Krugman blogs his reaction to today’s disussion with Ron Paul

Read Krugman’s reaction to today’s discussion with Ron Paul on BloombergTV.

Read the article here.


Paul Krugman vs. Ron Paul: today on BloombergTV

I saw today over at EconomicPolicyJournal that Krugman will be guest hosting on Bloomberg a he’ll be interviewing Ron Paul around 4:00.

Who will come away with the upper hand in what is sure to be a heated conversation. It’s Keynesian Economics Vs. Austrian Economics, Free Markets vs. Central Planning.

Hopefully this turns up on youtube since I’ll miss it today.

Update: Here is the full youtube clip.

Notice Krugman never even tried to deny the fact that inflation is theft. He must, I imagine, recognize the truth in this statement. I wish that Ron would have mentioned one of the most telling Keynes quotes I’ve ever come across.

“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. ~ John Maynard Keynes”

I’d love to see Krugman try and explain to the U.S. citizens why the government must confiscate their wealth for their own good.

Overall, I think Dr. Paul did a fantastic job defending liberty and sound money. I’d love to see this topic debated every single day. Keynesianism is the logic that government and central banks push on an ignorant society to enslave them. It’s empty and fact-less. It stems from arrogance and pride on the part of the ruling elites. Austrian economic philosophies, on the other hand, are those embraced by a society tempered with distrust of government and a firm understanding of what it means to be free and prosperous.


Just watched this again. About 11 minutes in, Krugman and Paul got into a discussion about the notion that people are free/or not to barter with gold and silver in private transactions. Paul mentions that you go to jail if you do that. Krugman says, that’s not his understanding of the law.

The precedent that has been set by the indictment of Bernard von Nothaus is, I believe the case which Dr. Paul is referring. And yes, Bernard is facing 20+ years in jail for the charges the federal government has against him.

In some cases, Liberty dollars have been considered contraband and are taken from the rightful owners by law enforcement. If that theft is legal, then it would seem to me that we, indeed, do not have the right to barter with privately minted gold and silver coins. Now no one has been jailed for simply owning or using Liberty dollars, yet, that I know of. But the precedent that we are allowed by law to exchange goods and services for whatever medium of exchange we prefer is one that will largely be determined by the outcome of the Bernard von Nothaus retrial, if it ever happens.

GATA submitted 2 amicus briefs to the court in North Carolina which outlined, perhaps better then any other document the constitutionality of alternate currency.

To Ron’s point, Bernard was labeled a “Domestic Terrorist” for producing his coins.

Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, Anne M. Tompkins, described Bernard von Nothaus and the Liberty dollar as “a unique form of domestic terrorism” that is trying “to undermine the legitimate currency of this country.” The Justice Department press release quotes her as saying: “While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country”.

I wonder if Krugman would agree?

Ron Paul delegate strategy paying off

From time to time I do a “Ron Paul” search in Google to see what’s happening on the campaign trail. Today I was pleasantly surprised to see the top three headlines were very positive for Paul. Well, at least compared to what I’ve seen in the past. Here are the top three headlines for today.

Ron Pauls campaign claims victory in Louisiana caucuses

Ron Paul’s presidential campaign today claimed victory in this weekend’s district caucuses in Louisiana, boldly predicting that the Texas congressman will be in control of the state’s delegation to the Republican National Convention.

The Paul campaign said the candidate won “four and a half of six congressional district caucuses, securing 111 of 150 — or 74 percent — of (the) delegates” allocated as part of Saturday’s district caucus process.

Continue Reading

Ron Paul’s Alaska payback

Despite a disappointing third place finish in the March 6 Alaska caucuses, Ron Paul is looking like a winner there: A Paul supporter was voted in as the new GOP chairman Saturday at the state convention.

It’s more evidence of the political maturation of the Paul forces, who are beginning to seize the levers of powers from within state parties.

Continue Reading

Ron Paul beat Mitt Romney in 10 states! Kind of.

Ron Paul fell short in the vote count, but he has edged out Mitt Romney in campaign contributions in at least 10 states – and counting. From the start, the GOP ‘money primary’ has been a two-man race.

Here’s something you hear on cable news all the time: Ron Paul hasn’t won a primary. He hasn’t won a caucus. Sure, he’s stealing a delegate at state conventions here and there, because his forces are well organized. But he’s lost. He should drop out and settle for an early-afternoon speaking slot at the Republican convention.

Here’s something you don’t hear: Representative Paul actually beat Mitt Romney in 10 states. In a manner of speaking.

Continue Reading

Many believe that Romney has the GOP nomination buttoned up. Some evidence suggests that it may not be so clear cut. The sense that the race is over is due in large part to the fact that the mainstream media does not cover the Paul candidacy and some in the Romney camp outright lie to the voters.

With Gingrich to announce the suspension of his run for the presidency on Tuesday, the race is down to just Romney and Paul. Paul obviously wants a brokered convention in August. In the name of collecting more delegates and spreading the message of Liberty, sound money and Constitutionally limited Government, Paul and his supporters battle on state by state, caucus by caucus, primary by primary.

It wouldn’t be the first time that an underdog marched into the Republican Convention and came out with the nomination. In the twenties Warren G. Harding, the 29th president of the U.S., entered the Republican National Convention in fourth place in the delegate count. After 10 rounds of voting Harding got the nomination.

Although I was very disappointed with the result in my home state of Pennsylvania (Paul picked up an estimated 5 delegates) his strategy of focusing on delegates rather than the beauty contest votes seems to be working out well for his bid to become Republican nominee. Only time will tell just how well. There are 14 more caucus/primary elections yet to go. Anything could happen now that it’s down to just Romney and Paul. It ain’t over till it’s over!

The real question is will Romney run third party when things don’t go his way as the Republican National Convention in August? 🙂

The History of the 16th Amendment is Crazy!

The U.S. Constitution in Article I, Section 9 states, “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

“A direct tax is one imposed upon an individual person or on property as distinct from a tax imposed upon a transaction. Indirect taxes such as a sales tax or a value added tax (VAT) are imposed only if and when a taxable transaction occurs; people have the freedom to engage in or refrain from such transactions; whereas a direct tax is imposed upon a person, typically in an unconditional manner, such as a poll-tax or head-tax, which is imposed on the basis of the person’s very life or existence, or a property tax which is imposed upon the owner by virtue of ownership, rather than commercial use”

In 1909 the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provided a legal pathway for the Government of the United States to levy a direct tax on our income. Although such a tax was clearly forbidden, and similar taxes had been found unconstitutional prior, the 16th Amendment passed the house and senate with only 14 out of 409 Congressmen voting Nay. It was ratified by the necessary majority of the states on February 3, 1913.

Not only did this bill violate the Constitution, it also destroyed our protection against unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Such taxes are/were clearly prohibited in our Constitution so how did this all come to be?

“Strange as it may seem, the Sixteenth Amendment (which gave the American people the affliction of confiscatory income taxes) was never supposed to have passed. It was introduced by the Republicans as part of a political scheme to trick the Democrats, but it backfired.


The Founding Fathers had rejected income taxes (or any other direct taxes) unless they were apportioned to each state according to population. Nevertheless, an income tax was levied during the Civil War and upheld by the Supreme Court on somewhat tenuous reasoning. When another income tax was enacted in 1893, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. In connection with the two Pollock cases reviewed in 1895, the Court declared that the act violated Article I, section 9 of the Constitution.

During the following decade, however, the complexion of the Court changed somewhat, and so did public sentiment. There was great social unrest and the idea of a tax to “soak the rich” began to take root among liberals in both major parties. Several times the Democrats introduced bills to provide a tax on higher incomes but each time the conservative branch of the Republican party killed it in the Senate. The Democrats used this as evidence that the Republicans were the “party of the rich” and should be thrown out of power, forcing President William Howard Taft to acknowledge in political speeches that income taxes might be all right “in principle”, but it was well known among close associates that he was strongly opposed to such a tax.

The Bailey Bill

In April 1909, Senator Joseph W. Bailey, a conservative Democrat from Texas who was also opposed to income taxes, decided to further embarrass the Republicans by forcing them to openly oppose an income tax bill similar to those which had been introduced in the past. He introduced his bill expecting it to get the usual opposition. However, to his amazement, Teddy Roosevelt and a growing element of liberals in the Republican party came out in favor of the bill and it looked as though it was going to pass.

Not only was Bailey surprised, but Senator Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island, the Republican floor leader, frantically met with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts and President Taft to work out a strategy to demolish the Bailey tax bill. Their own party was split too widely to permit a direct confrontation, so the strategy was to pull a political end run. They announced that they favored an income tax but only if it were an amendment to the Constitution. Within their own circle, they discussed how it might get approval of the House and the Senate, but they were quite certain that it could be defeated in the more conservative states-three-fourths of which were required in order to ratify the amendment.

Thus, the Democrats were off guard when President Taft unexpectedly sent a message to Congress on June 16th, 1909, recommending the passage of a constitutional amendment to legalize federal income tax legislation.

The strategy threw the liberals into an uproar. At the very moment when their Bailey bill was about to pass, the Republicans were coming out for an amendment to the Constitution which would probably be defeated by the states.

Reaction to the Amendment

Congressman Cordell Hull (D-Tenn., and later Secretary of State under FDR) saw exactly what was happening. He took the floor to excoriate the Republican leaders. Said he:

“No person at all familiar with the present trend of national legislation will seriously insist that these same Republican leaders are over-anxious to see the country adopt an income tax…What powerful influence, what new light and deep-seated motive suddenly moves these political veterans to ‘about face’ and pretend to warmly embrace this doctrine which they have heretofore uniformly denounced?” {1}

He went on to expose what he considered to be a political trick. He needn’t have been so concerned. The slogan of “soak the rich” automatically aroused Pavlovian salivation among politicians both in Washington and the states. The Senate approved the Sixteenth Amendment with an astonishing unanimity of 77-0! The House approved it by a vote of 318-14.

When Republican Congressman Sereno E. Payne of New York, who had introduced the amendment in the House, saw that this end run was turning into a winning touchdown for the opposition, he was horrified. He went to the floor and openly denounced the bill he had sponsored. Said he:

“As to the general policy of an income tax, I am utterly opposed to it. I believe with Gladstone that it tends to make a nation of liars. I believe it is the most easily concealed of any tax that can be laid, the most difficult of enforcement, and the hardest to collect; that it is, in a word, a tax upon the income of honest men and an exemption, to a greater or lesser extent, of the income of rascals; and so I am opposed to any income tax in time of peace…I hope that if the Constitution is amended in this way the time will not come when the American people will ever want to enact an income tax except in time of war.” {2}

The end run of the Republican leadership did indeed backfire. State after state ratified this “soak the rich” amendment until it went into full force and effect on February 12, 1913.

Did it Soak the Rich?

Continue reading “History of the 16th Amendment” by W. Cleon Skousen.

If you don’t want to read the entire article please continue reading. This is the ending which you don’t want to miss.

T. Coleman Andrews served as commissioner of IRS for nearly 3 years during the early 1950s. Following his resignation, he made the following statement:

“Congress [in implementing the Sixteenth Amendment] went beyond merely enacting an income tax law and repealed Article IV of the Bill of Rights, by empowering the tax collector to do the very things from which that article says we were to be secure. It opened up our homes, our papers and our effects to the prying eyes of government agents and set the stage for searches of our books and vaults and for inquiries into our private affairs whenever the tax men might decide, even though there might not be any justification beyond mere cynical suspicion.”

“The income tax is bad because it has robbed you and me of the guarantee of privacy and the respect for our property that were given to us in Article IV of the Bill of Rights. This invasion is absolute and complete as far as the amount of tax that can be assessed is concerned. Please remember that under the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress can take 100% of our income anytime it wants to. As a matter of fact, right now it is imposing a tax as high as 91%. This is downright confiscation and cannot be defended on any other grounds.”

“The income tax is bad because it was conceived in class hatred, is an instrument of vengeance and plays right into the hands of the communists. It employs the vicious communist principle of taking from each according to his accumulation of the fruits of his labor and giving to others according to their needs, regardless of whether those needs are the result of indolence or lack of pride, self-respect, personal dignity or other attributes of men.”

“The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by steeply graduated taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die.”

“The income tax is bad because it is oppressive to all and discriminates particularly against those people who prove themselves most adept at keeping the wheels of business turning and creating maximum employment and a high standard of living for their fellow men.”

“I believe that a better way to raise revenue not only can be found but must be found because I am convinced that the present system is leading us right back to the very tyranny from which those, who established this land of freedom, risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to forever free themselves…”

Wow! Right?

Lies, Lies, and Shenanigans from the Romneyites

I heard a lady tonight on my local public radio station spouting off the checklist of things that make Obama superior to Romney. I’m not a fan of  Romney by any means but it was all I could do to keep my cool. Seriously, if you’re not on your toes, these people will lie straight to your face and you’ll never know it. She went on and on about how the economy has created xx million jobs. It’s just not true. The job numbers are a total sham. The unemployment numbers are a total sham. The truth is the unemployment rate dropped to 8.2% for one simple reason: the number of people not in the labor force is back to all time highs: 87,897,000. She sounded pretty convincing. I just wince at the thought of the general listening audience taking this garbage hook-line-and-sinker.

They made references to the fact that the GOP has chosen a candidate and Romney is his name. BULL! Ron Paul is hauling in more delegates by the day. It looks as if Mitt isn’t going to reach that magic delegate count to seal the deal before Florida. That means that the people still have a voice and the Ron Paul supporters are far from calling this one done. It also means that Romney is pulling out all the stops.

Doug Wead posted tonight about some of the shenanigans going on across the country. One example he shared was, “A county chairman in New York has commissioned robo calls declaring that all other candidates have dropped out of the race except Mitt Romney.” This is an outright lie, yet how many will believe it. Certainly anyone who gets their news from the msm is going to. Another example he mentions says,” In one instance they literally locked the door to keep Ron Paul young people from participating.” If you care to read his entire article you can read his article Romney – Ron Paul in brutal battle!.

I vote in PA tomorrow and I cannot wait. This will by my first chance to vote for Ron Paul. I changed my party affiliation from none to Republican just for the chance to cast my vote.

Of course, in PA the primary vote for president is just a beauty contest. The more meaningful votes are for the Senate, other local positions and most importantly the delegates. I have my list ready to hit the polls bright and early.

On a side note, I want to take this opportunity to plug a candidate for District 31 State Senator nominee, Andy Shaw. Andy is running against Pat Vance for a seat she’s held for a looooong time now. Andy is a friend of mine from high school. He’s running on a very solid conservative platform. I wish him the best of luck. I realize that the vote is tomorrow and no one will likely see this post who lives in my District in PA between now and then, but if on the off chance that isn’t the case, visit and please consider casting your vote for him.

The lowdown on CISPA H.R.3523

Have you been paying any attention the the Federal Government’s third attempt to pass legislation to get their grubby little hands on the internet? It’s H.R. 3523: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA for short).

I have to admit that when I read the bill, nothing struck me as particularly diabolical or evil. I’m no lawyer and not really accustomed to reading bills from Congress. For this one I’ll defer to the experts. I’m very concerned when it comes to internet privacy and free communication. I’m a web designer by trade and the past two bills that were killed last year (SOPA & PIPA) were said to have elements to them that would have ended the internet as we know it. Broad and unclear, sweeping government regulatory powers over the internet and personal information sharing seem to be at the heart of each of these attempts to control the internet.

Ron Paul released a statement today explaining the dangers of this bill that has over 100 cosponsors and may be up for a vote this week.

But we should never underestimate the federal government’s insatiable desire to control the internet.  Statists of all parties, persuasions, and nationalities hate the free, unbridled flow of information, ideas, and goods via the internet.  They resent the notion that ordinary people can communicate and trade across the world without government filters or approvals.  So they continually seek to impose controls, always under the guise of fighting terrorism or protecting “intellectual property” rights.

Ben Swann also looked at CISPA in a recent Reality Check segment.

RT has been talking a lot about CISPA recently. Here is an interesting interview with David Seaman.

Ron Paul put this bill in to context with this description.

“Proponents of CISPA may be well-intentioned, but they unquestionably are leading us toward a national security state rather than a free constitutional republic. Imagine having government-approved employees embedded at Facebook, complete with federal security clearances, serving as conduits for secret information about their American customers. “

Read his entire statement, “CISPA is the New SOPA

What do you think. Good idea or Dangerous Bill?

Doug Wead The Blog

By Doug Wead

Ron Paul supporters surged to victory in yesterday’s Minnesota and Iowa district conventions, dominating the process and picking up more delegates to the Republican National Convention.    As reported last week, a number of Romney Hawks are now deeply concerned that Ron Paul has already laid the groundwork for similar success in six more caucus states.

Yesterday’s results for Ron Paul will only increase the influence of Hawks inside the Mitt Romney camp.

Romney advisers are concerned that the rising total of Ron Paul delegates will lead to an unmanageable RNC.  Some observers felt that the 1992 convention hurt an incumbent president George H. W. Bush and was a factor in his loss to Bill Clinton.

In most states, victories at the district conventions decide who will move onto the state conventions where most of the delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa will be selected.


View original post 373 more words