Paul's campaign was helped in no small part by Alex Jones, the Austin, TX radio host who has become the leading voice of the "truth movement" and possibly all alternative media, with millions of daily listeners and several of the web's most-viewed viral videos to his credit. Paul's "Campaign for Liberty" was the driving force behind the "tea party" movement -- which started as a protest of the $24 trillion bank bailout and the Federal Reserve system, but was quickly ensnared by forces aligned with Newt Gingrich and turned into a protest against Obama's stimulus package and healthcare reform proposals.
Is the Tea Party bait & switch simply a failure of mobilization by the independent right, or was it a preview of things to come? I would make the argument that, whether he knows it or not, Ron Paul was put on the national stage to preempt a constructive political revolution in favor of national suicide in the name of "liberty."
Below, I'll outline Ron Paul's signature issues, what I consider his "deception," and the truth. I think other Alex Jones regulars like Webster Tarpley or Paul Craig Roberts could make these arguments more convincingly. Unfortunately, their continued appearances on "patriot radio" and video are contingent upon not criticizing this most sacred of cows.
End the Fed / Monetary Policy
Paul's main criticism of our monetary system is inflation. In his view (that of the "Austrian" economists), a fiat (legal) currency allows the federal government to print money ad infinitum to pay for wars and social programs, the result being an increase in the supply of dollars and decrease in the value of each dollar. His solution to the problem of inflation is to return to the pre-Bretton Woods gold standard, where the supply and value of money is fixed to the international gold market.
The problem is this: the US Treasury borrows its own money, with compounding interest, from private banks. Interest-on-debt owed to the Federal Reserve accounts for over half of the national debt. There certainly is an inflationary effect when the national government must borrow more money to pay its interest -- the equivalent of taking out home equity loans to pay your mortgage.
The US Constitution, so often cited by libertarians, specifically demands a fiat currency. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to: borrow money on the credit of the United States; regulate commerce; coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standards of weights and measures. The only reference to gold is I:10, which prohibits the individual states from coining money, creating credit, or paying their debts with anything but gold or silver -- which is similar to the Bretton Woods concept of gold settlement (not gold money) to keep honest trade balances between nations.
Most committed libertarians are united in their hatred of this constitutional credit system, pioneered by Hamilton and advanced by Lincoln and FDR, each of whom are regularly accused of being crypto-Jews, agents of the Rothschilds and masonic satanists.
They are throwing mud at the solution and intent of the founders, which is a national credit system, based on production and protected by Congress from financial speculation and foreign intervention.
The War on Terror
It's odd that Paul, who has disavowed "9/11 truthers" and embraces the "blowback" theory of 9/11 (Muslims from caves attacked us because we're "over there"), is the hero of the 9/11 truth movement. This again is mostly due to his association with Alex Jones, who has done a lot of good work exposing the 9/11 attacks as a fraud.
Paul's major criticism of American foreign policy is that we are acting as "the policemen of the world," not that we are murdering millions of innocent people to enrich corporations. Getting out from Iraq and Afghanistan is the right thing to do, but why does Paul refuse to acknowledge the real reasons for these wars of aggression (i.e. oil, drugs, control, war profits) and insist that we're simply wasting tax dollars meddling in other peoples' civil conflicts?
Is Ron Paul naive, intimidated by the war lobby, or is this a conscious deception? "Terrorism" is simply proxy war, waged by shadow governments against nations. Should we just step aside and let financiers, through their intelligence agencies and corporate militias, posing as "al Qaeda," balkanize the entire globe? Or should we call a spade a spade? Since no current national legislator in America has gone public for 9/11 Truth, it must be a very dangerous thing to do. I presume Paul's goal is to use the safest excuse to take an anti-war position, but who can say?
1 | 2