Ron Paul and the Future of American Foreign Policy
The Paul-haters won’t succeed
“Between government in the republican meaning, that is, constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other, or one will destroy the other. That we know. Yet never has the choice been put to a vote of the people.”
Garet Garrett had been an editor of the Saturday Evening Post, a financial writer for the New York Times, a renowned author and journalist of the “roaring Twenties,” an intransigent opponent of the New Deal, and sometime novelist: his career spanned the era of Coolidge, Hoover, FDR, and Truman. In those days his was the voice of mainstream conservatism, albeit of a sort alien to the Newt Gingriches and Charles Krauthammers of this world, and he wrote the above cited words just as the US was embarking on its postwar crusade to save the world from Communism.
He had lived through the previous holy war against the Axis powers, witnessed the demise of the Old America and the rise of the Welfare-Warfare State, and saw – even then – that the country would face ruination if the crusading spirit prevailed over the need for self-preservation. He saw what would happen if we acquired an empire and sought to remake the world in our image. He annoyed his fellow libertarian, the novelist and ideologue Rose Wilder Lane, with his “keening” note of pessimism, which mourned “a world forever lost.” Lane was sure the “world revolution” of freedom was coming, yet in those dark days when the spirit of freedom was seemingly forgotten it looked as if her friend Garrett was right.
Garrett died in 1954, a few years after the publication of his prescient essay: Rose followed him in 1968. Neither got to see the rise of a movement that would take the former’s insights and the latter’s optimism and forge a new path – and a new hope – for lovers of liberty. But I like to think they are still hovering over us, delighted at the success of their intellectual heirs, who today call themselves libertarians. No doubt they are buoyed by the success of presidential candidate Ron Paul, whose thrilling ascent in Iowa and beyond is redeeming Lane’s optimism – and Garrett’s hope – that the choice between empire and our old republic will – finally – be put to a vote of the people.
Paul’s success – he is currently the frontrunner in Iowa, although the “mainstream” media is doing its best to downplay the numbers – has provoked an outburst of hysteria and pure hate from the War Party. Iowa, they declare, will be rendered “irrelevant” if Paul wins: Joe McQuaid, the bombastic editor of the neocon Union-Leader, rants that “Ron Paul is a dangerous man.” How is that? Well, you see, Paul agrees with the overwhelming majority of Americans who don’t think the Iraq war – which McQuaid and his tabloid supported – was worth the costs in lives and taxpayer dollars. Paul’s anti-interventionist foreign policy views, says the would-be New Hampshire kingmaker, “have been largely overlooked by a news media more interested in the presidential ‘horse race’ than in the candidates’ positions on issues.”
McQuaid is getting on in years, and so probably doesn’t get out much: while he is railing about the media’s inattention to what he considers to be Paul’s mortal sin, virtually every article assessing Paul’s chances since the beginning of the campaign season has harped on precisely this theme. Paul’s appeal is necessarily “limited” due to this: there is a “ceiling” on his support, they aver. As he began to climb in the polls, and this “ceiling” began to lift, the punditocracy declared that Iowa is passé, irrelevant, and an archaic tradition which ought to be ignored from now on by Those In The Know: Gail Collins gave voice to the New York-Washington axis when she sniffed that we ought to “feel free to ignore Iowa,” because “in some rural districts, the entire caucus will consist of one guy named Earl.” That she wouldn’t dare say that if Earl lived in, say, the Bedford Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn – where plenty of Earls reside, to be sure – underscores the bigotries our elites allow themselves, these days. In the world of Ms. Collins, some Earls are more equal than others.
The alleged dissonance between Paul’s anti-interventionism and the frothy-mouthed militarism that has been Republican gospel ever since Robert Taft was cheated out of the GOP presidential nomination by the party’s Wall Street wing – (see Phyllis Schlafly’s classic A Choice, Not An Echo, p. 52, for a recap of the Eastern Establishment coup) – has been the constant theme of these pieces, written by youngsters with no understanding or knowledge of history. The one exception, oddly, was John Nichols in The Nation, a liberal-progressive periodical not known for its devotion to libertarianism, who recalled the history of the Old Right in his perceptive piece about the intellectual roots of the Paul campaign. McQuaid, for his part, neither knows nor cares about the history of the conservative movement he presumes to advise: he gets his “conservative” gospel from other sources. He cites Dorothy Rabinowitz’s darkly threatening characterization of Paul as “the best-known of our homegrown propagandists for our chief enemies in the world. One who has made himself a leading spokesman for, and recycler of, the long and familiar litany of charges that point to the United States as a leading agent of evil and injustice, the militarist victimizer of millions who want only to live in peace.”
He left out the part about Paul being a “propagandist for our enemies,” perhaps because it was too much even for him. To the Rabinowitzes of this world – and the Gingriches, the Santorums, the Bachmanns, and the rest of that crazed crew – falls the solemn responsibility of determining the Enemy of the moment. Debate is limited, on this subject, to the question of which Enemy ought to be targeted at this particular point in time. Paul has broken this rule, and allowed that the main enemy – for those who want to limit the power of government, cut $1 trillion dollars from the budget, and emerge out of our economic morass – is in Washington, D.C., not Tehran.
This is literally treason in Rabinowitz’s book, but then again that slim volume only contains several variations on a single theme: anyone who criticizes the regime of war and the constant erosion of our civil liberties is lacking in patriotism, and is quite possibly a “traitor,” a “fifth columnist,” a secret plotter against America and the supporter of its enemies – her enemies. In person – or, at least, on television – her bile is more acidic: here she compares Paul to Hitler and Mussolini while a panel of nattering neocons eggs her on.
One wonders what holds Rabinowitz back from calling for Paul’s arrest as an “enemy combatant” – such restraint goes against the grain of her personal style. It is a style that has long since gone out of style, an echo of the bad old days of the Bush era, when the smoke had hardly cleared from the skies over Manhattan, and the country trembled at the commanding tone of the neocons as they accused war critics – “the decadent left in its enclaves on the coasts,” as neocon tool Andrew Sullivan put it – of wanting to “mount a fifth column.”
One of the most expected – and most welcome – developments of the primary campaign so far, from my perspective, has been Sullivan’s withdrawal of his endorsement of Rep. Paul, after pressure from his friends on the Washington-New York cocktail party circuit and outraged emails from his dwindling fan club of gay waiters and sad young women who love only their cats. It’s funny how everyone is howling that Paul must actively denounce and cast out any support from some white supremacist no one has ever heard of, but not a peep about the odiousness of an endorsement from someone who advocated, at the height of the post-9/11 hysteria, the launching of a nuclear attack on Iraq. Oh well, each to their own moral priorities.
Rabinowitz and McQuaid and the rest of the hate-mongers, who come up with a fresh Enemy every time we knock off the old one, or tire of the task, know who their real enemy is – and it isn’t the President of Iran, or the Communist Party of China. It’s those patriotic Americans who believe we ought to be putting the interests of Americans first – and that the empire is an albatross hung around our necks. It’s the one-third of veterans who, according to a recent poll, think the Iraq war wasn’t worth it: it’s the majority of the American people who think we ought to pursue a policy of “minding our own business” abroad – these are the enemies Rabinowitz rails against. Paul is just a stand-in for the great Outer Wilderness that exists – so some say – outside the Washington-New York axis of power. That the great unwashed masses beyond this perimeter don’t share the obsessions tormenting the Upper West Side of Manhattan and the Georgetown cocktail party circuit has been of little concern to Dorothy and her friends, the Cowardly Lions of the chickenhawk brigade and the Tin Woodsman a.k.a. Mitt Romney. Along with the scarecrows of the Fox News commentariat, together they’ve been marching down the yellow-brick road to war with Iran with nary an opponent to vilify. Suddenly they find themselves confronted by one who combines all their fears in a single convenient package: anti-interventionism (which they call “isolationism”), anti-elitism, and a well-organized and ideologically coherent movement targeting not only “big government” but the big financial interests, centered in New York, who profit from a system based on government debt.
The American empire – indeed, the entire colossus that is our bloated federal government – could not exist a single day without enslaving the American people to the demon of debt. The obvious beneficiaries [.pdf] are those collecting the interest on that debt – the big financial institutions that buy and sell US government securities. They finance the wars, they profit from government spending, and this is the essence of the real issue of “crony capitalism” some of the lesser Republican presidential candidates babble about without understanding or acknowledging that it isn’t just Solyndra. That’s small change compared to the massive theft being pulled off by the Federal Reserve as it inflates away our savings and enriches the few.
How do we pay for our overseas empire? The same way we pay for our burgeoning welfare state: by monetizing the debt, i.e. degrading the currency by creating “money” out of thin air, and inflating the bubble until it bursts again. This has been Paul’s issue from the beginning, and it’s a powerful one: it has substantially shaped the political discourse, with the other candidates forced to jump on board the anti-Fed bandwagon.
This is the Ron Paul Effect, and it has Dorothy and the War Street Journal running scared. Here is a conservative populist who is challenging their power, and in the very redoubt of neoconservative orthodoxy, the GOP! They who have always lived in fear of the rest of the country – in fear of the day those peasants with pitchforks gather in the streets below and yank them out of their Manhattan towers – are seeing in Paul their worst nightmare come true. That accounts for the spittle on Rabinowitz’s cruel lips as she likens a gentle country doctor to the architect of the Holocaust.
It won’t be long now before we hear baseless charges of “racism” and “extremism” supplemented by an overarching explanation for the Paulian phenomenon that echoes the clichéd “sociological” analysis of the neocons Richard Hofstadter and Seymour Martin Lipset, whose characterization of “pseudo-conservatism” as “status resentment” and “the paranoid style” given political form was an all-purpose smear, to be trotted out when liberal commentators were forced into discussions of conservatism. Conservatism, in this view, isn’t an ideology so much as a mental affliction: Hofstadter and Co. were merely popularizing the Marxist theories of Theodore Adorno and the “Frankfurt School,” who opined that opposition to FDR and the New Deal was evidence of a “father complex,” the touchstone of “the authoritarian personality.” Similar psycho-smears are deployed against Paul, who is said by his enemies to be a “crazy old uncle,” “a crazy old codger,” and a “crank,” with neocon professional prig and “movie critic” Michael Medved calling him “Dr. Demento.” This is the level of the “debate” the neocons want: prove you’re not a crazy old Nazi!
The New York Times has collected and codified the “paranoid style” campaign against Paul, essentially stealing (with only minimal attribution) the “analysis” of Dave Weigel and Julian Sanchez, who inveighed against Paul’s “right-wing populism” in the pages of Reason magazine. In that essay, they charged that Paul has deliberately cultivated racists and other even less reputable elements while under the influence of his ideological Svengali, the libertarian theorist Murray N. Rothbard. The Times piece tries to link the good Doctor to one self-proclaimed neo-Nazi, who runs a racist web site – coincidentally the same person who was linked by the media to the Republicans in the infamous battle for Broward county, Florida, where disputes over ballot-counting escalated to the level of physical confrontations. Or not so coincidentally, as the case may be. In any case, the Times writer soon turns to the “right-wing populist” theory first floated by the anti-Paul tag team of Weigel and Sanchez, which is supposed to account for the racists and other troglodytes who are supposedly rallying to Paul’s banner. Weigel-Sanchez characterize this populist strategy as based on “racism,” and they present the following timeline:
“During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist “paleoconservatives,” producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic.”
What was it about that period – roughly 1989 to 1994 – that stands out in one’s mind? If you’re a foreign policy analyst, or even if you’re just an ordinary educated person, what it recalls is the downing of the Berlin Wall and the implosion of the Soviet empire. This, and not some mythical appeal to the followers of David Duke, was the impetus for the “right-wing populist” strategy. Weigel and Sanchez cite as their source Rothbard’s 1992 speech to the John Randolph Club, but fail to provide a link – leaving their readers to the interpretive mercies of these two mendacious authors. These two turncoats are liars plain and simple, for the speech, delivered before a group of writers and activists who represented both the libertarian and conservative strains of the emerging “paleo” coalition, was a passionate appeal for unity now that the greatest cause of their previous separation – the cold war – was over. It was a call for the conservative movement to return to its anti-imperialist Old Right roots:
“What I call the Old Right is suddenly back! The terms old and new inevitably get confusing, with a new ‘new’ every few years, so let’s call it the ‘Original’ Right, the right wing as it existed from 1933 to approximately 1955. This Old Right was formed in reaction against the New Deal, and against the Great Leap Forward into the Leviathan state that was the essence of that New Deal.
“… The most radical view of the New Deal was that of libertarian essayist and novelist Garet Garrett, an editor of the Saturday Evening Post. His brilliant little pamphlet The Revolution Was, published in 1938, began with these penetrating words – words that would never be fully absorbed by the right:
“’There are those who still think they are holding a pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the night of depression, singing songs to freedom.’
“The revolution was, said Garrett, and therefore nothing less than a counterrevolution is needed to take the country back. Behold, then, not a ‘conservative,’ but a radical right.
“In the late 1930s, there was added to this reaction against the domestic New Deal, a reaction against the foreign policy of the New Deal: the insistent drive toward war in Europe and Asia. Hence, the right wing added a reaction against big government abroad to the attack on big government at home. The one fed on the other. The right wing called for non-intervention in foreign as well as domestic affairs, and denounced FDR’s adoption of Woodrow Wilson’s Global Crusading which had proved so disastrous in World War I. To Wilson-Roosevelt globalism, the Old Right countered with a policy of America First. American foreign policy must neither be based on the interests of a foreign power – such as Great Britain – nor be in the service of such abstract ideals as ‘making the world safe for democracy,’ or waging a ‘war to end all wars,’ both of which would amount, in the prophetic words of Charles A. Beard, to waging ‘perpetual war for perpetual peace.’”
Racism? “Exploitation of class and race resentment”? There is none of that here: go and see for yourself. David Duke gets a mention in passing. Joe McCarthy is praised for his anti-elitism, populist appeal, and instinct that the main danger to liberty is right here at home, while Rothbard notes ruefully that the militant anti-Communism of the McCarthyites was soon transmuted into a militant foreign policy that nearly plunged us into a nuclear showdown with the Soviets.
With communism out of the way, however, conservatives could unite with libertarians to get rid the last vestiges of leftism: for while the Bolsheviks were defeated, to Rothbard’s great joy, their Menshevik cousins were in power in every Western country, including the United States. At the end, he conjures up a vision of a world eerily descriptive of the hysteria surrounding Paul’s rise in the polls:
“Social democracy is still here in all its variants, defining our entire respectable political spectrum, from advanced victimology and feminism on the left over to neoconservatism on the right. We are now trapped, in America, inside a Menshevik fantasy, with the narrow bounds of respectable debate set for us by various brands of Marxists. It is now our task, the task of the resurgent right, of the paleo movement, to break those bonds, to finish the job, to finish off Marxism forever.”
This is precisely the task Paul has set for himself, and in the process he is creating – or, rather, recreating – a conservatism that is anti-war, anti-elitist, and anti-corporatist to the bone. This has the neocons fighting mad, but there is very little they can do about it except attach themselves to Romney, the Establishment candidate, and hope the peasants with pitchforks can be smeared out of existence.
We are, indeed, trapped inside a Menshevik nightmare world, in which peace is demonized as “appeasement” and the uniquely American antipathy to the exercise of arbitrary government power is deemed “unpatriotic.” Paul, it seems, has found the trap door out, however, and it looks like many of his fellow citizens are pouring through the breach. – much to the horror of our arrogant elites, who don’t recall authorizing any such movement.
Note the sheer breadth of the Anti-Paul Popular Front, extending all the way from the Beltway “libertarians” of the Weigel-Sanchez-“cosmotarian” school to the Union Leader, the War Street Journal, and the identity-politics lefties who think Rachel Maddow is a real “radical.” At the core of the smear campaign, you’ll note, are our old friends the neocons: the self-proclaimed “homosexual warrior” Jamie Kirchick, who effortlessly wafted from The New Republic to Radio Free Europe and thence to the extremist edges of the neocon movement inhabited by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. The latest “rediscovery” of the infamous newsletters was prompted by a rehash published in Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard, who is still hoping that David Petraeus or some general on a white horse will come riding in to save the GOP from Paul.
This is a classic neocon smear operation, and it has only just begun. Before long, we’ll be treated to endless elaborations of the New York Times-Weigel-Sanchez “analysis,” which will no doubt bring in all the familiar demons that haunt the nightmares of our elites: no smear campaign involving the alleged “evils” of right-wing populism is complete without invoking the specters of Father Coughlin, the German-American Bund, and the allegedly pro-Nazi sympathies of the old American First Committee, the biggest antiwar movement in American history and one that was mercilessly smeared by the left and actively persecuted the US government. And, of course, as Ms. Rabinowitz proved, the inevitable comparison to Hitler – because in Bizarro World, don’t you know, the peacemakers are Hitlerites and the war-makers are the Good Guys.
This campaign will fail: indeed, it is already failing. Nobody is buying it. That’s because the people are tired of our arrogant, self-satisfied elites, who think they can determine the outcome of an election before a single ballot is counted. The more they say “but of course he can’t win,” the more the average person wonders: isn’t that our decision to make?
I can’t help feeling gleeful. The old paradigm that Republicans are invariably – genetically – warmongers is coming apart at the seams, and the War Party is livid. Well, that’s tough, but all good rackets must come to an end, especially when the sheep discover to what extent they’ve been fleeced.
It’s the thrill of a lifetime to see the neocons in such a frothy-mouthed lather: they are calling Paul a hater, but they are the ones exuding hate from every pore. And the people can smell it as it stinks up the political atmosphere, poisoning the election and obscuring the issues they care about. That’s why the haters can’t touch Paul, and won’t touch him with their vicious tactics – although I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if their accusations of “racism” and worse inspire violence against Paul’s followers and possibly even against the candidate himself. Which is why I hope and pray Paul has some good security in place, because he represents the last chance we have to change American foreign policy before we’re all dragged down by the impending collapse of the American empire.
Read more by Justin Raimondo
- The Ron Paul Precedent – January 5th, 2012
- Meanwhile, in the Persian Gulf… – January 3rd, 2012
- ‘Egypt the Prize’ – January 1st, 2012
- Predictions for 2012 – December 27th, 2011
- Our Last Christmas in the Old America – December 25th, 2011
skulz fontaine
December 29th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
(Much whistling and thunderous applause) Bravo Mr. Raimondo and well said. Ummm, would it be too much to suggest that New Yawk and Babylon-On-The-Potomac be expelled from the Union?
RickR30
December 29th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Well, things are coming into place. "Kelly Clarkson Endorses Ron Paul" "I love Ron Paul. I liked him a lot during the last Republican nomination and no one gave him a chance…" As expected- "When Clarkson's Twitter followers accused the politician, 76, of racism and homophobia, the singer was forced to clarify her endorsement." But she didn't recant. Now lets get some more celebrities for Ron Paul.
celebs4truth.com
December 29th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
Help this pro-Ron Paul, Denver Conspiracy Examiner article go totally viral! Help Ron Paul get elected! Send it out on all the social media networks! “Support the troops by supporting Ron Paul” http://www.examiner.com/conspiracy-in-denver/supp…
sherban
December 30th, 2011 at 1:05 am
I admire Justin Raimondo,he is a real knower of history and politics.To his level have to aspire every one who is going to vote.I admire his patience to explain everything and its origins.I think that American people deserved to receive Nobel prize for peace because elected Obama.But Obama didn't fulfill the hopes which he inspired.Mr.Paul seems to be now the only hope for a real change.Mr.Paul gave an interview to Haaretz and explains his position regarding Israel.He was logic and right on every answer except only one:he believe that Israel has the right to bomb Iran being threatened by that.He sees that Israel has the right to do it without the approval of US.For me this is a big mistake:Israel has not a bit of right to attack Iranand what Mr.Paul consider as just for his county-namely non intervention-should be right for Israel also.And i mean real non intervention,non by money,sabotages,assassination etc.
Ron Paul and the Future of American Foreign Policy – Antiwar.com | PAULitics.US – Wake Up America
December 30th, 2011 at 2:49 am
[...] Ron Paul and the Future of American Foreign Policy – Antiwar.com Posted in Ron Paul | Tags: choice, choice-between, future, rabinowitz, ron paul, success, the-success /* [...]
wisdomdancer
December 30th, 2011 at 4:39 am
Good column, Justin. Thanks.
Blaine Knapp
December 30th, 2011 at 5:00 am
Great article Mr. Raimondo
@MarkStoval
December 30th, 2011 at 5:22 am
Justin, great essay.
Someday when you have time, I think you should go a little deeper into the history and beliefs of the "Taft Republicans" and how mainstream they were in the party in their day.
Thanks for all you do.
liveload
December 30th, 2011 at 5:28 am
Kill the Fed and take away their printing presses. Return the creation of money to the Government or else the bankers will buy the entire world right back from under you and you'll be right back to square one. For example, 100% of the income taxes on our wages and labor goes to paying interest. We are working every day to enslave not only ourselves but the rest of the world to these Fascist Banksters. It has to stop. Kill the cancer at its source.
RyanSmurfy
December 30th, 2011 at 5:32 am
Wishful thinking. Unfortunately, the neocon and mainstream have successfully used the bogus racism smears to buttress their bandwagon fallacy that Ron Paul is unelectable. Hopefully, Paul has figured out how to leverage his large following to gain some military spending and foreign policy commitments from Romney or Obama, in return for his support in the general election. If Paul cannot get believable commitments, I hope he runs an independent presidential campaign designed to build a long-term broad-based peace movement. Unfortunately, Paul's potential power in 2012 is a kingmaker, not a president.
john
December 30th, 2011 at 6:31 am
It's time for those who continually criticize Washington, those who say there is not a lick of difference between the two parties, and demand we throw all the bums out, to step forward to walk the walk by supporting Ron Paul. It's either Ron Paul or the same old stuff: An interventionsist foreign policy and reductionof liberties at home.
Donna
December 30th, 2011 at 7:31 am
Excellent piece Justin.
(Wouldn't it be refreshing to have a President elected without pledging loyalty to Israel?
Hell, we might even get out country back.)
Ron Paul 2012. I just hope we have the chance to get there…
Truthinesshero
December 30th, 2011 at 8:24 am
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/paul-se…
Many supporters of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul may be surprised to learn that the Texas Republican is not as anti-war as they think.
Paul senior adviser Doug Wead on Wednesday dismissed the idea that the candidate was to the left of President Barack Obama when it comes to war.
"I totally disagree with that idea that he is to the left or the right," Wead told Fox News host Megyn Kelly. "He's pro-Constitution. He's in favor of taking the idea of war — he's not against war."
"He was the only public figure in 1981 to stand up and defend Israel's right to defend herself and take out those Iraqi nuclear facilities," he added. "He's not against war. He's in favor of going to the U.S. Congress — as the Constitution says — and debating it, committing to war, getting in, winning it and then getting out."
"He's against these endless wars that happen at a whim because somebody believes that someone is a threat to the United States."
San Fernando Curt
December 30th, 2011 at 8:34 am
Either they can't figure it out, or the Israel Lobby won't let them, but the other candidates should realize one of Rep. Paul's most popular proposals is that we refuse to make war on Iran. They fall over themselves promising to bomb the mullahs, and wonder why their polling falls off a cliff. In our lap-doggie media, desperation to squash Paul has turned hysterical; I can't remember anything this publicly, politically funny since Ted Kennedy's preening rooster act at the 1980 convention. The racism charge? Racism/schmacism. The term has been used so often and cheaply it's meaningless. Racism is one or more honkie Gentiles waking up in the morning.
RickR30
December 30th, 2011 at 9:46 am
It's sickening, but when these buffoon candidates speak to an audience of 10 or 10000 Americans all they see is a bunch of zionists and their media henchmen. Every time they open their filthy mouths it's to appease and please a handful of foreigners and traitors, who aren't even going to vote for them. Never mind that they are running for the office of President of the United States of America, they are running as if the price is becoming netenyahoo's lap chihuahua.
Generalissimo X
December 30th, 2011 at 10:04 am
there's a great scene in "for whom the bell tolls" when the people reclaim their town and literally drive the facists off a cliff. if they don't go of their own accord, they were thrown over. i hope a similar fate awaits the rabinowitzes (zioinist pig) and the mcquaids of the world. these people, along with the gov't have in essence declared war on the american citizen and openly support their allegiance with tyranny. there can be no tolerance of those who do not put liberty above all else. these pigs are the ones who would gladly put us in camps, render us without trial and enable the gov't to do despicable things to us all. hell they are doing it. channelng my inner travis bickle: one day a real rain is gonna fall….one day.
Fibr Dog
December 30th, 2011 at 11:05 am
The American people of all political persuasions are going to have to decide what is most important to them, their civil liberties at home or their desire to murder Muslims and conquer and control others abroad. There is only ONE person in both parties running for president who is concerned with civil liberties and that is Dr. Ron Paul. The rest support the police state and in fact most of the Republican candidates claim that the police state legislation that's been passed is not enough.
The two party fraud and its political machine will not stop passing police state legislation until they feel safe. The problem is they know that their behavior is immoral, wrong, and unconstitutional in so many areas that they will never feel safe. They also know that in a land of more than 300 million people it is only a matter of time until a group of people begin fighting back and they begin dying. It is inevitable. THIS is why they are passing police state legislation. They even admit it. Since they do not know who the "domestic terrorists" are, EVERYONE is a domestic terrorist! You already see an example of this type of thinking with the police who believe that citizens are nothing more than criminals who haven't been caught yet.
It is true that Dr. Paul cannot walk into the presidency and make changes as if he is a dictator but there is a heck of a lot he can do to fight back. He will have the presidential bully pulpit. He will have the ability to put like-minded people into positions of authority such as his cabinet and federal judges. He can fill the government with like-minded political appointees. Personally I think the United States could use four plus years of people like Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano running things.
Rich
December 30th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
If you think Ron Paul will shed a lifetime of commitment and integrity to support either warmonger fascistic pretender, I think you completely misunderstand the subject matter.
Rich
December 30th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Let's throw the criminals off teh cliff and get on with life.
andy
December 30th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Ron Paul is the only candidate who isn't funded by the military-industrial complex. All the other candidates are owned by them.
Phil Giraldi
December 30th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Wead is a GWB retread who was hired as senior consultant by the Paul campaign to manage outreach to evangelicals. His reference to Israel is meant to do just that, but it does not mean he supported the Israeli action. Paul said at the time of the Israeli attack on Iraq that it was up to Israel to do what it thought necessary in its own defense. Meaning it is up to every country to make that decision without interference from the United States (or help from the United States). It seems a sensible policy to me. Paul is indeed no pacifist. He served in the US Air Force and supported the US attack on Afghanistan in late 2001 but wanted a declaration of war to make it legal according to the constitution.
RyanSmurfy
December 30th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
"I believe I’m the only candidate who would allow Israel to take immediate action to defend herself without having to get our approval. Israel should be free to take whatever steps she deems necessary to protect her national security and sovereignty." — Ron Paul, in Haaretz.
He's already compromised his consistency in Haaretz by giving Israel the green light to blow up Iran and start WW3. But Paul's candidacy isn't about him shedding "a lifetime of commitment and integrity to support either warmonger fascistic pretender," it's mostly about shifting America from an imperialist war economy to a productive peace economy and defending the Bill of Rights. Unless Paul wins the election, the only way he can influence America's policy is by negotiating with one of the two opportunists from a position of strength. If Paul has any integrity to the peace movement and Bill of Rights, and if his views are consistent, he will continue fight for all he can get.
ANU News.net Ron Paul and the Future of American Foreign Policy
December 30th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
[...] How do we pay for our overseas empire? The same way we pay for our burgeoning welfare state: by monetizing the debt, i.e. degrading the currency by creating “money” out of thin air, and inflating the bubble until it bursts again. This has been Paul’s issue from the beginning, and it’s a powerful one: it has substantially shaped the political discourse, with the other candidates forced to jump on board the anti-Fed bandwagon. This is the Ron Paul Effect, and it has Dorothy and the War Street Journal running scared. Here is a conservative populist who is challenging their power, and in the very redoubt of neoconservative orthodoxy, the GOP! They who have always lived in fear of the rest of the country – in fear of the day those peasants with pitchforks gather in the streets below and yank them out of their Manhattan towers – are seeing in Paul their worst nightmare come true. That accounts for the spittle on Rabinowitz’s cruel lips as she likens a gentle country doctor to the architect of the Holocaust. http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/12/29/ron-paul-and-the-future-of-american-foreign-policy/ [...]
liveload
December 30th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
Indeed. Dr. Paul is correct. Israel can do whatever the hell it wants, we're not paying for it or supporting it anymore, that's the key. I've also heard that Dr. Paul was initially against signing off on Afghanistan, it was only a threatened mutiny amongst his staff that forced his hand. He's not against war but I guarantee you that when he ends The Fed and takes back the power to print money, the wars and a whole host of other bad things will end. The only war that can happen afterwards that we need to give a damn about is if someone's military tries to invade the USA. or nuke us He knows this, people who understand how this fascist system works understand this. You're average dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks American doesn't get it. All they want to hear is the "feel good" stuff that gives them the warm fuzzies and fills that Jesus shaped hole in their hearts. If he can grab their attention long enough to win this thing, we'll all be better for it…even the sheeple who all of a sudden wake up to a better world and don't understand a single thing about how we got there. As long as we get there, it's all good.
jgmoebus
December 30th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
liveload wrote: "…I guarantee you that when he ends The Fed and takes back the power to print money, the wars and a whole host of other bad things will end."
Exactly by what method and mechanism does Dr Paul propose to "End The Fed"?
By an Act of Congress? WHICH Congress is going to Act in this way? The one coming in in 2012? How many End-The-Fedders" are running for office? Any?
By Executive Order? And exactly HOW will he enforce this Executive Order? By surrounding the Federal Reserve Banks with federal troops?
It sounds good but is, in the absence of an actual overthrow of The Fourth Reich, it is little but feel-good noise.
The REAL QUESTION is simply this: HOW is The Fourth Reich to be confronted, combated, defeated, and destroyed? It's really just that simple.
jgmoebus
December 30th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
Fibr Dog wrote: "…He (Paul as President) will have the presidential bully pulpit. He will have the ability to put like-minded people into positions of authority such as his cabinet and federal judges. He can fill the government with like-minded political appointees."
Hate to confuse you with the facts, Fibr Dog, but Dr Paul will most definitely NOT be able "put like-minded people into positions of authority such as his cabinet and federal judges." Not without the Advice and Consent of The Senate.
"Under the United States Constitution and law of the United States, certain federal positions appointed by the president of the United States require confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate. These positions are referred to as presidential appointment with Senate confirmation (PAS). For a complete list of PAS positions, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_positions_fi…
liveload
December 30th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
What mechanism was used to create abominations such as The Fed and the IRS? How did Congress act against the Supreme Court that stated years before the IRS was even created that the 16th Amendment does NOT give the Government any new powers of taxation? By what Constitutional Authority did Congress delegate to a Private Banking Cartel its power to create money? Did you bother to look up who Congressman Aldrich's spawn married? The whole thing is a sham designed to hand all the power over to the frightened rich old white boys who couldn't stand to actually participate in capitalism because they could LOSE. Don't forget this was the same era that saw the rise of communism and labor unions. ANYTHING that threatens the scared rich white boys gets money thrown at it to make it go away. The power was handed to them and they will not give it up easily. I honestly don't know if it is possible for just Ron Paul to do it all by himself. He WILL need the support of the people. If we can get Ron into office (unlikely) then we might be able to put some serious pressure on Congress to pay attention. We have shown through the Arab Spring and OWS movements that THEY FEAR US, but only when there's millions of us really pissed off and ON MESSAGE. There's not much else I can tell you right now because I'm drunk as f-ck and honestly don't feel like doing anymore today. I've worn myself out screaming about this crap. Thanks for sticking with it. BTW Look up Mossadegh, Lumumba, and Allende. That's old stuff, so there's good documentation, especially Kinzer's works on Mossadegh. I know people that were there and they lean towards Kinzer as being the most correct. If you want something more recent, just look at Nuri Al-Maliki and what's happened in Iraq since Combat Boots Bremer ran the show.
jgmoebus
December 30th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
The same mechanisms used to create the Fed and IRS — and each, all, and every other manifestation of The Fourth Reich — will NOT work to destroy them. Or it.
It's time to stop "screaming," liveload, and start thinking aboiut WHAT IS TO BE DONE.
This website and kindred ones on the Right and the Left are full of Screamers, but not many people who are making serious efforts at thinking about and coming up with tactics and strategies, and methods and means to Confront, Combat, Defeat, and Destroy The Fourth Reich.
Because THAT is the task at hand. If that is not done, then NOTHING will happen and nothing will change, except that things will get worse.
liveload
December 30th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
The point is without someone at the helm who even acknowledges the real problems, there is absolutely no hope whatsoever. I'm wiling to take a chance on a man who actually see's straight and talks straight over the steady stream of complete idiots we've gotten. I'm no constitutional scholar, but when the lower courts don't accept Supreme Court decisions in income tax cases, you know something's got to change. Put the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights next to the IRS tax code and see which one is meant to be helpful and which one is meant to be as confusing and obfuscating as possible. Tell me what law requires you to file a 1040 form? Do you understand what it means when I say the IRS and Fed were created in Constitutional controversy that has never been satisfied? Try quoting the Supreme court, after not filing your 1040's, when the IRS sends it's SWAT teams to take everything you own and you end up in front the Honorable Billy Bob pissant court judge. I freely admit I don't have all the answers, but what I do know is historical fact and that's as far as I go. I'm not going to bullsh!t you, but if we don't start with someone who at least sees the problems we're going nowhere.
Richard
December 30th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Ron Paul is the master of all the issues.
The other guys, not so much. It's hard to talk about them and present solutions, when you don't know what the cause of the problem is. Paying lip service to topics you don't understand or care to understand is what all politicians do.
http://sehoner.blogspot.com/2011/12/i-am-me-and-y…
Fibr Dog
December 30th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
jgmoebus wrote:"… Hate to confuse you with the facts, Fibr Dog, but Dr Paul will most definitely NOT be able "put like-minded people into positions of authority such as his cabinet and federal judges." Not without the Advice and Consent of The Senate. "
I am perfectly aware of what the Constitution says. I also know that it states that "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." These are called recess appointments and once they are filled the Senate has until the end of the Congressional session to either vote for or against the appointees. If they don't cast a vote then the positions are vacated and Dr. Paul can do it all over again. However, IF Dr. Paul ever won the Presidency, it would be arguably the biggest mandate given to our government in the history of the two party fraud. With that mandate and the natural bully pulpit of the Office of the Presidency, the Senate would be hard pressed to justify their unwillingness to work with Dr. Paul if his appointees are fully qualified. The last time I checked, being a supporter of a big government police state was not a requirement to hold a political position.
GreenMassGroup
December 30th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
I disagree with Dr. Paul on a whole lotta issues, but for me has stood out as one of those rare candidates with integrity for many years. Unfortunately, the more I look, the more that "integrity" seems to fade. Hard to say what he really believes these days, but the two biggest things that alarm me and aren't really dealt with in your defense are the actual content of his eponymous newsletters and the idea that Paul made millions of dollars off that tripe.
Politifact's analysis puts the hate-speech at your finger-tips: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/d… https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmWz…
And this article in Mother Jones shows how Paul likely made lots of money peddling hate & paranoia: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/how-ron-paul-…
As much as I'd love to see Paul win the Republican nomination, I'd hate to see the good people at Antiwar.com circle the wagons to prop him up at all costs.
Justin Raimondo
December 30th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
You are completely wrong about this. Any President who wanted to get rid of the central bank could do so by directing his Justice Department to prosecute the bank and its officers for fraud and other crimes. By executive order, he could determine that the Fed represents a grave threat to the national security of the United States, impound its assets, and shut it down. Heck, he could declare the Fed Board "enemy combatants," and order their indefinite internment in an undisclosed location, if he chose — all quite "legally." As to whether Dr. Paul would ever contemplate such methods, I think the answer is "no" — but you're wrong that a president with his views couldn't take down the Fed.
moe7
December 30th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
It's a great article but Ron Paul still doesn't stand a chance. The scare mongering will get worse if he rises in the polls much more and he seems to have leveled off in any case. The vast majority of American people are far too brain-washed to "take a chance". I'd like to believe that RP could be successful but between the power of the establishment machine and general ignorance you can forget about it. Sorry.
jgmoebus
December 30th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
1. i’m “completely wrong” about what?
i asked a Question [“Exactly by what method and mechanism does Dr Paul propose to ‘End The Fed’?]. Is THAT Why i’m wrong? For asking the question?
How will “prosecuting the bank and its officers for fraud and other crimes” close the Fed? What laws have been broken? Which Court is this case to be tried in? By which judge(s)? The same one who found Iran to be a principal causative agent of 9.11? The one who upheld Congressional retro-immunity for telecommunications multinationals so they can’t be sued for Cheney-era cooperation with warrantless Federal wiretaps? The current Supreme Court?
HE could impound the Fed’s assets? Him and What Army? The assets are blips on a computer hard-drive. Either that or they are US Treasury Bonds, or debts owed to it by commercial and investment banks. How would seizing computer dits and dahs or worthless pieces of paper close the Fed?
And how would “imprisoning the Fed Board as ‘enemy combatants’” End The Fed? Who is going to arrest them? Who is going to prevent HIM from being arrested?
jgmoebus
December 30th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
2. THEN you proclaim that Paul would probably never even conceive of such actions. i would hope not; i think his intent is to have a Real Impact on The Real World. Until now, i assumed as much of you.
What do you suppose the impact on domestic and international financial markets would be should Paul appoint you as End-The-Fed Czar, and he implements your proposed courses of action?
In any event, as to your functioning in The Real World, how then, based on what is presented above, do you still claim that “a president with his views” could “take down the Fed”?
The QUESTION remains: “Exactly by what method and mechanism does Dr Paul propose to ‘End The Fed’”?
###
jgmoebus
December 30th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
1. So President Paul will wait until the Senate's Easter Recess to appoint his National Security Council (ie, Secretaries of Defense, State, Treasury, Energy, and Homeland Security, as well as his Attorney General, Director of the CIA and National Intelligence)? And then, when the Senate comes back, the Senate throws them all back out on the street. Then, at the summer recess, he initiates the same dog-and-pony goatrope all over again. Etcetcetc etal.
That sounds like a great plan. Absolutely CERTAIN to instill the full trust, faith, and confidence of America's voters, investors, business owners, and creditors.
jgmoebus
December 30th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
2. Prediction: Ron Paul is NOT going to be elected President. He may get the Republican nomination because they are living up to the 8-On/8-Off Deal regarding White House Occupancy (hence, McCain/Palin in 2008) — plus — Why do they need a Republican in the Oval Office when they already have Obama? But, he will never be elected President. Reality Check.
So WHAT?
NOW What?
The Question remains: WHAT IS TO BE DONE to Confront, Combat, Defeat, and Destroy The Fourth Reich? WHAT? And by WHOM?
And WHEN?
jgmoebus
December 30th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
The more important Question remains: WHAT IS TO BE DONE to Confront, Combat, Defeat, and Destroy The Foiurth Reich?
The Paul-Haters Are Doomed | Libertarios of America
December 31st, 2011 at 12:12 am
[...] Read the rest of the article [...]
sandyfeet
December 31st, 2011 at 12:26 am
Senator Glass wrote a book about how he went to Europe and learned about their monetary systems and this was the bill that pasted. (progressives) I am tired of the revisionist historians overlooking the rotten progressives who have existed for decades. These little bastards have run havoc around the country and fucked up history for decades yet no one seems to call these assholes to count for what they done. At what point in time will someone suck it up and tell the truth!
You cannot redistribute wealth without the FED! The progressives needed it and they created it. They couldn't redistribute gold so the confiscated it and passed out credit and debt in it's stead. The progressives did it and continue to this day ruining us.
David Walker
December 31st, 2011 at 12:43 am
Wow!
Well if Politifact and Mother Jones said it, it must be true!
http://takimag.com/article/why_the_beltway_libert…
http://www.scribd.com/doc/76280303/PaulNewsletter…
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/12/20/we-…
http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/296
David Walker
December 31st, 2011 at 12:44 am
Bad ass article.
sandyfeet
December 31st, 2011 at 12:52 am
Senator Glass wrote a book about how he went to Europe and learned about their monetary systems and this was the bill that pasted. (progressives) I am tired of the revisionist historians overlooking the rotten progressives who have existed for decades. These little bastards have run havoc around the country and messed up history for decades yet no one seems to call these clowns to count for what they done. At what point in time will someone suck it up and tell the truth!
There is no way to redistribute wealth without the Fed, they had to confiscate the gold because you can't print it. In it's stead they gave people debt and credit. The Progressives did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Libertarian Jerry
December 31st, 2011 at 1:43 am
If you study history you would find that all Ten Planks to The Communist Manifesto are in place in America. The graduated Income Tax,Inheritance Taxes,Central Banking and a Monopoly on credit,Public Education,etc.,etc. Each brick in the edifice of a collectivist America has been set in place over the past 100 years or so. When a man like Ron Paul comes onto the stage of history and publicly declares that if he is elected to the Presidency he will tear out those bricks,one by one, in order to dismantle the structure of collectivism in America and return this once great nation to its Constitutional roots,he puts the fear of God into everyone who has tied their lives to the government gravy train. Whether on the Left or the Right, the beneficiaries of the State.,the net tax consumers and the political classes in America see in Ron Paul a dire threat to their very existence. This is why the Power Elites have at first ignored Ron Paul,then marginalized Ron Paul and now are smearing Ron Paul. To the Political Class,its a matter of life or death. As things stand today, Ron Paul is the last hope for Liberty in America. And to those lovers of liberty, I say that we are in the fight of our lives. In the end,its now or never. By helping to elect Ron Paul we are helping to tear down the edifice of Fascist-Socialism that has been erected in America. Its either or,we cannot continue on the path we are on without courting disaster. For if Ron Paul doesn't get elected President the next bricks in the edifice are the gulags.
steve
December 31st, 2011 at 3:20 am
Go Ron Paul!!!!!!! Go! Go! Go for victory!!!!
liveload
December 31st, 2011 at 5:59 am
Thanks for the update Justin. I kept thinking about the justice dept last night but things were…a bit hazy. Serves me right for posting drunk. Man, is my head pounding lol.
Silent Spring | The Walker Wire
December 31st, 2011 at 6:08 am
[...] to recognize that the imperio-progressivist coup has long since been a done deal; that the “nightmare world” in which we are now seemingly locked — one “in which peace is demonized as [...]
Chootee
December 31st, 2011 at 7:09 am
Nonsense. Paul is simply saying that ISRAEL has to decide what is in Israels best interests just as the US should decide what is in the US best interests. State sovereignty. Paul is not giving anyone any green lights. He is simply saying that their actions shouldn't depend on getting a green light from the US. What Israel does is on THEM. The US need not get involved, either pro or con.
Chootee
December 31st, 2011 at 7:17 am
LOL! Gotta love it. To be against wars of aggression is leftist. End of discussion. Where do they get this crap? (I know, Trotsky, Lenin, Gramsci…).
Ron Paul and the Future of American Foreign Policy « XlibertyX
December 31st, 2011 at 8:01 am
[...] Justin Raimondo, December 30, 2011 “Between government in the republican meaning, that is, constitutional, [...]
RyanSmurfy
December 31st, 2011 at 8:13 am
Little late to say "that ISRAEL has to decide what is in Israels best interests," because the US is already deeply involved and culpable for Israel's foreign wars and domestic repression. Because the US recognized, armed and militarily and diplomatically defended Israel, and financed its illegal settlements, Paul cannot just walk away with any integrity for himself or country.
I plan to vote for Ron Paul, not because I imagine he has complete integrity, but because he has said he plans to downsize the empire, cut military spending, eliminate the Fed, and abide by the Constitution, because he's more electable than any other peace candidate, and because, if Paul has integrity, when he realizes he cannot win the Republican nomination or general election as a third party candidate, he will cut the best possible deal for a downsized empire, smaller military and neutered Fed that he can. Obama has shown us how harmful it is to vote for an idol or a symbol. Better to vote for policies and for results. Specifically, vote for a switch from an empire to peaceful, commercial constitutional republic, not for the idol of a nation of political groupies and Monica Lewinskis.
Fibr Dog
December 31st, 2011 at 8:36 am
jgmoebus wrote: "Ron Paul is NOT going to be elected President."
Of that I have no doubt. That's doesn't mean I am going to just lie down and not try though.
jgmoebus wrote: "The Question remains: WHAT IS TO BE DONE to Confront, Combat, Defeat, and Destroy The Fourth Reich? WHAT? And by WHOM?
And WHEN? "
You seem to have all the answers so you tell me because I don't know. The American people whine and complain about Congress and then reelect 90-95% of them (election) cycle after cycle. The majority claim they want to be rid of these wars yet elect and reelect war mongers who not only promise to continue the ones we are in but to start new ones.
So I have no idea what is to be done to confront, combat, defeat, and destroy the two party fraud.
Steve Deace Endorses Newt Gingrich | Dedicated to Presidential Candidate Ron Paul and Current News on Foreign Policy and Economy
December 31st, 2011 at 8:48 am
[...] founding fathers and their principles are not dead. Robert Pape, Chalmers Johnson, Andrew Bacevich, Justin Raimondo, and so many others have spoken unequivocally aboutblowback. America’s past has left the [...]
Paul fan
December 31st, 2011 at 9:32 am
Sounds like a great idea to me…should have happened years ago…thank our God that people are waking up to the fact that real gutsy action is needed to fix this mess. We have no more time to do the usual!
Paul Fan
December 31st, 2011 at 9:38 am
I agree – Raimondo puts it all in place – thank you for both of your articles – excellent!!
jgmoebus
December 31st, 2011 at 10:54 am
If i had "all the answers," Fibr Dog, i wouldn't have been wasting my time here looking for people who might have at least SOME of the answers.
Oh, and The Target is THE FOURTH REICH, not "the two party fraud." The tpf is but an administrative convenience, a way to perpetrate and perpetuate the illusion and delusion of freedom. But, the politicians and those who vote for them are not The Enemy.
jgmoebus
December 31st, 2011 at 10:56 am
You STILL haven't answered the Question, Justin: “Exactly by what method and mechanism does Dr Paul propose to ‘End The Fed’”?
MoT
December 31st, 2011 at 10:58 am
I don't know why you seem to be yelling at each other because you're both essentially correct.
MoT
December 31st, 2011 at 11:07 am
You've said the same to me before but you provided scant "answers". Please illuminate and not simply chide everyone otherwise you are your own personal echo chamber.
MoT
December 31st, 2011 at 11:13 am
So do you stand away, stand against or stand aside him? The first two guarantees HE doesn't stand a chance. As the Chinese proverb goes: Talk does not cook the rice.
MoT
December 31st, 2011 at 11:15 am
If anything it throws up a speed bump on the highway to Hell. And I'm all for building exits to get us of the path we're on.
Fibr Dog
December 31st, 2011 at 11:34 am
jgmoebus wrote: "Oh, and The Target is THE FOURTH REICH, not "the two party fraud." The tpf is but an administrative convenience, a way to perpetrate and perpetuate the illusion and delusion of freedom. But, the politicians and those who vote for them are not The Enemy. "
I respectfully disagree, at least to a certain extent. When I think of the political establishment I think of Lord Byron's dictum that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The Democrat Party has been a political power since the beginning of the federal government under the Constitution. The Republican Party has been a political power since the 1850's. They have shared absolute power between them since then. They are one huge and corrupt political machine that makes Tammany Hall look like the Apostles. The two parties are the epitome of Lord Byron's dictum.
I don't mean to sound like I'm preaching but I do not believe you cannot separate the political machine and those within it from the people, corporations, and countries who fund and control it. There will always be people, corporations, and countries trying to vie for power, position, favors, etc. and there will always be corrupt politicians who will be accommodating. That is human nature and cannot be completely stopped. However, we have moved well beyond that to the point that the entire government is not only accommodating but is working completely on their behalf to the detriment of the rest of us.
I don't know who you believe the real enemy is, but as far as I am concerned, the American government under the control of the Republican and Democrat parties and those that support those two parties are the number one enemy of the American people. No matter who is controlling them in the darkness, it is they who are going along with it, it is they who have made a conscious decision to sell out their country, it is they who are passing legislation they can use to round up and make disappear those they do not like or consider a threat, it is they who….well, I could go on and on but you get my drift.
moe7
December 31st, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Ok, you have a point there.
MetaCynic
December 31st, 2011 at 12:44 pm
I'm can't imagine that Paul is so gullible as to think that any kind of promise from either Obama or Romney in return for his support is worth anything. Neither of these two committed statists is to be trusted or believed in the slightest.
Romney, the favorite of the bankster class, is an unprincipled serial flip-flopper on every imaginable issue. Why would any thinking person take the promises of this opportunist seriously?
While campaigning as an antiwar candidate in 2008, Obama promised that, if elected, he would immediately pull U.S. troops out of Iraq. Not only did he renege on that promise, our Nobel peace prize winner expanded the war in Afghanistan into Pakistan and launched a war against Libya. To add to his sins, Obama, a former professor of Constitutional law at the university level, has not found any attack on the Bill of Rights not to like. He claims the power to order the assassination of any American anywhere. He just signed off on the NDAA bill which provides for the indefinite military detention without charges or a trial of any American.
Romney and Obama are despicable political lepers from whom decent people should stay clear of and not bargain with.
If Ron Paul fails to get the Republican nomination, then he should run as a 3rd party candidate. He and a verbal brawler such as Jesse Ventura as his running mate, could pull in enough votes from disaffected Republicans, betrayed Democrats and open minded independents to win a three way election.
MetaCynic
December 31st, 2011 at 1:49 pm
The answer as to how to neutralize the Federal Reserve System is simplicity itself. The key to the Fed's counterfeiting monopoly is unconstitutional legal tender laws. These laws prohibit competing currencies. They force us to accept Federal Reserve Notes as payment for all debts. President Paul could order his DoJ not to enforce these unconstitutional laws. He could also pardon all those convicted under these laws.
Under a free market in currencies, anyone can issue money. And as in a free market for anything, anyone is free to either accept or reject privately issued currencies. This forces each of us to confront the meaning of money. What we would all quickly conclude is what our ancestors have known through thousands of years of human commerce – money must be backed by a commodity of real value such as gold or silver. In buying and selling things we would in reality be trading goods and services of value for money of value – value for value.
Therefore in a world of competing currencies, money backed by commodities would drive out money backed by nothing such as the Fed's FRN. What sane person would want to trade something of value for something of no value? It is openly competing currencies and not laws or troops which would shutter the Federal Reserve counterfeiting operation.
In such a manner President Ron Paul, with the enthusiastic support of the public, could dismantle much of the political oppression under which we live. He could end the war on drugs, not by begging Congress to repeal existing laws, but by pardoning everyone convicted under victimless crime laws. He could also order his DoJ to no longer enforce such laws. What would a corrupt Congress do? Threaten impeachment. How credible would that threat be if President Paul encouraged millions of American to march on Washington to demonstrate their support for him.
As the Commander in Chief, President Paul could order all overseas troops home and the dismantlement of all overseas bases. There you have it – Empire gone with the stroke of a pen. If the military/industrial/Congressional Complex puts up a fuss, President Paul could display a delightful sense of ironic humor by invoking the powers granted the President by Congress in the recently passed NDAA bill and order the military to detain all lobbyists and to sequester all Congresscritters in the Capitol Building until they have voted to repeal all unconstitutional laws on the books! With public approval of Congress only in the single digits who wouldn't be delighted with this exercise of "dictatorial" power?
jgmoebus
December 31st, 2011 at 1:59 pm
i will say the same thing to you, MoT, that i said to Fibr Dog earlier (and listed below): "If i had 'all the answers,' … i wouldn't have been wasting my time here looking for people who might have at least SOME of the answers." Or, i might have added, even have some of The Questions that need to be asked BEFORE the Answers can be found.
Exactly WHAT would you like me to "illuminate"? The subject under discussion here is: How Ron Paul can "End The Fed"? Beats the fecal matter out of me, MoT. i personally do not think he can, for the reasons i've already inumerated.
Or, are you asking HOW To Confront, Combat, Defeat, and Destroy The Fourth Reich?
Again, if i knew The Answer to that, i wouldn't be wasting my time here.
jgmoebus
December 31st, 2011 at 2:24 pm
i get your drift entirely, Fibr Dog. And i agree with you completely.
You have, in fact, identified The Real Enemy, aka The Fourth Reich. Or a major part of it, at least.
The Real Enemy, and hence, The Target, are those individuals and groups of individuals who Buy and Sell — and thus Own and Operate — the politicians, the most visible agents and manifestations of your "two party fraud."
And if a politician whom they Own and Operate does not produce — just like any employee in any firm –she or he is terminated (and sometimes even with Extreme Prejudice).
Just like the Rise and Fall of The Third Reich. Or of Bolshevism and its subsequent iteration as The Soviet Empire. And soon, just like The American Empire.
joe
December 31st, 2011 at 5:41 pm
I hope that in the future we will have an antiwar candidate that is separated from the right wing.
Paul really is a great example of why. Just ask yourselves how Paul is attacked. It isn't on his antiwar views. Its on everything else. The homophobia. The opposition to the 14th ammendment and subsequently the civi; and voting rights acts, the crazy (my opinion) right view of economics, ect.
But it isn't th war stuff tey attack him over
The same ting really is true on the left
Ralph Nader is very good on the war issues (and better on economics and social policy than Paul) but to vote for him you still have to hold your nose and accept a lot of liberal nonsense like smoking bans and lower highway highway speeds
what the antiwar movement needs is a candidate who is just about being antiwar. who lives and dies on that issue and that issue alone.
jgmoebus
December 31st, 2011 at 7:34 pm
1. MetaCynic wrote: “The answer as to how to neutralize the Federal Reserve System is simplicity itself….”
Simplicity itself, eh? On what basis do you declare legal tender laws to be “unconstitutional”? Where, in the Constitution or in Constitutional case law, is any basis whatsoever for such a judgment? More relevantly: in which Court in this nation will you find a judge or panel of judges who would so rule, thus providing a Paul Presidency with a legal basis to act to shut down The Fed under your scheme of attack?
Paul could indeed order “his” DOJ to do anything that he wants it to, but which Attorney General or Director of the FBI, etcetcetc etal — is going to act without the umbrella of Constitutional validity and justification? It was the refusal of just such highly-placed DOJ officials that spelled the beginning of the end of Nixon Regime, as i recall my history. …tbc…
jgmoebus
December 31st, 2011 at 7:35 pm
1a. And, are you really suggesting that Paul pardon all convicted and incarcerated counterfeiters? How do you think that would play in Peoria? How do think that would play on the national media? How many millions of Americans do you think understand anything at all about the Federal Reserve System or, even less, about your “free market of currency,” and would be prepared to March On Washington to help President Paul who, in his Battle Against The Counterfeiting Fed, pardoned people convicted of printing Monopoly Money for their own personal purposes? i’m not talking about Federal Reserve Governors; i’m talking about petty punk counterfeiters with back-room printing presses. i know there’s no difference; but do the American people? … tbc …
jgmoebus
December 31st, 2011 at 7:37 pm
2. “In such a manner President Ron Paul, with the enthusiastic support of the public, could dismantle much of the political oppression under which we live. He could end the war on drugs…. “
How would “pardoning everyone convicted under victimless crime laws” end the so-called “War” Against so-called “Drugs”? Would that end prostitution? Or pornography? Why not, by Executive Fiat, simply declare any and all drugs (and prostitution and pornography, etc) to no longer be illegal? If Paul’s only defense would be the threat of a Million-Head March on Congress, is it because just as many (if not more, when properly and effectively so mobilized) millions would march on Washington AGAINST legalizing recreational drugs as could be pulled off their couches and away from their buzzes long enough to march “in enthusiastic support” and IN FAVOR OF drugs? … tbc …
jgmoebus
December 31st, 2011 at 7:38 pm
2a. Any attempt to legalize “illegal” drugs in this country will run straight into the buzzsaw of those people who are making entirely too much Money on the distribution and sale of those substances and, as a result, have entirely too much Power to ever even think about giving it up without a bloody, bloody battle that will make what’s happening in Mexico look like a Sunday picnic.
###
jgmoebus
December 31st, 2011 at 7:39 pm
3. “As the Commander in Chief, President Paul could order all overseas troops home and the dismantlement of all overseas bases. There you have it – Empire gone with the stroke of a pen…. “
Indeed he could. And what would be his response when that same military (that you acknowledge is an integral part of your “military/industrial/Congressional Complex”) — you know, the guys with all the guns and tanks and F-16s and B52s — decide that maybe they don’t like the idea of dismantling all those bases or sequestering all those “Congresscritters” on Capital Hill. What would be his response if, instead, they elected to surround the White House, put him under arrest, and assume all Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Functions of the government of the United States to deal with “The Emergency”? Think you’d find any of those double-digit Congress disapprovers ready to March On Washington to Overthrow The Coup? Do you think the American people are quite up to the level of courage and commitment of the Russian people during the collapse of the Soviet Union and the attempted Coup by its deposed rulers, the Communist Party?
###
Consumed
December 31st, 2011 at 10:03 pm
To all of you who despair of tearing down this corrupt edifice known as USA Inc., there is Denninger's way. Denninger, Karl Denninger, of Market Ticker (Blog). Starve the Beast of its lifeblood, he says. Stop spending or committing taxable activity. Walk away from underwater mortgages. Purge revolving credit from your life.
Don't be put off by Denninger's soft Islamophobia; he exaggerates Islam's systemic threat to the West, but like Paul he counsels against seeking out monsters to destroy, insists upon a Congressional Declaration Of War, and recognizes that military spending must be put on the chopping block immediately with drastic cuts.
Denninger sees only two ways out of our national mess. Hasten the Empire's end by starving it of the funds it needs to continue rolling over its ever accelerating and ever mounting revolving debt by withholding one's productive labor (the basis for taxation), and insisting upon the untrammeled non-violent exercise of our Constitutional rights to petition our Government. Or, and he counsels against this course, armed resistance. History shows the character of the government which comes after the latter is usually worse, much worse. The first option is our inalienable right. The second is desperate.
And Happy New Year To All!
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 12:18 am
So……"stop spending or commiting taxable activity," is it, eh?
Hmmmmm…. does M Denninger explain how everybody who stops working and thus paying taxes is supposd to eat? And where and how they will get all this tax-free food?
Or where all those folks who walk away from their underwater mortgages are supposed to live? On the streets, perhaps?
But the REAL Question is: Exactly What are We, The People, to petition our government for?
Anything like, "When in the Course of Human Events……."?
MetaCynic
January 1st, 2012 at 1:02 am
The federal government legally has only the powers granted to it by the Constitution. Where in the Constitution is the government given the power to designate Fed issued unbacked money and no other as legal tender?
I am not talking about a President Paul shutting down the Fed. By either not prosecuting legal tender law violators or by pardoning them in advance, the Federal Reserve would be driven out of business by competition with gold and silver backed money.
MetaCynic
January 1st, 2012 at 1:23 am
I am not talking about pardoning counterfeiters. I am talking about pardoning those who go into competition with the Fed. So long as such people do not misrepresent their financial product, they have done nothing wrong and are not counterfeiters.
There are about 310 million people living in America. 90% of them are clueless about almost everything of an economic nature. They are nonthinking conformists who look to others to tell them what to believe. Of the remaining 10%, millions would be ardent Ron Paul supporters, many of whom would be willing to march on Washington. They are informed, understand what is at stake and would be willing to act on behalf of their principles. It is always a small number of highly committed activists who move history along.
MetaCynic
January 1st, 2012 at 1:27 am
The answer to your question is once again simplicity itself! Anyone who is uncomfortable with competing currencies is free to continue to accept the Fed's unbacked money. That's what a free market is all about – freedom of choice.
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 2:14 am
1. "The federal government legally has only the powers granted to it by the Constitution. Where in the Constitution is the government given the power to designate Fed issued unbacked money and no other as legal tender?"
With all due respect — and i hate to sound like a smartarse — but the federal government of the U.S. can do (legally or otherwise) just about everything and anything that nobody can stop it from doing, which, at this point in this nation’s history, is just about anything and everything.
If you don’t believe that, where in the Constitution are (or were) the Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Viet Nam (to say nothing of Libya, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, Nicaragua, etcetcetc etal) authorized? Or the USA PATRIOT Acts? Or, when they start to happen, Indefinite Detentions of U.S. citizens?
But i digress……
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 2:15 am
2. As regards your Question as to “where in the Constitution the government has the power to designate Fed issued unbacked money and no other as legal tender,” i refer you to the so-called LEGAL TENDER CASES, “… a series of United States Supreme Court cases in the latter part of the nineteenth century that affirmed the constitutionality of paper money….” For details, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases .
These decisions were codified into law by “The United States Coinage Act of 1965,” which states: “United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.” —31 U.S.C. § 5103 See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender#United_… .
Hope that helps. :{)
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 2:25 am
OK….fair enough.
i thought it was 99%. Isn't that what the OCCUPY folks have been telling us?
i'm curious as to the basis of your claim that only 90% of Americans are economically clueless. Given how many are politically clueless, i think you vastly overestimate the capacity and capability of your target audience.
IrRegardless…..
MetaCynic
January 1st, 2012 at 2:37 am
I said nothing about ending drug addiction, prostitution or pornography through political action. It's these cruel wars against vices (victimless crimes) that can be ended through political action. Vices are medical, psychological and social problems that should and can be handled peacefully without the barbarism of guns and incarceration.
Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to control what people willingly put in their bodies? This issue was understood when the crusade to ban alcohol was underway. That's why alcohol was banned with an amendment to the Constitution and not with laws passed by Congress the way that the war on drugs has been waged. I doubt that an amendment to ban drugs could ever be enacted today. There would be no popular support for it.
These facts would work in President Ron Paul's favor when pardoning everyone convicted under the drug laws. These laws are only about a century old. America got by just fine for centuries without them. Drug prohibition laws are racist in origin. They were gradually enacted to harass Chinese immigrants, American Indians and Blacks.
If we have learned to live with dangerous drugs like alcohol and tobacco and with deadly poisons like sugar, high fructose corn syrup, aspartame and hydrogenated oils, then we can certainly learn to live with pot, heroin and cocaine.
Enough people have had their lives or those of family and friends ruined by the lunatic war on drugs, that I think a refusal at the Presidential level to further prosecute this war would be met with widespread public approval. If this issue were raised by a courageous president and its merits debated at the national level, President Paul might even get Congress on his side.
Again, I am not saying anything about being in favor using drugs. I am personally not in favor of using any drugs whether they be recreational or prescription. Nor am I in favor of consuming alcohol and tobacco or any of the sugary poisons that people are addicted to. What I am saying is that people should be free to put anything in their bodies which they desire. That is as important a freedom as is the freedom of speech. The personal and social costs of prohibition are vastly greater than any "good" which may come out of it. This is something that the outspoken Ron Paul is fully aware of as are many silent members of Congress.
MetaCynic
January 1st, 2012 at 2:43 am
The same could have been said for the illegal production and distribution of alcohol during the Prohibition years. I don't recall hearing about bloody battles to prevent the repeal of Prohibition. The bootleggers simply became respectable businessmen. Isn't that what happened to Joe Kennedy?
MetaCynic
January 1st, 2012 at 3:12 am
The military/industrial complex is not the rank and file in uniform. It is the military contractors making big bucks from wars and preparations for war.
Everyone in the military takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Of Ron Paul's 20 biggest institutional and corporate contributors, the top three are the Army, Navy and air Force. In fact he gets more contributions from active military personnel who take their oaths seriously than all the other warmongering Republican candidates combined! The troops who man the guns, tanks, ships and planes want to come home. They are voting so with their money. They do not want to risk their lives to enrich the war profiteers.
The people in uniform are trained to regard the President as their Commander in Chief. If it came to a Constitutional showdown between President Paul and the parasitic military/industrial/Congressional suits, I would bet my money that the people in uniform would side with the President.
As great as their numbers were, It was still a small minority of energetic and fearless East German activists who forced open the Berlin wall in 1989. Likewise, a small minority of Russians rallying against the Communist Party's attempted coup was sufficient to defeat it. The lesson here is that large majorities are not necessary to effect meaningful political change. Well organized and highly motivated minorities are all it takes, and Ron Paul's supporters are not only organized and motivated, they are also rapidly growing in numbers.
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 3:17 am
i see. There is, however, the small (or not so small) matter of American sovereign debt.
i'm curious as to how you see this "competing currencies" concept playing out among America's creditors, both foreign and domestic.
What do we tell our foreign creditors like China, Japan, OPEC, etcetcetc etal? And how do we deal with our domestic creditors (ie, domestic mutual funds, money market mutual funds, commercial banks, State, local and federal retirement funds, private pension funds, state and local governments, US household government bond holders, and the Social Security trust fund)?
Or do just write it all off and tell them to do the same?
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 3:27 am
No argument from me on anything that you wrote in this comment.
i agree 100% that the Way to End America's "Drug Problem" and, more importantly, Mexico's Problem with America's Drug Problem is complete and total legalization. Not de-criminalization, but legalization.
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 4:02 am
i have a hard time equating the amount of money made by Joe Kennedy, Al Capone and their buddies with what is being made in the illegal drug trade today. i have an even harder time equating the amount of money spent waging The War on Drugs with Elliott Ness' budget.
i've not been successful finding hard numbers that compare the amounts of money spent on illegal drugs today and then-illegal alcohol back during Prohibition, but i did find this: "A UN report said the global drug trade generated an estimated US$321.6 billion in 2003,…including $60-65 billion a year in the US."
i also found that the US has spent almost $1.3 TRILLION in the last 40 years on its War Against Drugs. (Sources on request)
i think you are comparing apples with oranges.
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 4:39 am
1. Without “the rank and file in uniform” to prepare for and fight in all those wars, there would BE no wars and no military/industrial complex. They are as much a part of the MIC as the suits.
Having said that, “the troops who man the guns, etc” will follow whatever orders they are given by their commanders or leaders. They (the troops) may indeed want to come home (who doesn’t?), but if they are threatened with their lives and livelihoods (and/or the lives and well-being of their loved ones), the performance of American military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan (and the complete lack of any troop rebellions or “fragging” incidents) amply demonstrates that they will follow orders. THAT is what they are trained to do; not to regard some politician sitting on his butt up in the Oval Office as their Commander-in-Chief. … tbc …
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 4:40 am
2. Plus, you are forgetting about the contract mercenaries (a la Academi, ne Xe, ne Blackwater, Inc) who regard nobody and nothing as more important than their paycheck. Any idea how big that branch of the MIC has become? Or how well-armed and -trained it is?
To say nothing of all the militarized law enforcement offices and agencies at the federal, state, and local levels who have just as much turf to protect with their FatherLand Security/Law Enforcement/Prison Industrial Complex, and regard NOBODY in DC as their Commander-in-Chief.
If that Constitutional showdown ever comes, i would strongly advise you not to volunteer to stand between your President and “his” military. You might not like the outcome. …tbc …
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 4:42 am
3. And finally, the only reason your small minority of energetic, and fearless East Germans and Russians succeeded was because the military and the police abandoned the political leadership. Had the military and police NOT abandoned the politicians, instead of the Fall of the Wall or the Collapse of The Soviet Empire, you would have seen another Hungary 1956, Prague 1968, or Tiananmen Square 1989.
Thanks for the Exercise. And good luck.
jg Moebus
Master Sergeant
US Army (Retired)
###
Attack the System » Blog Archive » Ron Paul and the Future of American Foreign Policy
January 1st, 2012 at 8:14 am
[...] Article by Justin Raimondo. [...]
More Progressives and Ron Paul « LewRockwell.com Blog
January 1st, 2012 at 11:53 am
[...] variety of sources (Yahoo has been the prime facilitating umbrella of many of these smears). But as Justin Raimondo perceptively points out, this is far from the actual case. There is a common underlying connecting [...]
Curious
January 1st, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Ron Paul can release information which documents the criminal activity and waste inside the US government. This would be a mechanism to strip the emperor of his clothes. Then the establishment will be armed and naked. There will be a much needed national conversation about the country, it's past and future.
Ron Paul will also bring to justice those who have broken the law. I have no doubt in my mind that he will obey the US Constitution. He will make Congress responsible for war making.
Nelson_2008
January 1st, 2012 at 1:25 pm
It's a little late, but better late than never.
Regardless of what's happened in the past, if the U.S. were to drop its fanatical support of Israel (as Ron Paul apparently would), Israel would be forced to abandon its expansionist agenda and start negotiating in good faith for a just peace with its neighbors.
MetaCynic
January 1st, 2012 at 1:44 pm
That begs the question, why did the military and police abandon the Soviet Bloc leadership? I suspect that those militaries and police were trained to obey their political masters even more unconditionally than are the American military. They too had their turf and jobs to protect from the noncommunists. Why did these ever reliable robots suddenly go wobbly? This wasn't only a case of the East German and later the Soviet Communist leadership walking away from power under pressure from mass civil disobedience. This also happened in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania. We have here the strange phenomenon of the very obedient and ruthless military and police of seven states, with a strong personal interest in maintaining the status quo, suddenly abandoning their political leadership.
Why? Perhaps it's because the prospect of putting down massive, justifiable, nationwide civil disobedience triggered by very obvious economic rot and political corruption was too much for even the normally obedient military and police to stomach. Maybe these institutions are not as monolithic as they may appear to the casual observer and would fracture and perhaps even mutiny if forced to wage war against their domestic civilian population.
Under the pressure of massive civil disobedience, Louis XVI's military and police suddenly abandoned him, so did Czar Alexander's and Kaiser Wilhelm's. Though not the same, massive Vietnam war era demonstrations did force President LBJ not to seek another term and Charles de Gaulle was forced to resign by huge student and worker demonstrations.
Out of curiosity, what would you, a retired military person, have done if ordered by your superiors to fire on American civilian protestors?
MetaCynic
January 1st, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Just because the military, mercenaries and police are well armed and trained doesn't mean that they will prevail against a determined but militarily weaker adversary. How well did the massively muscled U.S. military do in Vietnam and now in Iraq and Afghanistan against much weaker opponents? The ruthless Red Army was also sent packing out of Afghanistan. The French were forced to abandon Algeria though it was regarded as part of France.
MetaCynic
January 1st, 2012 at 2:05 pm
True, the troops in the field obey their immediate superiors, and those superiors obey their superiors back in offices in the Pentagon. But ultimately the highest ranking military officers must obey the President or they will lose their jobs. And we all know that even though every man and woman in uniform vows that they will fight to the death for their country, we know that in reality few will risk their jobs and pensions for their country. So, the Commander in Chief President has the ultimate control over whom the troops in the field obey.
President Paul can easily find multiple star commanders willing to earn another star and amenable to his philosophy who will order the officers overseas to organize a military withdrawal back to America.
MetaCynic
January 1st, 2012 at 2:52 pm
What is the life expectancy of drug lords? I would suspect that this occupation has a high mortality rate. How many of these people are living in chronic fear that a rival or the police will bump them off. How much of their profits are spent on all kinds of defensive measures which wouldn't be necessary in a legalized environment? How many would turn down the opportunity to keep their loot and then continue to conduct their businesses peacefully even if less profitably under protection of the law?
Even if the drug war driven prison industrial complex was defanged at the national level, its established economic interests could still continue the madness at the state and local levels. However, a President Paul could stimulate a national dialog on the value to the American people of halting this madness. It could be pointed out that other nations have to varying degrees ratcheted down the war on what people put in their bodies without a ruinous wave of addictions. It could also be pointed out that drug prohibition in America is relatively new and that addiction was no worse in preprohibition days than it is today. Furthermore, crime of all kinds associated with drug use is vastly greater now for the simple reason that prohibition artificially drives up prices, forcing many addicts to resort to violence to raise the money to fund their habits.
Against such facts, what arguments will the prison/industrial complex offer to continue punishing people with incarceration who dare to put things into their bodies that others disapprove of? "We need to keep putting harmless people in jail in order to keep our jobs?" I doubt that such an argument will gain much traction with an already angry, overtaxed and over-policed public. In fact, a slackening of the will to pursue the war on drugs at the federal level coupled with a loss of federal drug war funding for the states will very likely encourage a surge in drug use civil disobedience at the state and local levels which will gradually cause the war on drugs to fade away.
MetaCynic
January 1st, 2012 at 3:13 pm
As I pointed out earlier, everyone who thinks that he or she is better of with accounts and contracts denominated in FRNs is free to continue using this unbacked money even though history shows that the value off all unbacked money ultimately goes to zero. Those in the know have for years already limited their exposure to fiat money by exchanging it for gold and silver and other things of intrinsic value.
One thing that the federal government should do to protect current dollar holders is to apportion all the gold, if any, in its possession among a broad definition of the dollar and then distribute this gold to all paper and digital dollar holders. Yes, the logistics of such a conversion and distribution would be difficult, but in principle the only moral recourse for defrauding people with a depreciating currency is to once again back it with a commodity.
Afterward all those who knowingly continue to accept unbacked FRNs or anyone's else unbacked currency do so at their own risk.
MetaCynic
January 1st, 2012 at 3:14 pm
What can I say? Despite my name, I'm an optimist.
MetaCynic
January 1st, 2012 at 3:41 pm
What is say is undoubtedly true. Things like the commerce and welfare clauses in the Constitution, a document whose purpose was to narrowly define and limit the power of government, have been widely (and wildly) interpreted to give the central government unlimited, dictatorial powers.
But we must start opposition to this encroachment somewhere. Whatever its shortcomings the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are laudable documents worth defending. So long as the Constitution is still the official law of the land and public officials at all levels take an oath to uphold and protect it, we must never stop educating people to the hypocrisy, not to mention treason, of officialdom. We must also continue to rub officialdom's noses in their hypocrisy.
This, Ron Paul has done with great and growing success. Who would have thought just ten years ago during the terrorism hysteria that an individual could raise the nation's consciousness about so many constitutional and individual rights issues? I sometimes will wander from antiwar, anti-state and pro-liberty sites to read the internet comments section of the mainstream corporate media. It's amazing how much ordinary people loath the media, the police, the wars and the entire political class. Something rebellious is fermenting beneath the placid social surface.
MetaCynic
January 1st, 2012 at 4:07 pm
What happened to the Coin Act of 1792 which not only set the standards for minting gold and silver coins but also prescribed the punishment for debasing the currency. This punishment if carried out today would stop inflation dead (pun intended) in its tracks.
Section 19. And be it further enacted, That
basing the coins. if any of the gold or silver coins which
shall be struck or coined at the said mint
shall be debased or made worse as to the
proportion of the fine gold or fine silver
therein contained, or shall be of less weight
or value than the same out to be pursuant to
the directions of this act, through the
default or with the connivance of any of the
officers or persons who shall be employed at
the said mint, for the purpose of profit or
gain, or otherwise with a fraudulent intent,
and if any of the said officers or persons
shall embezzle any of the metals which shall
at any time be committed to their charge for
the purpose of being coined, or any of the
coins which shall be struck or coined at the
said mint, every such officer or person who
shall commit any or either of the said
offenses, shall be deemed guilty of felony,
and shall suffer death.
Consumed
January 1st, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Thrift. Purchase necessities only. Pay cash.
To clarify. Those who earn barely enough to subsist of course can't heed his suggestions. Those who both have surplus income yet feel the system is becoming so corrupt that they are working 60-80 hours a week merely to maintain a lifestyle and pay for others' social benefits may disengage in part and find a less stressful use for their time.
Those folks who walk away from their mortgages will move into apartments or in with their relatives and friends. It happened during the Depression. It is happening now. There is a shadow inventory of 2.5 million unsold homes in America right now. They remain unsold (among other compelling reasons) because the banks which own them can't lower them in price or the value of the banks' assets will be called into question. There is no price discovery on these zombie homes/assets because of the systemic threat a collapse in housing prices poses to an overleveraged banking system.
What to petition? Restoration of the Rule Of Law and our Constitutional Rights. Use your blinkered imagination.
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 4:39 pm
As a follow-on and elaboration on Curious' comment:
If Ron Paul was Actually, Really, and Truly the AntiWar candidate that all his fans and fanatics claim that he is, he would make the following a central plank of his platform:
That, upon being elected President,
1) he would de-classify ALL government documents that pertain to the so-called "Terror Event" of September 11, 2001…. Before, During, and After, all the way back to when Carter created bin Laden and al-Qaeda for the Holy War against the Soviet Empire in (of all places) Afghanistan;
2) he would bring federal criminal charges against any and all officials in the Carter-Bush-Clinton- Cheney-Obama Regime by whose acts of ommission and/or commission, said Terror Event was not prevented, was enabled to happen, and continues to be covered up;
3) he would order and resource a completely new 9.11 TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION to determine WHAT Actually Happened, HOW it Actually Happened, WHY it Actually Happened, and WHO Actually Made and/or Let it Happen.
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 4:55 pm
The Coinage Act of 1792 was superseded by the Coinage Act of 1834, which was in turn superseded by the Coinage Act of 1849, which
was in turn superseded by the Coinage Act of 1857, which
was in turn superseded by the Coinage Act of 1864, which
was in turn superseded by the Coinage Act of 1873, which
was in turn superseded by the Coinage Act of 1965.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1792
These guys didn't just start all this stuff yesterday, you know. :{)
The debasement of The Coin of The Realm has a long and proud history at the hands of those politicians who, from the beginning, have been Bought and Sold and thus Owned and Operated by the same folks who are doing it today.
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 5:01 pm
i see that. Good.
i hope you can stay that way.
Optimism — tempered with Realism — will be a critical Asset in the Days and Nites ahead.
A Mile and the Moccasins « Countenance Blog
January 1st, 2012 at 5:17 pm
[...] Raimondo has suddenly returned to sanity, and tells us why all the king’s horses and all the king’s men have hauled out the long k…. The simple answer is that when you propose to cut a terabuck from the Federal budget, there are [...]
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 5:48 pm
1. "One thing that the federal government should do to protect current dollar holders is to apportion all the gold, if any, in its possession among a broad definition of the dollar and then distribute this gold to all paper and digital dollar holders."
Should Dr Paul become President, before he audits The Fed, he might ought to have a peek at Ft Knox (and any other US gold repositories) to see what, if anything, is there. Would anybody be surprised if the vaults were empty?
According to the IMF, in Dec 2010, the US government had 8134 metric tonnes of the stuff, which equals about 237,000,000 ounces, which at @ $1600/oz, comes to about = $380,000,000,000 or 380 billion dollars.
Not much to split up among our creditors, is it? There's no word on silver holdings.
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 5:52 pm
2. So, after all the gold is distributed, then what? Sell all the national parks to the highest bidder in an auction?
Sell the Department of Defense and all its assets to the highest bidder?
i'm only being partially facetious. After distributing all of the commodity that could be used to take the US off the fiat currency system to pay a miniscule portion of our national debts, what will be used to back anybody's currency?
Not arguing… just asking…. i'm trying to understand HOW The Paul Revolution is supposed to be able to be going to work. :{)
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Actually, Meta, i wasn't talking about The Drug Lords in Mexico and Colombia, etc, as the ones who are benefitting most from the illegality of drugs. i was talking about the people who making the REAL money: the folks in the banks and law enforcement, in the weapons and armament trades, and in the White House, the halls of Congress, and all the other corridors of power at the federal, state, and local levels.
Cui Bono (Who Benefits) by keeping the drugs illegal? ASnswer that Question in detail and you will see what any plan to legalize drugs will be up against.
Why haven't the American people (led by the Flower Children of the 60s, the Boomers, who are now the principal holders of wealth and power in this country) risen up in outraged indignation about the Drug War Scam before now?
If they haven't before, why would they suddenly do so on the Ascension of Paul?
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 6:11 pm
ps – You wrote: "Against such facts… ."
When have FACTS ever had ANYTHING to do with The War on Drugs?
Again…. Optimism Tempered With Realism…….
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 7:09 pm
1. First of all, i think it important to remember that That was then, in the Soviet Empire; and that This is now, in the American Empire.
Second of all, i think that the Question of WHY the military and police abandoned their political leadership may be one of the , if not THE most important Questions that must be answered by any who would choose to involve themselves in any rebellion against and active resistance to The Fourth Reich.
Equally important is WHY the military and police of China did not abandon its leadership in 1989. Obviously, the Chinese Empire in 1989 was not in the same state as the Soviet Empire at that time. What was the difference?
And above all, which is today’s American Empire closest to: the Soviet Empire of 1989, or the Chinese Empire that same year?
ps: i suspect that the reason the Soviet military and police abandoned their politicians is because somebody made them a better offer. Come to think of it, that might work here in the US, as well. … tbc …
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 7:10 pm
2. Maybe they are as “monolithic,” and maybe they aren’t. Have you seen any evidence of fracturing or mutiny in the way local, state, and federal law enforcement officers and officials have dealt with the OCCUPY Movement in the US? Or with the spread or continuation of the so-called “Arab Spring” in Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, and the like?
Precisely. So what? And what followed in the wake in each of these cases (the King, Czar, and Kaiser)? The Terror. The Bolshevik Betrayal. Ultimately, The Third Reich. And, Yes, Johnson stepped down in 1968. And who took his place? The guy whose “secret plan” to end the War in Viet Nam was to start a new one in Cambodia (see #3 below). And, Yes, de Gaulle resigned, but so what? Who took his place? What from May in Paris of 1968 survived and had real impact in France following the “Beach Under The Paving Stones”? … tbc …
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 7:13 pm
3. You asked: “Out of curiosity, what would you, a retired military person, have done if ordered by your superiors to fire on American civilian protestors?”
That, my friend, is an irrelevant Question. Irrelevant because Hypothetical and thus with no honest, legitimate way of being answered.
i do know that American soldiers (albeit “citizen-soldiers”) followed just such orders on a day in May, in 1970, in a place called Kent, Ohio. And these were just a bunch of Yayhoo National Guardsmen draftees.
Based on what i’ve seen come out of Iraq and Afghanistan, i don’t think today’s "volunteer, professional" soldiers would hesitate at all to fire on protestors, if so ordered.
They didn’t hesitate to subject prisoners-of-war to torture or to kill non-combatants when so ordered, did they? What makes you think that firing up a bunch of anti-American hippie scum lowlife peace-and-dope loving maggots would be any different?
jgmoebus
January 1st, 2012 at 11:52 pm
i'm not sure i understand why the Rule of Law and our Constitutional Rights is something that is petitionable for restoration.
That is something that either We TAKE BACK As Ours, or They Take More and More of until It is gone completely.
i think V said it best: "People should not fear their government; governments should fear their people."
Oh: People living in apartments pay taxes, and as do relatives and friends in houses. But i get your drift.
jgmoebus
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:04 am
Thinking about it, i see that my initial response as to whether or not i would fire on American civilian protestors(calling it hypothetical thus irrelevant) was a bit of a cop-out. i apologize. You deserve better.
In all reality, i honestly do not know. It would depend entirely on the circumstances and the situation. What were they protesting? How were they protesting it? Was i or anyone else in physical danger of serious injury or death as a result of the form of the protest?
There is a difference as to whether they are sitting in silent (or even singing) prayer or are throwing Molotov ****tails. There is a difference as to whether they are giving speeches or trashing storefront windows and looting. (Note: i cannot believe Molotov c@[&tail is censored…..)
Then there is the matter of whether one is shooting (by "fire on," i'll assume you mean steel and not rubber bullets) to scare and disperse, to injure, or to kill.
An even more challenging Question is whether, on refusing to fire on the protestors, i would simply throw my weapon away or turn it on the ordering superior.
jgmoebus
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:11 am
Further, as a senior noncommissioned officer, i would be receiving orders to in-turn give to subordinates. Thus, i would have two sets of decisions to make: what to do about the original order and what to do about my troops.
i guess that's why they pay us all that big money.
GreenMassGroup
January 2nd, 2012 at 12:24 am
Great defense! Only "about 16% of the 43 issues released during that time… say anything that could be construed as racially hateful or anti-gay". Consider myself still alarmed and appalled.
The bucks stops where, exactly? Remember that this man is trying to become the next President of the United States of America. I'm glad he admitted some moral responsibility for those words gracing his eponymous newsletter, under pressure to do so. But that's quite a far cry from what a genuine person of integrity should have done, who had been profiting off the nastiness. And this has everything to do with the types of people Paul would associate himself with, his ability to wisely choose and oversee a cabinet and countless appointees, etc…. in other words, this is a great test of what he would produce as the leader of the executive branch and of the nation. And he has clearly failed that test.
There's a lot of tortured logic in that scribd FAQ of defenses for Paul, and thank you very much, but I'll choose to support candidates who are committed to ending torture in ALL its forms.
Only 8% of the material in the year that it grossed ~$1 million was racist. Hardly peddling bigotry! Hardly profitable. "A strong indication of Paul‟s moral fortitude that he refuses to
out and hence likely ruin the life of the ghostwriter." What a stand-up guy.
Cut your losses and go with Occam's Razor here… (from WikiPedia: "from among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false.")
"So there you have it, an in-depth refutation of the most common talking points. Spread theword, tell your friends." Jeez, when your presidential candidate needs a 23-page unconvincing PDF defending their actions and associations without owning as much as an ounce of what was published under his name to his enrichment, it's time to think about finding another candidate.
jgmoebus
January 2nd, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Within the context of this discussion, who is the "militarily weaker adversary"?
i don't think you mean the US military, because you include them in your "well armed and trained."
Maybe you mean The 2d Amendment-thumping NRA and its Legion of superPatriots who will rise up in armed rebellion against any who challenge a Paul Presidency?
jgmoebus
January 2nd, 2012 at 3:24 pm
And then who is going to make those officers overseas obey these orders?
Because, by this time, if it comes to that, my suspicion is that there will simply be a Coup, and the whole matter will be concluded.
Again, remember….. this is not Russia in 1989. We are much, much closer to China and Tiananmen.
jgmoebus
January 2nd, 2012 at 3:34 pm
1. MetaCynic wrote: "It's amazing how much ordinary people loath the media, the police, the wars and the entire political class."
Maybe and maybe not. When the next 9.11 happens — and you KNOW that it will when those who benefitted most from the first 9.11 determine that the time has come to reap further gain — we'll see how much loathing is directed at the media,the police, the military and its wars, and, above all, at the politicians.
And we'll also see who embraces Indefinitie Detention for their neighbors.
.
jgmoebus
January 2nd, 2012 at 3:37 pm
2. MetaCynic also wrote: "Something rebellious is fermenting beneath the placid social surface."
i agree. Just as something rebellious was fermenting and fomenting betneath the surface of Weimar Germany.
i go back to my original Questions: By what tactics and strategies, buy what methods and means is The Fourth Reich to be Confronted, Combated, Defeated, and Destroyed? By Whom? And When?
Again…. good luck.
jg