« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Ron Paul, Constitutional Scholar

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)  |  February 7th, 2012 at 11:42 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

People like to say, “Ron Paul’s got a great domestic program, it’s just his foreign policy I don’t like.” Really, people only say that because they don’t take the time to understand what Ron Paul’s domestic program is all about, or at least the more insane details thereof. One particular example of this is Ron Paul’s view on monetary policy.

Paul, who likes to present himself as some sort of Constitutional scholar, has said in his last several concession speeches that “the Constitution still says that only gold and silver can be legal tender!” This absolutely absurd reading of the Constitution is universally rejected by anyone who can read English. Let’s look at Article 1, Section 10, from which Ron Paul draws his support:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Emphasis mine. However, it is also worth noting that Article 1, Section 10, is conveniently titled “Powers Prohibited of States.” Ron Paul might still have at least a non-farcical point if it were not for the existence of Article 1, Section 8 (helpfully titled “Powers of Congress”):

The Congress shall have Power. . . To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof[.]

Get it? The reason states do not have the power to create their own legal tender (other than gold or silver coin) is because that is a power expressly reserved to the Federal government. Remember that this was one of the central evils of the Articles of Confederation – that every state had its own currency, which hindered trade and created economic chaos – and so the founders reserved to the Federal government the right to establish a single currency for the whole nation. States are absolutely and completely prohibited by these sections of the Constitution from generating their own currency other than literal gold and silver coins.

Therefore, even if you ignore that Article 1, Section 10 is expressly confined to restrict the powers of the States, it would not stand for the proposition that Ron Paul wants it to stand for, which is that the Federal government must constitutionally adhere gold/silver standard. It would instead mean that the Federal government was prohibited from using currency that was not literally gold or silver coin. This conclusion is of course absurd (and ultimately would have no salutary effect on monetary policy whatsoever) which is why no person who hasn’t suggested that the government is using paper money to try to track you has ever suggested it.

I get that some people want someone who is a principled, small government isolationist constitutionalist. Sadly, Ron Paul is not that person – he’s just a nut onto whom people are projecting those qualities.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • dogfan

    …remind me of what I once heard a tennis instructor say:
    “People say their forehand is pretty good, but that’s only because they have absolutely no backhand.”

    As for Paul, he is a pseudo-intellectual who can present enough quasi-factual information that some people are fooled into thinking he’s the most insightful guy on the planet (or should I say, universe).

    • mikeymike143

      isnt it obvious that voters are firmly rejecting this loon and the cancer he spreads?

      1988- 0 states won, 50 states lost

      2008- 0 states won, 50 states lost

      2012- 0 states won, 8 states lost

      again, i call for the republican party to shun and ostracize paul and his jew hating paulbots as one would avoid a leper colony.

      • DaveWT4

        I do not understand the deference being given Ron Paul by the GOP. Pundits are always saying ‘not to offend the Ron Paul supporters so they will vote for the GOP nominee. The problem with this thinking is that all the Ron Paul supporters I’ve met refuse to vote for anyone else. They will only vote in the general election if Ron Paul is on the ticket – one even told me he will write in Ron Paul’s name if he is not on the ballot.

        • liveforadrenaline

          Ron Paul is a RINO, because he’s really a Libertarian.

          Anyone who has studied the Libertarian/Ayn Rand “selfish is good” philosophy which espouses “individual freedom” over ANYTHING else knows that our country could not survive an onslaught of these unpatriotic people in government.

          Republicans have always stood for things like freedom, family, law and order, etc., but these people only stand for themselves. Some so-called leaders have fallen into this trap in order to raise funds, etc.

          The followers won’t vote for Republicans because they aren’t Republicans.

          • dogfan

            A libertarian is not necessarily a RINO.

            Although I realize many are dangerously naive non-interventionists like Paul and his followers, and I agree that it’s fair to characterize those with such a view as RINOs, a libertarian could alternatively be for a strong military and robust policy/actions to defend our interests abroad.

            I think the defining characteristics of libertarians is that they want a very small non-Defense size and scope of government (and commensurately very low taxes), and they want personal liberty. The latter in some cases will relate to some positions at odds with social conservatism (although not across the board), and in some cases at odds on domestic national security issues when libertarians see a conflict with civil rights, but I don’t think such differences alone warrant branding libertarians as necessarily RINOs.

          • hobarticus

            From Ronald Reagan circa 1975:

            “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals?if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

            Now, I can?t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don?t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”

          • hobarticus

            You’re incorrectly conflating libertarianism with Ayn Rand’s personal philosophy of “heroic self-interest”. The former is a political shool of thought emphasizing limited government, strong property rights, and individual liberties. The latter is a badly written, pseudo-intellectual self-help guide on how to be a particularly annoying teenager.

          • liveforadrenaline

            Since my son is college-age, I’ve learned that there are approximately 800 bazillion teens who subscribe to this Ayn Rand self-help.

            Seriously, though, few people understand the difference between “individual liberties” and liberty.

            People who adhere to the notion of individual liberties seem to be of the opinion that our society has or would become great because “everything goes.” Not true, because a bit of structure is always required in order for a country to avoid going down the drain.

            Just as RP’s notion that the Fed is solely responsible for inflation and/or devalued currency.

            People would have to completely ignore supply and demand and microeconomics to believe that.

            I love the limited government and fiscal responsibilty side of Libertarianism, just not the lack of patriotism that often accompanies it.

      • dogfan

        Listen, as you can tell, I have a very low opinion of Paul. I also have a low opinion of his supporters. I’d even say that among them may possibly be a significant minority of anti-Semites, but I think it’s unfair to refer to “jew hating paulbots” in a way that seems to imply anti-Semites predominate among his supporters, as I think you have.

        It’s an unfortunate irony that sometimes people decrying bigotry are displaying bigotry at the same time. It’s like someone saying “Southerners are racists.”

        We can do better. Paul and his supporters present a rich target for ridicule. No need to go overboard with unfair branding of them as a whole as anti-Semites.

        Of course, if you have polling data or other information to support the notion that most of them are anti-Semites, by all means please share.

  • redcal

    Well argued.

    • redcal

      …on Ron Paul’s misunderstandings of Constitutional law and economics.

      • mikeymike143

        Q: how do you keep a paulbot from spamming a presidential internet poll?

        A: turn off the electricity in his parents basement.

        • jakeofalltrades

  • daveoconnor

    name calling to you and mikeymike143 but let me say a few words about gold, money and Ron Paul.
    Paul in fact has history on his side. Following the adoption of the Constitution gold was the coin of the realm in this country. So called paper money was a certificate that could be exchanged for gold. It was a convenience. In the late 19th century Democrats and Populists called for the free coinage of silver or what amounted to expansion of the money supply because silver is much less rare than gold. It was also a way to reduce debt since money backed by gold would be paid back by money backed by silver. I doubt, very much doubt, that any of the founders having experienced the problems of fiat currency with the Continental would have been for anything but specie or its equivilent. Okay, let’s hear the “paul-bot” and “nutjob” cries lol

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      What you know about monetary policy wouldn’t fill a thimble.

      Say hi to Alex Jones and stop leaving crap on our floor.

      • daveoconnor

        Forgive me. I didn’t know I was crapping on “your floor” How much equity in RS do you have?

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          .

          • daveoconnor

            I see now why people consider the calendar the best part of your mega-crapola website. The calendar at least is accurate, and more exciting than your nonsense which manages to be stupid and boring. Did you have trouble with the girls in high school?

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Kinda like everything you do.

            And no, I’ve always gotten the very best girls.

            At this point, Franz Rule.

    • Leon H. Wolf

      Guess what, you can still exchange paper money for gold, but that is beside the point. I understand the history of the gold standard and the many panics associated with it just fine. It is one thing to say that it is a good idea in the modern economy, which is a defensible (if ultimately wrong) position. It is another to say that the constitution requires it based on article 1 section 10. It doesn’t. No reasonable person could believe that

      • daveoconnor

        nt

        • Leon H. Wolf

          does not make the printing of paper money any more or less constitutional.

          • daveoconnor

            and is against “paper” money as unconstitutional you are wrong. Paul talks about pre-Fed times which included the circulation of paper mone which was backed entirely by gold. They were “gold certificates” Paul is against fiat currency which historically loses value over time. You may disagree, but again I don’t believe the founders contemplated anything but a currency based on specie. “The Wealth of Nations” published in 1776 and with which they were no doubt familiar takes specie money for granted. So called “monetary theory” as it exists today was completely unknown in the late 18th century. “Money” meant specie or store of value, period.

          • jakeofalltrades

            We’re talking about whether the Constitution requires a bullion standard, and it does: for states. The gold standard itself is not required for legal tender status, because Congress has total discretion when it comes to defining legal tender other than state-issued bullion.

            Ron Paul was blatantly wrong about the unequivocal meaning of the Constitution. His worshipers have a false god, or, perhaps, a nincompoop for a guru.

            Which is Leon’s point.

            The gold standard is a pre-Adam Smith concept. His work debunked the primitive and foolish notions of intrinsic value – based entirely on superstition – that justifies the gold standard and the long periods of misery it caused for millions.

            Value is in the mind. There is no spoon.

            Gold is a commodity, and its price should not be controlled by government (Neil Stevens).

          • Creedo

            In fairness to the paulites, Nixon replaced the gold standard with the oil standard in the 70′s when he delinked the dollar to gold, and the petro dollar took a foothold with the OPEC nations. The dollar is backed by a hard commodity: oil. If it weren’t we’d be having the same problems that Europe is having right now.

          • jakeofalltrades

            And it has been since May 8, 1877, when President Hayes, under pressure to repay the debts the Union incurred in the Civil War, linked the dollar to the puppy at the first Westminster Kennel Club Show in Manhattan.

          • Creedo

            I appreciate the wacky attempt at humor.

            Money is an interesting matter that I hadn’t really followed closely until the Euro collapsed and I started asking questions from the fiscally conservative viewpoint about how such a thing could happen. What I discovered was a tangled mess held up by the link the US has with OPEC and the good ole petro dollar. All that talk about the Euro overtaking the dollar as an international standard was a fantasy because in the end, every bank in the world has to stock US dollars in order to purchase oil. All this talk from Paul about how the US dollar is going to collapse is nonsense because so long as the Petro dollar is the medium of exchange for oil, the dollar will always float as THE defacto standard of currency in the world.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            I am arguing that if Paul is going to take those words from Art. 1 Section 10 to argue that the Constitution mandates only gold and silver for currency, then he is going to be in trouble because that section specifically calls for literal gold and silver (because it’s referencing the States and not the Federal government).

            Look, you can argue about the advisability or the history of the gold standard all you want. The irrefutable fact is that the Constitution does not require it. I am not really sure what is hard to understand about the fact that Congress is given the power to coin money and to “regulate the value thereof.” Do you speak English?

            And you can say that Ron Paul isn’t against paper money as unconstitutional. I’ve heard him say in three consecutive concession speeches that “the Constitution still says only gold and silver can be used as currency.” That’s true if you’re a state government wanting to start your own currency, otherwise it’s horsecrap, which is the entire point of my post.

          • daveoconnor

            “The power to “coin money” means to strike off metallic medals (coin), and to make those medals legal tender (money); the Constitution says expressly that Congress shall have power to make metallic legal tender, how can it be taken to say by implication that Congres& shall have power to make paper money legal tender?” No that’s not Ron Paul, it Chief justice Homes (Monetary Decisions of the Supreme Court, G. Dunne; 1960)
            See also “The Federalist 44″
            Those who argue for fiat money can never be conservative when the do so since they prove that they don’t understand property rights.
            Also if you look at the notes on the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention (You did look Mr. Wolf?) the debate about what constitues currency was long and lively. Metal-backed money was the clear winner. Rhode Island, a “paper money” stringhold actually boycotted the convention for awhile.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            If we give the phrase “coin money” the definition you intend then there is absolutely no difference between Congress’ power in Article 1 section 8 and the power of the States in Article 1, section 10 with respect to the creation of currency. If that were what the framers intended, then why did they word those sections completely differently?

            Even you can’t bring yourself to argue this with a straight face as you call it “metal backed” currency, not literal metal currency. The plain text of the constitution gives Congress the right to generate currency (be it metal, paper, wood, clay, Ron Paul’s eyebrow hair, whatever) and regulate its value. The idea that these two powers, taken together, mean that a) yes, Congress can print paper money (something which you yourself accept) but b) it can only be metal-backed money is an idea that would only be set forth by someone who can’t read English.

          • daveoconnor

            The quote is from a Supreme Court Justice. Oh but wait. You’re the final authority. You really are a despicable nit=wit unable to come up with anything other than name calling. There would have been a place for you in the USSR’s propaganda ministry.

          • Leon H. Wolf

            the wellspring of liberal judicial activisim and a guy who thought forced sterilization was just peachy, writing in dissent, as your authority on this issue. Any chance I have to disagree with Holmes I gladly take.

            Did I mention you’re a clown?

          • Creedo

            It’s a very liberal position to take that money shouldn’t be linked to something with intrinsic value. When you consider this question over the landscape of history, you’re arguing along with the most liberal minds when you go against the conservative position that money should be attached to some form of property. This is classic Jefferson v. Hamilton:

            “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. This issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of the moneyed corporations which already dare to challenge our Government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country” Thomas Jefferson, 1791

            The postion that you are taking is not a conservative position. It’s the position of Hamilton, and the position of all of the European socialists who advocated for the creation of the Euro which is now in so much peril. It’s in peril for the very reasons why conservatives there argued against it.

            Whatever you want to say about Paul or anyone’s interpretation of the Constitution, what really matters is the money. Eventually that money comes into contact with commodities and the person holding the commodities has to make the determination whether or not that exchange is a good one for him. In the case of the Euro, the good holders are making the determination that they need to hedge the risk of that currency by asking for more of it. That’s inflation. In the US, we have a firewall: the petrol dollar. Our currency might not be backed by gold, but it IS backed by oil for the fact that every world bank has to stock US dollars in order for their countries to purchase OPEC oil. So long as we can maintain the petrol dollar by force or whatever means necessary, we have nothing to fear.

          • Dave_A

            1) The terms ‘inflation’ and ‘deflation’ were not in use in 1791 – the ‘Jefferson Quote’ you posted is a fraud.

            2) There is nothing intrinsically ‘liberal’ about a truly free-market, unpegged currency (which is what ‘fiat’ money is). Nor is there anything ‘liberal’ about granting one institution a monopoly over the production of said currency.

            3) There is NO SUCH THING as ‘intrinsic value’. Even the Austrians recognize this – it is a FACT of economic life that all value is relative, determined solely by the relationship of available supply to current demand.

            4) The gold standard was purged from world economics long before there was a Euro – not due to socialisim, but because it DID NOT WORK.

            5) Inflation is good, at levels below 4%.

            6) Deflation (money supply contraction) in any amount is ALWAYS bad. Note ‘reduced inflation’, ala Reagan-era (15% to 3%) is not deflation.

            7) Your positions would bankrupt most of America, because ‘hard money’ is only ‘good’ for a population that holds large amounts of money in cash form – Americans ‘prefer’ to hold less than 1% of their income as savings, and would be DESTROYED by hard-money policies.

          • Lycurgus

            century worked… up until the point governments decided to finance wars… sometime around, oh, 1914…

            Perhaps the incentives of working Americans should be changed from spending to saving… if a currency is being devalued through an increase in the monetary base, individuals are incentivized to invest in tangible goods… aka, spend their money. If however, currency is stable, or as in the case of 30 of the post-civil war 19th century years, itis appreciating, the incentive becomes…. SAVING! This is the foundation for capital creation and economic development in a free economy, not a government “stimulous”.

          • jakeofalltrades

            The plain language of the Constitution does not require Congress to back money in silver or gold or anything else. It can also set the value of the currency. This means it can issue paper coin and declare its worth.

            With respect to the history lesson raised below:

            1. There is no need to consult Madison’s notes if the plain meaning is clear
            2. The founders also intended the convention be closed to the public, in part because they wanted the text of the Constitution to stand on its own.

          • Dave_A

            How?

            It’s simple…

            Even if we define ‘coin money’ as ‘strike from metals’, we currently do this – hence the penny, nickel, dime, quarter, and whatever gimmick of a dollar coin we’re wasting money producing lately…

            There is nothing at all in the Constitution to dictate what metals must be used in FEDERAL coin.

            But what about all the paper money, you ask?

            Well, Congress has the enumerated power to do whatever is ‘necessary and proper’ to ‘regulate the value thereof’ (coined money).

            Methods of regulating the value of coined money – universally recognized around the world – include such things as establishing a national legal tender (which in the US, is binding on all the states, through Art 6 – regardless of what state law says about money), chartering a national bank (the Fed), and empowering it to issue banknotes (paper money).

            So there you have it…

            And that’s without any penumbras or activist creativity – just using the literal language of the Constitution.

        • acat

          The price of a gallon of gasoline and a big mac have also spiked, in dollar terms. Should I start hoarding double cheeseburgers?

          Seriously, there’s a distinction between value and monetary units, and right now lots of people are panicky and are grabbing for a traditional value-preserver. That doesn’t mean we should start using it as currency.

          Further, it also means that, in terms of getting ahead, this is not the time to move *into* gold .. it’s the time to figure out where the money in gold is going to go *next* and get there first. Buy low, sell high, eh?

          Mew

          • daveoconnor

            as happens from time to time you miss my point. No where do I argue for a return to the gold standard.
            My “point” is that the men who wrote the Constitution considered “money” and specie one in the same. They didn’t consider it necessary to put in something like “And by money we mean specie” Notice that they do use the term “coin”. Maybe they meant “print” when they used “coin” Maybe they meant actual “arms” and not “guns” Maybe the Constitution is whatever you want it to be.

          • acat

            Arms means weapons, not just muskets but also swords and railguns and whatever other ways humans come up with to kill one another.

            Money is equally not limited to “specie” or “doubloons” or “pounds sterling”. One of the enumerated powers of the federal government is to manage money supply, as Leon has pointed out.

            That the methods of managing the money supply have changed over the years is not surprising. Further, I’m not opposed to changing them again .. but I will ask questions to make sure I don’t get screwed along the way.

            As reverting to the gold standard or “private banks” or removing the Fed would, overall, result in me getting screwed, I’ll pass.

            Mew

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            But then, heck, you knew that.

          • acat

            I’m also bored.

            Again.

            Mew

          • daveoconnor

            You’re “arguments’ are at approximately the third or fourth grade level. I’m sure visitors to this site are really impressed.
            The problem is that you don’t generally know what you’re talking about. When confronted by facts you hit the nanh-nanh button. The internet allows the bully in you folks to fully percolate while you sit in front of your computer gigling like little girls.

          • acat

            I’m not impressed with your rant.

            I don’t object to discussing changing how the federal government manages money. Private banking, with restrictions on exchange rates and fees, may make more sense.

            That said, it is important to base the discussion on solid facts. Your arguments are not based on solid facts, they are based on a gross misinterpretation, and your continued hostility to those who point out your errors demonstrate that your above rant is pure projection.

            Mew

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            proved to be total BS. Which just makes sense as this particular “argument” is being pushed by PaulTwits.

          • acat

            wondering just what his point was.

            Mew

          • trickamsterdam

            Probably Diamonds. They’re starting a big marketing push, so you can see people going to it, maybe even becoming a gold-type feeding frenzy, so even if it’s largely a media created boom, one could happen. Also people grabbing up real estate on the cheap. That’s an obvious one, but not everyone is being aggressive w/ it.

            Well, doesn’t matter to me, I don’t have adequate bread for any of it really…hey, bread…I wonder if now that France has been down-graded too, they’ll go to a (french) bread standard?

            Off Topic: Because I’m crashing and see no threads…I still strongly support a brokered convention, but I can live w/ Santorum (which I never thought I’d say) and I’ll tell you why…if we lose to Pres Obama I want to go out w/ my boots on. Santorum has the courage of his convictions (on some issues) and I actually like the manufacturing idea…I just can’t go down w/ Romney, and know he was never even electable (whatever Jen Rubin thinks), and he’s a liberal, and he’s a douche bag…I can take any one of the three, or even two, but not all three. Santorum at least thinks a balanced budget amendment is a good idea. Yeah, I know, I’m reaching…

            ‘Night everyone.

            BROKERED.CONVENTION.NOW.OR.OBAMA.AGAIN.SOON.
            (but if we must have Obama, then let us not have Romney in the election also)

          • acat

            I just really can’t believe we’re left with a gilded weather vane, a nanny-statist, a quack, and a horndog.

            And I refuse, under any circumstances, to vote for the quack. I will Operation Green Chaos instead and vote green for POTUS – let ‘em waste their dollars in my district – and GOP for everything else.

            I don’t think Santorum will do well in the general. He has the courage of his convictions, but his convictions are out of step with the times.

            I don’t have a huge problem with his stated positions on fiscal and defense issues, but .. I don’t find, in his record, much to support them as “long-term views”…

            At this point, I’m rooting for the horndog or SMOD.

            Mew

          • westcoastpatriette

            I can’t even get myself to root for the horndog. Guess that leaves me with SMOD.

          • acat

            I’ve been voting for weak, lousy, flawed, and just plain useless candidates for most of my adult life.

            Mew

          • acat

            I don’t have one in front of me, but .. there are several charts out there comparing real estate values against other value-preservation assets over a nice long baseline, say 30-50 years.

            Real estate prices spiked badly. Especially single-family home prices. Things are going to have to normalize a bit further before they’ll really be bargains. Farmland, on the other hand, is actually worth looking at today… if you can find someone to farm it, of course.

            Mew

    • dajeeps

      Is depreciation, which means that ALL existing nominal debt contracts, including government debt, appreciate in value when we experience it. You end up paying back more, in real terms, than you agreed when contracting the debt, which is as much a rip off as what you describe above. What matters most to the health of the economy is monetary stability, not just suddenly changing the approach to monetary policy over night and ending up needlessly destroying people who have nominal debt contract, especially large ones, like a mortgage on a house. And that doesn’t address the sticky wadges problem that doesn’t allow for wadges to fall to equilibrium fast enough, and explains a lot of the persistent unemployment problem. These are just a couple of the reasons we are not on the gold standard today, and why the Fed shouldn’t have let NGDP plunge by 10% in 2008 and not make up for it, it is still at least 15% below historical trend.

      One other thing that Fed bashers neglect is that inflation is caused mostly by demand, and price issues do not all emanate from one source. When all of the issues are blamed on the Fed, it masks real fault in other areas of public policy that should be addressed – energy policy is one such culprit that causes food and transportation costs to skyrocket. But instead of protesting the dept. of energy, we end up with angry mobs shouting outside the Federal Reserve building when the Fed has little or no influence over that part of food and energy costs that are embedded in everything we buy.

      It would be nice if for one we could address the most pressing issues for once, as a matter of practicality, instead of having real solutions to real problems become rather elusive because we’re lost in dogma.

      • skorrent1

        Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Williams, et al, who all agree that “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary event.” by saying it is “caused mostly by demand”. And your credentials are???

        I think we can all agree with Paul that the Fed has done a dreadful job in assisting Congress to “regulate the value” of our money. (“Regulate” here means, as in “regulate the militia”, to make regular, steady, predictable. It definitely did not mean to fluctuate from year to year to the particular benefit of one sector of society.) Since its founding, the Fed has allowed/caused our currency to lose over 95% of its value, to the great benefit of long-term debtors, and our federal government, as the world’s biggest debtor, most of all.

        I realize the desire for, and difficulty in, maintaining a stable price level in a period of rapidly increasing productivity, but the Fed has not attempted this. They have been constantly biased toward inflation because their client, the government, and their institutions, the banks, benefit from inflation, while the country, the economy, would benefit more from price stability. A specie-based currency may not be practical in an age where digits on the internet represent a “money” transaction, but binding the Fed more closely to a goal of price stability would surely be beneficial. The tragic history of fiat money does provide a warning.;

        • jakeofalltrades

          you should see what the gold standard did. And not to some far-off African or conquered European nation – I’m talking about right here in the USA.

          • Dave_A

            And the deflation of 1929…

            The Fed has done such a good job of managing the dollar, that most people don’t even know what deflation is – it’s been so long since we’ve experienced it.

            Since all the economic downturns since the Great Depression – until the 2008 deflationary recession – have been inflationary, everyone knows what high inflation is… And thus they reflexively panic about it every time there’s a recession – even if the rate of inflation is trapped at extremely unhealthy lows (like it was in 08 and 09).

        • Dave_A

          I will start by stating that I agree with Friedman – all inflation is monetary.

          However, NOT ALL PRICE INCREASES ARE INFLATION.

          Inflation, by definition, is ‘an increase in the money supply, without a corresponding increase in money demand’.

          You CAN have a price increase that has nothing to do with a change in the value of the currency. Changes in DEMAND fall into this category. Since we use consumer prices as our inflation-measure, a demand-spike or supply-shortage can theoretically be falsely reported as inflation via the CPI (eg, the CPI can overstate inflation), but in practice the CPI is broad enough to avoid demand-spike or supply-shortage distortion.

          As for Paul and the Fed, Paul is ABSOLUTELY WRONG about the Fed doing a bad job regulating the value of the dollar.

          What people who claim he’s right ABSOLUTELY IGNORE is that the average citizen would be SEVERELY HARMED by the deflationary policies Paul advocates.

          Why?

          Because PEOPLE DO NOT SAVE MONEY, and thus there is NO WAY for them to benefit from a ‘hard money’ environment.

          Debtors get flattened by Paul’s policies – and the average citizen is in far worse debt (when you factor in income-levels) than the US government.

      • Dave_A

        Depreciation is a side effect of DEFLATION, which is what you get from Ron-Paul loony-world economics.

        When the value of the dollar goes UP, the value of labor, debt, property, and all the other stuff most of us have INSTEAD of dollars (’cause we spent all our dollars to buy the ‘stuff’) goes DOWN.

        This is why hard-money is BAD, BAD, BAD for the American economy.

        When the value of the dollar goes DOWN, the value of ‘stuff’ goes UP – which all-other-things-being-equal benefits most Americans.

        Under an inflationary environment, debt is paid back with less valuable dollars, thus benefiting debtors. To counteract this, lenders may build an ‘inflation premium’ into the interest-rate of fixed-rate debt – but if inflation over the life of the loan exceeds the estimated inflation premium, the debtor benefits at the lender’s expense. Reverse the above for unexpectedly-low inflation.

        This is why low-to-moderate inflation – 3% is generally seen as a good number – is GOOD for the economy…

        And why ANY LEVEL of deflation is ALWAYS BAD.

        Given that we had deflationary quarters for the first time since the 30s in 08, and inflation has struggled to stay above 2%, the endless worry about inflation is misplaced…

        Now, that’s not to say that there is not a huge potential for FUTURE inflation – the Fed, in order to prevent a deflationary spiral and a 2nd Depression, has vastly increased the amount of money available to enter the money supply, which creates a potential for high inflation if policies do not change after the economy recovers….

        But we have to get to the ‘economy recovering’ part before the concerns about inflation become justified (and before the Fed will address them by changing policy).

        For now, we are under-inflating, and stagnating because of it.

  • aesthete
  • deVere

    The founders never anticipated that Congress would make anything other than gold or silver coin money, and were perhaps a bit sketchy in drafting the language about it.
    While the language “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof” anticipates that money will be gold and silver coin, it does give Congress the implicit power to debase the currency by lowering the amount of gold and silver in the coins. I don’t believe the men who drafted the constitution anticipated in their wildest nightmares that the amount of gold and silver would be lowered to zero. In any event, Congress was not given the power to “print” money, or to delegate such a power to a central bank. And under the 10th amendment they do not have it.

    According to the constitution as you quoted it my state can’t make anything but gold or silver coin legal tender for the payment of debts. So in theory they can’t force me to pay taxes except in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve notes are not legal tender for that purpose, in spite of the nonsense to the contrary written on the note. I do have no intention of going to court and becoming a martyr to defend that clause of the US constitution. It is as dead as the natural born citizen clause.

    Thanks for bringing to my attention once again what a well-educated constitutional scholar Ron Paul is. It’s a shame about his crazy foreign policy, but he would make a great Secretary of the Treasury, maybe the best since Alexander Hamilton.

    Here’s a reference on this subject for you to educate yourself, if you wish to do so:
    http://mises.org/books/rozeff_us_constitution_and_money.pdf

    • streiff

      was delegated to the First Bank of the US by George Washington. I know he wasn’t a founder or anything, and neither was the Treasury Secretary who came up with the idea: Alexander Hamilton.

      • deVere

        The First Bank of the USA does have many similarities with our current Fed. The differences are it was required to be partiallly capitalized by gold and silver, was not allowed to purchase government debt, and could not issue bank notes(paper money) in excess of it’s capitalization. So this was not true fiat money.

        It is interesting that Hamilton’s main argument which caused Washington to sign the bank bill in April 1791 was that the federal government was allowed to do anything not expressly forbidden to it by the constitution. This argument became obsolete 8 months later with ratification of the 10th amendment, but the bank itself existed until it’s charter expired in March 1811.

        In 1816 Congress chartered the Second Bank of the USA. When Maryland tried to tax the bank, it led to the case McCullough v Maryland in which Chief Justice John Marshall used an expansive interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause to uphold the constitutionality of the bank. Marshall was backed by a unanimous Supreme Court.

        • Dave_A

          And it’s a bit off to think that James Madison would knowingly sign an unconstitutional law – he is, after all, the man who signed the 2nd Bank into law.

          Now, I know this doesn’t agree with some of the more extreme small-government types, but the fact is, if the Constitution grants a power, then the only thing that can limit said power is other parts of the Constitution.

          The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate the value of money.

          Establishing a central bank, with the authority to issue paper money and act as the originating lender to other banks, is a method of regulating the value of money.

          It may not be a method you personally like, but that does not make it any less a method of accomplishing a literally enumerated power.

          So, if Congress deems a central ban neccicary and proper to carry out their regulate money power, then it is.

          This isn’t ‘expansive’ reading, it’s literal reading.

          The activist position, is the one you take ‘I don’t like paper money, so the Court should have ruled against it because of dislike, not Constitutional text’.

  • retrocon87

    You seem to be arguing that Paul thinks the Fed is unconstitutional, and that since the Constitution grants Congress the power to decide the value of money, he is wrong… He has never said the Fed is unconstitutional– just that he thinks Keynesian economics is earth-shatteringly stupid economic policy……. His arguments on the Constitution are that the country should not go to war without proper declaration by the Congress (and he might have a point on this one), and that the Patriot Act violates the 4th Amendment (I disagree with him on this, but it is not exactly a completely unreasonable statement). He is a complete crackpot on national security and foreign policy. Stick with this. Going after him for hating the Fed probably will not win much sympathy from conservatives (including me) who may agree at least partially agree with him on it.

    • Dave_A

      First off, as with the bank issue, the only thing it takes to prove Paul wrong on the war issue, is the language of the Constitution itself.

      1) From a position absolutely rejecting a requirement for declared war:

      Congress is granted many powers, but in most cases is not REQUIRED to exercise any of them.

      The grant of the power to ‘declare war’ to Congress means that only Congress can declare war. It does not, however, mean that we have to declare a war before we can fight one.

      Since the power to command the military rests with the President, and since there is no language in the constitution tying the power of ‘Commander in Chief’ to the existence of a state of war, there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTIFICATION to require a declaration in order for us to send troops into combat.

      The only things that the Constitution conditions upon a declared state of war, are (1) quartering troops in civilian homes, and (2) allowing states to maintain armed forces without consent of Congress.

      From this (literal) position, there is no language to support Paul’s position that wars must always be declared.

      2) From a position accepting a requirement for Congress to act:

      The Constitution does not state what form a Congressional declaration of war must take, and thus an ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’ against specified nation(s) and/or organization(s) satisfies any requirement that ‘congress be consulted’ (Gen Washington’s words)….

      From this perspective, Paul’s argument is simply quibbling over a desire to read the words ‘state of war’ (since past declarations have sometimes used the word ‘declared’ other times ‘exists’, and so on) in the bill/resolution.

      • sapient

        Dave

        You have pegged the Paulites and their “Austrian” economic model, which when applied to society in the form of anarcho capitalism, yields provides the basis for voluntaryism, etc.

        Wonder why they never quote Adam Smith who had a much more correct economic model, actually in line with our Constitution? It does NOT provide the basis for the stateless society.

        Somehow they forget Jefferson’s undeclared war with the Barbary Pirates.

        Funny thing.

  • http://www.thewebstersdictionary.com TheWebster

    With all due respect,

    It is crystal clear that the Framers, having seen the carnage that nonconvertible paper money wreaks on society, especially the most vulnerable in society, wished to constitutionally constrain the new federal government from having recourse to paper. This was accomplished by stripping out the operative words “to emit bills” from the draft constitution. Since the delegates believed that the federal government would have only those powers specifically enumerated, that was their way of removing this power – and it worked ? with interruptions ? for almost 200 years.

    There is much better evidence of the “intent of the Framers” than most nonspecialists know. James Madison, widely considered the chief architect of the Constitution, took shorthand notes of the debates of the Constitutional Convention 1787. He retired to his room and transcribed these notes each night. They amount of almost a quarter million words of secret, and candid, debates by some of the most brilliant and respected political minds that ever lived, collectively known as the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.

    Madison kept these notes and transcriptions safe, and private, until he died. Then the Library of Congress purchased them for a sum just barely sufficient to keep Madison’s widow, Dolly, in modest comfort for the remainder of her life. It is from Madison’s notes often that one can best discern the true intent of the Framers.

    The discussions show that by stripping the power “to emit bills” from the Constitution the framers considered that they had eliminated the power to issue paper money. “Bills,” short for “bills of credit,” were paper money not legally convertible into a fixed weight of precious metal. It is clear from their discussions that there were several reasons not to include an explicit prohibition against federal issue of paper money. In part there was a sense that it would be redundant. In part there was a fear that by prohibiting actions for which no power had been granted it would raise an inference of a more plenary grant of power to the federal government than was intended.

    But there was also a sense to provide a bit of wiggle room for the government in the event of extreme circumstances – such as war. George Mason, for example, “observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed.” It arguably was due to Mason’s foresight, at least in part, that President Lincoln was able, constitutionally, to have recourse to “greenbacks,” permitting the salvation of the Union. So while the Framers shut, they did not quite bar, the door to paper money. This stance served America well so long as later officials respected the wisdom of the Framers.

    Let’s go to the record.

    On August 16, 1787, Madison records, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered and discussed the powers to be included in what became Article I section 8 clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States.

    The delegates squarely addressed the issue of whether to give the federal government the power to issue inconvertible paper money. The power was debated and went down to defeat by the resounding margin of nine states opposed to paper money, only two in support. In their own words (and retaining Mr. Madison’s original spelling), this is what some of the wisest statesmen in history had to say, before stripping it out, about the power to issue inconvertible paper money:

    Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out “and emit bills on the credit of the U. States” -If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.

    Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion.

    Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.

    Mr. Govr. MORRIS. striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief. The Monied interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited.

    Mr. GHORUM was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure.

    Col. MASON had doubts on the subject. Congs. he thought would not have the power unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergences, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed.

    Mr. GHORUM. The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing.

    Mr. MERCER was a friend to paper money, though in the present state & temper of America, he should neither propose nor approve of such a measure. He was consequently opposed to a prohibition of it altogether. It will stamp suspicion on the Government to deny it a discretion on this point. It was impolitic also to excite the opposition of all those who were friends to paper money. The people of property would be sure to be on the side of the plan, and it was impolitic to purchase their further attachment with the loss of the opposite class of Citizens.

    Mr. ELSEWORTH thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good.

    Mr. RANDOLPH, notwithstanding his antipathy to paper money, could not agree to strike out the words, as he could not foresee all the occasions which might arise.

    Mr. WILSON. It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the U. States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered, and as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources.

    Mr. BUTLER. remarked that paper was a legal tender in no Country in Europe. He was urgent for disarming the Government of such a power.

    Mr. MASON was still averse to tying the hands of the Legislature altogether. If there was no example in Europe as just remarked, it might be observed on the other side, that there was none in which the Government was restrained on this head.

    Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.

    Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words “(and emit bills”)

    On the motion for striking out

    N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

    The clause for borrowing money, agreed to nem. con.

    Adjd.

    The Founders of the United States had experienced the terrible consequences of paper money, the Continental. Their own paper money rapidly had depreciated from scrip to scrap ? as paper money will. When the time came, they shut the door against paper money. The door to inconvertible paper money stayed shut, with emergency interruptions, for almost 200 years.

    reprinted from http://www.thegoldstandardnow.org/at-the-constitutional-convention

    Ralph Benko
    Editor
    http://thegoldstandarnow.org
    a project of The Lehrman Institute

    For further information on the Constitutional history of American monetary policy, see here:

    http://www.thegoldstandardnow.org/history/monetary-history-highlights

    • streiff

      but the plain letter of the Constitution doesn’t say what you say it does. Just as Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, etc. have led the charge to ensure that Congressional intent is not considered when adjudicating laws, there is no reason why notes of the proceedings should have more weight than the text.

      • http://www.thewebstersdictionary.com TheWebster

        Well, it isn’t clear what is meant by a claim that “notes of the proceedings should have more weight than the text.” The notes help shed light on the text….

        There’s a reasonable inquiry going on here about what the text might mean, no? Pretty much everything we know from history says that the Framers believed that the only powers conferred were those explicitly conferred (or necessary and proper to the carrying out of those explicitly conferred) … the view right up until Julliard vs. Greenman (also, interestingly enough, a gold case) in the Reconstruction era.

        … and by reading the Framers’ discussions over striking this power from the draft Constitution … there isn’t much doubt that those who wrote the Constitution believed they were withholding the power to issue inconvertible paper money (a power which had been exercised under the Articles of Confederation) — “bills of credit” — from the federal government, with perhaps a hinted exception for conditions of extreme exigency such as war….. Shutting, but not quite barring, the door….

        Further, it certainly seems perfectly legitimate to read, in addition to Madison’s Notes … and the debates in and around the Ratification … that which Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison (among many others) had to say on this subject — some of which you may find lovingly compiled for your convenience at http://www.thegoldstandardnow.org/history/monetary-history-highlights — with the intention of informing ourselves with their wisdom.

        If one takes that view, Dr. Paul’s views on monetary policy in the light of the Constitution can only be considered highly respectable. (And, if I may, I speak as the one, to my knowledge, person invited by the United States Treasury Department to testify on the constitutional history of American monetary policy before the Gold Commission in 1981…. So perhaps my credentials are not entirely trivial?)

        But … are you suggesting that it is illegitimate to consider the writing of the Framers and early statesmen in attempting to inform our understanding of what the Constitution means both then and now? Is this a semiotics-based argument that “all we have is the text?” If you are arguing from semiotics, that’s very interesting but many believe that you properly have a considerable burden of persuasion in propounding that as the defining standard. It is rather an outlying view.

        With all due respect,

        Ralph Benko
        Editor
        http://thegoldstandardnow.org

        and contributor
        http://agoldenage.com

        • streiff

          Paul’s views on monetary policy are just as silly as his views on foreign policy.

          Paper currency has been issued either by the US Government or its agencies since 1790. The first undeclared war carried out by the United States happened the next year.

          I’m suggesting that a lot of water has gone under the bridge since the Constitution was drafted and even the Framers of the Constitution had scant idea of what difficulties would be in store and, unlike Paul and his acolytes, didn’t pretend that they had brought forth a Tablet from Mount Sinai.

          Whether or not your credentials are trivial rather depends on the views you espouse.

          • http://www.thewebstersdictionary.com TheWebster

            With the exception of wartime, that paper currency to which you refer was convertible to gold at a fixed weight, which is perfectly within the contemplation of the Founders — as well as just good sense. But I detect a fundamental difference of approaches when you say “I?m suggesting that a lot of water has gone under the bridge since the Constitution was drafted and even the Framers of the Constitution had scant idea of what difficulties would be in store…”

            This seems to be advocating just ignoring the meaning of the Constitution when it proves … difficult? This represents a line of thought over very welcome over at some sections of the Huffington Post.

            But maybe here not so much?

            But yes, if you consider advocating constitutional money — recently recognized in an important white paper by no less than the Bank of England as more conducive to prosperity and stability than paper money managed by elite civil servants — to be a trivial view, then by all means consider my credentials trivial.

            Farewell and Godspeed.

          • Dave_A

            Economics was not as developed as it is now, back then.

            ‘Wealth of Nations’ was a new, groundbreaking work, not a vernerable classic.

            Most people actually still saved money, and the technology did not exist to create a global credit-rating & issuance system such as we have now.

            The economics of the time were based on a world where credit was extremely scarce, banks were utilized primarily by the wealthy, and there was a rigid monetary class structure due to the above.

            Hence, ‘price stability’ and a wary eye on inflation made sense.

            HOWEVER, the free-market choices of the population today, in the modern market with it’s electronically-scored credit system & complete/total disdain for saving, have mandated the exact opposite sort of policy.

            Fortunately, the Founders had the foresight to write the Constitution as a framework, not as a policy document.

            This is NOT to say that it is a living document – that’s a bunch of liberal bull…

            But rather, the Constitution does not set government policy, it merely states what government can and cannot do – letting the branches it creates write policy as the electorate desires.

            By not mandating a specific monetary policy, we have ensured the continuity of our economy through massive changes in market choice & the advancement of economic science.

            The way we do it now is the right way for today’s population – maybe not for the population of 1776 – but it’s not 1776 anymore.

  • http://www.helpawhiteguy.com livefreenh

    When Romney was elected as governor in Mass., it was not because they agree with republicans. It is to assure that anything that their democrat legislature did, would either be reasonable enough for the governor to sign, or would have a veto-proof majority to ram down the throats of the minority voters. This is a perverse form of checks and balances. Bill Weld was the republican governor before him, and it was the same way.

    Ron Paul might serve the same function as president today, and maybe it is not such a bad idea. It would surely make the Congress think twice (or more) before passing legislation that they haven’t bothered to read. It would require them to stand on their own record instead of merely being “present”.

  • hayekwasright

    If we are to survive as a nation of free people, we must get serious about not only stopping the growth of central government, but slashing it back to a reasonable level. If I could stomach being a single issue voter, I would be pounding the pavements and flooding the forums with support for Ron Paul. Unfortunately, as a conservative who believes in good governance and more than single issue politics, I am left with no champion to rally behind. Santorum seems the most honest and consistent, but doesn’t have a convincing record on fiscal restraint. Barring the utterly remote possibilities of someone new entering the picture, I think our only real option is to keep the pressure on whomever becomes the nominee in hopes that they can become the statesman needed to reign in the madness in DC.

    • funwithknives

      most probably what we are going to get. Chained to a Rock for 4 more years or longer.
      Since “…the fight for liberty is never over…”,and “We are always one generation away from losing our liberty ,forever…”, we simply just go on.
      No Retreat, No Surrender, and Stay on the Gas.
      {Brakes are for Wussies}
      Salutations, FWK

  • countryroad2012

    He has a lot of enthusiastic supporters and I think it is in the best interest of beating Obama not to upset these people. I am a conservative and I do not think people should be making fun of him. It appears to me he has lived a respectful life and is a fiscal conservative. I certainly do not like everything about his stands, but I don’t think he deserves being dissed all the time! Get a grip and grow up.

    • streiff

      like David Duke, who apparently shares some of Ron Paul’s philosophy and supporters.

      That doesn’t mean they should be taken seriously.

    • acat

      Same thing he’s done several times before, run third party? Doesn’t seem like he’s a very loyal conservative republican, does it.

      Regarding his followers, at least 50% of them vote Dem in the general. Pandering to these people is a complete waste of time and effort.

      The other 50% will split, some going GOP, some going Libertarian. The outreach here can bear fruit, but … it’s not easy.

      Mew

    • Scope

      The OWS organizers claim they are going to dress in Ron Paul clothes when they occupy the CPAC event this year. The problem is, no one will be able to tell them apart, they both employ the same loud, obnoxious, take-over tactics. There was a reason why Ron Paul was not invited to CPAC this year, so it would make sense that his cult like followers would join hands with the OWS’ers. For the attendees, arm yourself with soap and deodorant, then you should be safe.

    • daveoconnor

      you’re arguing with some folks who allow posts like “idol worshipping” church (Gee, what’s that?) and posters who equate Paul supporter, all of them, as “sodomites” and “potheads” So you’re arguing with the ignorant, never a good idea.

      • acat

        null

        • daveoconnor

          troll

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            …but you were more or less asking for a banning anyway.

          • edingerb

            The guy you just banned started out presenting his view and then arguing the points made. It was the other guys that began and escalated the name calling. They haven’t presented a coherent defense of their side of the issue and his side is well supported, especially by the Webster.

            As you know, I don’t post very often, but I read these diaries every day. They help me when I have to argue with so many of the liberal nuts I run into. I look for these “spirited” debates, hoping to see a good dose of both sides of the argument.

            I guess the line was crossed, but the other guys need to put some real facts in their retorts, and cut out the insults, as well.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            for over two years. They are long settled and we have no interest marching down that road of inane stupidity again with every Paulbot idiot who shows up here.

            For a couple of years the site had a “ban-on-site” policy with Paultards and that was stopped last year. Hopefully it’s back on, it stops the stupidity because they don’t last long enough to argue with.

          • jakeofalltrades

            and a pretty consistent defender of Luap Nor if memory serves (he’s not worth my time to double-check).

        • funwithknives

          translation? There’s some Primo Catnip in it for ya’…
          Seriously an inquiring mind needs enhancement. Prtty Pls.?

          • westcoastpatriette

            I googled ‘em cuz I wondered myself.

            FIFY = Fix It For You

            HAND = Have A Nice Day

          • funwithknives

            a hearty “High-Ho Silver…Awayyy…”
            Funny how I couldn’t think of that. Promise you won’t squeal to my wife. {I’M always the one to tell her to “…Google it, silly…” Dee–Dee-Dee!

          • westcoastpatriette

            bantering with fellow conservatives rather than google for the answer. I did the same thing yesterday when someone said to me YHBT…and I begged them for the answer.

            You Have Been Trolled….that was a new one to me.

    • deVere

      This style of rhetoric makes persuasion very difficult, and so is obviously politically counterproductive. I suppose in someone’s mind the psychological benefits of expressing anger and comntempt must outweigh the distresss from any lost elections.

      Ron Paul is one of the favorite targets. He does deserve to be forcefully rebutted in many areas, but the insults are uncalled for. On the whole he’s obviously a very accomplished man, with amazing stamina for his age.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        Like hell they are.

        Ron Paul is a racist, an anti-Semite and a rank conspiracy theorist. The only insult related to Ron Paul is that he was allowed to rejoin the Republican caucus after he quit in the mid-90s. He’s done nothing but use the Party while adding nothing to it.

        There are lots of accomplished people around, David Duke was one. He’s an insult to humanity too.

        • deVere

          It certainly seems that Ron Paul panders to racists, anti-semites, and conspiracy theorists, which is very disreputable, but the evidence that he holds those views himself is unconvincing to me.

          In any event the disagreeable truth can be pointed out without pointless insults, and while also pointing out some of Paul’s undeniable strengths. This approach will be more effective in convincing Paul admirers that they are making a mistake in voting for him.. Just repeatedly hurling insults at a chosen punching bag is both ineffective and beneath the dignity of an important Republican website.

          • snowshooze

            And I came looking for more.

          • deVere

            That way you can slowly improve your English language skills.

          • snowshooze

            I actullay understant multi-syllable wurds…
            But the people who try to bury me in them don’t usually impress me much.
            Needless to say, but we’re gonna ( There’s a multi-syllable right there!) say it anyway…
            Ron Paul is a bigot and a wing-nut.
            DeVere, I had to read yer post twice to figure out what you were trying to say. By then, I was wore out. lol.

            ” Our review has determined thet the W 18″ X 45# beam spanning 45′ with live loading at multipoint segments is in excess of the recommended span capacity for 60, 000 KSI A500 steel shapes is beyond all recommended data per AISI and STI wherein the data reflects a higher tinsile stength or intermittant reinforcments would mitigate excessive point loading…”

            I told ya the stuff was too small.

    • Bill S

      And then some.

    • Dave_A

      How many social conservatives, foreign policy hawks, and businessmen (Each of these groups DWARFS the size of Ron’s actual voter-base – most of Ron’s supporters are college kiddies that don’t bother to vote in anything but web polls) should we alienate & convince to stay home, to attract a small, unreliable & contrary voter bloc?

      • texasref

        I’m throwing a flag on your use of the word “diametrically.” Ron Paul has been consistently pro-life, unlike Mittens. Ron Paul has been consistently solid on social AND economic issues.

        Now if you wanted to clarify your remark to reflect the difference between the establishment view on foreign policy vs Paul’s position, you’d have a fair point.

        –supporter of Newt Gingrich
        —-second choice Rick Santorum
        —-third choice Ron Paul
        —-fourth choice (Don’t Ask)

        • Dave_A

          Ron Paul has been consistently with the Democrats on social issues – he supports legalization of all drugs, legalization of prostitution, and so on. A ‘leave abortion to the states’ position does NOT make him a social conservative.

          Same for his economic positions – the anti-FED stuff in perticular.

          Even his ‘small government’ positions don’t fit, as his first targets for cuts are the DoD and CIA, not entitlements.

          • texasref

            How about the federal government get out of doing things that the Constitution reserved to the states. Leon made some good points about Paul’s areas of overreach, but I’m talking about the stuff that all of us conservatives can agree the Constitution did not expressly grant the national government. At least I hope we can agree.

            Some say “legalization.” I would say the states would most assuredly step in and enforce the laws most if not all of them have on the books to fight the scourge of drugs. I do not support buying cocaine or marijuana for that matter at your local walmart. I simply want my state law to be supreme on matters of this importance. The problem is when the national government gets to say what’s what, we end up with nationwide abortion-on-demand. Leaving abortion to the states is about all a president can do, and would result in a dramatic impact on the bottom line of 4,000 dead babies a day. Of course a human life amendment is the only sure way to end the scourge completely, but a snowball has a better chance of surviving an eternity in hell than of that passing any time soon. And the icing on the cake is, a president has no role other than bully pulpit in passing constitutional amendments anyway.

            Please tell me what ANY of our four candidates for president could do differently than leave it to the states, and you don’t get to include amendments, since those bypass the executive branch.

            P.S.: I don’t understand your point about anti-FED being the “same,” do you mean to say that ending the fed is a liberal point of view? What about Herman Cain, he isn’t a liberal, and he agrees, I think (could be wrong).

            Paul clarified in a debate that he would cut from foreign involvement, not homefront spending on defense. This is not to say I agree with isolationism or am putting a Ron Paul sticker on my bumper, just saying.

          • beeman56

            Do you know who they are? This is a private organisation that was invented for 1 function to make money for the owners.The owners were seen in 1910 on Jekyll island bribing a bunch of senators and congress man to get this passed. JP Morgan was thought to be the brains behind the FED system. After his death in 1913 it was discovered that the Rothschild’s own 80% of JP Morgan bank. The Rothschild’s worth $500 Trillion today. I just bet they got most of the wealth from the Great Depression of the 1930′s. The FED withdrew the money supply and caused the depression, so no one had money but the bankster. They went about buying up every thing for penny’s on the dollar. They had 1 problem they could figure how to get the Economy started again, so they started WW11.

            The Bush Family with the Rockefeller family were traced to over throwing the US government, it almost succeeded. An Army General turn them in, actually had a sting operation to catch them. There were even Congressional hearings on it.

            In 1913 they invented the IRS because they needed a way to enslave the population with taxes, which were illegal and still are.

            The FED and IRS was invented for one thing, to enslave a population to the 1%.

            Ron Paul does not support legalising drugs or prostitution. He wants the states to take up the issue because he believes the Federal Government is to big. Ron Paul is strong on defense, just wants to stop subsidising foreign governments with all the military bases.

          • Dave_A

            Go figure…

            And he’s absolutely WRONG about the Federal Reserve.

            The FED was created, by a Republican Congress, to address the problem of monetary chaos that had persisted from Jackson’s presidency forward.

            President Wilson, in line with his party’s anti-banking populsim, OPPOSED the Fed during his campaign for President, but eventually changed his mind long enough to sign the bill in return for some concessions from the Republican congress – namely adding government appointees to the Fed’s boards & committeees.

            The claim that the Fed exists to make money for it’s owners is false – the Federal Reserve Act prohibits this – all profits must be turned over to the US Treasury.

            As for income taxes, the income tax is as legal as you can possibly make it – it has it’s own Constitutional Amendment. There is nothing unconstitutional about the tax or the IRS, as they were created the *RIGHT WAY* – by ammending the constitution.

            Tax deniers are some of the most clueless conspiracy theorists, as they are attempting to deny something that is clearly written in the Constitution & federal law.

            Finally, Ron Paul is on record as wanting to legalize drugs. He is on record as wanting to legalize prostitution (the federal govt has a very limited (and constitutional – since it deals with interstate traffic only) role here, so that dodge won’t work).

            He is in no way ‘strong on defense’, and has advocated ‘taking out’ the CIA and cutting the DoD by 80%.

            The ‘foreign bases’ thing is an absolute crock, as we don’t have the number of bases he claims, nor are we ‘in’ the number of countries he claims.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            way too many in my opinion. As for the CIA, I wonder why you think it should be protected?

            Surely not because it ever did anything for our nation, because it has a rich history of total failure. Failure to accurately size up the threat posed by the soviet union in the cold war. Being overrun with spies, Failure to predict the collapse of the soviets. failure to predict the 9/11 attacks or the current overthrow of regimes in the middle east. False information on the presence of WMD’s in Iraq.

            Not a very good track record at all.

            I won’t even go into the various weighty arguments for federal non-involvement in the war on drugs, but there are many.

            My biggest regret about Ron Paul is that he is a very flawed person to be bringing up various freedom oriented arguments. But the arguments themselves are not going to go away, so you better do your homework and start studying them.

          • Dave_A

            Is if your ‘countries’ list contains every foreign nation with any US presence at all (he claims 100+ countries) no matter how temporary & small, and you count every building with it’s own fenceline as a ‘base’ (hence the ’300+ bases not including Iraq/AFG’….

            The fact is, the US has a significant & permanent presence in:

            Germany
            Italy
            UK
            South Korea
            Japan (Includes Okinawa)
            Spain
            Kuwait
            Qatar
            Egypt (MNF-O peacekeepers)

            We have a temporary presence in:

            UAE
            Afghanistan
            Former Yugoslavia
            Colombia

            I might have missed one or two, but even then it’s nowhere near ’100+’

            As for the CIA:

            1) Counterintelligence is an FBI task, not a CIA one.

            2) They need to be ‘fixed’, but Ron wants them ELIMINATED as he apparently considers the practice of espionage a ‘threat to liberty’.

            His ‘freedom’ arguments are more paranoid delusions than serious concerns, so the only thing to study is how to refute them.

      • sapient

        Dave

        One wit called RP’s supporters the “Video Store clerk voter base.”

        Apt.

  • http://ElectTheRightCandidate.US etrc
    Hmm?
    Regarding the Constitution, it seems obvious to me that coining money is different then legally counterfeiting paper dollars.

    I also seems to me that whatever the stated purpose of the Federal Reserve Bank, it is doing harm to the American people through inflation and facilitating the expansion of government.

    RP is bringing these ideas to the American people and should be praised for this.

  • Derek V. Baker

    Leon, I wholeheartedly concur will your pount and conclusion on Paul. As a Texan and one who’s worked on Capitol Hill for years, I’ve heard his rants and self promotion in the name of ‘spreading the message of liberty’ for far too long. Especially in this cycle, I’m getting quite weary of the mostly well intentioned but grossly misinformed Paul fans (some conservatives, some libertarians) laud praise on this man whom few of his House Republican and conservative colleagues have genuine political respect for. Thanks for telling it like it is.

    • jerci
      Those of us who are not Washington insiders ought to know how to view the word of an insider. These are the folks who have produced the status of the country as we see it today. It is a small wonder that they express low opinions of Ron Paul who they dub, Dr. No because he alone declines to “go along to get alnog.”

      This is the classic sort of critique Paul runs into. There is no rational argument presented in opposition to any of his positions. Rather he is simply ridiculed, called names or accused of being shallow or of ranting – none of which are valid.

      • sapient

        Jer

        Unfortunately, there are a lot of rational arguments against Ron Paul. For one, he is of the anarcho-capitalist / voluntaryist wing of the libertarian party.

        Now, those are not my words, but his friends over at Mises.

        What Ron Paul preaches is a far cry from what the Founders taught and preserved in the Constitution.

        Which one of them would have said: ?You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let?s just get rid of all the drug laws.?

        They did not advocate license, but liberty founded on virtue–THE absolute necessity for self government. That is hardly what Paul preaches.

        Anarch-capitalist / voluntaryists tend to follow a guy named Murray Rothbard, and Paul quotes him in nearly everything he says. Rothbard separated from people like John Locke–who provided the underpinnings of the Declaration. This is HARDLY the basis of our nation.

        Do you know this stuff?

        There is a reason why those folks can’t stand Hamilton–or Madison,or Webster, or the lot of the Founders—they Contradict what Rothbard and Paul teach.

        They are not on the same page, so you will need to decide: Ron Paul or the Founders and the Constitution. You CANNOT have both.

        God bless

        Ron Paul, The Revolution Manifesto: ?Governments, by their nature, notoriously compete with liberty?even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty?The restraints place on our government by the Founders did not work.?

        Ron Paul, End the Fed: “In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.”

        • gabs

          “Which one of them would have said: ?You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let?s just get rid of all the drug laws.?

          In that day, there weren’t any drug laws in the first place. That’s not to say it’s a good idea, but people could buy laudanum which is an opiate and plenty of other things and it wasn’t regulated. It certainly wasn’t a Federal crime to sell or buy.

          • sapient

            Gabs

            Our nation was founded on what is called Natural Law….the idea that there are laws written on the heart that we call our conscience. This is what is referred to in the Declaration as “the laws of nature and Natures God.” This is NOT nature as in the environment but the nature of a thing. Pigs have a nature. Ducks have a nature, and people have a nature. At the core of our nature is that we were “Created in the image of God.”

            That that exalts us, but is also requires something of us. We have liberty that goes with that nature, modified when we live in a society because others have rights too.

            But, note this…we have a responsibility to God for our lives. We are NOT free to destroy ourselves. Locke:

            “But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license: though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it.” –John Locke. Second Treatise on Government. Chapter 2 section 6

            Now, you do not have the right to commit suicide, or destroy yourself with drugs, etc….besides, they also make you a danger to the rest of us….and WE have a right to defend ourselves from YOU if you will not control yourself…hence drug laws.

            BTW: not too long ago “making everything legal so there would be no crimes” was a joke used by comedians.

            Today, its political philosophy….and its root is voluntaryism and anarchy. THAT is where the root problem and in that quote RP shows clearly which side he is on.

            Good luck

            “No man is above the law, and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man?s permission when we require him to obey it.” — Theodore Roosevelt

          • gabs

            The Constitution says nothing about “Natural Law,” and going there opens the door for anyone who wants to spin “Natural Law” in order to undermine the Constitution. What it says is that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.

          • sapient

            Re: etc.

            Gabs

            All that is a given. Now, the Constitution CANNOT and Natural Law cannot be validly interpreted just any old way. BTW: That is called “eisegesis” where a person “reads into” what is written\, making it a “living document.” Its dishonest.

            The Founders, and honest interpreters used Exegesis…to “read out of”..and that is precisely what they advocated:

            “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” –Thomas Jefferson

            The problem, is that is not what Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, etal teach…far from it.

            Ron Paul insists that his ideal society was BEFORE the Constitution was ever written where…well, you read it, re the idea of a voluntaryist society:

            ADAM KOKESH:
            Do you think we have a chance of achieving a society based on those ideals in America?

            RON PAUL:
            Not soon. We had a relative voluntary society (you know) in our early history, but steadily, even after the Constitution was passed, steadily it was undermined and it systematically grew, it grew certainly through the 20th century; that is the authoritarian approach, which is the opposite. That is: the government tells us everything we can do and can’t do. [..]

            Now, ALL of us believe there are issues to be solved, and the solution is to return to the Constitution as designed.

            BUT, that is NOT what Ron Paul advocates…he is looking toward something completely different and just using the appeals to the Constitution to get there.

            He and his made a break with the Founders at pivotal points…nothing less.

            Thomas Jefferson, “Follow the core principles of the Constitution and the knot will always untie itself.”

            Notice Jefferson said PRINCIPLES…those concepts from which the words come…and its those PRINCIPLES where RP and his separate…though they use selected words from time to time…twisting them in a way the Founders NEVER meant, and said so….they went to the trouble to do more than just write the Constitution…they explained what they meant, and why.

            if you read even the first few of the Federalist Papers, you would RUN from Ron Paul.

            God bless

            “It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy . . . great improvement . . . were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients. ” –Alexander Hamilton Federalist No. 9, November 21, 1787

          • sapient

            Gabs

            Sorry…but I wanted to share this with you.

            Note that here is Thomas Jefferson talking about how to CORRECTLY understand what we were all about:

            ??as to the general principles of liberty and the rights of man in nature and in society, the doctrines of Locke, in his ?Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government?, and of Sidney in his ?Discourses on government?, may be considered as those generally approved by our fellow-citizens of this, and the US.

            And that on the distinctive principles of the government of our state, and of that of the United States, the best guides are to be found in

            1. the Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these states.

            2. the book known by the title of ?The Federalist?, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US.

            On questions as to its genuine meaning.

            3. the Resolutions of the General assembly of Virginia in 1799 on the subject of the Alien and Sedition laws, which appeared to accord with the predominant sense of the people of the United States.

            4. the Valedictory address of President Washington, as conveying political lessons of peculiar value.? Thomas Jefferson Report as Commissioners for the University of Virginia

          • sapient

            Gabs

            Re: “The Constitution says nothing about ?Natural Law,?

            Here is the whole problem. if you knew the Constitution and its Foundation you could never say that. But, I’ll let Alexander Hamilton explain it:

            “The fundamental source of all your errors, sophisms, and false reasonings, is a total ignorance of the natural rights of mankind. Were you once to become acquainted with these, you could never entertain a thought, that all men are not, by nature, entitled to a parity of privileges. You would be convinced, that natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator, to the whole human race; and that civil liberty is founded in that; and cannot be wrested from any people, without the most manifest violation of justice. Civil liberty is only natural liberty, modified and secured by the sanctions of civil society. It is not a thing, in its own nature, precarious and dependent on human will and caprice; but it is conformable to the constitution of man, as well as necessary to the well-being of society.” –Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

            You see, Natural Law is EVERYWHERE and you should learn what it means.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            The beginnings of nearly all errors and horrors in politics begins with the rejection of natural rights.

          • sapient

            Kyle

            You are exactly right, as long as you keep that in balance.

            In the quote above, remember he also aid “Civil liberty is only natural liberty, modified and secured by the sanctions of civil society.”

            This is where Ron Paul, Rothbard, etc separate from Hamilton and the Founders. Voluntaryist believe laws should be voluntary and there should be no sanctions in civil society–labeling it as aggression and all government as immoral.

            Not the case at all…what they preach is a gross distortion of the Founders under the guise of “liberty” and a gross misunderstanding of human nature.

            They believe there is no need for government–a stateless society. The Founders in no way believed that…and set up a government because human nature requires one, with force, and sanctions–but under control.

            The Founders ALWAYS linked liberty and virtue.

            God bless
            “That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principle.” Virginia Bill of Rights, June 12, 1776

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            He has said repeatedly that he is not an anarchist.

            Rothbard was a total anarchist and as such his later writings can be easily dismissed.

            I have also not heard that Paul rejected the idea of natural rights, perhaps so, I just never heard him say that.

          • sapient

            Hi Kyle
            Take a look at the Mises Institute website at:
            http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/25612/431256.aspx

            Make sure and read the caption.

            Now, take a look at the comment thread on this first page, and remember, these are RP supporters not his enemies. You will find some most interesting thoughts there…and in particular the discussion of whether it would hurt RP’s campaign to admit his voluntaryism and the “anarchist” bomb about to be dropped on RP supporters, particularly the “we the people types” that is the antithesis of RP’s real vision.

            Note that for many years RP has said “I take voluntaryist positions” and since you know what that means, what he says has to be taken in that context.

            And note: this site was founded by RP’s previous congressional chief of staff, campaign manager, etc…Lew Rockwell.

            God bless

            “Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions.” –John Adams, letter to Mercy Warren, April 16, 1776

          • gabs

            “Civil liberty is only natural liberty, modified and secured by the sanctions of civil society.”

            The “sanctions of civil society” being as fluid as they are, that’s pretty much large L Libertarianism. That’s not how I intend to throw my vote. But get clear: if all you care about its the sanctions of today’s society, then do not complain when today’s society disagrees. They are disagreeing all overt the place in the last week alone.

          • sapient

            Gabs

            Understand that I agree with you a great deal, about the issues we face. The problem is the solution.

            Is the government into too much–of course it is, etc. We see before us what happens when imperfect human beings assume unchecked power. THEY become lawless and corrupt, and yes, tyrannical.

            That is a given.

            The problem with Ron Paul and Rothbardism, is that they believe that somehow, those same imperfections reside only in government not in people. Give people total freedom and guess what you get–yep, lawlessness, corruption, and violation of other people’s rights. Anarchy, which is just another form of tyranny, especially when factions form.

            THAT is the problem.

            The Founders balanced this problem that they considered THE GREAT problem:

            “What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” James Madison: Federalist No. 51 (1788-02-06) [9]

            Two problems, not just one.

            Ron Paul and his ilk insist there is no first problem, that human nature requires a government enabled to govern. Under the banner of “liberty” they preach license. The Founders soundly refuted that idea and referred to “true liberty” which is SELF CONTROL rather than license.

            So, we are on the same page as far as some of the problems. The solution however, must be that of the Founders, not of those who corrupt, twist, and undermine them, as does Ron Paul.

            God bless

            “This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.? ?George Washington, Farewell Address.

        • Creedo

          I’m a Santorum supporter, and have always been on the Jefferson side of the Hamilton vs. Jefferson debate – the conservative side of the debate. The last thing I care to do is defend Paul, but you show a pretty fundamental lack of perspective when you trash Paul and his ilk for being against the Father of Big Government, Hamilton.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            wanted.

          • Dave_A

            And Hamilton was both a conservative, and the father of the ‘Country Club’ pro-business wing of the GOP.

            It is Jefferson, founder of the ‘Democratic Republican’ party, who is by-way of Jackson the father of the Democrat Party.

            Federalists (Hamilton) ——> ‘Era of Good Feeling (single-party Democratic-Republican rule) -> Whigs —–> Republicans

            Anti-Federalists —–> Democratic Republicans (Jefferson) ——> ‘Era of Good Feeling’ —-> Democratic Party (Jackson)

            You have to remember that back then, your conservatives were your Federalists (pro strong central govt, pro-business, law-and-order, etc) trying to keep us close to the status-quo rather than turning a political revolution into a social one – and your liberal firebrands were folks like Jefferson (tear it all down, ant-bank, ant-business types)….

            You also have to remember, that Jefferson died broke & bankrupt – and is in NO WAY a man to consult on financial matters.

            Hamilton was right. No two ways about it.

          • sapient

            Hi Creedo

            Now, do not get me wrong OK…there are things that I disagree with Hamilton on as well…but certainly not everything…and neither did Jefferson.

            As you know, there are 85 articles by Hamilton, Jay and Madison, explaining the new Constitution and its principles to the American people so they could accept or reject it. Hamilton wrote 51 of the 86.

            So, we might ask what Jefferson thought of that work as an explanation of what the Constitution was all about. Take a look:

            “??as to the general principles of liberty and the rights of man in nature and in society, the doctrines of Locke, in his ?Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government?, and of Sidney in his ?Discourses on government?, may be considered as those generally approved by our fellow-citizens of this, and the US. And that on the distinctive principles of the government of our state, and of that of the United States, the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of ?The Federalist?, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. On questions as to its genuine meaning. 3. the Resolutions of the General assembly of Virginia in 1799 on the subject of the Alien and Sedition laws, which appeared to accord with the predominant sense of the people of the United States. 4. the Valedictory address of President Washington, as conveying political lessons of peculiar value.? Thomas Jefferson Report as Commissioners for the University of Virginia

            So, which ever side you come down on, the Federalist Papers stand as that explanation.

            And, the problem is not Hamilton’s “Big Government” that they have such a problem with…its government in general which is considered immoral by voluntaryist and others along that line, of which Paul is their spokesman.

            Hamilton described the balance that is required. The Founders did not only fear Tyranny, but also anarchy. The same weaknesses in human nature are active in both cases.

            THAT is a poke in the eye with a sharp stick to RP and his.

            They also do not like the idea of private virtue being the foundation of the Republican form of government.

            BTW: I like Santorum too.

            See which of these you disagree with:

            ?It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.? ~ Federalist 1 (Hamilton)

            “If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. :–Alexander Hamilton 1788 – Federalist No. 33

            “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.” –Alexander Hamilton Federalist #28

            “The instrument by which [government] must act are either the AUTHORITY of the laws or FORCE. If the first be destroyed, the last must be substituted; and where this becomes the ordinary instrument of government there is an end to liberty! “–Alexander Hamilton, Tully, No. 3, 1794\

            “It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy . . . great improvement . . . were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients.” –Alexander Hamilton Federalist No. 9, November 21, 1787

          • Dave_A

            “Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint.”

            - Alexander Hamilton

          • sapient

            Dave

            That is exactly right…and that is also the view of Jefferson and the other Founders.

            God bless

            “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. .” ?James Madison, Federalist 51

    • sapient

      Derek

      And there is good reason. I lived in RP’s district for over 20 years…couldn’t get rid of him because of OUTSIDE the district money. Why, in the spirit of the Constitution and Founding, you would think he would have turned it down so he represented HIS district. NADA!

      It was always curious to me that he has to lie about what he is and believes in order to get elected. Not a good sign.

      BTW: take a look at what Mr. Constitution / Fiscal Responsibility did with earmarks in 2010 and 2011. When all the other GOP House members honored a voluntary moritorium on earmarks because it was demanded by the people, only 4 received them. Guess who?

      Yep…Ron Paul was one of the largest.

      During the moratorium he requested and received over $150M for 2011 and $350+ in 2010.

      I thought he was going to hurt himself twisting and turning trying to explain it when he was challenged.

      God bless

      “Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions.” –John Adams, letter to Mercy Warren, April 16, 1776

  • sapient

    Re: “I get that some people want someone who is a principled, small government isolationist constitutionalist. Sadly, Ron Paul is not that person ? he?s just a nut onto whom people are projecting those qualities.”

    Ron Paul is a constitutional scholar–for those who do not know the Constitution, and he is more than a nut. He is dangerous and what he preaches is historically a step TOWARD tyranny not away from it.

    Ron Paul is at minimum a libertarian and quite likely an anarcho capitalist / voluntaryist. Just about everything he says can be traced to Murray Rothbard.

    Now, there are many of his followers who KNOW this…that Paul is hiding behind the Constitution with an entirely different end in mind. Those who don’t know have a “bomb” waiting for them.

    His FRIENDS at Mises Institute put it this way…the captain to the video “Ron Paul is a voluntaryist” :

    “In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State.? –Graham Wright, Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist.

    For those who think Ron Paul and anarchy are a step TOWARD liberty…think again:

    “There is a natural and necessary progression from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness.” — George Washington Maxims

  • mikeymike143

    nutjob paul reminds me of jimmy carter, but at least carter was a democrat so that is to be expected. and there is no room in the republican party for that anti semitic lowlife paul.

    • sapient

      mikeymike

      How do I find your RP page?

      • mikeymike143

        all of them are anti ron paul.

        send me a message on facebook and i will send u all the links. mike

        https://www.facebook.com/mikeymike143?ref=tn_tnmn

  • deVere

    http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/live-blog-new-rpi-chair-election/

    A harbinger of things to come?

    Romney won the Maine Caucus straw poll 39% to 36 for Paul, but it would almost surprise me if Romney winds up with more Maine delegates than Paul.

    • sapient

      Devere

      WOW….what do you think will be the implications of that?
      I always found it interesting that RP could not win by being open about who he is and what he believes.

      God bless

      • deVere

        The party rules allow it, and the supporters of the other candidates simply don’t try as hard.

        From news reports it seems that Paul was the real winner in Maine. Romney only “won” by having the state chairman postpone the caucus in Paul’s best county for a week, and then announce the Romney win. It’s Iowa all over again! Then add this:
        http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/02/santorum-accuses-romney-buying-cpac-poll-win/48597/
        Romney must really be desperate.

        As to the implications, Paul’s supporters will be a force in the Republican party for years to come. We can only hope it isn’t the racists and consipracy theorists he panders to who are becoming GOP officials. Aside from his crazy foreign policy, Paul himself strikes me as sane. Hence the standard Ron Paul joke, “90% correct and 10% insane”.

        • Dave_A

          Bankrupting the citizenry with insane anti-all-debt monetary policy…

          80% cuts in defense

          Eliminating the CIA and prohibiting spying on the grounds that it is a ‘threat to liberty’….

          A social policy more liberal than Obama.

          Cuts to government that focus on constitutional responsibilities rather than entitlements, with the goal of weakening and dissolving the United States as a singular nation, rather than balancing the budget.

          Ron is all wrong, all the time.

    • Dave_A

      Using the fact that people thought their primaries & caucuses counted in ‘open delegate’ states to try and steal delegates away from the actual winners….

      It’s his strategy this time around too – lose the election, then steal the delegates by inserting his men into the party process…

      • Creedo

        In fairness to the Paul strategy, the whole idea of delegates is one of the keystones of the republican system of government and elections. The DEMOCRATic system is simple winner take all. I’m no fan of Paul, but as a Republican, I have to hand it to him on the modern civics lesson. We learned about the way the Democrats organize themselves last year with their Czar-like “Super-delegates.” Our version is much more people friendly and less authoritarian. It rewards the people organizing and coming together at the grass roots level.

        Of course, it will end in failure for Paul. Even if he’s won every delegate to date, he’ll get shut out in the primaries. But nobody on a Republican forum shoud begrudge him for using republican tactics to try and swing an election.

        • Dave_A

          The point of a Republic, is that the delegates/representatives are supposed to represent the wishes of those who voted for them.

          Therefore, if a state voted ‘NO’ to Ron Paul, and his supporters try to hijack said state’s convention with faith-less delegates, that is not Republican Principles, that is Chicago-style cheating….

          • acat

            he wouldn’t have *needed* this kind of unfaithful delegate nonsense… he’d have had the ballot-counters all picked and not lost in the first place!

            Mew

          • Creedo

            As a Santorum voter, I’m as upset about what Paul is doing as anyone, but accept it because he is doing it all within the rules AS INTENDED by the people who gave us the system.. The bottom line is that people need to GET INVOLVED in this stuff instead of just sitting around expecting everyone else to do the heavy lifting. Why aren’t other Santorum supporters not getting elected as delegates? Why is it in Iowa, where Santorum had the victory that put him on the map, a Paul supporter just got elected as the Iowa State GOP Chair?

            The whole point of the REPUBLICan system is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority by encouraging INVOLVEMENT. To begrudge Paul for “Chicago style cheating” doesn’t begrudge Paul at all. It begrudges the Republican philosophy of elections and government.

            Whatever you want to say about Paul _ and there is plenty to say – he is not cheating. He’s using the system as it was intended. WE HAD ALL BETTER GET INVOLVED if we care enough to stop it.

          • Sapient

            Dave

            Re: The point of a Republic, is that the delegates/representatives are supposed to represent the wishes of those who voted for them.

            You are on to something here.

            The point of a representative republic is for the Representative to actually represent those in their district. I live in RP’s district for 20 years, and we could not get him out…why? Money from OUTSIDE his district.

            Funny, you would think Mr. Constitution would have turned it down so he would be consistent with the spirit of the Constitution and Founding.

            Always odd that he has to claim to be something he is not in order to get elected…and truth is, when pushed, many of his supporters know he is not what they are presenting him to be.

            God bless

          • aesthete

            “Money from OUTSIDE his district[...] Funny, you would think Mr. Constitution would have turned it down so he would be consistent with the spirit of the Constitution and Founding.”

            DERP

          • Sapient

            Yes, as a matter of fact.

            Thomas Paine–Common Sense, explaining what representation was about, as a colony increased in size so that total participation was impractical::

            “But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS AT STAKE WHICH THOSE HAVE WHO APPOINTED THEM AND WHO ACT IN THE SAME MATTER AS THE WHOLE BODY WOULD ACT WERE THEY PRESENT.”

            That is the whole point of representation. RP does not represent the views, issues, and concerns of his district, but those outside it. My point.

          • acat

            If Ron Paul’s district thought he was misrepresenting him, they’d have thrown him out.

            This is true, but it’s a disturbingly low bar. (see Luis Gutierrez, D-IL a.k.a. the unofficial rep from Vieques…)

            Mew

          • Sapient

            Do you apply that line of thought to all other situations, such as congress, the GOP HQ, the Presidency, etc?

            Sure, it can be done, but fraud is hard to beat, as we know.

            God bless

          • acat

            Does he think he’s in Galveston’s Tammany Hall?
            Does he have delusions of being Boss Tweed?

            That’d be more nuts than I usually give him credit for …

            Mew

          • Sapient

            As I mentioned I lived in Galveston County for over 20 years and was quite active in the GOP there.

            There was ALWAYS a major push to get the libertarian RINO out so we could get a real Constitutional Conservative in. Supporters of an opponent could in no way match the funds Paul received from out of district, etc.

            Now, as for the fraud thing….I don’t know what else to call it when someone has to say they are one thing when they are another so they can get elected.

            What else do you call it when someone claims to be The Taxpayers Best Friend, and then, when the tax payers demand that earmarks cease and desist, turns around and is one of only 4 Republicans in the House to request earmarks anyway: $35M+ in 2010 and $150M+ in 2011 for Mr. Ron Paul.

            And, that’s just a taste.

            BTW: take a look at the video Ron Paul is a voluntaryist over at the Mises Institute and make sure and read the thread on that page.

            The caption:

            ?In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State.? –Graham Wright, Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist.

            These are his friends. That website was founded and CEO’d by RP’s ex campaign manager and Congressional Chief of Staff Lew Rockwell.

            God bless

          • acat

            No politician should when running for office, be believed.

            I find that it ssaves time to ignore every word out of their mouths and instead check what legislation they’ve sponsored, what votes they’ve cast, what they’ve signed, what they vetoed, and how effective they’ve been at growing the strength of the party…

            After that, if I reach a tie (and I haven’t .. yet ..) I’ll look at speechifying.

            Mew

          • Sapient

            Acat

            That is called dishonesty, demagoguery, etc where I come from, so, I suppose the decision you will need to make is whether that is fine for you.

            Its an important one for honesty is the dividing line. If you accept it, then we will never agree.

            God bless
            “Where the principle of difference [between political parties] is as substantial and as strongly pronounced as between the republicans and the monocrats of our country, I hold it as honorable to take a firm and decided part and as immoral to pursue a middle line, as between the parties of honest men and rogues, into which every country is divided.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795. ME 9:317

          • Sapient

            That is $135M+ in 2010.
            Sorry

          • deVere

            Edmund Burke “Speech to the Electors of Bristol”
            http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html
            “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

          • Sapient

            deVere

            That is indeed true with this caveat.

            If the judgment of the representative is consistently out of line with the judgment of their constituents so that they no longer actually represent them, then it is time for a NEW representative who more closely does represent them.

            God bless

            There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men. –Edmund Burke

          • Dave_A

            Ron Paul’s tactics are no different than, for example, Obama plotting to ‘seed’ GOP states electoral college seats with Democrats, so that even if he loses the vote in that state, he gets it’s EC votes….

            It would be legal, but it’s still dirty pool…

            Similarly, for example, Ron stuffing the Iowa state convention with delegates who will vote for him, when Santorum won the caucus, is dirty pool… Legal cheating…

            Fortunately, when he tried to do this last cycle, Nevada just ignored Paul’s stealth-delegates & nominated the winner of the public caucuses….

            I would hope that all states would do the same, and shut out any ‘Paul’ delegates that are not there as a result of primary or caucus victory.

          • Sapient

            There has to be a solution to the corruption of elections whereby we conduct a peaceful revolution instead of a shooting one.

            I am confident that it CAN be done. Whether it will be, not so much.
            Funny who is at the center of chaos, would be anarchists doing and being what they do and are.

            God bless

            ?In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State.? –Graham Wright, Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist.

  • jgelling

    Ron Paul may be a Gold Grinch and have whacky views on the Constitution. What’s more disturbing to me is still his comments on the operation to get Osama Bin Laden, where he suggested it was a violation of international law and that the Obama administration should’ve asked Pakistan nicely to turn him over!

    The man’s like your crazy old uncle who sits down to dinner and spouts off an politics. He may make a few clever, pointed observations, but in the end it’s mostly a nutty rant.

    If the choice were between Obama and Paul, I’d take the guy who didn’t ask Pakistan nicely to please stop letting the world’s number 1 terrorist hide right down the street from their military academy.

    • Sapient

      jgelling

      There was a time when we all thought of RP as the eccentric uncle of the GOP…but, he has been outed.

      No, not by his enemies, but by his friends and supporters in a way that puts all his eccentricities into context.

      take a look at this video “Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist” at the Mises Institute: http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/25612/431256.aspx

      Understand that the Voluntaryists are the anarchist branch of the Libertarians…they follow what is called anarcho capitalism and the thinking of Murray Rothbard…abandoned the Founders a long time ago except as it suits their purpose. Note the captain of the video:

      Voluntaryists believe that government is not necessary at all and that all laws should be, yep, voluntary, a far cry from the Founders.

      ?In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State.? –Graham Wright, Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist.

      Now, read that page where the video is…the discussion. See it as kind of a Q/A as to whether RP should admit it publicly and look at the deception. look at the disdain for the “we the people types” that are the antithesis of RP’s real vision. Note the “anarchist bomb” that will be dropped on his followers.

      Again, these are not his enemies but his friend. THEY used the words “out” here, not me.

      is he eccentric? Nope…he is of another stripe with another vision, and he says so. Note this conversation where he is asked about it:

      ADAM KOKESH:
      Do you think we have a chance of achieving a society based on those ideals in America?

      RON PAUL:
      Not soon. We had a relative voluntary society (you know) in our early history, but steadily, even after the Constitution was passed, steadily it was undermined and it systematically grew, it grew certainly through the 20th century; that is the authoritarian approach, which is the opposite. That is: the government tells us everything we can do and can’t do. [..]

      Note he is looking PAST the Constitution, not toward it.

      God bless

      “There is a natural and necessary progression from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness.” — George Washington Maxims

      • jgelling

        Thats a very interesting video, Sapient. What struck me most while watching it was Mr. Paul’s comments starting around 3:20 where he talks about couching things in “constitutional” terms as a smoke screen.

        It’s pretty clear from what I heard in that video that Paul has a near-anarchist view of government, and couches it in terms of the Constitution as a merely political, rhetorical device. He just wants to break our national armed forces, our national banks, any sort of public goods we as a society deem reasonable and necessary, and he’ll say it’s because of the Constitution, even though he’s actually following his own economic agenda.

        He’s really talking like a Marxist in those clips – just one with a different economic agenda. But what he’s talking about there has nothing to do with the Constitution, except as a convenient excuse.

        • Sapient

          jgelling

          YOU are right on target my friend, and BTW: that website was founded and CEO’d by RP’s former congressional chief of staff Lew Rockwell.

          Now that you have all this in context, may I suggest that you begin doing research on Voluntaryism, anarcho capitalism, etc to see what that stuff really is and just how huge that movement is. Wiki has a good article on it (ie links from Ron Paul quotes), and also read THEIR stuff. One thing you will find is that government is considered immoral in and of itself, and unnecessary…you will find this alluded to in MANY of the things RP says.

          Fact is, their view of human nature is all wrong and hardly that of the Founders.

          Imagine, the Founders, coming out of stark tyranny said in the Declaration: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

          They still saw the need for government–under control, but vital. Note James Madison:

          “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. ” ?James Madison, Federalist 51

          RP and his ilk, do not see the first problem…that men are not angels and need government. THAT is why they hate Hamilton.

          As you begin to confront RP’s supporters with this, you will be amazed at just how many, at first deny it, and then, when pushed begin to say “Well, what’s so bad about anarchy–that’s what our Founders were.”

          Many of them know the truth about it.

          And the GOP wants to give him air time.

          Now, one last question: who is more dangerous to the US: Obama and his, or RP and his?

          God bless

          Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few. –John Adams:

        • Sapient

          jgelling

          Re: Marxism and RP

          There is a movement called “stateless communism” which is being pushed in the OWS movement. it is quite different from conventional marxism in that they think they can skip the dictatorship of the proletariat and go directly to the stateless utopia by simply tearing down all the existing structures and letting the “workers” rebuild a society to their own liking.

          Lots of questions unanswered on that one.

          I did ask a man from Czech Republic who was pushing this “Where has this been tried?”

          His answer was profound: “XYZ country, until the Stalinists came in and ruined it.”

          The amazing thing is that he STILL thought it was the way to go.

          My guess is that voluntaryism, etc is the Americanized version….fine until the tyrants take over. Eloi and Morlocks indeed.

          God bless

          Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. –John Adams, letter to Mercy Warren, April 16, 1776

      • deVere

        And the means you specify are no coercion except in self-defense (and sometimes not even then). Persuasion is mandatory.

        Famous voluntarists are Henry David Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi and Albert Schweitzer, quite a rogue’s gallery.

        Now a person might reasonably conclude that Ron Paul is an impractical man who should not be the American commander in chief, and I have so concluded. But outside the oval office he would be a valuable member of the Republican team,, always reminding us that one very important goal is to minimize government coercion.

        As for Barack Obama, I believe that he would have no compunctions about putting you and I in a “reeducation camp”, if he thought he could get away with it.

        “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
        George Washington

        • Sapient

          devere

          Re: “And the means you specify are no coercion except in self-defense (and sometimes not even then). Persuasion is mandatory.”

          I will be more than delighted to engage in this discussion with you.

          Before I do, I would ask a couple of questions:

          First: do you espouse that philosophy, or are you simply saying what it is?

          Second, if you espouse it, where has what you describe been implemented on a large scale such as a nation like ours, and what was the result?

          Third ,again if you espouse it, what person is the authoritative source for the principles you would have us embrace?

          Fourth, again if you espouse this, what is the basic understanding of human nature that these principles reflect?

          God bless

          • deVere

            nt

          • Sapient

            devere
            Great and thanks.
            Interesting folks those anarcho capitalist / voluntaryists, and my what a view on the world, and of themselves…pretty elevated the latter.

            As one said on the Mises Institute, re whether RP should admit where he REALLY stand if asked, now that they have outed him:

            “I agree that Ron Paul’s role is as an educator. He gets people interested in libertarianism and then turns people onto the Mises Institute. If you took a poll here on this message board, I’d bet that 50+% of the people first heard of this place through Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign. Changing somebody into a voluntaryist is a gradual thing and it’s something that’s probably easier to glide into rather than jump into. So I think you’re right. BUT there comes a point where you reach critical mass AND RON PAUL HAS APPEALED TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SERIOUS THINKERS and at that point he can drop the anarchist bomb on his fans.”

            So, looks like something Jefferson said applies directly to them:

            “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” –Thomas Jefferson

            Looks like that elite comes in all kinds of stripes.

            God bless

            “Where the principle of difference [between political parties] is as substantial and as strongly pronounced as between the republicans and the monocrats of our country, I hold it as honorable to take a firm and decided part and as immoral to pursue a middle line, as between the parties of honest men and rogues, into which every country is divided.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795. ME 9:317

        • Sapient

          devere: part 2

          Re: ?Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.? George Washington

          True enough…but did he say it was a servant we could do without, or one that must be tightly reigned by the Constitution, which instituted government as the Declaration also espoused.

          • deVere

            “Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.” – Thomas Paine, Common Sense 1776

            “It has been said that all Government is an evil. It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any Government is a misfortune. This necessity however exists; and the problem to be solved is, not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect.” – James Madison, to an unidentified correspondent 1833

            If Ron Paul thinks government is an unnecessary evil, then he goes too far, and is correctly disqualified for the highest office. But that doesn’t mean he has evil designs on the rest of us. Just that it’s resonable to fear he may fail to take necessary action to protect us from enemies. The Presidency is a unique position in our system of government, and requires a person of the right character. Neither Obama nor Paul qualify, and I’m having doubts about Santorum also.

          • Sapient

            DeVere

            First, it is great to see someone reasoning from the principles of the Founders. I commend you on that. Good job.

            You mentioned Madison “I would be more proper to say that the necessity of Government is a misfortune. This necessity exists….”

            There is a basic view of human nature that is repeated throughout the writings of the Founders that must be taken into account in anything they say. Note the balance:

            “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” ?James Madison, Federalist 51

            As you know, a Republic is unique and has unique requirements if it is to last:

            Note this, from Spirit of Government by John Adams:

            “No government is perhaps reducible to a sole principle of operation. Where the theory approaches nearest to this character, different and often heterogeneous principles mingle their influence in the administration. It is useful nevertheless to analyze the several kinds of government, and to characterize them by the spirit which predominates in each.

            “Montesquieu has resolved the great operative principles of government into fear, honor, and virtue, applying the first to pure despotisms, the second to regular monarchies, and the third to republics.”

            The Founders were relentless to make that connection…that self government require, well, self government. A person had to control themselves–ie virtue, the very opposite of license.

            A virtuous man can be trusted with great liberty. Not so those who chafe at legitimate restraint such as the will of the majority.

            Its an awesome thing, and that is why RP is such a danger. In the name of what we hold dear, he strikes at the heart of it. As you said, he goes too far.

            And you are right…that does not mean he has evil designs on the rest of us, but simply that destruction follows what might be good intentions.

            Once destroyed, it matters little how we got there, by intent or ignorance…we are still in ruins.

            As for a practical matter…thanks to the genius of the Founders, we have checks on the President: the Constitution, the Legislature, the states, etc.

            So, for my money, thinking the POTUS will do it all is erroneous to begin with…lets make sure the chains are in place.

            God bless

            ?Let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.? –Thomas Jefferson

          • http://MichaelHarrington.org creinstein

            I missed a conversation about anarchist philosophies including anarcho capitalism :(

            I love to bash Minarchists and the likes.

            Sigh….

            Oh well rimshot joke

            The children gathered around the parents and said “we do not like being under authoritarian rule”… 10 spankings each later the children are much wiser to the limits of Minarchy, since the big will always overpower the small, the organized will overcome the unorganized and the wise will not listen to the fools.

        • Dave_A

          Is that he wants to use the organs of the existing state (or more properly, the intentional destruction of all said organs) to force it on all of us, like it or not…

          Everything in the Paul ‘plan’ is designed to bring about his ‘voluntary society’ by way of the forceful destruction of the existing system – that is the end to which the gold standard, unilateral disarmament, and the abolition of prohibitive law all lead: A meltdown, from which Paul believes will emerge his perfect utopian society.

  • deVere

    They are virtually elected monarchs for four years.

    The current one is of course not constitutionally eligible for the job, but by almost universal consensus we are not allowed to discuss that.

    His Democratic predecessor, Clinton, was almost certainly involved in a series of crimes, but all were covered up, many with substantial Republican assistance, and he remains popular to this day.

    We might as well resign ourselves to the fact that when we elect a President we are choosing an Emperor for four years. Choose wisely!

    • Sapient

      deVere

      Don’t give up hope my friend.
      The element of orderly change IS built into our Constitution and it requires what it always required:

      “If we keep together we shall be safe, and when error is so apparent as to become visible to the majority, they will correct it.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas W. Maury, 1816. ME 18:291

      Someone has to carry the word, to make the problems visible to the majority..thanks for being one of them.

      God speed

      If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. –Alexander Hamilton 1788 – Federalist No. 33

  • http://on.fb.me/m2lTY5 njiuma

    “Sadly, Ron Paul is not that person ? he?s just a nut onto whom people are projecting those qualities.”

    Ron Paul isn’t the only person supporting a gold backed dollar:

    Ronald Reagan did:

    “”I will bring back the gold standard”

    Newt Gingrich saw value in it:

    Speaking at a foreign policy forum in South Carolina on Tuesday, Gingrich advocated a ?commission on gold to look at the whole concept of how do we get back to hard money.?

    Milton Friedman: “A real gold standard is thoroughly consistent with [classical] liberal principles and I, for one, am entirely in favor of measures promoting its development.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvBCDS-y8vc

    The Founders preferred coin to printed money, and at the time that the Constitution was drafted had a Spanish $1 coin:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40MBdt1BQgE&feature=player_embedded

    I don’t understand the undue, harsh bashing of Ron Paul:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y3ErgqYAso

    Doesn’t make sense. He’s inspiring America’s youth to register, vote and join the Republican Party more than any Republican candidate, period. The Polls prove it – and youth are the future, whether they currently live in their parents’ basement or are graduating from Harvard with a six figure income – many are moving to Conservatism with a Constitutional Conservative Libertarian emphasis.

    And they’re participating in the system as Precinct Committeemen, District Chairmen, State Chairmen and are more politically active than any other Candidate’s Supporters.

    I say support the man.

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      You can say you like it, you can say you agree with it, but what you cannot say is it is Constitutional. Congress has the power to regulate the value of money. The gold standard is one way to do that. There are also many other ways. None is more Constitutional than the other.

      • http://MichaelHarrington.org creinstein

        Ron Paul may be inspiring some youth to join the Republican Party…

        But he is worse than half the people charged with multiple personaliti.

        He talks some good game, like auditing the Fed, but then he says a border fence with Mexico is to keep Americans inside!!!

        He can then go on about something else completely insane like how Iran should be allowed nukes…

        His insantiy has been shown to be contagious and we should put him in a hospital for the sake of the nation. Fortunately his son seems to have a form of immunity.

        So please Ron PaulBot understand… we share no loving for Ron here, we think he went off the deep end long ago, and that he is a racist and that he is a liar.

        When you understand evil will exist regardless of causation you will start to grow up.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          no-text

          • Sapient

            Re Churchill: The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

            YOU are exactly right ,and this is the reason we do not have a democracy but a republic…and they are vastly different in their design and intent. There is a reason we have electors, representatives, etc rather than straight choices: factions, mobs, social convulsions, etc are all part and parcel to a democracy.

            “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” –John Adams, letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814

            BEWARE those who insist this is not the case–ie that only government needs governing and not people.

            God bless

            Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. ?James Madison, Federalist 51

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            But that’s not the usage in the quote.

          • Sapient

            Night Twister

            The Founders talked at fairly great length about issues that had to do with factions–not government, but the dynamics of what happened in the body of citizens.

            There were great debates, for example, on how often elections should be held for the House—something we take for granted as 2 years…but it was a big deal then because they were trying to make the government responsive, but overly so in order to create stability and a society that was not swayed by every whim that came along. They deliberately blunted it.

            Now, re the “average voter” as you mentioned, there was also a reason we do not have direct elections, but electors. Again, this blunts precisely the issue you raise, yet still having the people speak.

            It was a fine tuning effort that simply boggles the mind.

            Now, one of the very big deals was that the States were to be represented by the Senate…not the people, but the subordinate governments. There was a reason for that design…and we have paid a price for undoing it.

            What would you say about repealing the 17th Amendment which all but cripples the 10th.

            Anyway…love the Churchill quote.

            God bless
            Out of intense complexities intense simplicities emerge. – Winston Churchill

    • Sapient

      njiuma

      Re: I support the man.

      Believe me, I understand what you are saying…RP has turned a lot of people, youth, and perhaps even you, to the political process. THAT is a good thing.

      Now, here is the problem you must come to grips with: RP is NOT what he purports to be, far from it.

      He hails from what is called voluntaryism…the anarchist, anarcho capitalist wing of the libertarian party that pushes, not for smaller and limited and constitutional government, but NO GOVERNMENT and he couches his arguments in the language of the Constitution and “liberty.”

      He has been outed…not by his enemies, but by his fellows.

      Now, if you are a patriotic American, you understand just how precious, near sacred, the words “We the people” are in our Foundational documents. Do you believe that?

      Well, how about this, right from the voluntaryist’s mouth. Note that they are discussing the video “Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist” and whether now that it has been produced ,whether it will hurt his campaign. The producer is a man named Graham Wright, so he is being addressed:

      “Graham, I think it’s highly likely that it would damage his campaign temporarily. But in all reality, he’s got to “come out of the closet” sometime, or else all he’s done is spawned a bunch of “We the People!” types, which is still antithetical to Paul’s ideal society. I have said in the past before that if he did come out as an an-cap (anarcho capitalist) that it would isolate a good portion of his fan base. But at the same time, if hangs onto it all the way to the grave, we’d probably wind up with fewer an-caps in total.”

      So, if you are a “We the people type” like the Founders and the rest of us, then understand that YOU are antithetical to RP’s actual vision…which, BTW was mentioned in the caption of the film:

      ?In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State.? –Graham Wright, Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist.

      Does this concern you? Its on the Mises Institute website, founded and ceo’d by RP’s ex chief of staff Lew Rockwell.

      What awaits you…well, here it is:

      “I agree that Ron Paul’s role is as an educator. He gets people interested in libertarianism and then turns people onto the Mises Institute. If you took a poll here on this message board, I’d bet that 50+% of the people first heard of this place through Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign. Changing somebody into a voluntaryist is a gradual thing and it’s something that’s probably easier to glide into rather than jump into. So I think you’re right. But there comes a point where you reach critical mass and Ron Paul has appealed to all of the people who are serious thinkers and at that point he can drop the anarchist bomb on his fans.”

      Now, the question is: you are either good with all that and you will try to explain it all away, or you just heard, ie the bomb was dropped on you, and you will run from this guy like he has the plague. Your call…but there is no middle ground here because now you know.

      BTW: the Founders knew of what he espouses, and told us very clearly where it leads. See if THIS is what you really want for our nation:

      “There is a natural and necessary progression from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness.” — George Washington Maxims

      God bless

      • deVere

        Voluntarism is utopian, but not coercive. A voluntarist could only harm you by neglecting his duty to protect you. And voluntarists want you to agree with them voluntarily.

        Voluntarism does suggest a person who would hesitate to use coercion against enemies of the United States, and so would be unsuited to the job of President.

        Throughout history large numbers of people have appreciated government that was hideously despotic, but also effective in providing protection from foreign enemies. One striking example is Vlad the Impaler, also known as Dracula, who despite his hideous brutality is still to this day considered a Romanian national hero.

        Right now we have the worst of all worlds: a President who is despotic towards Americans and weak toward external enemies. I’m not sure that Ron Paul would be worse, but surely we should try to do better.

        While electing Ron Paul President would be a bad idea, the hatred of Ron Paul expressed on this website is very overdone and politically unwise.

        • Sapient

          The problem is that they do not stay “lone” voluntaryists. They unite, like the OWS, and then they are manipulated with outside forces, like OWS.

          Voluntaryism is chaos and it is our very liberty that is being undermined by it. It leads somewhere, and not a good place.

          God bless

    • Dave_A

      First off, gold is naturally deflationary – that is it will continue to increase in value – barring a sudden & trend-breaking discovery of new gold ore – regardless of what any other commodities and or currencies do. The reason for this, is that there is an increasing world population, and a decreasing output of the world’s gold mines.

      Second, the entire concept of ‘hard’ (non-inflating) money only works in a society that does not bank or borrow – something on order of medieval Europe. In a society such as the US, where credit is the primary means of finance both for business & individual economic activity, hard money is an economic death sentence, as it chokes off credit & prevents growth.

      Third, the market-value of gold is highly volitile and operates independent of any one national economy. This means that the stability and value of US currency would depend on world gold demand, not the strength of the US economy and supply of circulating US dollars, as it does now. A recession in Europe could send gold prices up, and create deflation in the US for the duration. When that recession ends and the associated gold-bubble pops, we’d have sudden inflation…

      Oh, and before someone says ‘It’s not the value of gold changing, it’s the value of the money’ – BULL! If it were the value of money that had changed, you’d see an essentially equal rise in the price of everything on the market! However, that is not what happened – most prices stayed stable, while gold more than doubled – indicating that it was a spike in demand for gold, not inflation, causing the record-high price. If our dollar had been linked to gold, our economy would be DONE right now (200% deflation is not survivable), instead of experiencing a mild recession….

      • Sapient

        Dave

        Good points

        And don’t forget the Forex market–ie Foreign Exchange…most currencies are also valued against each other.

        God bless

  • deVere

    http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-maine-caucuses-gop-takeover-2012-2

    Romney backers commit fraud, and Paul backers take over the state party. In how many more states will this pattern repeat?

    • Dave_A

      Of the paulbots….

  • Pingback: Feed In Tariff Uk | Photovoltaic Panels UK