Posts Tagged ‘Congressman Ron Paul’

Kurt Nimmo
March 28, 2012

Federal Reserve boss Ben Bernanke told ABC’s Diane Swayer on Tuesday that gas prices will continue to skyrocket through the summer.

Bernanke told Sawyer gas prices “are a major problem” and he admitted they are “a hardship for lots of people.”

During the interview, he tried to pawn off the fallacy that gas prices are responsible for inflation, which he said will escalate over the next few months.

By inflation Bernanke means price increases. As Ron Paul notes, blame for this can be placed at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve.

“Most economists fail to understand that inflation is at its root a monetary phenomenon,” Paul wrote last March. “There may be other factors that contribute to price increases, such as famine, flooding, or global unrest, but those effects are transient. Consistently citing only these factors, while never acknowledging the effects of monetary policy, is a cop-out.”

Bernanke also claimed the rise in gas prices can be attributed to Iran and troubles in the Middle East. “The Middle East is very unpredictable — lots of things happening with respect to Iran and so on, so you know, we obviously — need to be — very attentive to that,” he told Sawyer.

Bernanke did not bother to explain how the Federal Reserve creates monetary inflation. It is really quite simple. More money equals less value.

The Federal Reserve is currently doing this through quantitative easing – increasing the money supply and flooding financial institutions with capital. Economists note that the problem with this is that although there is more money in the economic system, there is still a fixed amount of goods for sale.

Bernanke “admits he doesn’t understand why the economy is the way it is. Reality doesn’t fit his theory,” writes Zero Hedge. “So, what do you do when you are the head of the world’s biggest printing press, and don’t know what else to do? Why QE3 of course.”

On Tuesday, Bernanke hinted that QE3 may be right around the corner. He said more dilution of the money supply will be required due to vexatious unemployment.

High unemployment is directly related the the Federal Reserve and its engineering of boom and bust cycles through monetary policy. The Fed – as Bernanke has sheepishly admitted – was responsible for the so-called Great Depression and its staggering unemployment. It’s the same today.

Ben Bernanke is simply reading his bankster script, as instructed. If he was sincere, he would admit that rising oil prices do not create inflation. Oil prices are a reflection of a devalued dollar.

In an interview last year, ShadowStats editor John Williams said “the dollar’s weakness is doubly inflationary. It is the biggest factor behind the ongoing rise in oil prices.”

It’s not greedy oil baron in the Middle East or Iran threatening to close down the Strait of Hormuz in response to an attack.

It’s the Federal Reserve and the central banks.



Kurt Nimmo
March 26, 2012

Doug Wead, a New York Times best selling author and a senior adviser for the Ron Paul presidential campaign, writes on his blog today that Alex Hayes, director of establishment Republicans in Washington State, made the claim that the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns are pushing a common slate of candidates in Washington State to block Ron Paul’s campaign from taking delegates.

“The apparent move on the part of the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns is to block citizens favoring Ron Paul from taking over the Washington State delegation to Tampa,” Wead writes.

Ron Paul has gained delegates at the expense of both Romney and Santorum. “States such as Missouri, where Senator Santorum won a meaningless beauty contest, will see a sizable Ron Paul representation, as will Minnesota, Maine, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa.  In Nevada, on the first ballot, the delegates, even if Ron Paul supporters, must vote for candidates proportionately as they finished in the Nevada Statewide beauty contest.  But they can vote their conscience on the second ballot,” Doug Wead explains.

Over the weekend, a video emerged showing how establishment Republicans in Missouri connived to rob Ron Paul of delegates:

A covert camera caught Alex Hayes explaining how the establishment in Washington State plans to rig the election against Paul. Hayes said the idea of a prearranged slate will probably be adopted on the national level.

Wead says that he is not sure if Hayes and the Republican election machine will push a united Romney-Santorum-Gingrich slate and attempt to disenfranchise Paul.

“On the other hand, if Mr. Hayes is exaggerating or not telling the truth, if the Romney-Santorum-Gingrich campaigns have not agreed on a common slate, then you are getting a look at how political power brokers play backroom games to disenfranchise the majority of their own party.  You are seeing how people in power, cling to the little bit of power they have and are willing to lie or cheat to keep it,” he writes.

The Republican establishment will do whatever it can get away with to cheat Ron Paul and his supporters before the convention in August. Thanks to the proliferation of cell phone video, we can get a better picture of how they are doing this and what needs to be done in the future to expose their criminal efforts to rig elections and send another global elite marionette to Washington.


Monday, March 19, 2012

Establishment GOP leaders in St. Charles County, Missouri, shut down a caucus and had Ron Paul supporters arrested in order to avoid enthusiastic Ron Paul supporters from taking over the caucus March 17.


Ron Paul
Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Have certain parts of the Constitution become irrelevant, as a former Republican leader once told me at a Foreign Affairs Committee hearing? At the time, I was told that demanding a Congressional declaration of war before invading Iraq, as Article I Section 8 of the Constitution requires, was unnecessary and anachronistic. Congress and the president then proceeded without a Constitutional declaration and the disastrous Iraq invasion was the result.

Last week, Obama administration officials made it clear that even the fig leaf of Congressional participation provided by the 2003 “authorization” to use force in Iraq was to be ignored as well.  In a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated clearly and repeatedly that the administration felt it was legally justified to use military force against Syria solely with “international permission”. Such “international permission” could come by way of the United Nations, NATO, or some other international body. Secretary Panetta then told Senator Sessions that depending on the situation, the administration would consider informing Congress of its decision and might even seek authorization after the fact.

While Senator Sessions expressed surprise at the casual audacity of Panetta in making this statement, in reality his was just a bluntly stated explanation of what has been, de facto, the case for many years. When President Obama committed the US military to a pre-emptive war against Libya last year, for example, Congress was kept completely out of the process. Likewise, military action in Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and so on, proceed without a Congressional declaration. In fact, we haven’t had a proper, constitutional declaration of war since 1942, yet the US military has been engaged in Korea, Lebanon, Iraq, Bosnia, Liberia, Haiti, and Libya with only UN resolutions as the authority. Congress’s only role has been authorizing funds, which it always does without question, because one must “support the troops”.

Of course we should reserve our harshest criticism for Congress rather than the Administration. If the people’s branch of government abrogates its Constitutional authority to the Executive branch, who is to blame? Who is to blame that Congress as a body will not stand up and demand that the president treat the Constitution as more than an anachronistic piece of paper, or merely a set of aspirations and guidelines? The Constitution is the law of the land and for Congress to allow it to be flouted speaks as badly about Congress as it does about a president who seeks to do the flouting.

Just last week the administration announced that it would begin providing material support to the rebels who seek to overthrow the Syrian government. Was Congress involved in this decision to take sides in what may develop into a full-fledged civil war? And what of reports that US special forces may already be operating inside Syria? Still, Congress sits silently as its authority is undermined. Does anybody really wonder why approval numbers for Congress are so low?

Many of my colleagues who stood by as then-President Bush used the military as a kind of king’s army are now calling for Congress to act against this president for openly admitting that is his intent. I agree it is time for Congressional action in response to these attacks on our Constitution, but the solution is simple and Constitutional. The solution is simply voting to withhold funds, since Congress has the power of the purse. No money for undeclared wars!


Ryan W. McMaken
LRC Blog
March 13, 2012

In some places, such as Maine and Minnesota, Ron Paul is likely to outperform the straw polls in terms of proportion of delegates won. As Lew Rockwell has noted, here and here, Ron Paul activists are sometimes able to take control of the local machines.

Sometimes, however, the opposite apparently happens. As The Washington Times reported on March 10th, Paul actually underperformed his vote tally in Wyoming with local caucuses over the weekend.

If you’ve ever been a Ron Paul delegate, you know that the GOP central committees will employ every trick in the book to avoid having to seat Ron Paul delegates. They will freely ignore their own bylaws, apply rules in such a manner as to only exclude Paul delegates, and will liberally employ intimidation tactics through verbal abuse, and even physical manhandling of delegates.

In the end, if everything else fails, they’ll attempt to get you to switch your vote by begging you to be a “team player” and by claiming that Romney is electable and that your dissent will keep Obama in power.

They did it in 2008, and some Ron Paul delegates switched their vote to the “electable” John McCain at the national convention, as I noted here.

I described my own delegate experience in 2008 here. Trust me, they’ll do everything they can to intimidate, harass or just plain exclude you. Be ready for it.

The video shows what is probably a fairly typical experience for many delegates:


Congressman says he has “theories” that foul play may be involved

Steve Watson
March 12, 2012

In a conversation with reporters in Missouri this weekend, GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul said that he and his supporters were suspicious about the outcomes of several caucuses because the crowds and volumes of support have been much bigger for him than for any other candidate.

“Quite frankly I don’t think the other candidates get crowds like this, and we get them constantly” Paul said, after he had spoken to yet another crowd of over 2500 supporters in Missouri.

“You would get the perception that we would be getting a lot more votes.” He added.

“Sometimes we get thousands of people like this and we’ll take them to the polling booth, yet we won’t win the caucus.” Paul said, adding “A lot of our supporters are very suspicious about it.”

When informed that Santorum had won the Kansas caucuses, Paul admitted that he had not seen the numbers on it at that point but again reiterated his point, stating:

“That reminds me of a picture I just looked at. I had four thousand people and he had a hundred and fifty. So who knows.”

The picture, below, shows a huge turn out at a Kansas town hall meeting for Paul this weekend, compared to virtually nobody showing at Santorum’s event.

The Congressman admitted he could not elaborate on his suspicions but commented “It’s just instinct and hearsay stories, verbal stories that you hear and the kind of things that we heard about up in Maine.”

“They said we can’t have a recount because they just write these numbers down on pieces of paper and then throw them away afterwards. So it’s that kind of stuff that makes you suspicious.” Paul urged.

As we previously reported, evidence of possible vote fraud has been uncovered in Maine, where several towns and counties that Ron Paul won were omitted from the final state count for no identifiable reason.

Watch the video:


When Ron Paul wins the popular vote it no longer counts

Steve Watson
March 12, 2012

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul secured his first caucus victory over the weekend, by winning 29 percent of the popular vote among the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands. However, the mainstream media decided to report that despite coming in second with 26 percent, Mitt Romney was the real winner.

The Republican Party of the U.S. Virgin Islands reported the results as “112 to Paul (29%), 101 to Romney (26%), 23 to Santorum (6%), 18 to Gingrich (5%),”

In response, The AP and other mainstream reports yesterday claimed that Mitt Romney won caucus, because he stands to come away with more delegates.

Ron Paul supporters and the campaign itself have been tirelessly pointing out that in many of the states that have already held primaries and caucuses, the amount of delegates the Congressman has secured does not always reflect his positioning in the straw polls. Indeed, in Iowa and New Hampshire Paul secured as many delegates as Romney and Santorum.

Yet the media has always reported the winner as the candidate who won the highest percentage in the popular vote.

Not so this time around. When Ron Paul secures a caucus victory, the media changes the rules and declares it is the delegate count that determines the real winner.

“The media is reporting that Mitt Romney won the U.S. Virgin Island Caucus when Ron Paul actually won the popular vote,” wrote the Paul campaign team in an email to supporters.

“If the popular vote means you’ve won, then Ron Paul just won the U.S. Virgin Island Caucus. If collecting delegates equals victory, then Paul stands to do well there too.” the Paul campaign added.

“The media is trying to have it both ways with Romney and the Virgin Island Caucus while ignoring Ron Paul’s actual straw poll first place victory,”

Paul’s official campaign blogger Jack Hunter explains how the media changed the rules below:

Romney stands to win more delegates because, like some US states, The Virgin Islands directly elect delegates in a process that is separate from the caucuses. The six delegates with the most support get to go to the national convention.

As such, Romney won three delegates plus three more via RNC member pledges. He also picked up a uncommitted delegate after the balloting, to bring his total delegates to seven. Ron Paul will take one delegate.

However, the facts show that Ron Paul unquestionably “won” the U.S. Virgin Island Caucus, in the same way Santorum “won” Iowa, Romney “won” New Hampshire, and Gingrich “won” South Carolina.

Portions of the mainstream media know this is the case, and have blatantly ignored it, simply because they do not wish to see Paul, the only anti-establishment candidate, doing well in the race.

The next states to hold primary elections are Mississippi and Alabama. Caucuses will also be held in Hawaii and the American Samoa this Tuesday.


Congressman says he can win in three states on Super Tuesday, slams Rush Limbaugh

Steve Watson
March 5, 2012

A new poll out of Ohio shows that the GOP candidate most competitive in a head to head match up with president Obama is Ron Paul.


The poll, conducted by Marist, is the latest in a string of surveys to show that of all the GOP candidates, Ron Paul does the best in a head to head match up with the incumbent president.

When matched with Obama, Paul trails Obama by 10 percentage points among Ohio voters, 48 percent to 38 percent.

That is the closest margin of all the contenders, and Paul is the only candidate to push Obama below 50 percent.

Romney trails Obama by 12 points at 50 percent to 38 percent, while 50 percent of registered voters back Obama compared with 36 percent for Rick Santorum, a deficit of 14 points. Gingrich scored 36 percent to Obama’s 51 percent.

Paul’s stronger support against Obama is primarily due to the fact that a higher percentage of voters identify themselves as independent. The poll finds that 35 percent of registered voters now consider themselves to be independent, an increase of 4 percent on a similar poll conducted in 2008.

The poll also finds that the number of voters identifying themselves as Republicans has decreased by 5 percentage points, from 31 percent to 26 percent. The number of Democrats has not significantly changed.

Appearing on CBS’ Face The Nation Sunday, Ron Paul, who took second place behind Romney in Washington this weekend, said he hoped to win three states holding caucuses on “Super Tuesday” tomorrow. Paul identified the states as Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota. Seven other states are holding primary elections on the same day.

Paul also slammed conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh over his comments to Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke. After calling her a “slut” and a “prostitute” last week as she spoke to a congressional on the issue of birth control, Limbaugh later apologized.

Paul told CBS host host Bob Schieffer that Limbaugh’s apology was purely down to personal interest:

“I don’t think he’s very apologetic,” Paul said, “he’s doing it because some people had taken his advertisements off his program. It was his bottom line that he got concerned about.”

Paul pointed to three different companies that have since pulled advertisements from Limbaugh’s show, noting “I don’t think he’s very apologetic… It’s in his best interest, that’s why he did it.”

Paul then clarified his position on birth control, explaining that the government should not mandate that insurance companies provide contraception coverage.

“This is philosophically and politically important because, does the government have a mandate to tell insurance (companies) what to give?” Paul said before adding “So they’re saying that the insurance companies should give everybody free birth control pill, that strikes me as rather odd.”

Watch the full interview below:

Establishment floated talking points are latest effort to smear Paul’s campaign

Steve Watson
February 24, 2012

When The mainstream media devotes coverage to Ron Paul at any length, you can take it to the bank that it is an attempt to smear Paul’s campaign. That is why the latest obsession with the theory that Paul and Romney have formed an alliance, almost certainly represents such an effort.

The notion that Paul has cut some form of deal, either for himself or for his son Rand, to be a part of a Romney led GOP ticket is now being heavily pushed by everyone from MSNBC to Rush Limbaugh – and it’s as if they are reading off the same script.

As former Ron Paul staffer Lew Rockwell told the Alex Jones show yesterday, it is becoming ever more clear that talk of a Paul/Romney alliance is part of the establishment’s latest effort to de-rail Paul’s presidential campaign, and paint him up as a sell out, as he continues to pick up armies of delegates under the radar.

MSNBC’s Morning Joe has been heavily covering the alliance theory, with Joe Scarborough seemingly convinced Paul has done a deal with Romney:

“The thing that went unspoken but everybody knows, and that is that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul have formed an alliance,” Scarborough said on Thursday’s Morning Joe.

“It is such an obvious alliance that Mitt Romney would do well to just come out and admit it. I don’t know what he’s promised Ron Paul. I don’t know if Ron Paul is hoping that his son gets in the administration. But let’s just be really honest here — for all people for Ron Paul to form an alliance with in the Republican Party, to pick out Mitt Romney is really bizarre.” Scarborough added, before his guests suggested that Ron Paul has been acting as Romney’s “attack dog” for a long time.

“I mean, he’s been throwing out daisy cutters, clearing the way for Mitt Romney all along.” said Daily Beast columnist Mark McKinnon. “And you know, it’s a wink and a nod and never any kind of spoken deals on these sorts of things, but it’s pretty clear what’s going on. And he’s been the fullback, blocking in front of Romney this whole time.”


Scarborough picked up the alliance conspiracy again on today’s Morning Joe, telling viewers “It certainly seems like a deal’s been struck, because he’s not only chopping Santorum up into little pieces in these debates, he did it in past debates against Newt and other front-runners, leaving Mitt completely out of it,”

Scarborough’s guest, Tim Pawlenty, now national co-chair for Romney’s campaign, denied that there was any deal. “I know Mitt and I know Ron Paul, I really don’t believe there’s any deal between [them]. Think about Ron Paul cutting a deal as an insider to get some political favors,” said Pawlenty. “Probably the last person to ‘cut a back room deal’ in American politics would be Ron Paul.”


Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

MSNBC continued to push the conspiracy theory in later programming, with Andrea Mitchell probing Paul campaign Senior advisor Doug Wead. Mitchell again floated the taking point that Paul has attacked all the other contenders but has not attempted to go after Romney. Wead quickly shot down that notion by pointing out that Ron Paul has spent millions on advertising targeting Romney as an establishment flip flopper. Indeed, a Ron Paul moneybomb was specifically framed around combating Romney. Wead also flat denied that any deal had been struck between Paul and Romney.

The Washington Post continues to push the alliance notion, as it has been since the end of January, suggesting that Paul and Romney’s decision to skip a debate in Georgia was a joint one. While The Hill goes all out today with a vicious attack piece “calling out Ron Paul” as “Mitt Romney’s secret weapon”, his “attack poodle” and a “phony libertarian”.

Talk radio host, Mark Levin, who openly hates Ron Paul, quickly jumped on the bandwagon, again repeating the blatant lie that Paul has not gone after Mitt Romney during his campaign.

Even Rush Limbaugh has been floating the same talking point – a sure fire indicator that this is a scripted smear against Paul.

“Paul does not attack Romney. Ron Paul attacks every one of Romney’s opponents; Romney doesn’t attack Paul,” said Limbaugh, while claiming that he had believed a deal was made between the two over a month ago.



Lew Rockwell: Rhetoric is a political ruse to make Ron Paul appear as a sell out

Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, February 24, 2012

Former Ron Paul staffer Lew Rockwell says that talk of an alliance between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul is an “establishment trick” to smear Paul by making him appear as a sell out.

Rockwell, who served as Ron Paul’s congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982 and remains close to Paul and several campaign insiders, told the Alex Jones Show that rhetoric about a potential partnership wherein Ron Paul would be granted a VP slot was merely a political ruse to “make Ron Paul supporters like Romney”.

The controversy received fresh impetus earlier this week when Rick Santorum and his campaign manager claimed Paul and Romney were in cahoots to shoot down Santorum’s candidacy. The talking point has subsequently been pushed by the mainstream media, including a Washington Post article today that speculates on whether the alliance is genuine.

Rockwell said that although Romney may be a pleasant person, his political positions are anathema to Ron Paul given the fact that he is a globalist, a big government advocate and a warmonger.

“Just because he looks good in a suit doesn’t mean that he’s not one of the top creeps, otherwise he wouldn’t be supported by the Republican establishment and by the establishment in general, so no we don’t want anything to do with him except to oppose him,” said Rockwell.

“They would never let Ron Paul be Vice President…the idea that the regime would invite him into office is just science fiction,” said Rockwell, explaining that the only way for Paul to be on the Republican ticket would for for his supporters to vote him in.

Rockwell explained that the motivation behind the rhetoric was founded in the establishment’s fear of Ron Paul gathering enough delegates to influence the Republican convention.

“They want to diminish him, they want to smear him, this is smear number 185 and I’m sure they’ll be others to come, it’s just another trick, they’re not going to ask him to become vice president, it’s just not going to happen,” said Rockwell, adding that the risk of Ron Paul using the office of vice president to derail a Romney administration was too big a risk to take for the establishment.

As we highlighted in our previous article, considerations of a political alliance with Romney, if they exist at all, are likely coming from misguided advisors within the Paul campaign and are not embraced by Paul himself.