Ron Paul

Note by Me: I don't agree with following LaRouche as he has cultic tendencies, is allied with the Grand Orient Lodge of Freemasonry, and has an authoritarian like allegeance.

By Timothy

_________________________________

From http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Ron-Paul-Deception-by-Dick-Thomson-091021-872.html


The Ron Paul Deception?


Buzz up!on Yahoo!

SAVE AS FAVORITEVIEW FAVORITESBy Dick Thomson (about the author) Page 1 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com Permalink


For OpEdNews: Dick Thomson - Writer

The pundits and activists promoting an end to the Federal Reserve, an investigation of 9/11 and other conspiratorially-minded causes are nearly unanimous in their praise for Congressman Ron Paul. It's not hard to see why. This humble country doctor was the lone Republican presidential candidate advocating an end to preemptive war, fiscal discipline and other reasonable-sounding propositions that stood in stark contrast to the tirades of cynical warmongers like Rudy Giuliani.

Paul's campaign was helped in no small part by Alex Jones, the Austin, TX radio host who has become the leading voice of the "truth movement" and possibly all alternative media, with millions of daily listeners and several of the web's most-viewed viral videos to his credit. Paul's "Campaign for Liberty" was the driving force behind the "tea party" movement ��" which started as a protest of the $24 trillion bank bailout and the Federal Reserve system, but was quickly ensnared by forces aligned with Newt Gingrich and turned into a protest against Obama's stimulus package and healthcare reform proposals.

Is the Tea Party bait & switch simply a failure of mobilization by the independent right, or was it a preview of things to come? I would make the argument that, whether he knows it or not, Ron Paul was put on the national stage to preempt a constructive political revolution in favor of national suicide in the name of "liberty."

Below, I'll outline Ron Paul's signature issues, what I consider his "deception," and the truth. I think other Alex Jones regulars like Webster Tarpley or Paul Craig Roberts could make these arguments more convincingly. Unfortunately, their continued appearances on "patriot radio" and video are contingent upon not criticizing this most sacred of cows.


End the Fed / Monetary Policy

The Deception:

Paul's main criticism of our monetary system is inflation. In his view (that of the "Austrian" economists), a fiat (legal) currency allows the federal government to print money ad infinitum to pay for wars and social programs, the result being an increase in the supply of dollars and decrease in the value of each dollar. His solution to the problem of inflation is to return to the pre-Bretton Woods gold standard, where the supply and value of money is fixed to the international gold market.

The Truth:

The problem is this: the US Treasury borrows its own money, with compounding interest, from private banks. Interest-on-debt owed to the Federal Reserve accounts for over half of the national debt. There certainly is an inflationary effect when the national government must borrow more money to pay its interest ��" the equivalent of taking out home equity loans to pay your mortgage.

The US Constitution, so often cited by libertarians, specifically demands a fiat currency. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to: borrow money on the credit of the United States; regulate commerce; coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standards of weights and measures. The only reference to gold is I:10, which prohibits the individual states from coining money, creating credit, or paying their debts with anything but gold or silver ��" which is similar to the Bretton Woods concept of gold settlement (not gold money) to keep honest trade balances between nations.

Most committed libertarians are united in their hatred of this constitutional credit system, pioneered by Hamilton and advanced by Lincoln and FDR, each of whom are regularly accused of being crypto-Jews, agents of the Rothschilds and masonic satanists.

They are throwing mud at the solution and intent of the founders, which is a national credit system, based on production and protected by Congress from financial speculation and foreign intervention.


The War on Terror

The Deception:

It's odd that Paul, who has disavowed "9/11 truthers" and embraces the "blowback" theory of 9/11 (Muslims from caves attacked us because we're "over there"), is the hero of the 9/11 truth movement. This again is mostly due to his association with Alex Jones, who has done a lot of good work exposing the 9/11 attacks as a fraud.

Paul's major criticism of American foreign policy is that we are acting as "the policemen of the world," not that we are murdering millions of innocent people to enrich corporations. Getting out from Iraq and Afghanistan is the right thing to do, but why does Paul refuse to acknowledge the real reasons for these wars of aggression (i.e. oil, drugs, control, war profits) and insist that we're simply wasting tax dollars meddling in other peoples' civil conflicts?

The Truth:



Is Ron Paul naive, intimidated by the war lobby, or is this a conscious deception? "Terrorism" is simply proxy war, waged by shadow governments against nations. Should we just step aside and let financiers, through their intelligence agencies and corporate militias, posing as "al Qaeda," balkanize the entire globe? Or should we call a spade a spade? Since no current national legislator in America has gone public for 9/11 Truth, it must be a very dangerous thing to do. I presume Paul's goal is to use the safest excuse to take an anti-war position, but who can say?


Limited Government, the Free Market and Moral Relativism

The Deception:

Ron Paul goes beyond the popular calls to limit excessive taxation and pro-corporate bureaucracy, and takes the market-fundamentalist position to eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy, social programs like Medicare, Social Security and food stamps, and any other government distortion of "the market" (gradually, of course). He has succeeded in rebranding what in other countries is called IMF shock therapy or fascist austerity as "liberty". Beyond this, he is notably less concerned about the effects of legalizing heroin than the effects of legalizing financial derivatives.

The Truth:

The idea that an unregulated market for goods, services and financial products leads to prosperity, equal opportunity and fairness spits in the face of history. Certainly private interests have learned to use the power of the state to protect their investments, but in the absence of an effective state, we see not freedom, but open oligarchy. If the present effects of deregulation aren't evidence enough, the results of the IMF's free market experiments, as detailed in books like Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, should seal the deal.

The fundamental problem with monetarism (the notion that money = value, which is pervasive across the political spectrum) is that it accepts the notion that economics is a science. But the pseudo-scientific theory of the market relies on impossible factors ��"such as consumers with perfect information, honest sellers, no emotional or moral considerations in transactions, etc. The Austrians and Chicago economists wish away any counterexample to their models by calling it an "externality".

In truth, economics is little more than an encoded system of morality. Other than accountancy and statistics, economic policy is about setting priorities, goals and limits for the individuals within the economy. When we leave these priorities entirely to individuals in "the market", economic activity is pulled toward things like credit default swaps, drugs, pornography and gambling. There are people in this world who will cheat, steal and murder for money, and many of them wear 3-piece suits. Why didn't the Clinton-era deregulations lead to mass transit, cheap energy and full employment? Because it's easier to get rich by stealing than it is by creating.

The libertarian definition of freedom doesn't free us from oppression ��"it frees our oppressors. By holding our government to technical rather than moral standards ��"whether in healthcare or financial regulation ��" we remove the very purpose of the nation-state, encoded so beautifully in the US Constitution and writings of figures like Hamilton and Lincoln.

Of course, you can have too much of a good thing ��"communism being one example. As Ludwig on Mises was fond of saying, "government is force." Our process of self-government should be the evolving struggle to define the general welfare, and the best means of achieving it. If history shows anything, it's that prosperity is possible only in a protective system. The purpose of a national government to defend our rights against the organized powers of money, the pull-down nature of international trade, and to use public credit and commonwealth to help foster the conditions for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


Obama Has Been Bad, But There's Something Worse

(Credit to Webster Tarpley for the paraphrase). Obama thus far has made some feeble attempts at a Keynesian model of government ��"corporate and personal welfare spending without any attempt to increase production or the value of labor. Yes, he's selling us down the river ��" but at least he's still trying to give us a log to cling to. The next phase, if the bankers have their way, is crushing austerity at the hands of "the market". Hopelessness, despair and stagnation, without the dwindling safety net of the New Deal. Someone like Mitt Romney or Bobby Jindall could very well emulate the Reaganesque rhetoric of Ron Paul to deliver us into the jaws of corporate retirement, insurance, charter schools, water, libraries, police, and anything else of value that will finalize the looting of America's earned national income.

As 2008 was the year for anyone other than Bush, 2012 may well be the year for anyone other than Obama ��"and given the mobilization of the independent right, anyone resembling Ron Paul. When the next crisis hits, America will be looking for answers, and Paul may have the nation's most functional political coalition. Most on the right, probably including Ron Paul, are well-intentioned, concerned citizens that honestly but wrongly believe "big government" is the source of their problems. In limited instances they are right, but the big picture is a broad, anti-historical, anti-Constitutional theology that leaves us no organized means to fight organized private power. The solutions are ready to be adopted ��" look to people like Mr. Tarpley or his former employer Lyndon LaRouche for a complete program which could be adopted today by the current president. We need to work together to rescue our institutions of government, earned by the blood of our forefathers, from their current occupants. We do not need to fight against the institutions themselves, which are the proverbial babies floating in a sea of fetid bathwater.

1 2




Husband, father of two, small business owner, gardener


______________________


http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ron-Paul-Still-as-Scary-as-by-earl-ofari-hutchin-100221-425.html