"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.
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" – 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.
We hear about government spending daily, we hear it from radio hosts, TV pundits, from President Obama and we hear it countless times in the GOP debates. However, the government must spend some money, so what is good spending and what is bad spending? I honestly don’t believe that any other political figure understands this better than Ron Paul.
Essentially, when our government spends money, say, to create a jobs for instance. They go about it differently than the private sector would. As the private sector creates a job purely out of demand, the government creates a job simply to create work. This is counterproductive and actually creates job-loss in the private sector. To understand this notion thoroughly I offer a short chapter from a book written by Henry Hazlitt titled “Economics in One Lesson”.
(more chapters on youtube)
As Mr. Hazlitt illustrates, government cannot create a job without first taking one from the private sector. This simple notion can be easily proven through elementary mathematics, the government cannot magically create jobs. If the government takes money, for any purpose whether it be for foreign aid & war or be it research & development it is always at the peril of the tax payer and private sector jobs.
To reiterate, when the government takes money from the taxpayers pocket, it results in less money that can be spent as a consumer in the private sector. If your buying power is diminished then fewer products are sold and there is less demand for production. When production falls, layoffs ensue shortly after. Unemployment rises.
Ron Paul would decrease this by doing away with 5 extremely wasteful bureaucracies. Departments that when scrutinized are obvious failures and ultimately job destroyers.
"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect" 