Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Paul: Fed On The Defensive

November 4, 2011 by  

Paul: Fed On The Defensive

GOP Presidential hopeful Ron Paul, speaking on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Thursday, said that his message against the Federal Reserve’s constant manipulation of the United States’ monetary system is beginning to resonate with the American public.

“Just think of the success with the Federal Reserve. Bernanke has to go before the people at press conferences. I mean, they’re on the defensive now,” he said. “Sixty-five percent of the American people say ‘we need to know how they’re passing out this credit.’ Fifteen trillion dollars worth of credit, they’re bigger than the Congress — $5 trillion went to foreigners.”

Paul said that voters are coming his way because times have changed. He cited dramatic differences in the way the country operates now and how it did four years ago.

When asked why Herman Cain was leading in the polls, Paul said that media coverage has everything to do with a candidate’s popularity.  Paul called the media’s ignorance of his own campaign a product of his revolutionary ideas.

“I’m attacking the status quo like never before,” he said. “I mean the whole entitlement system, and I think there’s a whole lot of support out there for what I’m talking about and they realize that and they’re not going to give me a boost because I’m challenging the whole banking system, the military industrial complex, the welfare state, our foreign policy. I want to go back to following strictly the Constitution.”

Paul also said that if the United States doesn’t change its foreign policy, the country is “doomed” because the United States is following the same path that the Soviet Union did.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Paul: Fed On The Defensive”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Liberty Minded

    Go Ron go!!

    • Vicki

      Go get um Ron. I notice even the Occupy groups are picking up on this. Not sure if that is good or bad yet but it is raising awareness in the general public.

    • John Duran

      Congressman Paul, is absolutely correct in his message. Has gain my respect and vote for 2012. I am a Democrat and an American of Mexican descent.

  • Realist

    The media has been so unkind to Ron and they ignore him regardless of his growing popularity with reasonable and awakened voters.

  • http://PLD alan

    Ron Paul is the only leader out there! The rest are just the same old-same-old that got us exactly where we are today…….al

  • Everyday Politics

    There are too many authorities trying to distract the people from the TRUE CAUSES behind the situation we are in. Open your eyes and discern the TRUTH behind what is going on.

  • NamNavyVet

    Ron is the only GOP candidate that isn’t affraid to tell us the truth, just as he’s been doing for 30 years. The Fed is corrupt, the defense industry wants us at war full time so our media only presents the “approved” candidates. Possibly approved by those really in charge, the Bilderberg group, Rockefellers, George Soros, who knows. If by chance he was nominated and elected, the CIA would take him out in no time, under orders. JFK made the same mistakes, trying to issue silver backed currency and not get envolved in Vietnam. Death to those that don’t comply.

    • Robin from Arcadia, IN

      Ron Paul has remained consistant in his politics. However, he has Libertarian ideas that don’t jive with conservative thinking. Some of his platform does work nicely into the Republican platform. Too bad he doesn’t get more time in the debates so that those of us who don’t know much about him can learn more.

      • JeffH

        Robin, if you have access to a computer, you can find out all you need to about Ron Paul, up to and including immigration and the borders, foreign policy, Israel, the Fed Reserve…everything.
        Ron Paul, the Libertarian, is the real conservative.

        • s c

          JeffH, if it’s open season on the Fed – finally – maybe Ron Paul should “include” Little Timmie Geithner. I don’t recall that anyone brought it up, but back in mid-2009, there was a certain little weasel running the New York Fed, and his name was (uh huh) Timmie Geithner.
          Since Obummer is not in the habit of having certain people in his administration checked-out or ‘pre-approved’(in a positive sense), it stands to reason that maybe a certain “prez” picked Geithner because he was in the middle of the JP Morgan/Bear Stearns fiasco. And, since politicians worship the
          idea of payback(s), Geithner was at the right place at the right time – and the rest is “history.”
          To me, that should mean eliminating Geithner as a part of Obummer’s administration. BUT, you know how Obummer seems to say this and then does that. I don’t see that Paul has anything to lose by grilling the little New York weasel while he’s lighting a fire under Ben the Boob. Fair is fair, and the Fed sure needs a serious dose of FAIR.

      • Ruth

        Robin – Pick up Ron Paul’s book -”The Revolution – A Manifesto.” It is Congressman Paul’s book that defines his principles and his stands on almost all of the issues. Easy to read and understand and very informative. If you wait for the media to give Paul air time, unfortunately you will wait a very long time.

  • BenDoubleCrossed

    I like Paul’s return to the Constitution stand but I cannot get him to comment on the ‘press exemption’ and Federal Campaign laws that are contrary to the 1st Amendment.

    The hush-hush of politics is controlling a segment of people without those people recognizing they are being managed.

    In 1789 The Constitution and Bill of Rights are established as the law of the land.

    For 97 years it was understood that 1st Amendment freedoms of speech, press and assembly were the sole rights of flesh and blood citizens. Corporations had no rights. Newspapers had the right to print because they employed people and not the other way around.

    “The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.” -Alex Carey, Australian social scientist who pioneered the investigation of corporate propaganda (see Taking the Risk Out Of Democracy, Univ of New South Wales, 1995)

    In 1886 footnotes to the Santa Clara Railroad case, written by a Supreme Court Clerk who was previously a railroad executive, became the basis for corporations claiming the same rights as flesh and blood people.

    Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. But politicians exempted the commercial press, because the 1st Amendment prohibits abridging their freedom of speech and the press.

    2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term “expenditure” does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

    But we cannot rely on the commercial press to be unbiased and provide the information we need to remain free. Both Republicans and Democrats agree the press is biased and only differ on which networks and newspapers are the culprits:

    A newspaper must at all times antagonize the selfish interests of that very class which furnishes the larger part of a newspaper’s income… The press in this country is dominated by the wealthy few…that it cannot be depended upon to give the great mass of the people that correct information concerning political, economical and social subjects which it is necessary that the mass of people Shall have in order that they vote…in the best way to protect themselves from the brutal force and chicanery of the ruling and employing classes. (E.W. Scripps).

    In my opinion the idea of media being objective was a marketing ploy to sell newspapers:

    “It was not until the 1920s that you really get the notion of professional journalists, the way we think about them today,” says Michael Delli Carpini, dean of the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. “A lot of different schools of journalism started, codes of ethics were developed, the whole notion of the journalist as objective came into play …. of standing outside the story, telling both sides, of being factual rather than opinionated.”

    If the United States Supreme Court defined freedom of religion using the same logic that campaign laws use to define a free press only the church or synagogue “as an institution” would enjoy freedom of religion, not its parishioners!

    This law divides participation in America’s political process into two categories: The regulated majority, every living U.S. Citizen, candidate for office, political party and political organization and the unregulated commercial media.

    To restore equal protection under law, the “press exemption”, 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i), should be modified to read: “The term expenditure does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed by any citizen, citizens group, broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication.”

    Every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add… artificial distinctio¬ns, to grant titles, gratuities¬, and exclusive privileges¬, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society–t¬he farmers, mechanics, and laborers–¬who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves¬, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government¬. President Andrew Jackson.

    The 1st Amendment does not guarantee our freedoms but it does prohibit Congress from writing laws that would abridge them. The 1st Amendment was added to the Constitution because some State representatives to the Constitutional Convention feared the power of an over reaching Central Government. State Constitutions are where protections of our freedoms of speech, press and assembly are found. The 14th Amendment attempts to extend Federal protection to the Bill of Rights and in this instance is misconstrued. Only Congress can violate the 1st Amendment and the Federal Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violate the prohibitions of the 1st Amendment. Federal Campaign laws abridge freedoms of speech, press by limiting how much money individual citizens and citizens groups can donate to their candidates and issues, and they abridge freedom of assembly by declaring it a crime for candidates, political parties and grass roots organizations to coordinate their advertising campaigns.

    The solution to limiting corporate influence and restoring flesh and blood citizen’s control of politics is not limiting how much individuals and grass roots organizations can spend communicating. There is no Constitutional basis for making political coordination a crime? Does a candidate for office have the responsibility or authority to tell a citizen or citizens group they cannot simultaneously put out campaign materials from the candidate and a grass roots organization that supports the candidate? Where in the Constitution does participating in politics require a candidate or citizen to give up 1st Amendment freedoms of assembly and association?

    UNITED STATES v. ASSOCIATED PRESS – Decided June 18, 1945
    It would be strange indeed however if the grave concern for freedom of the press which prompted adoption of the First Amendment should be read as a command that the government was without power to protect that freedom. That Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is a condition of a free society. Surely a command that the government itself shall not impede the free flow of ideas does not afford non-governmental combinations a refuge if they impose restraints upon that constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Freedom to publish means freedom for all and not for some. Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests.

    But corporate media can be part of the solution if they walk their talk:

    The commercial press is the most well-known promoter of campaign reforms to get money out of politics. Among reasons given is the need to level the playing field for challengers.

    Since the only thing campaigns produce is information for public distribution and the cost of distribution is the origin of much of the need for money in politics, why don’t the commercial media offer to publish and broadcast candidate and issue ads for free?

    Not likely: there is speculation Obama may raise a billion dollars and Republicans 750 million. Campaign season is Christmas for media corporations.

    • Vicki

      BenDoubleCrossed writes (a lot :) ):

      “Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. But politicians exempted the commercial press, because the 1st Amendment prohibits abridging their freedom of speech and the press.”

      The bottom line is NOT the exemption. The bottom line is the law. It is clearly UN-Constitutional to limit the freedom of speech, expression etc of individuals.

      Corporations are collections of individuals and have just as much right to speech and expression as each individual in that corporation. Even if the corporation is a member of the “press”. It is the INDIVIDUAL(s) in the corporation that make the speech etc.

  • s c

    Take your small victories when and where you can get them, America. So much of life here is scripted that unless you’re an insider, it’s very hard to tell if what you’re seeing is real or part of another Washington ‘reality moment.’
    Are all Americans aware of the Fed’s impact? No. Do enough people care to make the Fed responsible? I doubt it. Will the Fed change its ways if it’s audited? I doubt it. What’s the solution? Abort it.
    Look, people, the Fed has been around for almost 100 years. It’s had plenty of time to cook its books or show a manufactured set of books (if the Fed head feels enough pressure to do it). We will NEVER see what we need to see. Get over it, America.
    When a PRIVATE CORPORATION is allowed by a corrupt government to take over all every issue of a nation, that nation is OWNED by that PRIVATE CORPORATION. The fact that it is NOT a part of the government is irrelevant. The fact that it exists is THE problem.
    You’re trying to compensate for 1) an INFERIOR education system that loves the Fed 2) elected criminals who are ‘in on it’ and 3) you want to think that people in authority will gladly do the right thing and support Americans who want to scrap a PRIVATE CORPORATION that shouldn’t exist.
    Take your small victories when and where you can get them. Some of you will gladly try to appease the Fed and its many shills, rather than do the right thing and ELIMINATE it. Our house is divided, and some of you dare to think that good intentions will fix anything.

    • Truthseeker

      @ sc, Excellent post! I totally agree.

  • http://gmail mike

    Paul should take to all at wall street. Oakland.Thy seam to be looking
    for some direction.need the most help and would under stand his views so much more.

  • Aristotle

    The warmongers running the GOP will start a war with Iran prior to the Nov 2012 elections. Americans have still not learned the real events that caused the False Flag Event of 911, and they rallied behind Bush as we marched off to war. We have bankrupted our nation and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.We have learned nothing and will not learn until the streets are filled with the homeless and starving.

    • Rebel Booster

      Aristotle, what innocents are you referring to? The Muslim’s most certainly are not innocent of anything. The false flag of 911 is true, but not because they wanted to go kill dumb, poor, misguided and ignorant Muslim’s. They wanted the oil or more likely control of it. Ron Paul and his isolationist foreign policy ideas are greatness. Further the Federal Reserve is the problem and the tool the New World Order pundits are using to control the economies. Get rid of the Fed and solve a host of problems. I vote for Ron Paul..

      • ohoh

        That’s right, Rachael, what innocents? It certainly couldn’t have been those killed in the civilian population. After all, they WERE Muslim and that’s good enough for collateral damage under our pre-emptive strike doctrine these days. Good for you. Don’t even have to think about them or their violated and bitter surviving family members for a minute. Just roll over and sleep well.

    • meteorlady

      Lets see – when we went to war in Iraq EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS had a voice and a vote. Ted Kennedy’s speech was particularly long in that he was all for it. So what’s you point here? Calling Republican war mongers? When war was started in Iraq as with Afghanistan, everyone representing us had a full vote and there were no less than 9 UN resolutions. The fact that most representatives jumped on the bandwagon without regard to the actual FACTS just shows how inept our representatives really are.

      So fast forward – Obama sent troops to Libya – granted they were air power, but they still cost us $1.4 BILLION to get rid of a petty dictator. He didn’t ask anyone in congress whether this was legal, or if they wanted to get involved. Now we have “advisers” in Africa… to what purpose?

    • Vicki

      Aristotle demonstrates that he isn’t by writing:
      “The warmongers running the GOP will start a war with Iran prior to the Nov 2012 elections. ”

      And just how are they going to do that before Obama (You know, CIC) is replaced? Or are you saying he is a secret republican?

      Then again DEMOCRAT warmonger Obama did, without any support from Congress, attack a sovereign nation that had not bothered us since Reagan slapped its (now reported dead) leader hard for attacking US Servicemen in another sovereign nation (Germany).

  • Joyceann

    No, we aren’t leaning to Paul just because we believe the FED is an enemy. We already knew this. We ask CAIN if he would vote to audit the FED even though he at one time worked for the KC bank. He said he definently would. What about the rest of Paul’s message. His foreign policy isolationist ideas are “Perot scary”. Nobody has said that some of his ideas are not good, in fact his patriotic fervor is refreshing but his often-lapse signs of Alzheimers is telling us he needs turned out to pasture.

    • Alex Frazier

      Joyceann, there’s nothing scary about his “foreign policy isolationist ideas.” Everyone who says that reminds me of a proverb. The man who commits adultery lacks understanding. This is the same thing. Anyone who thinks we should be at war with ANYone lacks understanding.

      And the understanding is this: We’re broke. Wars cost a lot of money. War is the instrument by which every major empire in the history of the world has fallen, and for the same reason. They went broke, just like we’re doing now. They start debasing their currency, just like we’re doing now. They soldiers start to complain, which many are doing now. The people start to complain, and then riot, over high prices and low wages, which are both a result of devalued currency.

      The Russia comment is apt. The fact is, no one is paying attention to what happened to the Soviet Union. Ronald Reagan ended the cold war by outspending the Soviet Union. They spent money until their ruble was worth absolutely nothing. And in the end, no matter the size of their arsenal, they went bankrupt, the people suffered the poverty of the collapse, there was revolution, and now the Soviet Union is no more.

      That is our fate if we don’t stop these wars.

      If people have an issue with Iran, then I say drop a few bombs on them if they try to attack us. That’s it. More than that is economic suicide.

      So again, anyone who promotes a NON-isolationist politic simply doesn’t grasp the dire straights our country is really in.

      • Brian

        I agree Alex Frazier – no one who thinks this country should be at war with ANYONE doesn’t realize the trouble we are in as a country…

      • s c

        Alex, it’s time for Americans to stop being willing tools of those who use pc against us. The word ‘isolationist’ goes back to at least WWI, when it was used to label anyone who refused to accept the government’s unconstitutional schemes to get us into WWI.
        It is the SAME principle used by communists to label and marginalize anyone who is not a ‘commie.’ To a hardcore ‘commie,’ anyone who is not a fellow commie is automatically called a fascist.
        As long as scheming SOBs try to get their way, people will be called racists or isolationists or fascists. It’s a pc trick that needs to be seen for what it is.
        The TRUE isolationists in this world are the lousy, scummy bastards who call others isolationists and racists because they demand that their whims come first. If you know what is involved when someone tries to use pc against you, then you can learn how to respond if someone labels you an isolationist. DON’T fall for it.
        Use it against the worthless scummers who expect you to accept and worship their enslaving paranoia.

        • moebears

          Well said, guys. I don’t think too many people own a dictionary. All one needs to do is look up the word, “isolationism”, then the word, “noninterventionist”. Maybe then they will understand the error of their usage.

    • Terri

      Ron Paul is not an isolationist. An isolationist would abstain from political or economic relations with other countries. That is not what Ron Paul wants at all. He wants our relations with other countries to be mutually beneficial. What we have now is the the US bribing or bombing other countries. If you were to actually read what he says and writes, you would not be calling him an isolationist.

      • moebears

        Excellent! Everyone who is misusing these two words needs to read this post, or make use of a dictionary.

    • meteorlady

      Alzheimers? Let me say this, I live in Texas and have personally talked with Dr. Paul. He is extremely intelligent – perhaps too much so for the average person to understand him completely – and he is honest and hard working. I saw nothing in his manner or speaking with him that would indicate he had anything wrong with his brain.

      AND – watch his appearance on Meet the Press. They played with the video to make him appear older than he actually looks in person. You can see it because they didn’t take the time to enhance every frame of the video so the video editing goes on and off during the interview.

      • r.p.

        I believe you are right meteorlady, I think also there were “subliminal suggestions” inserted in the video. That’s why the pixcelations of his face appeared. It’s harder to detect in digital manipulations. But the more you add, the more will show.

    • JeffH

      Joyceann…see for yourself…isolationist? C’mon, that’s the media talking not Ron Paul.

      • JeffH

        America first. That is what Ron Paul‘s national defense proposal is all about. And with America he means all Americans, not just the elite. If elected President, Ron Paul will continue his efforts to secure our borders, hunt down the 9/11 terrorist planners (who are still at large), safely withdraw our troops from Iraq and other countries around the world, and finally overhaul the intelligence apparatus in cooperation with intelligence professionals rather than political opportunists.

    • Vicki

      Joyceann says:
      “What about the rest of Paul’s message. His foreign policy isolationist ideas are “Perot scary”. Nobody has said that some of his ideas are not good, in fact his patriotic fervor is refreshing….”

      What, and be specific, is it about the rest of Paul’s message that you don’t like?

      Since you only provided 1 I will respond to it.
      Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. He is exactly as our founders wished. A NON Interventionist. He does not believe in foreign entanglements.
      Nether did the founders. Here is George Washington’s comment.

    • Ruth

      Joyceann – Stop listening to the neo-con pundits that call Ron Paul an isolationist. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. Why are we in so many nations around the world? Do they really threaten the security of the U.S. as required by the Constitution to intervene? Stop the so-called “nation building.” People who want their freedom must fight for it themselves. Everytime I hear the pundits paint him as an isolationist, I want to scream – No, a non-interventionist!
      The Founding Fathers believed we should hold out a friendly hand to all nations and permanent alliances with none. They also believed we needed a strong defensive military to protect ourselves. Mr. Paul simply agrees with this idea. Trading with those around the world and keeping our nose out of other nations’ business, but maintaining a strong defense to protect our own nation is what Ron Paul believes.

    • JC

      Joyceann says:
      November 4, 2011 at 12:22 pm
      “His foreign policy isolationist ideas are “Perot scary”.”

      Don’t buy into media brain washing. RP isn’t an isolationist…he supports non-intervention which has an entirely Constitutional platform and there is a “major” difference.

  • Joan

    He’s the ONLY candidate who is not a flip-flopper and tells the truth as he sees it, regardless of what the polls say! All the rest are more of the same ole, same ole!

  • annie steele

    I was an elector in California for Ron Paul.
    Free speech empelles us to have people of different
    opinions speaking to issues.

    There is a lot of news-athonlon or entertainment an not
    much actual facts being told to the citizen about what is
    happening in the government.

    We needed to know we give 60 million a year to Pakistan who
    are harboring the terrorist who shot our solders!

    Our Attorney Gen approved selling guns to the Mexican
    Cartels who shot our border patrols and 5,000 of their
    own people. Something is not right with this picture.
    There is an investigation on going into this…

    As a people we need facts gathered by free speech and
    by the press not threatened by no access if you print.

    Protection of the whisle-blower who see acts not agreeing
    with the constitution or civil rights or human dignity
    save taxpayers money.
    They are protected and honored for their actions.

    We are a nation who pledge allegiance to the constitution
    not to big money or to corporate greed, to power.

    The whole is the sum of its pieces, the congress the state
    and the individual make a country work and last.

    • meteorlady

      I agree – but… they certainly shut down WIKILEAKS in a rush. All they had to do is get the major corporations that supply access to credit cards and money transfers (like VISA, MC and PayPal) and he was bankrupt. Then add in some accusations and he’s ruined as a source.

  • meteorlady

    I wish that our press and media outlets were fair and balanced and gave ALL candidates the same amount of time on the air. If that were so I believe that Dr. Paul would be further ahead than he is today. I’m encouraged however that his message is starting to sink in more and more, but this is probably his last chance to run and it’s his time. We need someone that is honest and has our country’s best interest at heart. I am tired of the status quo who lies to get elected and never does anything they promised.

  • Rose

    Ron Paul is my pick for President. He is the only one who stands up for America. I believe all the others do not care about this great country of ours. I also think he is correct in saying that this country is going along the Paths Russia took. Go Getm Ron!

  • Alex Frazier

    I’ve really thought about this recently. Believe it or not, I think Ron Paul is farther along than most would realize. He might not get a lot of face time in the media. He may show low in some of the polls. However, his position in the polls is steady, because he has real supporters, not fly-by-nighters. And the polls aren’t based on the general public, but upon those who participate in the straw polls. They don’t mean much until you add in all the people who aren’t able to participate in them. I’ve yet to have someone poll ME.

    So when the primary itself comes around, I think people might be surprised at the results of the ACTUAL votes versus the straw polls. The media can’t skew the primary. All they can do is report it. The straw polls, on the other hand, are at their mercy.

    One need only look at the massive support on virtually every conservative website for Ron Paul. He has a voting army the country hasn’t yet realized is there. And we need to make sure that we make our presence known come the primary.

    Ron Paul 2012!

  • Jim C

    I don’t GET why people aren’t livid about the Fed’s stated practice of creating inflation every year, to encourage “growth”. Inflation doesn’t create growth, it destroys savings. It CAUSES the widening gap between the rich and poor. It destabilizes our lives.

    Why shouldn’t the money we put away today for a rainy day, for that house, boat, car, or education, buy the same amount of housing, goods, food and services 20 years from today, as it will today?

    We’re expected to work for everything we buy. When the government wants something, and it just prints dollars to pay for it! The release of all this new money lowers the value of the dollar, and suddenly, a loaf of bread costs $4 instead of $3. And people blame the bakery!

    As the price of food and housing goes up, the boss just extracts more money from the business. I.E. he pays himself more. Employees have to ask for a pay raise to keep up. And when we don’t get it, we fall behind. THAT is the cause of the widening gap between rich and poor. Inflation is also the reason why our lives are constantly in turmoil, moving from job to job, city to city, trying to keep up with inflation.

    I understand that until we went off the gold standard, a dollar was a dollar. It bought the same amount of goods today, as 50 years earlier.

    Ron Paul is right.. We should audit the Fed. We should also demand that the government stop monkeying with the money supply and go back on the gold standard.

    • JC

      Agreed.Everything about the Fed is a lie. Abolish the Fed!

    • s c

      Jim C, here’s your chance to defend your position. If you had the authority to affect the Fed in a direct way, would you 1) try to get it audited or 2) abolish it?
      Your answer would go a long way in understanding what you believe about the Fed. Some think of the Fed as a parasite that is quite a nuisance, but that there’s no good reason to ‘get rid of it.’ Is that what you think?
      Others believe that since 1913, the Fed has done nothing but transfer vast wealth to those who don’t deserve it, and that keeping the Fed around is no different than deciding to live with a life-threatening cancer, instead of destroying it.
      Frankly, I don’t understand how anyone can take the first position. Isn’t it like admitting that it’s “OK” o have a career criminal living your house? You KNOW what the SOB will do, so WHY be a pc victim and let the many wealth-devastating crimes against America continue? OK, it’s your turn, Jim C.

  • tennisgirl

    Just watched the movie J. Edgar. Makes me wonder if he really was the one who was watching out for us, even if he was watching out for himself. History is fickle, he fought for the security of our country for 47 years? Who does that? Now I know that I am young and wasn’t around when he was head of the FBI, but I hope someone is looking out for us now. Maybe that someone could be Ron Paul. (And don’t start barking at me thinking I am saying he should be like J.E. Hoover) I just mean that I hope Ron Paul gets an opportunity to look out for us. At the very least, public perception is starting to change with the seeds of what RP is talking about. God Bless America.

  • Chris

    Seems to Me He’s the only one we can Trust.

  • Lost in Paradise

    I really hope we can get Ron Paul elected, but I have a gut feeling we will have another 4 years of the Enemy From Within. The liberal years, will be another total failure.

    I also really believe that the citizens of this country need to demand his removal, or take it upon themselves to do so. We do not have very much time to get it done either.

    In regards to the fed, I too would like to see it eliminated totally. However, I do not blame the fed, as much as I do those dishonest bastards in Washington, who are the real problem. They have and have had the ability to deal with the fed since its inseption, but they have chosen a different path.

    I also do not like it when I hear one of them say we are a country under the “rule of law”. What does that mean to any of you?? We have nearly been legislated out of a country to live in. TOO many laws,ordinances, and other crap. I for one feel like I am being choked. Way too much government!

  • Prosperity

    Regardless of who the choice is for the GOP, there is a strong chance that, by hook or by crook, the present administration shall remain. If so, those of us who have practiced our ‘free speech’ rights will be in the crosshairs.
    If this comes to pass, I figure that I’m a goner – I wrote “Prosperity’s Predator”, strongly critical of the Government. I’ll be in good company, however, with Ron, Beck and all the others here!

  • Liz Andre

    I agree that the number of Dr. Ron Paul’s supporters has been underestimated and America will be shocked when it sees how well he does in the early primaries. Our nation needs Dr. Paul; however, he has already won–even if he loses the primary election. I went to hear him speak at LSU in Baton Rouge, LA and had the pleasure of meeting him there. The college students packed out the Student Union Theatre where he gave his speech–no notes, just an overflow of his wealth of knowledge–he spoke 90 minutes. The students were loud and enthusiastic–the kids “get it.” His peacful revolution of ideas of peace, prosperity, liberty and personal responsibiity has fired up the new generation of future leaders. His courageous stance to save the sovereignty of America will impact our nation for decades. Dr. Paul is very approachable, courteous, humble, brimming with energy and intelligence and tough as nails! I was very impressed with him and a bit starstruck at meeting him. :) Dr. Ron Paul–The People’s President! “By the pople, of the people, for the people…”

  • James T.

    Ron Paul Will never make President.Its a wonder he got as far as he did.I respect the man,and what hes done for the country,But i would not vote for him to be President.Thats my opinion,some of you people may not like it(its a free country) I may not like some of your views .


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.