Skip to comments.KY Sen Poll: Paul Takes Commanding Lead In GOP Race (leading Grayson by 19 points, 44-25)
Posted on 12/26/2009 3:48:44 AM PST by rabscuttle385
The same grassroots energy that propelled Ron Paul from a little-known Congressman to a force in the presidential primaries now seems to be transferring to his son in his Senate run in Kentucky. Public Policy Polling's (D) latest survey shows him easily ahead of Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who was recruited by the national party after Sen. Jim Bunning (R) was pressured not to seek re-election.
Republican Primary Election Matchup
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Ron Paul was never a “force” in the Republican primary.
How many delegate did he ever get?
It helps too if you didn’t get the “Crazy A$$ gene”.
Paul is not viable... at all.
I was going to listen to Paul speak here in Henderson this past December 12 but I was in the hospital with pneumonia. It’s a hell of a feeling not to be able to get a good breath of air.
I’ll be voting for Paul. I wish a good conservative with fire in his belly would run against Mitch.
God bless you, and get well soon. It is sad to be in the hospital on the holidays, but worse not to be there when you need to be there.
Hadn’t a been for Grayson, he’d a been in Tennessee.
Poor boy, you’re gonna...die.
Actually, I wish Rand Paul well. In time we’ll see what he’s about.
It would be nice to have someone in the Senate who actually understands how money works, how capitalism works, and what’s wrong with the economy.
Rand Paul and Peter Schiff would be breaths of fresh air in that corpse-like body.
Me too. I agree with you 1000%!
This is AWESOME! I hope that Sen. McConnell & his neocon buddies don’t do something to mess things up. I’m sure he would rather have a Dim win the ticket than anyone committed to respecting the Constitution.
With McConnell’s most recent cave-in, he is the indisputable kiss of death ;-)
This is a most interesting article I am wondering what others think about this here is a snippet...
The Fed is a Fascist Cartel
No one in the freedom movement today disputes that the Federal Reserve is the source of many of our economic woes. Where disagreement arises is in defining the precise nature of the Fed and the source of its capacity to create the harm it does. Many who support gold money and free enterprise claim that the Federal Reserve is a “private corporation” run by capitalist mega-financiers. This I believe to be mistaken.
The Federal Reserve, in my opinion, should not be classified as a private corporation. It should be termed a government-run fascist cartel. There are several important reasons for this. For example, all nationally chartered banks in the Federal Reserve system are forced by the government to join the cartel. Bernanke and his board of governors are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. The Federal Reserve came into being because of an act of Congress, and it can be altered or legislated out of being at anytime by Congress. These factors are not how private corporations are created or operated. The Fed entails government involvement in a massive way. Without the special monopoly privileges legislated by Congress that sustain the Fed, it disappears.
Moreover, the great bulk of the profits of the Reserve Banks are turned over to the federal treasury. As John McCormack explains in a Liberty magazine article: “[H]olding shares in the Fed is not a very profitable activity. Dividends to member shareholders are limited to 6% of nominal capital (hardly a great rate of return) and all Fed revenues above this amount (invariably vastly greater sums) are returned to the U.S. Treasury. In 1994, for example, total dividends to member banks amounted to $212 million while the Treasury received $20.5 billion, 97 times as much.” [Liberty, March 1996.]
Government is thus a full partner in the Federal Reserve System. And a business entity with the government as a full partner is not a private corporation.
Courts Create a Fallacy
Much of the reasoning behind the mistaken notion that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation lies in court cases such as LEWIS vs. United States on June 24, 1982. In that case, the 9th Circuit Court ruled: “We conclude that the [Federal] Reserve Banks are not federal...but are independent, privately owned...corporations...without day to day direction from the federal government.”
There are numerous cases like this where the courts have ruled that the Reserve Banks of the System are privately owned and controlled corporations. The mistake made here by those who support the notion of a “private Fed” is that because the courts declare something to be so, it somehow makes it so. This, of course, is a fallacy. Judges only interpret the law; they do not make the truth. Truth is something we discover through identification of the facts of reality and coherence with the laws of logic. Men find the truth through a process of synthesizing reason, experience and intuition.
What then are the facts of reality and the laws of logic in this case? They are as follows: A private entity in the marketplace is the opposite of a public entity. It is a free entity without monetary support and monopolistic legislation to protect it from government bureaucracy. It is an entity that is operating in a laissez-faire environment. To the extent that government intervenes into and controls, regulates, manipulates, or monopolizes an entity’s market policies, then that entity is no longer private or free. It becomes statist / collectivist (i.e., socialist / fascist) to some degree or another. How much government involvement there is will determine how collectivist the entity becomes.
For example, Exxon Corporation is considered a private corporation. So let’s compare it to the so called “private” Federal Reserve corporation. Does Exxon have its CEO and board of directors appointed and confirmed by the government? No, but the Fed does. Are 97% of Exxon’s profits turned over to the federal Treasury? No, but the Fed’s profits are. Can Exxon be voted out of existence tomorrow by Congress? No, but the Fed can. Therefore despite what our courts maintain, the Fed is not a private corporation; it is a government run cartel.
The fact that the courts define the Fed as “private” is the way that tyrannical ideologues pull the wool over the people’s eyes. This is done to make the people think we are still a free, “private” enterprise country. This is how they smuggle us into corporate statism, i.e., economic fascism — by getting the intelligentsia of the country to buy into their redefinition of words. The courts are run by statist judges, and the schools are run by statist professors — all pretending that we are still a “free” enterprise system. In fact, many of them actually believe their own warped logic. It’s the way they were taught, and they lack the intellectual rigor to investigate the fallacies of their assumptions. They ritualistically use the term “private” because it conveys the image of “free.” But private in this instance is in name only. If a private entity does not have control over its operations, its profits, and its policies, then it is no longer private; it is public, and socialist or fascist to some degree or another.
Who Controls Who?
So do the bankers control the government, or does the Federal Government control the bankers? One way to answer this question is to ask who can abolish who? Can the Federal Government abolish the Fed? Certainly. Anytime it wants to, Congress could eliminate the Fed by a majority vote of its members. But can the mega-bankers, with all their power to influence politicians, abolish the Federal Government? Hardly. In this respect of creation and abolition, the Federal Government is the power behind the evil of our Federal Reserve system. But in actual practice, I think it is more accurate to say that the evil comes from the combine of the two forces. Separately, neither the mega-bankers, nor the Federal Government would be able to wield the dangerous control over our lives that they gain in concert. It is only when they join forces to become “partners” that they gain the power to do the evil they do.
When the mega-banks of America were still largely free-market institutions operating under the gold standard during the 19th century, their capacity for dangerous power over our economy and individual lives was limited. Likewise with the Federal Government; when it was still a defined Constitutional body without the ability to print paper money, its capacity for dangerous power over our economy and individual lives was limited. But in 1913, these limitations were destroyed because the mega-banks and the Federal Government went into partnership. They formed the massive cartel of the Federal Reserve System. And in doing so, the Federal Government granted monopolistic powers to the mega-banks, which gave them the ability to egregiously expand the money supply via credit creation. After elimination of the dollar’s gold convertibility in 1933 and 1971, this became the power to create money indiscriminately.
What needs to be understood, however, is that the mega-banks could never have achieved such a dangerous power grab without the complicity of the Federal Government. Once again, it was the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that brought the Creature into being. It was Congress that voted to grant monopoly status to the mega-bankers, which gave them their dangerous credit creation power. Without their monopoly backed by the force of government legal tender laws, the mega-bankers do not have the capacity to expand the money supply inordinately and rob us of our wealth. Thus for all their reputed control over world events, the mega-bankers do not become dangerous until they join forces with the government, which gives them the dangerous powers they now wield.
...It’s not about the party you associate with, it’s the stance you take on the individual issues. I voted for Ron Paul for pres, because I agreed with lots of his stance on issues, some, I disagreed. Met Rand Paul two months ago, and though he’s running as a repub, I agree with much of his stance on the issues...
...Yea, I’m a registered third party advocate, conservative, Tea, libertarian...
He came in second in the state of nv, where i used to live.
And if Paul wins the nomination, will the Libertarians run a candidate against him?
You’ll get no arguement from me, but you should post an article like this to the forum instead of in an unrelated thread about a senate race. More people will see it and weigh in with their opinions. Ping me if you do so.
Yes sorry I just thought you might like to post it under a libertarian ping for discussion.
As far as “auditing the Fed” goes, do you really want the current crop of Congressional Clowns” auditing the Fed?
Do you really want these a-holes to have even more intrusive power into the “central bank” then they have now?
Do you really want Barney the Homosaur & Dodd to decide what our currency is worth?
I don't see how a modern economy could function without a “central bank”, something independent of the vagaries of day-to-day politics. The Fed as I see it now suffers from too much political manipulation not too little!
I can't see how a decentralized system would function, a return to state banks each issuing a currency. Heck even private banks did that in those days. For example and Idaho state dollar might not be the same as a Vermont state dollar. How would these difference be reconciled? It seems to me it would make a mess of interstate commerce.
I don’t know why this was addressed to me but I’ll take a whack at it.
I read Rand Paul caused quite a stir because he said some things about defending the country. I don’t know if he thinks 9/11 was an inside job and as far as I know Ron Paul never said it was an inside job but I could be wrong.
I think we should end the fed like you pointed out there is too much manipulation I don’t see the fed acting as an independent agency at all.
If we had no fed barney the banking queen or dirty dodd wouldn’t be able to manipulate it.
How do you think a decentralized system worked before congress gave away the power to the fed? We have not always had the fed you know not until 1913.
Here is how it would work.
If, however, we portray the Fed as it actually is (a government run cartel) then the solution to its evil becomes clear — end its protective connection to the government, which would eliminate its monopoly status and its power to dangerously expand the money supply. Simply abolish the Reserve Banks and make the member banks independent institutions again. They would then have to live with the rules that the market would demand. And the market would demand open disclosure of the extent of their fractional reserve loans. Most important of all, the market would demand redemption of all bank issued paper notes with gold coins or bullion upon customer request. Both of these market demands would temper excess paper issuance on the part of banks and keep them responsible.
In other words, repeal the government’s legal tender laws, establish a free-market for banking, and let the marketplace decide what should be used for money. The banks would then have to offer quality gold money that the people desired, rather than corruptible paper money that a government cartel mandates. This would decentralize the financial power of our economy out among the thousands of individual banks throughout the country and strip the Federal Government of its dangerous control over our wealth and productivity.
Anything else about Rand or Ron Paul I am sure you can google it and find out the answers.
One more thing Conservatives never used to be on board for nation building and Ron Paul is by far more Conservative in spending then any other Republican.
I vote in Ky and I don’t want either of these idiots. How can we get someone else to run? I’ve even urged my husband to run, but he said he was married to me, and I have too many skeletons in my closet
Yes I know the argument well about how pre-1913 banking worked. I am still unconvinced that such a system can work now, well for one thing there simply isn't enough gold to issue it as currency. What you described would yield situations where Vermont dollars might not be the same as Idaho dollars. When I had time to study this detail I felt Milton Friedman had the better arguments, basically all the Fed should do is constrain the money supply around some economic parameters that are system to monetary value. In fact he said something that you could reduce the Fed Board's to that of a computer program that constrains monetary growth.
Now regarding Ron Paul's statement about thinking that 9/11 was a inside job, he certainly made statements where he implied that, that was the case. He also did nothing to discourage his “Paulistas” who where spreading that tale. As someone who was stuck in traffic and saw the plane hit the Pentagon, to even give a hint of implication of t being an inside job is abominable ! To me it puts Paul in the same category of David Duke!
I consider the Fed to be a government protected monopoly that practices central planning of the money supply and through their unique ability to print money out of thin air, they are stealing value from everyone else.
Then maybe you are too steeped in the economics taught in America's colleges and universities. You need to go back and read about the central banks of the 19th century.
By federal law, we have to use Federal Reserve Notes. How about giving freedom a chance?
I don't want any top-down command and control monetary system. I want FREEDOM to make contracts in whatever currency I choose, be that FRNs, gold, or 9mm ammunition.
Ah yes! 1913! The middle of the initial two "golden" destruction decades for the former Republic and its original Constitution.
RINOs have the distinction of having been the ones who, historically, opened the barn door to Marxism and/or democracy...They've been aiding and abetting ever since!
Yes Yes higher education is a waste if time & it doesn't do any good except turn people into commies!
I only had one year of econ as an undergraduate and it was from a Chicago School guy.(He had a weird name, can't remember if though!) He basically just taught the book and the book was not anti-free market by any means. The econ department in those days where I got my undergraduate degree was run & dominated by James Buchanan.
(Also my degrees are in the hard sciences, I took econ because every other social science seemed to be BS. At least with econ there was some math!) All my other “education training” in you will came from reading books and articles from Reason, Liberty & reading a lot of Friedman. So is that sufficiently “college-of-hard-knocks-untainted-by-academia” education for you? Right now I am reading (when I have the time!) stuff ranging from Adam Smith to Niall Ferguson. I recently bought a used textbook on banking & financial markets so at some point I will go through that.
Your comment got me curious, and a quick Google of Ron Paul 911 showed a lot of speculation. I didn't find anything that said Paul was a 911 truther. What Paul DID say was that the WTC attacks were a retaliation for our intervention in the ME. Here's a direct Ron Paul quote from 2004:
Unfortunately, the biggest failure of our government will be ignored. I'm sure the Commission will not connect our foreign policy of interventionism practiced by both major parties for over a hundred years as an important reason 9/11 occurred. Instead, the claims will stand that the motivation behind 9/11 was our freedom, prosperity, and way of life. If this error persists, all the tinkering and money to improve the intelligence agencies will bear little fruit. Over the years the entire psychology of national defense has been completely twisted. Very little attention had been directed toward protecting our national borders and providing homeland security.Whether people agree with Ron Paul on this or not, I couldn't find anything where Paul stated 911 was an inside job. If anyone else finds a direct quote from Paul, I'll do a mea culpa, but other people claiming Paul said it don't persuade me.
Our attention, all too often, was and still is directed outward toward distant lands. Now a significant number of our troops are engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've kept troops in Korea for over 50 years, and thousands of troops remain in Europe and in over 130 other countries. This twisted philosophy of ignoring national borders while pursuing an empire created a situation where Seoul, Korea, was better protected than Washington, DC, on 9/11. These priorities must change, but I'm certain the 9/11 Commission will not address this issue.
Yee-HAAA! Go Rand Paul! Libertarians rule! :-)
Probably. They ran a candidate against his father in 2k8. As you know, Ron Paul took 99% of the vote against that candidate. The Democrats ran no one for that congressional seat.
Good for you!
Ron Paul is NOT a 9/11 Truther.
I would suggest Ludwig von Mises, F A Hayek, Murray Rothbard, hans-herman hoppe.
I am not a Chicago School fan. They are Keynesian heretics. They want to replace the Fed’s directors with a computer so it’s not held captive by the whims of politicians. That’s a good aim.
However, I have a problem with a system that requires you to actively spend your savings or have it’s value stolen, by design. That’s what inflating the money supply does, whether it’s by human directors or a computer program. That seems to be to be inherently anti-property rights. If due to the aggregate sum of human activity in a free market, the savings turn out to be worth more or less, that just happens but is not by the design of the system. Friedman’s redeeming qualities were his libertarianism, but just could quite jettison the Keynesianism totally.
I am too have degrees in science (BS in Chemistry and Computer Science, MS in management, and MS in Computer Science) and come by economics from reading.
We saw first hand how the local party officials rigged the game to make sure Paul did not get any delegates. Do you really think the rank and file Republicans choose the candidates? How do you think we ended up with such terrible candidates as Dole and McCain? The RINOs have a firm grip on the party, and they are not about to run a fair, open contest.
I have read them all!
I prefer Hayek, he is less pedantic in his writing style then the others. I used to be a gold bug or “hard money man”, though I am now less convinced that it would work in a modern economy. That is why I lean toward the Friedman viewpoint. To me everything else ultimately is a form of barter, which because of its impracticality it fails then economic activity goes to ‘letters of credit (and debit)” and back to bank notes. The question is a unified currency issued by a central authority (bank) or a decentralized currency. History seems to show that a unified currency is more efficient economically, that is, is best for passing “value” between buyer & seller. The question is how do we keep the government out of it? Governments have been mucking up the value of money probably since there was money to muck with & governments to do it! Think Diocletian's devaluing of the Roman imperial currency!
If you went to a non-central bank solution what would you do with the current Federal Reserve notes? Zero them out?
I am not sure I want to change the current system until I am convinced this “cure” is not worse then the “sickness”. If one gets anything out of reading history and in particular economic history is healthy respect for the “Law of Unintended Consequences”.
Paul was never ahead in any Rasmussen poll either.
I am in favor of freedom. I would let people use whatever they want as currency. If that happens to be gold, then so be it. If not, so be it. I am not in favor of forcing anyone to use any particular fiat currency.
A unified currency that comes about through market forces is one thing. A fiat currency that comes about through the force of government is something totally different and is always adulturated to the detriment of the people and to the benefit of the government and their bankster friends printing the notes.
I agree with you in that the government must be gotten out of the picture.
As for the fate of the FRNs, I’d say take it out on Bernanke, Greenspan, and the other central bankers.
Do to them what is done to other frauds.