Paul is a nutberger drawing positively scary followers. Hopefully, he'll be done soon, and the adults will take over the discussion.

I listened to Paul's interview on CNN today (XM radio) and all things considered - I ain't buying it.
First, he claims he never read the newsletters that carried his name, or the articles within - several of which were written in first person and spanned several years. He dismissed it as unimportant, "...happened years ago..." and "...some changes (in personnel) were made, I don't remember..."
Then he explains that "the blacks" should be supporting him because he wants to release all the drug offenders from prison, leaving the impression he believes "the blacks" (the reference he used exclusively) are predominantly drug users.
The "racism is a collective idea" was just down-right goofy, and sure sounds like someone who's disguising a very personal bigotry to me. How could one who's almost hypnotically poetic on other subjects, falter so badly on the racism if not for his complete inexperience with speaking out against it?
His final argument was, "why would I keep getting re-elected if I was a racist?"
Well I guess you could quietly signal a commonality of opinion with racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic bigots by issuing a newsletter that speaks their language, while speaking out the other side of your mouth in more civilized company. Duh!
I mean - that probably the REASON he kept getting re-elected. It's Texas!

David Neiwert, blogger at Orcinus, has done a great job of covering Paul's history/associations with racist groups for the last couple of months. There is actually a lot of information out there to show the scary side of him, but the media has been sloooowwww to get on it. Thanks, Postman, for bringing it here.

Well the media never publishes anything that isn't true, and Ron certainly doesn't have any enemies that might try to drag his name through the mud, so this must be legit. :o

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/

It's interesting just how easily "Chief Political Reporter David Postman" can get away such shoddy research. The only legitimate point I see is that Dr. Paul was negligent in not properly monitoring what was being written in his name. In his defense, you should remember that during much of this time Dr. Paul had left the legislature and returned to his private medical practice.

None of this is a new revelation...these articles have been being written about for many years now, and the fact that it's news to many people actually shows more about their own lack of awareness than about any lack of media attention to the issue. The New York Times has covered it in the past. You can be certain that if the allegations were actually substantive Hannity and O'Reilly would be playing it to the max. There is a lengthy discussion of the issue on Wikipedia--Ron Paul. Seems the Chief Political Reporter didn't even bother.

So, Dr. Paul is anti-Semitic?? Seems counterintuitive seeing as some of his greatest heros are Jewish.

Homophobic?? Here's an exchange from a Stossel 20/20 interview:

John Stossel: Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?

Ron Paul: Sure.

Stossel: The State says, we will believe in this?

Paul: Sure they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want , just so they don’t expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can’t make me, personally, accept what they do, but they gay couples can do whatever they want. In fact, I’d like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don’t think it’s a state function. I think it’s a religious function. There was a time when only churches dealt with marriage, and they determined what it was. But 100 years or so ago for health reasons they claim that the state would protect us if we knew more about our spouses and we did health testing and you had to get a license to get married and I don’t agree with that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M&eurl

http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/

Racist?? From his own web page:

A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
*****************************************
Hinton....Does your name calling indicate that you're ready to join the adult discussion?

JimD...You may need Q-Tips....Dr. Paul did not say "collective idea", he said "collectivist idea." To understand the distinction check the term on wikipedia or see above....And are you claiming that Texans in inherently racist???

shoephone....if you think the media is slow on this, you just haven't been paying attention. Again, if the major media could effectively use this against Dr. Paul they would be....they're keeping quite and letting the less reputable news sources take the lead, then they can simply report on the report and skip their journalistic responsibilities.

It's clear that Ron Paul's campaign is having some significant impact when the smears get this ugly.

Kevin Hilde

His is not only a closet racists, but a NUT. As the commercial goes, sometimes you feel like a nut. sometimes you don't!

Ron Paul would restore the perfect economic model for poor people that now have to pay 10 bucks for a cornish game hen.
research this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Economics
Then you will see more of why I advocate for Ron Paul,and reasonable prices.My belief as handed down from the work of John Nash,and others,is that in order to have the perfect economic formula,it has to be a good deal for everyone in order to create the perfect economic engine.If that formula is broken then you break up the perfect engine.When you have to pay too much for something you buy less often or not at all.That creates a one time exchange that will not provide optimum sustaining economics.The incentive for economics has to be there for all participants.Take away any incentive on any end and the engine is operating,but not as good as it should be.Nash says it all differently but if you keep reading you will see what I mean.When I apply it to small businesses that have been involved with I can explain it with realife figures.
Example
1984 Pork san $3.25= $30,000 a month in sales.
1994 pork san $5.25= 15,000 a month in sales.
At 3.25 poor people could afford to participate.
At 5.25 poor peopleand minorities decided they would make their own sandwiches.You reach a point where it is no longer a good deal.The formula used to be rich people buy two, poor people buy one.Now the formula is Rich people buy one.This has proven to be the same effect as killing the golden goose before it has had a chance to lay the golden egg.In the 1980's and early 1990's Washington State legislature used to stay in session late spending sales taxes.Now they have shortened sessions,and bicker over the budget.

Look at the numbers closely.
sandwich 3.25 minimum wage $6.00
There were incentives for everyone
Consumer good deal buys often
business owner makes profit
government spends lots of sales taxes.
Sandwich $7.50 minimum wage $8.00
where are encentives.
consumer-7.50 for a sandwich is not a good deal.
business owner -Overhead is too high,profit is lost.
Government sales taxes lost
Now instead of opening a small business to generate cash flow, you open a business to play the profit and loss game.

We have kiiled the golden goose before it could lay the golden egg.Instead of sending the state a check for $3,000 dollars in sales taxes I send them $1,500 then nothing.We had the perfect economic formula but we lost it.I watched the golden goose get killed,I saw what killed it.I blame most of that on criminal justice overfunding because that is the single biggest increase in overhead between 1984 and 1994.
No other branch of government increased by as much as criminal justice.We must reduce spending to lower the costs of goods in order to get more sales taxes.We need to show fiscal constraint.
We need to ask for less and get more.
Ron Paul's policies would have asked for less in the form of government overhead and gotten us more in the form of sales taxes.
Now it will be a choice between social overhead or moral positives overhead.Same old 10 dollar cornish game hen,and waiting for the day when soylant green will be distributed to the poor on wednesdays.
Dismiss Ron Paul,and you dismiss the chance to revive the golden goose....

I'm just amazed at how deeply some people have drunk from the Ron Paul Kool-Aid. Yes, it's entirely possible that Paul didn't bother to check the content of the newsletters that were being sent out in his name for a good 15 years. Is that supposed to make us feel better?! He's applying for a job in which tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people make decisions in his (or her) name. Many of which can be life or death decisions or affect millions of people. If this guy can't be bothered to check out a newsletter written under his name once in a while over a 15 year period, I don't want him walking my dog, let alone running my country!

As Ms Phone has written, it's about time the legacy media has finally given the subject of Ron Paul's loose associations some daylight. My 21-year-old son tells me that popular among his peers are those musty old racist, anti-semite, John Birch Society conspiracy theories such as The New World Order, the Bilderberg/Rothchild Axis, and the Jews are Ruling Us All With Paper Money. Couple those Qwik E Mart ideas with anti-war, anti-neocon (read Jewish) rhetoric, and you've got Politics For Kidz, and a Ron Paul wave.

AntiPaultard: that settled it for me. You stamped him with the ole "nut" label. No need to analyze the issues now! Good thing too, because you didn't provide an analysis to go with it.

As far as calling Ron Paul a "closet racists" (SP), why do you say that? Because he agitates for true equality over preferences? Interesting that people SAY they want equality, but instead of envisioning the end result and implementing it, they'd rather continue policies that reinforce group identities and hatreds.

Sorry, but as Dave Neiwert so deftly points out, Paul can't have it both ways:

If Ron Paul were serious about assuming "moral responsibility" for more than a decade's worth of allowing vile xenophobic hate and conspiracy-mongering to be published under his name, he'd be doing his utmost to decry the racists and xenophobes who have been supporting his campaign. He would have avoided, during the "decade" of "taking moral responsibility" he now claims, appearing before (and accepting money from) white-nationalist groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens and the Patriot Network. And he would return that $500 donation from Stormfront's Don Black.

Instead, he's refused. Instead, he happily poses for pictures with Don Black and his son at the January 10, 2007, "Values Voters" Conference in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., as he does in the photo atop this post. ...

As Chip Berlet observed: "Those neo-Nazis have a First Amendment right to endorse Ron Paul, but Ron Paul has a moral obligation to disavow that donation.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01/surviving-ron-paul.html

Ron Paul has also said he had no idea who Don Black was or what he believes. Which is worse, to return Don Black's money, or use it to promote liberty? If there is any question what Ron Paul believes, howbout reading his platform instead of trying to attach crap to the candidate because one insidious individual out of hundreds had their photo taken with Ron Paul? Is anyone digging in Hillary's campaign chest to see whether any socialists or communists donated a buck? The argument itself is absurd : to say that because someone insidious likes Ron he is therefore insidious himself. Its like saying "nazis like ice-cream, so you shouldn't like ice-cream". Maybe Don Black likes freedom, privacy and low taxes too? If you want to attack Ron Paul, please keep it focused on the man and the issues, and please stop making fallacious ad-hominem snipes.

Ron Paul doesn't know what was in his own newsletters all those years
Ron Paul doesn't know who Don Black, a significant campaign contributor, is.
Ron Paul says the "collectivist" nature of racism means "libertarians are incapable of being racist" - a self-contradiction that also denies what racism is.
And of course, it's just an incredible coincidence that his monetary policy reinforces the anti-Semitic remarks in his newsletter, not to mention the mid-east policy he proposes - cutting Israel loose to fend for itself (last night's FOX debate).

No one is smearing Ron Paul. It's incumbent upon him to answer to his self-generated controversy. You can post all the politically correct dogma he's authored till our screens wear out - anyone can say the right thing when they want to. The question is why he said and did things that robustly contradict it. And frankly, no matter the answer, anyone who puts themselves in this place to begin with surely doesn't have the intellect, political skill or civil decency to be POTUS anyway.

I truly believe his supporters are out of their collectivist minds, but that's their right.
Even Ron Paul would agree with that,,,,I think...?

How is it anti-semitic to cut off funding to Israel AND the arabs if the arabs are getting 3x the money? No offense JimD, but did you actually watch the debate? ISRAELIS even prefer Ron Paul

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

The sense I'm getting here, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you guys are willing to ignore the balance of probabilities here because you've already picked your candidate. Am I close to the mark? You can say that his supporters are out of their minds, but once again, no one substantiates that with an argument, at least not one that isn't fallacious in reasoning. WHY are we out of our collective minds? Is it because we like liberty, fiscal responsibility, privacy, or want to change foreign policy? Is it because we don't trust the media not to manipulate the electoral process? You'd think the LEAST Fox News could do is hire a different set of actors between debates for their man-on-the-street commentary.

http://www.roguegovernment.com/images/5888/foxfocusgroup.jpg

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/2008/01/troubling_words_in_ron_pauls_newsletters.html?referer=sphere_related_content

Assertion:

"I must say I don't think there's an excuse in politics to have something go out under your name and say, 'Oh by the way, I didn't write that.'" — David Gergen, a CNN senior political analyst.

Response:

I must say that while there is no excuse to allow a newsletter to be published in one's name with minimal oversight, it is equally irresponsible for The New Republic to publish a piece that involved no witnesses, no first-hand interviews and no attempt to allow the accused to respond.

As someone with a journalistic background, I find the timing or approach to this report suspect. If these accusations involved face-to-face interviews, or made a responsible attempt to uncover the identity of the anonymous newsletter author(s), it would carry more credibility. In its present incarnation, TNR article doesn't impart journalistic integrity, but rather election-year mudslinging. In view of the fact that Hillary Clinton had to fire some of her campaign staff after it was discovered that they were promoting an email rumor in which Barack Obama was accused of swearing his oath on a Koran, I believe this article, though based in some apparent truth, is largely of the same ilk.

I write this not in support of Congressman Paul, but in criticism of the transparently shoddy journalism that is being passed off by other sites, including CNN, as "news". Responsible newsroom editors would not simply parrot a previous author, but would search out a source who worked for the offending newsletters to attest to whether or not they wrote with the approval or oversight of Dr. Paul.

Meanwhile, just look at the number of footnote corrections in James Kirchick's article. Kirchick, for example, fouls up basic things such as the political affiliation of some of the individuals reference in the piece. At the very least, the sheer number of post-publication corrections that were necessary reflect poorly on his status as an "editor" for TNR.

Set aside all that, and you still end up with old news. Very old news. If the voting record, literary style or collaborative sources could vouch for the newsletter's racist claims, it is likely that Dr. Paul would have lost his seat in Washington long before running for president. As it stands, however, this issue has had 15-20 years to gain traction and hasn't. Without a single character witness to back these bigoted claims, the expose promises to backfire. I suspect it will rally more support, more publicity and more campaign contributions on behalf of Congressman Paul. Is this what his detractors had in mind?

I would suggest that readers balance out TNR accusations with articles that involve actual interviews. The New York Times July 22, 2007 article "The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul" by CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL is one such example of a more traditional and ethical form of journalism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?_r=1&sq=Eric%20Dondero&oref=slogin&scp=1&pagewanted=print

"WHY are we out of our collective minds?"

Well, there is the whole continuing to defend a man who apparently allowed his good name to be attached to a bunch of homophobic, racist, conspiracy-theory rantings for 15 years bit. Beyond that, there's the theory that we could ever go back to the gold standard, elimination of the Federal Reserve, opposition to birthright citizenship, the elimination of most federal agencies. I could go on, but basically, he appeals to a rather simplistic belief that one could just hack and slash at the federal government and have it not leave chaos in its wake.

"If the voting record, literary style or collaborative sources could vouch for the newsletter's racist claims, it is likely that Dr. Paul would have lost his seat in Washington long before running for president."

Methinks you miss the controversy here. David Gergen was most likely just pointing out the fact that Paul is unlikely to excuse himself from this scandal just by saying he didn't write these things. He still put his name on them, which makes him ultimately responsible for their content. That he didn't feel it necessary to check what was being written, or (possibly more likely) he didn't care enough to stop what was being written, doesn't absolve him from being responsible.

What I would like to know is why is some "racism" accepted, and some not? Barack Obama counts Louis Farakkhan as a supporter, someone tell me why that's okay. Ron Paul is not a racist, he is too progressive and logical for that. Racism is an emotional response to things you can't understand. From everything Ron Paul says about the economy, the war and the welfare state, it sounds very well understood by him.

Look people, we need to move forward here and concentrate on the real issue. We are losing a non-winnable war against an enemy we created. Some would say a religious war, some an oil war. Whatever it is, Ron Paul is the only canidiate with real money who could stop this war. Focus on logic and reason, enough with emotion and fake outcry. Where's the outcry for 115,000 dead Iraqi civilians? That's the real story here, not some non-bylined small minded crap that Ron Paul has been outraged by.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

The End of Dollar Hegemony

A hundred years ago it was called “dollar diplomacy.” After World War II, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, that policy evolved into “dollar hegemony.” But after all these many years of great success, our dollar dominance is coming to an end.

It has been said, rightly, that he who holds the gold makes the rules. In earlier times it was readily accepted that fair and honest trade required an exchange for something of real value.

First it was simply barter of goods. Then it was discovered that gold held a universal attraction, and was a convenient substitute for more cumbersome barter transactions. Not only did gold facilitate exchange of goods and services, it served as a store of value for those who wanted to save for a rainy day.

Though money developed naturally in the marketplace, as governments grew in power they assumed monopoly control over money. Sometimes governments succeeded in guaranteeing the quality and purity of gold, but in time governments learned to outspend their revenues. New or higher taxes always incurred the disapproval of the people, so it wasn’t long before Kings and Caesars learned how to inflate their currencies by reducing the amount of gold in each coin-- always hoping their subjects wouldn’t discover the fraud. But the people always did, and they strenuously objected.

This helped pressure leaders to seek more gold by conquering other nations. The people became accustomed to living beyond their means, and enjoyed the circuses and bread. Financing extravagances by conquering foreign lands seemed a logical alternative to working harder and producing more. Besides, conquering nations not only brought home gold, they brought home slaves as well. Taxing the people in conquered territories also provided an incentive to build empires. This system of government worked well for a while, but the moral decline of the people led to an unwillingness to produce for themselves. There was a limit to the number of countries that could be sacked for their wealth, and this always brought empires to an end. When gold no longer could be obtained, their military might crumbled. In those days those who held the gold truly wrote the rules and lived well.

That general rule has held fast throughout the ages. When gold was used, and the rules protected honest commerce, productive nations thrived. Whenever wealthy nations-- those with powerful armies and gold-- strived only for empire and easy fortunes to support welfare at home, those nations failed.

Today the principles are the same, but the process is quite different. Gold no longer is the currency of the realm; paper is. The truth now is: “He who prints the money makes the rules”-- at least for the time being. Although gold is not used, the goals are the same: compel foreign countries to produce and subsidize the country with military superiority and control over the monetary printing presses.

Since printing paper money is nothing short of counterfeiting, the issuer of the international currency must always be the country with the military might to guarantee control over the system. This magnificent scheme seems the perfect system for obtaining perpetual wealth for the country that issues the de facto world currency. The one problem, however, is that such a system destroys the character of the counterfeiting nation’s people-- just as was the case when gold was the currency and it was obtained by conquering other nations. And this destroys the incentive to save and produce, while encouraging debt and runaway welfare.

The pressure at home to inflate the currency comes from the corporate welfare recipients, as well as those who demand handouts as compensation for their needs and perceived injuries by others. In both cases personal responsibility for one’s actions is rejected.

When paper money is rejected, or when gold runs out, wealth and political stability are lost. The country then must go from living beyond its means to living beneath its means, until the economic and political systems adjust to the new rules-- rules no longer written by those who ran the now defunct printing press.

“Dollar Diplomacy,” a policy instituted by William Howard Taft and his Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, was designed to enhance U.S. commercial investments in Latin America and the Far East. McKinley concocted a war against Spain in 1898, and (Teddy) Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine preceded Taft’s aggressive approach to using the U.S. dollar and diplomatic influence to secure U.S. investments abroad. This earned the popular title of “Dollar Diplomacy.” The significance of Roosevelt’s change was that our intervention now could be justified by the mere “appearance” that a country of interest to us was politically or fiscally vulnerable to European control. Not only did we claim a right, but even an official U.S. government “obligation” to protect our commercial interests from Europeans.

This new policy came on the heels of the “gunboat” diplomacy of the late 19th century, and it meant we could buy influence before resorting to the threat of force. By the time the “dollar diplomacy” of William Howard Taft was clearly articulated, the seeds of American empire were planted. And they were destined to grow in the fertile political soil of a country that lost its love and respect for the republic bequeathed to us by the authors of the Constitution. And indeed they did. It wasn’t too long before dollar “diplomacy” became dollar “hegemony” in the second half of the 20th century.

This transition only could have occurred with a dramatic change in monetary policy and the nature of the dollar itself.

Congress created the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Between then and 1971 the principle of sound money was systematically undermined. Between 1913 and 1971, the Federal Reserve found it much easier to expand the money supply at will for financing war or manipulating the economy with little resistance from Congress-- while benefiting the special interests that influence government.

Dollar dominance got a huge boost after World War II. We were spared the destruction that so many other nations suffered, and our coffers were filled with the world’s gold. But the world chose not to return to the discipline of the gold standard, and the politicians applauded. Printing money to pay the bills was a lot more popular than taxing or restraining unnecessary spending. In spite of the short-term benefits, imbalances were institutionalized for decades to come.

The 1944 Bretton Woods agreement solidified the dollar as the preeminent world reserve currency, replacing the British pound. Due to our political and military muscle, and because we had a huge amount of physical gold, the world readily accepted our dollar (defined as 1/35th of an ounce of gold) as the world’s reserve currency. The dollar was said to be “as good as gold,” and convertible to all foreign central banks at that rate. For American citizens, however, it remained illegal to own. This was a gold-exchange standard that from inception was doomed to fail.

The U.S. did exactly what many predicted she would do. She printed more dollars for which there was no gold backing. But the world was content to accept those dollars for more than 25 years with little question-- until the French and others in the late 1960s demanded we fulfill our promise to pay one ounce of gold for each $35 they delivered to the U.S. Treasury. This resulted in a huge gold drain that brought an end to a very poorly devised pseudo-gold standard.

It all ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window and refused to pay out any of our remaining 280 million ounces of gold. In essence, we declared our insolvency and everyone recognized some other monetary system had to be devised in order to bring stability to the markets.

Amazingly, a new system was devised which allowed the U.S. to operate the printing presses for the world reserve currency with no restraints placed on it-- not even a pretense of gold convertibility, none whatsoever! Though the new policy was even more deeply flawed, it nevertheless opened the door for dollar hegemony to spread.

Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence “backed” the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished.

This post-Bretton Woods system was much more fragile than the system that existed between 1945 and 1971. Though the dollar/oil arrangement was helpful, it was not nearly as stable as the pseudo gold standard under Bretton Woods. It certainly was less stable than the gold standard of the late 19th century.

During the 1970s the dollar nearly collapsed, as oil prices surged and gold skyrocketed to $800 an ounce. By 1979 interest rates of 21% were required to rescue the system. The pressure on the dollar in the 1970s, in spite of the benefits accrued to it, reflected reckless budget deficits and monetary inflation during the 1960s. The markets were not fooled by LBJ’s claim that we could afford both “guns and butter.”

Once again the dollar was rescued, and this ushered in the age of true dollar hegemony lasting from the early 1980s to the present. With tremendous cooperation coming from the central banks and international commercial banks, the dollar was accepted as if it were gold.

Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, on several occasions before the House Banking Committee, answered my challenges to him about his previously held favorable views on gold by claiming that he and other central bankers had gotten paper money-- i.e. the dollar system-- to respond as if it were gold. Each time I strongly disagreed, and pointed out that if they had achieved such a feat they would have defied centuries of economic history regarding the need for money to be something of real value. He smugly and confidently concurred with this.

In recent years central banks and various financial institutions, all with vested interests in maintaining a workable fiat dollar standard, were not secretive about selling and loaning large amounts of gold to the market even while decreasing gold prices raised serious questions about the wisdom of such a policy. They never admitted to gold price fixing, but the evidence is abundant that they believed if the gold price fell it would convey a sense of confidence to the market, confidence that they indeed had achieved amazing success in turning paper into gold.

Increasing gold prices historically are viewed as an indicator of distrust in paper currency. This recent effort was not a whole lot different than the U.S. Treasury selling gold at $35 an ounce in the 1960s, in an attempt to convince the world the dollar was sound and as good as gold. Even during the Depression, one of Roosevelt’s first acts was to remove free market gold pricing as an indication of a flawed monetary system by making it illegal for American citizens to own gold. Economic law eventually limited that effort, as it did in the early 1970s when our Treasury and the IMF tried to fix the price of gold by dumping tons into the market to dampen the enthusiasm of those seeking a safe haven for a falling dollar after gold ownership was re-legalized.

Once again the effort between 1980 and 2000 to fool the market as to the true value of the dollar proved unsuccessful. In the past 5 years the dollar has been devalued in terms of gold by more than 50%. You just can’t fool all the people all the time, even with the power of the mighty printing press and money creating system of the Federal Reserve.

Even with all the shortcomings of the fiat monetary system, dollar influence thrived. The results seemed beneficial, but gross distortions built into the system remained. And true to form, Washington politicians are only too anxious to solve the problems cropping up with window dressing, while failing to understand and deal with the underlying flawed policy. Protectionism, fixing exchange rates, punitive tariffs, politically motivated sanctions, corporate subsidies, international trade management, price controls, interest rate and wage controls, super-nationalist sentiments, threats of force, and even war are resorted to—all to solve the problems artificially created by deeply flawed monetary and economic systems.

In the short run, the issuer of a fiat reserve currency can accrue great economic benefits. In the long run, it poses a threat to the country issuing the world currency. In this case that’s the United States. As long as foreign countries take our dollars in return for real goods, we come out ahead. This is a benefit many in Congress fail to recognize, as they bash China for maintaining a positive trade balance with us. But this leads to a loss of manufacturing jobs to overseas markets, as we become more dependent on others and less self-sufficient. Foreign countries accumulate our dollars due to their high savings rates, and graciously loan them back to us at low interest rates to finance our excessive consumption.

It sounds like a great deal for everyone, except the time will come when our dollars-- due to their depreciation-- will be received less enthusiastically or even be rejected by foreign countries. That could create a whole new ballgame and force us to pay a price for living beyond our means and our production. The shift in sentiment regarding the dollar has already started, but the worst is yet to come.

The agreement with OPEC in the 1970s to price oil in dollars has provided tremendous artificial strength to the dollar as the preeminent reserve currency. This has created a universal demand for the dollar, and soaks up the huge number of new dollars generated each year. Last year alone M3 increased over $700 billion.

The artificial demand for our dollar, along with our military might, places us in the unique position to “rule” the world without productive work or savings, and without limits on consumer spending or deficits. The problem is, it can’t last.

Price inflation is raising its ugly head, and the NASDAQ bubble-- generated by easy money-- has burst. The housing bubble likewise created is deflating. Gold prices have doubled, and federal spending is out of sight with zero political will to rein it in. The trade deficit last year was over $728 billion. A $2 trillion war is raging, and plans are being laid to expand the war into Iran and possibly Syria. The only restraining force will be the world’s rejection of the dollar. It’s bound to come and create conditions worse than 1979-1980, which required 21% interest rates to correct. But everything possible will be done to protect the dollar in the meantime. We have a shared interest with those who hold our dollars to keep the whole charade going.

Greenspan, in his first speech after leaving the Fed, said that gold prices were up because of concern about terrorism, and not because of monetary concerns or because he created too many dollars during his tenure. Gold has to be discredited and the dollar propped up. Even when the dollar comes under serious attack by market forces, the central banks and the IMF surely will do everything conceivable to soak up the dollars in hope of restoring stability. Eventually they will fail.

Most importantly, the dollar/oil relationship has to be maintained to keep the dollar as a preeminent currency. Any attack on this relationship will be forcefully challenged—as it already has been.

In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein-- though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.

It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned.

In 2001, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.

After these attempts to nudge the Euro toward replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency were met with resistance, the sharp fall of the dollar against the Euro was reversed. These events may well have played a significant role in maintaining dollar dominance.

It’s become clear the U.S. administration was sympathetic to those who plotted the overthrow of Chavez, and was embarrassed by its failure. The fact that Chavez was democratically elected had little influence on which side we supported.

Now, a new attempt is being made against the petrodollar system. Iran, another member of the “axis of evil,” has announced her plans to initiate an oil bourse in March of this year. Guess what, the oil sales will be priced Euros, not dollars.

Most Americans forget how our policies have systematically and needlessly antagonized the Iranians over the years. In 1953 the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadeqh, and install the authoritarian Shah, who was friendly to the U.S. The Iranians were still fuming over this when the hostages were seized in 1979. Our alliance with Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran in the early 1980s did not help matters, and obviously did not do much for our relationship with Saddam Hussein. The administration announcement in 2001 that Iran was part of the axis of evil didn’t do much to improve the diplomatic relationship between our two countries. Recent threats over nuclear power, while ignoring the fact that they are surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons, doesn’t seem to register with those who continue to provoke Iran. With what most Muslims perceive as our war against Islam, and this recent history, there’s little wonder why Iran might choose to harm America by undermining the dollar. Iran, like Iraq, has zero capability to attack us. But that didn’t stop us from turning Saddam Hussein into a modern day Hitler ready to take over the world. Now Iran, especially since she’s made plans for pricing oil in Euros, has been on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion.

It’s not likely that maintaining dollar supremacy was the only motivating factor for the war against Iraq, nor for agitating against Iran. Though the real reasons for going to war are complex, we now know the reasons given before the war started, like the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s connection to 9/11, were false. The dollar’s importance is obvious, but this does not diminish the influence of the distinct plans laid out years ago by the neo-conservatives to remake the Middle East. Israel’s influence, as well as that of the Christian Zionists, likewise played a role in prosecuting this war. Protecting “our” oil supplies has influenced our Middle East policy for decades.

But the truth is that paying the bills for this aggressive intervention is impossible the old fashioned way, with more taxes, more savings, and more production by the American people. Much of the expense of the Persian Gulf War in 1991 was shouldered by many of our willing allies. That’s not so today. Now, more than ever, the dollar hegemony-- it’s dominance as the world reserve currency-- is required to finance our huge war expenditures. This $2 trillion never-ending war must be paid for, one way or another. Dollar hegemony provides the vehicle to do just that.

For the most part the true victims aren’t aware of how they pay the bills. The license to create money out of thin air allows the bills to be paid through price inflation. American citizens, as well as average citizens of Japan, China, and other countries suffer from price inflation, which represents the “tax” that pays the bills for our military adventures. That is until the fraud is discovered, and the foreign producers decide not to take dollars nor hold them very long in payment for their goods. Everything possible is done to prevent the fraud of the monetary system from being exposed to the masses who suffer from it. If oil markets replace dollars with Euros, it would in time curtail our ability to continue to print, without restraint, the world’s reserve currency.

It is an unbelievable benefit to us to import valuable goods and export depreciating dollars. The exporting countries have become addicted to our purchases for their economic growth. This dependency makes them allies in continuing the fraud, and their participation keeps the dollar’s value artificially high. If this system were workable long term, American citizens would never have to work again. We too could enjoy “bread and circuses” just as the Romans did, but their gold finally ran out and the inability of Rome to continue to plunder conquered nations brought an end to her empire.

The same thing will happen to us if we don’t change our ways. Though we don’t occupy foreign countries to directly plunder, we nevertheless have spread our troops across 130 nations of the world. Our intense effort to spread our power in the oil-rich Middle East is not a coincidence. But unlike the old days, we don’t declare direct ownership of the natural resources-- we just insist that we can buy what we want and pay for it with our paper money. Any country that challenges our authority does so at great risk.

Once again Congress has bought into the war propaganda against Iran, just as it did against Iraq. Arguments are now made for attacking Iran economically, and militarily if necessary. These arguments are all based on the same false reasons given for the ill-fated and costly occupation of Iraq.

Our whole economic system depends on continuing the current monetary arrangement, which means recycling the dollar is crucial. Currently, we borrow over $700 billion every year from our gracious benefactors, who work hard and take our paper for their goods. Then we borrow all the money we need to secure the empire (DOD budget $450 billion) plus more. The military might we enjoy becomes the “backing” of our currency. There are no other countries that can challenge our military superiority, and therefore they have little choice but to accept the dollars we declare are today’s “gold.” This is why countries that challenge the system-- like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela-- become targets of our plans for regime change.

Ironically, dollar superiority depends on our strong military, and our strong military depends on the dollar. As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit become.

But real threats come from our political adversaries who are incapable of confronting us militarily, yet are not bashful about confronting us economically. That’s why we see the new challenge from Iran being taken so seriously. The urgent arguments about Iran posing a military threat to the security of the United States are no more plausible than the false charges levied against Iraq. Yet there is no effort to resist this march to confrontation by those who grandstand for political reasons against the Iraq war.

It seems that the people and Congress are easily persuaded by the jingoism of the preemptive war promoters. It’s only after the cost in human life and dollars are tallied up that the people object to unwise militarism.

The strange thing is that the failure in Iraq is now apparent to a large majority of American people, yet they and Congress are acquiescing to the call for a needless and dangerous confrontation with Iran.

But then again, our failure to find Osama bin Laden and destroy his network did not dissuade us from taking on the Iraqis in a war totally unrelated to 9/11.

Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding Euros for oil.

And once again there’s this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros.

Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.

The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better.

"It seems that the people and Congress are easily persuaded by the jingoism of the preemptive war promoters. It’s only after the cost in human life and dollars are tallied up that the people object to unwise militarism.

The strange thing is that the failure in Iraq is now apparent to a large majority of American people, yet they and Congress are acquiescing to the call for a needless and dangerous confrontation with Iran.

But then again, our failure to find Osama bin Laden and destroy his network did not dissuade us from taking on the Iraqis in a war totally unrelated to 9/11.

Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding Euros for oil.

And once again there’s this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros.

Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.

The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better." Texas Rep to congress 2006 Ron Paul

Thekaj, regarding

"Well, there is the whole continuing to defend a man who apparently allowed his good name to be attached to a bunch of homophobic, racist, conspiracy-theory rantings for 15 years bit."

Well he repudiated it all before, as now, so what is he supposed to do, repudiate it every year between now and some hypothetical run for the presidency? Your expectations are extreme.

"Beyond that, there's the theory that we could ever go back to the gold standard, elimination of the Federal Reserve,"

Europeans exchange currencies daily at money changing kiosks. What is so impossible about allowing Americans the option of converting their depreciating federal reserve notes into alternate, commodity backed currencies? Well nothing of course. All you have to do is take the sales tax off gold and silver and loosen the restrictions on legal tender, and Americans could, at their discretion, opt to protect their saved value by converting their coin.

"opposition to birthright citizenship,"

We're the ONLY nation that gives automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens. The founders never intended the 14th amendment to be construed this way, and by the way, an open system where anyone can come in, unvetted, unskilled, fugitives even, and can get public assistance is just a recipe for DISASTER. Only an anarchist would support the system as-is. This is the problem I always notice with Democrats, they're fantastically bad at the math.

"the elimination of most federal agencies."

Name ONE that wouldn't be more efficient and responsive if taken to the state level? You'd think the world would never have gotten by without the U.S. federal government. Some people think its such a good thing they need to share it with the rest of the world whether they want it or not.

"I could go on, but basically, he appeals to a rather simplistic belief that one could just hack and slash at the federal government and have it not leave chaos in its wake."

That is certainly an over-simplification, but YOU make it that, not Ron Paul. The goal is noble; but by your naysaying one has to wonder what YOU think the role of the federal government should be? Do you really think he'd abolish the IRS BEFORE he turned a budget surplus? Do you think the withdrawal from Iraq would be a chaotic, throw down your rifles and run screaming for the boat? Ron Paul is about fiscal responsibility, NOT negligence. He's about paying the bills, NOT running the country into the ground. Take a moment and listen to what the U.S. comptroller says about our fiscal situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxoP_9W6FC8

What you want and what you're going to GET are not the same. We better to work on avoiding the shipwreck NOW instead of later.

It's in the Congressional Record: Ron Paul voted FOR the Martin Luther King holiday! That doesn't quite fit the "allegations" in the New Republic article.

In addition ...

Regarding Paul's voting IN FAVOR of a holiday IN HONOR of Martin Luther King, my source is from PolitiFact.com (all votes in Congress are in the Congressional Record).

Furthermore ...

There seems to be various discrepancies on the internet concerning Ron Paul's vote or votes on the Martin Luther King holiday. I believe this may stem from the indications that there was more than one vote in Congress regarding the holiday in various time periods. Ron Paul has long been known to take unpopular votes in which his opinions have often been misconstrued, purposely or otherwise, due to his strict constitutionalist stands.

Whether he voted on a bill containing the holiday provision or not is a pimple on the elephant of discussion.

The following statement, posted on this thread, sums-up the nature of Ron Paul's divine following:

"Ron Paul is not a racist, he is too progressive and logical for that. Racism is an emotional response to things you can't understand. From everything Ron Paul says about the economy, the war and the welfare state, it sounds very well understood by him."

Ron Paul promotes the false premise that he and his followers represent some divine truth that transcends prejudice and bigotry - and apparently some folks, clueless to what racial bigotry and prejudice of thought on ANY matter truly is, buy into it.
Ron Paul is being rejected for his attempt to sell a disingenuous agenda of so-called constitutionality and civic bigotry to a public that (for the most part) knows a con artist when they see one.

Look - if he did what George Wallace did back in the 60's; Had a change of heart and position, apologized for his racism and worked to undo the damage he had done in a humble and humane manner, folks might forgive him. Times change, people change... and those who acknowledge their human imperfection usually get overwhelming respect in the end. We can all relate to the common condition of error and misjudgment.

But Paul offers no such acknowledgement. His beliefs transcend question, and as the poster states above, his followers feel empowered by association with this sense of civic superiority. The very essence of his campaign is political bigotry supported by a faith-based allegiance to concepts so questionable and un-proven they make creationists look like critical thinkers.

Yeah - Bush and the republicans fcuekdup big time. But that doesn't mean we turn the country over to someone so politically incompetent they (supposedly) don't know what's in their little newsletter under their name?

RON PAUL SHOWS US THE STICKER PRICE FOR OUR MORAL POSITIVES,SOCIAL PROGRAMS AND WAR MONGERING,and it bothers a lot of people to see the actual sticker price.Is he a racist..no..Does he advocate for policies that allow minorities to flourish... yes.Does he show America the sticker price ...Yes.Do the D's or Neo cons like to keep seeing the actual sticker price for their platforms.........................
NO!
THEY WANT THIS GUY OUTTA THERE BEFORE HE CAUSES STICKER SHOCK.......
LOL

...at least he didn't see a ufo

these articles were written in the 90's ...ron paul quit working on the project in 1988 ...someone used his name to benefit thier ideas or to wreck his future presidency .

ron paul quit working on the project in 1988...these newsletters your refeering to came out in the 90's ...duh big red truck ...someone else used hi newsletters for THEIR VIEWS

Well, it's like this: if Nelson Linder, NAACP Director, Austin, TX says Ron Paul IS NOT A RACIST, then I'd have to say Ron Paul's not a racist. Nelson Linder has known Ron Paul for many years. Here's a Nelson Linder video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvFLSwDvBUA&feature=related