Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

State of the Republic Address (Ron Paul)
Campaign for Liberty ^ | 2010-01-20 | U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, 14th District

Posted on 01/24/2010 5:58:31 PM PST by rabscuttle385

As we start the new year 2010, the establishment politicians, economists and Wall Street are trying to convince themselves that we have turned the corner and economic growth has once again begun. The predictions that conditions are getting back to normal come from those who never saw the crisis coming and don't have the vaguest notion what caused it. Some of them concede that it could be a jobless recovery. That will establish a new definition for a recovery.

Official unemployment is at 10% but even the government knows that if everyone is counted, including those individuals that are too discouraged to even be looking for work, the unemployment rate is 17%. Free-market economists claim the actual unemployment rate is closer to 22%.

There's reason to believe that the correction is just barely started and has a long way to run. If the financial bubble came from excess credit created by the Federal Reserve, doubling the money supply can hardly be a solution. It wouldn't make much sense for a doctor taking care of a very sick patient from severe infection to deliberately give the patient another infection. Yet that's what the PhD doctors are doing to our very sick economy. It can't work. It will make the economy much sicker. If our leaders don't wake up soon, the economy will be brought to its knees. Great danger lies ahead.

In foreign policy, it's always crucial that the motives of those who would do us harm are understood. Denial of the truth and accepting more politically palatable excuses will guarantee that threats to our safety will continue as we pursue a seriously flawed involvement overseas.

It's the same in economic policy. If there's denial or ignorance of the real cause of financial bubbles and the inevitable corrections that must follow, the economy cannot be reenergized.

We should have learned the lesson from the Depression of the 1930s that it was a predictable result from the Federal Reserve's orchestrated excesses of the 1920s. Instead, the new-born Keynesian economists who took charge made certain that the correction would not be a one or two year affair as were the previous corrections in our history. The aggressive intervention by Hoover and Roosevelt, the Republicans and the Democrats, turned a short recession into the Great Depression, which lasted until the end of World War II.

The real tragedy was that the interpretation of the 1930s institutionalized bad economic theories. Unfortunately, and erroneously, the Depression was blamed on the gold standard, free markets and a lack of regulations. Though monetary policy was analyzed, its importance was 100% misinterpreted. The low interest rates and excess credit of the 1920s, driven by Federal Reserve policy, was not considered a factor in producing the stock market bubble and the mal-investment.

Instead, the 1930s analysts and even later analysis by Milton Friedman and the monetarists, along with academic "scholars" like Bernanke, came to an opposite conclusion: the Fed was at fault but only because it was too tight, arguing that massive monetary inflation was the only answer to the slumping economy.

And now we are witnessing a grand experiment by the very person who for years claimed special knowledge regarding the Depression. Chairman Bernanke is in the midst of trying to solve the problem of massive monetary inflation and excessively low interest rates instituted by his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, by implementing even more inflation at historic rates. The sad part is the answer to his very risky experiment with the wealth of our country and the health of our economy will take years to analyze. The conclusions will be just as flawed as they were in the aftermath of the Great Depression by an intellectual and political community that had totally rejected commodity money and the principle of free market with the current understanding in Washington.

One hope, though, is that free-market thinking and Austrian economic theories will have greater influence in the next decade or two, since their influence is now on a dramatic upswing. But there are a lot of hurdles to overcome.

In the 1930s, in an effort to find the true cause of the crisis, Congress ordered an official investigation. It became known as the "Pecora Investigation" named after Ferdinand Pecora, the aggressive chief council of the hearings. It received a lot of public attention and brought about many major changes but, tragically, every conclusion made and new policies implemented caused the depression to worsen and legitimized bad economic theories that continue to haunt us to this day.

The Federal Reserve was not blamed except for not printing enough money fast enough. Artificially low interest rates and mal-investment, the main source of the grossly distorted economy and bubble of the 1920s, were exonerated. Not enough regulations were blamed, thus the Glass-Stiegall Act and the Securities Act of 1933 were passed and deepened the depression. Separating commercial and investment banking and the newly created SEC were to have solved all future problems-as long as the Fed was free from any restraint in its money creation operation to serve big-government spenders and members of the banking cartel.

Since the flaws in the monetary and economic system were not corrected but made worse after the Depression, it was to be expected that periodic booms and busts would persist. The longer these cycles could be papered over with new money and credit, the greater would be the distortions and debt that would one day have to undergo a major correction.

That correction is now in its early stages. Since the dollar was the reserve currency of the world and totally fiat since 1971, without any linkage to gold, the financial bubble became worldwide. This bubble that burst in 2008 was the largest in history. During the formation of the bubble, the U.S. as the issuer of the world currency received undeserved benefits. We essentially became the counterfeiter of the world and no one called us on it. Even today, the trust in the dollar that persists has buffeted the pain of the correction for us. This unique setup was a prime cause for our balance of payment deficits and the huge foreign debt we owe-the largest in the history of the world. The discord in the world financial system is telling us that it's time for us to pay for our profligate spending and massive foreign indebtedness. We have lived, as a nation, far beyond our means and the message is, for the foreseeable future, that we will be forced to live beneath our means as this debt is paid.

The inflation optimists are excited about current signs of economic growth and have even announced the end of the recession. It is conceivable that a reprieve can be achieved and the penalty that our economy must endure delayed. A reprieve must not be confused with a pardon; one is a temporary delay, the other an exemption. The payback for our excesses is certain to come.

Massively increasing debt and monetary inflation can slow the crash and change some government statistics encouraging the optimists. But real job growth and return of prosperity will remain elusive. The odds of us once again becoming an exporter of manufactured goods, like steel, cars, and textiles, are remote.

Ironically, a reprieve may well restore some confidence and motivate some spending and investment. But instead of restoring long-term growth, it may well act perversely by precipitating price inflation and higher interest rates. Since today's interest rates are artificially set, much of our investing is unproductively misdirected.

Current enthusiasm in the stock market is once again a reflection of the message that low interest rates send. Thus too, the government's stimulus package has helped to sustain the bond bubble, which in time must be deflated in order to get back to sound economic growth. All of this activity poses a threat to the dollar.

Governments are very powerful, and when in partnership with the monetary authorities that can inflate the currency at will, big government thrives. Welfare demands and senseless wars can be financed for long period of time through inflation, as long as trust in the currency lasts. Trust, though ultimately controlled by facts, can be misleading, since currency values can gain benefit from a country that has a strong military and wealth and a reasonably healthy economy. Eventually, markets and reality overwhelm, and illusions about a currency's worth become a reality.

Today, reality is setting in and the first of three major events has begun. The worldwide financial system, built on a foundation of paper, has received the shock waves of an impending collapse.

The wild speculation and the derivatives market, the stock market bubble, the insurmountable debt-public and private-and the massive mal-investments have been shattered.

The only solution so far offered worldwide, but led by the United States, has been to "print money" faster, keep interest rates low at practically zero percent, and remove all stops for controlling deficits. These are the very policies that caused the disequilibrium, and doing more of the same, but only faster, can hardly help our economy. The addiction to easy credit and deficit defies a wise political solution. Politicians are incapable of delivering the message of frugality, common sense, and sound money.

We can expect that the course we are on to continue and accelerate, since the first event, the collapse of the financial system, is still in its early stage.

The housing crisis is far from over; the commercial property crisis has not yet gotten much attention, and the financial obligations of the government are growing exponentially. And none of this forces the slightest pause in the expanding of welfare growth. The number of regulations, which are indeed a tax, are exploding though the market was already suffering from regulatory excesses. There's a consensus in Washington that "wise" regulations can compensate for all the mistakes made by the Federal Reserve, the Executive Branch, and Congress. This fallacy has been around a long time and will be difficult to overcome.

The pessimism of the middle class continues to get worse despite the prognostication of Wall Street and the Administration. Most Americans know that the standard of living and real wages have not gone up for the past 10 years. If you're not a shrewd stock trader and instead invested in stocks 10 years ago and held on, in real terms you would have lost 20% of your savings. The middle class is poorer also because house prices have crashed and many have lost their homes. On top of this, all we hear about is the trillions of dollars of debt and entitlement obligations that have been racked up for future taxpayers to pay. When it is revealed that the insider friends of the Fed and Congress get billions of dollars in bailout at the expense of the middle class, it's no wonder the people are taking to the streets and directing their hostilities toward both Republicans and Democrats in Washington. Many would agree it's well-earned anger and properly directed.

This anger and frustration will certainly grow as the consequences of the collapse of the financial system become more severe. The concerted effort to prevent the correction the market demands, guarantees a prolonged agonizing crisis. Every effort to reverse the tide will depend on spending, higher deficits, increased taxes and money creation. This effort is now providing another grand bubble: the dollar/bond bubble.

The next event will be a dollar crisis. A full-blown dollar crisis will be worse than our current financial crisis. The extent of a dollar crisis depends on whether or not the Washington politicians wake up and change their ways-a dubious hope.

More likely, the insanity will continue until some not yet known event will undermine the confidence of the dollar worldwide. Signs of less desire by foreigners to hold our dollars are already present. I'm certain our Treasury and Federal Reserve are pulling out all stops to prevent a massive run on the dollar. At present the "orderly" retreat from the dollar is working. But it won't last.

China is quite active in investing in natural resources around the world, and including in Iran. While we live in the dark ages and believe only our military presence and military threats can protect our access to oil, China is actually spending some of their savings investing in their future access to energy and other precious metals and minerals.

But the orderly retreat from the dollar won't last forever. Since 1973, shortly after the breakdown of the Bretton Woods Agreement, the dollar has lost 32% of its value against a Federal Reserve basket of currencies. But that doesn't tell the real story, since that is a measurement against all other currencies, and they are fiat currencies as well. This gave the dollar an artificial benefit from its position of power in great wealth and military prowess. The dollar in relationship to gold, however, is down 97% since 1971, and 82% as measured by the CPI. The dollar, mismanaged by the Fed, has not been a benefit to the savers who sought to responsibly take care of themselves. They've been cheated by a rotten system and are just beginning to understand exactly how the Federal Reserve has been responsible for the swindle.

It is impossible to predict the time when confidence will be lost, but it can come quickly. Resorting to buying other paper currencies will not be of much help. When the dollar crashes, most likely the purchasing power of all currencies-since all countries hold dollars as a reserve-will go down as well.

This means that dollars and other currencies will go into buying consumer items, precious metals and other physical properties. Consumer prices will soar, as well as interest rates. The central bank will lose control; and the more they inflate, the worse the confidence becomes. The interest rates will respond to these efforts by rising sharply.

If the Fed tries to reverse the run on the dollar, interest rates will also soar, and the pain on the American citizens will be of such proportion that political chaos will result. Either scenario leads to political and social chaos-the third event, and the most dangerous.

With no ability of the federal government to fund its commitments, international or domestic, major changes will occur in our system. The social unrest will elicit cries for government to exert unusual force to head off a complete breakdown of law and order. The ultimate trap will be set for a system of government claiming to protect a free society. If more power and police authority are not given to the federal government, it will be argued that only anarchy will result. If more government policing power is given, it will mean a lethal threat to civil liberties. Already we have permitted the notion that a single person, the Attorney General or President, can decide who is an "enemy combatant", thus denying that individual the right to habeas corpus, permitting indefinite detentions without charges made. This attitude toward civil liberties has changed significantly since the fear built around 9/11.

Yes, I know declaring one an "enemy combatant" is reserved for the radical Muslims engaged in terrorism against the United States. To be reassured by this reasoning is quite dangerous and naïve. Logic should not lead us to equate suspects with terrorists, and include American citizens, and yet this has already been set by precedent. Under difficult circumstances, our political leaders will not be hesitant to use these powers to maintain order. Tragically, the people may even demand it.

We are rapidly moving toward a dangerous time in our history. Society as we know it is vulnerable to political and social chaos.

This impending crisis comes as a consequence of our flawed foreign and domestic economic policies, a silly notion about money, ignorance about Central Banking, ignoring the onerous power and mischief of our out-of-control intelligence agencies, our unsustainable welfare state, and a willingness to sacrifice privacy and civil liberties in an attempt to achieve safety and security from an inept government. Dangerous times indeed!

What can be done about it? Must we wait for the inevitable and expect to restore our liberties in a street fight against the overwhelming power of the state? Not a good option!

The only way that we can prevent blood from running in the streets is to offer a better idea of the proper role of government in a society that desires first and foremost liberty.

And that is impossible without a firm commitment by our thought leaders to the ideas of freedom, the source of all creative energy and prosperity. An all-powerful state is the threat to that ideal.

The prevailing attitude of the people-as it once was in early America-must be that of liberty and self reliance, rather than the nanny state and dependency relying on government force to mold all private choices.

If this is understood, a smooth-although not painless-transition to a free society is achievable. Ignoring this option will be very destructive to everything that is dear to the hearts of most Americans.

What is it that we must do? We must immediately embark on:

None of this can happen without the restoration of Congress to its dominant position of the three Branches of Government as was originally intended by the Constitution. The Executive and Judicial must be reined in, and Congress must assert its prerogatives over all legislation curtailing all unconstitutional agendae through budgetary controls.

Signs abound that angry Americans are now more ready than ever before for a change in direction that is indeed real. If this program were improvised-even suddenly and dramatically-the adjustment, though significant and to a degree somewhat painful, would be much shorter and of minor consequence compared to the chaos and poverty that will result if we refuse to change our gluttonous appetite for a free lunch.


TOPICS: Candidates; Issues
KEYWORDS: 911truthers; antisemite; apaulling; apaulogia; apaulogist; austrianeconomics; blameamericafirst; cfl; fakeconservative; gobacktodu; lping; lronpaul; lunatic; neonazis; nutjob; paulbearers; realconservatives; rino; rlc; ronpaul; truther; youknowhesnuts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 01/24/2010 5:58:33 PM PST by rabscuttle385
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: djsherin; bamahead; Bokababe; mysterio; Captain Kirk; BGHater
This impending crisis comes as a consequence of our flawed foreign and domestic economic policies, a silly notion about money, ignorance about Central Banking, ignoring the onerous power and mischief of our out-of-control intelligence agencies, our unsustainable welfare state, and a willingness to sacrifice privacy and civil liberties in an attempt to achieve safety and security from an inept government. Dangerous times indeed!

What can be done about it? Must we wait for the inevitable and expect to restore our liberties in a street fight against the overwhelming power of the state? Not a good option!

The only way that we can prevent blood from running in the streets is to offer a better idea of the proper role of government in a society that desires first and foremost liberty.

And that is impossible without a firm commitment by our thought leaders to the ideas of freedom, the source of all creative energy and prosperity. An all-powerful state is the threat to that ideal.

The prevailing attitude of the people-as it once was in early America-must be that of liberty and self reliance, rather than the nanny state and dependency relying on government force to mold all private choices.

*Ping!*

2 posted on 01/24/2010 6:01:47 PM PST by rabscuttle385 (Purge the RINOs! * http://restoretheconstitution.ning.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
...the establishment politicians...

Kind of an ironic way to start considering he has been one longer than most.

3 posted on 01/24/2010 6:15:27 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385; SolidWood; euram; SoCalPol; WVKayaker; ak267; Two Kids' Dad; Soul Seeker; Hojczyk; ..
Nutcase!

Ron Paul: "We need to take out the CIA!"

4 posted on 01/24/2010 6:17:48 PM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin has crossed the Rubicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
>>>>>•Change our foreign policy to that of non-intervention

Right! Let the Islamofascists, the Red Chinese and the neocommies take over the world. Paul is naive and dangerous!


5 posted on 01/24/2010 6:30:16 PM PST by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

RINO Ron Paul

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)

* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)

* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

* Rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)

Against ID for immigrants; it leads to national ID card. (Dec 2007)
Against Tamper-proof I.D. for immigrants is a bad idea. (Jan 2006)

Opposes death penalty at state and federal level. (Jan 2008)

No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007)

Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007

Voted against condemning Ahmadinejad

Ron Paul believs we deserved 9/11 because he calls America occupiers and Imperial America


6 posted on 01/24/2010 6:30:45 PM PST by SoCalPol (Reagan Republican for Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I just watched I.O.U.S.A (2008) on netflix instant... I am convinced Ron Paul might be our only hope. America is broke and we are all fu^$ed! if we don;t deal with our debt and spending... we might be screwed either way.


7 posted on 01/24/2010 6:33:21 PM PST by dubie (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

8 posted on 01/24/2010 6:39:11 PM PST by SoCalPol (Reagan Republican for Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol

To his cultees, that is just proof he is a ultra, super-dooper Conservative.


9 posted on 01/24/2010 6:41:32 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
Ron Paul's supporters
10 posted on 01/24/2010 6:43:59 PM PST by SoCalPol (Reagan Republican for Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I kind of like what Politico had to say in profiling his successor, Gary Johnson, also misled.

“he shares some of [Ron Paul’s] libertarian alarmist views, but without the penchant for gold standard wonkiness.”

It should be fun watching two kooks vying for the kookiest award.


11 posted on 01/24/2010 6:44:50 PM PST by DakotaRed (What happened to the country I fought for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol

12 posted on 01/24/2010 6:48:53 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
To his cultees, that is just proof he is a ultra, super-dooper Conservative.

He's ultra, super-duper, stark-raving mad.

All of his good ideas go to hades as soon as he spews his blame America bilge.

13 posted on 01/24/2010 6:51:55 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dubie
I am convinced Ron Paul might be our only hope.

So you agree with Paul that the CIA has instigated a "coup" and needs to be "taken out"?

14 posted on 01/24/2010 6:53:06 PM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin has crossed the Rubicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: onyx

15 posted on 01/24/2010 6:55:51 PM PST by SoCalPol (Reagan Republican for Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

16 posted on 01/24/2010 6:58:43 PM PST by SoCalPol (Reagan Republican for Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dubie

If ron paul is our only hope I’m going to blow my brians out...


17 posted on 01/24/2010 6:58:56 PM PST by Crim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Crim

Save the ammo. He’s NOT.


18 posted on 01/24/2010 6:59:35 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dubie

And then my brains...

LOL


19 posted on 01/24/2010 6:59:37 PM PST by Crim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol

Dave’s not here man. Ron Paul on medical marijuana?


20 posted on 01/24/2010 7:12:34 PM PST by Springman (Rest In Peace YaYa123)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
Kind of an ironic way to start considering he has been one longer than most.

Gosh I would have thought, that of all the politicans in Washington DC, Ron Paul would have to be the most anti-establishment.
21 posted on 01/24/2010 7:17:35 PM PST by Redhd2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

Ron Paul has made some nutty declarations in recent years, but this time he is right on, depending on what he means bt “reigning in” the CIA.

On economic issues few can touch Ron Paul.


22 posted on 01/24/2010 7:38:21 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Democracy, the vilest form of government, pits the greed of an angry mob vs. the rights of a man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
"Kind of an ironic way to start considering he has been one longer than most."

Politition, yes, but establishment? Not by most definitions; he has been a constant gadfly in congress, which in most (but not all) cases has been a good thing.

23 posted on 01/24/2010 7:41:56 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Democracy, the vilest form of government, pits the greed of an angry mob vs. the rights of a man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
"To his cultees, that is just proof he is a ultra, super-dooper Conservative."

To the cult, conservative is not necessarily a label they crave. They tend to the hyper-libertarian. (some would say anarchist)

24 posted on 01/24/2010 7:47:14 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Democracy, the vilest form of government, pits the greed of an angry mob vs. the rights of a man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Doom and gloom on acid.


25 posted on 01/24/2010 8:13:39 PM PST by datura ("Against all enemies, both foreign and domestic")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol; All

Good grief, Ron Paul = RINO in a major way. The guy is anti-American, soft on crime, soft on abortion, etc. etc. This is the guy that the Paulistianians tout to “save the Republic”? No thanks, not with this guy.

Thanks for the heads up. Ron Paul’s record on abortion is worse than Scott Brown’s. At least Brown holds to a lot of “functional” pro-life positions, even if he mouths platitudes about it being “between a woman and her doctor.” I’ll keep this in mind the next time some holier-than-thou third partyist idiot mouths off about how we’re “supporting RINOs” by being glad that Brown beat Coakley.


26 posted on 01/24/2010 8:17:28 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All

Ron Paul’s best line in the debate:

“Your making fun of me?”

Actually, nobody made fun of him, they were all ,(including the moderator) biting their lips to keep from laughing at him.


27 posted on 01/24/2010 10:31:42 PM PST by rbmillerjr (It's us against them...the Establishment RINOs vs rank and file...Sarah Palin or bust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; dcwusmc; bamahead; djsherin; rabscuttle385; sickoflibs; ...
Good grief, Ron Paul = RINO in a major way. The guy is anti-American, soft on crime, soft on abortion, etc. etc. This is the guy that the Paulistianians tout to “save the Republic”? No thanks, not with this guy

You know, for better or worse, the only thing that I have ever seen Ron Paul defend and base every single of his arguments upon, is the US Constitution -- maybe to a literal fault -- but that's it. Ron Paul doesn't come up with anything new, it isn't just "his view" -- every single idea that he defends is written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

So when I hear people ridicule him as "a kook", "a nutcase", etc. -- rather than just wrong --, I just keep thinking that they are also saying that the Founding Fathers were also "loonies" -- or that they think that the Constitution is completely outdated & nearly useless -- or perhaps "a living document".

If that really is the case -- and someone thinks that the Constitution and Bill of Rights really is completely outdated and in need of revision -- then I'd like to see someone with the stones to try and amend & revise it -- and I mean that, float revisions and potential amendments and see how that goes.

Because as far as I know, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the only contract that we citizens have with our Federal Government -- it's the only thing that we have to hold DC politicians to their part of the bargain, while we hold up our end.

But if people want to continually set the Constitution aside or ignore the parts that are difficult -- and/or label every politician who expects other politicians to follow it in all their decisions, "a nutcase" or "a lunatic" -- then it seems to me that then we deserve what we get from DC.

And I don't have to want Ron Paul for President to see that.

28 posted on 01/25/2010 12:33:37 AM PST by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Bravo, my friend. Well said, indeed.


29 posted on 01/25/2010 12:56:28 AM PST by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub. III OK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; SoCalPol; Bokababe; bamahead; djsherin; rabscuttle385
Yep, that crazy Ron Paul claimed your tax cut wasnt what was funding the two wars, reconstruction, new senior entitlements, homeland security, the housing bubble....what a nut-case! Good thing we had the neo-cons to set us straight.

Who’s being ignored? The Austrian free-market economists—the very ones who predicted not only the Great Depression, but the calamity we’re dealing with today. If the crisis was predictable and is explainable, why did no one listen? It’s because too many politicians believed that a free lunch was possible and a new economic paradigm had arrived. But we’ve heard that one before—like the philosopher’s stone that could turn lead into gold. Prosperity without work is a dream of the ages.Ron Paul: The Austrians were Right

30 posted on 01/25/2010 5:24:57 AM PST by sickoflibs ( "It's not the taxes, the redistribution is spending you demand stupid")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
You know, for better or worse, the only thing that I have ever seen Ron Paul defend and base every single of his arguments upon, is the US Constitution -- maybe to a literal fault -- but that's it.

Yeah you're right. It seems that keeping an oath to protect and defend the Constitution is so old hat now a days.
31 posted on 01/25/2010 6:01:19 AM PST by Redhd2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe; dcwusmc; bamahead; djsherin; rabscuttle385; sickoflibs
You know, for better or worse, the only thing that I have ever seen Ron Paul defend and base every single of his arguments upon, is the US Constitution -- maybe to a literal fault -- but that's it. Ron Paul doesn't come up with anything new, it isn't just "his view" -- every single idea that he defends is written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Yes, I've *heard* that, but I remain unconvinced that Ron Paul really has a clue about what a lot of the Constitution even says. Basically, his argument seems to be that whatever he think, is therefore "constitutional," therefore, his viewpoints are constitutional. Essentially, the argument is that whatever Ron Paul says must be constitutional, therefore if someone disagrees with Ron Paul and thinks he's a kook about some things, then they must not believe in the Constitution.

That's not a good argument. That's bullhockey.

Ron Paul is great on spending issues. He's great on sovereignty issues. But these are also NOT the issues that people on here call him a kook about.

Unfortunately, he's a kook because of his ridiculous opinions about foreign policy. And let us note - there is no such thing as a "constitutional" position on foreign policy. Isolationism is not demanded, nor even implied, by the Constitution. The Constitution never stipulates what sort of a foreign policy the United States are to conduct - it merely stipulates that the President conducts it, and Congress approves of it.

Yet, Ron Paul and his followers seem to think that his particular foreign policy viewpoints are demanded by the Constitution. They are not. As such, the claim "every single idea that he defends is written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" is patently incorrect. Likewise, the Constitution never demands that we be on a gold standard (though the position has merits and I *tend* to agree with RoPaul on that).

Look, I know a lot of folks on here are just jolly for Ron Paul. And I agree that on issues such as spending and federal overreach, national sovereignty, etc. he is good. But he is very, very bad on several important issues. That's simply the way it is, and is why he don't get no respect on FR.

32 posted on 01/25/2010 11:25:53 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
"Yes, I've *heard* that, but I remain unconvinced that Ron Paul really has a clue about what a lot of the Constitution even says.

Actually, when he is talking about the Constitution, he very often refers to it chapter and verse.

However, having said that, I realized that I did make an error -- in addition to RP's references to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I should have added "the writings of the Founding Fathers", which while not laws in and of themselves, do clearly state their positions and intentions of how and why certain portions of the Consitution were written.

And let us note - there is no such thing as a "constitutional" position on foreign policy. Isolationism is not demanded, nor even implied, by the Constitution.

As for the "Constitution and foreign policy" -- the powers allotted to the President and Congress were designed to avoid war, because war was profitable only to a few while created suffering and reduced prosperity for the rest of the country. There are many quotes by the Founding Fathers to attest to this. So you are correct in that "isolationism" was not written into the Constitution, but many of the Founding Fathers writings seemed to suggest that they saw the US as a sort of "Switzerland" -- armed to the teeth in defense of our own country, while holding the money and prosperity when European countries were killing each other:

Washington's Farewell Address:

...Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense, but in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Again, these are the Founding Father's "opinions", not just Ron' Paul's, and they are not laws, but they provided the world view of how the Constitution was written and administered at the founding of our country.

Personally, I think that America has every right to defend and protect itself the best of it ability. But I've yet to discover why I should pay for defending every country in the known world and send my son to defend people who should be defending themselves.

In earlier times, countries went to war with one another and America let in only the best of the refugees. If a despot became unbearable, his own people overthrew him -- it cost America nothing and some Americans helping to rebuild it, might even profit from it. In short, Americans wanted to live in peace and freedom -- and profit.

But today, we seem to think that "our government knows best". We let -- even encourage -- our government to plant their big foot on foreign soil and use our sons to do it to fight for other people's peace freedom & profit, instead of our own. We let government and big business set up the war scenarios that allow their cronies to profit, while we even pay for their trouble with our taxes. Our mindset has changed radically from that of our ancestors -- they were more concerned about themselves and their own honor & prosperity, while we are more arrogant, assuming that we know what's best for the world.

Criticize him if you will, but I don't think that it does our country harm to remember the original intentions of the Founding Fathers and if Ron Paul is the reminder, well then good for him.

33 posted on 01/25/2010 2:26:50 PM PST by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; ..
Must we wait for the inevitable and expect to restore our liberties in a street fight against the overwhelming power of the state?



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
34 posted on 01/25/2010 4:55:33 PM PST by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Tp paraphrase your Reagan tagline,

("In this present crisis, interventionism is not the solution to our problem; interventionism IS the problem."

It's time that we use our military to defend the United States on our own soil, mind our own business in foreign conflicts, ^protect our own back yard. RON PAUL IS RIGHT!


35 posted on 01/25/2010 8:15:50 PM PST by ChrisInAR (You gotta let it out, Captain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR
Linking Ron Paul to Ronald Reagan is ridiculous.

In 1988 Ron Paul was nominated by the Libertarian Party for president and ran against the Reagan agenda, at one point telling the Dallas Morning News, Reagan was a "dramatic failure" as President. Paul also said, "I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration", Reagan was "a failure, yes, in, in many ways". Transcript of Paul's remarks on Meet the Press. Also, see Youtube video of Paul on MTP.

Paul's association with other Reagan haters like the John Birch Society, lewrockwell.com and that all time Reagan hater, Murray Rothbard, is not cause for celebration either.

36 posted on 01/25/2010 8:40:13 PM PST by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I have no prob w/ Paul's criticism of Reagan. Reagan didn't make much of an effort in decreasing the size of the fedgov....quyite the opposite, in fact. Yes, he had a Dim Congress to deal w/, but he also had the power of the veto, which he didn't use nearly enough. Reagan could talk a good game but he governed differently.
37 posted on 01/25/2010 8:50:48 PM PST by ChrisInAR (You gotta let it out, Captain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR
>>>>>>I have no prob w/ Paul's criticism of Reagan.

Then wtf are you doing with a picture of Paul with Reagan on your FR homepage? You and Paul are hypocrites. Not to mention Paul being a certified nutjob.

Reagan was the most successful conservative President of the 20th century. There were only six presidents in history with more vetoes then Reagan. He also had more vetoes then any potus of the last 50 years.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

38 posted on 01/25/2010 9:10:40 PM PST by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

So is it not possible, in your opinion, to criticize w/o being considered to be insultive, hateful, etc.? I always thought that criticism was a good thing, in that it makes us better people in the long run.


39 posted on 01/25/2010 9:16:34 PM PST by ChrisInAR (You gotta let it out, Captain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
I pinged you because I want you to read thru this thread and see if you notice the same thing I did.

Hint: Previously reading thru any of the various 'Palin campaigns for McCain' threads will greatly enhance your chances for achieving the answer.

Also, you may wish to keep these words in mind:

contradictory - ironic - hypocrisy

I'm betting you will get it because you and I, for the most part, see this site thru similar eyes.

40 posted on 01/25/2010 9:37:54 PM PST by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR

Calling the Reagan Presidency a failure and rejecting the Reagan agenda is not mere criticism. Its hatefilled lunacy. Turning around and evoking Reagan in his last election run for potus, makes Paul a hypocrite. Paul’s long friendship with Murray Rothbard, the founder of modern libertarianism, his friendly association with Lew Rockwell and his praising the Birchers just last year, is off the wall. And this is not guilt by association either, so don’t even go there. All these guys think alike. Their politics are fringe wackoism.


41 posted on 01/25/2010 9:48:13 PM PST by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

What problem do you have w/ “Birchers”?


42 posted on 01/25/2010 10:01:24 PM PST by ChrisInAR (You gotta let it out, Captain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR

Since its inception c.1958, the JBS has been at the forefront of political conspiracies and fringe idiocies. Conspiracy paranoiacs can not be trusted.


43 posted on 01/25/2010 10:06:53 PM PST by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

“...fring idiocies”

Such as, what? Please explain if you can.


44 posted on 01/25/2010 11:17:27 PM PST by ChrisInAR (You gotta let it out, Captain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
Kind of an ironic way to start considering he has been one longer than most.

Yes, he's been a politician for quite a while, I'll give you that. But part of the ESTABLISHMENT? Come on! That's ridiculous. The current GOP Establishment (& most Democrats) despise Rep. Paul, 'cuz they know that he represents a threat to their power.

45 posted on 01/25/2010 11:22:46 PM PST by ChrisInAR (You gotta let it out, Captain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jla

Maybe I’m slow this morning.

One the one hand you have the Paul bashers citing
Paul’s faults (call them line items 1 through 9)
with the expected level of vehemance and ridicule.

On the other hand you have the Paul supporters clinging
to line item 10, where Paul makes a rudimentary kind of
sense, while completely ignoring the other 9 items where
he fails miserably, again peppered with the expected
level of vehemance and ridicule.

No amount of rhetoric or explanation will make the Paul
supporters aware of the “fail” line items, and similarly
the Paul bashers cannot see through these same items
to glimpse the one item where Paul is right.

Maybe I’m slow this morning.


46 posted on 01/26/2010 7:05:28 AM PST by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol

lol, RINO. Here is a challenge for you find something he voted yes on.


47 posted on 01/26/2010 9:17:05 AM PST by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Good article.

One can argue if purely mechanical, economic measures in absence of a religious awakening could rescue the Republic, — and this is where Ron Paul’s libertarian idelology fails, — but the analysis of the current state of economic affairs is spot on. Notably, no one made a contrary argument based on the article itself, and caricatures in the age of Photoshop come cheaply.


48 posted on 01/26/2010 10:41:37 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
please click here
49 posted on 01/26/2010 10:45:07 PM PST by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
Actually, when he is talking about the Constitution, he very often refers to it chapter and verse.

That's great....but then again, so does Congress every time it wants to use the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify the next expansion of federal power into this, that, or the other area. Merely quoting the Constitution does not equal having a really sound knowledge of the document.

However, having said that, I realized that I did make an error -- in addition to RP's references to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I should have added "the writings of the Founding Fathers", which while not laws in and of themselves, do clearly state their positions and intentions of how and why certain portions of the Consitution were written.

Again, true....but we should note that you need to specify which Founders. Since they didn't always agree, even on foundational issues. Which Founder? Madison? Jefferson? Hamilton? Adams? All involved in crafting the Constitution, but all obviously having some shades of difference.

As for the "Constitution and foreign policy" -- the powers allotted to the President and Congress were designed to avoid war, because war was profitable only to a few while created suffering and reduced prosperity for the rest of the country. There are many quotes by the Founding Fathers to attest to this. So you are correct in that "isolationism" was not written into the Constitution, but many of the Founding Fathers writings seemed to suggest that they saw the US as a sort of "Switzerland" -- armed to the teeth in defense of our own country, while holding the money and prosperity when European countries were killing each other:

Well, no, that's not what the Constitution actually says. The powers were designed to separate power over foreign policy between the executive and the judiciary - that's it. They were not specifically designed to "avoid war," though they and we obviously agree that doing so is generally a good thing.

Yet, the same President who played a primary role in formulating the Constitution (Jefferson) was also the one who sent the Navy over to thrash the Barbary States. This presents an interesting problem for the Ron Paul/isolationistas who think that the Founders intended only for the US military to be used in defence of the American homeland. See, Jefferson - who obviously knew more about what "the Founders intended" than you, I, and Ron Paul combined, had no problem with fighting that war, even though these states were not threatening the American homeland, merely our commercial interests overseas. Therefore, we can surmise that Jefferson felt that war in the defence of overseas US interests was a legitimate use of the US military, despite what the Paulistinians and Buchananites today would have us to believe.

Again, these are the Founding Father's "opinions", not just Ron' Paul's, and they are not laws, but they provided the world view of how the Constitution was written and administered at the founding of our country.

I figured that somebody, at some point, was going to bring up Washington's Farewell Address, since somebody always manages to take it out of context.

The problem with appealing to this address, apart from the fact that it not the Constitution, nor is it commentary on the Constitution (such as the Federalist Papers), is that Washington's comments pertain to a particular set of circumstances which no longer exist. That's the same problem with Buchanan's "Fortress America" approach - it's unrealistic because America no longer is half a world and three months away from the rest of the world. We have enemies who, in Washington's day didn't even know we existed, but who now could potentially be in a position to drop missiles on us literally in minutes, and who definitely can threaten American economic interests overseas in more completely comprehensive ways than would have ever even have been though possible in Washington's day. In short, technology changes, and we'd better change our outlook, too. We don't live in Washington's world anymore, and it would be suicide to try to act as if we did. While his general principle that we shouldn't involve ourselves in every little squabble the world over holds true, the idea that we can hunker down behind our oceans and be safe is ridiculous.

Personally, I think that America has every right to defend and protect itself the best of it ability. But I've yet to discover why I should pay for defending every country in the known world and send my son to defend people who should be defending themselves.

Well see, now you're confusing some things here. I'm not advocating the sort of "Invade-the-world/invite-the-world" policies that George Bush followed. However, neither Bush's way nor Ron Paul's way are rational. If Ron Paul had his way, we wouldn't even have a foreign policy - until a hostile world turned against us by those who are envious of our prosperity suddenly hit our shores one day, or come streaming up across our southern border (think the board game entitled, appropriately enough, Fortress America). Obviously, we have to have a foreign policy that DOES engage the rest of the world, and does so for the purpose of advancing America's best interests. Trying to claim that this is "unconstitutional" belies a serious lack of understanding of what the constitution says, or worse, a desire to simply apply the term "constitution" to one's own viewpoints, regardless of the actual text of that document.

In earlier times, countries went to war with one another and America let in only the best of the refugees. If a despot became unbearable, his own people overthrew him -- it cost America nothing and some Americans helping to rebuild it, might even profit from it. In short, Americans wanted to live in peace and freedom -- and profit.

I agree. Which makes me suspect that Jefferson would have been willing to fight "a war for oil" too - though hopefully not stick around for years after in a never-ending occupation.

But today, we seem to think that "our government knows best". We let -- even encourage -- our government to plant their big foot on foreign soil and use our sons to do it to fight for other people's peace freedom & profit, instead of our own. We let government and big business set up the war scenarios that allow their cronies to profit, while we even pay for their trouble with our taxes. Our mindset has changed radically from that of our ancestors -- they were more concerned about themselves and their own honor & prosperity, while we are more arrogant, assuming that we know what's best for the world.

Well, in one sense, the whole point to giving the federal government the powers over foreign policy and warmaking was because the FOUNDERS thought that "our government knows best," as well. There's a reason the individual states and individual citizens are not constitutionally allowed to conduct their own foreign policy, and why that federative power was given to the federal government.

HOW the federal government uses that is any entirely different discussion and one in which I'd probably be largely in agreement with you about, but THAT the federal government has sole power in these areas is undeniable.

Criticize him if you will, but I don't think that it does our country harm to remember the original intentions of the Founding Fathers and if Ron Paul is the reminder, well then good for him.

The problem is that people need to be reminded of what the Constitution actually says, not what one guy who interprets it wrongly a lot of the time thinks it says.

50 posted on 01/27/2010 12:29:24 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson