Gotta love a curmudgeony type, but can't you do something about his 18th century vision of America? First of all, having been in state government, the very notion of giving them more power terrifies me. Second, our society has just grown too complex for the traditional libertarian concepts--which, in my heart, I like.

I just don't them working today.

In Jameson Veritas

Something went horribly wrong with the formatting here, but let's see what happens if I comment.

First off, the basic principles of libertarianism are so simple that they really can't be negated by changes in the culture or the complexity of how we live.

Now of course the specific solutions to our problems have to change as the problems change and become more sophisticatd. But you can still keep in mind the basic idea of keeping government smll and maximizing the freedoms which each of us benefits from.

IMO Ron Paul is too ideologically inflexible. He's too much of a libertarian purist and wants to turn the clock back in a way which is sort of unrealistic. But that wouldn't be much of a problem in a VP, and his idealistic message is certainly worth getting out infront of the public at this time when the GOP is kind of rudderless.

If I wanted to run a libertarian for president it would be Mark Sanford of SC who combines the basic principles with some essential pragmatism.

Dave

What if Ron Paul chooses a Democrat VP (maybe one of our favorite western governors?) to increase cross-over appeal to Democratic voters? I know many voters who would "never" vote for a Republican, but they feel strong enough about the Iraq War to consider voting for Ron Paul.

Or how about a Paul/Schwarzenegger ticket? Can non-native citizens be VP?

Mark writes:

Second, our society has just grown too complex for the traditional libertarian concepts--which, in my heart, I like.

So, could we just do it until we need glasses?

I don't think a non-native born candidate can fulfill the requirements of the office of VP, since one of them is to be able to take over the presidency if needed.

Plus, there's no way a figure of the stature of Arnold could play second fiddle to Ron Paul. Paul is great in many ways, but he doesn't have the national stature to actually run as the party nominee for president, unless it was intended to be a purely symbolic candidacy.

Paul would, however, make an outstanding VP to go with Rudy Giuliani. So would Tom Tancredo for that matter. They both offer exactly the kind of rep needed to balance off the things which make the GOP blue-hairs nervous about Giuliani.

Dave

That black guy in drag, right?

I want to be sympathetic, really, but why do Libertarians write prolifically? They all seem to write volumes about what you correctly call simple.

And I've never met a conservative who doesn't claim to be called "Dr. No".

New ideas are always endorsed by eccentrics and eccentrics are usually wordy. They're also sometimes right. Libertarianism makes a lot of sense, and Ron Paul synthesises the most sensible strains of the movement beautifully. I'd vote for this guy in a second.

I agree with Matt. I'd vote for Paul in a second. The Libertarian Party should vow not nominate anyone and fall in line with the GOP in the 2008 fall election if it nominates Paul for president or vice president. Paul mirrors my views on almost every issue. I never thought such a politician existed. :-) Imagine, a religious libertarian who opposes gay marriage, abortion, and censorship, just like me! Finally, someone I can enthusiatically support, without having to settle for the lesser evil! Run, Ron, run!!

Hey Mr. Nalle,

It's not fair!

You guys in TX have cool pols like Kinky (well, I guess he's just a wannabe), Ron Paul and Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Who do we have here in FL?

Alcee Hastings, Mark Foley and Katherine Harris.

I call foul!

(But, on the plus side, we did have Jeb for two terms)

Terry, does Ron Paul actually oppose gay marriage? That would surprise me. I bet his position is a bit more nuanced than that. I find it hard to imagine that he'd oppose equal rights for gays regardless of his religious convictions.

And Clavos, Katherine Harris is crazy enough to make politics in your state interesting all by herself.

Dave

Thanks for covering Ron Paul and mentioning his connection to the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Your readers might also be interested to know that two other Libertarian Republicans are "exploring" a Presidential campaign: Legendary Las Vegas Sports Oddsmaker Wayne Root, and Two-time Emmy Award-winning Actor Michael Moriarty. Both have expressed their intentions in the major media in the last couple weeks, and both are self-described "libertarian conservatives."

It's a regular Libertarian Republican smorgasboard. Proof that the hottest political movement in America is NOT the soccer moms, but rather the largely ignored "Blue collar libertarians."

To keep up with Libertarian Republican Presidential candidates view mainstreamlibertarian.com

Eric Dondero, Former Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)

Eric, last I checked Michael Moriarity could only be described as a radical socialist. When did that change? He's also extremely irritating and starred in the movie Island of the Alive, a black mark which ought to haunt him forever. Plus he has the name of the most famous literary villain of all time. A lot of negatives to overcome there.

Dave

One wonders why a former senior aide to Ron Paul is touting potential rivals.

Perhaps the answer lies in whatever is behind the word "former?"

Clavos, give Eric a break. From what I've seen he's a reasonable, dedicated person. There are a lot of people among libertarian Republicans who aren't entirely in favor of Paul because of his religious views and extreme position on immigration. It's nice to know that there are alternatives.

Hell, I used to work for Al Gore - does that mean I have to endorse him for the rest of my life?

Dave

What is "strict constitutionalism" in his case?

Dave,

Ron Paul believes gay marriage is a states rights issue, and not something the courts or federal government should be getting involved in it. Most states, of course, ban it either with laws or state constitutional amendments.

Terry, that position makes some sense, but in the long run it's not going to fly any more than the federal government's attempt to ignore segregation and jim crow laws did in the 1950s.

Dave

In fact, those state constitutional amendments are exactly WHY we have a federal government to intervene on behalf of the rights of the citizens.

Dave

Shoot, I'm willing to donate. Where's his official "campaign" link?

Ron Paul's district stretches from Galveston to Lake Jackson down south to Victoria. It's a large district, but most of his district would better be described as the Houston area than Corpus Christi. Lake Jackson, where he is from, is basically an exurb of Houston.

Jonathan, I live in the next district over. Until the recent redistricting Corpus was the heart of the district.

Oh, and as far as an official location for donations, the info is all at RonPaul.org.

He hasn't set it up for online donations, though - serious mistake IMO.

Dave

"He hasn't set it up for online donations, though - serious mistake IMO."

I agree. I donated to numerous candidates during the last election cycle, and it was all done online...I find buying stamps and filling out envelopes inconvenient... :-/

The whole web thing was put together pretty hastily from what I can tell. He actually didn't have any campaign info on his site for a couple of days after the announcement. His official campaign site is actually not even up yet. It will be at www.ronpaul2008.org.

Dave

I wish Ron Paul, my former boss of 12 years, all the best. But I will not be supporting him, due to his views on foreign policy. I left his employ three years ago because he did not support the War in Iraq, and the War on Terror.

I view the struggle against Islamo-Fascism as the Number One issue facing our Great Nation. If we don't fight them over there, we'll be fighting them on the banks of the Rio Grande in 5 years.

I don't want my wife to be forced to wear a burqa from head to toe. And I don't want my Gay friends to have their genitals cut off, or my marijuana smoking buddies jailed for life. And I certainly do not wish to kneel down to Allah 5 times a day at the point of a gun.

I wish Ron Paul would understand that Islamo-Fascism is real, and they are out to destroy our civil liberties.

I think Eric has provided an example of why, despite all his excellent qualities, Paul isn't a viable national candidate. Eric could probably go into more detail, but probably shouldn't, but my impression is that Paul is ideologically driven and unable to moderate his beliefs no matter how much pragmatism might demand it. This is why I think it's great to have him in the race to get his message out, but unrealistic to think of him as an actual presidential contender.

Dave

it's tough being a voter, for the first time in my life I wnet straight dem in '06, there was an awful odor coming from the republicans, they have become the party of big government and the imperial presidency. I'd switch over in a heartbeat to vote for Ron in the primary were he on the Repulbican ticket.

I've been wanting to vote for Ron Paul for many years. I jump at the chance.

Sorry Eric parted with him on the war question. I agree with Ron Paul on this one, though, because of my feelings that the only danger Islam actually poses to the West is through immigration, as all the Muslim countries are pathetically weak by our standards.

The war has actually encouraged extremist Islam, or whatever you want to call it, by removing a stable secular regime from the Muslim world.

As for VP's, perhaps Jim Webb (I'm thinking out loud here -- I don't know that much about him).

I suppose the VP should at least be in harmony with Ron Paul on immigration and the war.

Paul isn't going to NEED a VP because he isn't going to get nominated. He should be working on establishing the best position to get the VP position for himself.

As for Webb, he's not even in the right party, plus he's a creepy duplicitous bastard.

Dave

Ah, good to see you again Rex. :)

Eric, it is interesting that you have so many negative things to say about Ron Paul. He was really good to you and you are reciprocating by speaking ill of him? Difference in Foreign Policy? I think not. Try absenteeism!

I know Dr. Paul personally and IMO he is a terrific candidate for office. I could go on and on about his qualities but suffice it to say, would it not be refreshing to have someone who actually has an opinion and not only speaks it clearly but follows through? His past record speaks for itself. Take Obama for instance. Has he EVER said anything that makes any sense? "I believe in nobility!" Blah, blah, blah! Sounds like Bush if you ask me. A puppet.

Obama is an empty suit.

Elizabeth, Eric isn't saying anything truly negative about Ron Paul and certainly not anything different from what many of us are saying. Dr. Paul has an excellent record from a purely ideological perspective, but to run for president you need to offer more than just being a rigid ideologue. You've got to be at least somewhat practical and adaptible, and that's where he comes up short.

What we need is someone who's have Paul and half Bush.

Dave

How about Jeb?

No, he's too much Bush, though in name only...

If Jeb's last name was Smith or Johnson or even Hussein-Osama, he would be a shoo-in for the GOP nomination in 2008. But having one Bush follow another is simply to much to ask of the electorate.

Exactly, RJ.

A pity.

On January 17, Ron Paul gave his first radio interview since the announcement of his bid for the 2008 presidency. He appeared on the Alex Jones show, interviewed by Jack Blood. Listen here.

He appeared on the Alex Jones show

This kind of thing is exactly why I'm concerned about the viability of Paul as a presidential candidate.

Dave

"He appeared on the Alex Jones show"

This kind of thing is exactly why I'm concerned about the viability of Paul as a presidential candidate.

Heh...

As one who recently ran for partisan Libertarian office in order to keep the LP on the Indiana ballot (successfully!), I have a keen interest in Pauls' run. On the trail, I repeatedly fielded questions about party labels. Mainly, why not run as an 'R' or 'D' if it means you can still be yourself and have the same principles yet go from 4% to possibly winning?

It's a fair question, and I suspect that Paul's success and support, or lack thereof, will go a long way towards deciding the future of the Libertarian Party as a party.

For me, for now, the answer tends to lie in the way libertarians are treated when they are wearing major party labels- especially within the 'R' Liberty Caucus. No legislation authored by a Liberty Caucus member has become law. No Liberty Caucus member has chaired a committee. And never lose sight of this: The Republican Party gerrymandered Ron Paul, the multi-term incumbent Libertarian-Republican, out of his district!

But, we'll see. Ron Paul is far more palatable to me right now than any candidate who has declared they seek the Libertarian nomination in 2008, so he gets my support- for now.

Good points, Mike. However, I do have to differ with you on the record of RLC members in getting legislation passed.

Jeff Flake authored HR 6338 in the 2005 session and it was signed into law. Admittedly it's pretty trivial, but it did become law. Flake also got amendments passed to the sneak and peak bill and a lobbying reform bill plus a couple of other bills in the last session. This year I think his HR 631 to ban stealth earmarks might

Ron Paul didn't get any laws enacted last year, but he did have a couple of successful amendments, including one to block some funding to the UN. He also passed an amendment to protect people from being investigated for their political activities, and an amendment to sunset the ONDCP if not renewed by September of 2011.

That's just two of the more prominent members of the RLC. They may not be the top legislators, but they ARE getting stuff done. Some of those amendments are truly significant.

Dave

He's got my vote!!!

I believe the bottom line question the supporters of Ron Paul need to address and answer is: how do they gain a majority of American Voters to support Ron Paul during election time.

Before this question can be answered, one must be able to identify a significant goal which a majority of voters consider is a worthy one and one important enough for them to work toward accomplishing.

Since we live in a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government [see Art. 4, Sec. 4 U.S. Constitution] and are ruled by written constitutions, state and federal, I believe I have identified a common factor responsible for the complaints of a significant number of single interest voters ___ folks in government violating the most fundamental rule of Constitution law which is, a sworn duty to carry out the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, as they are documented from the historical record during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified!

The irrefutable fact is, there are those who support and defend our written Constitution [the intentions and beliefs under which it was agreed to], and, there are those on the left and right who work to subjugate our written Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agreed to, and, this subjugation has created a very subtle dividing line in politics that spans across the extreme left wing and extreme right wing who vote during America’s elections.


I believe that a political movement with a fundamental goal to compel folks in government abide by our Constitution, that is, abide by the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, would have very wide appeal and cuts across political party lines. Who are potential participants in such a movement? The list appears to be very, very long and includes a number of single interest voters, e.g.: those who support and defend the right to keep and bear arms; those who support the federal government protecting our borders from invasion; those who were outraged over the Kelo decision and the SCOTUS subjugating the intentions for which eminent domain power is granted to government; those who believe the Americans With Disability Act is a usurpation of federal power and nothing more than a clever “lawyers full employment act”; those who believe Congress and not an un-elected majority on a NAFTA panel, the majority of who may be foreigners, are delegated the power to regulate America’s commerce with foreign nation. This of course covers the NAFTA, WTO, CAFTA, and other un-constitutional creations by which America’s commerce is no longer regulated by the people’s elected representatives. And, let us not forget all those who believe that Roe vs. Wade was an outright usurpation of state authority by the federal government and that the abortion issue is one retained by the people of the various states via the Tenth Amendment and also includes the No Child left Behind Act which is another federal power grab with a dangerous intention by the existing leadership of the Republican and Democrat parties intended by them to be used to control the minds of each succeeding generation’s children, teaching them to be good little tax slaves and subservient to the federal establishment in Washington . And, let us include all those who see the American Civil Liberties Union for what it really is…a domestic enemy of our Constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government which seeks to subjugate the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted! Like I correctly said, the list is very, very long!

A solution to our misery can start right here, right now, by organizing a movement to create the largest demonstration on Capitol Hill in our nation’s history___ a demonstration to demand our federal government abide by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as they may be documented from the words of those who framed and ratified our written Constitution which can be documented from historical records, and, the primary speaker could be candidate Ron Paul!

NOTE: documenting the intentions of our Constitution from the historical record slams the door shut on and smokes out all those [left and right] who would attempt to peddle their own personal agenda by making the Constitution mean whatever they want it to mean!

Now, how do we start such a movement, a political movement to support and defend our written Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or, is it that we are happy to appease ourselves by engaging in table talk and consider talk our contribution in taking back our Country? Would you participate? Would anyone here participate? Any suggestions?

If the defenders of our country and our constitutional system want to make a difference, they must do so before the overwhelming voting public has been made dependant upon government for its subsistence, and they must take quick action to identify themselves as a powerful political force in America with a clearly defined objective which draws significant public support. I believe I have identified a clearly defined objective which all freedom loving people would have an interest in seeing accomplished ___ compelling our public servants, our hired employees, to abide by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as they may be documented from the words of those who framed and ratified our written Constitution, which can be documented from historical records!


Sincerely,

JWK

The servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute by taxation to a gangster government which ignores our most basic laws…our constitutions, state and federal.

Yea, if we don't bomb countries like Iraq, all our women will be wearing a burqa from head to toe. Yea, it's the Islamo-Fascists who have the power to take away our civil liberties, not the spying US Government! SURE!

So, JWK. I'm with you on the importance of the Constitution. I notice you mention the ACLU up there. I always thought they defended Constitutional rights. Our of curiosity, are you the kind of Constitutionalist who thinks the founding fathers intended to establish a 'christian' nation when they wrote it?

Dave

I could say a great deal of negative things about Ron Paul. I served in his employ for 12 years. I served as his Personal Travel Aide when he ran for President as a Libertarian in 1987/88. I went on to serve in his 1992 aborted Presidential Exloratory Campaign, in 1995 as his Congressional Campaign Coordinator and from 1996-2003 as his Senior Congressional Aide.

He's not the ideal person as you all believe him to be, either personally or politically. It's best for all involved that I leave it at that.

One comment though. A poster said that the Republicans "gerrymandered Ron Paul out of his District." That is pure crap. If anything it was entirely the other way around. I know, I was right there when all the redistricting occured here in Texas.

Tom DeLay took a hit for his old friend Ron Paul. Take a look at the District maps. You'll see a strange finger in DeLay's District 22 jettisoning into Galveston County that seemingly makes little sense. Tom DeLay purposely took heavily Democrat LaMarque out of Ron's 14 CD so that Ron's Republican numbers would be higher.

It's funny how the looney tune Right-wing and many Libertarians who hate Republicans continue to promulgate this myth that the GOP and GOP leaders "secretly hate Ron Paul."

Hell, if it were not for George W. Bush (and Karl Rove and DeLay), it's doubtful Ron Paul would have ever been elected to Congress back in 1996.

The mainline Republicans, particularly in Houston and Victoria, were very suspicious of Ron after he won the primary in a low-turn out runoff. They vowed not to support him in the General. Governor Bush (through Rove), put the word out to the Party regulars that YES, they will support RP.

A week after the primary suddenly things had changed dramatically. Every GOP leader from Kay Hutchison to DeLay to Henry Bonilla to Carole Keeton Strayhorn was down in CD 14 campaigning and fundraising for Ron Paul.

Message for those of you who don't know what you are talking about: Better off that you don't post on Forums when you don't have your facts in order.

Eric Dondero, CEO
Mainstream Libertarian

[Eric: As you seem to be intent on lingering around, please allow me to give you a quick couple of pointers.

Firstly, please insert the http:// that is missing from your own url in the URL box above the Comments window. This will allow the site software to correctly link to your own site. Without it, it just goes to an error page. I've added it manually to this comment but you need to do it yourself next time you comment for it to be remembered...

Similarly, it is BC protocol to have all links in comments correctly formatted. If you're not sure how to do that, it is clearly explained here: How to format links correctly.

Finally, please don't leave scads of white space below your remarks.

Thanks a lot and enjoy the site. Kind Regards, The Comments Editor]

For those who doubt the threat of Islamo-Fascism, just ask the Dutch. Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered on the streets of Amsterdam for the crime of criticizing Islam in a documentary film. Pim Fortuyn, two weeks before he was to be President of Holland, was also brutally murdered by an Islamo-Fascist sympathizer.

In Paris two years ago, 1,200 cars were burned on city streets by Muslim Youth.

Also, massive violence and riots took place in Copenhagen over the publication of cartoons critical of Muhammed.

Still not enough evidence? Try catching a cab these days at the Minneapolis Airport after you've had a drink at the Airport Lounger. The Muslim cabbies will refuse to give you a ride.

In Ohio, Co-Ed fitness centers are being banned cause of complaints by Muslims.

At the Univ. of NC last year 8 students were run down in the campus green by a crazed Muslim in an SUV.

In Seattle last summer, 6 Jewish Women were gunned down by a Muslim shouting "Allah Ahkbar" at the Jewish Community Center. One was pregnent. Another later died of her injuries.

John Muhammed, the Beltway Sniper, killed 14 Americans in Maryland, Virginia, Arizona and Alabama, to avenge American attacks on Islamic nations.

And you think it can't happen here?

Pro-Defense Libertarians

Dave wrote:

“So, JWK. I'm with you on the importance of the Constitution. I notice you mention the ACLU up there. I always thought they defended Constitutional rights. Our of curiosity, are you the kind of Constitutionalist who thinks the founding fathers intended to establish a 'christian' nation when they wrote it?”

Dave,

I though I was crystal clear in what I support, which is abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as they may be documented from the words of those who framed and ratified our written Constitution which can be documented from historical records.

I have found nothing in Madison’s Notes on the Convention, the Federalists Papers, nor Elliots’ Debates to suggest our founding fathers intended to “establish a 'christian' nation” with the adoption of the federal Constitution. If someone ever suggests that to you, ask them to provide the documented evidence showing there was such an intention during the framing of our Constitution, or cite the appropriate passages from the Federalist Papers or Elliots debates to establish the founding fathers intended to establish a Christian with the adoption of our Federal Constitution.

As previously wrote:

NOTE: documenting the intentions of our Constitution from the historical record slams the door shut on and smokes out all those [left and right] who would attempt to peddle their own personal agenda by making the Constitution mean whatever they want it to mean!

As to the ACLU, they are a documented domestic enemy of our constitutional system and have, among other things, continually worked to subjugate the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.


JWK

He's not the ideal person as you all believe him to be, either personally or politically. It's best for all involved that I leave it at that.

I don't think most of us were saying Paul was the dream candidate. I certainly didn't present it that way in the article. But he DOES add something interesting to the mix in the campaign, and just having him there with his ideological extremism sort of forces the other candidates to raise the level of their discourse, especially in the debates.

Dave

As to the ACLU, they are a documented domestic enemy of our constitutional system and have, among other things, continually worked to subjugate the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

I'd be interested in seeing more details on this. Usually those making this argument have exteme religious views of one sort or another, but you claim not to. The ACLU does things like defend free speech rights and defending the right of people not to incriminate themselves. That type of activity seems to support the constitution to me.

Dave

Eric, while I apreciate your insights, frankly you sound like a re-run of Michael Savage with the Burkaphobia. You are certainly entitled to your views, and I can see how they would have seperated you from Ron Paul's in recent years.

Regarding Europe's multicultural difficulties, this is precisely one of the things that seperates Paul from most Libertarians. He understands the importantance of nations, borders and sovreignty (unlike the one worlders BTW).

The fact is that "principles" have been almost entirely lost in current debate and the Rule of Law has all but collapsed in government. Having someone who is "Ideologically Rigid" may be a healthy thing for the debate this coming year.

On the point of rigidity, I would point out that Paul did vote for the athority to use Military force in Afganistan even though he felt it was too much of a blank check. This should demonstrate that in matters of national security he can compromise if he must. In the end I think you will find it was the architects of the war who have proven to be the idological rigid ones... support them and their candidates if you must.

Ron Pauls speech:

,I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the record.

Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.

From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial "boom" followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.

With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America's exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.

Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.

In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans' standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.

WHY GOLD?
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
As with all matters of investment, everything is clear in hindsight. Had you bought gold mutual funds earlier this year, they might have appreciated more than 100 percent. Gold has risen $60 since March 2001 to the latest spot price of $326.

Why wasn't it obvious? The Fed has been inflating the dollar as never before, driving interest rates down to absurdly low levels, even as the federal government has been pushing a mercantile trade policy, and New York City, the hub of the world economy, continues to be threatened by terrorism. The government is failing to prevent more successful attacks by not backing down from foreign policy disasters and by not allowing planes to arm themselves. These are all conditions that make gold particularly attractive.

Or perhaps it is not so obvious why this is true. It's been three decades since the dollar's tie to gold was completely severed, to the hosannas of mainstream economists. There is no stash of gold held by the Fed or the Treasury that backs our currency system. The government owns gold but not as a monetary asset. It owns it the same way it owns national parks and fighter planes. It's just another asset the government keeps to itself.

The dollar, and all our money, is nothing more and nothing less than what it looks like: a cut piece of linen paper with fancy printing on it. You can exchange it for other currency at a fixed rate and for any good or service at a flexible rate. But there is no established exchange rate between the dollar and gold, either at home or internationally.

The supply of money is not limited by the amount of gold. Gold is just another good for which the dollar can be exchanged, and in that sense is legally no different from a gallon of milk, a tank of gas, or an hour of babysitting services.

Why, then, do people turn to gold in times like these? What is gold used for? Yes, there are industrial uses and there are consumer uses in jewelry and the like. But recessions and inflations don't cause people to want to wear more jewelry or stock up on industrial metal. The investor demand ultimately reflects consumer demand for gold. But that still leaves us with the question of why the consumer demand exists in the first place. Why gold and not sugar or wheat or something else?

There is no getting away from it: investor markets have memories of the days when gold was money. In fact, in the whole history of civilization, gold has served as the basic money of all people wherever it's been available. Other precious metals have been valued and coined, but gold always emerged on top in the great competition for what constitutes the most valuable commodity of all.

There is nothing intrinsic about gold that makes it money. It has certain properties that lend itself to monetary use, like portability, divisibility, scarcity, durability, and uniformity. But these are just descriptors of certain qualities of the metal, not explanations as to why it became money. Gold became money for only one reason: because that's what the markets chose.

Why isn't gold money now? Because governments destroyed the gold standard. Why? Because they regarded it as too inflexible. To be sure, monetary inflexibility is the friend of free markets. Without the ability to create money out of nothing, governments tend to run tight financial ships. Banks are more careful about the lending when they can't rely on a lender of last resort with access to a money-creation machine like the Fed.

A fixed money stock means that overall prices are generally more stable. The problems of inflation and business cycles disappear entirely. Under the gold standard, in fact, increased market productivity causes prices to generally decline over time as the purchasing power of money increases.

In 1967, Alan Greenspan once wrote an article called Gold and Economic Freedom. He wrote that:
"An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense - perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire - that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other. . . . This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights."

He was right. Gold and freedom go together. Gold money is both the result of freedom and its leading protector. When money is as good as gold, the government cannot manipulate the supply for its own purposes. Just as the rule of law puts limits on the despotic use of police power, a gold standard puts extreme limits on the government's ability to spend, borrow, and otherwise create crazy unworkable programs. It is forced to raise its revenue through taxation, not inflation, and generally keep its house in order.

Without the gold standard, government is free to work with the Fed to inflate the currency without limit. Even in our own times, we've seen governments do that and thereby spread mass misery.

Now, all governments are stupid but not all are so stupid as to pull stunts like this. Most of the time, governments are pleased to inflate their currencies so long as they don't have to pay the price in the form of mass bankruptcies, falling exchange rates, and inflation.

In the real world, of course, there is a lag time between cause and effect. The Fed has been inflating the currency at very high levels for longer than a year. The consequences of this disastrous policy are showing up only recently in the form of a falling dollar and higher gold prices. And so what does the Fed do? It is pulling back now. For the first time in nearly ten years, some measures of money (M2 and MZM) are showing a falling money stock, which is likely to prompt a second dip in the continuing recession.

Greenspan now finds himself on the horns of a very serious dilemma. If he continues to pull back on money, the economy could tip into a serious recession. This is especially a danger given rising protectionism, which mirrors the events of the early 1930s. On the other hand, a continuation of the loose policy he has pursued for a year endangers the value of the dollar overseas.

How much easier matters were when we didn't have to rely on the wisdom of exalted monetary central planners like Greenspan. Under the gold standard, the supply of money regulated itself. The government kept within limits. Banks were more cautious. Savings were high because credit was tight and saving was rewarded. This approach to economics is the foundation of a sustainable prosperity.

We don't have that system now for the country or the world, but individuals are showing their preferences once again. By driving up the price of gold, prompting gold producers to become profitable again, the people are expressing their lack of confidence in their leaders. They have decided to protect themselves and not trust the state. That is the hidden message behind the new luster of gold.

Is a gold standard feasible again? Of course. The dollar could be redefined in terms of gold. Interest rates would reflect the real supply and demand for credit. We could shut down the Fed and we would never need to worry again what the chairman of the Fed wanted. There was a time when Greenspan was nostalgic for such a system. Investors of the world have come to embrace this view even as Greenspan has completely abandoned it.

What keeps the gold standard from becoming a reality again is the love of big government and war. If we ever fall in love with freedom again, the gold standard will once more become a hot issue in public debate.

Nice article! Things are definitely heating up with Ron Paul talking of running. I've been a supporter of his for virtually all of my political life (about 20 years)

Tom W.

Ron Paul for President 2008

Phill Dave,

Yes, Ron Paul did vote to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan. That was only after his Staff, mainly me, GOT DOWN ON OUR HANDS AND KNEES AND BEGGED AND PLEADED WITH HIM TO DO SO!!!

I, his Top Staffer, threatened to resign on the spot if he didn't vote to invade Afghanistan.

Ron Paul was smart enough to know that it literally would have been political suicide in this South Texas District if he hadn't done so.

You should have been there. There's an amazing story about that time in the Ron Paul office, for some enterprising reporter. It was agonizing for all involved.

It was at that point, me having to beg Ron to vote to fight the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan, that I lost virtually all respect for the man.

I had been with him through thick and thin, campaigning with him through 40 states in his 1988 Libertarian Presidential effort as his Personal Travel Aide.

I had dropped my life in Tallahassee, Florida and pulled up and moved to Texas to run his Congressional Campaign in 1995/96.

And there was a man who could have cared less that 3,000 of his fellow countrymen had just been brutally murdered in the flames of 9/11.

Sickening. I was absolutely sick to my stomach over his dithering of whether or not to invade Afghanistan.

Fortunately at the very last minute, and after two other Top Staffers begged and pleaded with Ron, he reluctantly voted for the resolution.

Philly Dave,

You entirely skirt the issue of Europe's problems with Islamo-Fascism. How about directly addressing my points?

Michael Savage? Yeah, I listen to him on occasion. But he's a Conservative. I'm a Libertarian.

Savage opposes Islamo-Fascism cause he wants us to live in a Christian nation.

I oppose Islamo-Fascism cause I support Social Liberties: Legalized Prostitution, Gay Rights, Pro-Choice on abortion, Drug Legalization, Gambling, Booze, ect... I dare say Savage as other Social Cons, would find my Libertine views abhorrent.

Read the NY Times Bestselling Bruce Bawer book, "While Europe Slept; The Rise of Radical Islam." Bawer is a Gay man who moved to the Netherlands. He used to be a Liberal. Then he saw for his own eyes what the Islamo-Fascists were turning Europe into.

I've backpacked all over Europe. I speak about 10 to 15 languages. Like Bawer I've seen for my own eyes what's become of formeraly socially tolerant Europe. The Muslims are rampaging all over the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Germany and Denmark.

We're next.

If you check The Daily Paul you will see Ron had an excellent first weekend in NH, where we raised $14,000 for him at a house party. The videos are on that site. He did many other things that weekend which you can read about on the ronpaulexplore.com site and also on NH Insider

IF 1 MILLION PEOPLE EACH SEND $20.00, that's $20M dollars!

Checks should be made out and mailed to:

The Ron Paul 2008 PEC
837 W. Plantation Drive
Clute, TX 77531

The reason Europe has a problem with Muslims is economic in nature. The low birth rate has forced European countries to allow increased immigration to fill the need for workers. The European countries have a much higher rate of socialized health care, etc., and can not sustain the programs without an influx of workers.

That is not the case in our country.

Europe has had immigration do to the very liberal asylum laws and pretty liberal immigration from former colonies. The people that came and are coming are mostly uneducated and unemployed. They hardly pay taxes etc., therefore they don't sustain the welfare systems either.

Some of the same forces DO apply in our country, Mike. We certainly do have the same need for immigrant labor.

Dave

Mike in WNY, you are entirely avoiding the real issue with Europe's problems with Muslims, i.e. social matters.

It's a social thing, NOT an economic problem.

Muslims are horrified by the openess and tolerant attitudes of Europeans.

They see the topless beaches in the south of France. They see Gays and Lesbians holding hands and kissing in parks in Copenhagen. They see the open brothels in Amsterdam with prostitutes for sale. They see the marijuana smokers at the bus stops in Geneva. They see the Germans boozin' it up during Octoberfest. They see the raunchy television which shows full nudity in Italy.

It's about sex (and booze and partying). It has very little, if anything to do with economics.

Please, I implore you. Read the Bruce Bawer book "While the West Slept."

And if you want to see something very frightening, check this out.

Who is paying for all this for a wet behind the ears first term senator with nothing to offer?

To Eric:

We don't have a better candidate and may end up with Hillary or Obama.... does that not SCARE you???

I like Ron Paul's ideas. I don't think he's extremist or anything. I don't think his desires to follow the constitution are outlandish or out of step with the times. We live in a nation unwilling to give up anything for the cause of freedom. A point was made that he did not want to authorize force for Afghanistan, I agree to a point. The more I view 911 and other important events in our nation's history I have to wonder. I wonder how a lot of things could happen. I believe our agencies and forces are some of the strongest and wisest in the world. For 911 to take place a lot had to go wrong on purpose. These are my opinions inside, in the place where there is a knowing that something just aint right about much that goes down in this nation. As an African American or better as an American I like Ron Paul A LOT. I like a minimalist view of life. I like that Bush is a Christian and all that jazz, but some of the stuff he's doing is not right and may be illegal.

As of right now I don't know who did 911 and am willing to leave Muslims alone and see to the fixing of our nation. The world still needs that city on a hill, we can still be that city.

** Philly Dave,

You entirely skirt the issue of Europe's problems with Islamo-Fascism. How about directly addressing my points? **

I did address it. You cite Vangough (a single murder) and a bunch of rioting losers in france?

Europe's multicultural problems underscore the proper role of borders and some modecom of immigration control. An issue many libertarians (not Paul) ignore. Even radicals such as Rothbard came to realize the neccessity of borders to defend against the take over of a society by another culture possibly at the behest of another government.

Add to that the socialist policies of countries like france and you get the riots. Not that the US is immune to such riots mind you ... ie. LA ????

The muslims who choose to attack the US (an extremely small number of people I might add) do so largely because of their objection to what we do in the world. It's the price of empire. The US government of course refuses to level with it's citizens in this regard leaving them to believe that we are always some poor victim who never harms anyone.

Ron Pual of course advocates a non-interventioinist foreign policy which by it's nature will kick far fewer bee hives. If you want to run around the globe proping up murderous dictators one year and bombing their people the next year ... taking out their popular (even democraticly elected) leaders and replacing them with US Puppets then you need to accept that some of them and their muslim "brothers" are going to hate you. The muslim extreemism is used to rally the troops and circle the wagons.

Your point about afganistan is a perfect example.

Paul wanted advocated the issuing of a letter of marque and reprisal be issued by congress authorizing the president to use small specialized forces perhaps contractors to go after the people who attacked us on 9-11. Probably the most appropriate action.

When the Rumsfeld and the congress ignored this, You and your fear of "political suicide" aparently convinced the congressman to go along with the Administrations request of a plank check to carpet bomb and occupy Pipelinastan.

I am guessing you also tried to get the congressman to support the invasion of Iraq as well.

Moral questions aside, the thought that you are going to militarily squash every last islamic person who might do harm to an American seems unrealistic. To the contrary, it is just more of the same in terms of motivation.

Life has risks.

A non interventionist foreign policy, secure borders with a reasonable immigration policy, and drastically reduced welfarism and preservation of the 2nd amendment will minimize the risks you fear.

Massive deployment of our millitary in permanent middle east military bases will increase those risks.


Obviously there is some sort of resentment on your part towards Ron Pual, but given the mess that exists in Afganistan and Iraq, I would have expected that perhaps you would have at least re-evaluated YOUR position. It is quite possible that Dr. Paul's view is in fact the correct one... asuming of course a free republic is what you have in mind.

Yes NH, but the result would just be that Paul had $20 million dollars to spend telling the country that the "libertarian" message is that we shouldn't do anything to actually defend the country - which just ends up making us all look like chumps, ideological fools not remotely credible on national defense (the one main thing the federal guv'ment is SUPPOSED to do).

I dig Ron Paul and all. I ran for the Indiana legislature under him on the LP ticket in 1984. But do you really think that anyone could take the guy as a serious candidate? Really, as a commander in chief, Ron Paul would be approximately equally credible to Dennis Kucinich.

Paul did at least serve in the military, which is more than Kucinich has going for him. But I agree that he's not a viable national candidate. He's already raised enough money from donations to stay around for the early debates, which is more than a lot of the other candidates can claim.

If you want to make a donation, I recommend the second most libertarian choice, Rudy Giuliani.

Dave

** which just ends up making us all look like chumps, ideological fools not remotely credible on national defense (the one main thing the federal guv'ment is SUPPOSED to do)**

Defense as in put troops and bases in hundreds of countries around the world? Continue developping nuclear weapons? Attacking people who had neither the means nor the desire to attack us?

You are probably right regarding "perception". That perception is the result of Americans becoming scared little bedwetters who believe that the government (which can do almost nothing effectively) is somehow going to do the "job" of "making us safe" well.

To believe that borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars every year to finance empire qualifies as defense is laughable.

Eventually the bills will have to be paid and we will find it is unsustainable anyway. All empires eventually roll back and ours will be no different.

Rudy is NOT a libertarian! He's not even conservative.

To Al,

If you heard Ron's speech at the party you would see he is NOT soft on DEFENSE, but he is cautious on OFFENSE, and he DOES believe we need a strong military to defend ourselves. So you are completely misrepresenting him.

He has far more background and cred that Kook-cinich.

NH, Rudy is rated as a moderate/libertarian on Ontheissues.com which has done a candidate rating.

And while he may not be a bible-thumping, homo-killing conservative, he's conservative in the ways that really count - on spending, taxes and national defense. And yeah, on the social issues he's more of a libertarian (right wing code word for the 'good' kind of liberal).

Dave

I hope you are not trying to accuse my candidate of being a 'bible-thumping, homo-killing conservative' because there are few of those around here. Rudy is NO libertarian! He's more like a neo-con...besides why waste time trying to categorize someone I plain don't like and neither does anyone else, who has NO chance to go against the American Idol mentality of the leftists???

Philly Dave, I don't mean to defend the status quo of American foreign policy, particularly having troops and bases in 100+ countries. We'd probably be well behooved to cut out 2/3 of that on several counts.

Also, perhaps I'm judging Mr Paul too harshly on these matters. He's high enough on the virtue list that I will have to look at his more recent thoughts on defense issues more closely. But I'm not a bit impressed with anything I've seen from him on defense matters in recent years.

As to the American public believing that the government will "somehow going to do the "job" of "making us safe" well," allow me to elucidate just slightly on the nature of "somehow." It obviously gets pretty complicated, but the basic method is simply to figure out who is a seriously intending US harm and then killing them.

Just blanketly writing off that responsibility on the basis of general government incompetence to do ANYTHING at all as you basically seem to imply is simply unacceptable. There are people seriously trying (and succeeding a bit around the margins) to kill US. With some of these people, it absoutely IS in fact US or them. I vote "them." And I won't support any candidate who doesn't.

I'm not 100% thrilled with Giuliani - particularly on gun control issues. Still, most of the things for which he is criticized for being "liberal" are as Nalle says it, the good kind of things, ie social stuff. In the world of real possibilities, Giuliani doesn't look half bad at this point. We'll see how he plays out.

**Philly Dave, I don't mean to defend the status quo of American foreign policy, particularly having troops and bases in 100+ countries. We'd probably be well behooved to cut out 2/3 of that on several counts.**

From my perspective (and we may disagree) you ARE defending it. It is our interventionism that incites much of the radicalism against us.

In my view, we have taken 9-11 (an event initiated by a very small minority) and responded to it by creating many 9-11's in Afganistan, Irag and potentially Iran.

Just as 9-11 galvanized Americans for a time, we continue to provide the impetus for the likes of Alquaeda to galvanize and radicalize many muslims.

The Neoconservative plans, I suppose, looked good on paper to some, and the manner in which they were sold but they defy logic, ignore human nature, underestimate the will of people to expell invaders, and quite frankly they vastly underestimate every single associated cost. It is incompetence on a grand scale.

This bit about human nature and perception cannot be emphasised enough. Imagine the UN with better funding and bigger guns bullying us around, bombing our cities, agitating for regime change in the US ... how would we react as individuals?

*** but the basic method is simply to figure out who is a seriously intending US harm and then killing them.***

And this is the job that I believe has been screwed up royally.

In your research be sure to read about this:

=================================

October 11, 2001

Paul Offers President New Tool in the War on Terrorism

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul today presented Congress with the "Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001," legislation designed to give President Bush an additional tool in the fight against terrorism. He also introduced legislation that changes the federal definition of "piracy" to include air piracy.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal when a precise declaration of war is impossible due to the vagueness of the enemy. Paul's bill would allow Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces. Since it is nearly impossible for U.S. intelligence teams to get close to Bin Laden, the marque and reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan or elsewhere to turn him over to the U.S.

"The President promised the American people that the federal government would use every available resource to defeat the global terror network," Paul stated. "Congress should immediately issue letters of marque and reprisal to add another weapon to the U.S. arsenal. The war on terrorism is very different from past wars, because the enemy is a group of individuals who do not represent any nation. Western intelligence in the Middle East is exceedingly limited, so we should avail ourselves of the assistance of those with better information to track, capture, or kill Bin Laden."

The Act allows Congress to narrowly target terrorist enemies, lessening the likelihood of a full-scale war with any Middle Eastern nations. The Act also threatens terrorist cells worldwide by making it more difficult for our enemies to simply slip back into civilian populations or hide in remote locations.

"Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man," Paul concluded. "Congress should issue such letters and give the President another weapon to supplement our military strikes."

I hope you are not trying to accuse my candidate of being a 'bible-thumping, homo-killing conservative'

Did I say that? But there are plenty of candidates in the current field who are appealing to that market. Paul's main problem is his ideological inflexibility and the fact that he's perceived as extreme both in the party and by the public.

He's not a viable national candidate, but I think it's great that he's running because of the issues it raises.

because there are few of those around here.

I take it you're in the LP rather than the GOP then, and presumably living outside of the US.

Rudy is NO libertarian!

Like I said, he's a libertarian-leaning moderate.

He's more like a neo-con

In no conceivable way is this true.

...besides why waste time trying to categorize someone I plain don't like and neither does anyone else, who has NO chance to go against the American Idol mentality of the leftists???

Odd, every poll shows him as the only candidate who can beat the Democrats, and as someone noted earlier the GOP candidate leading in the polls at this point has gotten the nomination in every election since the middle of last century.

Dave

The reason Rudy appeals to liberals is because he IS ONE.

He and Mitt and John McCain are just unacceptable candidates period....at least to us in NH.
Please support Ron.

[You've already posted this appeal for funds, NH, and once is enough. Thanks. Comments Editor]

I support Ron on a purely theoretical level and look forward to seeing him in the debates.

For the actual presidency I'm sticking with Giuliani.

Dave

Rudy's a "liberal" huh? I guess that's why he cut taxes 26 times as Mayor of New York. I guess that's why the NY Times called Rudy a "budget slashing, privatizing Ayn Randian."

I guess that's why practically every major Conservative in the country is fawning over Giuliani these days: Bill Bennet, Sean Hannity, even Gingrich compared him to Ronald Reagan the other day.

If you think Giuliani is a "Liberal" you are obviously ignorant of American political labels.

Individuals who are conservative on economic issues, yet tolerant on social matters, and strong on defense are known as LIBERTARIANS, most certainly NOT Liberals.

Dave, so what good are you then?
Ron has more votes on MySpace than Hillary!

As for Paul being 'extreme' on immigration, what is so extreme about NOT having open borders? Some libertarians feed right into the New World Order thought that this is how things should be, no borders. It's ridiculous.

You need a sovereign country if you want a free republic.
To me open borders nonsense is what is extreme.

If you think Giuliani is a "Liberal" you are obviously ignorant of American political labels.

Eric, this is a chronic problem. If we were using terms correctly, you and I would basically be liberals. Being liberal has nothing to do with our stand on fiscal policy, taxes and the size of government. On the things which define liberalism - mainly the desire for people to live a free life - we're liberals. And by extension, even opposition to excessive government is a liberal position, because government is by nature inclined to interfere with individual liberty.

The problem is that people have always understood the social aspects of liberalism and been a bit foggy on the other implications, so they've taken to applying the term liberal to the American left who most definitely are NOT liberals in any area except a small number of social policies. They're statist socialists in most other ways. And then conservatives started trying to make liberal into a 'dirty word' by using it as a perjorative and the proper meaning got buried in the rhetoric.

That's why we have the term 'libertarian' now, which essentially means the same thing as liberal used to mean, but doesn't have the same negative connotations. Of course now libertarian has become tainted by association with the Libertarian Party which is dominated by socialistic anarchists, which is also not what true liberalism is all about.

Maybe we need a new term. I wish we could just be Republicans, but that won't be true until we purge the theocrats and neo-stalinists from the party.

Dave

NH, I tend to see the immigration issue the same. Myrray Rothbard, considered one of the more radical libertarians, did not hold to the "open borders" view.

Rothbard reflected his views "the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors."

This however is not an endorsement of police state solutions to solve the immigration "problem" assuming of course you believe it is a problem.

As with all things, it seems that government intervention (NAFTA, loose credit leading to malinvestment in the housing and commercial building sectors, welfare) in the market has set in motion many of the underlying forces that currently encourage immigration.

My take is that Ron Pual has opted for the pragmatic answer of increasing the border patrol, while focusing on rolling back entitlements to illeagals and ending birth rite citizenship. He does however seem to be very concerned about doing so in a manner that grants additional police powers to the government.

On Rudy: He is a globalist and a war supporter. That is why the Republican world improvers and empire builders support him ... no other reason.

On Rudy: He is a globalist and a war supporter. That is why the Republican world improvers and empire builders support him ... no other reason.

Ron Paul a Globalist? You must be smoking crack or totally ignorant of who he is and what he stands for. Ron Paul is not an isolationist or a globalist.

Thanks Flo. Ron is an anti-globalist. Rudy, Mitt and McCain are all part of the shadow gov't and are sanctioned by them, hence the media blackout on the REAL people like Ron.

I'm curious to hear your basis for concluding that Rudy is a globalist, except in the sense that he has worked for multinational corporations as a security consultant. His rhetoric certainly isn't globalist and as mayor of NYC he had no discernable foreign policy.

Admit it, you just want to stick him with Bush and his New World Order because you don't think he's 'pure' enough for your rigid libertarianism, and he's a threat because he's libertarian enough to appeal to the more mainstream freedom lovers, but pragmatic enough to draw votes from the centrists so that he can actually win.

You'd rather lose with ideological purity than win with sensible compromise. Standard LP idiocy.

Dave

I am totally lost as to ehere the suggestion that ROn Paul is a globalist came from. I said Rudy was a globalist

Dave FWIW, I am a Republican albeit a (small l) libertarian one.

Check Rudy's dealings and that of the law firm which he has been a partner in since leaving the Mayors office. Then you tell me that as an occupant of the White house he will place the interests of the American People above that of his corporate donors.

Food for thought...

The comment about Ron Paul being a globalist was clearly an error where someone put the wrong name in.

As for Rudy's law firm, yes they have multinationals as clients. They're a big corporate law firm. Corporations aren't the enemy.

There are two (really more, but basically two) kinds of globalism. There's global corporatism which benefits the US and our people in most cases and there's international socialism as manifested in the UN and the green movement and the International Criminal Court, etc. They are VERY different forms of globalism and pose different threats.

Global corporatism mainly poses the usual threats of indifferent megacorporations which neglect their responsibilities and think they can buy everything - the same threats domestic corporations or anyone with a lot of money poses. Rudy is at least somewhat on that team, but that team represents capitalism and free trade and that's a good thing so long as it doesn't get out of control.

International socialism - which manifests in far more ways than just the relatively useless Socialist International - poses a much more serious threat because they want to do away with national sovereignty, borders, property rights and other civil liberties which we enjoy. They are a genuine threat to our constitution and our way of life. They're the team which the Clintons and most of the prominent democrats play for.

Dave

I think globalists of any shade are bad. The corporate type and the socialist/communist type. Corporations are ran by men and you can do and say anything behind the scenes and make them happen. Anytime you have people worth more than Bill Gates in the world, they WILL have their voices heard in any government in the world. These big players control many corporations, media and people. I don't think its all a conspiracy, but they all look at us as underlings that need to be led by an elite class. We left Europe and are now trying to reestablish a ruling class here. To them a Republic is such a bother, especially elections, they set/prop up dictators and kings instead.

Ah, but our ruling class is a meritocracy determined solely by money, and anyone has the potential to join.

Dave

I think it getting very hard to discern an oligarchy from a meritocracy, it's like the money people are the government. The type I am refering to are the ones who own central banks, not little billionaires who have new money. They are the ones who get invited by the real players to events that involve elites from every sector in society, like at Davos or places like that. Here's a quote: "PERMIT ME TO CONTROL THE CURRENCY OF A NATION AND I CARE NOT WHO MAKES ITS LAWS!"
Baron de Rothschild

I ran as a Libertarian (in Canada) in 1980 and founded the libertarian Freedom Party of Ontario in 1984. 26 years in the libertarian movement and I'm pretty sure I understand what a libertarian is. Rudy Giuliani is no libertarian. He's an authoritarian with a very nasty police-state fascist streak.

My review of the Republican front runners vs. Ron Paul...

From Cannabis Culture Magazine.

Ron Paul, a family physician representing the Gulf Coast region of Texas around Galveston, is seeking the Republican nomination. Ron Paul was rated by Cannabis Culture Magazine as the #1 Congressman of the last decade, far and away the #1 Republican in the House of Representatives, and the highest score of all 435 Members of the House of Representatives in Cannabis Culture's Survey of the 109th Congress. Ron Paul voted against The Patriot Act, the Iraq War, every aspect of the Drug War. Ron Paul was one of only 5 Members of the House who voted against re-authorizing the budget of the Drug Czar John Walters office (ONDCP). Ron Paul co-sponsors many, many bills each year whose intent is to repeal the drug war, repeal the intrusions of Big Brother. Ron Paul is incorruptible. He votes against any and all expansion of government authority.

Ron Paul is a libertarian Republican who constantly enrages the GOP (Grand Old Party - The Republicans) because he actually believes in a small federal government and sound fiscal policies.He's anti-death penalty, anti-drug laws, anti-police state, anti-Patriot Act and anti-anything that's not authorized by the Constitution. I admire him for his "principled anti-war stance," while pro-abortion voters don't need to worry about the obstetrician/gynecologist's strong pro-life stance -- he knows the federal government has no right to get involved in such stuff.

Leading contenders for the 2008 Republican nomination are prohibitionist heavyweights like for New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Arizona Senator John McCain, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

Marijuana arrests rose from under 6,000 a year in New York City in the year before Giuliani became Mayor (1993) to over 62,000 arrests in 2001, the final year in his term-limited second administration. Giuliani was America's most rabid drug warrior and his views have not changed. In his eight years (1994-2001)Giuliani had over 400,000 New Yorkers arrested for marijuana only! Over 150,000 of those were jailed for at least one night, like I said, on a marijuana charge. By contrast, in the previous 8 years, (1986-1993), fewer than 100,000 New Yorkers were cited for marijuana 'offenses'.

John McCain's most recent job prior to becoming a politician in 1986 was as a brewery executive (his wife is the heir to Hensley & Co., the second largest Anhauser-Busch beer distributor in the USA). McCain has expressed the most hawkish positions on drug policy. On March 5, 2000, McCain told the Boston Globe he wants to increase penalties for selling drugs, supports the death penalty for drug kingpins, favors tightening security to stop the flow of drugs into the country, and wants to restrict availability of methadone for heroin addicts. He said he would push for more money and military assistance to drug-supplying nations such as Colombia.

McCain supports the following principles concerning illegal drugs:
*Source: Project Vote Smart, 1998, www.vote-smart.org Jul 2, 1998
Increase penalties for selling illegal drugs
Impose mandatory jail sentences for selling illegal drugs
Impose capital punishment for convicted international drug traffickers
Strengthen current laws dealing with non-controlled substances, including inhalants and commercially available pills
Increase funding for border security to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the US

John McCain has not moderated his views perceptibly.

Newt Gingrich was a pot head in his college years who advocated Congress pass the death penalty for pot smugglers while he was House Speaker (1995 - 1999). The 1994 Crime Act already mandated the death penalty for the biggest of marijuana growers (over 60,000 plants or 60,000 kilos, (18 USC 3591 (b)) but Gingrich wanted more.
"Gingrich Urges Death Penalty for Illegal Drug Smugglers," Washington Post, August 27, 1995, p. A16.
In a speech before a Republican National Committee, Gingrich said that increasing the number of offenses punishable by the death penalty would be a way to stop illegal drug smuggling. "You import commercial quantities of drugs in the United States for the purpose of destroying our children, we will kill you," he said.
Gingrich said that those who are caught possessing drugs should be sentenced to perform two days of community service every week. If a day is missed, the person would be subject to a five-year prison term. The Speaker came back to the issue of executions for drug smugglers at a speech at a football and cheerleading camp near Atlanta in late August, 1995. He said he would introduce a bill stipulating mandatory executions for drug dealers.

Death penalty for pot? No thanks. Why Newt, a draft dodger during the Vietnam War and an adulterer a year prior to becoming a Congressman, should be viewed favorably by fiscal or moral conservatives, I have no idea. Newt herded in the largest Congress of deficit spending Republicans the nation has ever seen. Newt's legacy is George W Bush. Newt's impeachment-obsessed Congress certainly paved the cynical road that Congressional Republicans have travelled in the 1994 -2006 period, before the big wake-up call for Republicans occurred on November 7, 2006. Republicans have, in the immediate past, shown a fondness for draft dodging scoundrels who become mean-spirited born-again war mongers, and Newt is the most pernicious and hypocritical of any up for the Presidential auction in 2008. What denomination of the Christian faith do Gingrich, McCain, Giuliani profess to adhere to? Perhaps the same one that came up with the Spanish Inquisition? More recently, Gingrich, on November 27, 2006, while giving a speech at the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communication in Manchester, New Hampshire advocated a government effort to curb free speech. He said, "We now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of the (terrorist) threat," calling for a "serious debate about the First Amendment." And Newt campaigns on this stuff!

Are you frightened enough yet to want to act pre-emptively!?

There will be no better Republican seeking the GOP nomination than Ron Paul. And the contrast between Ron Paul and Republican front-runners Giuliani, McCain, and Gingrich is very stark. Very opposite worlds. Of the other 7 Republicans who have announced "exploratory committees", only Tom Tancredo, an iconoclast Representative from Colorado whose immigration policies have gotten him attention, supports state's rights to medical marijuana.
Among the Republican Party candidates for President, only Ron Paul has voted against both the 2002 Iraq War Resolution and the funding of the war in the annual Appropriations Bill.

Ron Paul is a wonderful idealist, a prolific and intelligent writer and columnist, a true Man of the People who is completely devoted to the ideals of free men and women in a free society of bodily autonomy and freedom of choice. Ron Paul was rated the only Congressman with a perfect record of voting for the cannabis culture and against big government, the drug war and the war in Iraq. We must support Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for President. If you are so inclined, register as a Republican so you can support, campaign, and lobby other Republicans to make Ron Paul their choice for President in the primaries next year. His website is: Ron Paul.

We're virtually tied for Libertaian activism. I started in 1985: Libertarian National Committee member, Libertarian candidate for State House, Ron Paul, Libertarian for President Travel Aide, Libertarian Delegate to two National LP Conventions, Florida Chairman for the Libertarian Republican Organizing Comm., Founder - Republican Liberty Caucus, 1st RLC National Chairman and Director, Personal Aide to 1976 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Roger MacBride for 5 years, 1996 Ron Paul for Congress Campaign Coordinator, Senior Aide to US Congressman Ron Paul from 1997-2003.

I'm pretty sure that I know what a Libertarian is, as well.

Yes, Ron Paul is quite libertarian on economic matters. Excellent as a matter of fact. On many social issues he's a little less libertarian. He's had some criticisms come his way on gay issues, most of them justified. He's uncomfortable with dealing with concerns of the Jewish community as well. He's more Pro-Life than you describe, above. I'm Pro-Choice. Ron and I would have serious, serious arguments for hours on end over abortion in the car driving from Houston to San Antonio for instance. Trust me, he's much more Pro-Life than Pro-Choicers would be comfortable with. He's not so good on other sexual matters either, such as legalized prostitution. In 1987 he famously made the comment that he'd be glad to run on the ticket with a VP, so long as that person "was not Norma Jean Almadovar" whom he despised (best selling Author of "Cop to Call Girl").

Ron is quite naiive on the issue of Islamo-Fascism. He thinks that if we just back off the Islamo-Fascists will leave us alone. He cares little about the threat that American libertarian culture advocates see that will come to our civil liberties if the Islamo-Fascists gain greater control here in the US. He cares very little, if at all, about the Islamo-Fascist rampage that's sweeping Europe right now, outlawing prostitution, marijuana, increasing intolerance of gays, burqa-clad women now in downtowns of major Euro-cities. Ron Paul simply does not see these events as a threat. He'd be perfectly fine with an America where Radical Muslims gaines control of city councils and started outlawing all sorts of sexual freedoms.

He also has a tendency to have two different personas: one for national consumption and quite another for his conservative south Texas District. Here in Texas he's Mr. Red, White and Blue - support the Troops, our Veterans, Star Spangled Banner and all. In the national media, RP is Mr. Leftwinger Republican; always oppose Bush, criticize the GOP at every opportunity, call for surrender in Iraq, ect...

Ironically, Ron Paul would not have gotten elected to Congress were it not for Bush. Bush and Carl Rove pulled out all the stops for him in 1996, when we faces a very, very tough and brutal Democrat general election candidate - Lefty Morris. Bush and his team got every prominent Republican and their mothers to come down to our District to campaign and raise money for RP, including Tom DeLay, Kay Hutchison, Carole Rylander, you name it.

So how does Ron Paul return the favor? By pretending that Bush never gave him support and years later criticizing him at every opportunity.

I was there folks. I was deep in the thick of it all.

Ron Paul is a good man, especially on economics. But he doesn't live by the Golden Rule of politics: "You dance with thems that brought you to the dance."

In other words he's the kinda guy who takes, takes, takes help from others, but hardly ever gives favors back in return.

He's a good Economic Libertarian, but a lousy friend and political colleague.

In Liberty,

Eric Dondero, Former Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul 1997-2003
Angleton, Texas (Congressional Dist. 14)

OK, so now we know you guys are a couple of heavy duty, card carrying Libertarians.

Ron Paul isn't going to get elected President.

Cannabis Culture mag as an endorsement? Puleeze...

And did you notice that Cannibas Culture Magazine is a Canadian publication? I wonder if this guy even lives in the United States?

Ooh me too me too.

Chairman of Pennsylvanians for Clark 1980. Assistant National Director of Students for a Libertarian Society 1981. Editor of Liberty Magazine 1981-1982. Libertarian Candidate for State Representative 2002. Delegate to Texas GOP state convention 2004. Currently Advisory Board Director of Republican Liberty Caucus.

Ok, my libertarian penis isn't quite as long as Eric's, but it does hang proudly.

That said, I don't have the same personal knowledge of Ron Paul's shortcomings, but I sure am familiar with the failings of the Libertarian Party and the impossibility of running an ideologically inflexible libertarian for national office.

IMO while Paul has a lot of great ideas to offer and makes the field more interesting, only LP fanatics and a small number of Republicans and Independents will vote for him, and he has no chance of winning a national election. He couldn't even win a statewide office in Texas.

Dave

Let me also add that Marc appears to represent the faction of drug-legalization above all else Libertarians who have come to dominate the LP. They're certainly dead right on that issue, but they don't realize that it's hardly the only important issue, and that in real world politics you sometimes have to compromise on one issue to earn the ability to pursue another which may be equally important.

Dave

Dave sez,

Let me also add that Marc appears to represent the faction of drug-legalization above all else Libertarians who have come to dominate the LP. They're certainly dead right on that issue, but they don't realize that it's hardly the only important issue...

...Not to mention how tough a sell it is...

Eric responded to my comment with this outrageous little snit he sent me, it's bizarre. "Shut your trap"? Bizarre.

By the way, the American Presidential election is far too important to be left to Americans, they fuck it up year after year, that's why I am involved. That and your current Bush-appointed US Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales wants me to spend the rest of my life behind bars in a US federal prison, so my stake is alot more vital than any American in this forum, I would say.

I also assess the voting record of EACH & EVERY member of the House of Representatives each Congress. Here are my 435 reviews of the 109th Congress, where I analyze 10 votes over the course of the 109th Congress. It will take you 2 minutes to load because there is a map with each district.

Despite my substantial experience in studying the Congress, Eric wrote me this outrageous remark about my post above, his pettiness and arrogance is palpable:

From Eric:>>> Your are grossly ignorant about Ron Paul

Your naiivete is astounding. I worked for Ron Paul for 12 years. He's not anything like you paint him to be over at Blog Critics.

But you're a Canadian, not a Texan. What the hell would you know anyway.

For instance, you spew hatred for George W. Bush. Are you aware that Bush had his folks campaign their asses off to get RP elected to Congress in 1996? Are you aware that Bush (through Rove) raised tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars for Paul's general election effort? Are you aware that Tom DeLay, because of Bush, came down to Ron Paul's District and did 3 (!!!) big fundraisers for Ron Paul in 1996.

Do you know what the vote total was in that critical election? Ron Paul 51% to Left Morris 47.5%.

Yup, that close.

We most certainly would have lost that election were it not for Bush's help.

Now do you ever hear anyone, say LewRockwell.com, talk about this? Lew was there. He saw it all. That is until we forced Lew into the closet because of his idiotic remarks that hit the press during the campaign, like this doozy, "Black men are flat-footed, so they are able to avoid the cops in DC better than whites..."

No, the ingrates like Rockwell, are completely silent about Bush's support for RP in 1996. Instead, the ingrates bash Bush persistently and without shame.

That to me is the most disgusting way to act in politics; You accept someone's help and money, and then when you don't need it any more you turn on them.

If Bush wasn't such a nice man, he would have called Ron Paul up later on and said, "Hey Congressman, what gives?"

It's a classic case of Ron Paul saying to Bush, "you scratch my back, but I won't scratch yours."

Says a lot about the man's character, or more appropriately, lack thereof.

One other little factoid, not many people are aware of. Look at Ron Paul's Congressional District map. See that strange little "finger" that jettisons into Galveston County, carving out a healthy chunk that comes from Cong. District 22? Well, guess why that's like that? Tom DeLay masterminded the whole District Gerrymandering for the GOP in the late 1990s. He wanted to make his friend Ron Paul have a very safe District. So, DeLay took out a 98% Black Democrat area of Galveston from Ron's District and put it into his own. He took a hit for his ole pal Ron Paul to make sure that Ron had a 61% Republican voting strength District. DeLay's Republican voting strength for his District 22 dropped down to the mid-50s. Did Ron Paul ever return the favor? Nope! It's just a little factoid that's been swept under the rug and that nobody every talks about any more.

You see, so long as people do things for Ron Paul, he's your best buddy. But ask for a favor in return, and he's nowheres to be found, or he just entirely ignored your request. He's the classic One-wayer.

Anyway, you don't know the half of it. I'd advise you to keep your trap shut about stuff you know nothing about.

Eric Dondero,

Ron Paul, Libertarian for President Travel Aide, 1987/88
Ron Paul for President Exploratory Comm. Campaign Coordinator, 1992
Ron Paul for Congress, Campagin Coordinator, 1995/96
Senior Aide, US Congressman Ron Paul, 1997-2003
Libertarian Republicans
Fiscally Conservative, Socially Tolerant & Pro-Defense!

For the latest libertarian political news

Eric Dondero is a US Navy Veteran, former Libertarian Party National Committeeman, Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus and fmr. Senior Aide to US Congressman Ron Paul R-TX. He is now a national Republican Political Consultant based in Houston, Texas.

In regards to my fine magazine, Cannabis Culture