Last week, on my show “I Object! Justice Examined!”, I interviewed Kevin R. C. Gutzman, the author of the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. Below is a podcast of the interview. It will also remain available at my other site.

Update here…

[A prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor – indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.”

Berger vs. United States

Much has been made about Hillary Clinton’s rise to power because of her husband. She had no independent record of her own before her Senate record, so it goes. She wouldn’t even be in our collective conscious if she were not married to Bill Clinton.

As much as I dislike Sen. Clinton, I have to say that, achieving political power through marriage is really no different than cronyism. No one is better at cronyism than President G.W. Bush.

Look at what he recently said about Johnny Sutton when questioned about the prosecution of Ramos and Compean:

“Obviously I am interested in facts. I know the prosecutor very well, Johnny Sutton. He’s a dear friend of mine from Texas. He’s a fair guy. He is an even-handed guy.”

Beside the obvious internal conflicts in that statement, it is ridiculous. We don’t expect the President to treat those for whose actions he is ultimately responsible as “dear friends”, and we resent his condescending words which suggest to me that the president will take the word of his crony over the facts and the concerns of the People he is supposed to serve.

As seems to be Bush’s habit with his cronyism, about which Debbie Schlussel writes here (and many other places on her excellent blog) Bush’s cronies seem to have very little independent record to recommend them. for the jobs to which they are appointed.

Johnny Sutton has always made his living on the taxpayer dime. In other words, he has always worked in a world where influence is gained by sucking up to the powerful—rather than by being tested out in the world where merit is measured by different means. For instance, he was an Assistant D.A. in Harris County for eight years until he was plucked from the obscurity of that job to serve Bush in various capacities after that.

I wonder what other attorneys, who actually lived and practiced in the Western District and who were vying for the job of U.S. Attorney thought of being passed over in favor of this man who was plucked from an obscure B.S.-made up kind of position like “Criminal Justice Policy Director for then-Governor George W. Bush from 1995-2000, advising the Governor on all criminal justice issues, with specific oversight in the areas of criminal law, prison capacity and management, parole operations and legislative initiatives” and then placed in such a coveted position in the stead of some hard working attorney from the area.

I hardly think that his resume entitles him to the kind of arrogance he has recently displayed that Chuck Baldwin at VDARE writes of here. He points to the transcript of Sutton’s recent interview by Lou Dobbs. It is absolutely sickening to think that this man possesses such power because of his ride on the coattails of G.W. Bush. Here is the interview:

DOBBS: Johnny Sutton is the U.S. attorney for Western Texas. He led the prosecution of former Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean. And, as we have been reporting here, Sutton faced tough questions today from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton joins me here now in Washington.

Good to have you with us.

SUTTON: Well, thanks for having me, Lou.

DOBBS: That could not have been an easy task for you today.

Let me turn to, first, the comments by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who referred to you in some strong words. He called you “an elitist, arrogant and overreaching prosecutor who put the rights of a drug smuggler before those of two hardworking Border Patrol Agents.”

How do you respond?

SUTTON: Well, it’s, you know, I—I—I don’t know what’s in his mind. I—I give him the benefit of the doubt that—that he truly believes that.

I’m sure he’s a good Congressman.

But with due respect to him, he’s—he’s very wrong on the facts of this case and he said a lot of things today that were just inaccurate.

And you know, this was a jury trial. I mean this wasn’t something that popped out of my head. This, you know, these—the two lawyers who tried this are veterans—35-year veterans of the Department of Justice—their combined experience. And West Texas juries don’t do these kind of things just because some U.S. attorney says we want to convict some Border Patrol agents.

Chief Aguilar said today 144 agents in the last two years have used deadly force. Thirteen times they killed people. Not one of those Border Patrol agents was prosecuted.

DOBBS: What—

SUTTON: These are the only guys that were. So we—

DOBBS: Well—

SUTTON: This is a very rare thing for us to prosecute agents.

DOBBS: So—let—let’s go to some of the facts of this case.

SUTTON: Sure.

DOBBS: One of those facts—and you said it again today in Room 226 of the Dirksen Building. You said these agents shot an unarmed man in the back.

SUTTON: Right.

DOBBS: Well, that’s one version of the facts. But, also, it was controverted by their own testimony. And, in point of fact, the Army surgeon who withdrew the bullet did not declare that that would have been an inconsistent entry wound from a position that would have been assumed had he been firing a weapon.

So the agents have maintained throughout that they saw something in his hand which they thought was a gun.

SUTTON: Well, and that’s another piece of information that the jury heard that the American public hasn’t heard. The first we ever hear about a gun is one month after they shoot this guy. And that’s after they had been arrested. They didn’t tell their buddies (INAUDIBLE)—

DOBBS: How much longer after he had been shot did you arrest the agents?

SUTTON: About a month. It was about a month from the shooting—

DOBBS: So (INAUDIBLE) was contemporary?

SUTTON:—until when we arrested them. So—so what they—

DOBBS: So it would have been contemporaneous with that claim of defense?

SUTTON: No, no, no. They—they covered it up for a month. And it wasn’t until we arrested Compean that he ever mentioned anything about a gun. So what I’m saying is that as—as they’re conspiring with other agents—with another agent, as Compean is conspiring, picking up the shells, he never said a gun. He said the guy threw dirt in my eyes.

So I guess what I’m saying is the jury heard all that information—

DOBBS: Well—

SUTTON:—that said there was no gun. And there’s no reason in the world to cover this up if that guy had a gun. I mean—

DOBBS: When you say cover up, it’s interesting. There were a total of how many agents on the scene at various points during that first hour?

SUTTON: A whole bunch eventually got there—

DOBBS: There were a whole bunch, right.

SUTTON:—(INAUDIBLE).

DOBBS: Including two supervisors or three?

SUTTON: Two supervisors eventually showed up. The cover-up was only the agents who were right at the scene. And some of those agents just knew about the shooting and didn’t report it. You know, Agent Vazquez picked up the shell casings and destroyed evidence.

DOBBS: Well, let’s talk a little bit about this cover-up. Amongst the things covered up, they are required to report a high speed chase.

Did they do so?

SUTTON: I don’t know. I mean—

DOBBS: No, they did not.

SUTTON: I mean they certainly—they would radio in that they were in pursuit. DOBBS: Right.

SUTTON: So, I mean the supervisors were listening on the radio.

DOBBS: Right.

SUTTON: So they knew there was a—there was a pursuit going on at the time.

DOBBS: The other aspect of this is that—and it was brought up today—the prospect that there was a gun, or at least what could have reasonably been perceived to be a gun, and that is the possession of a cell phone.

There were two vehicles waiting for the drug smuggler, Aldrete- Davila, when he crossed the Rio Grande onto the Mexican side of the border.

I mean that wasn’t a coincidence, do you think?

SUTTON: I doubt it. I mean these—

DOBBS: So—

SUTTON:—I mean I would imagine—

DOBBS:—well, why would there not be the assumption, since no one found that second cell phone, that that could have possibly been something that would have been there?

SUTTON: Oh, that he had a cell phone and that’s what they thought was the gun?

DOBBS: Well, I mean it’s a possibility.

SUTTON: Sure, it’s a possibility.

DOBBS: I mean (INAUDIBLE)—

(more…)

I just found this. It is an exposition on Ron Paul’s Christian beliefs:

We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

Read the whole thing.

(HT Lew Rockwell Blog)

In order to learn more about why Ron Paul would like to abolish the Federal Reserve, I am reading The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. I am at the very beginning which describes how this monstrosity arose.

It seems that some powerful New York Bankers didn’t like free enterprise as it applied to banks. They saw competition rising in the South and the West as the number of banks increased. They couldn’t have that. Moreover, they wanted the power to run their own banks profigately without suffering the consequences of make bad loans and having currency deficts that could lead to bankruptcy. They wanted centralization where all banks would walk that fine line between soundness and bankruptcy. They also wanted a method to offload the consequences of this unsound system onto the taxpayers through blaming everything but their own bad business decisions.

So, in 1910, they literally sneaked off to Jekyll island to accomplish 5 things in their mission to establish (through government sanction, of course) a banking cartel that they knew the American people would never support in the absence of subterfuge:

1. A method to kill the influence of smaller rivals and usurp control over all financial resources.




2. To make the money supply more elastic. At that time, businesses were starting to plow profits back into their companies, rather than borrowing to expand. The bankers didn’t like this. They wanted to game the system so that businesses would be incentivized to borrow rather than use profits for expansion.




3. They wanted to pool reserves and motivate banks to, across the board, use the same loan-to-deposit ratios. (This was to protect them from the consequences of stupid decision that caused currency drains and bank runs—I have a feeling that I will find out from the book that this allowed them to be stupid together with no consequences)




4. And, once they all did something stupid together causing a collapse—they wanted a means to shift the losses from the bank owners to the taxpayers.

Finally…

1. They wanted to convince Congress that their self-interested idea was really a way to protect the public.

I guess that God will provide the consequences of the lies, subterfuge and harm to others perpetrated by these men.

As Ronald Nash says in this wonderful essay; Money, Banking, and Biblical Ethics which is cited in the book:

This essay will argue that there is no inconsistency between concern with a sound theory of money and banking and the properly informed concerns of Christians who wish to be faithful to the Biblical message:

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matthew 6:19-21, New International Version of the Bible).

—snip—

There are at least two sets of reasons why the subject of this essay ought to be important to committed, thinking Christians. The first set of reasons can be subsumed under the word truth. Christianity is a religion that takes truth seriously.[4] Whether or not a belief or practice has any significant effect on other humans, a reflective Christian will want to be sure that his beliefs on any subject are true. This concern with the truth must go beyond religious, spiritual, and moral matters and include areas of life that some Christians regard as less important because they are “secular”.

—snip—

Christians believe that God created the world ex nihilo (from no pre-existing stuff or matter). The Federal Reserve System has the power to create money out of nothing! Without any reserves, without any gold or silver as necessary backing for the notes or checks it issues, the Fed has the power simply to declare that some piece of paper (in this case, a check) is worth $10,000. Every bank in the United States must accept that piece of paper and suddenly $10,000 in new money begins circulating through the monetary system. In one sense, it is an incredible invention. We could call it “The Federal Reserve System’s Wonderful Money-Making Machine.”

Nash’s essay goes on to explain how harmful this system is to people—especially the poor.

I agree with Nash. I believe that as a Christian I have the duty to discern and speak the truth—never bowing to “sacred cows”. Ron Paul believes the same thing.

That’s why I support him.

Update:

Last night’s meetup was fantastic. We had between 60 to 100 people there at various times. The Livestream was a little iffy—if not downright bad. First, we had wireless problems and then sound problems. We had a great reggae band called Three Shoes Posse. They played a lot of Ron Paul songs that included mentions about the Federal Reserve and other issues.

Here’s part of a recording of the events: (Turn down your computere—it sounds pretty awful)

I’m active in the Austin Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group. Tomorrow night, July 20, 2008, we will be having a Meetup with live music. It will begin at 8 PM CT.

We have the largest Ron Paul Meetup Group in the Country. I posted a couple of videos about our last meeting here and here at YouTube.

Tomorrow night, technology willing, I will be live-streaming our Meetup. You may watch it here:

If you want to go to chat, watch it here instead.

As I told you here, Dr. Kevin R.C. Gutzman was my guest today. He’s the author of the wonderful “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Constitution”.

Dr. Gutzman did a great job. I wish the show could have gone past an hour. I intend to have him back for the rest of the story.

You can listen to the replay here for the rest of the evening. Over the weekend, I will have the podcast posted here.

Isn’t this a great photo? I found it here at Daily Paul.

Thursday, July 19, 2007, I will interview Professor Kevin R.C. Gutzman, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution on my show I Object! Justice Examined at Right Talk Radio. Tune in and learn the true history of how the Constitution came about, and how the Federalists weren’t who you think they were. Learn how the maneuverings of some of the “Founding Fathers” has led to activist Courts and the leviathan growth of the Federal Government.

What was the Whisky Rebellion really about? What conflicts of interest did our first esteemed jurists have which influenced their decisions in certain early Supreme Court decisions.? Learn all this and more by tuning in at 3 PM ET.

In preparation for this interview, I have written a short review of the book at my other site.

The United States Constitution

Article I

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

...

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Congress has the power to declare war and to mount reprisals. This power does not reside in the President. So, does the recent White House statement of policy regarding Iran conflict with this?

Amendments on Iran: The Administration strongly opposes amendments to the bill to restrict the ability of the United States to deal effectively with the threats to regional security posed by the conduct of Iran, including Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The Administration also notes that provisions of law that purport to direct or prohibit international negotiations, covert action, or use of the armed forces are inconsistent with the Constitution’s commitment exclusively to the presidency of the executive power, the function of Commander-in-Chief, and the authority to conduct the Nation’s foreign policy. If the bill were presented to the President with provisions that would prevent the President from protecting America and allied and cooperating nations from threats posed by Iran, the President’ senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Does this mean that the President thinks he has the right to start a war with Iran? Will Congress, again, transfer its authority to the President to do such a thing rather than following the Constitution and declaring war or issuing letters of Marque and Reprisal?

Gary North thinks (subscription needed) that it is inevitable that Bush will start war with Iran because of the above policy announcement combined with an amendment to a defense appropriations bill by Lieberman.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senators Lieberman, McCain, Kyl, Graham, and Coleman today introduced a bipartisan amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, confronting the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran over its proxy attacks on American soldiers in Iraq.
The amendment details the publicly available evidence put forward over the past year by General David Petraeus, commanding general of Multi-National Force Iraq, and others about Iran’s violent and destabilizing activities in Iraq.

The amendment states that “the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable act of hostility against the United States,” and demands the government of Iran “take immediate action” to end all forms of support it is providing to Iraqi militias and insurgents. The amendment also mandates a regular report on Iran’s anti-coalition activity in Iraq.

“For many months, our military commanders and diplomats have warned us that the Iranian government has been training, equipping, arming, and funding proxies in Iraq who are murdering our troops,” said Senator Lieberman. “This amendment is a common sense, common ground statement of the Senate to Tehran: we know what you are doing, and you must stop.”

“American officials attest that the government in Teheran seeks to bleed the United States and render unsuccessful our efforts to bring about a stable and self-governing in Iraq,” said Senator McCain. “This amendment will send a clear signal: Iran’s activities in Iraq are wrong, and they must end immediately.”

“The Iranians are attempting to thwart our policies in the Middle East by actively supporting terrorists who are killing our troops in Iraq,” said Senator Kyl. “It is time we acknowledge this hostility against us, and this amendment tells the Iranians we will not tolerate any actions which threaten our troops or allies.”

“The evidence is increasingly clear the Iranian government is working to destabilize the Iraqi government,” said Senator Graham. “It is long past time for Congress to speak out about this destructive behavior by Iran. We need one voice, and I expect it will be a unified bipartisan voice, speaking out and condemning these actions by the Iranian government.”

“The United States will not tolerate Iran’s hostile attempts to sabotage our efforts in the Middle East region,” said Senator Coleman. “On my last trip to Iraq, our Minnesota troops in Southern Iraq showed me Iranian-made explosives that were used against them on convoy missions. This crucial amendment makes it clear to the Iranian government, and any other government in the region that seeks to harm our soldiers, that providing any form of support to Iraqi insurgents will not be tolerated and must cease immediately.”

It passed.

Will this be used as Constitutional authority allowing Bush to go into Iran? I hope not. Bush doesn’t have the backing of the country to do something like this. Our elected representatives should follow the Constitution, debate this issue and vote. They should do the job the Constitution set out for them.

I have become convinced that the actions of Congress in not debating and declaring war on Iraq was cowardice. The members are too cowardly to go on the record.

If the Constitution is followed, the chances of the US ever going to war would be much less. Wasn’t that one of the purposes of the division of powers? Our Founders, after all, saw European autocrats constantly mounting wars against each other.

I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t believe a word the Administration is saying about the government of Iran being behind anything. It should have to convince the American people through the institutions laid out the in the Constitution—debating and voting in Congress.

Here is a great article on Ron Paul from the Austin American Statesman.

Here is a piece done by a local news station.

We are gaining momentum!

I don’t have to write this next installment in my series. It’s been written already. Here is a snippet:

Now we can debate with the left all we want over “cutting social programs in order to give tax cuts to the rich” fulfills the “oppresseth the poor to increase his riches” part. You can defend tax shelters and wanting to do away with the inheritance tax if you want as well. But there is NO WAY that corporate welfare does not violate “and he that giveth to the rich.” So people who do this AND people who support this will have some explaining to do when they stand before God.

(HT Lew Rockwell)

On July 3, 2007, the Austin Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group gathered to lick envelopes and make signs (with stencils and spraypaint). A good assortment of people, with divergent beliefs, gathered. Here is the story…

Part two:

Get involved. And remember these things about Ron Paul…

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

Radley Balko writes about the exoneration of a man convicted of carjacking. DNA proved that he was not the perpetrator. Apparently, a California law was passed to give restitution to wrongfully convicted people. In this case, the AG has, effectively, destroyed this man’s chance to get restitution through an attempt to make it look as if the man brought it on himself.

The trial judge (unethically, in my opinion) threatened the man with the maximum sentence if he didn’t accept a plea deal. The man, faced with “eye-witness” testimony, took the deal.

The AG has taken a section of the law meant to deny compensation to the type of person who confesses to things he doesn’t do, and applied it to this man. The man wrote the statute is outraged:

To Baugh, it’s crystal clear. “I find it outrageous,” he says, “that you can force someone into a Hobson’s choice of 25 years to life or pleading to a crime he didn’t commit and spending two years in prison, and call it a voluntary decision. Even if the judge said nothing, he’s facing 25 years to life or a two-year plea bargain.

“That’s not a voluntary decision, if he’s an innocent man.

“It’s not the spirit of the statute, at all, that I carried.”

This part of the story is bad enough, it gets worse. Apparently, the original prosecutor had DNA results PRIOR to the trial, which excluded this man.

...but the D.A.’s office put Ochoa on trial knowing that DNA testing of the carjacker’s clothing had eliminated him. Prosecutors considered that an insufficient reason to do more investigating, largely because the two victims identified Ochoa after cops surmised he might be responsible and showed his photo to them. On parole for a drug offense at the time, Ochoa lived in the area where the crime occurred.

I agree with the writer of the bill:

Baugh wasn’t familiar with the Ochoa case, but I read Chatman’s depiction of the case and her findings.

For starters, Baugh says, he had “a sense of outrage over the scenario,” beginning with Ochoa being taken to trial when DNA apparently excluded him. “It’s disturbing that a prosecutor can charge somebody with serious felonies knowing that the DNA at the scene of the crime did not match that of the defendant,” he says.

“DNA points to innocence, and yet our system of criminal justice allows the possibility that eyewitness testimony can send innocent people to prison.”

A question which is not answered in this story is whether the defense had been given this exculpatory evidence.

People try to make Dr. Paul out to be a kook because of his position on fiat money. However, debasement of money by statist governments and fraudsters has been an age old issue.

I majored in Economics—greatly benefitting from the education. I could never master it because of all the math modern economic education includes, but I did gain great insight into many of the principles.

I took a class in monetary theory. It was taught by an Argentine. The only thing I remember from the class was his lecture on inflation and its relation to fiat money and debasement of the currency—which was a scourge on the common people of South America as it stealthily stole their wealth.

The Bible, as the above quote from David Chilton’s book indicates, warns against the evils of debasing money. In those days, debasement was accomplished by shaving precious metal off the coins—decreasing the weight and size of the coin—and its value.

“You shall do no wrong in judgment in measures of length or weight or quantity. You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah and a just hin.”

(Lev. 19:35-36)

Shaving coins was theft—and so is the printing of currency at the behest of the Federal Reserve. Printing money by fiat diminishes the value of the dollars in your pocket. It steals the wealth that you have accumulated through your sweat and effort.

As Rushdoony explains the passage of Leviticus above in the Institutes of Biblical Law “fraud in weights is essentially fraudulent money.”

Moreover, it is done in favor of those who have the currency to spend first, including the government, as Dr. Paul explains in his speech in Iowa—caught in this clip:

Quite simpy, the system of fiat money is theft—a violation of the 8th Commandment. In answer to a Churchman’s criticisms of Rousas J. Rushdoony’s like observation, Rushdoony wrote:

...You speak of paper money as a form of hidden tax, which is true. But your point with regard to Romans 13 I do not regard as valid.

...

The state has no right to violate God’s law. “Thou shalt not steal.” and paper money is theft, and what you call a “hidden tax” is actually hidden theft. I cannot hold to the immunity of the state from moral judgment.

The Institutes of Bibilical Law

Inflation and fiat money does not just corrupt the government into theft. It corrupts us as is explained by Gary North in his article, Why Most Voters Accept Inflation (subscription only) Dr. North explains the following:

How is it that a government-appointed organization whose criterion of success is stable prices has failed—except for 1930-40—in its anti-inflation goal, and was successful only during the worst depression in American history? In other words, how is it that success somehow eludes this organization? More important, how is it that it never comes under attack in Congress for its nine consecutive decades of failure?

I suggest two answers: (1) the Federal Reserve is the source of price inflation, not its dedicated opponent; (2) the voting public prefers price inflation to the alternatives: stable prices or falling prices. In short, the Federal Reserve has faithfully delivered what the voters have wanted.

Further, he explains that we prefer to borrow and spend—paying our creditors back in less valuable currency. In other words, we get to cheat our creditors—just as the government cheats us.

Borrowers get to dream of paying off loans with depreciating money. Lenders (bankers) get to lend more money than they otherwise would have: more fiat money to lend. Private creditors get to believe that the central bank will get inflation under control. Economists get jobs promoting the system.

Through our greed, we prop up a corrupt system antithetical to God’s law. Because it is against God’s law, we head toward disaster.

Though great economic harm comes from a government monopoly fiat monetary system, the loss of liberty associated with it is equally troubling. Just as empires are self-limiting in terms of money and manpower, so too is a monetary system based on illusion and fraud. When the end comes we will be given an opportunity to choose once again between honest money and liberty on one hand; chaos, poverty, and authoritarianism on the other.

We, as Christians, should cast our vote for the candidate whose positions are grounded in Biblical law. We should resist the clamor to label Dr. Paul as kooky for his economically principled and Bibilical support for sound money.

For as He said in Leviticus 19:36-37:

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the Land of Egypt. And “you shall observe all my statues and all my rules and do them: I am the LORD.

Here are other articles by Ron Paul on the subject:

The Inflation Tax

Federal Reserve Policy Destroys the Value of Your Savings

Borrowing, Spending, Counterfeiting

Ron Paul was left out of the Iowa Presidential forum held by the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance, so he had his own event right next door following the end of the forum. By all accounts (except the MSM), Dr. Paul had twice the number of people in the audience.

The Des Moines Register reports that the official count of the forum was 600—and that Paul’s was a little more. However, attendees at the even say that there were at least 1200 and that it was standing room only.

Look at this video clip as it pans the audience. It sure looks like standing room only to me.
What does it look like to you?

The videos of his speech are great.

(HT Lew Rockwell Blog)