Reasons and descriptions are provided with many warnings and side effects to the human mind and body, in which this device causes much damage and control without one's consent of the rfid chip device.

One woman asked who Paul feels should pay for birth control pills.

“That’s the big issue of the moment, isn’t it? The world is about to blow up, the economy is about to blow up, and the biggest discussion we have is on birth control,” he said.

“The people whom use birth control pills should pay for birth control pills,” Paul said. “If you mandate to an insurance company what they have to cover, it’s not insurance anymore. It’s an autocracy.”

Paul also responded to a question about Syria and Iran by saying he doesn’t believe in interfering in other countries.

“There is absolutely no rationalization for going to war against Iran at this time,” he said.

He said ending all foreign aid would not hurt Israel.

“Israel is worse off for our intervention,” he said. "We give seven times the foreign aid to Israel’s enemies than we do to Israel.”

An interfering foreign policy makes the United States less safe, not safer.

“People tend to get a little annoyed when we go in and bomb them,” he said.

“He gets it”

Those in the crowd were sold on Ron Paul.

“I’ve been a voter since Richard Nixon, and I’ve never had a candidate that has such a firm grasp on the Constitution,” said St. Louis County resident Phil R. Bales. “This is the first time in my life I chose to give money to a candidate.”

Much of Paul’s speech reflected his libertarian views, both in his economic message and in a message of getting government off people’s backs – well received by the audience, who represented a region of eastern Washington and northern Idaho that is known for its appeal to rugged individualists.

He criticized drug laws, adding: “We still have problems with race relations when you deal with the enforcement of the drug laws.” Paul did not elaborate on that statement, which seemed striking in light of controversy earlier in the campaign about support for his campaign by white supremacists.

Paul attracts an audience that is unlike that of any other Republican candidate, peppered with libertarians, disgruntled Democrats and Republicans who believe social issues have no place in a presidential campaign.

“I think he’s the best thing that’s happened in the last 100 years,” said Leah Madson, 27, who came with a group of friends from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. She said she supported no political party. “I’m voting for the person and the principles,” she said. And if, as expected, Ron Paul doesn’t win the Republican nomination? She’ll write in Ron Paul in November.

How about this for a poll shocker: While everybody in US politics has been preoccupied with the Michigan primary, Ron Paul has sneaked up on President Obama and for the first time leads the incumbent in a head-to-head survey.

That’s right, leads – as in, ahead of, out front, winning, and so forth. According to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Tuesday, at the moment Representative Paul bests Mr. Obama in a head-to-head matchup by 43 to 41 percent.

The same poll has Mitt Romney tied with Obama, at 44 percent each. Rick Santorum is three points behind the president, according to Rasmussen, and Newt Gingrich is 10 points behind.

RECOMMENDED: The roar of Ron Paul – five of his unorthodox views on the economy

Wow. Paul is outperforming all the other GOP candidates, by this measure. His campaign is spinning this as evidence he’s the most electable of all.

“In order to win back the White House, Republicans must nominate a consistent candidate that offers something besides the status quo. Ron Paul is that candidate,” said national campaign chairman Jesse Benton in a statement on the Rasmussen results

The Ron Paul phenomenon is perhaps the most interesting story to come out of the 2012 election to date, simply because he breaks all the stereotypes of a successful candidate or movement. Ron Paul is not handsome (like Mitt Romney). He’s not exciting (like Sarah Palin). He’s not charismatic (like a Reagan or JFK). He’s not super articulate (like Obama). And he’s sure not young. If I were to run for President in 2030, I would still be younger than Ron Paul is today.

So what’s the attraction? Why are so many Americans passionate fans of Ron Paul? And why in particular do so many young people who tune out of politics, tune in for Ron Paul?

Let me start with his #1 attribute. Ron Paul is RELENTLESS. He just never gives up. It has been said that if you keep your suits long enough, they’ll eventually come back in style. Ron Paul’s brand of Libertarianism and freedom is back in style – because of his dedication, persistence and tenacity.

The foundation of relentlessness is unshakable faith. Tim Tebow’s NFL season full of miracles proves the value of intense faith. Well, Ron Paul has that kind of intense faith in the old fashioned values of God, country, freedom, personal responsibility, and capitalism. And Paul’s enthusiasm and faith is genuine, not fake or manufactured. Voters can see that and they like it.

Secondly, while Ron Paul is not your traditional politician, and is painted by the media as extreme, the voters are starting to realize that it is the traditional status quo politicians that led us right into this economic Armageddon. Those “traditional” views about everything – debt, taxes, spending, entitlements, Social Security, bailouts for billionaire bankers, the Fed, wars – led to the insolvency and bankruptcy of this great country. Perhaps it’s time to think "out of the box."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/02/04/understanding-ron-paul-phenomenon/#content#ixzz1lWE6yhJ8

Kucinich says: "I've worked with Ron Paul and I know he cannot be bought, cannot be bossed around, keeps his own counsel and is a person of conscience. He's shown a lot of courage in challenging three wars – the war on drugs, the war on civil liberties and the wars America prosecutes around the world."

One of the most conservative voices in Congress stands hand in glove with one of the most liberal. Such unconventional alliances are another element of Paul's attraction to his army of young supporters, who are scathing of the horse-trading that goes on within and between the two main parties. As Nick Brancato, 31, said as he stood outside a New Hampshire polling station on the day of the primary: "He's the only candidate who makes sense and wants change. He doesn't flipflop, he's always said what he believes in and I know he's not going to change his stance when he's elected."

South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint, the darling of the Tea Party wing nuts of the GOP, is urging Republican candidates to listen to Ron Paul. “One of the things that’s hurt the so-called conservative alternative is saying negative things about Ron Paul,” DeMint told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. “I’d like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas.”

Why the sudden enthusiasm of Republican leaders for Ron Paul? Credit his surprisingly strong showing in New Hampshire, where 47 percent of primary voters between the ages of 18 and 29 voted for him.

No other Republican candidate has come nearly as close to winning over young voters – and the GOP desperately needs young voters. The median age of registered Republicans is rising faster than the median age of America.

The Republican right thinks Paul’s views on the economy are responsible for this fire among the young. Yesterday evening, on Larry Kudlow’s CNBC program, I squared off with Larry and the Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore. Both are convinced young people are attracted by Paul’s strict adherence to the views of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, and Paul’s desire to move America back to the gold standard.

Baloney. The young are flocking to Ron Paul because he wants to slice military spending, bring our troops home, stop government from spying on American citizens, and legalize pot.

As Paul encouraged his supporters to believe—to never give up on their vision for America, the crowd broke out into a spontaneous chant, a phrase made up of three monosyllables that the candidate had coined.

No, it wasn’t “Yes we can!” It was “End the Fed!” But you’d have to be blind to not to see the parallels between Paul’s 2012 campaign and the one Barack Obama launched in 2008.

What made Obama’s campaign historic was in part the momentous outpouring of support he received from the youth vote. A disproportionate number of young voters participated in the election, and voters 18 to 29 went for Obama 68% to 30%, a 38 point margin. While Romney won in New Hampshire with 39% of the vote, Paul took 47% of the 18 to 29 vote, beating Romney by 22 points.

"Ron Paul is unelectable". You hear it all the time from the mainstream media and "conservative" commentators. Ron Paul says the war on drugs is unconstitutional and a failure just like the prohibition of alcohol? Unelectable! Ron Paul says that the Federal Reserve, the Communist Manifesto's central bank of the 5th plank, is a failure and should be abolished? Unelectable! Ron Paul says that Department of Education, which didn't even begin operation until the Reagan years, should be abolished in order to help balance the budget? Unelectable! Ron Paul says that we should withdraw troops from Afghanistan while Afghan President Karzai calls America a "main enemy", says that he would prefer the Taliban over America, and would take the side of Pakistan if war broke out with the United States? Unelectable!

But somehow the media, the pundits, and the blowhard commentators are very reluctant to call any other Republican 'unelectable', even if the truth is staring them right in the face. If they were to expose the other candidates' hypocrisy by comparing them to the Republican Party platform that supposedly espouses Constitutionally limited government, low taxes, and low spending, it might go a little something like this:

We haven’t even said goodbye to 2011, but I want to be first in line with my person of the year prediction for 2012: Ron Paul. I don’t think Paul is going to win the presidency, or even win the Republican nomination. But he’s going to come close enough to change the GOP forever.

Washington Republicans and political pundits keep depicting Paul as some kind of ideological mutation, the conservative equivalent of a black swan. They’re wrong. Ask any historically-minded conservative who the most conservative president of the 20^th Century was, and they’ll likely say Calvin Coolidge. No president tried as hard to make the federal government irrelevant. It’s said that Coolidge was so terrified of actually doing something as president that he tried his best not even to speak. But in 1925, Silent Cal did open his mouth long enough to spell out his foreign policy vision, and what he said could be emblazoned on a Ron Paul for President poster: “The people have had all the war, all the taxation, and all the military service they want.”

Small government conservatism, the kind to which today’s Republicans swear fealty, was born in the 1920s not only in reaction to the progressive movement’s efforts to use government to regulate business, but in reaction to World War I, which conservatives rightly saw as a crucial element of the government expansion they feared. To be a small government conservative in the 1920s and 1930s was, for the most part, to vehemently oppose military spending while insisting that the US never, ever get mired in another European war.

This will open the eyes of a few who want to learn and listen to the truth.

wake up people.

In a far cry from his ragtag 2008 effort, Ron Paul is looking beyond the traditional early state contests and gearing up for a long primary slog that lasts at least through Super Tuesday.

It’s a strategy that could make Paul a player at the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla.

The Texas congressman’s long-haul approach is designed to take advantage of new GOP proportional allocation rules that enable candidates to amass delegates without finishing in first place, and to leverage the unique attributes of his campaign — an intensely loyal following and a steady flow of money that will likely enable him to continue for as long as he chooses.

Paul has already put teams in place in 12 caucus states through March 6, when about a dozen Republican primaries and caucuses will take place. On Wednesday, the campaign announced five office openings: Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, North Dakota and Washington.

QUOTEBOX: Ron Paul, in his own words

* On the U.S. Patriot Act: ``I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic, because it undermines our liberty ... Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security. I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security.

* On siding with Israel against Iran: ``Why do we have this automatic commitment that we're going to send our kids and send our money endlessly to Israel? So I think they're quite capable of taking care of themselves.''

* On foreign aid: ``I think the aid is all worthless. It doesn't do any good for most of the people. You take money from poor people in this country, and you end up giving it to rich people in poor countries.''

* On the drug war: ``I think the federal war on drugs is a total failure ... Why don't we handle the drugs like we handle alcohol?''

* On following the golden rule in foreign policy: ``I think we should practice a policy of good will to other people. What about saying that we don't do anything to any other country that we don't have them do to us?''

* On leaving the Taliban alone in Afghanistan: ``Taliban doesn't mean they want to come here and kill us. The Taliban means they want to kill us over there, because all they want to do is get people who occupy their country out of their country, just like we would if anybody tried to occupy us.''

* On gay marriage: ``I think the government should just be out of it, I think it should be done by the Church or private contract and we shouldn't have this argument, who's married and who isn't married. I have my standards but I shouldn't have to impose my standards on others, others have standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me.''

* On the 9/11 attacks: ``Our policies definitely had an influence. And you talk to the people who committed it and those individuals who would like to do us harm, they say, yes, we don't like American bombs to be falling on our country ... So I'm saying policies have an effect. But that's a far cry from blaming America.''

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Alberts+Paul+candidacy+thrives+libertarian+unconventional+views/5775051/story.html#ixzz1f2cchNdi

Blah, blah, blah, Ron Paul is awesome.

As college students, we’ve all heard them –– Ron Paul supporters who rant and rave about how their libertarian savior is going to bring freedom back to the country, legalize pot and pull us out of Afghanistan. Allow my prickly beard to burst the idealistic bubble for you all: Ron Paul could never be president. And considering the circumstances, that’s probably the biggest compliment anyone could give him.

What Americans claim to crave from their politicians is honesty. We say we want the truth, but when it comes right down to it, the facts can be downright depressing. So instead we go for a candidate who tells us what we want to hear. We go for a candidate who claims their political party was doing it right all along. We vote for whomever can scream their pre-written talking points the loudest. Love him or hate him, Ron Paul isn’t that guy.

Ron Paul is running for the Republican Party’s nomination, but in many respects, it’s hard to see why. As a libertarian, Paul believes in a small government that doesn’t mess with America’s free-market economy (totally kosher for Republicans). But Paul also believes the federal government should keep it’s hands off same-sex marriage, get rid of torture and pull out of all foreign wars (all about as kosher as a roasted pig wrapped in bacon).

What’s worse, Ron Paul has held the same views on just about everything since he was elected to Congress in the 1970s. Compared to every single Republican front runner, Ron Paul is the only one who hasn’t been made a fool of by flip-flopping opinions. Michele Bachmann is pretty consistent as well, but being consistently crazy is rarely a positive attribute.

NATCHITOCHES, La., October 23, 2011—Ron Paul is a consistent man. He's been preaching the same economic gospel for two generations, a gospel based on the teachings of economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, leavened by the objectivism of Ayn Rand. He's been convinced for decades of the dangers of fiat money (money backed only by confidence in the government that creates it), the supreme importance of the individual, the primacy of personal liberty as a political principle, and a laissez faire approach to the economy.

Paul believes and says the same things now that he said 40 years ago, but that's a minor type of consistency. People learn and change over the decades, and that's usually praiseworthy, not a sign of moral weakness. If Paul came to political and economic principles 40 years ago that are as true and bright to him today as they were then, that's fine, but that's not what's admirable or important about his consistency.

What's important about Paul is that his ideas are ideologically consistent. They spring from a set of principles, and he's not afraid to let his ideas go where his principles take them.

Ron Paul has the courage of his convictions.

Republicans say that they oppose the growth of the federal government. They want federal power devolved to the states. If you believe them, ask them about same sex marriage, drug legalization, and abortion. Scarcely a Republican in Washington wants those issues left to the states. They want them federalized, just as they wanted to federalize medical decisions in the case of Terri Schiavo. Republicans like to talk about individual liberty, but they don't trust you to do the "right" thing with it any more than Democrats do.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats lies in which aspects of your life they want to control. They don't disagree that you need to be controlled.

Paul does. It isn't that he thinks we should have no laws - he favors a minimal government, not zero government - but rather that he thinks your sphere of personal autonomy should be as large as it can be without damaging the autonomy of others. What control there must be should be as local as possible. If there are to be laws against drug use, they should be state, not federal. There's no constitutional reason that you shouldn't be able to watch porn in your living room while smoking a joint. That your neighbors think it's sleazy is no excuse to create a DEA.

The first glimpse of this came nine minutes into the debate. It followed Speaker Gingrich’s tirade against the chairman of the Federal Reserve’s board of governors, Ben Bernanke. “I don’t see anybody in the news media demanding the kind of transparency at the Fed that you would demand of every other aspect of the federal government. And I think that it is corrupt and it is wrong for one man to have that kind of secret power.”

“So, Congressman Paul,” interjected Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post, “where do you come down on this?”

It is fascinating to watch the appreciative laughter that greeted her question. Everyone at the table understood that Dr. Paul was way out in front of them, and the Texas libertarian gave his first glimpse of why. “One thing I might say is that we have made some inroads on the Federal Reserve. We passed a bill last year, we got a partial audit of the Fed. We’ve learned a whole lot. They were dealing in 15 trillion dollars, five trillion went overseas to bail out foreign banks.”

Dr. Paul then credited key news organizations, including Bloomberg News, one of the hosts of the debate, and Fox News, for pressing law suits to force disclosures by the Fed. And he expressed the view that to make progress on the issue coalitions could be built, “without sacrificing principles.” It was an allusion to his effort to get Congress to force a Fed audit, which he started as a lone voice and which eventually gained broad, bipartisan support.

The second Ron Paul moment was again set up by Speaker Gingrich, who was railing about how the Treasury Secretaries Paulson and Geithner and Mr. Bernanke “didn’t have a clue.” At that point Charlie Rose, who did a marvelous job as moderator, turned to the question of housing and asked Dr. Paul whether he would get the Federal government out of housing. “Absolutely,” Dr. Paul replied. “No credit?” Mr. Rose asked. “No Freddie Mac, Fannie mae, no nothing?”

“No. That’s where the distortions come,” Dr. Paul replied. “That’s where the moral hazard comes from, that’s where the mal-investment . . . It was predictable. You talked about what economists we should look to. And unfortunately we’ve been living with Keynesian economics for many, many decades, and everybody who was right about predicting the bubbles were Austrian economists.”

Continued he: “ . . They said [the bubbles] were coming, and yet they’re also saying, and I agree with them, that everything we’re doing right now is wrong. So what we did with the housing bubble, yes, we had too many houses, it was glaring in our face, the bubble was doomed to burst. It came because of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, easy credit, and also Community Reinvestment Act. So who got into trouble? The people who did the speculating — Wall Street, the derivatives market, they got the bailout, they got the privileges.”

Cain said that, in fact, he didn't oppose an audit, and that when he served on the Fed it was a different institution. "You have misquoted me. I did not call you or any of your people ignorant. I don't know where that came from," he said. "You've gotta be careful of the stuff you get off the Internet."

A careful check of the Internet, however -- guided by the Paul campaign -- turns up audio of Cain saying just what Paul accused him of saying. As recently as 2010, long after the Fed began engaging in the lending Cain says he opposed, Cain belittled those calling for an audit.

"Some people say that we ought to audit the Fed. Here's what I do know. The Federal Reserve already has so many internal audits it's ridiculous. I don't know why people think we're gonna learn this great amount of information by auditing the Federal Reserve. I think a lot of people are calling for this audit of the Federal Reserve because they don't know enough about it. There's no hidden secrets going on in the Federal Reserve to my knowledge," he said.

You're next.

That's the warning from Rep. Ron Paul, who said Wednesday that killing U.S. citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Kahn in Yemen without a fair trial is the start of a slippery slope.

“They asked me if it is an impeachable offense. It is,” he told an audience at the National Press Club. “I mean just ignoring the 5th amendment and assassinating an American citizen without due process? They won’t even tell us what the rules are -- oh, but he is a threat. Can you imagine being put on a list because you’re a threat? What’s going to happen when they come to the media what if the media becomes a threat? Or a professor becomes a threat, someday that could well happen, this is the way it works it’s called incrementalism.”

The GOP presidential candidate said he felt “very pleased” about the progress he’s made on the campaign trail, revealing to the audience he’d raised over $8 million dollars in the third quarter from 100,000 unique donors, putting him third behind Rick Perry’s $17 million and Mitt Romney’s estimated $13-15 million.

Asked to compare his fundraising numbers to that of the frontrunner, Paul said, “If you raise 8 million, half as much, and you get it from small individual donors who are fervently engaged in campaigning for you, that's a lot different than getting money that…might have come for the other candidates from special interests. I don’t get that type of money, ”

His campaign was quick to point out that Ron Paul had five times the number of donors than Rick Perry in the third quarter.

"All donors are not equal, you know. I will take a much smaller donation with the enthusiasm of people who send me money," Paul added.

The Texas Congressman said that, in a few weeks, he plans to unveil a line-item proposal on how to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget

“We don't have a budgetary crisis, we have a crisis in our understanding about what the role of government ought to be. The budget is the symptom, the taxes are the symptom,” he said.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/10/05/ron-paul-issues-another-warning-erosion-civil-liberties#ixzz1a0tqngvI

Jefferson may have mused about an empire of liberty, but the founding generation and their sons rejected the imperial ways of Europe: America would be an exception to the entangling alliances of the European state system. Unlike every great power of the Old World, America would not seek hegemony. Were she ever to become “dictatress of the world,” John Quincy Adams warned, “she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”

A lack of interest???

are you kidding me??? 2 of the top 3 candidates are from texas.....are you honestly telling me there is a lack of interest?

I think the GOP is trying to stop the momentum of Ron Paul...and it would be embarrassing that Rick Perry would lose his home state to Ron Paul.

To the uneducated masses that vote this would or could have been the potential turning point for Ron Paul.

good job establishment...at trying to silence freedom.

The Libertarian-leaning Republican presidential candidate, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, is gaining momentum in the race for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.

Over the weekend, Congressman Paul won the California Straw poll and raised more than $1,000,000 on Saturday.

“He’s very, very well-informed on the issues,” Ron Paul supporter Don Zimmerman said. “People have trouble debating him on the issues so they just call him a ‘kook’ and dismiss him.”

Paul ran unsuccessfully for the GOP nomination in 2008, but his supporters say things are different now for the longtime Congressman.

“This time around, Ron Paul has some more name identification of course and some of his supporters have more political experience,” Zimmerman said. “He just doesn’t fit anywhere. He’s an enigma to the political process. They don’t know what to do with Ron Paul. You know he really speaks from the heart.”

Paul won the California Straw Poll over the weekend, taking almost 45 percent of the 833 votes cast. Governor Rick Perry finished in second place with 30 percent of the vote.

Congressman Ron Paul said he will not seek re-election so he can focus his efforts on the 2012 presidential race.

Nothing more needs to be said

Ron Paul 2012

R3VOLUTION

Respondents emphasize that Paul received only three questions during the debate, but “every time he was allowed to talk, he rocked it.”

More specifically, “Dr. Paul is the only one who has never wavered from his set goals which are truly in line with liberty and real conservative values,” a respondent wrote.

“Who do you think won the Republican debate at the Reagan library” has attained over 50 pages of comments from poll voters. And, those commenting have Ron Paul on their mind.

“Ron Paul is the only guy who understands what truly ails America,” the most recent posting reads. Another stated, “the cowardly media is despicable for ignoring him.”

How influential is Ron Paul?
For more than three decades, Paul’s brand of uncompromising libertarianism left him on the fringes of the Republican Party. Only three of the 416 bills he has sponsored in Congress since 1997 even made it out of committee—and two of those were defeated. But events of the last three years—including the meltdown of the financial sector, massive government bailouts of private industry, and an exploding federal deficit—have turned his warnings on the dangers of debt and excessive spending into mainstream Republican thought. The Tea Party has embraced Paul’s belief that the best government is the least government, and that taxes are an intrusion on individual liberty. “Time has come around to where the people are agreeing with much of what I’ve been saying for 30 years,” Paul said in May, when he announced his third campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. “The time is right.”

Ron Paul supporters know he has little chance of becoming the next president, but they say his third bid for the job is about more than winning the GOP nomination or the White House — it’s about guiding the political landscape beyond the Republican-Democrat duopoly that’s controlled Washington for more than a century.

The man who in his 2008 bid was dismissed as a sideshow has emerged this year as the prophet of libertarian-leaning conservatives and tea-party supporters alike and has come to define the burgeoning coalition that preaches lower taxes, global retrenchment and more modest use of federal powers here at home.

"Every time the Federal Reserve engages in more quantitative easing and devalues the dollar, it is defaulting on the American people by eroding their purchasing power and inflating their savings away," Paul said in a statement entitled Debt Ceiling Drama on his Web site.

Saying defaults happen every day through "monetary policy tricks," Paul noted the dollar's depreciation of nearly 50% against gold since 2008, and took issue with the government's claims of "inflation is 2% or less over the past few years," saying alternative data complied by economists "show a 9% inflation rate if calculated more traditionally."

An interesting analysis showing both "sides" are right.

Bush did this. Obama did that.  Overtaxing will bankrupt the nation.  Overspending will bankrupt the nation.  Republicans lie.  Democrats lie.  It's the fault of Big Government.  It's the fault of Big Business.  And on and on and on.  Does anyone else see a certain thread running through these accusations?  Isn't it possible that both sides have a point?  If both sides are correct, doesn't that lead to only one conclusion?  They are they, and we are we and we are being divided for the benefit of them?  Think about it.  If both sides are right about what they say about the other's leadership, then maybe we need to rethink where the division really is.

Whether it be about the debt "crisis", or the "wars", or the "banks", it's all the same.  Wake up America.  I'm not your enemy.

Representative Ron Paul has hit upon a remarkably creative way to deal with the impasse over the debt ceiling: have the Federal Reserve Board destroy the $1.6 trillion in government bonds it now holds. While at first blush this idea may seem crazy, on more careful thought it is actually a very reasonable way to deal with the crisis. Furthermore, it provides a way to have lasting savings to the budget

The latest new Tim Pawlenty is the born-again neoconservative moving to the far right on warmaking issues, destined to clash with Ron Paul in the presidential debates. Actually, Pawlenty is not a born-again neocon. This is his first birth as warmaker in his latest version of Pawlenty. By contrast with Ron Paul, who has always been Ron Paul.

Today, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, released a column titled “How Should Government Treat Energy Producers?” In his column, Paul explained why a good energy market is great for the economy and what the differences are between government subsidies and tax credits or deductions

When Ron Paul announced four years ago that he was running for president, the congressman from Texas had a tough time attracting attention.

Paul -- known for his calls for a significantly limited government, opposition to the Iraq, Afghan and Libyan conflicts and his drive to get rid of the Federal Reserve -- stayed in Washington to declare his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination on C-Span, the cable television station devoted to government proceedings. His entry earned a one-sentence mention near the end of a Washington Post political story, and little notice elsewhere.

This man makes so much sense its scary......people need to wake up and vote for this man.

“As President, I will not be able to waive a magic wand and solve all of our problems overnight. I will have to work with Congress and build consensus from the American People."

The exchange depicted in this video between Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) and the Fed's attorney Scott Alvarez proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that The Federal Reserve has no gold backing the US dollar. 

Most in the alternative news sphere suspected it - now it's fact.

To fully understand and appreciate this video, you might also want to read my indictment of the financial system published here some months ago.

The surprising poll results were revealed Saturday as several Republican presidential hopefuls made their way to New Orleans to appeal to southern conservatives. Paul (R-Texas) won nearly 40 percent of the vote while Huntsman, former governor of Utah, nabbed nearly a quarter of the vote.

"This win is just the latest indicator of how the majority of American opinion is turning in Ron Paul’s direction,” Jesse Benton, chairman of Paul's campaign, said in a statement.

NEW YORK (TheStreet ) -- If Ron Paul were to win the GOP presidential nomination, there's a chance he wouldn't have to worry about geographical balance on his ticket.

Paul, a Texas congressman and critic of the Federal Reserve, mentioned a former New Jersey judge and current Fox News talk show host -- Andrew Napolitano -- as a potential running mate, in an interview with TheStreet's Alix Steel in Washington this week.

Ron Paul’s followers’ passion is matched only by his detractors’ derision

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), known and celebrated for his Libertarian views, delivered a stunning critique of the American Republic on the House floor yesterday. Paul told congress that “the last nail is being driven into the coffin of the American Republic. Yet, Congress remains in total denial as our liberties are rapidly fading before our eyes.” Paul backed up his dismal outlook with the following reason: “the rule of law is constantly rejected and authoritarian answers are offered as panaceas for all our problems.”

Ron Paul attacked a number of U.S. policies that he believes contribute to the crumbling of the American Republic. Paul called out welfarism as one of these programs. ‘Runaway welfarism is used to benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class,” argued Paul. Paul also identified a number of presidential powers that he feels are unnecessary and unconstitutional.  Among the powers that Paul points to are: the ability to “order assassinations,” “engage in torture,” and “wage war at will.”

The case has been made....he deserves to be president and we need him more than we know.

PART 1 - MENTAL ILLNESS, EVIDENCE OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGICAL SYMPTOMS:

"The megalomaniac differs from the narcissist by the fact that he wishes to be powerful rather than charming, and seeks to be feared rather than loved. To this type belong many lunatics and most of the great men of history." ~Bertrand Russell

Let me begin by saying that I am not a doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist, by any means or stretch of the imagination, but I would like to think that I'm intelligent person that, through a combination of reading, avid learning, a natural thirst for knowledge and new information, almost two decades of experience related to public relations, and almost ten years in my independent role as a freelance journalist and writer, I have come to know and recognize some of the proverbial red flags when it comes to the behavior of people. I make this statement because there are those who will read this commentary, that also may be Donald Trump supporters, and ask me about my 'credentials' with respect to making the assertions that I do herein. Let's remember, intelligent people can disagree and, for those of you that disagree with my sentiments, please know that I respect your opinions too.

On with my short, but serious nonetheless, commentary.

I'm willing to wager that most, not all, but most people who have listened to Donald Trump talk, and probably scores of psychologists and psychiatrists (sans Dr. Phil), might come to the conclusion that, strictly and clinically speaking, he's a narcissist and quite clearly an unscrupulous megalomaniac that would sell his soul to the highest bidder (perhaps he already has, you never know).

Let's review the definitions of both of those assertions;

Megalomaniac:

A mental illness characterized by delusions of grandeur, power, wealth, affluence and a lust or craving for power.

Narcissist:

An inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.

Erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.

I don't know about everyone else, per say, but I absolutely believe that both of these terms apply to Donald Trump, without a doubt in my mind, and, to be sure, both conditions are also characterized as psychopathological.

Mental illness, in and of itself, doesn't disqualify a person from running for office or even being elected (as history clearly demonstrates that, in some people's views, ten former presidents suffered from one form of mental illness or another). However, in 'the Donald's' case, and considering that his particular afflictions (among others) were also shared by other historical psychopaths and petty tyrants like Hitler, Alexander The Great, Darth Vader, Joseph Stalin, and Napoleon Bonaparte, [once again, among many others too] his mental illness must be considered by those who would vote for this very damaged man.

I know the Hitler analogy will rile some folks, so if you're among those offended by this comparison please consider that according to WiseGEEK.com:

"One of the most well known examples of megalomania in modern history was Adolf Hitler. A street waif, Hitler wasn't content rising through the ranks to become the military leader of Germany. His megalomania drove him to aspire to conquer the entire world. Being born into a "superior race" also wasn't enough for the mentally ill Hitler. Instead, he wanted to wipe out all other races. This need to destroy everything outside of what he perceived as an extension of himself is a classic though horrifically illustrated example of megalomania. Paradoxically, a person who exhibits such tremendous ego and self-confidence in reality has such low self-esteem and such a fragile ego that he cannot abide any expression other than his own, for fear of annihilation of the self. Therefore everything that is not under his control is perceived as a threat.

1. Trump's megalomania drives him to aspire to conquer the entire nation.
2. Trump believes he's better than most and, as such, conceivably thinks he was born into a 'superior race'. Let's face it folks, Trump's made some pretty racially charged comments of late and he positioned himself as the de facto leader of the racist 'birther' movement. To those that disagree that the 'birther' movement was racist, consider that there wasn't one non-Caucasian out there, anywhere, that jumped on that damaged, wrong-from-the-start bandwagon. I'm not going to debate this assertion on this thread because that's only a minor element of this commentary and, like it or not, more people agree with my point of view than not.
3. In my view, Mr. Trump does demonstrate a need to destroy everything outside of what he perceived as an extension of himself and, as the above quote says, this propensity is a classic though horrifically illustrated example of megalomania. Sure, he's not advocating genocide or murder, but he's quick to verbally and publicly attack anyone who crosses him. In fact, his ill temper is another abhorrent, very clear example that this man isn't running on all cylinders. Can anyone say 'loose cannon'? Make no mistake, America is better than what this jerk represents or has to offer.
4. Paradoxically, Donald Trump is a person who exhibits such tremendous ego and self-confidence but in reality has such low self-esteem and such a fragile ego that he cannot abide any expression other than his own, for fear of annihilation of the self. Therefore everything that is not under his control is perceived as a threat. This could not be more true when talking about this piece of cheese.

This, so far in its entirety, is my argument against taking this man serious, in any semblance of the word, due to his clear and obvious mental illness, shared by other historically significant madmen, and, accordingly, the notion of electing this psychopath President of the United States is akin to electing the likes of Sarah Palin, Charlie Sheen, or Alex Jones.

PART 2 - SCORES OF SKELETONS IN HIS CLOSETS

"Him, who incessantly laughs in the street, you may commonly hear grumbling in his closet." ~Johann Kaspar Lavater

Aside from having severe psychological challenges that makes it impossible for him to do business in good faith or without a personal agenda that's poisonous to America, this is a man who accentuates and personifies the aforesaid quote.

The Donald sure does one thing well and that's public relations. Most consider Donald Trump a world-class business success and he loves to tell us that. But nothing can be further from the truth and his PR team sure does make it hard to find Trump's failures.

Let's look at some of his skeletons that might suggest he wouldn't make a good leader of the free world:

Trump Plaza Hotel bankruptcy. On Nov 2, 1992, Trump's Plaza Hotel was forced to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after being unable to make its debt payments. Under the plan, Trump agreed to give up a 49% stake in this luxury hotel to Citibank and five other lenders.

Trump Shuttle closure. The Trump Shuttle became no more when it merged with Shuttle Inc, operating as USAir Shuttle in 1992.

Donald Trump personal bankruptcy. By 1994, Trump slashed a large portion of his $900 million personal debt and washed away  $3.5 billion in his portfolio's business debt.

Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts' bankruptcy. On November 21, 2004 Trump's company filed for bankruptcy. Trump said the filing was "really just a technical thing" as the best way to implement a restructuring plan.

Donald Trump personal bankruptcy (again). Once again, Trump filed for personal bankruptcy protection and restructured his debt in 2004.

Taj Mahal bankruptcy. On November 22, 2006 Donald J. Trump’s casino empire filed for bankruptcy protection after months of negotiations with bondholders over restructuring a crushing debt.

GoTrump.com. Donald Trump's online travel search engine was launched in 2006. Just a year later it folded.

Trump 29 Casino. Now known as Spotlight 29 Casino because Donald Trump's ownership/management involvement ended in 2006.

Donald Trump Ocean Resort Baja. This Mexican resort was never built and investor's deposits (up to $500,000.00) have not been returned. Trump claims these buyers are “lucky” because they would have lost more money in a tanking market had the projects been actually built.

Trump Towers Tampa. Trump is being sued right now in Tampa, Florida for taking deposits on a 52-story condo tower that he never built. None of the buyers got their $45,000 deposits back. And in an ironic twist, initial sales of this condo were so successful that all deposits were returned to charge a higher price.

Trump International Hotel and Tower Chicago. Trump built the second tallest building in Chicago… he also defaulted on a $40 million loan. Rather than having to pay the bank loan, Trump demanded the same bank should pay him $3 billion for "undermining the project and damaging his reputation."

Trump Magazine. Trump's private-labeled publication (which was aimed at affluent readers in major US markets) suffered from sagging ad sales. It folded on May 19, 2009. This was Trump's third failed attempt at offering a magazine bearing his name.

Trump International Hotel & Tower New Orleans. If constructed, this Trump Tower would become the tallest building in the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana at 70 stories high. But the project was put on hold in February of 2009.

Trump Entertainment Resort Holdings bankruptcy. On February 17, 2009 casino operator Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (with a debt ratio of $50 million in assets to his $500 million in debt).

Donald Trump SoHo Hotel Condominium. Donald Trump was sued for fraud over his New York SoHo condo offering in 2010. The lawsuit by 15 plaintiffs alleged that during the first 18 months of marketing, Trump advertised that the building was "30, 40, 50, 60 percent or more sold" when in fact just 16% of the units were sold.

Trump Ocean Resort Baja Mexico. Instead of a 525-unit luxury vacation home complex with pools and tennis courts, this project is shaping up to be a legal battle with a big hole in the ground. Dozens of angry buyers sued Trump for failing to complete the project. Trump claims he only lent his name to the project (and it was the developers who allowed the project to fail).

Trump International Hotel & Tower Fort Lauderdale. Construction was to be completed by the end of 2009 featuring 298 hotel condominium units. Having defaulted on a $139 million loan, Donald Trump announced in November of 2010 he was no longer affiliated with the project.

Trump International Hotel & Tower Las Vegas. Through the end of February 2010, the 1,282-unit condominium hotel had only closed on 302 units. That equates to a 23.6% vacancy rate. It was forced into renting out the building as apartments.

Trump International Hotel & Tower in Dubai. This 62-story mixed-used building on the Palm Jumeirah’s Golden Mile was first announced in 2005. Construction was never started and the $2.9 billion project had been canceled and replaced with a shopping mall.

When you run the math, that's 19 failures in less than 17 years… that averages one new failed business every 11 months. Even worse, a lot of people were financially ruined because of this single "successful" business guru.

PART 3 - CONCLUSION

Considering all the facts, including his evident mental instability, his insatiable propensity to attacks others, his infamous bad temper, his narcissism, his megalomania, his similarities to some of histories worst, most vile despots, his apparent racism, (the list could go on and on)... Do you really want this man representing America as President or, for that matter, having any real influence whatsoever in a nation that's already too politically polarized to properly function?

Donald Trump is an embarrassment to himself and the nation. I say we purge and fire him from the national narrative altogether. Donald Trump, "Your Fired."

I've been getting pretty darned curious about why we just can't cut a few things and balance the "budget". Then I discovered there were things like "mandatory" spending - which is $2.109 TRILLION in 2012. Now, the entire projected income from all sources for 2012 is just $2.162 TRILLION so, "Houston, we've got a problem".

What's included in that mandatory spending? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TARP (? why?) Tax Credits, Unemployment, Food Stamps, Child Nutrition and Student loans.

Mandatory spending takes 57% of the budget - it totals three times more than military spending and 1.5 times more than discretionary spending.

These are things we can't cut. While SS is currently collecting more in taxes than is necessary to pay beneficiaries, Medicare is NOT. Medicare taxes only pay 57% of the cost of current benefits

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/Mandatory.htm

OK, now let us talk about discretionay spending.

Discretionary spending in FY 2010 was $1.3 trillion, or 38% of total spending. More than half ($815 billion) was security spending, which includes the Department of Defense, overseas contingency programs and Homeland Security.

Non-security spending was $491 billion. The largest departments were: Health and Human Services ($84 billion), Education ($64.3 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($42.8 billion) Justice ($27.6 billion), and Agriculture ($25 billion). (Source: OMB, Table S-11)

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/Discretionary.htm

Now we're at $1.3 Tril for discretionary spending and $2.109 Tril Mandatory spending. That's already a $1.2 TRILLION deficit before we get to "off-budget" spending.

Now you can "google" it, or "bing" it, or stand on your head singing Yankee Doodle Dandy. What you CAN'T do is find a definitive source which tells you exactly what is included in "Off-budget" spending and how much we actually PAY for off budget items. I've found sources which say that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are "off-budget" items and that some of Social Security is also "off-budget".

How much? I have no idea, and hope that somebody out there will have the answer to this $10,000 question.

So here's the deal. We will NEVER balance the budget because we're not being honest. We're not going to have a balanced budget as long as Congress has their hands tied on where they HAVE to spend money. So, even if we doubled taxes on everyone we are barely - BARELY covering the On-budget deficit - and not even touching the off-budget spending.

It's obvious that tax increases aren't the answer here. We need to re-evaluate the entire budget process and re-align what is MANDATORY spending and what is not. I hope somebody out there has answers because those who say "Cut 10% across the board" or "Cut the military in half" or "Raise taxes on the rich" - those aren't answers. They aren't even quick fixes at this point. We will probably wind up with some mixture of the two but I warn all of you Republicans and Democrats out there - it's not going to be done without SERIOUS cooperation from both sides of the aisle.

That means NPR will have to go, and Planned Parenthood will have to go, and subsidies for oil companies will have to go. You want to protect our seniors and our children? Then BACK OFF the ridiculous earmarks and unnecessary spending programs. Try setting some meaningful priorities and forget about your friggin re-election campaign.

If you don't have the Gonads to do your job, step aside and give someone else a chance.

The Federal Reserve Board has enacted new regulations on Mortgage Broker Compensation. As of 4/1/2011, mortgage brokers may be paid ONLY on a flat salary or hourly basis. No more commission.

This action will put many mortgage brokers and bankers completely out of business. It is virtually impossible to put someone on salary for placing mortgages unless you are a company the size of Wells Fargo. It is impossible to put them on hourly wages as well. They have also determined that brokers may not charge customers a processing fee - though most pay an outside firm to process their loans.

You can argue that brokers are overpaid, that they are foul, evil parasites, or anything else you want to argue. I don't care how you feel about mortgage brokers - it's completely irrelevant. My question is THIS:

What gives the Federal Reserve the right to tell a company how to pay their employees? Are they part of the Dept of Labor & Industry? NO. Do they have the ability to pass laws regarding employment practices? NO. Are they the appropriate entity to make such decisions? NO. The Federal Reserve is not even PART of our government.

And before you start celebrating more restriction on the Wall Street Banks, you need to be aware that this regulation does NOT apply to them. It's just for the little broker with a couple of employees trying to make a living. It's the few retail loan officers in regional banks (many of whom have laid off most of their loan officers because of this new regulation)

Isn't unemployment high enough? Isn't it bad enough that mortgages are harder and harder to get for the consumer? Why pass a regulation which is COMPLETELY outside your authority which only serves to eliminate competition for the consumer?

I'm disgusted. The Fed needs to be reigned in. They think they run this country.

Those of you who know me understand that I am vehemently opposed to any limits on our freedoms as set out in the Constitution of the United States of America. I believe that Freedom of Speech is included in the FIRST Amendment for a very good reason - it's the single most important Right we must preserve in order to maintain the rest of our Freedoms. Any limitations on Freedom of Speech should be undertaken with the utmost caution and serious consideration. Advocacy for the citizenry of this country is supremely important and restrictions on true advocates should never be taken lightly.

That being said, I might argue that the Founding Fathers who wrote those immortal words "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" never foresaw the power of Lobbyists as they exist today. While it is true that some lobbying organizations do exist in order to advocate for the people of the United States, most of them exist solely to advance their own cause.

In 2010 there were 12,986 registered lobbyists in Washington DC and together they spent an astronomical $3.49 Billion trying to buy the influence of your elected official. Here is the list of the biggest spenders:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

It is rather obvious in looking at this list that the days of lobbyists advocating for the citizens has been firmly replaced by lobbyists advocating for their own interests.

The legitimate interests of lobbying (providing actual data on products and services) can be served by utilizing the talents of any one of the 3 Mil + federal employees and Google. Any information which comes from the lobbying organizations must be considered to be suspect on it's face.

I believe it may be past time to look at a new Constitutional Amendment - one which seriously limits the ability of special interest groups to lobby our government. This Amendment should also outline that Corporations, Unions, PACS, Associations and the like are NOT to be considered "citizens" and that the Freedom of Speech does not extend to them but rests solely with individuals.

For those who would argue that we need unions, asociations and PACS to speak for us, I would suggest that you consider that the Founding Fathers already gave you a voice. It's called the right to vote.

The new worry in the market is that this latest round of tax cuts could add another $1 trillion to the US deficit, on top of the already horrendous numbers produced in June. With opinion now deeply split about the wisdom of yet another round of QE, bond investors are getting increasingly worried that the Fed will turn off the funny-money and the sugar-rush will fade. Meanwhile, the US has very few plans – and none of them remotely credible – to get to grips with the biggest debt in history.

While the liberal element of the vine continues to champion relaxed standards concerning socially "acceptable" safety nets and the neo-conservative right continues to applaud actions of imperialism overseas both seemingly are unable to come to terms with the stark reality of the financial future.

Will Bank of America be the first Wall Street giant to once again point a gun to its own head, telling us it'll crash and burn and take down the financial system if we don't pony up for another massive bailout?

There are a lot of little things which would have a major impact. Here are the things I'd do first. It's just a partial list. Feel free to add your own

First I would disallow any legislation dealing with more than 1 issue. A bill on the VA should not have student loan funding provisions within it.

Along those lines, eliminate ALL earmarks. If they can't stand on their own as a bill in their own right, then they need to go.

The President needs a line item veto.

Congress should be in session for 2 months each year. That's it. The rest of the time they should go back to their "real" jobs. Since it's part-time at that point, we don't have to pay benefits because nobody with part time gets full benefits in America. Going along with that - their pay should be based on the average wage of their own home community. 100% of average wage for House and 125% of average wage for Senate. (Note that implementation of these would pretty much eliminate the need for term limits)

Allow taxpayers standing to sue the government (with class action suits) for what they feel is unconstitutional SPENDING.

Require the budget to be balanced and mandate 10% per year to be spent on paying down the national debt.

Require all tax increases be passed by a Supermajority of both houses and that they cannot go into effect for 2 full years.

Make the Federal Reserve and ADVISORY board only. Take away their power to print money.

Require that ALL legislation with funding over $1Mil be placed on line in it's entirety at least 2 weeks before it is voted on.

Require that ALL budget bills be passed by a Supermajority.

Eliminate automatic increases in spending for all government departments.

Pull out of the United Nations and close 75% of our military bases worldwide.

There are a few more but these are the ones I would start with. I'm sure I'll add more during the discussion. What would YOU do?

This is more than a financial crisis. This is a national meltdown. And while facile comparisons to the U.S. must be avoided, there are nonetheless lessons for us — particularly in light of the direction the Democratic party wants to travel

One in three Greeks works for the government. Government employees enjoy higher wages, more munificent benefits, and earlier retirements than private-sector employees

Public-sector unions are growing in the U.S. More than 50 percent of all union members are now public employees, and their unions have negotiated sweet deals with local, state, and federal governments. As economic historian John Steele Gordon points out, "Federal workers now earn, in wages and benefits, about twice what their private-sector equivalents get paid

And in a corrupt feedback loop that may not be so very different from the Greek practice after all, public-employee unions give generously to Democratic candidates, both in cash contributions and by manning phone banks, getting out the vote, and so on