"Impeach Ron Paul"

is that an inside joke???

Some horrific fraction of the submitted questions for Pelosi involved impeaching Bush. There were Code Pinkers making a fuss over impeachment, too. Plus, Ron Paul is a Texan. I don't know that there's more to it than that.

Having a bit of fun, I think. Obviously you can't impeach someone just for being an idiot asshole.

If I were going to pick on Ron, I'd point out that states' rights are the enemy of individuals' rights, and that's how Paul's platform became anti-choice on reproductive rights.

But I don't want to fight about that right now http://thestrangebedfellows.com/

comment hijinks

Ron Paul may be a nutcase on most things but he has some things just right:
The Text of HR 3835

A much ignored bill both by Republicans and by those Democrats who are Republican apologists and enablers.

please elaborate on why you think ron paul is a nut case. no one ever explains why they think paul is a nut case, they're using just parroting what they've heard on the lame stream media news programs. everything i've ever heard ron paul say sounds extremely logical and constitutional for that matter. usually, anything he says or does that may seem 'nutty' on the surface can easily be explained when you dig a little deeper. and it always makes sense. ron paul is a true patriot. do your own research and stop listening to the media, they lie.

I'm not questioning his patriotism. I do question the wisdom of a gold standard. I think it's insane and irresponsible to suggest destroying Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

I also don't much care for racists, or people who pander to them, and Ron Paul falls into one category or the other.

The biggest racists are Hillary clinton and Bush for green lighting a war thats killed millions of people, hell all the money wasted on that debacle could have paid for health care for the entire nation. At least Ron Paul didnt give Dubya a blank check for a war back in 2003, and doesnt support the racist war on drugs unlike the republicrats.

then I guess that you do not support the ACLU since they support racist organizations by helping those organizations exercise their right to free speech?

Impeach Ron Paul?! He's not in office. He can't be impeached.

Heck - sometimes I wish he WERE our President.

But, who would impeach a guy who balances the budget and mostly keeps us out of wars?

Oh yeah, now I remember - the same corrupt mainstream GOP nutcases who impeached balanced-budget Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinsky.

I kinda like Ron Paul, although I don't agree with all of his positions. He's a heck of a lot better at the 'small government' thing than the rest of the current GOP. Of course, Fox and Rush Limbaugh wouldn't let Ron Paul be heard during the primaries.

gold has been used as a currency for much longer than anything else. i'd like to hear why you question the wisdom of a gold standard. i think the current situation with our currency makes a gold standard look 'golden' :) however, paul's idea on this issue is to setup competing currencies. keep the fiat currency we have now and also allow gold. allow competition and i guarantee you the fiat system would not be the system of choice. but at least then we would have a choice instead of having to use these fiat pieces of paper that continue to 'lose' their value. the federal reserve is one of the biggest enemies to the american people and most don't even realize it. inflation is the biggest tax imposed on the american people. bernanke admitted this point in congress just the other day. not to mention, gold is the constitutionally sanctioned currency. i'm so sick of our govt. simply ignoring the constitution. if you want to change it then amend it, don't simply ignore it. it's the SUPREME law of the land. treat it as such.

as for the socialist programs you mentioned, the govt. has to steal that money from someone to give it to another (socialism). but again, his idea isn't just to destroy them immediately. he wants to phase them out slowly because there are people who certainly depend on those programs that the govt. promised to them. judging from your picture on this website you and i both won't see anything from social security. what about us? the govt. plunders this program to pay for their foreign adventures for empire while we suffer. i'm sick of it.

speaking of health care... the cost of health care has sky-rocketed since these socialist programs were introduced. the doctors know they can charge whatever because the insurance companies or these programs will pay for it. in a free market economy prices usually come down due to competition. most people, before socialized medicine in this country, could go to the dr. and pay a very affordable fee for thier ailments. not anymore. why? government meddling.

as for the racist comment, i think you should dig a little deeper. ron paul lists ghandi and dr. king as some of his heroes. when ron was accused of being a racist the pres. of the texas chapter of the naacp came to his defense. ron paul wants to end the war on drugs which is unfairly biased against minorities. again, please explain.

Ron paul also critisizes the federal reserve, before the Fed were were barely in debt and Andrew Jackson eliminated the debt and the central bank, since the Fed in 1913 weve had the worst depression in history and our 9 trillion in debt. Biggest Debt ever.

Cooler: Since 1913, we also won two World Wars, thanks in part to the Fed.

Floyd: The fact that people did things one way for a long time is an ass-stupid argument for anything. Slavery was common for a long time, as was monarchy. Also, retirement used to doom people to poverty, now it doesn't. Social Security isn't running out of money: I'll see my payments, thanks very much.

Also, the gold standard wasn't so good for workers: "If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."

The rest of you: I don't give a shit about Ron Paul. I do give a shit that this obsession with fiat money is shared by few others than whacked out racists in the militia movement. I give a shit that his newsletter published racist tracts under his name, and that his name is shouted proudly by KKK websites all over. Show me a KKK site fundraising for the ACLU, and I'll grant the comparison.

Josh does a very good job of defending my view of Ron Paul as a nutcase who has some good ideas. The very best you can say about Ron Paul is that he is inconsistent in the quality of the company he keeps and the quality of the people he allows to use his name.

And I did not get my views of Ron Paul from the media, buddy. I got it from researching Ron Paul......

well, i would concur with you that doing something simply because people did it for a long time is an ass-stupid argument. however, that's not the argument i was making. gold currency was used for a long time AND worked for a long time. big difference. good luck on those SS payments. don't see it happening.

that quote you have there makes a very impassioned plea against the gold standard doesn't it? interesting quote, which is actually the last paragraph of a speech that was given by William Jennings Bryan on July 9, 1896, at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. gotta love google. anyway, i think you should probably read the rest of the speech. the main point of this speech was that Bryan was supporting bimetallism, meaning gold and silver, not just gold (which is also what myself and ron paul happen to support). so, he's arguing for a GOLD and SILVER currency instead of just a gold currency. that little excerpt you have there makes it kind of sound like he doesn't want gold as a currency. quite the contrary it seems...

more quotes from the same speech

"If they say bimetallism is good but we cannot have it till some nation helps us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we shall restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States have."

"We go forth confident that we shall win. Why? Because upon the paramount issue in this campaign there is not a spot of ground upon which the enemy will dare to challenge battle. Why, if they tell us that the gold standard is a good thing, we point to their platform and tell them that their platform pledges the party to get rid of a gold standard and substitute bimetallism. If the gold standard is a good thing, why try to get rid of it? If the gold standard, and I might call your attention to the fact that some of the very people who are in this convention today and who tell you that we ought to declare in favor of international bimetallism and thereby declare that the gold standard is wrong and that the principles of bimetallism are better�these very people four months ago were open and avowed advocates of the gold standard and telling us that we could not legislate two metals together even with all the world."

here's some quotes about the Fed (central bank) from same speech...

"The gentleman from Wisconsin has said he fears a Robespierre. My friend, in this land of the free you need fear no tyrant who will spring up from among the people. What we need is an Andrew Jackson to stand as Jackson stood, against the encroachments of aggregated wealth." (Andrew Jackson got rid of the 2nd central bank this nation has had)

"He says that we are opposing the national bank currency. It is true. If you will read what Thomas Benton said, you will find that he said that in searching history he could find but one parallel to Andrew Jackson. That was Cicero, who destroyed the conspiracies of Cataline and saved Rome. He did for Rome what Jackson did when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved America."

"We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government. We believe it. We believe it is a part of sovereignty and can no more with safety be delegated to private individuals than can the power to make penal statutes or levy laws for taxation."

"Mr. Jefferson, who was once regarded as good Democratic authority, seems to have a different opinion from the gentleman who has addressed us on the part of the minority. Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business."

it's actually a pretty great speech. thanks, i hadn't read that before.

you keep trying to associate ron paul with racists but the newsletter thing came out quite a while back and was de-bunked back then as well as again this year. ron paul is not racist. gold and silver would at the very least, be worth trying. the federal reserve is part of the problem. you're not digging deep enough.

Er, slavery and monarchy seemed to work for a long time, until people came up with something better. Similarly, the gold standard (and variants thereof) were tried, and the current monetary system has been found to work better.

"I freed thousands of slaves. I could have freed thousands more, if they had known they were slaves." ~Harriet Tubman

Josh, I know that I am a little late on this, but it bears saying. Your anti-Ron Paul arguments are not quite sound, reasonable, or fair. You may not agree with Ron Paul and may oppose fiat money, fair enough.

You might consider Ron Paul's concern with sound money and central banks unusual, especially if you do not understand his reasoning, as you apparently do not. Yes, "international bankers" definitely were a force of evil, and probably still are to a lesser extent. (There is usually some tiny grain of truth to conspiracy theories.) No, they do NOT rule the world, and nor are they a front for the Illuminati, Masons, reptillian people, or "teh J00z." [As a matter of fact, the whole connection between the "bankers-rule-the-world" meme and anti-Semetism is a tragic irony given that the international bankers funded Adolf Hitler and enabled the rise of the Third Reich.]

The problem with fiat systems is that they put control of the money supply in private banking institutions such as the Federal Reserve or the World Bank, and do nothing to keep the value of money from fluctuating wildly. If we at least had a stable currency with a value exchangable for gold and silver, people can at least save. (Modern day critics of "gold bugs" consider them foolish investors for buying gold, when "gold investors" are not foolish investors, because they are not investing at all. Buying silver and gold is a means of saving money. You would not earn interest, but you would gain in net worth with inflation. The alternative is to keep your money in banks and earn interest at a rate less than inflation, or invest in stocks and securities, which can pay off more but tis risky.)

Josh Rosenau says: Since 1913, we also won two World Wars, thanks in part to the Fed.

I would not consider the above something to thank the Fed for. We won ONE World War (WW2), fairly decisively, and we truly deserved to win that war, but WW2 was not inevitable from the turn of the century. It is debatable whether America actually WON the First World War. Our allies won, but that does not necessarily mean we *won* the Great War. While all four members of the Central Powers: Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire, obviously lost, and all except Bulgaria were bitterly defeated, some of the Entente Powers lost. Russia clearly lost WW1, even though they fought on the "winning side." Greece lost even though they were on the Entente. Arguably Italy lost, though they were one of the "Big Four," they failed in many if not most of their wartime aims, bringing Benito Mussolini to power within less than a decade. The only obvious victors of the First World War were the British Empire, France, Belgium, and Serbia.

In asking whether the USA won or not, one needs to have a definition of military victory. If one defines victory in war as accomplishment of wartime aims, then clearly we failed. Woodrow Wilson dragged this country into the Great War for several goals, including establishment of and US membership in a "League of Nations." The League of Nations was a misearble failure and the USA never entered in the first place. In either case, America did not deserve to win WW1, but we had no business getting involved in that war in the first place. If you ask me, America LOST to the Entente Powers as soon as they entered by forsaking their sovereignty; abandoning the non-interventionist tradition that kept this nation safe, secure, and free since the Revolutionary War; permanently transforming the Old Republic into a Global Empire; and getting nothing in return for doing the dirty work of the Entente Powers (i.e. saving their asses). Without American entry, a stalemate would have ensued, and without any US involvement, the Central Powers almost certainly would have won, and the dreadful Versailles Treaty never would have transpired. American intervention in WWI largely laid the foundation for WWII.

The Federal Reserve Bank provided loans to the British and French governments, helping support their war efforts (along with shipments of war materials from America) prior to US entry, thus prolonging the Great War. The Fed Reserve also bribed the Kerensky regime to continue fighting the czar's imperialist war after the February, when Kerensky would have otherwise been forced to surrender. As a result, the Germans felt pressured to smuggle Vladimir Lenin into Petrograd to undermine the Russian Empire. Besides the Lusitania false flag, the Federal Reserve Bank did more to entangle the United States in WW1 than anybody else. They bear an indirect responsibility for the October (Bolshevik) Revolution, and for the dreadful Paris Peace Process, which shattered the balance of power in Europe and set the stage for the various Middle East conflicts of the 20th and 21st century.

If you would like to thank the Fed for "winning two World Wars," be my guest. Don't forget to thank the Federal Reserve Bank for Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden. Thank the Fed for the Holocaust, WW2, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, Zionism, the Arab-Israeli Conflict, and further still 9/11. Not that the Federal Reserve System had any DIRECT involvement in the aforementioned events, but by meddling with the global economy, the Fed helped the causes of these tragedies transpire.

As for the debate between the GOLD STANDARD and FIAT CURRENCY, be careful not to get caught in a straw man. Ron Paul does support SOUND MONEY, but not the Gold Standard. A monometallic gold standard is almost as bad as a pure fiat money system. In fact, the gold standard (mono-metallic) IS a fiat system in disguise. Why else do you think the banking aristocracies pushed the governments of the United States and Europe to adopt a gold standard around the turn of the 20th century? These were the very same banking aristocracies who would establish national fiat currencies shortly after. (Google "Bimetallism: The Only Enduring Standard")

Actually, floyd answered you well enough concerning fiat vs sound currency and gold standard vs bimetallism. A gold standard is almost as bad as a naked fiat system and in our day and age falling back on the gold standard would be worse than the current system. The best idea is to allow for the FREE TRADE of gold and silver, allowing free circulation of gold-backed and silver-backed currencies to compete among fiat currencies, perhaps eventually issuing official legal tender exchangable for a fixed value of gold and silver. Note that the original American currency was based on free bimetallism, a silver standard for the dollar, also exchangable for a given amount of gold. The movement from a (bimetallic) sound money system to a fiat system took place over 60 years, from the Coinage Act of 1863, which switched to gold as the preferred currency and restricting silver, to the Gold Standard Act, which monopolized gold currency, to the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 by Woodrow Wilson, which created a "debt-backed" currency (fiat money), to FDR's decision to unofficially take America off the existing Gold Standard by placing the nation's gold reserves in Fort Knox.

Williams Jennings Bryan, whom you quote for his opposition to a gold standard, ran on preserving a silver standard WITH a gold standard, and in effect preserving fiat money. Bryan was AGAINST a monometallic gold standard, FOR free bimetallism (Free Silver). Of course, Bryan ran against the banking oligarchy who backed William McKinley, the only US president to deserve assassination and get it. McKinley is known for, the Spanish-American War and for the Gold Standard Act. The only American president to deserve assasination bears crucial responsibility for the only OTHER war Amercia deserved to lose (though they did not), and for officially making America an Empire.

After fighting a brutal imperialist war to "liberate" (conquer) Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and other island possessions, then giving mercantilist bankers on the East Coast with large gold stockpiles a monopoly over the American money, McKinley got what he had coming to him when Leon Czolgosz, an "anarchist," shot him dead. Incidentally, Czolgosz was CLEARLY insane (notwithstanding the verdict of the court that sentenced him to death), and almost certainly not an anarchist. Czolgosz was posthumously repudiated by prominent anarchists of the times, including Emma Goldman, and there was no record of him ever being a member in any anarchist group, club, or organization. In fact, Leon Czolgosz voted in Republican primaries! Nevertheless, the yellow journalism was useful to launch a Red Scare campaign against the radical left, allowing Theodore Roosevelt to divide-and-conquer, winning over the more mainstream left to his "Progressive" reforms. Incidentally, Theodore Roosevelt was Admiral during the USS Maine false flag. Not saying that the McKinley assassination was necessarily an inside job, but I do not rule out that possibility. Too many suspicious events. Theodore Roosevelt enacted "proto-Keynesian" policies after succeding McKinley and his neo-feudal policies. A clinically insane, disgruntled Republican, assasinated Roosevelt's predecessor and was promptly executed and disintigrated in acid (presumably to prevent an autopsy from finding evidence of brain anomalies or drugs) and posthumously declared an anarchist. Too many, strange things to call coincidence...

In short, international banking aristocracies including the Fed have had their fair share of blood on their hands. Unfortunately, many people will take these ideas too far. Yes, the banking oligarchies are powerful, but not omnipotent. Conditions at the turn of the 21st century are very different from the way conditions at the turn of the 20th century were. While, the United States has employed false flag tactics in the past (USS Maine, RMS Lusitania) to incite entry into imperialist wars, 9/11 was NOT one of them. For the record, THE ATTACKS OF 9-11 WERE NOT AN INSIDE JOB. Even though we have real evidence of the sinister machinations of some groups, including the international banking oligarchies who helped establish a radical new world order, we should employ skepticism and avoid the trap of tin-foil-hat thinking, or postulating big meta-conspiracies which are either flat out rediculous or unfalsifiable. The powers that be are hidden in plain sight.

The trio of power-hungry bankers, sensationalist media, and the military-industrial complex played the primary role in entangling America in the Spanish-American War and in World War One. Recently, the banking aristocracies are no longer a driving force behind US imperialism, though they continue to fund wars, but a sensationalist media and powerful military-industrial complex (President Eisenhower used the term "military-industrial-congressional complex") continue to lead this once great nation into perilous wars for empire. We no longer have J.P. Morgan figures but we still have William Randolph Hearst figures, most notably in the form of Rupert Murdoch. However, the Fed and other super-banks play a tremendous role in the current economic crisis. Remember the bank bailout passed in the Fall? Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) voted against it when then-Senator Obama and Senator McCain voted for it.

Just so we're clear, I voted for Barack Obama in the election, partly because I can't stand McCain and liked Sarah Palin much less, partly because Obama seems less committed to disasterous neoconservative policies in war, economics, and foreign affairs. While Obama does appear to be a genuine and decent person in every way, I am not sure if he knows how to resolve the current economic recession. I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries, and still wish he could be president, but that will not happen.

Your guily by association argument against Ron Paul was unfair. Ron Paul is clearly not a racist. Any ties to racists must be due to Lew Rockwell. Dr. Paul's only obvious weakness is that he is too trusting, and sometimes naive as a result. My hope is that Ron Paul starts a much needed national debate, even if he never gets elected president. For all of Obama's promise of bipartisan governance, it would be great if he would at least talk to Dr. Paul concerning economic matters. It is unfortunate that Chuck Hagel retired. The only other decent Republican in Congress I can think of is Olympia Snowe. All the rest are the remains of the neocon coalition.

For the Ron Paul defenders out there:

Go read this essay by Ron Paul, where he claims that "the Constitution ... [is] replete with references to God". Now since the Constitution isn't "replete" with references to God, Paul is either a liar or a moron. Which is it?

Jeffrey, I appreciate the fact that you are trying to argue and debate and use facts and logic. Despite our disagreement, I respect your dispute. Even though you make a valid point, I think you are being a little unfair.

First off, Ron Paul did not merely state that the Constitution, but that the writings of the Founding Fathers, referring in that context to the Constitution AND the Declaration of Independence, were replete with references to God.

Either:
(A) Ron Paul is CORRECT, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are indeed "replete" with references to God.
(B) Ron Paul is IGNORANT because he believes it to be the case even though it is not.
(C) Ron Paul knows it ain't so but he is being DELIBERATELY DISHONEST.

A quick text search of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence reveals that God is never mentioned once in the Constitution but only once in the Declaration of Independence. One could argue about the meaning of replete, but "replete" implies repeated or multiple appearance. The word God appears (on average) 0.5 times in both documents. (I.e. once in one of the documents.) Therefore (A) is clearly not the case.

Out of process of elimination is Ron Paul ignorant (or stupid) or deliberately dishonest? I do not believe that Ron Paul is stupid or ignorant. He seems to be highly intelligent though he occasionally says unexpectedly stupid things, made all the more stupid by his own natural intelligence and education. Particularly his insistence that America is "a republic, not a democracy" and that democracy is "bad" republic is "good." He doesn't realize that the terms democracy and republic do not even belong in the same set or semantic category. Republic is a STATE FORM and democracy is a MODE OF GOVERNANCE. Far from being mutually exclusive a republic can be democratic, though not necessarily, and democracy can employ a republican state form, though not necessarily. If anything, Dr. Paul's diatribes against "liberal active judges," who are the balancing check on the power of "democratic mob rule" or the "tyranny of the majority" make him most democratic.

Yet again lapses like these could just be an honest mistake.

On the other hand, is it possibly that Ron Paul lies for political gain. In this case, I suspect he might be. After all, the article that you linked to is from Lew Rockwell's site. If you read Ron Paul's writings you will note that there is a very different style or tone between his PR type materials and his niche writings. Compare his The Revolution: A Manifesto to Dr. Paul's writings for loony right wing outlets such as TruthNews or Lew Rockwell. The Revolution was written in a very bipartisan manner accessible to many individuals from the left end of the spectrum attracted to Dr. Paul. I might consider myself part of this "left-libertarian" contingent. On the other hand, Paul does have a bad habit of pandering to a socially reactionary deep red state base (perhaps that is how someone as "liberal" as Ron Paul on foreign policy and federal police powers managed to win his district located in Bush Country USA so many times).

Thus, referring to the Founding Fathers' writings, with occasional mentions of the word "God" as being "replete" with references to God may have seemed a small stretch. If you read the entire article, you would notice that it has a very emotional and POPULIST tone.

Granted, while I still think Dr. Paul was the best choice for president, I do not agree with him on everything. For starters, I find his cultural conservatism quite unsettling. While I would prefer the sincere social conservatism of Paul to the Straussian social conservatism of Bush and his neocon cohorts, I would have been happier if Ron was more of a libertarian across the board. (To his credit, Ron Paul opposes the UNCONSTITUTIONAL federal War on Drugs, a holdover from the fascist Prohibition Era.)

Consider why I would support Dr. Paul. I disagree with much of his social policy. (I AM AN ATHEIST FOR RON PAUL!) I am totally pro-choice and I believe he is wrong on the issue of constitutional interpretation. My ideal Republican president would appoint Supreme Court justices like John Paul Stevens and maybe Sandra Day O'Connor, never Renquists, Scalias, or John Roberts. I support him on issues pertaining to the military, foreign policy, and economics. Ron Paul could end the American Empire and work for the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, thus prohibiting the federal government from taxing any person's income.

Nevertheless, I congratulate Barack Obama for his historic victory. He may not have been my first choice, but I did support him in the end. However, I sincerely wish him luck because he will preside over difficult times and I do not envy him for his situation.