Americans Elect canceling caucuses, has no candidates
ALEX PAREENE
THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2012
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/03/americans_elect_canceling_caucuses_has_no_candidates

Americans Elect is a weird experiment in applying a lot of money and time and resources into proving a common elite myth: That Americans as a whole are crying out for “bold,” nonpartisan political leadership, and that their strong desire for moderate, independent solutions is stifled by the two-party system. So far, the organization has managed to win presidential ballot access in 26 states, which is a remarkable achievement. The only problem is, it has no candidate. And the process it developed to select a candidate is turning out to be a big, hilarious mess.

So any Americans Elect delegate can “draft” a candidate, and any eligible citizen can declare him- or herself a candidate, but AE has a high bar for a candidate to be declared “qualified” to actually run in its online primary: “Insiders” require 10,000 clicks — 1,000 people in at least 10 states — of support from delegates. “Outsiders” require 50,000. Thus far, Ron Paul, a drafted candidate, has received 8,753 clicks. Buddy Roemer, a declared candidate, has 4,389. In other words, no one is close to being qualified, and the massive grass-roots support AE expected did not really pan out. The first “caucus” vote, scheduled for next week, has been canceled. The next vote, set for May 22, is reportedly “in jeopardy.”

They are still really confident that they’ll find just the right deficit hawk, though. There is a shortlist, they cryptically explained to the Washington Post:

The group is still on the lookout for a Goliath-toppling personality. “There’s a short ­list,” said chief executive Kahlil Byrd, without sharing names. How many? “Negative eight,” he said, and his spokeswoman repeated the cryptic tally. As in less than zero? Byrd would only clarify: “More than four.”

I don’t think they count Ron Paul, the only possible AE candidate with an actual substantial base of support. (He is too “extreme” for this crowd.) At the moment, some AE types seem to be attempting to draft David Walker, the former comptroller general and “No Labels” co-founder. (Oddly, his “No Labels” site bio was recently scrubbed, then replaced with lots of info missing.) David Walker, now there’s a name that’ll get voters to the polls.

Americans Elect has thus far spent $9 million on its website alone.

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

H.R 347 could be making the First Amendment illegal

Tim McCown
March 4, 2012
http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-philadelphia/h-r-347-could-be-making-the-first-amendment-illegal
On Ron Paul's website it was duly noted that H.R. 347 could make the First Amendment illegal. No one is really covering this bill and the major media call it non-controversial. The innocent sounding bill titled The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 was passed Tuesday with only three dissenting votes including Ron Paul, and passed unanimously in the Senate. This bill dubbed the Anti-Occupy law was passed without one single Democrat speaking up for the first Amenndment.

Once this Bill is signed into law some including Ron Paul believe it will make it a felony to excercise your first Amendment rights of Free Speech. Several of those commenting opined that the nearly unanimous vote proves that despite all the posturing both parties stand shoulder to shoulder in their defense of the greed and entitlement of the 1% from the rest of us. When you couple this with the indefinite detention of Americans in the National Defense Authorization Act it is clear that Obama is part of a ruling corporate oligarchy and is surely no Progessive.
Among the controversial provisions of H.R. 347 is a section that is vague and open to interpretation that would make it a felony to enter or remain in an area designated as restricted. Because of the Secret Service protection at the national political party conventions this summer they could easily be declared restricted areas for the purpose of stifling dissent.

In addition, even a peaceful sit-in could be termed a felony if interpreted to mean blocking ingress or egress from a designated building. This section of the law could clearly be used to criminalize a broad range of formerly legal activities.

Defenders and apologists for mainly Democrats and Obama supporters claim this act is completely innocent and all of us who believe differently have drunk Ron Paul's Kool-Aid again. But a post on George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley's blog page notes that the imprecise languange, just as in the NDAA, creates risks and can most definately be seen as a threat to our First Amendment right to Free Speech, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom to Petition our government. None of that is very comforting in light of the the Patriot Act and surveillance of and wire tapping of Americans.

Tonight you no longer need to be a conspiracy theorist to have real questions about whether we are becoming a police state.

Jeb Bush eyed as latest 'white knight' candidate in GOP presidential race

Former Florida governor was critical of current field in a speech this week, prompting rumours he could be a surprise contender
Paul Harris in New York
guardian.co.uk, Friday 24 February 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/24/jeb-bush-latest-white-knight-republican

Speculation that a late challenger might still emerge in the increasingly bitter race for the Republican presidential nomination is set to surge after former Florida governor Jeb Bush made remarks criticising the current field.

Bush, who is the brother of President George W Bush and son of President George Bush Sr, is a beloved figure among many conservatives who see him as a strong and charismatic leader who is popular in the must-win swing state of Florida.

That contrasts with a widespread unease among many Republican leaders and grassroots activists with the remaining crop of Republican candidates and the vitriolic nature of the fight between frontrunner Mitt Romney and his main challengers Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

In answers to questions from the audience after a speech in Dallas on Thursday, Bush cautioned the remaining Republican campaigns from drifting so far to the right that they put off the key independent voters needed to beat President Barack Obama in November.

"I think it's important for the candidates to recognise though they have to appeal to primary voters, and not turn off independent voters that will be part of a winning coalition," Bush told the audience according to CBS news.

Bush also directly took on the strident tone of recent Republican debates, accusing participants of scare-mongering. "I used to be a conservative and I watch these debates and I'm wondering, I don't think I've changed, but it's a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people's fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective and that's kind of where we are," he said according to Fox News.

With Mitt Romney failing so far to secure the nomination but with no convincing challenger emerging to unseat him, many Republican pundits have speculated about the possibility that none of the current field will be able to amass enough support to secure the nomination this August in Tampa.

Though that is still unlikely, and Romney remains favourite to win the contest, it has led to a slew of names being mentioned as possible "white knights" who could still enter the race or emerge at Tampa as a compromise candidate to unite a splintered party. They include Bush, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Indiana governor Mitch Daniels and Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan.

Though none of these figures have expressed any intention to run, and several have repeatedly denied it, Bush's comments are likely to set the rumour mill spinning furiously.

They also come after Tea Party favourite Sarah Palin entered the fray, raising the idea that she might see herself as her party's saviour. In recent interviews the former Alaska governor has said she would "help" out the party if a contested convention happened and told CNN earlier this month that she believed such an event would be a good thing. "I don't think it would be a negative for the party … That's part of the competition, that's part of the process and it may happen," she said.

Ron Paul's campaign has also complicated matters. Though the libertarian-leaning Texan congressman has not yet won a single state's popular ballot, he is trying to build up a large number of delegates to take to Tampa. In caucus states, where complex rules mean the number of delegates assigned to a candidate can outweigh their score in the popular vote, Ron Paul's campaign is working hard to win as much support as possible. That could see him amass a body of delegates in Tampa that far exceeds his standings in the polls and makes a contested convention, with no one having enough support to secure victory, more likely.

Alan Grayson Blasts Tea Party Debate

Alan Grayson Blasts Tea Party Debate Audience's Reaction To Health Care Question: 'It's Sadism'
9/12/11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/alan-grayson-tea-party-debate-health-care_n_959383.html

The jubilant shouts of members of the GOP audience encouraging the death of a hypothetical uninsured man bring to mind the 2009 House floor speech delivered by former Florida Rep. Alan Grayson, in which he famously charged: "The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick." Members of the crowd at the Tampa debate agree with Grayson.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer, the event's moderator, posed the hypothetical question to Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas): What do you tell a guy who is sick, goes into a coma and doesn't have health insurance? Who pays for his coverage? "Are you saying society should just let him die?" Wolf Blitzer asked.

"Yeah!" several members of the crowd yelled out.

HuffPost asked Grayson what he thought of the crowd cheering for the death of the uninsured man. He writes:

My speech was about the fact I had been listening to the Republicans for months, and they literally had no plan to help all those millions of people who can’t see a doctor when they’re sick. So I said, in sort of a wry manner, that their plan was "don’t get sick." All I really wanted to do was just call attention to the stark absence of a Republican plan. But Fox, trying to take the heat off Joe Wilson and Sarah Palin I guess, transmogrified that into a charge that Republicans want to kill people.

What you saw tonight is something much more sinister than not having a healthcare plan. It's sadism, pure and simple. It's the same impulse that led people in the Coliseum to cheer when the lions ate the Christians. And that seems to be where we are heading -- bread and circuses, without the bread. The world that Hobbes wrote about -- "the war of all against all."

Ron Paul Deserves More Respect

Ivan Eland, August 16, 2011
http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2011/08/15/ron-paul-deserves-more-respect

Robalini's Note: Let's just take a step back for a second and analyze this. Ron Paul is a fringe candidate who deserves to be mocked and dismissed, while Michele Bachman is a respectable politician who must be taken seriously? This is patently absurd...

Although Ron Paul placed second in the Iowa straw poll, behind Michele Bachmann by the slimmest of margins, most media commentators — both left and right — refused to anoint him as one of the “big three” candidates remaining in the Republican presidential contest. Translated, the media gatekeepers, as they did in his 2008 campaign, are telling the American people that Paul should not be regarded as a serious candidate. Apparently, only Bachmann, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry have somehow earned this exalted designation.

Although the Iowa straw poll does not represent a cross section of the Republican Party, at least some likely voters participated in it. Romney and Perry, both of whom did miserably in the poll, seem to have earned their place in the elite candidates club merely on the basis of media conjecture as to their future viability — based mostly on “political buzz” or fundraising potential.

When candidates are effectively cut out of most media coverage because they are deemed “not serious” or are predicted to have “no chance of winning,” this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Despite his impressive showing in the Iowa poll, Paul is receiving the same ill treatment by the media this go-around as last. An example of media disparagement of Paul’s views could be seen a couple of days earlier in the behavior of Fox’s Chris Wallace, who was moderating the Republican debate. Wallace zeroed in on Paul’s previous statements on Iran and nuclear weapons, including his opposition to sanctions against that country and this remark: “One can understand why they might want to become nuclear capable, if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfully.” Wallace asked Paul if his policy was really that President Obama was too tough, not too soft, on Iran.

In responding to Wallace’s question, Paul cast aside the conventional wisdom on U.S. policy vis-à-vis Iran and cogently opined against sanctions, arguing the historically accurate case that they can often lead to war with the sanctioned country — for example, sanctions preceded U.S. wars with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Manuel Noriega in Panama. Unbelievably (in the eyes of the nearly always sanctimoniously interventionist American media), Paul had the temerity to actually empathize with another country’s feelings of insecurity and to argue for negotiating, even with odious regimes.

Just think of the agitation and the worrying of a country that might get a nuclear weapon some day. And just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries — China has nuclear weapons.

Incredulous that he was hearing someone actually say that another country might try to develop nuclear weapons for the same reason that the United States had developed them — to enhance its security — Wallace gave Paul another 15 seconds to explain this seemingly astonishing position, saying, “I just want to make sure I understand. So your policy towards Iran is, if they want to develop a nuclear weapon, that’s their right, no sanctions, no effort to stop them?”

Paul calmly replied that trying to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon only makes its feelings of insecurity worse. He added that “we tolerated the Soviets [getting nuclear weapons]; we didn’t attack them. And they were a much greater danger [than Iran] — they were the greatest danger to us in our whole history.” Paul could have added that the United States also declined to bomb the even more radical communist Mao Zedong as he took China into the nuclear club in the 1960s and threatened nuclear war with America. Iran has never made such threats to the United States.

Paul’s yes-to-negotiations-and-no-to-sanctions-and-war-with-Iran position holds up well when all the hype about Iran’s threat to the United States is brushed away and the facts are uncovered:

•Iran is a relatively poor country compared to the United States, and, even if it got nuclear weapons, it would have only a few warheads. Developing a long-range missile to carry those warheads half a world away is also difficult. In contrast, the United States already has such long-range missiles and also has the most capable nuclear arsenal on the planet, containing thousands of warheads. That huge arsenal and those missiles would likely deter, with a threat to Iran’s existence, any contemplated Iranian nuclear attack. With its small number of warheads, Iran could not similarly threaten the existence of the United States.

•A nuclear Iran may be more of a threat to nearby Israel, but Israel has 200-400 nuclear weapons and can also deter any potential Iranian attack with such a hefty atomic response capability.

•Although Iran’s regime has spouted Islamist rhetoric, its government usually behaves pragmatically, especially when dealing with much stronger countries, such as the United States and Israel.

Thus, Paul’s position on Iran is just one example of his opposition to interventionist and jingoistic U.S. foreign policies — about which the media either is astonished (à la Chris Wallace) or exhibits disdain. Yet the reason Paul has such resonance with a certain segment of the American people, despite the media’s derision, is because those people take the time to go beyond political slogans and conventional wisdom and listen to Paul’s facts, analysis, and cogent explanations of and solutions to policy problems.

Awesome Quotes: Ron Paul

“Obviously they’re not. People are individuals, they’re not groups and they’re not companies. Individuals have rights, they’re not collective. You can’t duck that. So individuals should be responsible for corporations, but they shouldn’t be a new creature, so to speak. Rights and obligations should be always back to the individual.”
Ron Paul on Mitt Romney's claim that "corporations are people"

The Market Has Spoken: Austerity Is Bad for Business

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25916
Ellen Brown
Global Research, August 6, 2011
Web of Debt

It used to be that when the Fed Chairman spoke, the market listened; but the Chairman has lost his mystique. Now when the market speaks, politicians listen. Hopefully they heard what the market just said: government cutbacks are bad for business. The government needs to spend more, not less. Fortunately, there are viable ways to do this while still balancing the budget.

On Thursday, August 4, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 512 points, the biggest stock market drop since the collapse of September 2008.

Why? Weren't the markets supposed to rebound after the debt ceiling agreement was reached on Monday, avoiding U.S. default and a downgrade of U.S. debt?

So we were told, but the market apparently understands what politicians don't: the debt deal is a death deal for the economy.

Reducing government spending by $2.2 trillion over a decade, as Congress just agreed to do, will kill any hopes of economic recovery. We're looking at a double-dip recession.

The figure is actually more than $2.2 trillion. As Jack Rasmus pointed out on Truthout on August 4th:

Economists estimate the "multiplier" from government spending at about 1.5. That means for every $1 cut in government spending, about $1.5 dollars are taken out of the economy. The first year of cuts are therefore $375 billion to $400 billion in terms of their economic effect. Ironically, that's about equal to the spending increase from Obama's 2009 initial stimulus package. In other words, we are about to extract from the economy - now showing multiple signs of weakening badly - the original spending stimulus of 2009!

As others have pointed out, that magnitude of spending contraction will result in 1.5 million to 2 million more jobs lost. That's also about all the jobs created since the trough of the recession in June 2009. In other words, the job market will be thrown back two years as well.


We're not moving forward. We're moving backward. The hand-wringing is all about the "debt crisis," but the national debt is not what has stalled the economy, and the crisis was not created by Social Security or Medicare, which are being set up to take the fall. It was created by Wall Street, which has squeezed trillions in bailout money from the government and the taxpayers; and by the military, which has squeezed trillions more for an amorphous and unending "War on Terror." But the hits are slated to fall on the so-called "entitlements" - a social safety net that we the people are actually entitled to, because we paid for them with taxes.

The Problem Is Not Debt But a Shrinking Money Supply

The markets are not reacting to a "debt crisis." They do not look at charts ten years out. They look at present indicators of jobs and sales, which have turned persistently negative. Jobs and sales are both dependent on "demand," which means getting money into the pockets of consumers; and the money supply today has shrunk.


We don't see this shrinkage because it is primarily in the "shadow banking system," the thing that collapsed in 2008. The shadow banking system used to be reflected in M3, but the Fed no longer reports it. In July 2010, however, the New York Fed posted on its website a staff report titled "Shadow Banking." It said that the shadow banking system had shrunk by $5 trillion since its peak in March 2008, when it was valued at about $20 trillion - actually larger than the traditional banking system. In July 2010, the shadow system was down to about $15 trillion, compared to $13 trillion for the traditional banking system.

Only about $2 trillion of this shrinkage has been replaced with the Fed's quantitative easing programs, leaving a $3 trillion hole to be filled; and only the government is in a position to fill it. We have been sold the idea that there is a "debt crisis" when there is really a liquidity crisis. Paying down the federal debt when money is already scarce just makes matters worse. Historically, when the deficit has been reduced, the money supply has been reduced along with it, throwing the economy into recession.

Most of our money now comes into the world as debt, which is created on the books of banks and lent into the economy. If there were no debt, there would be no money to run the economy; and today, private debt has collapsed. Encouraged by Fed policy, banks have tightened up lending and are sitting on their money, shrinking the circulating money supply and the economy.

Creative Ways to Balance the Budget

The federal debt has not been paid off since the days of Andrew Jackson, and it does not need to be paid off. It is just rolled over from year to year. The only real danger posed by a growing federal debt is the interest burden, but that has not been a problem yet. The Congressional Budget Office reported in December 2010:

[A] sharp drop in interest rates has held down the amount of interest that the government pays on [the national] debt. In 2010, net interest outlays totaled $197 billion, or 1.4 percent of GDP--a smaller share of GDP than they accounted for during most of the past decade.


The interest burden will increase if the federal debt continues to grow, but that problem can be solved by mandating the Federal Reserve to buy the government's debt. The Fed rebates its profits to the government after deducting its costs, making the money nearly interest-free. The Fed is already doing this with its quantitative easing programs and now holds nearly $1.7 trillion in federal securities.

If Congress must maintain its debt ceiling, there are other ways to balance the budget and avoid a growing debt. Ron Paul has brought a creative bill that would eliminate the $1.7 trillion deficit simply by having the Fed tear up its federal securities. No creditors would be harmed, since the money was generated with a computer keystroke in the first place. The government would just be canceling a debt to itself and saving the interest.

The Trillion Dollar Coin Alternative

The most direct solution to the debt problem is for the government to fund its budget with government-issued money. One alternative would be for the Treasury to issue U.S. Notes, as was done in the Civil War by President Lincoln.

Another alternative was suggested in my book Web of Debt in 2007: the government could simply mint some trillion dollar coins. Congress has the Constitutional power to "coin money," and no limit is put on the value of the coins it creates, as was pointed out by a chairman of the House Coinage Subcommittee in the 1980s.

This idea is now getting some attention from economists. According to a July 29th article in the Johnsville News titled "Coin Trick: The Trillion Dollar Coin":

The idea just started to get serious traction the last few days as the debt stalemate has grown more intense and partisan. Yale constitutional law professor Jack Balkin floated it as an option in a CNN op-ed yesterday (July 28th).

Today the idea has gone mainstream. It is covered by NY Magazine, CNBC, and The Economist. Even Nobel economist Paul Krugman of the NY Times has weighed in. Annie Lowrey of Slate discusses it as one of several gimmicks the government could use to resolve the debt-ceiling debacle. Krugman added:

These things [like coin seigniorage] sound ridiculous - but so is the behavior of Congressional Republicans. So why not fight back using legal tricks?


The debt ceiling itself was a legal trick, a form of extortion based on a century-old statute that conflicts with the Constitution. However, said the Johnsville News article, "coin seigniorage is not a scam. It is legal . . . . This plan looks like it might be Obama's ace in the hole . . . ."

The article cites Warren Mosler, founder of MMT (Modern Monetary Theory), who reviewed the idea in a January 20th blog post and concluded it would work operationally.

Scott Fullwiler, associate professor of economics at Wartburg College, also did a comprehensive analysis and concluded that the trillion dollar coin alternative was unlikely to result in inflation. Comparing it to Ron Paul's plan, he wrote:

This option is much like Ron Paul's proposal-actually identical in terms of the effect on the debt ceiling and the Treasury-except that his proposal would destroy all of the Fed's capital (and then some), which is a potential problem politically . . . though not operationally, and which the Fed is therefore very unlikely to agree to.


On the inflation question, just because the Treasury has money in its account doesn't mean it can spend the funds. It needs the usual Congressional approval. To keep a lid on spending, Congress just needs to be instructed in basic economics. They can spend on goods and services up to full employment without creating price inflation (since supply and demand will rise together). After that, they need to tax -- not to fund the budget, but to pull excess money back in and avoid driving up prices.

Spending More While Borrowing Less

In an economic downturn, the government needs to spend more, not less, as history shows. This can be done while still balancing the budget, simply by taking back the government's Constitutional power to issue money.

The budget crisis is an artificial one, and the current "solution" will only guarantee a deeper recession and more widespread suffering. Rather than obsessing over deficits and debt, the government needs to turn its focus to jobs, sales and quality of life.
------------------------
Ellen Brown is president of the Public Banking Institute and the author of eleven books. She developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust." Her websites are http://WebofDebt.com and http://PublicBankingInstitute.org.

Ellen Brown is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Please support Global Research
Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers.

Your endorsement is greatly appreciated

Subscribe to the Global Research E-Newsletter Spread the word! Forward to a friend!
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: publications@globalresearch.ca

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: media@globalresearch.ca

Copyright © Ellen Brown, Web of Debt, 2011

Debt Ceiling: Could Ron Paul's Plan Save Us From Disaster, twice?

Stephen Gandel
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/07/05/debt-ceiling-could-ron-pauls-plan-save-us-from-disaster-twice

Is Congressman Ron Paul our savior?

The Republican, and libertarian, who is running for President, again, in the past few days has been floating a plan that has the potential to end the debt ceiling standoff, for now, and eliminate the growing possibility that the U.S. government could have to default on its debt, which could cause disastrous economic consequences. Even better, in Ron Paul's plan Republicans and Democrats wouldn't have to come to some compromise about taxes or spending cuts. In fact, they wouldn't even have to vote to raise the debt ceiling, at least not for a year, perhaps more. And that's not all. Paul's plan would not only solve the debt ceiling problem, it also might eliminate any harmful after shocks the Federal Reserve's QE2 program could have on the economy.

Not possible, you say. Well at least one left-leaning economist, Dean Baker, thinks the plan has promise. Here's why:

Paul's plan starts with the Federal Reserve. In the last year or two the Fed has been buying up U.S. Treasury bonds in an effort to lower interest rates and boost the economy. The most recent round of that buying has been dubbed QE2, and has come under a good deal of criticism, though most economists agree that it was a generally helpful policy. The result is that the Fed now holds nearly $1.7 trillion in U.S. debt. But that is really phony debt. The Treasury pays the interest on the debt on behalf of the U.S. government to the Fed, which in turn returns 90% of the payments it gets back to the Treasury. Nonetheless, that $1.7 trillion in U.S. bonds that the Fed owns, despite the shell game of payments, is still counted in the debt ceiling number, which caps that amount of total Federal debt at $14.3 trillion.

Paul's plan: Get the Fed and the Treasury to rip up that debt. It's fake debt anyway. And the Fed is legally allowed to return the debt to the Treasury to be destroyed. A trillion and a half dollars is currently about what spending is expected to exceed tax revenue in 2011. And the deficit is expected to dramatically shrink in 2013 and beyond. So cut the debt by $1.7 trillion and you could run the government as is for at least the next year, and perhaps into 2013. By pushing the debate past the presidential election cycle you might be able to get some of the politics out of coming to a smart solution. What's more, under the current scenario, the Federal Reserve would eventually have to sell that debt back into the market. That could cause interest rates to rise. Rip up the debt and you don't have to worry about what the added selling pressure of the Fed would do to the market.

There are of course a number of catches. First of all, the Fed probably couldn't sell off all of its Treasury holdings. Some of the interest, say 10%, it gets from those bonds it holds onto the Fed uses to fund its operations. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for instance, by way of Dodd-Frank, specifically gets funded from the interest that the Fed collects on the U.S. Treasury debt it owns. Second, even in good times, the Fed always holds a significant amount of Treasuries, if not as much as it has now. The Fed had about $700 billion in late 2007, just before the financial crisis began to unfold. Take that as a baseline, the Fed would only be able to retire about $1 trillion in U.S. debt. That would probably put us in the same debt debate situation we are in now sometime next summer or early fall, which is the heart of presidential election season, potentially making the debate even more politically charged than it is now. Lastly, that government debt that the Fed owns is back by bank reserves. They are technically excess reserves. But eliminate the debt and those reserves go away, too, which could lead to less lending by the banks.

But the biggest potential draw back is this: It just looks bad. It looks like we don't live up to our obligations. Of course, government finances, especially those of an economy as big as ours are hard to grasp. As much as Sarah Palin and the rest of the Tea Party would like to think, the government doesn't have to balance its checkbook in the way that individuals have to. But nonetheless, if the government regularly used the Fed to create money to buy up its debt rather than paying it off, it seems wrong. The optics are bad. "It smacks of the third world," says Allan Meltzer, a Fed historian. "It's what Zimbabwe would do."

Drawbacks aside, if the Democrats and the Republicans can't get to a compromise by July 22nd, I think the Fed option is a viable one. It's definitely better than defaulting. And it is probably better than massive cutbacks in government spending that could potentially send us right back into a recession anyway. The optics of a government unable to come to a compromise are bad already.

Stephen Gandel is a senior writer at TIME. Find him on Twitter at @stephengandel.

Ron Paul, Barney Frank Introduce Bill That Would End Pot Prohibition

June 23, 2011 Eyder Peralta
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/06/23/137372951/ron-paul-barney-frank-to-introduce-bill-that-would-end-pot-prohibition

Reps. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced a bipartisan bill today that would remove the federal prohibition on marijuana. The bill would instead let states legalize, regulate and tax marijuana.

USA Today reports the bill is being championed by a legalization advocacy group:

The Marijuana Policy Project highlights that 46.5% of Californians voted for Proposition 19. It also cites a report released this month by the Global Commission on Drug Policy that slammed the decades-old war on drugs and called on governments to take a look at decriminalizing marijuana and other drugs.

The bill by Frank and Paul would "end state/federal conflicts over marijuana policy, re-prioritize federal resources and provide more room for states to do what is best for their own citizens," the group says.

Politico says the legislation is modeled after the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, which repealed the federal prohibition on alcohol and handed that responsibility to the states. Quoting the Marijuana Policy Project, Politico reports it's "the first bill ever introduced in Congress to end federal marijuana prohibition."

But, as CNN money puts it, the bill is a long shot. But part of the point, adds CNN, is to start a conversation.

The bill is co-sponsored by Reps. John Conyers (D-MI), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Jared Polis (D-CO), and Barbara Lee (D-CA).

Prez Bowl 2012: Donald Trump, Charlie Sheen & Others

It will probably end up being a conventional campaign, but there are some signs of potential wackiness in 2012.
Leading the charge, of course, is Donald Trump, who is getting the lion's share of the news coverage. Oddly, the reality show host seems uninterested in running as a Republican, as he has quit the party and joined the Reform Party created by Ross Perot. Also officially joining the Reform Party is its former nominee Pat Buchanan...

Trump officially joins Reform Party
October 25, 1999
http://articles.cnn.com/1999-10-25/politics/trump.cnn_1_reform-party-donald-trump-independence-party

Another interesting entry in the field: former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, a Republican with an extreme Libertarian streak (and that is meant as a compliment.) Like Ron Paul, Johnson embraces real libertarianism (not the phony kind sold by the Astroturf Teabagger leaders) that would both be good for the GOP and have some strong Democratic and independent crossover. Unlike Paul, he has actually been a political executive before, and thus has shown how he could practically apply his philosophy in practice, and did so in a particularly effective fashion:

"Johnson, 58, said during two terms as New Mexico governor, he eliminated the state’s budget deficit and cut the rate of state government growth in half while reducing the state workforce by more than 10 percent without laying off a single qualified state worker."

Gary Johnson announces presidential bid, plans to ski Tuckerman Ravine
Thursday, Apr. 21, 2011
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=9f95c903-3cb9-4467-8b36-6b17283a3eed&headline=Gary+Johnson+announces+presidential+bid%2c+plans+to+ski+Tuckerman+Ravine

Besides these two, there are some other possibilities: Ron Paul again, either as a Republican or as independent, Jesse Ventura as an independent, either alone or on a ticket with Paul, Michael Bloomberg as an independent, and perhaps the most entertaining choice of all, Charlie Sheen, who has hinted at a run based on outlawing the IRS and the Fed. No word yet from Lindsay Lohan, but she has our vote...

Paul/Ventura 2012?

From PrisonPlanet.com:

Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura has an important message for Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul – ditch the Republican Party and run for President as an independent.

On the day that Obama officially announced his 2012 Presidential campaign underway, the spotlight will now turn on those who are expected to set the wheels in motion to run against the president.

One name mentioned over and over again for the past few months has been Republican Congressman Ron Paul. However, Ventura, who was victorious as an Independent himself in 1998, believes that Paul can mount a more powerful challenge by distancing himself from the GOP establishment.

And Ventura even offered to throw his own name into the hat as a possible running mate.

“If Ron Paul would quit the Republican Party, and he asked me, then I would give serious consideration to running with him.” Ventura told syndicated radio host Alex Jones today.

“I will not run as a Democrat or Republican. I want nothing to do with these parties. They are the problem, they are not the solution.” the former Governor added.

“They’re the ones that have been in control of this country, as Ralph Nadar calls them, the two party dictatorship. They are the ones that have us in this mess. They are the ones who have caused all the debt problems… it’s time to throw them out. The people of this country can do a major thing and its so easy. The next election, don’t vote for ANY Republicans or Democrats. That would be the greatest thing that could happen in this country, to bring down and destroy these two political parties.” Ventura urged.

Congressman Paul has recently been victorious in several Republican straw polls of potential presidential nominees, and he has raised a staggering $3 million already this first quarter via his various grass roots organizations. That is more than any other potential Republican nominee thus far.

Ventura believes Paul should fully capitalize on his political popularity and make the break from the GOP.

“He won’t get the Republican Party nomination, he has to understand that.” Ventura said.

“The Republicans are not going to put Ron Paul up as their Presidential nominee. He is too much of a rogue, he is not bought and sold by multinational corporations. Plus the biggest thing of all, he calls for an audit of the Federal Reserve.” he added...

Ventura is currently promoting his new book, 63 documents The Government Doesn’t Want You To Read. The former Governor explained that he had dedicated the book to Congressman Paul as a thank you for his tireless efforts to bring more transparency to Washington.

“He was the only Congressman we have that had the courage to go out on the floor of the Congress and support Wikileaks,” Ventura noted, alluding to the whistle blowing website.

“Like Ron Paul said, no one has died from Wikileaks. How many people have died from the trumped up intelligence and the lying that got us into the Iraq war. And then he said something even more profound. He talked about in a free country like ours, when the truth equals treason we are in big trouble.”

While Ron Paul has yet to announce whether he will mount another presidential run, he may want to take Ventura up on his offer before the former pro-wrestler turned political powerhouse looks toward an even more ambitious role.

“I never said who would be President and who would be Vice President.” Ventura quipped.

“Ron and I may have to flip a coin.”

Ventura Urges Ron Paul To Run For President As Independent
Steve Watson
April 4, 2011
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ventura-urges-ron-paul-to-run-for-president-as-independent.html

Progressive Libertarians

Ralph Nader was once the most despised man in korporate America for his muckraking. He has since become despised by the yuppie liberal media mouthpieces who use him as a scapegoat for the 2000 election. (Antonin Scalia or Jeb Bush would be better choices.) Whatever his flaws, he is his own man and a trendsetter, and thus his recent embrace of the fusion politics of progressives and libertarians may hopefully be a sign of where things could be heading.

Think of it as the best of both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. As trend researcher Gerald Celente described it, movement members would be "libertarian in the sense of government staying out of people's lives" and progressive "with the government having control of issues where they can make a difference." Nader declares this to be "the most exciting new political dynamic."

Nader: Progressive-libertarian alliance ‘the most exciting new political dynamic’ in US
Stephen C. Webster
Thursday, January 13th, 2011
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/progressive-libertarianism-the-exciting-political-dynamic-ralph-nader

Republicans Move to Block Ron Paul from Monetary Policy Subcommittee

http://www.prisonplanet.com/republicans-move-to-block-ron-paul-from-monetary-policy-subcommittee-chair.html

Republicans Move to Block Ron Paul from Monetary Policy Subcommittee Chair
Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Friday, December 3, 2010

Ron Paul will not head up the House’s monetary policy subcommittee if John Boehner has anything to say about it.

“Five GOP leadership aides, speaking anonymously because a decision isn’t final, say incoming House Speaker John Boehner has discussed ways to prevent Paul from becoming chairman or to keep him on a tight leash if he does,” reports Bloomberg. “If Boehner, who will help determine who gets to chair subcommittees as early as Dec. 8, rejects Paul, he may have to contend with thousands of grassroots supporters and dozens of younger lawmakers who see Paul as a hero.”

Boehner and the establishment Republicans rode to victory last month on the shoulders of the Tea Party movement. Prior to the election, Tea Party activists in Maine, Colorado, and Utah focused on abolishing the Federal Reserve.

Some predicted that if Republicans were to sweep the House they would become much more confrontational with the Federal Reserve. “The popularity of Tea Party candidates in U.S. elections could spell renewed efforts to curtail the power and independence of the Federal Reserve, which has been cast as an emblem of big government overreach,” Reuters reported in late October.

Many establishment Republicans agree with senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina who insists the Tea Party and its vision of less government has no long-term vision or prospects for political viability.

Instead of dismantling the Federal Reserve, establishment Republicans have called for reforming the private bankster cartel masquerading as a government agency supposedly answerable to the American people.

On Tuesday, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. and Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. called for Congress to change the Fed’s “dual mandate” now requiring it to promote both price stability and full employment and instead focus on keeping inflation low and not worrying about reducing unemployment.

“It is time that we work to clarify the mandate of the Federal Reserve,” said Corker, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, in a statement announcing his support for the change. “Providing our central bank with a clear and explicit focus on keeping inflation low will serve America better than the broader mandate approach we have today,” the National Journal reports.

Corker and Pence proffered their milquetoast bill after it was revealed the Fed gave a big chunk of its multi-trillion dollar Wall Street bailout to foreign banksters and transnational corporations.

“We now know that the Fed loaned trillions of dollars at zero or near-zero interest rates not only to the largest financial institutions in the country, but also to many of our largest corporations — including GE, McDonalds and Verizon,” said an outraged Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator from Vermont.

“Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations, including two European megabanks — Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse,” he said. “As a result of this disclosure, other members of Congress and I will be taking a very extensive look at all aspects of how the Federal Reserve functions.”

Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul may take a serious look at the Fed. But we shouldn’t expect the rest of Congress to support an effort to cut out the cancer that plagues the economy.

In July, Paul’s Federal Reserve Transparency Act that would have eliminated restrictions on GAO audits of the Fed and open its operations to congressional oversight was defeated.

“Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has always operated in the shadows, without sufficient scrutiny or oversight, while Congress has kept its hands off and its eyes closed,” Ron Paul wrote after language from his bill failed to make it into a conference report on the so-called financial reform bill (that ultimately gave the Fed more power, not less). “The Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would achieve much-needed transparency of the Federal Reserve System.”

Now that Republicans are in charge of the House, they join the Democrats and make sure the Federal Reserve continues to operate in the shadows and remains unanswerable to the American people. The globalist financial train wreck will continue until it accomplishes its goal of pauperizing the American people and preparing the country to be merged into their world government scheme.

“The current Globalist Financial Crisis is a Financial False Flag operation,” writes Alfred Lambremont Webre. “It is a controlled collapse of the globalist economic system, engineered by an international war crimes racketeering organization…. The Financial False Flag [is] designed to accelerate the deterioration of First World economies, democracies, and prosperity, in aid of a larger program of global depopulation. The same powers who control the Federal Reserve Bank are intent on depopulating between 1/3 and 2/3 of the current human population, in service to a grotesque covert elite plan.”

Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and a handful of other House and Senate renegades who are not reading from the bankster script like John Boehner and the establishment Republicans will not be allowed to hold the Federal Reserve to account.

It will take the collective outrage of grassroots supporters of Paul’s End the Fed movement to force Congress to reconsider moving against the banksters and their cartel.

Ron Paul: Crotch Groped by TSA, Calls for Boycott of Airlines

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-crotch-groped-by-tsa-calls-for-boycott-of-airlines

Ron Paul: Crotch Groped by TSA, Calls for Boycott of Airlines
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
November 23, 2010

Appearing on the Alex Jones Show today, Texas Congressman Ron Paul expressed his outrage and disgust with the TSA and its unconstitutional naked body scanners and genital groping under the transparent pretense of protecting the American people from terrorists in distant caves.

“If we tolerate this,” Paul said, “there’s something wrong with us.” He added that the American people deserve to be humiliated and demeaned by the government if they refuse to stand up and resist.

Paul predicted Americans will eventually boycott the airlines to put an end to the intrusive searches and the unconscionable use of dangerous backscatter radiation naked body scanners. “Maybe the Congress will get off their duffs and do something in January,” he said, “and insist we reign in the TSA.”

Responding to Alex Jones’ assertion that the TSA’s actions are akin to what the Nazis did in Germany during the 1930s, Ron Paul said that we long ago capitulated on “showing our papers” and now routinely provide Social Security numbers to employers and show our government issued driver’s license as an accepted form of identification. “Now the government wants us to show them our genitalia and they want to take pictures of us and put their hands into our pants,” he said.

Paul said due to pervasive coverage of TSA abuses by the corporate media, the American people are now beginning to ask serious questions about government conduct.

“I think it’s a healthy wake-up call to a lot of Americans,” Paul told Jones. “I just hope they can work that in to the whole concept of what’s been going on with our country for a long time – the government is too big and intrusive and abuses our rights and they do the things the shouldn’t be doing and they forget about the things they were instructed to do.”

Congressman Paul said in the course of his work representing the people of Texas he has to endure TSA abuse, including the latest “enhanced pat down” that verges on sexual molestation. “I have to go through that all the time because I have metal in my knees,” he explained. “I get prodded all the time and it is disgusting and I tell them so.”

When asked by Alex Jones if the TSA had subjected him to an “enhanced” screening, Ron Paul answered yes.

“Specifically,” Alex asked, “have you had the enhanced pat down, sir? Have they touched your crotch?”

“Yes. Absolutely, and like I said, absolutely disgusting,” Paul responded.

He said he believes a boycott of the airlines will be necessary if we are going to force the government to back down and stop acting like a sexual predator. “I am going to be doing everything conceivable to try to change these rules because they are not making us safer, they aren’t better for us – it’s just to enhance the power of the state.”

Obama's 2012 insurance policy?

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/09/30/obama_2012_republicans/index.html

Thursday, Sep 30, 2010
Obama's 2012 insurance policy?
It's remarkable how many of the Republicans in the '12 mix are spectacularly unelectable
Steve Kornacki

What may be most notable in the new Gallup poll on the 2012 Republican presidential race is the significant distance between Mitt Romney, who leads the crowded pack with 19 percent, and the next candidate without obvious and glaring general election liabilities. Just consider the results:

Romney 19%

Sarah Palin 16%

Mike Huckabee 12%

Newt Gingrich 9%

Ron Paul 7%

Tim Pawlenty 3%

With the disclaimer that anything is possible (and the obligatory acknowledgement that many Democrats didn't believe until the very end in 1980 that Ronald Reagan could ever actually win the Whitre House), it's hard to imagine Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich or Paul winning a general election in 2012, even if the economy hasn't improved significantly. They just carry too much baggage, and nominating one of them would likely produce something like what we're now seeing in Delaware, where a radioactive GOP nominee is about to cost the GOP a seat it would otherwise win.

I can't remember so many poiosnous general election prospects near the top of the GOP field at this stage in any recent contest. Last time around, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and (sort of) Romney were all near the top of the pack early. All of them passed the November electability test. (Sure, McCain fell flat against Barack Obama, but that was more a testament to the political climate; that same race in the climate of, say, 2004, could well have produced a different result.) Back in the 2000 cycle, the big GOP fish included George W. Bush, Elizabeth Dole and McCain. For 1996, we had Bob Dole and Jack Kemp, and in 1988, George H.W. Bush, Dole and Kemp. Sure, there were some toxic prospects in these cycles (Dan Quayle figured prominently in '96 talk and actually ran -- briefly -- in '00), but in each race had more than one general election heavyweight out front early. Not so for 2012.

Moreover, as NBC's First Read noted this morning, Romney's grip on the frontrunner's slot is unusually tenuous. The GOP's conservative base is markedly cooler to him than it was to McCain at this point in the '08 cycle and Dole at this point in the '96 cycle, even as that same base seems to be warming up even more to Palin, Gingrich and Huckabee. Factor in the most alarming GOP Senate primary results this year -- a Republican electorate in Delaware that willfully committed political suicide, for instance -- and it's fair to questions the assumption that the GOP primary electorate of 2012 will be as pragamtic as it's been in the past. Don't forget: the last time the Republican base was as angry at its own establishment as it is now was in the late '70s. Back then, the favorite of the restive right for the next GOP nomination also happened to be the next-in-line guy: Reagan. But Romney, to borrow a tired expression, is no Ronald Reagan. To the New Right of the late '70s, Reagan was practically a god. To the Tea Party, though, Romney is just a somewhat likable, extremely ambitious office-seeker.

This should provide at least a little comfort to Barack Obama. I've written before that his 2012 fate will rest on the economy. If it improves significantly between now and then, he'll win, no matter whom the GOP nominates. And if it doesn't, he'll be in serious trouble. But the evolution of the GOP in the Obama era suggests a third possibility: that the economy will be weak enough to give the GOP a winnable race in 2012 -- but that they'll nominate a candidate who's incapable of taking advantage of it.

Steve Kornacki is Salon's news editor. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki

At Least 17 Republicans in 2012 Presidential Election Field

http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/09/10/at-least-17-republicans-in-2012-presidential-election-field
At Least 17 Republicans in 2012 Presidential Election Field
Paul Bedard
September 10, 2010

When Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour told us this week that the 2012 GOP presidential field will be "wide open," we had no idea just how many Republicans might be marching to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada for the opening caucuses and primaries. Including Barbour, who will decide after the fall midterm elections but who is expected to run in 2012, Washington political insiders tell us that nine Republicans are almost a lock to run and another eight are considering a presidential bid.

Many former presidential campaign organizers say that now is the time to be considering a bid because by spring of next year, the list of announced candidates will be firm and those in will be divvying up staff and raising money.

The top tier of candidates includes many in the news like Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, but some newbies have scratched their way into the category like budget-slashing New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Long shots include some who've already made trips to Iowa, like former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

"A starting place. That's all anybody has," said Barbour, dismissing talk of front-runners this far out of the election.

Here's the latest list of those who want President Obama's job.

The A-Team Nine

- Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the front-runner, largely because he was the runner-up to Sen. John McCain in 2008.

- Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has recently made a name for herself by endorsing winning Tea Party candidates.

- Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a social conservative in his second term.

- Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a fiscal conservative in his second term.

- Mike Huckabee, a Fox host and former 2008 presidential candidate.

- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

- South Dakota Sen. John Thune, a conservative and darling of the party for defeating former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in 2004.

- New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, whose budget cutting in his first year has impressed many in GOP ranks who want him to apply his touch to Washington.

- Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, already running and showing his conservative side.

The Eight Long Shots

- Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, a hero to fiscal conservatives.

- South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, a Palinesque conservative who's helped steer the U.S. Senate to the right.

- Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the gadfly 2008 candidate who kept a very loyal following.

- South Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley, who hasn't even won yet but is being heralded as the new Sarah Palin.

- Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush who has rejected a run but who still gets kudos for being the "smart Bush" for his successful two terms in Florida.

- Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who'd be the social conservative in the race.

- Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, a foreign policy hawk who conservatives adore.

- Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal whose effort to protect his shores from the Gulf Oil Spill won him notoriety lost when he gave a lackluster national political address in 2009.

Ron Paul questions whether there's gold at Fort Knox, NY Fed

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/116341-ron-paul-plans-bill-to-audit-us-gold-reserves

Ron Paul questions whether there's gold at Fort Knox, NY Fed
Michael O'Brien
08/30/10

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said he plans to introduce legislation next year to force an audit of U.S. holdings of gold.

Paul, a longtime critic of the Federal Reserve and U.S. monetary policy, said he believes it's "a possibility" that there might not actually be any gold in the vaults of Fort Knox or the New York Federal Reserve bank.

The libertarian lawmaker told Kitco News, a website tracking news about precious metals, that an audit was necessary to determine how much the U.S. maintains in gold reserves in case the government were to use gold to back the dollar.

“If there was no question about the gold being there, you think they would be anxious to prove gold is there,” he said.

“Our Federal Reserve admits to nothing, and they should prove all the gold is there. There is a reason to be suspicious and even if you are not suspicious why wouldn’t you have an audit?

“I think it is a possibility," Paul said when asked if there was truth to rumors that there was actually no gold at Ft. Knox or the New York Fed.

Paul had been one of the Republicans to spearhead a broader audit of the Fed as part of the Wall Street reform bill passed through Congress this year. The provision, which was weakened somewhat in the final version, found Paul joining with a number of Democrats to require the Fed to open its books and outline its assets and liabilities.

The gold reserves, which Paul's new bill would audit, are generally seen as a guarantee on a nation's currency, but the U.S. moved the dollar away from being tied to the price of gold in 1972.

Paul stopped short of calling for the reinstitution of the gold standard and instead called for the government to allow the use of hard currency — gold and silver tender — alongside the use of the dollar.

"If people get tired of using the paper standard they can deal in gold or silver,” he said.

Ron Paul Backs "Ground Zero Mosque," Splitting with Son Rand

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014453-503544.html

August 23, 2010
Ron Paul Backs "Ground Zero Mosque," Splitting with Son Rand
Brian Montopoli

Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul is breaking with many of his fellow Republicans - among them his son Rand - to support the creation of the planned Islamic cultural center near the former site of the World Trade Center that has come to be known as the "ground zero mosque."

In a statement decrying "demagogy" around the issue, the former Republican presidential candidate wrote late last week that "the debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque."

"Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be 'sensitive' requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from 'ground zero,'" Paul continues.

He goes on to argue that "the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia... never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars."

Adds Paul: "It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don't want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators."

"This is all about hate and Islamaphobia," he argues.

The statement is particularly notable in light of comments on the issue by Paul's son, Kentucky Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul. Rand Paul has said that while he is hesitant to get involved in a local issue, he does not believe the cultural center should be built; "the Muslim community would better serve the healing process by making a donation to the memorial fund for the victims of September 11th," he said.

(By the way, Paul's Democratic opponent in the Senate race, Jack Conway, also opposes the center.)

Rand Paul got in trouble early in his general election campaign for staking out typically-Libertarian positions, most notably in questioning parts of the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. He subsequently adopted more traditionally-Republican rhetoric and declined to embrace his father's full-throated opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, among other causes important to many libertarians.

Who are the real "crazies" in our political culture?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/28/crazy/index.htm

Friday, May 28, 2010
Who are the real "crazies" in our political culture?
Glenn Greenwald

One of the favorite self-affirming pastimes of establishment Democratic and Republican pundits is to mock anyone and everyone outside of the two-party mainstream as crazy, sick lunatics. That serves to bolster the two political parties as the sole arbiters of what is acceptable: anyone who meaningfully deviates from their orthodoxies are, by definition, fringe, crazy losers. Ron Paul is one of those most frequently smeared in that fashion, and even someone like Howard Dean, during those times when he stepped outside of mainstream orthodoxy, was similarly smeared as literally insane, and still is.

Last night, the crazy, hateful, fringe lunatic Ron Paul voted to repeal the Clinton-era Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy (or, more accurately, he voted to allow the Pentagon to repeal it if and when it chooses to) -- while 26 normal, sane, upstanding, mainstream House Democrats voted to retain that bigoted policy. Paul explained today that he changed his mind on DADT because gay constituents of his who were forced out of the military convinced him of the policy's wrongness -- how insane and evil he is!

In 2003, the crank lunatic-monster Ron Paul vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq, while countless sane, normal, upstanding, good-hearted Democrats -- including the current Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Senate Majority Leader, House Majority Leader, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, and many of the progressive pundits who love to scorn Ron Paul as insane -- supported the monstrous attack on that country.

In 2008, the sicko Ron Paul opposed the legalization of Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program and the granting of retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecoms, while the Democratic Congress -- led by the current U.S. President, his Chief of Staff, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House, and the House Majority Leader -- overwhelmingly voted it into law. Paul, who apparently belongs in a mental hospital, vehemently condemned America's use of torture from the start, while many leading Democrats were silent (or even supportive), and mainstream, sane Progressive Newsweek and MSNBC pundit Jonathan Alter was explicitly calling for its use. Compare Paul's February, 2010 emphatic condemnation of America's denial of habeas corpus, lawless detentions and presidential assassinations of U.S. citizens to what the current U.S. Government is doing.

The crazed monster Ron Paul also opposes the war in Afghanistan, while the Democratic Congress continues to fund it and even to reject timetables for withdrawal. Paul is an outspoken opponent of the nation's insane, devastating and oppressive "drug war" -- that imprisons hundreds of thousands of Americans with a vastly disparate racial impact and continuously incinerates both billions of dollars and an array of basic liberties -- while virtually no Democrat dares speak against it. Paul crusades against limitless corporate control of government and extreme Federal Reserve secrecy, while the current administration works to preserve it. He was warning of the collapsing dollar and housing bubble at a time when our Nation's Bipartisan Cast of Geniuses were oblivious. In sum, behold the embodiment of clinical, certifiable insanity: anti-DADT, anti-Iraq-war, anti-illegal-domestic-surveillance, anti-drug-war, anti-secrecy, anti-corporatism, anti-telecom-immunity, anti-war-in-Afghanistan.

There's no question that Ron Paul holds some views that are wrong, irrational and even odious. But that's true for just about every single politician in both major political parties (just look at the condition of the U.S. if you doubt that; and note how Ron Paul's anti-abortion views render him an Untouchable for progressives while Harry Reid's anti-abortion views permit him to be a Progressive hero and even Senate Majority Leader). My point isn't that Ron Paul is not crazy; it's that those who self-righteously apply that label to him and to others invariably embrace positions and support politicians at least as "crazy." Indeed, those who support countless insane policies and/or who support politicians in their own party who do -- from the Iraq War to the Drug War, from warrantless eavesdropping and denial of habeas corpus to presidential assassinations and endless war in the Muslim world -- love to spit the "crazy" label at anyone who falls outside of the two-party establishment.
* * * * *
This behavior is partially driven by the adolescent/high-school version of authoritarianism (anyone who deviates from the popular cliques -- standard Democrats and Republicans -- is a fringe loser who must be castigated by all those who wish to be perceived as normal), and is partially driven by the desire to preserve the power of the two political parties to monopolize all political debates and define the exclusive venues for Sanity and Mainstream Acceptability. But regardless of what drives this behavior, it's irrational and nonsensical in the extreme.

I've been writing for several years about this destructive dynamic: whereby people who embrace clearly crazy ideas and crazy politicians anoint themselves the Arbiters of Sanity simply because they're good mainstream Democrats and Republicans and because the objects of their scorn are not. For me, the issue has nothing to do with Ron Paul and everything to do with how the "crazy" smear is defined and applied as a weapon in our political culture. Perhaps the clearest and most harmful example was the way in which the anti-war view was marginalized, even suppressed, in the run-up to the attack on Iraq because the leadership of both parties supported the war, and the anti-war position was thus inherently the province of the Crazies. That's what happens to any views not endorsed by either of the two parties.

Last week in Newsweek, in the wake of the national fixation on Rand Paul, Conor Friedersdorf wrote a superb article on this phenomenon. While acknowledging that Rand Paul's questioning of the Civil Rights Act (and other positions Paul holds) are "wacky" and deeply wrong, Friedersdorf writes:

Forced to name the "craziest" policy favored by American politicians, I'd say the multibillion-dollar war on drugs, which no one thinks is winnable. Asked about the most "extreme," I'd cite the invasion of Iraq, a war of choice that has cost many billions of dollars and countless innocent lives. The "kookiest" policy is arguably farm subsidies for corn, sugar, and tobacco -- products that people ought to consume less, not more. . . .

If returning to the gold standard is unthinkable, is it not just as extreme that President Obama claims an unchecked power to assassinate, without due process, any American living abroad whom he designates as an enemy combatant? Or that Joe Lieberman wants to strip Americans of their citizenship not when they are convicted of terrorist activities, but upon their being accused and designated as enemy combatants?


He goes on to note that "these disparaging descriptors are never applied to America's policy establishment, even when it is proved ruinously wrong, whereas politicians who don't fit the mainstream Democratic or Republican mode, such as libertarians, are mocked almost reflexively in these terms, if they are covered at all." Indeed, this is true of anyone who deviates at all -- even in tone -- from the two-party orthodoxy, as figures as disparate as Dennis Kucinich, Noam Chomsky, Howard Dean or even Alan Grayson will be happy to tell you.
* * * * *
The reason this is so significant -- the reason I'm writing about it again -- is because forced adherence to the two parties' orthodoxies, forced allegiance to the two parties' establishments, is the most potent weapon in status quo preservation. That's how our political debates remain suffocatingly narrow, the permanent power factions in Washington remain firmly in control, the central political orthodoxies remain largely unchallenged. Neither party nor its loyalists are really willing to undermine the prevailing political system because that's the source of their power. And neither parties' loyalists are really willing to oppose serious expansions or abuses of government power when their side is in control, and no serious challenge is therefore ever mounted; the only ones who are willing to do so are the Crazies.

Thus, for the two parties to ensure that they, and only they, are recognized as Sane, Mainstream voices is to ensure, above all else, the perpetuation of status quo power. As Noah Millman insightfully pointed out this week, those on the Right and Left devoted to civil liberties and limitations on executive power find more common cause with each other than with either of the two parties' establishments. The same is true on a wide array of issues, including limitations on corporate influence in Washington and opposition to the National Security State.

That's why the greatest sin, the surest path to marginalized Unseriousness, is to stray from the safe confines of loyalty to the Democratic or Republican establishments. To our political class, Treason is defined as anyone who forms an alliance, even on a single issue, with someone in the Crazy Zone. That's because breaking down those divisive barriers can be uniquely effective in enabling ideologically diverse citizens to join together to weaken power factions, as Alan Grayson proved when he teamed up with Ron Paul to force the uber-secret Fed to submit to at least some version of an audit (backed by several leading progressives joining with Grover Norquist and other Crazies to support it), or as Al Gore proved when he brought substantial attention to Bush's war on the Constitution by forming an alliance with Bob Barr and other right-wing libertarians. Preventing (or at least minimizing) those types of ad hoc alliances through use of the Crazy smear ensures a divided and thus weakened citizenry against entrenched political power in the form of the two parties. Obviously, the more stigmatized it is to stray from two-party loyalty, the stronger the two parties (and those who most benefit from their dominance) will be.

If one wants to argue that Ron Paul and others like him hold specific views that are crazy, that's certainly reasonable. But those who make that claim virtually always hold views at least as crazy, and devote themselves to one of the two political parties that has, over and over, embraced insane, destructive and warped policies of their own. The reason the U.S. is in the shape it's in isn't because Ron Paul and the rest of the so-called "crazies" have been in charge; they haven't been, at all. The policies that have prevailed are the ones which the two parties have endorsed. So where does the real craziness lie?
* * * * *
Just to preempt non sequiturs, this isn't a discussion of Ron Paul, but of the irrational use of the "crazy" accusation in our political discourse and the effects of its application.

Socialism vs. Corporatism

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=806
Socialism vs. Corporatism
By Ron Paul
04/27/10

Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.

Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.

A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care "exchanges". Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.

Similarly, Obama's "cap-and-trade" legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in "carbon trading." This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.

To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President's agenda.

When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President's policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term -- corporatism -- forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.

Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.