"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect"
– Ron Paul
One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.
In every area which our society has decided to make the province of government, or where government itself has decided to intervene, it has distorted the free market, added costs that do not reflect economic reality, excluded competition, established political fiefdoms and created no-bid crony capitalism at great expense to the taxpayer.
Ron Paul has identified this problem and promised to follow his ideological consistent goal of working to allow free market forces to regulate or, where that is not feasible, to place the decision-making and control at lowest level of governmental unit closest to those who are affected by and can provide input into the decisions that impact citizens’ lives.
The five departments Ron Paul has decided to get rid of are Energy, Commerce, Interior, Education, and Housing and Urban Development along with reasonable cuts in military spending that do nothing to make America more secure, but instead make America less secure because the costs are unsustainable, wasteful, counter-productive or not in the interests of national security.
The Department of Energy held secret meeting prior to the invasion of Iraq, and the D.C. court decided there was no requirement for them to notify the public as to what planning was taking place. The Department of Energy is being run by oil interests and allows oil corporations -private businesses- to determine the actions of government in manner that promotes the interests of Big Oil. As more and more corporations form agreements with government behind closed doors or via special interest political contributions, the private individual always ends up suffering from higher prices. If the market suddenly made feasible an alternative fuel, does anyone believe oil corporations would not work through the Department of Energy to stymie new innovation?
In the Department of Commerce, bigger businesses often lobby for rules and regulations that prevent smaller businesses from being able to compete by stifling competition. According to former Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher, the Department of Commerce (DOC) is "nothing more than a hall closet where you throw in everything that you don't know what to do with." The General Accounting Office reported that DOC "faces the most complex web of divided authorities" of any government agency, sharing its "missions with at least 71 federal departments, agencies and offices." This department has a budget of $8 billion and 34,000 employees. Money via grants are not based on market efficacy, but instead are divvied out according to political considerations that are extremely wasteful.
Everyone says Ron Paul is against education because he wants to get rid of the Department of Education, but this is a lie. His goal is to leave the maximum amount of money at the local level so that individual school boards can decide how to best run their school without interference from Washington D.C. where bureaucrats devise unfunded mandates and are thousands of miles removed from the challenges a community faces in relation to educating their children.
The Department of the Interior has a budget of $12.2 billion and employs 70,000 employees at 2,400 different locations. None of the functions of this department are based on the constitution, accordingly, it creates many rules that deny property owners the right to use and develop their property because in some case a gnat that is on the endangered species list has flourished on someone’s property that has been designated a wet land. If government wants to save a gnat, then the government should be required to pay the landowner and assume ownership as opposed to denying him the use of his land without him any compensation whatsoever. This is an unconstitutional attack on private property that serves as the basis for a free society in which individual liberty and economic liberty are once again united.
The last department Dr. Ron Paul advocated abolishing is the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We all remember the individual who dressed as a pimp to get advice from ACORN on how to avoid paying taxes. Many ACORN employees were paid through HUD. Their budget is at $100 million and yet they have been unable to provide requested statistical information that shows any program efficacy at all. With HUD taxpayer money goes to developers who are politically connected, very rich, extremely expensive construction corporations. Ron Paul is not against public housing, but the way this program is administered and the extent to which it is politically corrupted. The end result is that less homes are built for the needy and a well-meaning program does nothing more then serve as a means of corporate welfare that helps the rich.
Ron Paul would abolish any federal agency whose powers were not 'enumerated' in the US Constitution. The "enumerated powers" clause of the US Constitution, specifically Article 1 Section 8 defines the powers of the US Congress. These "enumerated powers" do not authorize the creation of certain federal agencies, specifically the Dept. of Education, HUD, and many others. Ron Paul believes that each federal agency must be looked at through the lens of the enumerated powers clause of the US Constitution, and if that agency is not specifically authorized then it must be abolished.
These departments have been allowed to create regulations that violate the U.S. Constitution, deny due process and destroy individuals’ private property rights. These agencies stand the objective of law on its head because it leaves employers in the position of never knowing if they are subject to lawsuits because administrative judges interpretation of arcane rules hidden in ever-growing mountains of government regulation. These rules contain within themselves the full force of law without ever having to stand review of any legislative body.
Without any constraint on government and allowing it to use the Commerce Clause to expand its influence into every facet of human endeavor thereby establishing an excuse for unlimited government, Americans have found they have become poorer and less free. The decision we now face is unlimited government or an unprecedented role back of government tyranny and abuses.
"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect"
– Ron Paul
One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.
If you look at where Mitt Romney receives his campaign finances from, this video should be no surprise. Large Banks caused the mess we're in and Mitt Romney's intimate relationships with these banks are a tell sign that a President Romney would be a continuation of bad monetary policy.
"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect" – Ron Paul
One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.
Many people have brought up Ron Paul's manifold requests for earmarks to be appropriated for his district as evidence of his "hypocrisy." (You can see a list of these requests for 2007 here.) This charge is easily refuted.
First of all, what is an earmark?
Most often, it is pet projects that lawmakers seek for their districts and states. It can include road projects, water and sewer funds, community development grants, military base improvements and grants to local hospitals, universities and nonprofit organizations.
Earmarks can be tax breaks aimed at a specific company or research grants for a single employer. Such companies often reward lawmakers with campaign cash. In the case of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., it was bribes. (1)
How do they work?
In the case of appropriations bills, there is an application process. Lawmakers fill out forms and say which projects they want the most. Staff and lawmakers scrutinize to make sure everybody's following the rules and to weed out bad ideas. The party controlling the House or Senate gets about 60 percent of the earmarks allocated to each chamber. (1)
Some rice farmers from Congressman Ron Paul's district were in his office the other day, asking for this and that from the federal government. The affable Republican from south Texas listened nicely, then forwarded their requests to the appropriate House committee. It may or may not satisfy their requests in some bill dispensing largesse to agricultural interests. Then Paul will vote against the bill. (2)
Do they increase the budget?
The misconception seems to be that members of Congress put together a bunch of requests for project funding, add them all together and come up with a budget. The truth is, [...] [t]he total level of spending is determined by the Congressional leadership and the appropriators before any Member has a chance to offer any amendments. Members' requests are simply recommendations to allocate parts of that spending for certain items in that members' district or state. If funds are not designated, they revert to non-designated spending controlled by bureaucrats in the executive branch. In other words, when a designation request makes it into the budget, it subtracts funds out of what is available to the executive branch and bureaucrats in various departments, and targets it for projects that the people and their representatives request in their districts. (3)
[...] [C]utting the number of earmarks does not cut spending. An earmark is a congressional provision that directs federal agencies to spend funds already authorized on specific projects. If the funds aren’t earmarked, the agencies can spend the money any way they see fit. That is, the executive branch, rather than Congress, will determine how the taxpayer’s money is spent. This point cannot be stressed enough because even the writers at the Wall Street Journal do not understand it. After quoting a spokesman from Paul’s office reminding them that earmarks do not directly increase spending, the WSJ reports, "On the other hand, good libertarians should want to start cutting somewhere." Didn’t Paul’s office just point out that cutting earmarks does not cut spending? (4)
The Brookings Institution’s Paul Cullinan, research director of the Budgeting for National Priorities Project [says] [...] that earmarks "might be an allocation issue" rather than a spending issue. And Scott Lilly, a senior fellow with the liberal Center for American Progress, told us that "there’s no evidence that if you took earmarks out, federal spending would go down." (5)
Is Ron Paul a hypocrite?
On net, therefore, the quid pro quo of earmark trading is likely to increase government spending. Yet considering that Dr. Paul always votes "no" on the appropriations bills he requests earmarks for – as his critics concede – he is not involved in this negative aspect of the earmarking process. No amount of earmarks promised to him will convince him to vote "yes" on the bill. (4)
You know, the big issue is the spending. If you don’t like the spending, vote against the bill. (6)
[...] Ron Paul's claim that he is meeting two obligations is a position I wish most people in congress took. He has a duty to represent his district. He also has a duty to protect the constitution. (7)
Are earmarks a large portion of federal spending?
[...] [A]ccording to most estimates, earmarks constitute less than 2 percent of the [2009 Obama Spending Act's] total spending. (8)
Are earmarks bad?
Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. (9)
[...] [I]t is the responsibility of the Congress to earmark. That’s our job. We’re supposed to tell the people how we’re spending the money. Not to just deliver it in the lump sum to the executive branch and let them deal with it. And then it’s dealt with behind the scenes. [...] Earmarks really allow transparency and we know exactly where the money is being spent. (6)
It's kind of like if your spouse says she's going to the store and will purchase $100 of groceries. You request that she picks up steak for one of the meals. She still spends $100, but you've at least had your say on what you get to eat. Eliminating earmarks takes all of the spending decisions out of elected officials and puts them in the hands of unelected officials. (10)
[T]he drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the powers of the purse because the drafters feared that allowing the branch of government charged with executing the laws to also write the federal budget would concentrate too much power in one branch of government. (11)
Do we need earmark reform?
[...] [A]ll members should support efforts to bring greater transparency to the earmarking process. However, we must not allow earmarking reform to distract us from what should be our main priority — restricting federal spending by returning the government to its constitutional limitations. (11)
In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better. (12)
The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in 2007's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Cutting even a million dollars from an appropriations bill that spends hundreds of billions will make no appreciable difference in the size of government, which is doubtless why politicians and the media are so eager to have us waste our time on [earmarks]. (13)
"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect" – Ron Paul
One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.
Newt Gingrich is a man who represents the problems we face here in America: Self-motivate and corruptible career politicians who vote where the money is. Newt's history is all we need to know he'd be a worse president than Obama is. Newt has a big government, anti-constitution, globalist and socialist agenda.
This in depth video displays Newt biggest flip-flops, scandals and flaws which Obama will absolutely exploit. A vote for Newt is a vote for Obama. (More on why Mitt and Newt cannot win.)
"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect" – Ron Paul
One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.
The fact that Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on such a large number of issues makes him not only an unrealistic contender versus Obama, but makes him a less than ideal candidate for president. Does America really want a man who changes his views from one extreme to the next at the drop of a dime to be their leader?
This short video displays some of Mitts biggest flip-flops which Obama will absolutely exploit. A vote for Mitt is a vote for Obama. (More on why Mitt and Newt cannot win.)
"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect"
– Ron Paul
One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.
Ron Paul: Propagandist or Prophet?
by Jeremy R. Hammond
December 24, 2011
Ron Paul is “the best-known American propagandist for our enemies”, writes Dorothy Rabinowitz in a recent Wall Street Journalhit piece. To support the charge, she writes that Dr. Paul “assures audiences” that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 “took place only because of U.S. aggression and military actions”. It’s “True,” she writes, that “we’ve heard the assertions before”, but only “rarely have we heard in any American political figure such exclusive concern for, and appreciation of, the motives of those who attacked us”—and, she adds, he doesn’t care about the victims of the attacks.
The vindictive rhetoric aside, what is it, exactly, that Ron Paul is guilty of here? It is completely uncontroversial that the 9/11 attacks were a consequence of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The 9/11 Commission Report, for instance, points out that Osama bin Laden “stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.”
Notice that Rabinowitz doesn’t actually deny that the 9/11 attacks were motivated by such U.S. policies as these. Rather, Ron Paul’s sin is that he actually acknowledges this truth. The fact that other political figures choose to ignore or deny this fact hardly reflects poorly on Dr. Paul. Refusing to bury one’s head deeply up one’s arse, as Rabinowitz is so obviously willing to do, is hardly a character trait to be faulted.
From this position of willful ignorance, Rabinowitz then implores her readers that “a President Paul” would “be making decisions about the nation’s defense, national security, domestic policy and much else.” The conclusion one is supposed to draw is that anyone who could actually acknowledgethe ugly truth that 9/11 was a consequence of U.S. foreign policy isn’t fit for office; only someone who is willing to delude him or herself that the U.S. was attacked because “they hate our freedoms” is worthy of the presidency. Anyone who wishes to change U.S. foreign policy is unfit; only a person who is willing to continue the status quo should be allowed a seat in the Oval Office.
Rabinowitz warns that “The world may not be ready for another American president traversing half the globe to apologize for the misdeeds of the nation he had just been elected to lead.” It’s not clear who she has in mind with the “another”, but it’s by now a familiar refrain. “I’ll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever. I don’t care what the facts are,” President George H. W. Bush declared to the world after a U.S. warship had shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in Iranian airspace, killing all 290 passengers aboard, including 65 children. Surely, any president willing to apologize for the murder of innocent children must not lead the nation. The horror of the thought!
"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect"
– Ron Paul
One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.
"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect"
– Ron Paul
One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.
Ron Paul does not want to eliminate Social Security, which is set to run dry in 2036. Although he personally doesn’t believe in the Social Security program, he does believe in keeping the promise to those who have been paying into the program. Ron Paul advocates an “opt-out” for people 25 and under from the system so that those individuals can keep more of their money each week, this immediately benefits the economy.
Ron Paul is also the only candidate who will guarantee Social Security lasts well beyond the projected 2036 deadline by reducing the size of government immediately and eliminating our overseas expenditures.
This is a direct quote from Ron Paul's Plan to Restore America regarding entitlements.
"Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs."
"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect"
– Ron Paul
One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.
America was founded on immigrants, our ideas and philosophies were forged through the merging of different cultures. In fact, most of our ancestors immigrated here at one point in time. Our statue of liberty is a symbol of freedom and liberty, not just for the American people, but for all people through the world. The current system, and every other candidate currently running, has waged war on this philosophy as the illegal immigrant battle has become a racist act of isolationism in its truest form.
What we aren’t fully grasping is the current living conditions that the Mexican people struggle through. Their government either cannot or will not control the drugs and guns, their economy is in shambles and their children are at risk of everything from disease to human trafficking. For the people of Mexico, a better life urgently awaits them in America, yet we demonize them for wanting better for their families and having what we have.
The common argument to this is, don’t come here illegally then; if you want to come here do it on our terms.
I would agree in principle, however, it’s more complicated than that. Currently, the wait time to gain citizenship is over 5 years (link), and that’s if you’re granted citizenship at all. Furthermore, without an attorney it’s highly unlikely to attain citizenship period, which adds a hefty toll to that avenue. So rather than attempting the convoluted and unlikely road to legal citizenship. The preferable choice, as we have made it, is to come here illegally, besides the punishment for doing so is considerably lax.
So what is the answer to the illegal immigration problem? A $50 billion wall? Throughout time mankind has overcome just about every obstacle that has impeded his ambition. The Great Wall of America would be an incentive for such innovation. Although, undoubtedly, there would be a slight fall in the numbers of illegal immigrants this method would ultimately fall short of its intended duty. Unless the wall is made from magic - man will find a way past.
The unfortunate truth is that this wall wouldn’t be effective at stopping the problem and could potentially cause serious problems with our relations to Mexico and to our already damaged economy. However, there is a much simpler solution to the illegal immigrant problem.
Remove the many attractive incentives that tempt illegal immigrants to come here such as cheap housing, welfare, food stamps, free medical care, tuition, birth-right citizenship, jobs and various other programs. Then if we made the pathway to becoming a legal resident easier, and they were held to the same requirements as we are, the overall illegal immigrant flow would slow down drastically.
This method, Ron Paul's method, is not only practical but it’s a moral approach as well. It would yield far superior results and be less costly for our nation than the Great Wall of America solution.
"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect"
– Ron Paul
One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.
If the GOP would like to take the White House again in 2013 their only chance is Ron Paul, and I'll tell you why.
It's in the Math
Ron Paul would win:
Republicans
Independants
Anti-War Democrats
Blue Republican Democrats
Youth Vote
Obama would take:
Remaining Democrats
Some Youth Votes
Newt Gingrich would take:
Republicans (Minus the Ron Paul republicans.*)
Obama would win:
Democrats
Some Independants
Majority Youth Vote
Mitt Romney would take:
Republicans (Minus the Ron Paul republicans.* Minus the die-hard Christians)
Obama would win:
Democrats
Some Independants
Majority Youth Vote
* Ron Paul republicans currently represent 15% of the Republican voting block and the vast majority of Ron Paul's support will not vote for the republican nominee if that person is not Ron Paul.
Skeletons
Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on his medical mandate, flip-flopped on abortion, has had a poor voting record, has catered to lobbyists and gets his funding from the large banks the people bailed out.
Newt Gingrich have voted for every socialist program to date, has flip-flopped on numerous topics, was kicked out of congress for 60+ ethics violations (fined $300,000), has had 3 marriages (is married to his latest mistress), sells his brand, is a career politician.... the list goes on... and on... and on.
Ron Paul is a successful doctor who delivered 4,000 babies, raised successful children, served 12 terms in congress, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted for a tax increase, does not collect lobby money, served in the military, refuses to accept a tax funded pension, predicted the housing crisis, and has been married to the same woman for 50 years. Basically a squeaky clean record.
So, of this group, who would be the easiest for Obama to defeat? Who would be the most difficult for Obama to defeat?
Ron Paul is the only candidate who can beat Barrak Obama.
"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect" – Ron Paul
One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.
As most of us already know, the Federal Reserve [Fed] came under expansive scrutiny in 2008 after the housing bubble burst and reaped havoc on our dollar. What most people don’t know is why the Federal Reserve came under fire. The absence of that knowledge creates a lack of conviction and rectifying our economic problems can only occur when both knowledge and conviction are achieved. The majority of Americans perceive our Federal Reserve as necessary and integral to our economy, as air is to our respiratory system. Most people don’t understand the immoral inner workings of the Fed nor do they understand the unconstitutionality of it. People are often surprised when they learn that the fed is privately owned.
In this document, I will take you over the failures of fiat money, the corruption it breeds and the negative effect it has on our savings. This document is for those who want to understand the Fed more deeply, I offer a moderate history of the Fed to hopefully elucidate the subject and display why the Federal Reserve must be restrained.
“It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford
History of Fiat Currency
In 1775 the Continental Congress began issuance of a paper currency called the Continental in preparation of the war with Great Britain. Since the notion of taxation was highly ridiculed and the war costs were so high, they began printing Bills of Credit (short term public loans to the government) in order to fund the war.
This proved problematic as by 1776, due to inflation (diluting the money supply), the Bills of Credit depreciated to 66% of initial value. In an attempt to combat the depreciation the states made paper currencies legal tender for all purchases and debts, enacted price controls and continued to print more money. In 1778 state and federal directed Procurement Officers (soldiers) to seize and pillage the people giving certificates of debt in return, which also quickly diminished in value. By 1780, hyperinflation led Congress to the conclusion that further printing was futile; the money supply had been diluted to just 1% of its original value in 6 years.
The overall failure of the paper Continental led our founders to authoring Article 1 Section 10 of our Constitution, which declared that only gold and silver were to be legal tender. This law was designed to protect us from the immorality of a devaluating currency; the theft of wealth at the behest of others.
The Federal Reserve Act
"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., 1913
On December 23 of 1913 under Woodrow Wilson, the Federal Reserve Act was instated, which, at the peril of our Constitution, was granted legal authority to issue Federal Reserve notes. This system would be built around the ideology of macroeconomics, (later labeled Keynesian economics post 1936). Initially, as a safeguard, the dollar was fixed on the value of gold and was to be redeemable in gold at a rate of $20.67 per ounce. This assured low inflation and placed natural market restrictions on the Fed by allowing the market to influence the economy (although notably hindered by intervention).
During that time the Federal Reserve comptroller assured the people that it was mathematically impossible to have economic recessions, claiming that this form of economic planning was superiorly more sophisticated; perfect. However according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, this notion was quickly invalidated as between 1918 and 1919 we experienced our first bubble and recession.
Bubbles
Bubbles form when the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates below the natural levels of a market, it influences expansion of investments well beyond sustainable levels. This distorts the signals that business uses to assess risk. These distortions then lead businesses to believe that consumers have the savings to back up their investments. However, artificially low (below market) interest rates don’t generate new wealth to make good on investments. So when the bubble pops these fallacies are realized in lost investments.
The bubbles and economic recessions continued, just as they had with every other central bank. Bubbles occurred in 1918 to 1919, 1920 to 1921, 1923 to 1924, 1926 to 1927, and 1929 to 1933. As you might be aware, 1933 was the year that President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive order 6102 which not only restricted Americans from owning gold but ordered the seizure of gold. The gold fixed value of the dollar was then immediately changed from $20.67 to $35 per ounce. The Bubbles continued, 1937 to 1938, 1945, 1948 to 1949, 1953 to 1954, 1960 to 1961, and 1969 to 1970. Then things changed with a new Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
When Arthur Burns was appointed Chairman of the Fed (1970-78), he pushed for more secrecy by ending minutes keeping during meetings, allowing for concealment in meetings. He also made arguments for elasticity in our dollar by removing the “restriction” of the gold standard. On August 15, 1971 he got his wish.
We went off the gold standard and introduced ultimate elasticity to the Fed. This afforded them the ability to control the value of the dollar at their whim. This allso allowed the fed to interject the business cycle to make economic booms last longer, which in turn allowed the recessions last longer. The presence of real market restricts the boom from perpetuity, that is, every period of economic euphoria must be respected by an equal period of economic misery.
The recessions from 1918 to 1970 were relatively short and went fairly unnoticed due to the dollars fixed value. Once elasticity was granted and was perverted over time by intervention through inflation and low interest rates, the severity of the recessions were much more notable. Post gold fixed bubbles include 1973 to 1975, 1980, 1981 to 1982, 1990 to 1991 and 2000 to 2007, which brings us to our current crises.
The Great Bubble
The great bubble was largely attributed to the bad policies of Alan Greenspan who was the chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 until 2006. Greenspan intervened in the recession that should’ve followed the dot-com bubble. Instead of accepting the natural recession that should have occurred in 2001, the Fed began expanding the Housing Market. This didn’t negate the previous bubble; it merely stalled it by creating a bigger bubble. The Fed arrogantly continued its efforts to stop recession through low interest rates and actual interest rates fell below historical averages. At that point the Fed had abandoned all monetary rules in attempts to prop the market.
Alan Greenspan slashed the federal fund targets from 6.5% in January of 2001 all the way down to 1% by June 2003. He fixed the rates at an artificial low of 1% for a full year, which encouraged more bad investments and caused a massive expansion of the bubble. Then, by June of 2006, Greenspan had raised it back to 5.25%, a move that popped the bubble and unleashed the havoc of three overdue recessions.
“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from its profits or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.” - Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863
Surly a man of Alan Greenspan’s intelligence saw what was happening as he undoubtedly understands basic economics and the business cycle. Bearing that leads to the question, what motive would Greenspan have for knowingly doing this? All one has to do is look to who gets the money, and the answer is obvious. Alan Greenspan was protecting the fed’s banking, big business and political interest by skirting the financial burden on the people, essentially socializing loss.
“Inflation is the most evasive and aggressive form of taxation it transfers wealth from the middle class to the privileged rich”. – Ron Paul
Corruption
The Federal Reserve is falsely known as a politically neutral part of our government. This cannot be further from the truth on either count. As a private institution the Fed succumbs to the interest of its controllers and shareholders. The Federal Reserve, being the most secret institution in our country, can give undisclosed money to corporations and influence politics by adjusting (loosening) rates during elections. An example of this, which can be found in Ron Paul’s best-selling book “End The Fed”, is Arthur Burns (Fed Chairman 1970-78) attempt at seducing President Carter in 1976.
It is well documented that Arthur Burns, in an attempt to be reappointed, cut discount rates and accelerated money growth to alter the perception of the economy. He told Carter that reappointment would make him out to be a high minded statesman and suggested that if reappointed he (Arthur Burns) would stop criticizing everything near and dear to him (Carter). He failed and his intervention in the market brought on the worst bout of price inflation in a century and caused the democrats to lose the office to Regan.
People like this are the masters of our economy?
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws" -Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild (Rothschild family is the largest Fed shareholder)
The Audit
Although they do have regular audits, the auditors are extremely limited in what they can actually audit which makes them irrelevant altogether. Contrary to Herman Cain’s claim that calling the Fed will provide all the answers, the reality is that all past requests for information have always been met with arrogance from Fed chairmen, turning them down, as if the requests were outrageous.
In 2009 Ron Paul introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act (H.R.1207), which requested a full audit of the Federal Reserve, the first in its 100 year history. It gained wide attention and support but what passed was Senator Bernard Sanders lite version titled Federal Reserve Sunshine Act (s.604), which demanded a partial audit, and here are their findings. (unelected.com)
The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows:
Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
This secret stimulus inflates our dollar, essentially a tax on the people; our money went to these thieves by way of devaluation of our savings.
Ben Bernanke & Quantitative Easing:
Ben Bernanke is the current chairman of the Fed. He continues with the bad practices that Greenspan used. He continues the inflation of our currency and devaluation of the dollar, a direct tax on the people’s savings and earnings. Ben Bernanke believes that he can “fix” our current economic crisis by printing money; stimulus through quantitative easing. Essentially treating the illness with what caused it in the first place.
Quantitative Easing (QE) is another form of stimulus, an injection of money into our supply. QE happens as a result of artificially low interest rates. To better understand this process I urge you to watch this film QE Explained. This is Ben Bernanke’s secret (and only) weapon, and its proliferating the problem.
Private Counterfiters:
"Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders." The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s
Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is organized into a corporation with shares. Those shares are sold to the commercial banks and thrifts operating within each of the twelve Fed Bank's district. The shareholders get to elect six of the nine the board of directors for their regional Federal Reserve Bank, they also elect the president. I urge you to look over which banks got bailed out and contrast them to the list below. Corporate interests at its finest.
The shareholders are kept mostly confidential, however author Eustace Mullins exposed some of the members in his bombshell book titled “Secrets of the Federal Reserve” Citibank, Chase Manhattan, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York to name a few.
The Fed is guilty of secretly counterfeiting money and creating credit for private, corporate and political interest.
Conclusion:
The flaws of the Fed, the great depression and the current crisis can be proven syllogistically and down to central economic planning, the departure from the gold standard and Keynesian economics. The benefits of an elastic fiat currency allow for rich men to prop up their interests (often overseas) at the expense of the American people. It’s a morally corrupt system that claims ethical high ground, this moral high ground drives us into socialism.
It’s the American people’s job to stop encouraging the Fed’s abuses by demanding benefits from congressmen that can only be produced by printing fiat money. We are neglecting our future and our children’s future and selling it out for the short term benefits of today. We encourage the Fed by supporting wars which could only be funded with an elastic money supply.
Often people make the reference that we should not “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. This is an ignorant notion as it cannot apply to a private institute with private interests. If the baby is the American Peoples interest, the baby has long since left the bathwater.
"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect" – Ron Paul
One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.
9/11 is an evasive subject for many, fortified under a coveted veil of loyalty. Akin to the contumacious devotion a mother has to her child. As she turns her head away from any undesirable realities that may ensue; we simply believe in our beloved’s innocence. Regardless of your stance on 9/11, we owe it to the men, women and children who died that day to investigate the available facts, to disconnect the mother-child temperament, if only for a moment, to perhaps enlighten ourselves to a superior wavelength, or maybe to simply solidify our prior convictions. It’s been 10 years and I think we’re strong enough now to take the blinders off.
Osama Bin Laden was a terrible person for the hell he bestowed upon us, no doubt. It wasn’t just the single act of violence that took place on 9/11. It's the decade of lost freedoms, fear, perpetual war, nation-building and militarism persued by our government and private interests that are fighting (aka profiting from) "the war on terror".
This has provided Osama with success on two counts: One, that he wanted to destroy our economy. Two, That he wanted us on his land so that he could "target us better". Unfortunately, we fell right into the trap that Osama laid for us. It was a maniacal and calculated plan to collapse us. But what was the reason?
As a nation living with the “mother-child” mentality we seemed to be fine with the answer that George W. Bush gave to congress on September 20th of 2001, "They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other". (1) No fact, no real substance behind it, just the knowledge that it would pull hard on our heartstrings and rally our support to go to war.
I think today we are strong enough to listen to another view as to why the attacks took place. A more probable view backed up with fact, substance and conviction. That is, the view of Osama Bin Laden himself in 2002:
"While seeking Allah's help, we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:
(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
(Q2) What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1)Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
(i)Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily. “
…
“(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.”
…
“(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.
(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.”
It goes on… (2)
Is it really so hard to believe that due to our foreign policy of intervention, choosing allies, occupation and war that we would one day experience some form of blow-back? It wasn't just the past 10 or 20 years, Palestine has been under foreign occupation for more than 80 years, and we assisted that occupation every step of the way. Did we really get attacked on September 11th simply due to the fact that we are free? I think we all know the answer, but can we break away from the “mother-child” mentality long enough to admit it?
(1) In an attempt to keep this writing short I won’t go into the possible reasons as to why George Bush Jr. would lead us from the truth but I will provide you with a link to a great writing I found informative written by a respected Theologian Dr. David Ray Griffin (Link)
(2) Osama Bin Laden goes on to explain in detail exactly what we did to make them attack us on 9/11. Read more here: (Osama's Letter)
"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect" – Ron Paul
One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.
"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect" – Ron Paul
One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.
I have encountered a few individuals who said they would not vote for Ron Paul because he would lower the corporate tax, essentially arguing that he is working to benefit the 1%. This is a simple fallacy that can be easily debated.
When an individual pays a tax whether it be a sales tax, income tax or other form of taxation they pay for it with their own money, this we know. However, for some reason the arguer does not grasp how a corporation pays a tax, they assume that the corporation, like the individual, pays a tax from its profits. This is not the case, the corporation pays its taxes in the price of its goods. If you raise a corporations tax rate by 15%, the corporation simply raises the price of its goods by 15% to make up for the difference.
The current corporate tax rate is 35%. Ron Paul’s Plan to Restore America would reduce that rate to 15% which would make America more competitive on a global market. Simply put, if corporate taxes are reduced the corporation would most certainly lower the price of its goods or services to compete with other companies in their industry. Lower prices draw more consumers, both domestically and globally, higher sales translate to more production and more production translates to more jobs for Americans.
In summary, an excessive tax on a corporation is a hidden tax on the people, while a lower tax on a corporation leads to job growth.
"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect" 