Liberty is Brewing

[V]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8

[Flacolaco]

Who sits around and makes videos like this?

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Who sits around and makes videos like this?

Who sits around and posts on the internet all day without changing anything?

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by Arne

Who sits around and posts on the internet all day without changing anything?

Millions of people around the world?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. What an odd question.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Who sits around and makes videos like this?

I'm certain that is done by Ron Paul's people, not an internet person. eLiberty is the producer.

I am pretty intrigued by Ron Paul.

[FishForLunch]

Looks like he will run as a third party candidate and draw equally from democrats and republicans. At least he will teach those power hungry parties a thing or two about doing good for the country and not just for themselves.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

Looks like he will run as a third party candidate and draw equally from democrats and republicans. At least he will teach those power hungry parties a thing or two about doing good for the country and not just for themselves.

Where did you see that? If he does he will wind up getting clinton elected. Shame on him.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

Looks like he will run as a third party candidate and draw equally from democrats and republicans. At least he will teach those power hungry parties a thing or two about doing good for the country and not just for themselves.

"I have no intention of doing that [third party candidacy]" said Ron Paul.

Boston Globe article

[Dirkadirkastan]

I thought Ron Paul said he'd never consider running as a third party again...?

As to Flaco's question, let it be known that some people actually enjoy video editing. And that I relate to those people.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

I thought Ron Paul said he'd never consider running as a third party again...?

As to Flaco's question, let it be known that some people actually enjoy video editing. And that I relate to those people.

I've always wanted to try my hand at video editing, but don't know of any affordable software.

/hijack

[V]

eLiberty is not involved with the official campaign at all. He's one of over 60,000 voluntees working on his own to get the Republican nomination for Ron Paul.

I know this to be the case because eLiberty's first video was posted on the official Ron Paul campaign website, and it was noted the video was produced by a volunteer. eLiberty is touting a grassroots effort to raise money on December 16th, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Moreover, if this were directly linked to the Paul campaign it might violate campaign finance laws (the the extent any real money is spent promoting the fundraiser). Here is a link to the grassroots effort www.teaparty07.com

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by V

eLiberty is not involved with the official campaign at all. He's one of over 60,000 voluntees working on his own to get the Republican nomination for Ron Paul.

I know this to be the case because eLiberty's first video was posted on the official Ron Paul campaign website, and it was noted the video was produced by a volunteer. eLiberty is touting a grassroots effort to raise money on December 16th, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Moreover, if this were directly linked to the Paul campaign it might violate campaign finance laws (the the extent any real money is spent promoting the fundraiser). Here is a link to the grassroots effort www.teaparty07.com

Interesting. The whole correlation to the Boston Tea party thing is lame, but so far everything I've read about Paul is good.

[rabbitproof]

Go Ron Paul Go!

[u2sarajevo]

Huh. I'm not quite sure why this guy has flown under my radar. He has some radical ideas that I can see might doom his candidacy, although they sound great to me (ending the federal income tax and reducing government spending by abolishing most federal agencies; he favors hard money and opposes the Federal Reserve. - taken from his Wikipedia page). It's like the dawn of a new day is coming for me. It appears, on the surface, that I have found a candidate that I can believe in and support fervently.

Before I make that jump though, I would love to hear the cons against him.

[Mavdog]

as is the case with all the candidates, there's good and there's bad with ron paul.

most of us will support his positions on reducing the role of government, of getting a balanced budget as the norm rather than the exception. for me, paul's stance against the war on drugs is a positive, and also his position against the marriage amendment.

he's against the death penalty and against the woman's right to an abortion.

but then there's the foreign policy positions which reveal a solid isolationism which is crazy in today's world.

he says get rid of the income tax, and I guess if he reduced the size of the federal government by 80% maybe he could make this work with his position on a balanced budget. otoh he doesn't offer up a replacement for the income tax either.

and then his economic positions, specifically his dalliance with the gold standard and his vow to abolish the federal reserve, and all I can conclude is he's very myopic.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

as is the case with all the candidates, there's good and there's bad with ron paul.

most of us will support his positions on reducing the role of government, of getting a balanced budget as the norm rather than the exception. for me, paul's stance against the war on drugs is a positive, and also his position against the marriage amendment.

he's against the death penalty and against the woman's right to an abortion.

but then there's the foreign policy positions which reveal a solid isolationism which is crazy in today's world.

he says get rid of the income tax, and I guess if he reduced the size of the federal government by 80% maybe he could make this work with his position on a balanced budget. otoh he doesn't offer up a replacement for the income tax either.

and then his economic positions, specifically his dalliance with the gold standard and his vow to abolish the federal reserve, and all I can conclude is he's very myopic.

Edit: V was quicker than I was...

[V]

Careful on stating what Paul is OPPOSED TO. First he is NOT against a woman's right to an abortion. Paul is personally against abortion, but he believes it is a state issue, not a Federal one. Same with death penelty. It's a state issue.

Two: Paul is NOT an isolationist. In fact, he is he MOST pro-free trade candidate in the race. What Paul opposes is foreign intervention, nation building and using military force without a declaration of war. I will add those views come directly from the advice of the founding fathers and the Constitution. That makes Paul a non-interventionist. That DOES NOT make Paul an isolationist.

Three: Eliminating the Federal Income Tax would require government spending to be reduce to 2000 levels. Does anyone believe it's too much to ask the govermnet to spend what they did only seven years ago? Further, you may think your income tax dollars pay for all sorts of wonderful goverment entitlement programs. But the reality is you tax dollars may for (largely) interest on our goverment debt.

Paul's position is brilliant because he links foreign and domestic policy. The idea is really simple. There are 190 countries in the world. The US is in 130 of them. We have military bases in over 90 countries. Paul says it's time to bring those troops home and stop messing in the affairs of foreign countries.

The byproduct of bringing the military home serves several purposes. One, it will save the US about $1 trillion dollars per year. Two, we can use our forces to secure and defend our borders (solving the immigration problem). Three we can use the savings to pay for certain entitlement programs that need to be funded - like social security.

In the meantime, we can allow young people to opt out of social security if they want to. We can also eliminate the Federal Income Tax so people keep more of what they earn.

EDIT: Paul would talk and trade and encourage foreign travel. But he would not subsidize foreign goverments with taxpayers (YOUR) money. Whether it's the $16 billion we gave to Pakistan or maintaining bases in Korea for the last 50 years, US foreign policy is tremendously expensive. And it's leading to the decline in the value of the US Dollar because the Federal Reserve simply prints more money out of thin air to pay for exorbitant spending. Ron Paul wants to stop the madness.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by V

Careful on stating what Paul is OPPOSED TO. First he is NOT against a woman's right to an abortion. Paul is personally against abortion, but he believes it is a state issue, not a Federal one. Same with death penelty. It's a state issue.

perhaps you should read more about ron paul:

Q: What will you do to restore legal protection to the unborn?
A: As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there's a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there's an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.
Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

"I'm surprised that I don't have more co-sponsors for my Sanctity of Life Act. It removes the jurisdiction from the federal courts & allows the states to pass protection to the unborn. Instead of waiting years for a Constitutional Amendment, this would happen immediately, by majority vote in the Congress and a president's signature. It's a much easier way to accomplish this, by following what our Constitution directs us. Instead of new laws, let's just use what we have & pass this type of legislation.
Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Two: Paul is NOT an isolationist. In fact, he is he MOST pro-free trade candidate in the race. What Paul opposes is foreign intervention, nation building and using military force without a declaration of war. I will add those views come directly from the advice of the founding fathers and the Constitution. That makes Paul a non-interventionist. That DOES NOT make Paul an isolationist.

if ron paul is "the most free trade candidate in the race", why did he vote AGAINST free trade pact with china? why is he against the wto? why did ron paul vote AGAINST cafta, nafta, the free trade pact with chile and with australia?

if ron paul were merely "non-interventionist" and not isolationist, why would ron paul say that "foreign aid is more harmful than helpful"?

Three: Eliminating the Federal Income Tax would require government spending to be reduce to 2000 levels. Does anyone believe it's too much to ask the govermnet to spend what they did only seven years ago? Further, you may think your income tax dollars pay for all sorts of wonderful goverment entitlement programs. But the reality is you tax dollars may for (largely) interest on our goverment debt.

I'm very aware of where the federal budget money is spent. I'm also not confident that the budget could be reduced by the 30 someodd percent that would take it back to the 2000 level of spending.

Paul's position is brilliant because he links foreign and domestic policy. The idea is really simple. There are 190 countries in the world. The US is in 130 of them. We have military bases in over 90 countries. Paul says it's time to bring those troops home and stop messing in the affairs of foreign countries.

do these troops currently engage in some activity that could be accurately described as "messing in the affairs of [these] countries"? I do not believe they do, and this is the very myopia that I mentioned.

The byproduct of bringing the military home serves several purposes. One, it will save the US about $1 trillion dollars per year. Two, we can use our forces to secure and defend our borders (solving the immigration problem). Three we can use the savings to pay for certain entitlement programs that need to be funded - like social security.

the DofD budget for 2007 is just over $500 Billion, where do you get a savings of "about $1 Trillion"?

In the meantime, we can allow young people to opt out of social security if they want to. We can also eliminate the Federal Income Tax so people keep more of what they earn.

you propose to make social security voluntary? congratulations, that proposal would produce the most rapid insolvency of the social security trust possible.

EDIT: Paul would talk and trade and encourage foreign travel. But he would not subsidize foreign goverments with taxpayers (YOUR) money. Whether it's the $16 billion we gave to Pakistan or maintaining bases in Korea for the last 50 years, US foreign policy is tremendously expensive. And it's leading to the decline in the value of the US Dollar because the Federal Reserve simply prints more money out of thin air to pay for exorbitant spending. Ron Paul wants to stop the madness.

uh oh, more "our economic issues are caused by the federal reserve" speech.....

take a look at the money supply and the inflation rate. first, the m1 has been fairly static (link. second, money supply and cpi increases do not move together, and third the money supply is NOT the primary reason for the recent decline in the dollar vs the euro or the loonie.

[Flacolaco]

In the meantime, we can allow young people to opt out of social security if they want to.

Now, you have my attention.

[V]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Now, you have my attention.

Kind of cool, right? Social Security is broken. And no one denies that. But Ron Paul is the only candidate with a substantive plan to address it. The magic lies in the idea that foreign and domestic policy are linked.

You can think of Paul's position in VERY simple terms. The goverment spends YOUR tax dollars on a foreign policy that is a complete mess. If we changed our foreign policy we can fix social security, defend our borders, end the war, bring our troops home, oil would drop $20 per barrel over night, and you would no longer have to pay Social Security tax or Federal Income Tax.

If we do not change our Foreign Policy, odds are the US Dollar will continue to decline in value, oil will continue to rise, our troops will be in Iraq for a very long time (even Hillary Clinton says until 2013), you will continue to pay in tax almost 50% of what you make to the government. And who knows what socialized medicine or a National ID card or a border wall will cost. Tons of money for sure.

And things could get worse. For example, if the US atacks Iran we'll likely see $200 oil.

[Arne]

By the way: Here's his postition on the WTO, NAFTA, etc:

"American Independence and Sovereignty

So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.

The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.

The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.

NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.

And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.

Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.

We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America."

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Arne

By the way: Here's his postition on the WTO, NAFTA, etc:

"American Independence and Sovereignty

So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.

The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.

The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.

NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.

And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.

Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.

We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America."

this is doublespeak. iow ron paul is for free trade as long as the usa doesn't enter into any agreements with other countries. uh huh, makes lots of sense....

it's also tin foil hat territory..."north american union", "unelected bureauracy". "attack us jobs"

these are the type of statements that reveal a disturbing view of international commerce, not to mention an extreme case of paranoia.

[V]

Mavdog, I'm not quite the text editor you are .... so I will try to address your point in succession.

1. You are right and what I should have said was Paul believes that, for the most part, states should retain jurisdiction, in accordance with the Constitution.

2. if ron paul is "the most free trade candidate in the race", why did he vote AGAINST free trade pact with china? why is he against the wto? why did ron paul vote AGAINST cafta, nafta, the free trade pact with chile and with australia?

Arne provides the answer above. Simply put, NAFTA is not really a free trade agreement. It is a government managed trade agreement. which he opposes, because they serve special interests and big business, not citizens. He often proposes instead that the U.S. engage in unilateral free trade by the simple abolition of trade barriers at home (similar to Hong Kong's approach), rather than send massive, unaccountable foreign aid. He advocates conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

3. Paul has advocated that the reduction of government will make an income tax unnecessary. But if you don't think it can be done, that's a fair criticism. If it cannot be done Paul would eliminate the Federal Income Tax anyway (along with the IRS) and replace it with a National Sales Tax -- but only if necessary.


I will address your other points in another post ... need to attend to a baby.

[V]

4. you asked "do these troops currently engage in some activity that could be accurately described as 'messing in the affairs of [these] countries'? I do not believe they do, and this is the very myopia that I mentioned."

What sort of activities are they engaged in? If they're not needed overseas then just bring them home. It's expensive maintaining a global empire.

5. The (roughly) $1 trillion is the estimated cost of our interventionist foreign policy. And yes, it includes the (what was it) something like $16 billion we gave to the military dictatorship in Pakistan. Which, I'll add, doesn't look like money well spent right now.

Oh, and it also includes the roughly $3 billion the US borrows EVERY DAY from China and Japan to fund our miitary.


More to come...

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by V

Arne provides the answer above. Simply put, NAFTA is not really a free trade agreement. It is a government managed trade agreement. which he opposes, because they serve special interests and big business, not citizens. He often proposes instead that the U.S. engage in unilateral free trade by the simple abolition of trade barriers at home (similar to Hong Kong's approach), rather than send massive, unaccountable foreign aid. He advocates conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

"unilateral free trade"??? an oxymoron.

foreign aid in this case is about international commerce, but below it's a cost of our military. in fact it's not either.

3. Paul has advocated that the reduction of government will make an income tax unnecessary. But if you don't think it can be done, that's a fair criticism. If it cannot be done Paul would eliminate the Federal Income Tax anyway (along with the IRS) and replace it with a National Sales Tax -- but only if necessary.

there is nothing more dangerous to the lower income citizen's economic stability than a national sales tax. it benefits the well off while penalizing the poorest members of our society.

4. you asked "do these troops currently engage in some activity that could be accurately described as 'messing in the affairs of [these] countries'? I do not believe they do, and this is the very myopia that I mentioned."

What sort of activities are they engaged in? If they're not needed overseas then just bring them home. It's expensive maintaining a global empire.

your "global empire" is most people's global security.

5. The (roughly) $1 trillion is the estimated cost of our interventionist foreign policy. And yes, it includes the (what was it) something like $16 billion we gave to the military dictatorship in Pakistan. Which, I'll add, doesn't look like money well spent right now.

Oh, and it also includes the roughly $3 billion the US borrows EVERY DAY from China and Japan to fund our miitary.

so your military budget of $1 Trillion includes all the foreign aid and interest paid on the national debt?

creative. wrong, but creative. sorta like the accountants at enron...

6. Yes, Paul says young people could opt out of social security. But only if we change our ideas about what the role of government ought to be. If you think it's the US role to take care of us from cradle to grave and police the world, then it cannot happen.

the clock cannot be turned back, there's no time travel to go back 70 years and change the fact that there is a social security system in place.

the goal should be to make social security solvent, not to merely throw it away. having workers walk away is not the answer.

7. Yes, Paul sees the creation of the Federal Reserve, and its ability to "print money out of thin air" without commodity backing, as responsible for eroding the value of money, observing that a dollar today is worth 4 cents compared to a dollar in 1913 when the Federal Reserve got in.

like I asked another ron paul supporter, if there was no fed how would ron paul work to control the markets?

what type of premium would investors need to take to mitigate the fact that ron paul would sit on his hands during a finacial crisis such as the current mortgage mess? a mess btw that was not created by the fed but by wall street.

Did you hear Paul last week with Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke?

Did you notice how discomfited/shifty dear Ben looks – before dissembling outrageously in his answers?

MZM only going up with portfolio shifts? That sounds like the usual Tricky Trichet excuse, but bank balance sheets are expanding rapidly in the US, hence Ms must be growing in general and across a rang of holdings ….

what I saw was bernanke saying to himself "yikes, here comes the crazy talk again..."

yes, bernanke's response makes a great deal of sense, instead of money going into a volatile market, it's put into reserve (ie the bank). and second, the market needed liquidity in the near term crisis, and the banking system provided it.

A lower dollar only affects Americans inasmuch as they purchase imports? Well maybe (though he’s conveniently forgotten that import competitors will raise prices, too, if they get the chance), but, more to the point, the US gross import total is now equivalent to 52% of retail sales, so one presumes there is a much more direct influence at work even if many such imports find their way back out as components of exported goods!

there are pluses and minuses of a cheap currency. it does not inflate the cost of domestic goods, and makes domestic products more competitive with products in higher valued currencies.

the problem is ron paul doesn't blame the real cause of the currency devaluation, or recognize that international markets dictate the relative value.

Check this out .. it's ROn Paul schooling Bernanke last week http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj9KHJRRUbQ

I will also note CNBC reported cheers from traders on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade when Paul "unleashed every bullet in his revolver on the Chairman."

don't agree with the "schooling", as I said bernanke is trying to not tell paul just how ludicrous he sounds.

and if the floor traders are getting excited it means bad things for you and me....if they are making money you and I are paying for it.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there is nothing more dangerous to the lower income citizen's economic stability than a national sales tax. it benefits the well off while penalizing the poorest members of our society.

You don' even know how such a national sales tax would be designed, but still you think you can generally say that it would hurt the poor... That's pretty irrational to me...

Such a tax can be flexible. Food could be free of any tax, while luxery goods like a Porsche could have a high tax on it. Dont know of any plans to do that, but I don't know about plans to install a national sales tax as well... Just wanted to say that it's pretty ignorant to say that such a tax would only hurt the poor, since you don't know how it would be implemented.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Arne

You don' even know how such a national sales tax would be designed, but still you think you can generally say that it would hurt the poor... That's pretty irrational to me...

Such a tax can be flexible. Food could be free of any tax, while luxery goods like a Porsche could have a high tax on it. Dont know of any plans to do that, but I don't know about plans to install a national sales tax as well... Just wanted to say that it's pretty ignorant to say that such a tax would only hurt the poor, since you don't know how it would be implemented.

it's simple economics.

if you apply a sales tax, it will take a higher percentage of the income of those in the lower range than the higher range. and that's not to even mention the added cost to lower income households for the inelastic demand items- the basics- that will cost them even more due to this sales tax.

if you start to manipulate the tax by applying it to certain items (raw food no, prepared food yes? tax a porsche but not a kia? no on water from the tap but tax the bottles?) you end up with a bureaucracy to administer/regulate....so in essence it's just renaming the IRS.

just say no to a national sales tax.

[V]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it's simple economics.

if you apply a sales tax, it will take a higher percentage of the income of those in the lower range than the higher range. and that's not to even mention the added cost to lower income households for the inelastic demand items- the basics- that will cost them even more due to this sales tax.

if you start to manipulate the tax by applying it to certain items (raw food no, prepared food yes? tax a porsche but not a kia? no on water from the tap but tax the bottles?) you end up with a bureaucracy to administer/regulate....so in essence it's just renaming the IRS.

just say no to a national sales tax.

Wow. It think you're misunderstanding how a (last resort) National Sales Tax might be implemented. Furthermore, you have to remember, if it were to be iimplemented, the Federal government would be much smaller and a Sales Tax would replace a National Income Tax. Lower income workers would keep SIGNIFICANTLY more of their earnings.

[V]

6. Yes, Paul says young people could opt out of social security. But only if we change our ideas about what the role of government ought to be. If you think it's the US role to take care of us from cradle to grave and police the world, then it cannot happen.

7. Yes, Paul sees the creation of the Federal Reserve, and its ability to "print money out of thin air" without commodity backing, as responsible for eroding the value of money, observing that a dollar today is worth 4 cents compared to a dollar in 1913 when the Federal Reserve got in.

Did you hear Paul last week with Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke?

Did you notice how discomfited/shifty dear Ben looks – before dissembling outrageously in his answers?

MZM only going up with portfolio shifts? That sounds like the usual Tricky Trichet excuse, but bank balance sheets are expanding rapidly in the US, hence Ms must be growing in general and across a rang of holdings ….

A lower dollar only affects Americans inasmuch as they purchase imports? Well maybe (though he’s conveniently forgotten that import competitors will raise prices, too, if they get the chance), but, more to the point, the US gross import total is now equivalent to 52% of retail sales, so one presumes there is a much more direct influence at work even if many such imports find their way back out as components of exported goods!

Check this out .. it's ROn Paul schooling Bernanke last week http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj9KHJRRUbQ

I will also note CNBC reported cheers from traders on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade when Paul "unleashed every bullet in his revolver on the Chairman."

[V]

Finally, on the Gold Standard. Geez I see so many people get worked up about the Gold Standard. The fact is, most people know Paul likes hard money ... but they make the leap from his philosophocal view to his campaign platform. Ivory tower economics won't work in practice. Everyone knows that ... so Paul is labled a nutjob.

The problem is Paul is not campaigning on a return to the Gold Standard. Paul argues that hard money, such as backed by gold or silver, would prevent inflation, but ...AND THIS IS CRITICAL ... he wouldn't go back on the gold standard!! Instead he would make gold and silver legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print money.

[V]

This raises a broader point. It has become fashionable among certain commentators to hurl insults at Ron Paul such as "huge weirdo," "fruitcake," and the like. Interestingly, the same thing was done to another anti-war medical doctor/politician, Howard Dean, back in 2003, as Charles Krauthammer infamously pronounced with regard to Dean that "it's time to check on thorazine supplies." Krauthammer subsequently said that "[i]t looks as if Al Gore has gone off his lithium again."

For a long time now, I've heard a lot of people ask: "where are the principled conservatives?" -- meaning those on the Right who are willing to oppose the constitutional transgressions and abuses of the Bush administration without regard to party loyalty. A "principled conservative" isn't someone who agrees with liberals on most issues; that would make them a "principled liberal." A "principled conservative" is someone who aggressively objects to the radicalism of the neocons and the Bush/Cheney assault on our constitution and embraces a conservative political ideology. That's what Ron Paul is, and it's hardly a surprise that he holds many views anathema to most liberals. That hardly makes him a "fruitcake."

Hillary Clinton supported the invasion of a sovereign country that had not attacked us and could not attack us -- as did some of the commentators now aggressively questioning Ron Paul's mental health or, at least, his "seriousness." She supported the occupation of that country for years -- until it became politically unpalatable. That war has killed hundreds of thousands of people at least and wreaked untold havoc on our country. Are those who supported that war extremist, or big weirdos, or fruitcakes?

Or how about her recent support for Joe Lieberman's Iran warmongering amendment, or her desire to criminalize flag burning, or her vow to strongly consider an attack on Iran if they obtain nuclear weapons? Is all of that sane, normal, and serious?

And I read every day that corporations and their lobbyists are the bane of our country, responsible for most of its ills. What does it say about her that her campaign is fueled in large part by support from exactly those factions? Are she and all of her supporters nonetheless squarely within the realm of the sane and normal? And none of this is to say anything of the Giulianis and Podhoretzs and Romneys and Krauthammers and Kristols with ideas so extreme and dangerous, yet still deemed "serious."

That isn't to say that nobody can ever be deemed extremist or even crazy. But I've heard Ron Paul speak many times now. There are a lot of views he espouses that I don't share. But he is a medical doctor and it shows; whatever else is true about him, he advocates his policies in a rational, substantive, and coherent way -- at least as thoughtful and critical as any other political figure on the national scene, if not more so. As the anti-Paul New York Sun noted today, Paul has been downright prescient for a long time in warning about the severe devaluation of the dollar.

And -- as the above-cited efforts to compel Congress to actually adhere to the Constitution demonstrate -- few people have been as vigorous in defense of Constitutional principles as those principles have been mangled and trampled upon by this administration while most of our establishment stood by meekly. That's just true.
Paul's efforts in that regard may be "odd" in the sense that virtually nobody else seemed to care all that much about systematic unconstitutional actions, but that hardly makes him a "weirdo." Sometimes -- as the debate over the Iraq War should have demonstrated once and for all -- the actual "fruitcake" positions are the ones that are held by the people who are welcome in our most respectable institutions and magazines, both conservative and liberal.

[Janett_Reno]

The one day total of him raising money was impressive other day.

[kg_veteran]

V - Your advocacy for Paul is impressive. I'm not sure how I feel about him, but you make a compelling argument in support of his candidacy.

[FishForLunch]

What is his strategy on fighting terrorism and spread of Islamic Radicalism by the Saudis?

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - I don't think fears of a North American Union are all that unfounded.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Mavdog - I don't think fears of a North American Union are all that unfounded.

come on kg, it's ludicrous.

first of all, the canadiens would NEVER do it. the loonie is worth too much....

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Mavdog - I don't think fears of a North American Union are all that unfounded.

KG...that's real tin-foil hat stuff man. Even if there WAS a plan to do it, it would be done up front, not in some sort of cabal back room.

[Arne]

@FishForLunch

A foreign policy of non-interventionism, securing the boarders and allowing airlines to secure their planes. IF there is REAL EVIDENCE that Bin Laden is somewhere out there, he'll send a small troop of soldiers out to take him out.

An article on the topic, written by Paul himself:

Ending Suicide Terrorism

by Rep. Ron Paul
More than half of the American people now believe that the Iraqi war has made the U.S. less safe. This is a dramatic shift in sentiment from two years ago. Early support for the war reflected a hope for a safer America, and it was thought to be an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. The argument was that the enemy attacked us because of our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life. It was further argued that it was important to engage the potential terrorists over there rather than here. Many bought this argument and supported the war. That is now changing.

It is virtually impossible to stop determined suicide bombers. Understanding why they sacrifice themselves is crucial to ending what appears to be senseless and irrational. But there is an explanation.

I, like many, have assumed that the driving force behind the suicide attacks was Islamic fundamentalism. Promise of instant entry into paradise as a reward for killing infidels seemed to explain the suicides, a concept that is foreign to our way of thinking. The world's expert on suicide terrorism has convinced me to rethink this simplistic explanation, that terrorism is merely an expression of religious extremism and resentment of a foreign culture.

Robert Pape, author of Dying to Win, explains the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Pape has collected a database of every suicide terrorist attack between 1980 and 2004, all 462 of them. His conclusions are enlightening and crucial to our understanding the true motivation behind the attacks against Western nations by Islamic terrorists. After his exhaustive study, Pape comes to some very important conclusions.

Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world's leader in suicide terrorism . The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al-Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq's suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis.

The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland."

The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands, and the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world no longer can inspire potential suicide terrorists despite their continued fanatical religious beliefs.

Pape is convinced after his extensive research that the longer and more extensive the occupation of Muslim territories, the greater the chance of more 9/11-type attacks on the U.S. He is convinced that the terrorists strategically are holding off hitting the U.S. at the present time in an effort to break up the coalition by hitting our European allies. He claims it is just a matter of time if our policies do not change.

It is time for us to consider a strategic reassessment of our policy of foreign interventionism, occupation, and nation-building. It is in our national interest and in the interest of world peace to do so.

[FishForLunch]

So he has no problem with the Saudis spreading Wahhabism all over the world including the US. How will he pressure the Saudis to stop all this radicalism? Or is he like Bush and does not want to trouble the Saudis.

[Arne]

He thinks this crazy Wahhabism won't be very dangerous when US troops have left the country or even better: the middle east.

From his article:

"The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands, and the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world no longer can inspire potential suicide terrorists despite their continued fanatical religious beliefs."

There's a lot of religious fundamentalism in America as well, you know... Creationists, Mormons, Christian fundamentalists who believe that Kathrina was the will of god and stuff... Still: They don't blow themselves up.