Posted on 06/01/2007 11:15:17 AM PDT by tmp02
Well, I know for sure the NAU, Amero, and that corny highway is real. I have being on the sites. I just never heard him say Jews-Hebrew are destroying America. That sound too much like Storm front views.
LOL!
ever wonder why so many ‘Republicans’ jumped ship in the last election and thus allowed the current crop of idiots to control Congress ? A glimpse at the Paul camp might hold some clues...
hmm same piched face , pointy head and big ears ?
But I bet Kucinich’s wife is better looking ;^)
There are about four good answers to this question:
1. When a candidate comes along who's even stronger on Constitutional, personal liberty, and other genuinely conservative issues (are you hearing this, GOP decision-makers?),
2. When we give up on the Constitution,
3. When Ron Paul dies, or
4. When we die.
Pretty much no one thinks Dr. Paul has a chance of winning the nomination. His point in running is to get more exposure for his ideas.
Paul's race starts and ends with the primary.
The Republican nominee is likely to raise and spend many hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe even a billion over the course of the presidential race. Paul is likely to raise about 0.1% or 0.2% of that, which puts in somewhat in line with how he is doing in the polls as well.
Notice how this article ignores the fact that he dropped even lower in the polls after that debate?
He may have gained some financial support from die hard isolationists, but if his campaign staff is simply trying to spin the facts to hide that his small base is shrinking.
Good point. I’ve heard some conservatives object to the Nuremberg trials on principle.
Yes...Ron Paul argues for the gold standard for economic reasons and for constitutional reasons
The economic reasons are 100% consistent with Ron Paul's political principles...government control over the money supply and deficit spending is a confiscation of wealth and a hidden tax on savings...how can one argue that point?. Alan Greenspan made this point in his 1966 essay "Gold and Economic Freedom"
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.
--Alan Greenspan
To the extent that going back to a precious metal-backed currency would make the entire socialist, massive federal welfare state of America in 2007 impossible to maintain...that will have some serious economic effects...that is true...but when you consider where the massive federal welfare system is raidly heading...we can accept the effects now...or our children can suffer worse ones later
The debate over government-created fiat currency versus gold is a not a new debate...it was one of the biggest reasons the Constitutional convention was called...states were issuing paper money that quickly lost value (inflation) as state governments would print more to cover their free-spending ways. Anyone familiar with the debates over ratification of the Constitution will remember that one of the strongest arguments the Federalists had against the Anti-Federalists was that the US Constitution would do away with the scourge of paper money...the tool of free-spending, fiscally irresponsible governments everywhere.
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to coin money...it also prohibits the states from issuing bills of credit (in the parlance of the Founders...that was paper money). Did this mean the feds had the power to issue paper money? Of course not, the feds had the power to coin money...but no where was it given the power to emit bills of credit...and, hard as it is to believe now, it was well understood at one time that any powers not expressly delegated to the feds in the Constitution, the feds do not have.
But In 1862, President Lincoln requested $150 million in Treasury notes to finance the Civil War effort. Now, constitutionally, there was nothing wrong with that...it fell within Congress' power "to borrow Money on the credit of the United States"...and basically, that is all the federal government was doing...borrowing money by issuing promissory notes with the promise to repay (implicitly in gold and silver coins that had been established as the legal money under the Constitution).
The devious and evil and revolutionary part of Lincoln's scheme was that, at the same time, Congress decreed that the Treasury notes would be "legal tender"...meaning the Treasury notes would be a medium of exchange...this was the first time the feds issued paper money...which very clearly it had (and has) no power to do.
When Lincoln's legal tender law had the predictable effect of depreciating the value of Americans' money, one Henry Griswold sued on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional. Poor Griswold had made a personal loan before the legal tender law was enacted and, when it was time for his loan to be repaid, his debtor paid him in the new US legal tender...which was already worth substantially less than the amount he had loaned
So Griswold successfully sued in the US Supreme Court to have the legal tender law declared unconstitutional. The Court held:
There is a well-known law of currency, that notes or promises to pay, unless made conveniently and promptly convertible into coin at the will of the holder, can never, except under unusual and abnormal conditions, be at par in circulation with coin. It is an equally well-known law, that depreciation of notes must increase with the increase of the quantity put in circulation and the diminution of confidence in the ability or disposition to redeem. Their appreciation follows the reversal of these conditions. No act making them a legal tender can change materially the operation of these laws.
It is not doubted that the power to establish a standard of value by which all other values may be measured, or, in other words, to determine what shall be lawful money and a legal tender, is in its nature, and of necessity, a governmental power. It is in all countries exercised by the government. In the United States, so far as it relates to the precious metals, it is vested in Congress by the grant of the power to coin money. But can a power to impart these qualities to notes, or promises to pay money, when offered in discharge of pre-existing debts, be derived from the coinage power, or from any other power expressly given?
--HEPBURN v. GRISWOLD, 75 U.S. 603 (1869)
Unfortunately, one year later, two new Justices were appoined by Grant to the Court and the Court reversed itself in the case of Knox v. Lee and the Court held that Congress had the power to issue paper money as an implied power consistent with the President's war powers and with Congress powers over monetary matters
The dissent had the better argument when it wrote:
The power “to coin money” is, in my judgment, inconsistent with and repugnant to the existence of a power to make anything but coin a legal tender. To coin money is to mould metallic substances having intrinsic value into certain forms convenient for commerce, and to impress them with the stamp of the government indicating their value. Coins are pieces of metal, of definite weight and value, thus stamped by national authority. Such is the natural import of the terms “to coin money” and “coin;” . . ..
... The power to coin money is, therefore, a power to fabricate coins out of metal as money, and thus make them a legal tender for their declared values as indicated by their stamp. If this be the true import and meaning of the language used, it is difficult to see how Congress can make the paper of the government a legal tender.
The statesmen who framed the Constitution understood this principle as well as it is understood in our day. They had seen in the experience of the Revolutionary period the demoralizing tendency, the cruel injustice, and the intolerable oppression of a paper currency not convertible on demand into money, and forced into circulation by legal tender provisions and penal enactments.
And one cannot help but see the Knox Court as predecessors to the modern-day activist courts...there is no way on earth that anyone could spend anytime studying the ratification of the Constitution and conclude anything other than the Framers meant what they wrote when they distinguished between "coining" money and emitting "bills of credit"...the issue of paper money and the Constitution's prohibitions on it were probably the biggest issue for the drafters and ratifiers of the Constitution and Federalist opinions on paper money were and are very well known
Suppprt for a gold-backed US currency would prevent government from borrowing massive amounts of money against future Americans income (something conservatives used to favor) and it is in accord with an originalist understanding of the Constitution (something else conservatives used to favor)
you have to wonder what his core beliefs are if he believes that the US is somehow partially behind 9/11 or even somehow responsible
Ron Paul has said (unequivocally) that there is no evidence that the US governnment was behind 9/11 and that he does not believe it...nevertheless...the smear artists continue to spread innuendos so as to make people think this is something Ron Paul believes
What is that really supposed to mean? That Ron Paul is farther to the right than his party as embodied in the current Presidency?
Well, bring on the right. Anyone to the right of Bush, Giuliani and the clones, is welcome news to this conservative and worth a fair shake in consideration.
Non-intervention is not isolationism. I realize that's the newspeak from Republicans trying to discredit Dr. Paul but it's false
But please do go on....
It means he’s a strange, quixotic little congressman, all the way out on the far ledge of his party, with as much chance of being president as my dead grandmother.
Facist pro choice, anti gun, He-She Rudy
VS
Nutball Cut and Run Paul
I bet she has a better position statement on Iraq.
Non-intervention does describe his policies better than isolationism. I stand corrected on that point. I it still doesn't really change the overall point of my post, but I do appreciate the clarification/correction.
The man is a NUT!
Ha! I like Paul, but I have to admit, that was funny.
Really???
“...follows it to the letter.”???
IMHO, people who worship the literal words of any document, even the Constitution and the Bible, are practicing a form of idolatry.
It seems very strange to me that Ron Paul has concluded from the “words” (HOLY words?) in our Constitution, regarding the exclusive power of Congress to “declare war”, that “wars” can NOT occur unless the Congress “declares” them.
That strange reasoning leads to the strange conclusion that when President Thomas Jefferson (who clearly knew much more about our Constitution than Ron Paul ever will) sent our Marines to stop the Barbary Pirates from attacking American ships, that action to free our enslaved sailors was “un-Constitutional”.
Why? Because, although Congress had authorized the provisioning and the sending of our tiny fleet on that necessary expedition, Congress had NOT issued a formal “Declaration of War”.
I gather that, given the same situation, “President” Ron Paul would have kept our ships in port until Congress “relented” and gave him a “Declaration of War”, written on parchment with a quill-pen and sealed with a blob of red wax. “Yes”, Ron Paul would say, “let the sailors suffer, FIRST we have to get the “words” right.”
IMHO, if Ron Paul ACTUALLY did believe that America can not “Constitutionally” defend itself from attack without, first, issuing a “Declaration of War”, then, IMHO, he had a DUTY to introduce an Amendment to the Constitution to correct that suicidal anachronism. But he didn’t, did he?. It follows that...
This is all self-serving BS from a “holier-than-thou” Cindy Sheehan wannabe.
IMHO, Ron Paul’s statements have shown HIM to be a “human” suicidal anachronism...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.