Comments on: Evaluating the Message

By: Bay Area Kid

Bay Area Kid — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:12:34 +0000

Stop arguing about the links on the chains that hold us down and listen to Ron Paul and let’s remove these chains of burden themsleves!!! America has the structure of a free society, to allow all of us citizens to be free, but the Banksters have us crontrolled at every turn. If we want to know how peace and prosperity really work we all need to listen Ron Paul. For the last 100 years America has been a tool of the Facist Federal Reserve and a leach on Americas wealth. Only we the people can take America back, Ron Paul’s movement is about getting back to the foundations of a free society – nothing more, nothing less.

By: Michael Hureaux

Michael Hureaux — Tue, 12 May 2009 14:08:31 +0000

Ron Paul libertarians are the inverse reflection of orthodox trotskyists and Larouchites. Just let the proper capitalist schematic be introduced by libertarian society and the market and society will take care of itself. Over in the mirror, the orthodox trot gesticulates and carries on about the soviets and worker’s democracy. Over in Larouche ville, the deliverers of society carry on about Roosevelt and the new deal, with tip of the hat to old world anti-semitism. The proper schematic will heal all ills, say the prophets. Unfortunately, humanity is complex, there never was any market system that existed without the assistance of armed government, slavery and expropriation of property, whether it be through colonial invasion, indian removal, enclosure acts, or what have you. There never was any state, any human political organization without terrifying contradictions. That is why Ron Paul is a bloody liar.

Ron Paul knows this to be true, too, which is why he was such a shameless supporter of Reagan, the master of the imperial lie and aggression, and to this day supports some of the most reactionary immigration policy ideas imaginable. At the end of the day, the fearless libertarian is more concerned about the free movement of goods then he is about the free movement of people, which puts him squarely in the camp of race and reaction. But there are always new generations of libertarians, or orthodox trots, or Larouchites, to make sure the old man gets his ego massaged. And so it goes. Yawn.

By: Ron Moss

Ron Moss — Mon, 11 May 2009 04:06:27 +0000

Constitutionally we are bound to that written word. In fact 35 States are presently restating the 10th Amendment State Rights. That agreed to document says, ‘Congress shall have power to coin money and regulate the value thereof” That means what it says. Says it pretty clear. Then to apply the latin term from the Blacks Law Book, “Stare decisis” when considering the Schecter Poultry Corp v US 295 US 495 1935 and the same supreme court finding does apply, they found “Congress cannot abdicate it’s duty and delegate to another group” So FRAUD continues to
rule until that agreement is restored to it’s original authority. That court finging has never been amended, only usurped by an act of that Congress.
The bankers are the true terrorists, and have caused more damage to our economy that Osama ever hoped to accomplish, masquerading as community leaders it didn’t take much blasting powder.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 11 May 2009 00:57:22 +0000

I may not be as eloquent in my summation of the above article. The Colonies were in fact small fiefdoms controlled by members of the founding fathers whom seen all this as nothing more than a business venture. Remember, most were lower aristocrats from the British Empire. After the “independence” was gained, these aristocrats became “terrorists” in the minds of the masters back in Britain. The founding fathers, their wealth tied to this new venture was in peril. They anticipated the fact that they would be on the hook for the war debt created by the Revolution. So, in 1789 the founding fathers made a “covenant” with the British masters. To protect their own personal wealth, the founding fathers convinced their own fiefdoms to sign onto the debt paper. This signing absolved the founding fathers of the debt created by fighting for “independence”. As is well known, most were lawyers. Whom write most laws into existence. The “Constitution” is a “Covenant” agreed to with the Masters of Britain. Most of these “masters” have always been the the so called “international banker”. For most this may be far fetched, but this is how the world of the “Power Brokers” work. May I suggest thick pie plates to cover your behind.

By: rosemarie jackowski

rosemarie jackowski — Sun, 10 May 2009 19:56:14 +0000

There are some issues with Ron Paul, such as his opposition to a Single Payer Health Care system.

By: Danny Ray

Danny Ray — Sun, 10 May 2009 00:54:58 +0000

sounds like partcipatory demorcracy to me, Should a group a group have enough votes to do what they want why would you stop them.

Really tho ,legalize cannibalism, incest, drugs, remove all zoning laws, taxes, shut down libraries and public schools. you really need to cut down on those smoke sessions

By: lichen

lichen — Sun, 10 May 2009 00:06:29 +0000

Yes, you can see this persons “movement” in the recent ‘free town’ campaign, where a bunch of right wing extremists planned to recruit unscrupulous people to a small new hampshire town in order to take over the town legislature to legalize cannibalism, incest, drugs, remove all zoning laws, taxes, shut down libraries and public schools. That is what you get from a “phenomenon” made up entirely of internet trolls.

And we need a constitutional convention to draft a new document; I don’t give a fuck what a right wing reactionary thinks about what the old one says.

By: Ernie Gurzler

Ernie Gurzler — Sat, 09 May 2009 19:38:47 +0000

Refutation of bogus monetary arguments

Your arguments in support of a legal tender power for the federal government are not supported by the meaning of the constitution. If by legal tender power you mean a monopoly on the creation of money or currency.

You conflate “coin” with print or create as in paper currency. The meaning of coin as it relates to money has one meaning, create metallic money stamped with a design. The drafters of the constitution knew about paper money if they wanted to allow the printing of paper money they would not have used “coin”. They had used terms such as emit or issue in regards to paper currency or bills of credit. Many were lawyers and a lawyer is basically a word wrangler, he tries to use words to precisely define a legal concept. I refuse to believe that they used the term ‘coin’ instead of some other if they meant it in some literary allusion style. This is the basic argument that your main source[1] uses to dishonestly support the argument that coin could mean issuing paper money.

The same with “legal tender” there is no power in the constitution to create a monopoly on money. In fact the wording of the constitution presupposes a definition for the dollar commonly known to the then current inhabitants of America. Because the dollar was not defined in the constitution anywhere. The dollar was the Spanish silver dollar, which is why Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 5 says :

The Congress shall have Power … To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Why regulate the value of foreign coin if it was outlawed by the constitution?
Why set standard weights and measures for foreign coin if it was outlawed?
Because the Constitution does not outlaw competing money .
The constitution only “ALLOWS” the fed gov to coin money.

Again by selective reading and conflating prohibition of the states to create money ( in Article 1 Sec 10) with the prohibition of anyone to create money you are being a disingenuous manipulator of words.

You miss the point of having actual coins of gold and silver circulating, as being a way for Americans to be free from government manipulation of the money. This would allow a money with an intrinsic value not dependent on a government for backing. You would propose that the government would still have a monopoly on money creation.

This is why FDR outlawed gold coin ownership in the illegal executive order and laws of 1933. This is why the government then decreed the value of gold in dollars was $35 / TR OZ immediately after the fed gov seized gold coins ( going up from $20/TR OZ). This devaluation of the paper fiat currency is outright theft, and is the reason why government cannot be trusted with the monopoly on money creation.

This why there is a demand for so called junk silver US coins (minted before 1965), which are worn coins of little value to coin collectors (hence ‘junk’) but having value in their 90% silver value.

You then go on with the “implied” powers argument. If the plain words do not limit the federal government, and there are some mysterious implied powers, there are NO LIMITS imposed by the constitution by logical progression. We are then “RULED” by the seeming legitimacy of the people then in control of the government and they are not bound by any restrictions. If we “read between the lines” we see nothing, which means anything is allowed, actually whatever the government can “get away with”.

Your argument against competing currencies is full of holes also. If a competing currency has no value in a free market then it will disappear by the fact no one will want it. The free market will have expressed value of the private money by the aggregate actions of all participants in the market.

You are a statist who believes that government is the answer, we just have to have the “right laws” and the “right people” in office. We have 230 years of experience showing that this idea is a foul lie told to us by statist propaganda. The fact is government creates the problems we face by its existence and then tries to paper over the problems with ineffectual decrees called “laws” as a solution to the problems it creates.

You proceed with a fallacious circular argument, The government has to have monopoly power over money because private minters might make a profit, they might even make excess profits. Again this presupposes some force ( monopoly privilege granted by government perhaps?) that would make people accept this private coin in the face of its being overvalued in a free market.

The “Solution” to money manipulation is to trust the government that has manipulated money for 230 years. RIGHT, how is that going to work? Experience has shown that the government has manipulated the money in order to finance wars and to the general detriment of the peoples prosperity by constantly debasing the dollar through inflation.

You would continue to allow the government the power for a ‘real’ legal tender fiat currency monopoly. the government has shown how it REALLY serves our interest, by continually abusing us.

[1] Supporting the above and fleshing out more legal detail is a recently published scholarly article on original intent appearing in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy