What the Doctor Says He Wants to Do

10 posts


I'm reading Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom by Dr Ron Paul.
It's an alphabetical ordering of political topics giving an overview of his opinions and historical understanding of each, as well as proposed policies.

I will add to this post as I read.

-Withdraw membership from the UN, NATO, WTO, all FTA's (NAFTA, CAFTA, etc)

-Lift all US imposed economic sanctions

-End all US government sponsored foreign aid

-Close all US military bases abroad

-Cease all current US military interventions

-All military detainees must be tried

-Begin new US military ventures abroad only if US citizens or military are attacked or sanctioned by another state, only against the offending state, & only with a Congressional declaration of war

-Prohibit the CIA & all US intelligence agencies from conducting coups, assassinations, torture, or self-financing particularly through drug and weapons trafficking.

-Remove jurisdiction from federal courts on abortion and permit states to legislate on it as they wish, & deregulate adoption

-No economic stimuli, no corporate bailouts

-Abolish the Federal Reserve

-Return to a gold standard, rather than fiat, currency

-End the income tax

-He is critical of bipartisanship and moderateness

-He is against campaign finance reform or legislation to control or reduce lobbying

-No conscription, cease draft registration

-An enlisted person can not be discharged on the basis of their sexual orientation, but can be discharged for disruptive sexual activity regardless of orientation

-Preserve the electoral college

-He is against political parties

-Abolish the Departments of Education, Homeland Security, Energy, Commerce, Health & Human Services, FEMA, the IRS, and the Interstate Commerce Commission

-He is against capital punishment

-He is against the PATRIOT Act & No Child Left Behind

-He is against affirmative action and reparations


"Return to a gold standard, rather than fiat, currency"

Why? Do you think the banking cartel parasites don't know how to manipulate gold? It's all they did for hundreds of years when there was a gold standard, create shortages and surpluses. They're past masters at it. It's old-school and not much used in this day of modern technology but they could dust it off and use it if needed . You and Ron Paul are incredibly naive if you think a gold standard would for one minute stop the banking cartel. A gold standard is not what's needed. An honesty standard is. The true issue is private vs, public control of the money supply. Not the physical type of currency money.

All that other stuff, (and 98% of modern hot-button issues) is way downstream from honest money and would straighten out almost automatically if an honest public money system existed.

1. Because most anyone can dig for it and use it anywhere.
2. It can't be printed at a whim by banker elites.

Why do you think central bankers are against the gold standard? If your allegations were true, they'd be indifferent.

If central bankers are against a gold standard a main reason is because they don't want to go back to horse & buggy methods of fraud when they have at their disposal right now Ferrari Formula 1, 225 mph methods of fraud. But, they could do it if necessary. A gold standard would not for one minute stop banking cartel fraud. They're past masters at gold price & supply manipulation, jeez Joe, c'mon. you know that. The gold standard is a pig in a poke. A diversion to keep people distracted from the REAL issue of private control of the money supply by the banking cartel when national monetary matters shld,. be public policy formulated, debated, and approved by elected bodies. Also, the naive libertarian worship of "The Market" is misguided. The "market" will always be cornered by some group in time and they will become the de-facto government with issue authority over currency. Again, the result is private control of money suppy to the sole betterment of the "in group" and to the public at large's detriment. Monetary policy shld. be public policy. Monetary policy for the public good is one of the legitimate functions of a national government. Our government does not make monetary policy it follows orders from the private for profit banking cartel.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/embed/3QkmLnNEvdU

Changing the currency used to gold from paper will not change the scam. So you want to the three-card Monte guy to use metal cups instead of dixie cups? Oh, OK.


What if the gold standard was 100% reserve instead of 10 to 1?


Gold as the sole medium of exchange in a modern society? 100% that's all that's used, everywhere? If you live in Zena Warrior Princess land and you come to the market with a money pouch on your hip to get drink grog & sex wenches.... yeah, that'd work. But gold coins are not a good medium of exchange for all the myriad types of transactions in a modern society. Thus monies of account, (electronic money, book-keeping entries). It has a roll to play, as a store of value and of course shld. be legal to own and transfer other money types into gold and gold into other money types, (convertible). But it's not an end-all be-all answer to anything, as many people think it is. For Pete's sake, that is all the banking cartel has EVER done is manipulate gold prices and supply since time immemorial! Until recent times when more modern technically easier methods of fraud became used, (thus, FEDRESV & Central Banks for every country). The governmental function of currency issue has been usurped by a privately owned for profit cartel that can dispose of Presidents and Premiers like Taco Bell fires store managers if they get out of line with corporate directives.

What is used as currency is secondary, at best. Many items have been used before, almost anything you can think of has been used as currency at one time or another and then discarded. Doesn't really matter what it is. Because money is a creature of law, " nomisma ". It exists by law, not nature, thus the imprint on it. "THIS is money, coin of the realm, legal tender". Because it's within the power of people, (preferably in the public's interest & not private in-group interests) to decide what is money, and to change what is money. Just because you dig some gold out of the ground doesn't make it money. If money is defined as "what the government would accept to pay your taxes with". The concept of nomisma , that money is a fiat of the law, an invention or creation of mankind and society rather than a commodity has always been suppressed by oligarchic forces against public money.

What you use to measure value of commodities and compare items with, (the primary function of money) doesn't mean you need the measure to be made out of gold. A 12 inch wooden ruler measures just fine, why would it need to be made out of gold? What's needed is honest money, of any material.


Where do Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul differ?

Pat Buchanan was the first political author I ever read, as a teenager I read Death of the West after reading The Bell Curve , because its primary focus was on the demographic decline of Whites, Jews, & East Asians... the high IQ populations as I had learned... and how this would spell disaster for civilization. But I never really looked into Buchanan's politics, and tossed A Republic, Not an Empire aside without much care. Now I'm wishing I didn't.

edit: After reading the wiki on his various stances, I see no policy difference but that he believes the government should regulate vices and the things deemed naughty by his Catholicism like marijuana, prostitution, and pornography. He is also pro-death penalty, while Paul opposes it.
He is a non-interventionist, anti-globalist, anti-illegal immigrant, anti-abortionist, etc and seems very much in step with Paul on everything but the right of the state to enforce some morality.



-Pro-flat tax

-Anti-inheritance tax

-Against both banning and imposing religious items and gestures in public

-He argues that the debate between teaching evolution or creationism in public schools becomes mute under his solution, removing the Department of Education and federal court jurisdiction on the matter.

President Camacho
Buchanan is more of a Federalist than Paul... Buchanan is basically a typical Republican if you took a time machine back to the 1960s, whereas Paul is more of a pure libertarian.

Buchanan doesn't have a problem so much with Federal government per se, just with the objectives and motives of ZOG.
How is Buchanan more of a federalist? He's very much in favor of a smaller, less powerful federal government.

I forgot to note Paul's stance on immigration; children born in the US must not be made automatic American citizens if neither of their parents are, the government must not mandate that hospitals treat non-citizens, property owners along American borders must be permitted to defend against trespassing, and he makes a few other points to reduce illegal immigration, including withdrawing from NAFTA & CAFTA. He also believes illegals shouldn't receive welfare or public education, but he is against the same for citizens.
The difference between him and Buchanan on this is that Buchanan believes the government should draw up and enforce penalties on businesses that employ illegal immigrants, Paul does not. Buchanan, unlike Paul, also wants to reduce legal immigration. Also, Paul thinks ending the drug war will greatly reduce Mexican drug cartel violence in the US... Buchanan wants to keep the drug war going.