Ron Paul Has the Council on Foreign Relations Worried [CFR attacks Fed audit, call Paul "extreme"]

The New American ^ | 2009-09-09 | Steven Yates

[Leisler]

"The Fed is responsible for the long-term decline in purchasing power of our dollars, which have been backed literally by nothing except legal tender laws and the willingness of the public to accept them since 1971, the year President Richard Nixon severed the last ties between the dollar and gold. Fed monetary policy is the reason a hamburger costs you several dollars when your grandfather could buy one for thirty-five cents. The dollar has lost slightly over 96 percent of its value since the Federal Reserve System was created in 1913. The national debt has soared during the period since 1971 from a few hundred million to its present $11.8 trillion. Millions will be added to the debt during the brief time it takes to read this article!

[K-oneTexas]

Barry Goldwater states in his book, "With No Apologies", on page 231:

"Does it not seem strange to you that these men just happened to be CFR and just happened to be on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, that absolutely controls the money and interest rates of this great country without benefit of Congress? A privately owned organization, the Federal Reserve, which has absolutely nothing to do with the United States of America!"

[Palin Republic]

The JBS boss devoted a book to debunking Buckley's memes:

"Fifty years ago, conservatism meant opposition to big government in all its manifestations and a belief in a non-interventionist foreign policy. Today, most people associate it with preserving the legacy of Harry Truman, Martin Luther King Jr., and Hubert Humphrey, while supporting American cultural, economic, and political hegemony across the globe. What conservativism means today is at odds for what it used to stand for. What is the reason? John Birch Society president, John F. McManus, puts the blame squarely on William F. Buckley in his excellent new book, William F. Buckley Jr., Pied Piper for the Establishment."

Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan succeeded in spite of Buckley and the Rockefeller Republicans, not because of them:

"The Birchers, the Randians, the libertarians – one by one they were led to the guillotine by the editors of National Review. Welch’s sin was that he saw the Vietnam disaster long before it occurred, and thus violated the central canon of the Cold War Right: the Randians, too, got in the way in the way of Buckley’s overriding principle: their influence would lead the GOP down the primrose path to “anarchic misanthropy,” as one of Buckley’s characters puts it, and so they, too, were dispatched. The libertarians were excommunicated on several occasions, and Rothbard, the most thoroughgoing exponent of laissez-faire capitalism since Ludwig von Mises, was excoriated as a “Leninist.”

The purge of dissident elements within the conservative movement did not lead to the triumph of the Right, however, but to the victory of “big government conservatism.” “We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move,” said George W. Bush on Labor Day this year. As Ramesh Ponnuru recently pointed out in National Review, FDR couldn’t have said it better. We have, says Ponnuru, been “swallowed by Leviathan” – and so, I would argue, has the conservative movement."

[exnavy]

I believe it is time for conservatives to dump the repubs and start a new party, let's call it the "constructionist" party.

This nation will not survive without returning to it's constitutional roots in regards to the federal government.

[Palin Republic]

I agree with you in principle. Both Parties are bad news.

But as a practical matter, it all comes down to what Sarah Palin does.

Whether she goes or stays, the movement will follow her.