congressman Paul favors withdrawing from institutions like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, NATO and others, as he believes that these organizations erode our sovereignty. He supports free trade but is against arrangements like NAFTA that are widely viewed as corporate welfare agreements masqueraded as free trade agreements.

When asked about regional and global governing institutions he stated, “To work in the direction of loss of sovereignty which is what happens when you setup these regional governments, the WTO, the IMF and World Bank. They are working for the New World Order a new system of government and I’m not in support of that at all.”

During the latter half of the 20th century, the U.S. policy of non-intervention has been completely abandoned in favor of empire building. We have also abandoned the notion that only Congress has the power to declare war. Congress has not declared war since World War II and yet the U.S. has been involved in several undeclared foreign wars including the current war in Iraq.

Congressman Paul voted against authorization to go to war in Iraq and supports immediate troop withdrawal based on the premise that it is unconstitutional, since war with Iraq was never declared by Congress. During the Iowa GOP debate that aired on ABC News, he stated the following when asked about the Iraq war, “Just come home. We just marched in, we can just come home.”

This simple and powerful message on the Iraq war has really helped to shape and define his campaign. As President he would strengthen our national defense by withdrawing our troops from their current mission of empire building and use the military to defend our national borders, as was intended by the Constitution.

THE 2ND AMENDMENT
Congressman Paul is a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. He has consistently voted against gun control legislation, supports the private ownership of automatic firearms and has been given the highest Congressional rating by the Gun Owners of America. He believes that the individual, not the state, is in the best position to protect their lives and liberty and that is why he has voted continuously in support of upholding the 2nd amendment.

HEALTH CARE
Congressman Paul supports a true free market health care system to fix the problems it is plagued by. He believes the American health care system has the problems it does because of government involvement, which has resulted in a corporatist-fascist model. Strangely enough, many of the other presidential candidates, particularly on the Democratic side of the fence, believe that we need more government involvement to fix the system. Congressman Paul opposes a universal national health care plan because a national health care system is not authorized by the Constitution and it would vastly increase the size and scope of government. When asked how a government-run health care plan would operate he replied, “It would be like asking FEMA to take care of it.”

He also talked about the rising costs of medical care and stated, “Medical care costs prices skyrocket because of inflation, the government is involved and bureaucrats are involved.”

In addition, he said referring to advances in technology, “Technology should lower the prices of everything involved if all things are equal.”

Congressman Paul’s message on health care is really quite simple. There is no government involvement with computers and cell phones and the prices of those things have gone down. If government wasn’t involved in the health care system, the price of health care would also go down.

NORTH AMERICAN UNION
The North American Union is the stealth push for the integration of Canada, Mexico and the United States into a regional government entity under a common currency known as the “Amero”. Congressman Paul is strongly opposed to the NAU. This secret push towards North American integration began with the Security and Prosperity Partnership signed by George W. Bush and established regional agencies that would oversee governmental functions across North America. The SPP is unconstitutional because treaties with other nations are required to have congressional approval.

EDUCATION
Congressman Paul supports eliminating the Department of Education allowing states and local government control over public education. He also supports introducing free market competition. From a Constitutional perspective the Department of Education can be considered unconstitutional because the Constitution states that this is a matter that should be left to the states and local government.

WAR ON DRUGS
Congressman Paul supports the decriminalization of drug laws based on the premise that the government does not have the right to tell the individual what they should or should not put in their body.

THE ENVIRONMENT
On the environment, Congressman Paul believes we need to strengthen private property laws because people who truly own something will be more likely to take care for it, than will the state. Nations that have favored socialism and collectivism over freedom, liberty and private property have had rampant amounts of pollution because individuals do not have true ownership of their property.

IMMIGRATION
On immigration, Congressman Paul supports ending the welfare state that provides the incentive for individuals to come here illegally. He has also proposed legislation that would end birthright citizenship eliminating another incentive for illegal immigrants to enter the country.

During the interview he stated, “The welfare state provides an incentive for people to come, as well as, an incentive for some of our people not to work and take some of these jobs.”

He also talked about physical border security and stated, “We need more border guards. I would provide the personnel by bringing our troops home.”
Congressman Paul supports both ending the incentive for illegal immigrants to come to the United States in addition to providing physical border security. He also opposes any sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

PATRIOT ACT/MILITARY COMMISSION ACT/REAL ID ACT
Congressman Paul voted against the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act, which were two pieces of unconstitutional legislation that allowed for domestic spying and the elimination of habeas corpus. He supports the abolishment of both laws because they are in direct contradiction with the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. He is also strongly opposed to the Real ID Act, which is a national ID card program that is slated to start in 2008.

SIZE AND SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT
Congressman Paul also favors abolishing federal government agencies that are not specifically authorized by the Constitution. This includes the Department of Homeland Security among others that have already been mentioned. During his June 13th 2007 appearance on the “Colbert Report” he made it clear that he would reduce the size of government dramatically. In terms of programs that people depend upon like Social Security and Medicare he favors eliminating them by reducing them in size over a period of time. This way, people who depend upon these institutions would get the help they needed until it was possible to eliminate them entirely.

INTERNET REGULATION
Congressman Paul is against regulation and taxation of the Internet. When asked about the push towards taxing and regulating the Internet and he compared it to regulating things like books. He stated, “Books are available. We don’t regulate books.”

This is a very good point. If the government doesn’t regulate books, why should the government regulate things like the Internet?

He also referred to the Internet as “our secret weapon” calling it a “political equalizer.”

Ron Paul’s campaign website is ranked at 20,124 among every website in the world according to the global ranking website Alexa.com. Alexa ranks Yahoo.com as the number one website in the world next to msn.com and google.com. Hillary Clinton’s campaign site is ranked at 21,650, Obama’s at 22,433 and Giuliani’s at 117,055.

Considering the tremendous success that Congressman Paul’s presidential campaign has had on the Internet, it is easy to see why he holds this position on Internet regulation and taxation. The internet is also one of the reasons why young people have flocked to support his presidential campaign.

Dr. Paul believes a major problem affecting this country is the Federal Reserve because this is the engine that is used to expand the government, erode civil liberty and wage war. He is the only presidential candidate that understands the dangers of a private central banking system, and is willing to address it. The ability of the Federal Reserve to print money that is legal tender out of thin air has allowed the government to behave irresponsibly and offers very little in the way of checks and balances.

A statement he made about the Federal Reserve, during the interview, sums it up. He stated, “If you want to strive for personal liberty you want government to be small. The Federal Reserve permits the members of Congress and politicians to expand government without being responsible.

No individual running for President has the education and background on monetary policy that Congressman Paul does. We are faced with a monetary crisis; the U.S. Dollar has lost, approximately, more than half of its value since 2000. There is a clear need for a President who understands the concept of honest money to reverse some potentially damaging trends.

Ron Paul’s stance on political issues, his life experiences and solid Constitutional voting record make it obvious that he is a genuine and honest man. We urgently need this type of patriot as the next President of the United States. Unlike the majority of politicians who seek office for power, fellow freedom lovers and patriots had to convince him to run for President. They felt he was the right man at the right time. Ron Paul is the George Washington of our time. Ron Paul is running for President for the right reasons. He is truly the “Champion of the Constitution”.

The phenomenon of grass roots support for this man is nothing short of amazing. Politicians fighting for the chance to become President of the United States could only dream of the people’s support that Ron Paul has. No presidential candidate can boast his own 24-hour radio network other than Ron Paul. RonPaulRadio.us is not managed by Ron Paul’s campaign; his supporters run it. Musicians from coat to coast have written songs of praise about Ron Paul. Ranging from country to reggae and Rock and Roll to Rap there is no shortage of musical fare to celebrate his message. The actual numbers of grassroots supporters, on meetup.com, are now over 37,000 in 630 cities. Compared to Obama’s 4,071 nationwide supporters or Hilary’s 861, Ron Paul’s grassroots campaign is an unstoppable force that builds momentum daily. His solid number of supporters should be encouraging to anyone who considers himself a modern patriot.

Those who want to see this country released from corporate controls and returned to its Constitutional foundations can take refuge in Dr. Paul. Given the chance to act upon these principles from the office of President, “Dr. No” could end up becoming “Dr. Yes” as his efforts would shift from voting against bad policy to supporting and enacting correct and just Constitutional policy.

Ron Paul is a refreshing change for our Constitutional Republic, as opposed the destructive policy that had held sway for too long in this country.

Vote Ron Paul in 2008? You have a choice! Protected by the Constitution, your right to vote is the only remedy to protect the fate of our children and grandchildren for generations to come. The title of President of the United States of America must be held by one who values the honesty, integrity, and the constitutional fortitude of those that forged this great nation. Our republic, born in 1776, needs to be restored. You get to decide who has the ability and who will do it.

 


Congressional Control of Health Care is Dangerous for Children by Ron Paul

October 1, 2007

Congressional Control of Health Care is Dangerous for Children

by Ron Paul

This week Congress is again grasping for more control over the health of American children with the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).  Parents who think federally subsidized health care might be a good idea should be careful what they wish for. 

Despite political rhetoric about a War on Drugs, federally-funded programs result in far more teenage drug use than the most successful pill pusher on the playground.  These pills are given out as a result of dubious universal mental health screening programs for school children, supposedly directed toward finding mental disorders or suicidal tendencies.  The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased fivefold between 1995 and 2002.  More than 2.5 million children are now taking these medications, and many children are taking multiple drugs at one time. 

With universal mental health screening being implemented in schools, pharmaceutical companies stand to increase their customer base even more, and many parents are rightfully concerned.  Opponents of one such program, called TeenScreen, claim it wrongly diagnoses children as much as 84% of the time, often incorrectly labeling them, resulting in the assigning of medications that can be very damaging.  While we are still awaiting evidence that there are benefits to mental health screening programs, evidence that these drugs actually cause violent psychotic episodes is mounting.

Many parents have very valid concerns about the drugs to which a child labeled as “suicidal” or “depressed,” or even ADHD, could be subjected.  Of further concern is the subjectivity of diagnosis of mental health disorders.  The symptoms of ADHD are strikingly similar to indications that a child is gifted, and bored in an unchallenging classroom.  In fact, these programs, and many of the syndromes they attempt to screen for, are highly questionable.  Parents are wise to question them.

As it stands now, parental consent is required for these screening programs, but in some cases mere passive consent is legal.  Passive consent is obtained when a parent receives a consent form and fails to object to the screening.  In other words, failure to reply is considered affirmative consent.  In fact, TeenScreen advocates incorporating their program into the curriculum as a way to by-pass any consent requirement.  These universal, or mandatory, screening programs being called for by TeenScreen and the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health should be resisted. 

Consent must be express, written, voluntary and informed.  Programs that refuse to give parents this amount of respect, should not receive federal funding.  Moreover, parents should not be pressured into screening or drugging their children with the threat that not doing so constitutes child abuse or neglect.  My bill, The Parental Consent Act of 2007 is aimed at stopping federal funding of these programs. 

We don’t need a village, a bureaucrat, or the pharmaceutical industry raising our children.  That’s what parents need to be doing.


Ron Paul introduces the Tax Free Tips Act

September 26, 2007

Introducing the Tax Free Tips Act

Ron Paul Speech to Congress

September 25, 2007

Madam Speaker, I rise to help millions of working Americans by introducing the Tax Free Tips Act. As the title suggests, this legislation makes tips exempt from federal income and payroll taxes. Tips often compose a substantial portion of the earnings of waiters, waitresses, and other service-sector employees. However, unlike regular wages, a service-sector employee usually has no guarantee of, or legal right to, a tip. Instead, the amount of a tip usually depends on how well an employee satisfies a client. Since the amount of taxes one pays increases along with the size of tip, taxing tips punishes workers for doing a superior job!

 

Many service-sector employers are young people trying to make money to pay for their education, or single parents struggling to provide for their children. Oftentimes, these workers work two jobs in hopes of making a better life for themselves and their families. The Tax Free Tips Act gives these hard-working Americans an immediate pay raise. People may use this pay raise to devote more resources to their children’s, or their own, education, or to save for a home, retirement, or to start their own businesses.

 

Helping Americans improve themselves by reducing their taxes will make our country stronger. I, therefore, hope all my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring the Tax Free Tips Act.

 


The Money Has to Come From Somewhere by Ron Paul

September 25, 2007

The Money Has to Come From Somewhere

by Ron Paul

September 23, 2007

After the current turmoil in the markets, I was hoping that new Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke would see the big picture and act judiciously.  Instead he signaled, with an aggressive rate cut, that we can expect a continuation of the monetary policies that got us here to begin with. Alan Greenspan released his memoir this week explaining his policies and decisions in the wake of the irrational exuberance they fueled.  His successor should see that it is now time for a change of policy that addresses the root of our troubles. But instead of seeing an inflation problem, the Federal Reserve sees a liquidity problem, which is a little like extinguishing a forest fire with gasoline.  In the wake of the rate cut, the Dow jumped and brokers cheered.  Behind the headlines, however, the dollar quietly fell and was abandoned by more of the world in favor of more solid stores of wealth.

The Fed does not act in a vacuum.  Mr. Greenspan rightly criticizes Congress and the administration for abandoning principles of fiscal responsibility.  However, monetary policy at the Fed did nothing solve money problems, but merely delayed impending crises by creating bubbles.

In a very real sense, the Fed and the government are close to going over the spending limit of our nation’s credit card.  We rely on foreign investors to buy our debt so our government can maintain its appetite for spending.  Yet the market for US Treasury Bills is rapidly shrinking as yield declines.  Still the government will need an estimated $100 billion more for every year we “stay the course” in Iraq , not to mention what a possible conflict in Iran could cost.  

Yes, the money has to come from somewhere, but we are running out of sources to tap.

Printing more money is the Fed’s typical answer, but we are on the verge of runaway inflation.  We have printed so many dollars now that we are at parity with the Canadian dollar for the first time since 1976.   Since the Fed stopped publishing M3, which tracks the total supply of dollars in the economy, we can’t even be sure how many dollars they are creating.  Reported inflation is around 2%, but the method for calculating inflation changed in the 1980’s, largely at Mr. Greenspan’s urging.  Private economists using the original method find actual inflation to be over 10%, which matches more closely the pain consumers in the real economy feel. 

The reality is that this type of manipulation of the markets masks where resources, or money, ultimately comes from.  It comes from the taxpayer.  The government doesn’t create Gross Domestic Product, they just limit and control how it is done.  They then absorb much of the value produced in the economy through taxation and inflation, so they can squander our nation’s wealth with runaway spending.

The Fed tries to keep up with government’s spending habits, but is sending inaccurate signals to mask bad monetary policy.  Ultimately, we’ll get back on track financially only when government spending is held in check and the free market controls monetary policy, not the other way around.


Republicans want Ron “the Gipper” Paul for President!

September 24, 2007

Faux news asks “what do Republican voters really looking for in the candidate they nominate for President?”  And they’re answer?  Another Ronald Reagan.  Check out the clip below.  Notice there is not a single mention of Ron Paul, yet if you listen closely to the Republicans they interviewed in New Hampshire right after the Fox News debate, every one of them sounds as if what they’re really looking for is Ron Paul!  He’s the only Republican candidate that would bring back the conservatism of Reagan…only, it would be so much better.  Every one of the people interviewed wants OUT of the UN, and Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that I’ve heard say he would take the U.S. out of the UN!


Christ was a man of peace, and so am I says Ron Paul

September 21, 2007

What Have We Become?

By: Joe Murray, The Bulletin

09/21/2007

Humility has always been the cornerstone of the Christian faith, and Jesus its model. Those who seek to walk in the footsteps of Christ have guarded their values from the temptations of the world, but have also opened their hearts to those walking along side them. Christianity, thus, is a faith where “God resisteth the proud, and giveth his grace to the humble.” (James 4:6).

“(But) take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father,” proclaimed Jesus in Matthew 6:1.

Jesus continued, “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them… But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret.” (Matthew 2:6).

After watching last week’s Values Voters Debate (VVD) sponsored by the American Family Association, this author’s former employer, as well as other family values groups, one wonders if this Gospel reading got lost in the shuffle.

There can be no mistake that America is lost-culturally, politically and morally. She has deviated from the wisdom of the Founders, lost her certitude in a global marketplace that seeks to exploit her, not embrace her, and has been courted by a number of individuals who seek to place the politics of man before the principles of God. And the VVD is Exhibit “A.”

Equipped with a persecuted mayor (Ft. Lauderdale’s Jim Nagle), a Church of God choir singing “Why Should God Bless America?,” and charges of persecution, the VVD placed the GOP candidates before a fundamentalist firing squad and gave them 3 hours to plead their case as to why the trigger should not be pulled.

As an individual that has worked, and continues to work, in the arena of Christian rights, this author was shocked at the degree of political pandering carrying the banner of religious righteousness. From the very beginning, this debate was more hubris then humility.

Its website is topped with a large banner proclaiming Values Voters as “America’s largest voting bloc” and its organizers, arguing Values Voters wield the power of the GOP nomination, predicted doom for those candidates failing to appear. This behavior has undermined the Christian faith and caused the bride of Christ to weep.

It is not coincidental that the road to Hell is paved with the best of intentions, thus while one hopes that conservative leaders, such as Don Wildmon, began their crusade motivated by morality, it appears that a number of them have been hypnotized by the siren song of the almighty dollar.

Christian activism has become a lucrative business. According to its 990 form, the AFA took in millions. Arguably, such revenue was made possible by sending out “Action Alerts” warning homosexuals will throw Christians in jail under the hate crimes bill. Such rhetoric is misleading a best, dishonest at worse.

How does one protect Christianity? Send money. Call it cash-back Christianity, and the VVD was no different.

The VVD had an opportunity to restore sanity to Christian public activism, but it quickly became a political sideshow to see which candidate was the political Christian of choice.

The result? A conservative carnival.

Alan Keyes channeled his inner Benny Hinn, while John Cox mused about transvestite teachers. Sam Brownback stated that Bush should have the spent the political capital earned in 2004 on the Federal Marriage Amendment, not Social Security Reform, and Mike Huckabee proclaimed that if the U.S. leaves Iraq, it loses.

Gays, once again, became the whipping post of choice, as Free Congress Foundation chairman Paul Weyrich asked the candidates what they would do to “stop the homosexual agenda?” The answers given were dishonorable.

Regardless of one’s position on the topic of gays in the military, America is a nation at war and there are gay soldiers fighting in the Middle East. This is a fact.

In answering Weyrich’s question, Duncan Hunter proclaimed the reason the military is strong is because he worked to ban gays and Brownback praised Gen. Peter Pace who called gay soldiers immoral earlier this year. What message does that send to those fighting in the trenches?

To use these soldiers as political capital in a presidential election is shameful. And the fact that those in the audience applauded after such comments speaks volumes of just how far removed the VVD was from Christian compassion.

The issue of homosexuality is not the only reason to indict the VVD for crimes against Christianity, as the debate championing pro-life values apparently forgot the fact that preemptive war is not a part of the pro-life tradition.

Prior to his papacy, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made it clear that the “concept of a ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” Pope Benedict was merely reaffirming the Christian tradition of the Just War doctrine.

In the desire to defend the President’s political decision to go to war, the VVD, and most of the candidates, praised Iraq and even hinted to war with Iran. Tom Tancredo argued “this is not a war on terror…we are at war with radical Islam” and Brownback predicted “we are going to be fighting this battle as long as we fought communism.”

Only one candidate had the moxie to confront the politicization of Christianity, and that candidate was Ron Paul.

“I get to my God through Christ and Christ to me is a man of peace,” stated Paul. “Christ is for love and forgiveness and turning the other check and for peace and to justify what we do in the name of Christianity is very dangerous and not part of what Christianity is all about.”

Unfortunately, Rep. Paul, it is what Christian politics has become.

Joe Murray can be reached at jmurray@thebulletin.us

©The Evening Bulletin 2007


Ron Paul says, “let states decide marijuana issue”

September 21, 2007

Get troops out of Iraq, let states decide marijuana issue, GOP candidate says

September 21, 2007

By KATHLEEN GRAY

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

If elected president, Texas congressman Ron Paul said he would change drug laws to free non-violent offenders from prison.

“Mandated lifetime sentences are insane,” he said during an interview Friday with the Free Press editorial board. “I’d release them. I’d pardon them.”

The Republican presidential candidate, who used to be a Libertarian, also would work to extract the federal government from the medical marijuana debate by allowing state laws to stand unfettered.

By freeing up law enforcement from chasing down drug users and non-violent drug dealers, Paul said they could spend more time looking for rapists, murderers and child molesters.

“And look at how much money we spend on paying police to sit in toilet stalls,” he said, referring to the sting operation that snagged U.S. Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho in a Minneapolis Airport men’s room.

Paul’s views are the polar opposite of most Republican presidential candidates. He firmly believes that the United States should pull its troops out of Iraq as soon as possible and drastically curtail spending overseas.

“If they (the Republican Party) don’t change their foreign policy, they have zero chance of winning next year,” he said.

Even though he trails badly in the polls and is enormously outmatched by the front running Republicans in fundraising, Paul said he feels support for his candidacy growing.

“I have no idea where it’s going, but something really unique is going on,” he said, citing the crowd of 1,200 people he attracted recently in California.

He was on his way Friday to the Michigan Republican Party’s Leadership Conference on Mackinac Island. He hasn’t always gotten a polite reception from the state party. Saul Anuzis led an effort earlier this year to try and get Paul pulled from GOP debates because of his libertarian views.

“Mackinac will be a test for us. But we might have a dozen supporters there and we might have a couple of dozen supporters up there and they will be excited,” he said.