Skip to comments.Rod Dreher: Ron Paul, if only we listened
Posted on 11/30/2008 11:16:35 AM PST by rabscuttle385
click here to read article
Paul's not a racist, anymore then the people who have criticized Obama, and get unjustly called racists. The comments in the letter didn't bother me in the slightest.
There are plenty of out there who want to scream “bigot”, at the drop of a hat, and it appears you are one of them.
The majority has consistently wanted something for nothing and I see little chance of that changing given the methods used to achieve political power.
It is almost impossible for the Right to control government when its rhetoric is universally anti-government. It has been utterly discredited by the Treason media and cannot elect statewide officials outside of a few states.
In addition, conceding the cities to the democrats makes it extremely difficult to win states especially as the nation becomes more urbanized as a whole.
The same format as was used to enter WWII would suffice, something that would clearly STATE that a state of war existed between the United States and ____ (fill in the blank), which would also clearly and specifically say that the Congress, in passing the declaration of war, pledged the complete support of Congress and the Nation until victory was won. How hard would that be? Then it would all be right out in front with no room for dispute (by the Rats) or misconstruction by anyone else.
(May I respectfully suggest you add “rude” to your screen name?) (Also, “less than informed” might be indicated.)
So if you never taught you can’t talk about education?
If you never studied economics you can’t discuss the economy?
If you never wrote a novel you cannot discuss “Great Expectations”.
There was no howling mob calling for war. Rather there were endless discussions, meetings with the UN, inspections and actions for ten years. Meanwhile Saddam is thumbing his nose at everyone, training terrorists at Salman Pak, funding al Queda terrorista in the Philippines and Northern Iraq and quite likely against the US in at least TWO incidents on our soil. Iraqi connections appear in any serious examination of Oklahoma City. The chief instigator of the first World Trade Center attack immediately fled to Baghdad.
The great majority of veterans around here in fact DID support the invasion of Iraq.
Isn’t the sand where their heads are. Doesn’t smell the same, either, I’m sure!
The Founders left the issue specifically to Congress because they feared exactly what Truman gave us: the imperial presidency. They DIDN’T want the executive running around declaring war or even using troops for 60 days before seeking a declaration from Congress. The issue is for Congress and Congress alone to decide. They cannot constitutionally abdicate their authority and pass it to the presidency. Something called checks and balances, maybe you’ve heard of it.
“To declare war...” is pretty self explanatory.
There is much more to being a conservative than just being pro-life .. that’s just one element.
You call for war, you should be willing to go YOURSELF. Not send a surrogate.
Well, all of the executive powers that “conservatives” cheered when they were granted to the president is about to come back and bite us all in the ass.
Economic necessity produced fractional reserve banking. It became obvious that it was a source of great wealth both for individuals and society as a whole. Removing and storing gold decreases the money supply so drastically that economic growth becomes dependent upon random events.
When and where banking was introduced it created economic and financial powerhouses. To claim otherwise is just a misreading of history.
Removing this ability is impossible today because it would create and sustain a world wide depression that no democratic society could survive.
The key is maintaining confidence in the money and tie the growth rate of the money supply to reasonable targets.
Hmmm ..?? is that why “moderate” repubs continually try to tell conservatives that we must include the dems or we’re not a nice person ..??
Sorry .. I don’t want to include people in my political party who’s sole purpose for living is to bad-mouth America and do anything and everything to tear this country apart.
If that’s the definition of insanity .. then that’s why I didn’t support McCain .. but I did support Sarah Palin.
Yep, just like the people who cheered when the PATRIOT Act gave Bush the “necessary” tools to fight the war on terror, and who now fear that legislation in the hands of Obama.
Then there are those of us who have opposed it from the beginning recognizing that even if Bush was completely benign, the next president might not be.
I don’t know it seems quite a few around here wouldn’t mind a totalitarian regime to dictate morality on us all.
I have no idea what “classical liberalism” is nor do I care. I don’t see anywhere in history that liberalism did anything good for America .. but instead it only lives to serve itself.
“, ... if it doesnt affect your life, rights or property, you ought to have a limited interest in it.”
That statement is truly amazing. I cannot believe anybody who claims to be a liberterian would ever make such a totally ignorant statement. Like I said, liberalism has only one goal - itself - therefore the interests of anyone else is of no value to a liberal - so after they take your neighbors property will you finally wake up and realize - YOU’RE NEXT!
Your post contains many errors of fact, typical claims bandied about but false none the less.
The Constitution was written to restrain the STATES and increase federal power. This is indisputable.
The Tenth amendment says only that powers not delegated are retain but says nothing about the means used to implement the expressed powers.
The Founders deliberately rejected the argument that the Constitution was confined to expressed powers. Not even Jefferson consistently claimed that though he was not a Founder per se. They accepted the fact that there was a need for implied powers to be utilized as long as they did not conflict with the reservations or spirit of the Constitution.
So it is easily shown to be false that the federal government was confined to expressed powers. Hamilton’s explication of what is constitutional is in his Essay on the National Bank. Its logic has never been seriously challenged. Basically it is that the sovereign power of the government allows it to create instruments with which to attain the goals of expressed powers. The National Bank was just such an instrument allowing the government to more expeditiously handle tax revenues, fund the govenment, fund National Defense and control the money supply for starters. There was no need to spell out the power to create a National Bank anymore than there was to spell out the right to control borders or create an Air Force.
The idea that a modern war can be funded without a national bank is ludcrious to anyone who has studied these issues.
That is how the president has used it.
No. It has never been a source of wealth. It has been the source of inflation and subsequent deflation and thus business cycles, and in the case of central banking, perpetual and rampant inflation.
***Removing and storing gold decreases the money supply so drastically that economic growth becomes dependent upon random events.***
Wrong. When gold gets stored, a receipt, or bank note, is printed as proof that it lies in the bank. Then the gold is taken out of circulation because it is not being used and the paper ticket is circulated in its place to be redeemed by whoever holds the note should that be their choice. If for instance there is 100 ounces of gold in circulation and 50 ounces gets put in a bank, bank notes equivalent to 50 ounces of gold will be printed. The total money supply then is 50 ounces of gold and bank notes backed by 50 ounces not currently in circulation. The total money supply is then still the same. When the paper is exchanged for gold in the bank, then the paper is destroyed and the gold goes back into circulation.
Fractional reserve banking came about when bankers realized people didn’t collect their gold in large amounts or even all at once. So they began to print bank notes for gold that didn’t exist, loaning them out, and making profit off interest. It was always a risk because if news got out the bank was unsound, a run would occur and the bank would be rightfully put out of business. Then government stepped in of course.
***When and where banking was introduced it created economic and financial powerhouses.***
Of course. The ability to channel saved funds to entrepreneurs and make profit means most probably that the you will come across a lot of money. And when most people realize they don’t NEED all their money at the current moment and that they can make a profit by allowing banks to loan their money, they will likely deposit this money in the banking system. Fractional Reserve Banking increases the “prestige” of a bank only in appearance. In actuality it’s a recipe for bankruptcy and is nothing less than fraud.
***Removing this ability is impossible today because it would create and sustain a world wide depression that no democratic society could survive.***
No it wouldn’t. It would indeed create a severe recession because then banks could no longer inflate and they would be forced to call in all their outstanding loans (deflation), but this is exactly what happens in any other depression. We survived the 30’s and then the government kept getting in the way of recovery.
***The key is maintaining confidence in the money and tie the growth rate of the money supply to reasonable targets.***
You can’t maintain confidence in a system of ever increasing prices. The free market determines confidence, not some politician trying to delude the people into believing paper money is inherently valuable.
The idea that you can tie the growth rate of the money supply to something “reasonable” is laughable. Firstly who sets this growth rate? Most probably a highly centralized organization cut off from the reality of the everyday economy. And if the government continues to use it’s manipulated CPI and GDP numbers, the target money supply growth will never be accurate. Secondly, why should the money supply grow at all? An increase in the money supply confers no social value and only serves to help those that get the new money first and hurt those who get it last. Thirdly, what is a “reasonable target”? Something that always increases prices? That leads me to believe that in the long run prices will to infinity, but like good old Keynes said, in the long term, we’re all dead. Too bad WE are Keynes’ long term.
The free market will and did determine what the growth of the money supply will be and if ever that money becomes too common or too scarce (or a better money is found), then people will shift to a different commodity.
There is no debt without credit. Debt wisely used is a valuable tool for capitalists as their balance sheets can tell you.
America did not become a creditor nation for many decades after its founding. But then the word had a meaning since gold was drained from the money supply by an import.
Today we trade pieces of paper for goods and the impact is not the same. Under a floating exchange rate regime the impacts are vastly different.
Socialist nations rarely can use debt since there is no one willing to lend if the loans can be confiscated. Only capitalist nations can obtain huge loans.
Why would anyone save if they cannot lend and make money on their money? You are not describing the real economy.
Many Democrats are covered by that description as well.
Well, that explains everything. Thanks!
Your suggestions are your own but have little to do with the fact that there is no constitionally required form for declaring a war and what has been declared suitably fulfills the point of legislative approval which is the reason the phrase is in the Constitution.
Less informed LoL. I have been as well informed about Paul as I need be for a decade.
War was declared and has been funded by legislative edict as per the Constitution. Your objection to the phrasing is irrelevant.
In the Ultimate war of all out Nuclear attack there would not even be the chance to pass any kind of declaration since instant and automatic retaliation would occur.
It is also true that not all uses of military power are Wars. There is nothing in the Constitution which requires a priori Congressional approval of every use of military force in any case.
Do you think Congress declared war on the Indians? Was there a declaration against the Confederate States of America?
I am willing to go but am incapable of doing so. If the military’s standards were low enough to accept me then we could all kiss our asses goodbye.
Paul is 100% Open Borders.
He wants to change and remove the reason they come here.
As a Californian I recall voting for that in prop 187.
Guess what the courts did?
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
“Resolved, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic ... That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition.”
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”
I don’t know what to tell you.
***The Constitution was written to restrain the STATES and increase federal power. This is indisputable.***
And exactly what were the restraints on the states besides being prohibited from emitting bills of credit, not starting wars, and not conducting diplomacy on their own?
***The Tenth amendment says only that powers not delegated are retain but says nothing about the means used to implement the expressed powers.***
Oh so basically the 10th Amendment means nothing. What means do you need to go about maintaining an Army/Navy, establishing courts, making post roads, regulating commerce, coining money, etc. other than to pass a laws (which is exactly what the necessary and proper clause redundantly authorizes)?
***The Founders deliberately rejected the argument that the Constitution was confined to expressed powers. Not even Jefferson consistently claimed that though he was not a Founder per se. They accepted the fact that there was a need for implied powers to be utilized as long as they did not conflict with the reservations or spirit of the Constitution.***
Funny because I have read numerous times that whenever someone tried to bring up the idea that the federal government SHOULD have implied powers, they were struck down by the general assembly.
***Basically it is that the sovereign power of the government allows it to create instruments with which to attain the goals of expressed powers.***
The “sovereign power”? Kind of like the crap they used to legitimize the draft. Hamilton was originally in favor of a president for life who could appoint governors and senators (sounds like what we fought against).
***The National Bank was just such an instrument allowing the government to more expeditiously handle tax revenues, fund the govenment, fund National Defense and control the money supply for starters. There was no need to spell out the power to create a National Bank anymore than there was to spell out the right to control borders or create an Air Force.***
The government had the treasury to do all that there is no legitimate need to inflate the money supply unless one plans on constantly going to war. The Air Force utilizes another type of weapon. You don’t need to spell out upgrades to the military. Unlike the Air Force (and planes in general), the concept of central banking was around at the time and it was NOT included in the Constitution.
***The idea that a modern war can be funded without a national bank is ludcrious to anyone who has studied these issues.***
All that says to me is that we shouldn’t be engaged in war so often.
Classical Liberalism is what America was founded on. That was a time when being liberal WAS a good thing and there’s your example of when liberalism was good for the country. Somewhere along the way liberalism became distorted and evolved into what it is today.
No kidding. It’s a darn shame too.
Examine the history of banking and you will see that you are incorrect. It started in the Italian city states during the Renaissance and led to a great explosion of wealth so much so that Italy became prey to great European kingdoms. Any money supply tied to metals is artificially restricted and leds to a permanent underuitilization of the economic resources. Gold has had long term growth rate of LESS than 1% which would produce a similiar economic growth rate only expanded by the fortuitous discovery of more gold.
(It should be recalled that that growth rates includes the utilization of the incredible hoards from the Western Hemisphere through the Spanish Conquest. And the introduction of this money created a centuries long inflation throughout Europe.)
The liquidity of private gold notes was limited to a few financial centers and they were not used as true money by the majority of the people. In fact, the period we are speaking of was just beginning to create a money economy something which did not exist prior. Economic life was subsistence and locally limited broken by a few great town fairs during the year. We are speaking of the very beginning of Western economic life and the beginning tools of same.
Governments had nothing to do with banking for hundreds of yeaer after its creation. It was the creation of the Bank of England which led to its great growth as a world economic and political power. Gold has gradually been reduced to being a mere commodity as it should and there will never be a return to it as a money. There simply is not enough of it to go around if each person is to be able to take part in the economy. Our Civil War showed the impossibility of funding a great war with a money supply based on gold.
We survived the Depression because FDR used policies which were designed to head off his Left wing opposition. There was great fear of a Communist Revolution occurring here and Roosevelt based his policies on heading off one. His intention was to save the Capitalist system. The same kind of demand will be made today by the masses and a great Depression will fuel another increase in central government power. You must realize the political possibilities given the beliefs of the majority of voters.
One of our greatest economic thinkers, Milton Friedman, proposed creating money at a consistent rate of 3%. If the MS does not grow at at least the rate of economic growth it will require deflation.
Any idea that cycles would be prevented does not recognize the cyclic nature of the economic process. And the idea that there were fewer or less severe ones prior to modern banking is an illusion.
I am a Free Market economist but that does not mean I do not recognize the fact that there has never been a Free Market or that one can exist without political constraints or legal limitations.
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
Words hold power, and one of the biggest victories won by socialists world wide is the adoption of their collectivist mumbo jumbo under the guise of Liberalism, when in fact, their philosophy has nothing to do with Liberty.
Another almost equally spectacular victory for the left has been the ability to dupe the unsuspecting public that Hitler was a Right wing extremist, when in fact he was a Socialist, and an ardent collectivist.
Classic Liberalism rejects collectivism and embraces free markets and individuality, as well as private property with minimal government intrusion into the lives of those who dwell within its confines. Modern Liberals(socialists) favor abolition of private property or at very least, wealth redistribution. They long for morbidly obese, all intrusive government, whereas classic Liberalism is diametrically opposed to such a thought.
Don't expect forgiveness from the GOP - or acceptance from the Democrats.
The GOP will rebuild with or without you and RP.
BTW, anyone seen RP lately? His constituents sure haven't.
There is nothing in the Constitution explicitly empowering the government to make the Louisiana Purchase. Guess Jefferson and Madison saw things differently when the opportunity arose to secure our borders by buying land and increase our safety. This was an inplicit power fully within the instrumentalities necessary to carry out explicit powers. Jefferson was not a Libertarian either.
Who is arguing that there were not powers reserved for the states or that the government should not overstep those granted it. The “few” powers granted the National government are exactly those which define a nation and allow all reasonable and unforbidden instrumentalities to accomplish those powers. There are few things not in play in a war for life and death of the nation even if not explicitly granted.
Prior to the Constitution the states were strong enough to counter the national good/need and them had done so by refusing to grant taxation power sufficient to fund the Revolutionary War. Breaking that power was the entire reason the Convention was called. Madison was very explicit about this as he was about the absolute need for greater federal power. In fact, he was ready to propose federal vetoes on state laws and the reduction of the states to administrative units within the larger structure.
After he broke with Hamilton and went over to Jefferson he tried to undo all the great good he had done when more Hamiltonian than Hamilton.
The Tenth amendment has never been the basis of any substantial law and was designed as a sop to the anti-federalists. And these facts are not my fault.
Your mistaken what was rejected was any declaration within the Constitution that there were ONLY explicit powers.
Any idea that the world’s greatest power can always or easily avoid war should not be one held by one planning to be an officer. We have fought wars when necessary not with a pollyanna attitude. Politicians know they are the kiss of death to their careers. Even those winning wars have been rejected for reelection.
Perhaps you are opposed to the United States being a Sovereign power? But it is and sovereignty requires certain things to make it so. Maybe you prefer a dependent power unable to stand on its own.
Here is a brief description of reality in 1790 when the Bank of the US was conceived. We were a new nation without a money supply. It had been drained off by the Imperial System of England for decades before the Revolution. Almost all specie had been spent purchasing war supplies from aboard. Thus the economy was in a state of collapse with the only money being Continentals which were almost worthless since they were the only mechanism for funding the war available to the Confederation. States were not in much better shape with state issued paper money of doubtful convertibility.
Hamilton’s bank changed all that in a flash issuing paper which immediately was as valued as that of England and drawing in millions in specie. It jumped started the incredible expansion of the American economy and his enemies have never forgiven him for his magnificent achievement. His bank had NO incentive to inflate the money supply since decreasing the value of money hurts those who have money. It was not designed to inflate the money supply but to provide liquidity and it did to such a great extent that his enemies had to admit they were wrong and recharter when the charter expired and the demands of the War of 1812 hit. Treasury in no way can perform the functions of a Central Bank. If it could Hamilton would have been happy to keep it that way since he controlled Treasury until Wolcott was succeded.
Madison’s ideas were as extreme as Hamilton’s if not more so at the beginning of the struggle for the Constitution but there was no man more devoted to the creation of the United States as the great Alexander. No man fought harder for its creation and protection from foreign and domestic danger as he. He saw immediately the danger of courting the mob and fought it till his dying breath at the hands of one who organized and used it.
Malarky. They did nothing of the sort. McCain was chosen by Republicans for the most part while more conservative alternatives could not draw more than a tiny number of votes.
Look at post 180 where arrogantsob tries to label FDR as a savior of capitalism.
Rebuild itself into what? A more Socialist version of the Democratic Party?
What sort of crack are you smoking? Do you realize that you are arguing for effectively unlimited central government?
Kind of like John McCain?
Paul won't run again. He'll get behind and endorse (most likely) Gary Johnson in 2012 (who has already said he'll run in 2012 if Obama won) or, failing that, Mark Sanford.
Just like McCain.
FYI, classical liberalism is the political philosophy of the founders of our country.
So are you're saying you are just another "gung ho" type that's never served a single day in the military.
I kinda suspected that.
Weed out Trotskysts out of the GOP.
We're going to learn the same lesson there that we're now learning the hard way about this debt-drowned economy. We've spent untold billions of dollars and over three thousand American lives to turn Iraq into a Christian-free zone and eventually, an Islamic republic.
Unfortunately, Paul's idiosyncratic mannerisms, his uncoached and uncultivated appearance, squeaky voice and overall disdain for media-friendly traits means he'll forever be tagged with the "kook" or "geek" label.
He was also in favor of strong border security, which makes him more conservative than Republican or Libertarian.
If every Republican had voted for Ron Paul, we'd be welcoming a conservative into office.
Citation for those claims?
The only difference between the neocons and the libs is that the necons want "a Big Daddy government" and the libs want "a Big Brother government".
I am a grown-up. I need neither "a parent" nor "a sibling" telling me how to run my life, nor do I give my consent to them running all over the world furthering their own globalist interests while claiming to act in my name -- especially when they are killing off Christian communities worldwide supposedly "for America".
It's obvious to me, as it should be to most people who really think about it, that one cannot divorce our economic policy from foreign policy. It was this unfettered military interventionism that has contributed greatly to effectively bankrupting this country. And in doing so, it has not made us "stronger" but weaker; we are less secure in every respect, financially, militarily and in vulnerability to attack. The bill on this American bravado in doing anything we want, anywhere in the world we want, just came due -- and it is more than we can afford.
So when I hear people say that they "like Ron Paul's philosophy domestically but not in foreign policy", it may be hard to swallow, but that philosophy is a whole package. It means that either we take responsibility for ourselves, as individuals and as a country, and we act responsibly in our affairs with other countries, or we don't. There is no middle ground on this.
For those that don't want to take responsibility, then the only choices left are to embrace "Big Daddy" or "Big Brother" government, and it doesn't much matter which one we choose because neither of them spell "Freedom" or "America", in any sense that we understand those words to mean.