Yup. This is pure tyranny.

Von Nothaus hasn't even been told WHY the Fed goons raided his offices and stole all his silver, gold and computers.

What are the charges, Federal thugs?

Nice article, but the introduction is completely off. For one thing, Ron Paul is a Republican.

B, Note the "small l in libertarian"

Very good job making the case for competing free market currency.

"Libertarian" is both a political party and a political philosophy. Although Ron Paul is in the Republican Party, his mindset and voting history is strictly libertarian.

He actually ran for president as a Libertarian in the past, but we all know how much press is given to third-party candidates...

And don't let the Republican title fool you. He is a far away from modern Republicans as you can be. In fact, there has been considerable effort within the R party to keep him from being heard...

Take care!

Thanks Nathan, for taking the time to find someone sympathetic to alternative currencies to present the case against the Feds arrest of Von Nothaus.

Ron Paul left the Republican party for one year to run as their presidential candidate, but he has always been elected as a Republican. That would be 10 terms in Texas. He wins so often in Texas the Democrats don't even field a candidate to oppose him. According sklar, the women who he defeated last.

A conservative republican.

Paul doesnt agree with the LP party on some very important issues, pro-life and Dr. Paul believes in borders.

Every issue we face today is behind money, and the effect of the lack of.

The current destruction of the dollar is to get the people to accept the new North American Union which will be the saving grace to our dollar problem. Not only does the Govt want only fed notes they want a single north American currency, the Amero.

I sure hope people at least give this a few minutes to investigate. It could be the last time we have a sovereign nation as we know it.

It is just plain theft by the FBI and the SS, they have brooken evry constitutional rule to private property, to search withou warrant and due process. We here in Switerland make beutiful gold coins with various background. We pay for the gold, we pay for the work, we do not use it as legal tender, it's just theft working like the mobs.

this article is just preaching to the choir. Joe Schmo simply has no concept of money/inflation/central bank issues. Therefore any media coverage of events like the armed robbery of the LD offices will be preceived as the legitimate removal of a bunch of cranks.

An enormous program of education is required in order to enable the populace to understand the issues. Any idea how to start??

The question of the role of the FED will not be solved by Ron Paul dollars, but it could easily be injured by it—I think the bank should be more or less centralized and not totally free (certain sums of money must be placed in funds determined by the state, because otherwise money will move towards that which offers the greatest return, but the places where the greatest return exists are not necessarily where money is needed (especially in terms of social welfare but also in terms of business itself)—especially when the place of greatest returns vanishes and there is no fund creation to buffer the crisis—simply consider the present credit crunch created primarily because banking was not centralized enough allowing lenders to behave in a most irresponsible fashion—this is in fact a breach of national security) so that the supply of money is created through the FED, because a fundamental instrument of government is determining the correct supply of money and I do not want to be “taxed” by Jon Paul borrowing on my behalf without me asking him to—apparently you think he should be allowed to do this—you are liberal indeed. A Ron Paul dollar is worth what and why? An American dollar’s value can be altered by people with considerable sums of money—yet even if Bill Gates used his 90 billion dollars (Bill’s total value in assets wouldn’t cover the cost of six months in Iraq—is your point that Congress can alter the value of the dollar by borrowing to fund the Iraq War and thus lower the value of the dollar? Would you say yes if the oil companies waged their own war instead of the Federal Government—would that be more libertarian?) Gates would not survive long if he were to suddenly stand as the FED, and he certainly wouldn’t wager Microsoft. What dictates the value of the dollar (I believe) are questions concerning the balance of trade between the US and each country it trades with— the value of the buck is always relative in relation to other currency. Thus when the US deals with Europe for example, it is interesting to see the various fluctuations between say a Norwegian Crown, the Swiss Franc, the Euro (or any other currency found there) and the dollar and then to look at how independent these are from one another, or if there is a trend that suggests a common dependency then why is this so. The last month the dollar has devalued in relation to the Franc and the Euro but has grown slightly stronger in relation to the Kroner—why this is the case has little to do with powerful individuals messing up the money market—but if we examine the behavior of the central bank in Norway it might enlighten us as to the politics presently in play, as well as it offering light on the economic trends. The determining factor is the national bank and those market operators that look at each and every exchange rate in relation to factors of trade—if market operators believe that the rate between the dollar and kroner is wrong then they will test it by either buying or selling a given currency—if the FED cannot answer the change in demand then the value of the currency will change in relation to the dollar—but if the FED desires a constant exchange rate between a given currency then it will intervene so as to maintain that desired rate—fixing the exchange rate as opposed to letting it float. We see this in Asia where Asian banks, in particular Japan and China who desire to maintain a constant relationship in relation to the dollar so as to make sure their products maintain the same price in the US, but as the dollar goes down in value it means that they must buy enough dollars to maintain a constant rate of exchange—in this way they finance Bush’s war in Iraq (this is why our foreign policy is so critical because most people (countries) who do business with the US are not interested in paying 300% more for oil (a direct consequence of US foreign policy) and then have to subsidize the American foreign policy they voted against in the UN so as to maintain the demand for their products in the US—that is taxation without representation). I’m afraid that what Jon Paul wants is an old system of banking where by the individual bank has the power to create money and to be a generator of its own currency—I think we call this anarchy and I think it should be illegal—there are legal ways to do the same thing that Jon Paul claims he wants to do—but he want his picture on silver coins—what an ego trip. It is in fact not without reason that these systems collapsed—the question of whether you trust the FED or not is of course not without reason and I agree with you people should be concerned about this—remember 1929 (back then a powerful individual refused to save the banks (Henry Ford said no (I think because they had back stabbed him in his youth)), but certainly you are safer with the FED than you are with Jon Paul of that I am certain. The question of banks being generators of money (having the power to create money) is indeed a problem enhanced by “electronic money” but I think that would require too much time to explain, I think the potential for extreme embezzlement of funds through methods of encryption (to hide money creation occurring in the electronic money system) is the concern of the FED as well as the FBI, all citizens and the international community as a whole. Free enterprise is a non-existent concept, much like the theory of economics is about a fictive reality—like being marooned on an island and the need for matches arises to light a signal fire but nobody has any and the economist says,” well we could suppose we have them”—but the truth is you don’t, and the US today is facing collapse because it has allowed a false picture of reality to shape its structure of government — namely that private is more “effective” than government. The fundamental difference is the objective of the bureaucracies involved. A monopoly or oligarchy seeks to maximize its revenues while the government bureaucracy seeks to maximize its share of the national budget. Still within a transnational corporation the internal bureaucracy of the firm will seek to maximize its share of the firm’s budget! That means that the objectives are similar but the objective of good government is hopefully to serve the “people” while the objective of the corporation is the shareholder—whose concerns are not about much more than their pocketbooks and not the nation as a whole or who gets screwed if they do X—because the overriding decisions are to serve the firm and that means to maximize the revenues. So you decide who serves your interests best and I think that we will see that it is always in flux—sometimes the good of the nation can get “too good” for its own good (like attacking Iraq “to protect us” and for “the cause of democracy”) and others the good of the firm becomes so greedy that it undermines the good of the whole (like the revenues to be had from increasing the price of oil by invading Iraq). So we must have both—always punching it out to the best of their abilities—because that is the competitive spirit. Right now it seems the corporatist leanings are so strong that it threatens the security of the nation—we are in fact in an extremely “fascistic” period where maximizing revenues has at the same time achieved the coy position of absconding with a considerable chunk of the federal budget as well—the corporate objectives have achieved the position of determining the objectives of the state as well. This is remarkable in a nation whose leadership won the last election because “it is strong on national security”. In 1973 the relationship of national security and oil changed—where oil had once be central to our national security (because we controlled a net export of oil) to a national security threat (because foreigners control our net import of oil meaning the interests of foreign states dominate the interests of oil, not the interests of the US) Whew-got carried away. Sorry

kirilovsogic,

Allow me to correct a couple misconceptions:

Liberty Dollar put Ron Paul's face on commemorative pieces of gold, silver and copper without his permission, to honor the fact that he is a great supporter of sound monetary reform and a free market in currency and also as a clever marketing ploy, knowing these these coins would fetch a premium because so many of their customers are Ron Paul supporters and the rapidly growing crowd supporting Ron Paul is an excellent growth market opportunity for them.

Now, you refer to the system of private money creation through fractional-reserve-banking. I believe this system is immoral and should be ended along with the semi-private Federal Reserve System.

You do not understand economics or libertarianism though I do appreciate your pointing out the desires of bureaucracies are independent of their organizational mission. We do not have a free market presently. There is an alliance forming by anti-corporatist peace advocates on the left and true small-government, liberty-loving conservatives on the right. This is the real American philosophy as expressed in the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution. We want to live free and be left alone and we will have our own honest money, created to benefit us, not an international banking elite. This will change American politics for decades and Ron Paul is the catalyst.

"I think the bank should be more or less centralized and not totally free (certain sums of money must be placed in funds determined by the state, because otherwise money will move towards that which offers the greatest return, but the places where the greatest return exists are not necessarily where money is needed." -kirilovslogic

Putting your money where it is most needed will always produce the greatest return for the same reason that a thirsty man will pay more for water than for salt. Since money will always flow to where it is most needed - even philanthropy fills a need - there are no reasons to have a central bank. There is a need for legal tender laws, since without them, the government would not be able to distribute and collect its revenue efficiently. But legal tender laws do not apply to what I may trade with other private individuals. Legal tender laws only apply to forms of payment that constitute trade with the government. Since the Liberty Dollar is not designed to fool the government into accepting it as legal tender, by definition it cannot be considered counterfeiting. What the Federal Reserve does by printing extra dollars and eroding the value of dollars that are already held by the public, is the essence of counterfeiting.

Thank Richard Nixon!

The ignorance of kirilovslogic (above) is massive and startling, but it begins with: "—simply consider the present credit crunch created primarily because banking was not centralized enough allowing lenders to behave in a most irresponsible fashion—".

That the answer to anything is to further centralize the government counterfeiting racket is too silly for words. Massive counterfeiting by the central bank was the cause of the irresponsible lending and borrowing. Blaming the market for reacting to the reality of plentiful (though phony) cash is blaming the victim for being defrauded.

What is wrong with the world is know-it-alls who think like kirilovslogic and who don't mind forcing their insanity on everyone else. He's sorry he got carried away. He should be carried away.

Arguing that violence is better than voluntary - that what is forced is better than what is chosen - given the overwhelming evidence of the failure of coercion to do anything but destroy - is sadism.

I hold a small safe deposit box full of gold and silver. I do this because for all of eternity gold has been known as the ultimate money; it will buy needed supplies when nothing else will. I suggest that you convert some of those worthless dollars into gold and silver. If you don't, you'll be swapping your new off-road bike for a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk because NO ONE will take a paper dollar for payment.

{"Thank Richard Nixon!"}

thank Richard Nixon for finishing what Franklin D. Roosevelt started 40 years earlier

["Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt, in 1932, campaigned on a platform of restrained government spending and sound money. His legacy, however, is one of runaway spending, government intrusion into peaceful economic exchange, and the utter debasement of U.S. money."

"If people were exchanging their dollars for gold, then the government’s own gold supply would be diminished. Since the gold standard included requirements that the country’s money supply have at least a 40 percent gold backing, a drain on gold reserves would have forced the government to stop printing so many dollars. Therefore, the plans of the New Dealers ran headlong into the reality of the gold standard and its check on inflation.

Thus, early in his presidency, on April 5, 1933, Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102, which ordered people to turn in their gold to the government at payment of $20.67 per ounce."
...
"Although Roosevelt made it illegal for Americans to redeem their dollars for gold, he also realized that he could not make the same threats against people from other countries. Therefore, representatives of foreign governments still could trade in their dollars for gold, although shortly after issuing his order, Roosevelt increased the price to $35 an ounce."]

so, Roosevelt forced Americans to sell their gold to the government at $20.67 per ounce, and then raised it's nominal value by nearly 60% to a more realistic $35/oz. weren't the American people thrilled?!?!

then about 40 years later, Republican president Tricky DICK saw another looming gold crisis, when the French decided to turn all their gov't held dollars into gold, having frittered away their own gold holdings, and Tricky decided to screw foreign governments by disavowing it's 'real money' foreign exchange promises, much the way the American citizens had been screwed by US gov't dishonoring it's 'real money' promises to them 40 years earlier:

["Following the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944, currencies were fixed against each other and the dollar still could be redeemed by foreign governments at $35 an ounce. For about 20 years after World War II ended, the arrangement seemed to work. However, in order to pay for the vast expansion of government welfare programs associated with Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and the escalating Vietnam War, the Federal Reserve System aggressively expanded the supply of money, which not only depreciated the currency at home but also flooded the rest of the world with dollars."
...
"During the 1970s the dollar nearly collapsed, as oil prices surged and gold skyrocketed to $800 an ounce. By 1979 interest rates of 21% were required to rescue the system. The pressure on the dollar in the 1970s, in spite of the benefits accrued to it, reflected reckless budget deficits and monetary inflation during the 1960s. The markets were not fooled by LBJ’s claim that we could afford both "guns and butter."

"The U.S. did exactly what many predicted she would do. She printed more dollars for which there was no gold backing. But the world was content to accept those dollars for more than 25 years with little question-- until the French and others in the late 1960s demanded we fulfill our promise to pay one ounce of gold for each $35 they delivered to the U.S. Treasury. This resulted in a huge gold drain that brought an end to a very poorly devised pseudo-gold standard.

It all ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window (where foreign governments had been allowed to present their dollars for conversion into gold @ $35/oz) and refused to pay out any of our remaining 280 million ounces of gold. In essence, we declared our insolvency ..."]

sources:
www.fff.org/freedom/fd0609d.asp

www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

Equating FDR with tricky Dick.

Facinating.

it's the truth of the matter, and truth ought to be told, discussed and considered
it's the truth about what FDR did regarding America's gold backed currency, and the gold held by American citizens
feel free to verify the story, or dispute it, by providing your own sources

if you want to ignore FDR's role in turning a currency with solid foundation, backed by something with a value accepted throughout millennia of history, exclude those facts from discussion, (or brush it off with a flippant comment) and just to talk about Tricky DICK's part, then you simply don't want to have the whole story understood

only the part that suits you

but perpetuating such a 'selective memory loss' does not serve to help Americans retain the lessons of our history

If we went back to a Gold Standard, would we invade South Africa?

["If we went back to a Gold Standard, would we invade South Africa?"]

if George Bush or Rudy Guiliani were president when it happened, and South Africa wouldn't play ball, then probably

Central Banks become corrupted. Even the central bank that James Madison endorsed became corrupted.

Luckily, the bank bill signed by Madison only provided a 20 year charter, nor did it allow fiat currency.

"I’m afraid that what Jon Paul wants is an old system of banking where by the individual bank has the power to create money and to be a generator of its own currency—I think we call this anarchy and I think it should be illegal"

Funny I guess that means the Constitution should be made illegal, or the first 130 years of American history should be best described as Anarchy? Seems a bit misleading to throw that word around. Often people uneducated associate it with bombing and killing, when in fact it means "voluntary association or cooperation". As long as the FED points a gun at you and says you will use this money or else, I think we can ascertain whom the one is that is inciting the chaos. It's as if tyranny becomes freedom and anarchy becomes corporatism. I find both corporations and government to be way off base and bringing about this change that is occuring thanks to freecycle, liberty dollar, etc. There is no free market if I can't use but only one form medium for excange. Barter was the lifeblood of the colonies and the Native American societies. Apparently this way of life was so scary that it had to be exterminated by those that stood to benefit from it's destruction. We have the internet, it's essentially capable of so much more than we are willing to admit as a dependent society. But the ones that want control want to prevent this from coming to fruition. That would be market interference and disruption. Next will they be handing out nice little blankets "cold like the grave"-fugazi

Yeah, but his personal views make him conservative too. Pro-life for example. What makes him fit both categories is that he feels that those issues should be controlled at state and more local levels... Which is a great idea. Imagine it. We wouldn't have to be a divided nation! Half of the U.S. wouldn't have to mourn the next presidential election, because large government wouldn't be able to carpet the U.S. with law! They could just support their own views and conscience from their office! You and I could drive twenty miles, participate actively in local government, and make a real difference! Talk about empowerment through diversity... the diversity everybody likes to abuse as a cliche, telling us it makes us strong. THIS is how diversity would make us stronger! Not by suppression of it through political correctness and other oppressive means, but by the transparent and unashamed expression of our diversity and values through local level government! Who in their right minds would dislike a local approach to government? New York City could stay pro-life and rural Mississippi could outlaw it! so damn simple.

Since the Feds have declared war on the Ron Paul dollar, maybe Ron Paul supporters should declare war on the U.S. dollar. Wouldn't it be great if every Ron Paul supporter desecrated the U.S. currency by writing www.ronpaul2008.com on Federal Reserve notes? What a wonderfully subversive way to get Ron Paul's message into the hands of the masses and express our contempt at the government's rapidly-deteriorating fiat money.

If everything is going so swimmingly, why is our dollar now surpassed by the Canadian dollar? Why is gold back up to nearly $850/ounce, when it was $300 two years ago?

I don't think all is well, as we've been lead to believe.

Yes I do know how to solve it! Wear a RON PAUL button everywhere you go - carry RON PAUL literature everywhere you go - speak to everyone who asks about RON PAUL and give them literature and direct them to his website. It's a matter of educating the citizenry one individual at a time. Most rational and intelligent people will see and learn for themselves. It is amazing how many people believe as we do, they just haven't met us yet - they feel isolated and hopeless. This RON PAUL campaign and people like US are giving people hope again. Think of yourself as an American Patriot in the time of Revolution - we're re-building a Constitutional Republic in the face of apathy, ingnorance and fear. It was done once in a time of illiteracy and ignorance - it should be much easier in this Information Age. The Truth Will Out! -dixon cannon

Why not used tires filled
with cat crap as currency?
I wanna see THAT vending
machine! LOL

A person can make arguments for a gold standard because we don't have a recent history of a gold standard. If we had one we would realize that it has faults also.

This could be a long post but I'll just make this one point. The gold standard is unresponsive to current economic conditions and needs. American economic history under the gold standard was much more chaotic than what we have now. American economic history before the federal reserve was filled with depressions, recessions, lost wealth and poor banking.

I will paraphrase from the saying "democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others." well, 'the federal reserve is the worst form of banking except for all the others.'

Complain about the federal reserve, but you don't want a gold standard.

If people knew how the Federal Reserve really worked they would understand why the powers that be are "scared" of Ron Paul.

In a nutshell, privately owned Federal Reserve Banks for the cost of paper and ink, get US mint to print paper dollars, then that money is GIVEN to the Federal Reserve banks for FREE, and they turn arround and LEND it to the government at interest rates that they set, and we taxpayers pay!

Please tell me how I can open a Federal Reserve Bank and get in on such a sweet racket!

I say Anarchy because imagine the country dealing with “the non-existent US” dollar. There would be Bank #1 money, Bank#2 money, Bank#3 money, and so on up to Bank #N money but no central bank money because there is no central bank. Now imagine a country-corporation-businesses doing business here—greeted with a zillion different currencies—to each bank a different currency and imagine the doubt of doing business with any of these banks—who backs up that bank really—not the government that’s for sure because what will the government do?—nothing because in reality the means to govern nationally is gone—hence the term anarchy. We would be in the middle ages. Consider being attacked; something like 9/11 wouldn’t concern Americans other than the disgust for the crime and sympathy for those killed because it would concern New Yorkers and the two towers wouldn’t concern anyone but those who owned it and those who owned it would be fighting it out with those who insured it (We wouldn’t even see ourselves as Americans, though in terms of regional politics we might find some positive things occurring because local politics could be enhanced—or we could find a multitude of mini-dictators and Bank Barons, I guess Ron Paul is closer to Jefferson than say the traditional Hamilton Federalist Republican views) It would be impossible to react because everyone will be trying to minimize their costs, responsibility and of course the military wouldn’t be centralized either—I can’t imagine what it is like to be the head of military command in Iraq today with all of these “private militaries” running rampant; a Blackwater grunt can in essence say “lick my butt General. I don’t take my orders from you so go to hell” and here at home they are basically immune to all charges—but the US military grunts are held accountable because they truly represent a nation. The disarray of command is a weakness militarily but also morally and that weakness is an obvious consequence of decentralization, greed and lack of all accountability. Privatizing military is per definition decentralizing the defense of the nation—Iraq shows the weakness! It’s like the lifelong squabble between Jefferson and Hamilton but in 1812 it was because of Hamilton we stood our ground and took the day. Jefferson is a great voice of the nation and I admire the Declaration of Independence because it is indeed a radical document and has a fiber to it that says we not only have a right but in fact a duty to stand against tyrannical rule if ever it should arise but with Hamilton comes the practical aspect of doing governance—the need for centralized administration and what it means to have the tools to build a real government. We must have both—the localized sense of rule and the federal because if the one or the other becomes too strong we have a sort of fanaticism, the one moving us towards anarchy and the other pushing us towards absolutism and it is between these two extremes a play for power is fought. By centralized Bank I don’t mean centralized in the communist sense of a planned economy but rather a banking system that can deal with the needs of the nation in a pragmatic fashion and that enables the ability of the government to implement powerful instruments so that policy is effective—for example enforced rules that control the lending of money. I guess one thing a strong centralized bank could have done is intervened in the lending of money to these credit unworthy individuals and set up a system in coalition with the White House, Congress and State Legislatures and local banks that would have enabled a payment scheme so that a majority of these credit weak people would succeed—so that in reality a large creation of wealth would have be realized (the acquisition of property is a key element to wealth creation) and the volume of true home owners in America increased instead of allowing a disaster to occur, that increase in public wealth would have strengthened the nation, instead the buck will be passed on to us and we have created a gang of lifelong homeless slaves—we will all pay for that folly, except those who loaned out the money—they will obtain ownership of the property and write off the losses.

If Alexander Hamilton had his way, we'd have an elected monarch.
Remember, he's the guy who authored a proposal for electing a "President For Life", at the Constitutional convention, and would have so weakened the States (if not abolished them altogether) that the intended checks & balances on central government power, provided by the State governments, would have gone right out the window.

Wouldn't "President for Life" look just SMASHING on George Dubya Bush?!?!

kirilovsogic,

Just one word... paragraphs!

Did Hamilton have his way? No. Did Jefferson have his way? No. So what’s your point, that Hamilton was an “evil” bad man who wanted a president for life?

An individual’s attitude about certain things doesn’t negate the edifice they create. In the case the United States it was the group of minds that existed and who were able to put together a form of government that was and still is unique. A confederation of states verses a means to make these states into a nation and yet maintain the concept of state’s rights. This problem is by no means simple. Look at former Yugoslavia or at the former Soviet Union or at the EU, which recently failed to create a constitution. The means to have autonomous states that have a sense of rule or dominion over their state or nation and to have a superstructure standing above them that has supra state powers is difficult to implement and it is difficult to accept. Yet it would seem that unless a means to create such structures is found, the means to meet the problems that are facing the world will be impossible to implement. It demands the will to make concessions and vision to see why these concessions must be made. Thus whether it is Hamilton or John Jay or Jefferson or Franklin or Adams or Monroe or all of those who were there and whose attitudes about things were quite different it demanded finding a means to agreement in spite of great differences of opinion.

The solution that they came up with strikes me as rather ingenious—though aspects of this have been undermined by the Federalist Bush administration, that has taken the power of the Federal Government too far through the erroneous concept of “seamless” and the implementation of the Patriot Act and other pieces of anti-American legislation. Still the Bush administration is a contradiction in terms. Here we see the consequences of the failed concept of private and public domain. In Iraq and in warfare in general the unity of one’s force and the use of a central command is a necessity if victory is to be had, but who does General Patreus speak for in terms of the American presence in Iraq—he speaks for a part of it but not the whole of it and consequently we have no central command. This reveals just how hollow the president’s remarks are in regards to “supporting the troops”. Step one in supporting the troops is to place all soldiers under central command without exception and those mercenaries caught acting outside the domain of central command are simply shot—it is war is it not?

If you are really interested in the reality of money I suggest reading:
"Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt" by Frederick Soddy
or
"Debt Virus" by Jacques Jaikairan

"The gold standard is unresponsive to current economic conditions and needs." -Ronald

The gold standard is 'unresponsive' for the same reason that the amount of gas in your tank is 'unresponsive'. Because the amount of wealth is as limited as the supply of gas in your tank. Increasing the 'responsiveness' of scarce goods does not change the fact that scarce goods are 'unresponsive' because they are limited. In fact, when we allow the government to control the 'responsiveness', much like a child with a credit card, they wreak havok, destroy our credit, and dig us into outrageous amounts of unsustainable debt. 'Unresponsivness' is exactly what I demand of government debt.

"American economic history under the gold standard was much more chaotic than what we have now." -Ronald

Actually, consumer prices rose only 2% over the period from 1810 - 1890. That is not 2% per year. That is 2% TOTAL.
In 1910, 1 oz. gold cost $20 and would buy a suit, shirt, tie, and dress shoes. Today, 1 oz. gold costs $850 and will buy a slightly nicer suit, shirt, tie, and dress shoes.

"American economic history before the federal reserve was filled with depressions, recessions, lost wealth and poor banking." -Ronald

This is not true. There were problems with banking before the Federal Reserve. These were not the result of a gold standard, but were the result of fractional reserve banking. In this government protected fraud, the bank ties up your money in long term loans, while promising you that it is available whenever you need it. Not much different than a dry-cleaner loaning out your clothes for a profit without asking you first. Because of this fraud, banks are perpetually insolvent, and in a free-market suffer the consequences of insolvency - bankruptcy. Instead of attacking the root of the problem, the Federal Government formed a fascist pact with the bankers to protect their fraudulent scheme of fractional reserve banking in exchange for the right to seinorage. Of course, Americans bought these lies because nobody understands the difference between the fraud of fractional reserve banking and a stable free-market currency backed by gold.

Yes: I started my own blog in May 2007 to publicise these issues as much as I can, and urge others to do so - and promote each other's views in the blogosphere. Write to your papers, explain it to your friends, and your children.

Great article! I suggest everyone go to www.libertydollar.org and find a local RCO(regional currency office) and trade in some of your worthless paper money for some liberty dollars. Then, sign the class action law suit against the thugs in the Federal government. The class action suit can be found on the website as well. We must not let tyranny completely take over, else we're doomed to fall from within.

JF,
Ron Paul is a republican - he endorsed Reagan before anyone else even heard of him. He was endorsed by Goldwater Jr a few weeks back. Don't forget - the current republicans are not real republicans - they are big government spenders and most of them don't even represent the party principles - just look at Mitt Romney and Rudy. they were pro-gay marriage at one time or another, they were pro-abortion at one time or another, they are militaristic and nation-builders. This goes completely against the conservative republican tradition.
Ron Paul has libertarian streak but he's more conservative than libertarian because he believes in national sovereignty and small govt. He's also pro-life.
The bottom line is your comments are very inaccurate.

Or they can buy a ron paul stamp for 12.95 frn's at www.uscivilflags.org