Figuring out Ron Paul
There have been people here who have attacked Ron Paul, and there are others accusing them of paranoia.
As far as I am concerned, the situation is simple: There are two core issues on which Ron Paul's conduct is questionable. They are:
(1) His advocacy of the disastrous idea of reintroducing the gold standard, which will put the US under the Zionist jackboot, and his ties with the shady globalist-linked Ludwig von Mises gang.
(2) His absolute contempt for 9/11 truth, and his absolute blindness to the principal threat facing the US, which is the threat of Zionist fascism.
Now, there are three possible explanations: One is that he is a shill, the second is that he is an idiot, and the third is that he has been intimidated and has no principles.
I don't pretend to know which of these is true. Some people want to believe and are willing to sweep their doubts under the carpet. I am not. I say he has a lot of explaining to do. I'm not optimistic he'll ever get around to it.
I would hasten to add the Dr. Paul is remarkably silent on these key issues. Moreover, If one were to consider that Dr. Paul has a relationship with one of the biggest name in the "truth movement" i.e. Alex Jones, then his feigned ignorance about various conspiracies seems less than genuine. Again consider that Dr. Paul has appeared several times on the Jones show- how could Dr. Paul be so oblivious to Jones conspiratorial views? Personally I am dumbstruck by how his well informed followers are able to reconcile these seemly diametrically opposing view points into a non issue. Another observation is that Dr. Paul supporters are emotionally invested in the system. They believe that the system can be rehabilitated without mentioning the key issues which have created our current chaotic circumstance. Countless generations of ruling elites have used this silence as a cover to perpetuate their power. Imagine a world were these and other issues were discussed openly! Without the cover of silence the power of the ruling cast would evaporate very quickly. Dr. Paul silence speaks volumes.
& find out if there's any of the gold that supposed to be there. Why are people against this? Why do so-called anti-zionists support this swindle & encourage us to work around it & accomodate the bankers?
Are any anti-zionists opposing an audit of fort knox? not that i know of. But some of us do oppose the gold standard, for very good reasons.
is that he is basing his policy on the assumption that the gold is in Fort Knox as it should be. But he's publically said countless times that he doesn't know if it's there & has said this angrily in speeches. The idea that he's setting us up for an economic swindle is bullshit he's just into following what the Constitution says as the blueprint. I don't even know that he supports "a gold standard" but he is against the current Zionist controlled fiat system.
KK:
Gold standard would put us under the jackboot? Like we aren't already. How much more control can you give the zionist sabbatean banksters than what they have right now - a monopoly on counterfeiting money and circulating it at interest and collecting an income tax to get that usury?
As far as 911 truth, I wonder if you and LAV have a grasp of American history and it's habit of assassinating Presidents and those who kick over the wrong stones before they get into a position of power. If Paul came out as a truther candidate, he'd get the Cynthia McKinney treatment or worse.
A politician has to be smart enough to survive or he does no one any good.
dismantling the IRS would put banksters in panic mode, putting a serious dent in their power and their plans for world domination.
In that respect, Ron Paul is right on the money.
but, the gold standard is not a viable alternative to fiat currency.
In fact, any commodity that is so scarce that it's susceptible to manipulation and control is not a viable option for currency.
Think decentralized abundant supply and you've got a viable currency for a nation of independent human beings.
Solar joules anyone?
---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.
The problem with unbacked currency, IMHO, is that politicians have a difficult time resisting pressure to print and inflate in tomes of pressure.
Remember that the banksters have in their toolbox the hammer and anvil of money and war. Even if you were able to rid yourself of these tapeworms and get a government controlled currency, the banksters would provoke someone to cause war with you in order to cause excess borrowing and war debt. This is what they are doing to Iran currently.
Remember that the Constitution says Gold AND Silver backed money, so it is not a gold exclusive document.
We could easily have a currency that was backed with a basket of valuable commodities (oil, gas,grain,gold, platinum, uranium, silver, steel, orange juice, timber, etc.).
Backing the currency with a valuable commodity insures that politicians, which we will be stuck with, will not be able to pander to the masses and print script to an inflated level.
We seriously need to look at the Swiss model for government and economics. I know they were founded by the Knights Templar, but they have been very successful at peace and prosperity for a little country with limited resources in a very dangerous neighborhood.
I agree with QRS that linking the value of a currency to that of a precious commodity that is prone to hoarding and value manipulation is a dangerous idea.
The most fundamental problem with the fiat currency system in the United States and elsewhere is that the currency is issued not by government but by private bankers, and that it is issued at interest. The Italians have an interesting term to refer the fiat system - signoraggio. This word is has its origins in the Middle Ages when feudal lords (French: seigneur) had the sole right to mint currency and derive benefit from the issuance of same. This just goes to show that nothing much has changed, we still have wanabee feudal lords who still claim this dubious right as their own.
This usury, this utterly ludicrous and avericious charge for the act of simply printing a banknote or altering amounts in a computerised ledger, is right there at the centre of any financial crises and is responsible for that most pernicious of taxes - inflation.
Sure, it is probably ideal to have a currency tied to a commodity in order to prevent governments or private bankers from issuing it with abandon - another factor that contributes to inflation. It would be preferable if the commodity value to which it is linked is something that was of practical everyday use to the whole of the citizenry.
However, while private bankers are allowed to persist in their control of the issuance of currency and while the citizenry in turn must pay the exhorbitant interest rates the banksters charge for exercising this privilege, the fundamental problem will remain and society at large will continue to be afflicted with the knock-on effects of central bank usury.
With our current income tax system going directly to the interest charged by the federal reserve usury, we have, in essence, a labor backed currency.
The gold standard would indeed be a terrible thing. The whole story is given in full detail in "The Citizens' Guide to Money" posted at http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/5221
Exclusively Gold backed currencies were a big problem in 110 years ago and are a bad idea today.
Money needs to be backed with a basket of the Nations resources to make it less inflationary.
everyone thinks he's just teaming up with the bankers to start a gold standard based on the lie of Fort Knox. But he's expressed that he himself doesn't believe there's any gold there & that he wants to investigate it. I mean hey I don't know, he supports the 9/11 & Bin Laden still alive fraud so maybe you're right. I don't think so though.