Quantcast

Ron Paul holds first hearing to scrutinize Fed

By Sahil Kapur
Wednesday, February 9, 2011 13:57 EDT
google plus icon
 
  • Print Friendly and PDF
  • Email this page

WASHINGTON – Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul on Wednesday held his first official hearing to examine the policies of the Federal Reserve on unemployment and economic growth.

Paul, an outspoken critic of the Fed, was tapped to chair the House financial services subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology after Republicans retook the House.

“I’m very pleased to hold our first subcommittee hearing in the new Congress on a topic that could not be more critical, namely unemployment,” Paul said in a statement. “Despite enormous amounts of monetary and credit expansion by the Federal Reserve in recent years, the nation’s unemployment picture remains bleak. While many focus on the impact of fiscal policies on employment, the effect of monetary policy often goes unexamined.

Three economics experts were scheduled to testify at the hearing, including Sillinger School of Business economics professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Ohio University economics professor Richard Vedder, and Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute.

Paul, who is best known to many for advocating the Fed be abolished, blamed the central banking system for playing a role in “creating” the US unemployment crisis.

“In my view we are now experiencing the bust that inevitably results from the misallocation of capital and human resources in a period of artificially cheap credit. It is important to understand the Federal Reserve’s role in creating today’s unemployment crisis, while also highlighting that high unemployment and low economic growth can persist even in the face of tremendous monetary inflation,” he said.

The Texas Republican is scheduled to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC on Friday. He won last year’s CPAC straw poll of 2012 presidential contenders.

Paul ran for president as a libertarian in 1988 and a Republican in 2008. He hasn’t ruled out another run in 2012, and also said recently he may seek Texas’s open Senate seat.

His son, Rand Paul, currently serves in the US Senate.

 
 
 
 
By commenting, you agree to our terms of service
and to abide by our commenting policy.
 
  • Guest

    Get ‘em, Ron!

  • Anonymous

    I find it incredibly hypocritical that the Republicans and especially Paul who don’t feel that the federal government should have any roll in creating jobs are suddenly trying to tie Fed policies to the extreme unemployment we are no experiencing. If the Fed or it’s policies have much to do with this it is marginal and tangential at best. I’m glad that he has found three right wing professors who go along with his crackpot ideology. Too bad his hearings aren’t going to offer a similar platform for those who feel differently. But that is the way kangaroo hearings like kangaroo courts always work.

    How many jobs did the Fed ship to China, India and elsewhere? How many jobs did the Fed destroy by shipping those jobs offshore? And how many new jobs has the Fed prevented by refusing to take money or denying funding to new technologies like high speed rail, or green energy or refusing to fund research in other areas? How many states did the Fed force to refuse the funding that was allocated for job creating projects by the original jobs and tax cut package originally passed in the face of the recession?

    I’ll get out of the way now, before I get run over by the “Ron Paul is GOD” crowd, whose members will be hooting and hollering here for hours today! At least I got my two cents in second!

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/RepublicConstitution?feature=mhum TruthRegimes

    You clearly did not watch the hearings and do not know what you are talking about at all. Dr. Paul actually brought in a Keynesian to represent the Fed and two Austrians with one of them being a bit more centrist in outlook. If you watch the hearing all of your concerns are addressed and all THREE economists agreed that NAFTA-CAFTA-GATT sent American jobs elsewhere. He is holding the hearings to educate the ignorant, not to hold “kangaroo courts” since he has already said he has no power. Chill out and go watch the hearing online.

  • Anonymous

    What a scary ignorant man.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4WT2MM3EJYPUONOWEBOGNGSFW4 Sean

    I’m not sure you understand the definition of hypocritical. Paul’s position has always been that government intervention into free markets has negative effects.

    Paul, as chairman, is free to invite whomever he wishes to his hearings. This was also the case when Barney Frank was chair, although I doubt you did much complaining about that.

    I encourage you to actually watch the hearings in the future. They are for our benefit.

  • http://bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/ Big Dan

    First of all, the FED isn’t part of the government. It was admitted in court. Second, Paul feels the federal govt should not have any role i creating jobs and is examining exactly why the FED “thinks” it should have a role in creating jobs and actually caused unemployment.

    I agree with you about outsourcing, that is the #1 problem and of course the media ignores it on purpose and so do all politicians.

  • Anonymous

    Go Ron, expose these people, I wish he had the power to abolish them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bob-Zentrails/100001475536421 Bob Zentrails

    Actually, the Fed is owned by major US banks. You apparently read and believe that nutjob author, David Icke, who is crazier than my great Aunt Lucie.

    Try reading some REAL history of Woodrow Wilson rather than that British delusional crap. The World would be a better place if his Congress hadn’t rejected the “League of Nations” for no logical reason other than to embarrass Wilson.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bob-Zentrails/100001475536421 Bob Zentrails

    You’re kidding, right? Ron Paul barely has the power to go to the bathroom. LOL

    Meanwhile, good job, Repubs. Nobody cares about the economy or jobs, according to you. Way to get re-elected, bubs!

  • http://www.911Blogger.com/ Orangutan.

    Aaron Russo would be proud.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EZ4W5CDCIVXKIIKESYBN2EP6VE brian

    Right back at you simpleton. Keeping sucking on the teet of the Fed you troll.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    “THREE economists agreed that NAFTA-CAFTA-GATT sent American jobs elsewhere.”

    which has zero to do with the Federal Reserve Bank.

    Tax loopholes and incentives to corporations for off shoring are the drivers for unemployment, not cheap credit to Joe the Plumber trying to buy a house. What’s Ron’s position on “government regulation” in that matter? Does it follow his other “kill all government regulation on corporations” mantra?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QHUTXC2LBHNI5OKPDD55MPH5PA Adso

    Who owns the major US banks that own the Fed?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QHUTXC2LBHNI5OKPDD55MPH5PA Adso

    The privately owned Federal Reserve is not a government agency. The
    privately owned Federal Reserve Bank (The Fed) is privately owned by a group
    of primarily foreign bankers. In 1913, Congress sank America into eternal
    debt by giving the power to issue currency and control the American economic
    system to the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. Who are the owners or
    chief shareholders of the privately owned Federal Reserve? Originally,
    there were reportedly 203,053 shares of privately owned Federal Reserve
    stock, of which approximately 65% were owned by foreigners and approximately
    35%(72,000 shares) were:
    1. Rockefellers’ National City Bank = 30,000 shares
    2. Chase National = 6,000 shares (currently Chase Manhattan and owned by
    David Rockefeller)
    3. The National Bank of Commerce = 21,000 shares (now known as Morgan
    Guaranty Trust)
    4. Morgans’ First national Bank = 15,000 shares
    Interestingly, the total shares owned by Rockefellers interests equal
    36,000 shares and the total of Morgans’ equals 36,000 shares.
    Although the privately owned Federal Reserve Act of 1913 provided the names
    of the owner banks be kept a secret, R.E. McMaster, publisher of the
    newsletter” The Reaper” discovered, through confidential Swiss banking
    connections, that the following banks have controlling interest in the
    privately owned Federal Reserve
    1. Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
    2. Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
    3. Israel Moses Sieff Banks of Italy
    4. Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Germany and Amsterdam
    5. Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
    6. Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
    7. Goldman Sachs Bank of New York
    8. Chase Manhattan Bank of New York (Controlled By Rockefellers)

    In his impeccably researched book “Secrets of the Privately Owned Federal
    Reserve”, Eustace Mullins states: “Because the privately owned Federal
    Reserve Bank of New York sets interest rates and controls the daily supply
    of price of currency throughout America, the owners of that bank are the
    real directors of that whole system. These shareholders have controlled our
    political and economic destinies since 1913.” Those shareholders making up
    Mullins’ list are almost identical to the one compiled by the Swiss banking
    source.
    1. The Rothschild’s
    2. Lazard Freres (Eugene Mayer)
    3. Israel Sieff
    4. Kuhn Loeb Company
    5. Warburg Company
    6. Lehman Brothers
    7. Goldman Sachs
    8. The Rockefeller family and J.P. Morgan interests

    Sounds like a real group of American Patriots, doesn’t it!

  • Guest
  • Anonymous

    UMmm.. does anyone remember its the REPUBLICANS fault we are in this situation,.. does anyone see a failed monetary policy in Texas as evidence this ass has NO idea what he is talking about??
    He talks about the FED but he overspent in Texas, cut educational spending tot he bone, reduced the welfare safety net for children, (poverty rate for kids in Texas? DISGRACEFUL!)

  • Anonymous

    Keep at it Ron, also avoid small planes and travel in armored vehicles only. JFK thought a lot like you and so did his brother. Please don’t stop, make those fat cats at the fed squirm in their 5000 dollar suits.

  • Guest

    Do you have a link to those votes or do you figure he did all those horrible things on his own?
    Texas ain’t exactly known for its Social history or goodness. Just ask a Mexican.

  • Anonymous

    Actually Ronny Reagan, Bush 1, and especially CLINTON created this mess. Just look up the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act. It was done under Clinton, it is what allowed the banks to start speculating like investment banks, so do a little research before you wholesale blame one side or the other. After all, they are all in the pockets of big business.

  • Guest

    how did he overspend in texas? he underspends his budget every year and gives money back. either you are a liar, or you are misinformed, so please post where you get your information about ron paul overspending.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TGMMDB3XIBB2NPKZV4BQTZE3OY notfol

    The Federal Reserve Banks are owned by the member banks ranging from Citibank on Wall Street to Park National Bank of Ohio. The regional banks are run by Boards of Directors with representatives for the member banks, businesses and the general public. The regional reserves have can offer advice & opnions to the main Reserve, but have no official power in setting Federal Reserve policy.

    The Board of Governors, led by Chairman Ben Bernanke, set the policies of the Fed. They are appointed by the President of the U.S. & can be removed for incompetence.

    Paul is a good old fashioned ‘pure free market’ libertarian. He seems to want to take this country back to the ‘Gilded Age.’ It was a great time to be filthy rich, but not so good for working folks.

  • Guest

    depression caused on purpose by clinton gore glass steigal, and nafta that sucking sound, bush obama tarp, the fed spending tarp secretly off shore, health care takeover, and the obama caused energy crises by shutting down coal and drilling production, every president after reagan sold us out to china and offshore banks along with the international bank that controls and prints our money in secret that we call the federal reserve (the same folks we kicked out in 1776). lets kick them out again. yea obama is one of them, dont vote for him in 2012, vote ron paul, the one guy who predicted this for years, because he does know what the deal is.

  • http://voxxrocks.com/blog/ HIStory Indeed

    Read real history? Lol.

    Come on Bob, you have to know by now that you can’t just read history. History has to be examined, questioned, revisited and reevaluated. Otherwise your getting only the story of they want you to know.

    David Icke goes to some far out places, so did Marco Polo. When Marco came home to Venice they locked him up because of the crazy tales he told of the far east. People just didn’t have the ability to wrap their heads around what he was saying so he must have been crazy and so away he goes. Fortunately for history he had the good fortune of being jailed with a writer who penned his exotic and extraordinary stories so we’d have them to refer back to today.

    These days when we want people to turn from knowing how the world works we vilify the messenger because locking them away would be too obvious.

    (Except in a few rare cases such as the one involving Leonard Peltier)

    Where are you on 9-11 and I don’t mean was it an inside job or that bush did or didn’t do it, but rather do you think it too was real or do you understand it to be an act of theater meant to bring about a particular response from the people that might not have happened without such a push?

    Either way, you misspoke about David, and the Federal Reserve, so I’m inclined to think you’re Great Aunt Lucie might not have been as out there as you think either. Perhaps your perspective is too in here to get out there.

  • Guest

    http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml

    here is a nice neat flow chart of the american and international oligarch families who own it.
    bob is a globalist traitor who wants the US to loose its boarders and become a slave to the world bank dictators.

  • Guest

    Slightly off-topic but interesting and semi-frightening:

    *Fun Fact: The Federal Government’s current $12 trillion in debt will nearly double to $21 trillion over the next ten years, according to projections by the CBO. Of the $9 trillion increase, more than half will be to cover interest payments.
    *http://www.doughroller.net

  • Guest

    he had the power to predict the collapse of the housing bubble and the currency years ago, and he knew why, so how may libs and neocons predicted it, or the benevolent folks at the fed?

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/6EX2KJ7LSZMDCBZWCH62Q7CABY Sandra

    Wouldn’t a centrist (slight right) economist be Chicago school? Freidman?

  • Robert Shaftoe

    It’s “Glass-Steagall Act” and it was REPUBLICAN Herbert Hoover who signed it into law:

    http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1504.html.

    While I have no love for the DINOs in charge right now, it’s pretty funny how so many Ron Paul fan boys have glossed-over some important facts about the Republican policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

    How’s that privatized state economy working down in Ron Paul’s TEXAS? Oh, you say they’re going bankrupt? Even more than the Peoples’ Republic of California?

    However, there is one piece of common ground I will share with you: UNMASK THE FED

  • Anonymous

    I sure hope my taxpayer dollars aren’t going to pay your salary while you are here daily espousing the attributes and trying to nuance the right wing positions of Ron Paul. I would hate to think that this crap is coming straight out of his D.C. Office!

  • Anonymous

    I am moved to repost those Wilson quotes:

    A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom. … We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world–no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.

    All of the above is from Woodrow Wilson’s The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People (New York and Garden City: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1913). In this same work, Wilson also wrote the below:

    Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism#Quotation_of_President_Wilson
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Woodrow_Wilson#.22I_am_a_most_unhappy_man….22

  • Anonymous

    Hold your horses Ron Paulites, he’s holding hearing’s on fed reserve POLICIES as to how they impact unemplyment and economic growth…not on the fed’s existance itself. Maybe he’s learned he better fall in line.

  • Anonymous

    Seems like the teaparty faithful want it both ways. The teaparty radicals were claiming that Obama took over the car companies simply because he made a few loans to them.

    The Fed may not be an “official” government entity but it is connected to the executive branch of the federal government. How many other private entities do you know whose head is appointed by the president to a four year term and approved by the Senate.

    In other words in the language of “Fletch” we are in a “gray area.” How gray? “Charcoal.”

    I still have seen nothing that shows exactly how the Fed caused unemployment or created any jobs, except perhaps in the banking industry! And I haven’t seen anything that explains clearly and directly how they did that. Mostly any effect they had is tangential and extremely indirect. And since Paul doesn’t feel that government at any level should be involved why is he wasting taxpayer money and valuable time talking to the Fed about it if he really believes they are a private concern.

    Is he going to bring in other private entities to find out what they have contributed to the unemployment problem. Is he going to bring in IBM and question them about why 80 percent of their workforce is now located in India? Is he going to question Wal-Mart about why most of their products are made in China? I don’t think so!

    Mostly this was a Ron Paul engineered dog and pony show financed by the American taxpayer that will have zero effect on policy, much like the reading of the Constitution, and the vote to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act. Showing once more that when you get right down to it, Ron Paul is just as good at wasting the taxpayer’s time and funds as the rest of the Republican faithful.

  • mick

    audit,audit,audit !

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZXISEHECKZJJR3PAXNYFPCPU24 Secret Weapon

    Put Paulson in Prison!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_S6YXCHFTFF6LK4EWVQBDXQG6KQ Ron

    Nope. He’s doing exactly what he said he’d be doing and there is a plan. Come hang out on some the dailypaul and you’ll know all about it.

  • jerome ennis

    Abolish the Federal Reserve and return American Monetary Policy and Printing to the government of We, The People. And, then, do not spend what we do not have, and do not print money out of thin air with no backing. The US is powerful enough and has enough natural resources to back our own currency. And, a government that has limited money and no way To Print Bogus Money as the Fed has, the Government Will Have To Have a Manageable Budget which means a Much Smaller Federal Government as the Federal Government relinquishes it’s Bureaucratic Stranglehold on the Citizens and business of the USA.

  • Anonymous

    Good I hope so. I wish him luck … and tell him to make sure if he gets on a plane that like Geitner or one of the Rockefellers is on it with him.

  • Phil E. Drifter

    http://www.esoterictube.com/the-money-masters.html

    “This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed…. The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill.” –Rep. Charles Lindbergh (R-MN)

  • Phil E. Drifter

    So did Lincoln. Hmm… see a pattern forming here?

  • Phil E. Drifter

    LOL YOU LAUGH AT YOUR OWN JOKES LOL

  • Anonymous

    Go get those bastards, and don’t forget your bulletproof vest.

  • tehamawhiteneck

    Well, Well.. I wonder just what he plans the outcome to be.. Will the fat cats get fatter or will he really put the binders on the fed.

  • Anonymous

    A meeting with the “Three Stooges.”

  • Anonymous

    People like you are the reason America is going down the shitter.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_E6VYDJQDK3ESXDLGIVL7YYAMHE David

    As my friend Austin Petersen says… I’m here to kick ass and chew bubble gum… and I’m aaaaallll out of gum.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_E6VYDJQDK3ESXDLGIVL7YYAMHE David

    “Greenbacking” is not the solution either. We don’t just “put the power to print” in the hands of the treasury without first having a backing of our currency tied strictly to current GDP and resources such as gold and silver. Fractional reserve banking is what got us into this mess, and it doesn’t matter if that over issuance of paper comes from the Fed or from the Treasury Department.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_E6VYDJQDK3ESXDLGIVL7YYAMHE David

    Robert,

    Ron Paul supporters are not apologists for Republicans. You may recall he was quite vocally against George Bush, as are his supporters.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_E6VYDJQDK3ESXDLGIVL7YYAMHE David

    Ron Paul is persona non grata in the GOP. Keep that in mind. He is AGAINST the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, against the War on Drugs, Against the Patriot Act (the only one in the U.S. House today who voted against it the first time), and against the Bailouts before it was “cool” to be against the bailouts. Keep watching closely.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_E6VYDJQDK3ESXDLGIVL7YYAMHE David

    Abolish, Abolish, Abolish!!

  • Anonymous

    LOL. you mean the corporate strangle hold on government? Yes I want to shrink government cut the defense budget, end corporate welfare. Yes I want the fed gone, the US Treasury should be printing our money. But read up on our history from about 1870 to the 1930′s and see what it is like with no regulations on companies. Our deficit is the result of tax cuts for the super rich, and wars to control energy sources that were not payed for.

  • Anonymous

    I would like an alternate to the GDP hell the gulf clean up from the oil spill raised our GDP. Maybe it should be tied to employment due to the fact the less workers in the work force means less taxes for the government. Maybe then the government will stop giving tax breaks to companies that off shore jobs.

  • Anonymous

    lol Reagan sold us out too he started our downward spiral.

  • Anonymous

    yep and while people scream about Clinton and the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act, the bill that Mr Clinto signed into law was writen by and submitted to the house by Republicans.

  • Anonymous

    very true people forget that JFK was going to switch the control of money from the Fed to the US treasury.

  • Anonymous

    Bingo we have one party the Corporate Party its two wings are the democrats and the republicans the best government that money can buy. Welcome to the new slavery it is color blind it isn’t about black and white this time it is rich against the poor.

  • Anonymous

    Wow, a Republican who is doing what they said they would do, and it is actually something good for the people. Oh wait its not that surprising as its Ron Paul.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pio-Kolby/100001752491345 Pio Kolby

    End the Fed! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul is a statesmen. Anyone with the courage to call the CIA out for drug trafficking has my vote.

  • Anonymous

    and kevlar helmet…ask JFK

  • Guest

    Sick ‘em Ron!

  • Anonymous

    Here’s the background on one of Ron Paul’s star witnesses, Thomas DiLorenzo, who turns out to be associated or “works for a southern nationalist organization” that the Southern Poverty Law Center claims is a hate group. Of course, “Dr. Know,” as he is affectionately called by his wife, claimed to know nothing about that and then later castigated the Democrats for bringing about the man’s hateful background.

    According to the Reuters version of what happened at the hearing:

    “Democrats were more concerned by the writings of one of the witnesses, who has authored books and essays that harshly criticize President Abraham Lincoln and support the right of states to secede from the union ahead of the U.S. Civil War.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center says Loyola College [sic] professor Thomas DiLorenzo has links to the League of the South, which it classifies as a hate group.”

    Democrats apparently asked Paul why he would have such a character testifying about the links between the Fed and unemployment. But Paul can probably be excused for not knowing the guy has appeared on “Morning Joe” for chrissakes. And certainly the Jesuits who run Loyola University in Baltimore have no trouble with DiLorenzo’s extra curricular activities no matter how distasteful.

    But to wrap things all up and really give the hearings that good old free market circus dog an pony show atmosphere, Paul signed copies of his books after the hearing.

    Good to see another waste of taxpayer funds by a man who evidently is just a regular self-promoting hate mongering Republican at heart–Ron Paul

    As for auditing the Fed or ending the Fed–sorry suckers not a word, maybe next time!

    Here’s Ron Paul’s hand picked freak on CSpan talking about Abraham Lincoln.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3851150789944375754#

  • Anonymous

    On this, he and I absolutely agree. Very well stated, erudite even.

  • Elim

    Any group or organization the CIA funded Southern Poverty Law center calls a hate group is probably far from the truth.

  • Anonymous

    After reading this again it really doesn’t make much sense. You say that the “Fed isn’t part of the government” so if that is the case then how is Paul justifying his examination of it on the basis that he “feels the federal govt should not have any role in creating jobs.” If he thinks the Fed isn’t a part of the federal government he shouldn’t have any problem with what they do as far as job creation goes should he?

    In fact as an Austrian School adherent he would want all job creation to he in the private sector without any government interference whatsoever. If he really feels that the Fed is not a government entity he shouldn’t be interfering with their activities at all.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/42THFKXIPMJHQBIH6OPI4RVIDY Thebes

    Down with the Fed!

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/42THFKXIPMJHQBIH6OPI4RVIDY Thebes

    The SPLC classifies half of America as a hate group.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s a little more on the group that Thomas DiLorenzo has links to. I think you’ll agree they are a great bunch of good old Southern rebels. They still refer to Jefferson Davis quaintly as “our president,” and stress their right to secede from the Union!

    According to wikipedia The League of The South’s “ultimate goal is “a free and independent Southern republic” at least that is what they claim they are collecting funding for!

    The League of The South, which sports a Confederate Flag atop its website, claims to be a religious and social movement, advocating a return to a more traditionally conservative, Christian-oriented Southern culture. It advocates a “natural societal order of superiors and subordinates”, using as an example, “Christ is the head of His Church; husbands are the heads of their families; parents are placed over their children; employers rank above their employees; the teacher is superior to his students, etc.”

    I wonder if the CIA also made their website?

    Here is a statement from their own website:

    It is our position that any effort that seeks to reform the current [federal government] system is a waste of time, energy, and resources. We will not support reformist half measures in a vain hope of defending and preserving our God given rights and prosperity.

    Consequently, the League advocates the full measure of Southern independence. As our President Jefferson Davis said, all we ask is to be “left alone” to rule ourselves, solve our own problems, and, with the blessings of Providence, make our own future. We seek nothing but what is rightly our own.

    http://dixienet.org/rights/index.shtml

    Clearly this is a secessionist organization. They openly advocate secession. These words accompany their request for funds:

    “Imagine Your Children Living In An Independent South. Let’s Make It Happen! Donate Now”

    Should these people or their representatives be testifying before the Congress of the United States?

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/42THFKXIPMJHQBIH6OPI4RVIDY Thebes

    And keep out of small aircraft.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/42THFKXIPMJHQBIH6OPI4RVIDY Thebes

    Actually taxes were FAR lower during the time period you cite. The original income tax (which applied only to INVESTMENT income, wages being a trade for ones time and not income) that original income tax was 1%. The taxes against which the Sons of Liberty and our founding fathers rebelled were around 5% of the average man’s wages, those were said to “eat out the substance of the people”. Our tax levels in western society are an aberration, historically even medieval surfs paid less to their lord than we pay to our various governments.

    Speaking of corporations, they used to be incorporated for only specific purposes and a set duration of time, voted on by the State’s legislature in which they incorporated. They are Fictions and literally the embodiment of government privilege.

    We need to do away with corporate personhood- this convoluted system of regulations creates ever-more loopholes around responsibility, lets stop divorcing the rich from the consequence of their profit seeking.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/42THFKXIPMJHQBIH6OPI4RVIDY Thebes

    Who owns the major US banks? And actually its mostly bank holding companies that own the Fed, just to be technical.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/42THFKXIPMJHQBIH6OPI4RVIDY Thebes

    You are so ignorant its painful.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3QIJ4LGZX6PZOJSD57QIC3NRAA Straw

    I’m all for this. I just hope Ron Paul doesn’t meet with an “accident.”

    Back when the bill was proposed to make paying our service on the debt mandatory, I recall Progs trying to make this about China. Well the Fed bought $1.7 trillion in treasuries and is in the process of buying $600 billion more.

    The central bankers will get their interest payments.

  • Anonymous

    What is it to be replaced by, and how will it be any better? How will it be immune to the same political pressures as the current setup? Is there anyone stupid enough to think that its replacement will not behave in exactly the same manner?

  • Anonymous

    All he does is talk. No action. Why do you want a representative that just talks?

  • Anonymous

    He’s not “doing” anything he is just talking more and getting more press. This hearing will adjourn with no action taken except for the accounting of press coverage.

  • Anonymous

    “Look at me! I am Ron Paul! I am important!”

    “I can hold useless hearings that will amount to nothing and waste everyone’s time, but…
    Look at me!”

  • Anonymous

    You may be right, it will be interesting if anything does come of this. We will have to wait and see.

  • Anonymous

    The sinking of the constitution by ignorant shill’s like youself is what this group seems to stand for. It is not only our right but our duty to stand up against a tyrannical government. Your southern poverty law center is an evil orginization.
    You are an un-american tool who needs to leave this once great country. Go to Hell with the banksters, read history alittle more carefully. ASSHOLE

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul is a fake and a fraud. He is all bark in the microphone but no bite on Capitol Hill. He goosesteps like every Republican voting party line each and every time.

    The report is out by our govt and the conclusion is everyone saw this financial crisis coming and did nothing to stop it. The ideology of free market and deregulation trumps the welfare of the people and Ron Paul is made sure the worse economic crisis happened.

    It’s easy for Ron Paul to play the guard dog after the house has been robbed. What a loser.

    Ron Paul is a fake and a fraud. He should show up to these meetings dressed as a clown.

  • Anonymous

    Taking sides over moral choices is fine for the black and white world of Professional Wrestling. It’s great theater. We can cheer when the good guys win and commiserate when the bad guys triumph and then go back to the real world. But when the dynamics of Professional Wrestling fuel today’s politics we need to be aware and not get caught up in choosing sides. That’s just what they want us to do: keep us divided and distracted and unaware of what their real agenda is. Divide and rule is absolutely fundamental to the outcome they (the Ruling Class) want. They may control law enforcement, governments, the banking industry, the corporations, but what they don’t control is the numbers. The number of people who have knowledge of what is going on is fractional. What they do is divide and rule over race, income, religion, etc.
    As Jefferson said, the American principle supports the states as versus the central government, the counties as versus the states, the towns as versus the counties, the wards as versus the towns, and the individual as versus all. Radical decentralism is the libertarian principle.
    Ron Paul is a man who believes in sound money, an end to Marx’s favorite tax, a non-interventionist foreign policy, no EU-style North America, getting out of the UN and NATO, ending the Fed, and–most terrible of all–he admires Mises and Rothbard. Those of you who want to vilify the man, want to call him a “loon” or marginalize his message don’t know your history. May I suggest you bone up?

  • Anonymous

    Your idolization of Paul is beneath the definition of a human that thinks for himself.

    Your post did not even respond to a single charge I made. The charge I made was that it’s easy for Ron Paul to act like the guard dog after the house has been robbed. Where in your post did you refute this? Nowhere.

    From 1999 to 2008 billions of dollars in lobbying money was spend on Ron Paul’s favorite tune, “Deregulation” aka turn this economics of this nation into Wall St’s Casino and if it crashes well then, we have a moral choice which is go for helping the people who suffered in this crisis or help out the ones who caused this mess under the song, “To big to fail”. We can debate that moral choice forever but one thing for sure, Ron Paul is a fake and a fraud for him to play guard dog now.

    For Ron Paul to play guard dog after the house has been robbed is a cheap and easy form of bullshit. Where the hell was he when everyone knew the shit was going to hit the fan? The answer is easy, He was sucking free market cock and flipping the bird to the warning that the shit will hit the fan. Now that the shit hit the fan this fake and fraud as I said should wear a clown ouftit to the meeting, because he is all blah blah blah.

  • Anonymous

    In case commentors on RAW want to learn why Cong Paul is looking into the Fed. Its because its basically a partially foreign privately owned corporation. Check it out.

    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fed_reserve.htm

  • Anonymous

    No matter where he goes in politics, as a presidential candidate and a congressman — and both vibrant campaigns aim for victory — the future for Ron as a movement leader is secure, and of that there can be no question. After a lifetime of principled statesmanship, a long shelf of books that he has written and nationwide respect for being the one man who dares speak against the status quo, he has made his mark on history. What it shows is that even in dark times such as ours, there are people who are willing to stand up and hold a candle and light the way to the future. To them we owe the whole of our civilization.

    But the legacy of the Ron Paul means more than that. Ron has taken our national tendency to see politics as a teacher and turned it to good. He has told us about liberty. He has told us that if we are to secure it, we must reject the welfare and warfare states. He has told us that we cannot ignore issues of economics, even those that touch on technical subjects such as monetary affairs. He has inspired us with his courage and his willingness to say what is true, even in the face of terrible danger and attacks.

    In doing this, he has given us an example and a body of ideas around which we can rebuild for the future. In this way, Ron’s greatest legacy has nothing to do with with politics but with human liberty itself, the greatest idea ever imagined by the intellect. Its prospects will always be bright so long as the idea burns in the hearts of those passionate enough to defend it with their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.

    We can call them the Ron Paul Nation.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1046573071 Matt Mosley

    END THE FED!!! 1913 to 2011

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul’s son Rand went on record that he backs discrimination against gender, race and disability. His father stands by his son when his son was criticized for the comments.

    Rand the son rationalized the comment like this, “govt should not dictate the policies of the owners of production”. Again father Ron stands by that.

    The owners of production is a legal creature. In the beginning God did not create the business labor divide. In the beginning God created a man and a woman both human.

    Ron and Rand wants govt to stand by their idiotic belief that the woman should be treated like shit and race treated like shit and disability treated like shit all three gender, race and disability a product of nature and nature obeying the will of God.

    It is clear in the Declaration of Independence that if govt treats race, gender and disablility like shit then that govt is not in harmony with nature because it is nature that created race, gender and disability and nature is God’s Will. God did not create the corporations. The state created the Corporation via legal bullshit.

    It should be clear to you by now when it comes to God and his creature or the state and it’s creature the Paul’s flip the bird to God and nature. So please don’t equate the Paul’s with human. They are monsters and bullshitters and nothing else.

  • Guest

    Action, francis? I’m pretty sure in our congress things get done with a vote.

  • Guest

    It’s a start but it takes more than one person to get things done in the District of Criminals

  • Guest

    How do you know. Helped him lately?

  • Guest

    Parts of the fed are private and parts are actually Federal. It’s this idea the fed has that they CANNOT be audited by the American People who derive their fiat currency from it

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    Bill Maher was talking about the impending housing bubble collapse back in 2005.. as was I (a Democratic Socialist). A number of “libs” (and probably some neocons as well) were talking about it.. you’re confusing “exposure by the MSM” with “talking about it”.

    Your partisan mentality is part of why we can’t drag this wagon out of the mire created by the ruling elite (banksters, wall street, multi-national corps, etc).

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    Yep, couldn’t possibly be people like Lee Raymond from Exxon and his $400 million in retirement bonuses while [Exxon is] receiving billions a year in special tax breaks, right? Couldn’t be the Multi-Nationals that use the “stop regulating corporations!” mindset tax loopholes to offshore, right?

  • Anonymous

    Like you.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    “this convoluted system of regulations creates ever-more loopholes”

    The fallacy is that since the current game is rigged, we should just abandon the game. The reason the game is rigged is what matters.. the game is rigged because corporations get to help write the rules, and/or the guys writing the rules move to the industry they just gamed and show the owners how to dodge the intent of the rules.

    Regulations are nothing more than laws for business.. if humans need laws, clearly businesses need more and tougher laws since businesses are technically psychopaths with no conscience.

    Fire in your house is good.. as long as it is well contained in a fireplace or iron stove… but you certainly don’t want to let that fire dance on your curtains — it will take down everything before it stops.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t stomp on people’s the head like you libertarians do. Your hero a 200 lb fat slop at a Rand Paul rally stomped on a 90 lb weakling’s head and then this fat libertarian cried on television like a weeny. Rand Paul is a weeny because he cried for the fat slop.

    You libertarians fanatics are the laughingstock of America.

  • http://twitter.com/Sibkiss Karismata

    you obviously know zero facts about Ron Paul. Just a cursory look at his voting record would show what a liar you are, and that is why he is known as Dr NO on capitol hill. He has a lot of kudos from every association that promotes constitutional spending limits and civil liberties. What an uneducated fool you made of yourself.

  • http://twitter.com/Sibkiss Karismata

    The only thing that can top your ignorance is your ignorance. LOL What a maroon.

  • http://twitter.com/Sibkiss Karismata

    The SPLC has been directly linked with the group that Timothy MCVeigh was involved with, making them an accessory to a criminal actor at OKC bombings.

  • Anonymous

    What the hell are you talking about Yavo? You go on this rant about how Ron Paul talks the talk but doesnt do the walk when thats the opposite of his stance. You must have been born yesterday since he has spent his entire political career warning of the dangers of excessive government debt and the artificial monetary policy of the FED. You talk as if he were a fox guarding the hen house. If you want an example of that look at Geithner, Bernake, hell look to most of the government but dont slam Paul. In fact all of the Ron Paul crap slinging is getting quite tiresome. I know this is the internet; but cmon people this is a news site, grow up and post something of intellect.

  • http://twitter.com/TheBalls TheBalls

    It would be replaced by a Central Bank that is regulated by congress and the people. It’s good to note that originally the States were supposed to be the largest printers and regulators of money, because our forefathers were actually very brilliant people.

    The Federal Reserve is not a government body. It is a privately owned bank that just has “Federal” in it’s name. Since the “Federal” Reserve is privately owned they are allowed to make their own policies and the government has no check or balance over the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has also never been fully audited either. Knowing this you may want to go back and review the “bank bailouts” and where that money (the peoples money) went. Then you will start to see why this is such an important issue.

    Also, remember that before the Federal Reserve, Congress had to get it’s money from us the people. If they wanted to fund something, they (congress) would ask us for the money to do so. We would tell them no in most cases (We feared a large government as our forefathers did). Once the Federal Reserve was established the government was able to “borrow” money from the Federal Reserve anytime it wanted, whenever it wanted.

    Now I put “borrowed” in parenthesis because who is actually going to pay that loan to the Federal Reserve? We the tax payers will. The Federal Government was originally supposed to be a small body compared to State governments. They were only supposed to create an army, a navy, and a post office. Once they found a way to circumvent the system and get “Unlimited” funds from the Federal Reserve they went crazy spending it on any idea that popped in their mind. Don’t you think you should have more of a say over what the Federal Government spends your money on? (Actually since we are trillions in debt it’s more comparable to the government taking out loans in your name and your children’s name) I mean this is supposed to be a government “by the people, for the people” we should all know where the money goes. It is after all OUR money. But how routine is it that money just seems to go “missing” from the government? Research it, it’s quite shocking. My favorite is the over 2 Trillion dollars Donald Rumsfeld admitted on camera to losing on September 10th 2001. It was never recovered.

    Now the Economy is failing and we have no power over the Fed to regulate it ourselves. So what happens if there is an economic collapse and the value of the dollar drops drastically in the next few years, just like many scholars and economist are predicting? How much more power will the Federal Government get from this crisis? Power, like the power given in the Patriot Act? I am not saying the Federal Government is out to get us. I’m just saying I think it’s important for people to remember that in this country the masses hold the power. Not the Federal Government, and that’s ok. That we have the right to question and demand answers from the government. That we should NEVER fear our government. We have the power, we were meant to. Don’t cower in fear in the face of authority. Learn your rights and exercise them (Peacefully! and Respectfully!) show every member of the government at every level (Local, State, Federal) that you know you have the power not them.

    Excercise your right to film Cops (If your state still has that right) After all the police are sworn to serve and protect us. They should act the same when a camera is filming and when a camera is not present. It is US who need protection from THEM. Not they other way around. Three states have made it illegal to film on duty police. How is that acceptable? Who are they trying to protect by doing that?

    Exercise your rights, hold all members of government accountable, propose legislation to have federal government under surveillance at every level by the people. Let’s have every member of the Federal Government carry cameras with audio that we the people can log online to see exactly what they are doing. I mean this is what the Federal Government would LOVE to do to us. We should be doing it to them. That’s the way our country was intended to run. That’s what our forefathers wished for us. I wonder how ashamed of us they’d be if they saw what we’ve let our government turn into.

    “He that goes a borrowing goes a sorrowing.” -Benjamin Franklin, from his writings, 1758

    “I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” – George Washington

    “Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” – Thomas Paine

    “Government at its best is a necessary evil, and at its worst, an intolerant one.” – Thomas Paine

    “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” – James Madison

    “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.” – Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803

    “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” – John Adams (1814)

    “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition.”
    Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, February 15, 1791

    “It is very imprudent (terrible) to deprive America of any of her privileges. If her commerce and friendship are of any importance to you, they are to be had on no other terms than leaving her in the full enjoyment of her rights.”
    Benjamin Franklin, Political Observations

    “They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

    “A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
    Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

    “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” – James Madison

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Powell-Gammill/500083817 Powell Gammill

    I guess there was zero CSPAN coverage of this hearing?

  • Anonymous

    A link would have been plenty.

  • Anonymous

    Ah, come on. He does stimulate conversation.

  • Anonymous

    That’s it, that’s all you got! Thomas DiLorenzo should have been on a Jerry Springer episode, not a featured speaker at a Congressional Hearing! All you secessionists should just secede. If you want to go, go, no one is stopping any of you!

  • Anonymous

    As a secessionist, Thomas DiLorenzo should have been on a Jerry Springer episode, not a featured speaker at a Congressional Hearing! He in linked to “The League of the South.”

    The League of The South sports a Confederate Flag atop its website, and supports the same kind of top down management style that characterized the master/slave relationship under slavery. They refer to the now dead president of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis quaintly as “our President”! Meaning they don’t recognize the current president of the United States as the President of the Southern States that once comprised the Confederacy. And this guy was invited by Ron Paul to speak at a Congressional hearing.

    According to their website:

    “It is our position that any effort that seeks to reform the current [federal government] system is a waste of time, energy, and resources. We will not support reformist half measures in a vain hope of defending and preserving our God given rights and prosperity.

    “Consequently, the League advocates the full measure of Southern independence. As our President Jefferson Davis said, all we ask is to be ‘left alone’ to rule ourselves, solve our own problems, and, with the blessings of Providence, make our own future. We seek nothing but what is rightly our own.”

    http://dixienet.org/rights/ind

    If you doubt that this is a secessionist organization. These words which accompany their solicitation message should disabuse you of that thought:

    “Imagine Your Children Living In An Independent South. Let’s Make It Happen! Donate Now”

    This person and the people he represents and works for should be on the Jerry Springer show not fouling the halls of the Congress of the United States!!!

    And to make the dog and pony show complete Ron Paul was signing copies of his book after the hearing!!!

  • Anonymous

    I’ve often wondered whether Ron Paul had a valid point about the Fed being detrimental to the economy.

    But an interview with William Black (former bank regulator who worked on the S&L crisis and has been very critical of the lack of regulation in the current crisis) convinced me otherwise.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz1b__MdtHY

    But perhaps Ron Paul’s efforts will result in greater transparency at the Fed. Seems like that would be a good thing. And Ron Paul actually seems to be talking as much about transparency as about eliminating the Fed these days.

  • Anonymous

    And your point is?

  • Anonymous

    Rothchild’s, Bank of England, Jouuuuuus!

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, the fools who equate money and freedom really like Ron Paul. Funny isn’t that what the Supreme Court did in the recent pro-business decision on campaign spending called “Citizen’s United.” Yep, it’s the same damn principle of equivalency. I bet that thought hadn’t crossed your simple mind had it?

  • Anonymous

    Sorta looks like the rabid rebel hillbilly Southern secessionist supporters of Ron Paul can’t or won’t answer these rather simple but perceptive questions, doesn’t it?

  • Anonymous

    We’re Right, the Whole World’s Wrong,” by Rabbi Dov Fischer, an attorney and a member of the Jewish Community Relations Committee of the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles. Rabbi Fischer is also national vice president of the Zionist Organization of America. He is thus not an obscure or semi-literate scribbler, but rather an influential Jewish community figure. And this piece did not appear in some marginal periodical, but rather in what is perhaps the most literate and thoughtful Jewish weekly in America, and certainly one of the most influential.

    In his essay, Rabbi Fischer tells readers: “If we Jouuuuuus are anything, we are a people of history … Our history provides the strength to know that we can be right and the whole world wrong.”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PS3ZJ2DB5BBCUXTGVCIECDZT64 One Species

    you’re the balls !

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PS3ZJ2DB5BBCUXTGVCIECDZT64 One Species

    Central Banking, Fractional Reserve lending, and the Fed are the main reason why we, as a people, are predominately, wages slaves; from the age of 18 until the day we drop dead on the assembly line. There is no defense, written or verbal, that can make this not true.

  • Anonymous

    Too bad he has no brains to go with those balls.

    Debt is debt and slapping a different label on it will not make it go away.

    “So what happens if there is an economic collapse and the value of the dollar drops drastically in the next few years, just like many scholars and economist are predicting?”

    Indeed what happens when the debt is controlled by the legislature? They have to use the entire legislative process to react to it. By the time they pass their bill the economy will be in smoking ruin.

    There is a REASON why the fed has autonomy: so they can react without having to sit through 10000 hours of legislative sessions.

  • Mr. Fusion

    One of my greatest fears (phobia ?) is receiving a letter with Jerry Springer’s return address on it.

    Allowing a Confederate loser (the lost the war) to address the committee demeans the committee AND Paul’s standing.

  • Anonymous

    I’m having a problem, maybe you can help me out with this. I watched this when it first aired. I didn’t remember Black going after the Fed during his original presentation so I watched it a second time. The words “the Fed” are never mentioned in the video or the discussion by either Black or Moyer. Neither are the words “Central Bank”–at about 15 minutes there is a clip of Geithner before Congress denying that more regulations are needed, or that more regulations would help, and asserting that there are already too many regulations and suggesting that they probably contributed to the problem.

    Not surprisingly, these statements by Geithner are absolutely opposed to the arguments being made by Black. However, Geithner in his testimony, exactly mirrors Ron Paul’s position as it relates to regulation in general, re-regulation and regulation of the banking industry specifically, including the fraud that caused the housing debacle and the financial crisis. With as much as I have read about the housing scandal and the major players since the first time I saw this, I now understand a little more about what happened and this second viewing was instructive.

    It appears to me that what should be happening is a complete examination of the scene of the crime, which was not “the Fed” but the banks and other financial institutions and their executives who perpetrated the fraud in the first place. This kind of investigation as Black notes when this originally aired (I think about 2 years ago now probably), and in the interim still hasn’t really occurred. Certainly, besides Bernie Madoff who as Black pointed out “was a piker” as far as fraud went, no one of any importance that is none of the main players in the biggest offenders have been prosecuted or sentenced to an extended term, except the hapless Madoff.

    So what seems to me to be preoccupying Ron Paul as a second viewing showed me, is simple misdirection. Paul wants us to look at “the Fed” as the bogey in all this, while ignoring the banks and financial institutions that caused the problem in the first place, and he is adamantly against re-instituting Glass-Steagall or regulating the financial industry.

    And given the current misdirected focus by Paul and the lack of any mention of “the Fed” in the video clip I was still wondering why watching this clip made you think that “the Fed” should be monitored when the people who are at the center of the fraud were seemingly ignored by the Democratic Congress and are still being ignored by both the Obama administration and the Republicans who are now in charge in Congress.

    So having said all that several questions present themselves. Why do you think Ron Paul who is against regulating the banks, is on the right track? Why does a video clip that doesn’t mention “the Fed” once make you believe that “the Fed” should be the focus of an investigation? And finally, why do you think that a misdirection that moves the focus form the actual perpetrators and their institutions is going to produce effects that are counter to the ideology of all the people currently in charge of the House of Representatives including Ron Paul?

  • http://twitter.com/TheBalls TheBalls

    You mean “A link been plenty would have”?… If you’re gonna rock Yoda you need to own it. Let me know if you still want a link.

  • http://twitter.com/TheBalls TheBalls

    That we the people should take back ownership of our government.

  • Anonymous

    If no amount of evidence can make a thing not true it must be … dogma.

  • Anonymous

    My guess is that the Fed and the Banks are almost the same thing, or two arms of the same monster, one private and one governmental. They collude to engineer the bubbles and bailouts. A crime syndicate with an inside man.

    Ron Paul’s religion lets him believe in a totally free market nirvana, where no one will do anything wrong or if they do we can just mover our commerce to a better company. But of course, when a chicken farmer kills your kids with tainted meat…well, you get the picture.

  • Anonymous

    All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the video!

  • Anonymous

    If there is no evidence and you can’t answer three simple questions what is it?

    Bullshit! That’s what it is!

  • Anonymous

    I guess this answer explains your avatar!

    Repossession? I keep forgetting the terms of the loan! I hope you brought a tow truck and a slim jim so we can get in and get out!

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, wrong video. It was this one (start at time 31:28):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxwWrL8pli0&p=EA7F65ABA2EAD473

    Thanks for catching that one.

  • Elim

    That sounds pretty fuckin’ radical! But I don’t think RP asked him to testify about his beliefs, but his economic expertise. Are you saying that we should not take that into account because of his apparent secessionist beliefs?

  • Anonymous
  • Mr. Fusion

    Ron Paul is a LIEbertarian. LIEbertarians are selfish people who care more about their own pocket books than they do for the people as a community. Cloaking their selfishness with terms like “liberty” is disingenuous. There is nothing liberating about seeing someone who served his country, worked to make the country great and build the infrastructure being told in his later years “too bad Charlie, it is every man for himself.”

    Suggesting Paul “hold a candle and light the way to the future” is the most laughable comment since “Mission Accomplished”. All that candle is going to illuminate is seeing the rich get even richer on the backs of the working poor.

    “we must reject the welfare and warfare states.” is another funny line being trotted out. Really. People are just commodities that may be discarded when times are tough. We can repair roads, maintain machinery, upgrade electronics, but people get discarded.

  • Mr. Fusion

    I agree any Central Bank should have a degree of autonomy. Yet the FED is totally removed from ANY political oversight. That means they are only answerable to themselves. That removes the economy from our control, and benefit, into the hands of a small group who would benefit the most.

  • Mr. Fusion

    They bought those Treasury Bills by printing more money.

  • Anonymous

    Try this one also:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcWoGl08wm4&NR=1

    start at time 6:20. William Black has given the best refutation of the Get-rid-of-the-fed Crusade that I have heard.

  • http://twitter.com/TheBalls TheBalls

    I can have that arranged… I’m TheBalls! Who are you? Pagasae tryin to be Einstein? Then trying to talk smack like you’re important? I pity the fool.

  • http://twitter.com/TheBalls TheBalls

    No brains? Come on now why the need to be so hateful? I’m just TheBalls baby. Maybe if you and the rest of America can grow a pair we can start taking this problem seriously and getting mainstream media to actually cover the story. Besides the Fed being able to “react without having to sit through 10000 hours of legislative sessions” has led us where? Oh that’s right, to us needing to have this conversation in the first place!

    This isn’t going to be fixed overnight and there is no way we will be able to get out of this without pain. Gaining control of the Fed is just a single step in a much larger picture. It’s a symptom of a much larger problem. So stop being a debbie downer and help us out.

  • http://twitter.com/TheBalls TheBalls

    TheBalls likes this. Mr. Fusion is a wise man.

  • http://twitter.com/TheBalls TheBalls

    And you’re sexy

  • Anonymous

    Why should anyone care what one irrational nationalist thinks of any race or ethnicity?

    I posted several posts here about Thomas DiLorenzo, the pre-civil war Southern nationalist who still believes that Jefferson Davis is “our president” who Ron Paul had address his subcommittee and all I got from the right–the very same people who are daily posting these same sentiments that you are spewing–was so what…he wasn’t talking about the South he was talking about banking and economics.

    In addition, most Republicans are American nationalists who believe that America is the greatest country on eartth and has never made a mistake throughout her history.

    Where’s the consistency?

  • Anonymous

    So are you saying you are right or is it that you are consistent?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JVIVZVBMCDO2N423OPDA6DUCYY Bob

    Too bad the clown DiLorenzo was asked to speak, thereby destroying any legitimacy this story could have had.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JVIVZVBMCDO2N423OPDA6DUCYY Bob

    Too bad the clown DiLorenzo was asked to speak, thereby destroying any legitimacy this story could have had.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JVIVZVBMCDO2N423OPDA6DUCYY Bob

    DilOrenzo is a crackpot and a fool.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul is right: about almost everything.

    If you guys in the US don’t elect him in a couple of years’ time please ask him to cross the Atlantic and stand for PM of the UK. We need someone like him.

    And a lot more like Alex Jones.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul has the power to expose these people and has done a good job.

  • Anonymous

    It was Bob who was the partisan.

  • Anonymous

    NEVER ENDING WARS FOR RESOURCES AND CHEAP LABOR

    American administrations for the better part of the 20th century sacrificed human rights ideals they espoused for the sake of control, stability and access to other countries resources and in some cases labor throughout one of the world’s most volatile regions. The United States government used its political influence and military together with foreign aid to prop up potentates for beneficial concessions of other countries resources and cheap labor to the benefit of US and multinational corporations.

    The balance of power is not a self sufficing ideal. The balance is a metaphor of venerable hypocrisy which serves only to disguise the perennial struggle for power and predominance between countries and nations. Equipoise between two rival groups, if ever could be obtained, would mean a condition intolerable to the normal human mind. It would mean stagnation and stalemate, the throttling and handcuffing, not of one nation, but of all. It is for liberty of movement, for opportunity to carry out the national purposes that all powers stride. In a concert that liberty is sought through the amicable adjustments of interest round a Council board, and just in so far as Powers form permanent groups which support each other in issue after issue on the principle of ” my ally right or wrong” does any concert governed by the disinterested opinion of neutrals becomes impossible. Without a concert the group system means that all negotiation, even when it is outwardly courteous, is carried on with the knowledge that arguments are weighed by the number of Army Corps and guns and ships which each combination can muster. The evil reaches its climax when all the Great Powers are regimented, as they are today, in one group or the other, and none of them is free, without some measure of disloyalty to partners, to approach any question with an open mind or to consider any aspect of it save its reaction upon the interests of these partners.

    Power is sought for certain ends, and that is true whether it is at an equality or at a preponderance of power that one aims. When our ancestors talked of redressing the balance, and form coalitions, subsidized allies and landed armies on the Continent, they had something to fear. They were fighting for hearths and homes. They knew that their own liberties, political and religious, were at issue, and if the struggle imposed on them inordinate burdens, the stake was worth the sacrifice. When William of Orange taught our ancestors to think in terms of the balance of power, it was because our shores were threatened with an invasion which would have brought back a despotic King. The strategy was a league of the weaker powers against a nation whose cohesion and superiority in culture and wealth overtop the liberty of Western Europe. No less elementary, no less monsterous, were the perils which caused Pitt it to revive the theory of the balance against Napoleon. Frontiers had become fluid under the tread of his armies, and his will molded national institutions and made and unmade Kings. In both periods the things that were weighed in the balance were the home territories and the domestic liberties of the peoples which sought to adjust it. The stake was their national existence, the fields and the cities which were their home. Our fathers under William of Orange and Pitt did not aspire to a balance as a thing good and necessary in itself, or as a condition of the normal life of European societies. They meant by the balance such a checking of the excessive power of France. The balance; in short, was a condition of national self-government.

    We must free ourselves from the obsession of this phrase ” balance of power”, if we would judge contemporary diplomacy clearly. There is no analogy, there is not even a plausible parallel between our own case and that of our forefathers who coined the phrase. To pursue a balance for its own sake is not an axiom of British policy. What is axiomatic is rather that we must adopt any policy necessary to the preservation of our national liberties. The balance is always a means to that and; it was never an end in itself. We need not argue that human character is absolutely better than it was in earlier centuries, or even that the predatory instincts of mankind have grown appreciably weaker. Human character, for that matter, is not a fixed or self- subsistent thing; it is a habit which human beings acquire of adjusting themselves to their environment. The environment changes and the character with it. What mainly differentiates our century from those which went before it is that the forms of wealth have changed. Wealth in our day is primarily the opportunity for peculiarly profitable investment. This economic evolution has modified most of our social institutions, and with them our diplomacy. Conquest in the old sense of the world has become obsolete. A predatory power does not go out with drums and banners to seize estates for its feudal aristocracy. It applies pressure, and pressure which often involves the possession of fleets and armies, to secure concessions for its financiers and corporations. There is no advance of morality here, no conscious progress towards a Golden Age. The change cannot be described in phrases from Isaiah or inverses from Virgil. But it can however be taken back to the days of Jesus Christ, Rome and Judea together with those day’s corrupt moneylenders and money changers. It is a non-moral development, but it has none the less a direct bearing upon our hopes of peace. The instinct to conquer is as sharp and insatiable as ever, but it has found a means of conquering beyond frontiers. Our modern Conquistadores do not burn their ships when they alight on coveted soil, as though to anchor themselves forever on its fertile acres. Our bankers will not do in China what Cortez and Pizarro did in the New World. They build a railway or sink a mine. Our Ahabs do not take Naboth’s vineyard; they invest money in it. The struggle for balance of power means today a struggle for liberty and opportunity to use “places in the Sun” across the seas. For the modern world a place in the sun is not a smiling valley, or a rich plain in which a victorious army will settle, and build homes and found families. It is a territory to “exploit,” and the active agents in the process are now the bankers and investors who float loans, and secure concessions for themselves and their corporations. Even where conquest is incidentally necessary, as in Morocco or Iraq, there is no migration to the new territory and the conquering Power rarely troubles to annex it. It “occupies” only long enough to put on the throne a willing puppet potentate which will provide concessions and stability in that country, while its people are exploited to the “interest” for the bankers and “profits” for corporations. It occupies only if it cannot otherwise safely invest capital… building railways, sinking mines, or drilling oil wells.

  • Anonymous

    NEVER ENDING WARS FOR RESOURCES AND CHEAP LABOR

    American administrations for the better part of the 20th century sacrificed human rights ideals they espoused for the sake of control, stability and access to other countries resources and in some cases labor throughout one of the world’s most volatile regions. The United States government used its political influence and military together with foreign aid to prop up potentates for beneficial concessions of other countries resources and cheap labor to the benefit of US and multinational corporations.

    The balance of power is not a self sufficing ideal. The balance is a metaphor of venerable hypocrisy which serves only to disguise the perennial struggle for power and predominance between countries and nations. Equipoise between two rival groups, if ever could be obtained, would mean a condition intolerable to the normal human mind. It would mean stagnation and stalemate, the throttling and handcuffing, not of one nation, but of all. It is for liberty of movement, for opportunity to carry out the national purposes that all powers stride. In a concert that liberty is sought through the amicable adjustments of interest round a Council board, and just in so far as Powers form permanent groups which support each other in issue after issue on the principle of ” my ally right or wrong” does any concert governed by the disinterested opinion of neutrals becomes impossible. Without a concert the group system means that all negotiation, even when it is outwardly courteous, is carried on with the knowledge that arguments are weighed by the number of Army Corps and guns and ships which each combination can muster. The evil reaches its climax when all the Great Powers are regimented, as they are today, in one group or the other, and none of them is free, without some measure of disloyalty to partners, to approach any question with an open mind or to consider any aspect of it save its reaction upon the interests of these partners.

    Power is sought for certain ends, and that is true whether it is at an equality or at a preponderance of power that one aims. When our ancestors talked of redressing the balance, and form coalitions, subsidized allies and landed armies on the Continent, they had something to fear. They were fighting for hearths and homes. They knew that their own liberties, political and religious, were at issue, and if the struggle imposed on them inordinate burdens, the stake was worth the sacrifice. When William of Orange taught our ancestors to think in terms of the balance of power, it was because our shores were threatened with an invasion which would have brought back a despotic King. The strategy was a league of the weaker powers against a nation whose cohesion and superiority in culture and wealth overtop the liberty of Western Europe. No less elementary, no less monsterous, were the perils which caused Pitt it to revive the theory of the balance against Napoleon. Frontiers had become fluid under the tread of his armies, and his will molded national institutions and made and unmade Kings. In both periods the things that were weighed in the balance were the home territories and the domestic liberties of the peoples which sought to adjust it. The stake was their national existence, the fields and the cities which were their home. Our fathers under William of Orange and Pitt did not aspire to a balance as a thing good and necessary in itself, or as a condition of the normal life of European societies. They meant by the balance such a checking of the excessive power of France. The balance; in short, was a condition of national self-government.

    We must free ourselves from the obsession of this phrase ” balance of power”, if we would judge contemporary diplomacy clearly. There is no analogy, there is not even a plausible parallel between our own case and that of our forefathers who coined the phrase. To pursue a balance for its own sake is not an axiom of British policy. What is axiomatic is rather that we must adopt any policy necessary to the preservation of our national liberties. The balance is always a means to that and; it was never an end in itself. We need not argue that human character is absolutely better than it was in earlier centuries, or even that the predatory instincts of mankind have grown appreciably weaker. Human character, for that matter, is not a fixed or self- subsistent thing; it is a habit which human beings acquire of adjusting themselves to their environment. The environment changes and the character with it. What mainly differentiates our century from those which went before it is that the forms of wealth have changed. Wealth in our day is primarily the opportunity for peculiarly profitable investment. This economic evolution has modified most of our social institutions, and with them our diplomacy. Conquest in the old sense of the world has become obsolete. A predatory power does not go out with drums and banners to seize estates for its feudal aristocracy. It applies pressure, and pressure which often involves the possession of fleets and armies, to secure concessions for its financiers and corporations. There is no advance of morality here, no conscious progress towards a Golden Age. The change cannot be described in phrases from Isaiah or inverses from Virgil. But it can however be taken back to the days of Jesus Christ, Rome and Judea together with those day’s corrupt moneylenders and money changers. It is a non-moral development, but it has none the less a direct bearing upon our hopes of peace. The instinct to conquer is as sharp and insatiable as ever, but it has found a means of conquering beyond frontiers. Our modern Conquistadores do not burn their ships when they alight on coveted soil, as though to anchor themselves forever on its fertile acres. Our bankers will not do in China what Cortez and Pizarro did in the New World. They build a railway or sink a mine. Our Ahabs do not take Naboth’s vineyard; they invest money in it. The struggle for balance of power means today a struggle for liberty and opportunity to use “places in the Sun” across the seas. For the modern world a place in the sun is not a smiling valley, or a rich plain in which a victorious army will settle, and build homes and found families. It is a territory to “exploit,” and the active agents in the process are now the bankers and investors who float loans, and secure concessions for themselves and their corporations. Even where conquest is incidentally necessary, as in Morocco or Iraq, there is no migration to the new territory and the conquering Power rarely troubles to annex it. It “occupies” only long enough to put on the throne a willing puppet potentate which will provide concessions and stability in that country, while its people are exploited to the “interest” for the bankers and “profits” for corporations. It occupies only if it cannot otherwise safely invest capital… building railways, sinking mines, or drilling oil wells.

Google+