Action Alert: Audit the Fed!

The Federal Reserve is the chief culprit behind the economic crisis. Its unlimited power to create money out of thin air brought us the boom and bust cycle and causes one financial bubble after another. By recklessly inflating the money supply the Fed intentionally distorts interest rates and erodes the value of the dollar.

For the past 30 years, Ron Paul has worked tirelessly to bring much-needed transparency and accountability to the secretive bank. And in 2009 his unfaltering dedication showed astonishing results: HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve, swept the country and made the central bankers shudder at their desks. The bill passed as an amendment both in the House Financial Services Committee and in the House itself.

But the usurpers of America’s future won’t take it lying down. They don’t want their secrets exposed and at this very moment, they are working frantically behind the scenes to quietly derail all efforts to open up the Federal Reserve to independent scrutiny.

A handful of Fed-loving U.S. senators are currently rewriting the Financial Reform Bill to strip out Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed amendment and actually expand the Fed’s power over banks, lending and money.

Action Alert: Call your senators today and demand that they…

  1. Stand with the nearly 80% of Americans who support a FULL audit of the Federal Reserve.
  2. Withdraw their support for ANY effort to strip the bill of the Audit,
  3. Oppose all efforts to grant the Fed more power under the guise of so-called “reform.”

Enter your zip code to look up your senators and their previous position on S 604, the Audit the Fed bill:

Continue reading for more on Audit the Fed…

02/2009: Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Audit the Federal Reserve

On February 26, 2009, Ron Paul introduces HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve:

“I rise to introduce the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy. How long will we as a Congress stand idly by while hard-working Americans see their savings eaten away by inflation? Only big-spending politicians and politically favored bankers benefit from inflation.”

After a groundswell of grassroots support, HR 1207 and its counterpart in the Senate, S 604, attract 317 and 32 co-sponsors respectively.

10/2009: Mel Watt Introduces Competing Placebo Amendment

With HR 1207 gaining momentum, Congressman Mel Watt introduces a competing banker-approved “placebo” amendment that would replace HR 1207 and actually increase the Federal Reserve’s secrecy and power.

11/2009: Mel Watt Amendment Defeated

On November 19, 2009, after several hours of heated debate, Ron Paul’s and Alan Grayson’s “Audit the Fed” amendment passes 43-26 in the House Financial Services Committee. The amendment calls for a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve and replaces the opposing “placebo” amendment proposed by Mel Watt.

12/2009: Audit the Fed Passes in the House

The Audit the Fed amendment is attached to Barney Frank’s HR 3996, also known as the “Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009”. That bill is later combined, along with several other bills, into “The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 – Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009” (HR 4173). The House passes the new bill on December 11, 2009 on a vote of 223-202.

Remaining Milestones Still Ahead

According to Ron Paul’s video update, now that the bill has passed the House, the following milestones are still ahead of us:

  • “It has to go through the Senate; it’s going to have a harder time in the Senate.
  • Then it has to go to a conference committee and that’s another problem.
  • And then it has to go to the President.
  • And even if it goes through all that, we still have the courts to deal with, and courts have never been friendly to those of us who want honest money.”

03/2010: Treasury Officials Still Support Mel Watt Amendment!

On March 8, 2010 Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein participated in a bizarre meeting with high level treasury officials:

The Treasury Department is vigorously opposed to a House-passed measure that would open the Federal Reserve to an audit by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a senior Treasury official said Monday. Instead, the official said, the Treasury prefers a substitute offered by Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.), and would like to see it enacted as part of the Senate bill.

The Watt measure, however, while claiming to increase transparency, actually puts new restrictions on the GAO’s ability to perform an audit.

Campaign for Liberty Action Alert

Campaign for Liberty President John Tate sent out the following email action alert:

Dear Supporter,

Our battle to Audit the FED has reached a crisis.

Right now, a handful of Fed-loving U.S. Senators, led by Bob Corker (R-TN), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Judd Gregg (R-NH), are reportedly working to rewrite from the Financial Reform Bill to strip out Audit the Fed and actually EXPAND the Fed’s power over banks, lending and money.

I need you to contact your senators today with an urgent message: Audit the Fed and DON’T increase the Fed’s power.

As you know, Audit the Fed is currently in H.R. 4173, a financial “reform” package that has passed the House.

The Senate will unveil its version soon, which means you and I have to work fast.

In addition to stripping out transparency and accountability, the Senate version is set to grant the Fed broad NEW powers over our economy by putting the Consumer Financial Protection Agency under the Fed’s purview.

Seriously? The same Fed that won’t tell us where our trillions of dollars went is going to be put in charge of “consumer protection?”

It would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous.

You and I must turn up the heat on the Senate TODAY.

Please contact [your senators] at once!

Of course, as you know, over two thirds of the House of Representatives, almost a third of the Senate and nearly 80% of the American people support a FULL Audit of the Federal Reserve.

So the establishment has no choice but to attempt to fight us in secret.

That’s why they’re trying every trick in the book to make sure they kill a full-scale Audit of the Fed.

And that’s why it has never been more important that you call [your senators] and DEMAND that they withdraw their support for ANY effort to strip the bill of the Audit, and oppose all efforts to grant the Fed more power under the guise of so-called “reform.”

It’s clear that passage of this bill would pretty much guarantee that the FED is never audited, allowing the banksters to continue to rob and loot the American people.

And this sounds like something taken directly out of the Ben Bernanke playbook.

You see, Ben Bernanke and his buddies have been claiming the need for Fed “independence” for some time now.

But what they’re really talking about is independence from accountability…

…Independence to keep printing money out of thin air without any oversight from the American people, further destroying our savings and wiping out the middle class.

That’s why it’s vital you take action IMMEDIATELY.

Please call [your senators] and demand that they stand with the nearly 80% of Americans who support a FULL audit of the Federal Reserve.

You and I are now very close to allowing the American people to have the first ever COMPLETE audit of the Federal Reserve, and without your efforts, Ben Bernanke and his cronies would have nothing to worry about.

But I’m afraid if you and I don’t act right away, all of our efforts up until now will be rendered useless.

And that’s something I’m not going to sit idly by and allow to happen.

If we’re going to stop this attempt to gut Audit the Fed, we must act before it’s too late.

So please, right now, call [your senators] and demand that they support a FULL audit of the Fed and OPPOSE all attempts to broaden the Fed’s power.

And if you can, please make your most generous contribution to help Campaign for Liberty alert millions of Americans to this battle.

But most importantly, please contact [your senators] TODAY.

John Tate

P.S. Fed-loving Senators are working behind closed doors to strip Audit the Fed out of the Financial Reform Bill while granting the Fed even more power.

That’s why it’s vital you IMMEDIATELY call [your senators] and demand they stand with the nearly 80% of Americans who support a FULL audit of the Federal Reserve.


  • The solutions to our problems is to transition to a Resource-Based Economy, which is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

    Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

    A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

    Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

    In a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth’s people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.

    We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world’s population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

    Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.

    At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth’s inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today’s society would no longer be necessary.

    A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.

    Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.

    A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. Consider the fact that the sun in just one hour could give us enough energy to power the entire earth for a year! A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.

    What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.

    Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.

    With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one’s job will no longer be a threat This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.

    If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.

    Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

    Q:How would trade be eradicated? That is, after all, the ONLY way to eliminate money.

    A: Consider the fact that more and more people are losing their jobs, not only because our unstable economy but also because of automation in production. For even when an economy is healthy, technologic advances in a ‘free-market system’ (which promoots the ‘maximizing of profits’) means that business, in order to stay competitive, will replace their workers with machines. This is a natural process which will eventually leed to a decrease in workers and a raise in unemployment. Also consider that the system of ‘fractional reserve banking’ and ‘debt’ make sure that there is always less money in society that is owed to the banks. The gap between rich and poor grows while the value of money decreases and the kost of living increases. Ofcourse this system cannot hold. What precisely wil happen when the system totally fails is difficult to predict. But most likely we will see a decrease in trade as an reaction to inflation the decreasing of money value.

    Q: Wouldn’t this system require a ruling class of technocrats?
    Surely SOMEONE would have to tend to the

    The film explains the subject much more detailed than i possibly can i a few words.

    Also take a look at: ‘’
    Here you can find all information concerning a resource based society.

    If you are interested in supporting the movement and spreading this knowledge and information, please take a look at:

    I wish you all well!
    With kind regards,

    the zeitgeistmovement

  • Dorothy Lenz

    I would like to have anyone who voted against the health care monstrosity to consider getting together and to form up another country that uses the constitution as its basic document and to secede from the United States of Socialism. I would love it if Ron Paul and John McCain and any other interested republican who supports the constitution would secede from the USA and start another country. I’d move there- very quickly.

    • Matt

      I’m hoping this was posted mostly tongue-in-cheek, since this recent bill passage is very discouraging. I assume you weren’t being serious but there are many readers who would take such an idea and run with it. So I just wanted to point out that secession from the union would be a plan even worse than the health care monstrosity. Federalist papers #6-#8 do a great job explaining the benefit and absolute value of remaining intact, and George Washington also strongly cautioned us away from the idea with his farewell address.

      I take hope in the fact that real Americans are now getting involved who otherwise were too distracted with their own lives to pay much attention to politics. And I hope that the furor raised over this terrible development will start discovering the Audit The Fed bill that Dr Paul has co-authored. The best step we can take is to regain control of our national money, after that point these enormous programs would cease being sustainable (or able to pretend to be sustainable)

  • Thom

    While every person is entitled to his own opinion, a few individuals might do well not to share theirs. It is their decision to share if that is what they wish, however, I can’t help but to think that these persons might not realize just how misinformed or otherwise quite simply inaccurate and incorrect their assertions are. And that if these persons do know, they are most likely either seeking stimulation in the form of attention given by those who hold views, incompatible with the ones they claim to have, or they deliberately avoid, in their no doubt extensive research of the current issues of contention, honest consideration of any possible viewpoint that they perceive to be inconsistent with their own. Because one who has truly immersed himself in the vast and abundant wealth of knowledge found all around us in literature and, presently, in a time commonly referred to as “the information age,” online–readily available to anyone who will but take to time to look for an exceedingly brief moment, is quickly and easily recognized as having done such. Even one who has but dipped a toe into the staggering amount of knowledge quickly obtainable at his fingertips, is by most people, effortlessly distinguished from one who holds on blindly to what he has heard from others, whether he believes true or false, and what his own viewpoint, which he has derived solely from his assessment, which is without doubt, profoundly flawed from his lack of original research and want of critical thinking skills, of that which he hears others say, dictates he repeat for others to hear time and time again, all the while proving his own ignorance and unwillingness to research and think critically about the value of not just his own belief system but the value of the differing beliefs of which he is more than just a little fearful, and further, the value of the beliefs that contradict his own, the likes of which he is not simply fearful of, but of which he is terrified, terrified to his very core.
    After reading comments from many varying articles posted on this website, I can deliver my honest opinion of the one many of you already seem to know and love, “Fred” the so-called “protectionist.” The previously described type of persons does come nearly close enough to doing our friend Fred justice. The glaringly evident desire for attention does indeed manifest itself in poor Fred. Although it would certainly not be unreasonable to infer based on the sheer quantity of inane posts to which he belongs, Fred’s reason for posting here is not explained solely by his seemingly irresistible desire for attention; Fred is a great deal more complex than this. Fred’s actions cannot be explained simply by his marked phobia of views that he consciously and purposefully perceives to be inconsistent, or worse, incompatible to the beliefs he considers his own. Petrified as he may be of the difference and dissidence, Fred’s behavior is not adequately explained by his perceived need to shield himself from that which he fears so greatly.
    No, “Fred the Protectionist” is an individual in whom the psyche has taken control. As “the Protectionist” suggests, Fred is in favor of some form of regulation on international trade. This idea is not a crazy one as due to the nature of capitalism, manufacturing of goods is often substantially cheaper when outsourced to other nations. Without going to much into the ins and outs of protectionism, it suffices to say that without an incentive, e.g., an import tariff
    designed to encourage consumer preference for goods of origin within the United States, thus creating an atmosphere in which jobs are created that will remain there, available for the working class i.e., most people, thus protecting our economy from being utterly decimated by private industry’s innate desire to capitalize, which will inevitably lead them away to a place where they can pay starving 5 year olds less than 3 cents per hour to work day in and day out in dangerous and unsanitary working conditions, leaving the working class back in the U.S. without the work that is necessary to support the NATION’S ECONOMY. A pure policy of free trade is economic suicide for the nation. But this is where Fred’s redeeming protectionist qualities end. Fred is not just a protectionist in one sense of the term; he is a protectionist when it comes to the idea of free thought too. Unlike economic protectionism, Fred’s cognitive protectionism is not so beneficial to that which it protects. It should be noted that while the benefits a small dose of protectionism can bestow on a nation’s economy are evident, extreme protectionism, not unlike a pure policy of free trade, is also cause for disaster. The consequences of such a policy were perhaps best put into words by Claude Frédéric Bastiat when he said, “When goods cannot cross borders, armies will.” This relates to the type of extreme cognitive protectionism our friend Fred suffers from in that he is unwilling to allow a healthy exchange of ideas due to his extreme bias. In this analogy of sorts, the goods are the various opinions and ideas that originate in people’s minds; the influence of bias and fear is the extreme protectionist policy. In a normal, healthy discussion, two or more people exchange their thoughts and ideas with one another, each giving healthy consideration to the other’s ideas and views, all the while reconsidering their own and thinking critically about what of value there is to all sides. In these healthy conversations, all parties leave with a better understanding of one another and of themselves. However, as one might surmise, this is not the case in most, if not all, of the discussions in which Fred appears. Fred does not have critical thinking skills and does not consider other’s ideas and viewpoints. This is due to Fred’s bias and unhealthy fear he has for that which he does not fully understand, or understand at all. This ironic because without even a rudimentary understanding of ideas that challenge his own, he cannot fully understand the ideas which he, himself, holds onto so dearly. Instead of embracing discussion as a unique opportunity to learn more about the views of others and, by extension, more about himself and his own beliefs, he chooses belligerence and places himself at odds with others minds. This stance means that he will most often attempt to force his views upon others because he expects others to value them as highly as he does. This occurs simultaneously with his ubiquitous rejection of all ideas foreign to him. Obviously, the final product of such interaction is undesirable for all parties in regard to the potential for enlightening conversation that interacting with one another has when each party takes care to control his preconceived notions concerning the ideas of another. Regrettably, poor Fred does not see the value that social interactions such as intellectual discussion and debate have to offer. Instead, Fred perceives any and all difference of opinion as hostility; his coping mechanisms, developed from fear, deal with the perceived threat in the form of preemptive hostility towards differing beliefs. When the victims of his hostility respond to his attacks unfavorably, instead of realizing that his own less than cordial attitude precipitated unfavorable response, Fred understands it as confirmation of his preconceptions toward others. With his fears confirmed and the perception that his preconceptions are well founded, Fred concludes that his actions are justified and as such, he begins to crave the negative attention his dissidence creates.
    Verily, we ought to pity Fred, not hate him. At his core, he is an individual, so frightened by differing thoughts, that during his cognitive developmental years there thrived such a mind crippling apprehension of any belief inconsistent with or contrary to his own that he actually craves the attention he receives for his contemptuous impugnment of others. Veritably, when one asks for proof of a psychiatry’s potential usefulness to mankind, one must stand in awe when confronted with this truly unique individual. I do not know if such a drug exists as of yet that is capable of helping this poor soul live a life worth living with such a mentally debilitating psychological disorder. The intellectual deficits he must suffer from due to which, must be unbearable to live with day by day. I for one, pity Fred.
    So here’s to you Fred, cheers.
    I do not doubt what hardships you must encounter everyday, coping as best you can…But I am sure that you will know what it is to be at peace with yourself.
    Don’t ever give up on living, Fred.
    I believe in you.

    • Fred the Protectionist

      Am I suppose to read all that? lol

      • Thom

        I didn’t expect you or anyone else to actually read the entire post. I did, however, provide readers with an opportunity to do such, and in respect to that fact, I have done my part. 🙂

        As the tired, old adage goes,
        “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”
        While this particular quote, I believe, is of more than adequate contingency. However, I can’t help but think of another quote that, while similar in its application, I find considerably both considerably more accurate and humorous: “You can lead a horticulture, but you can’t make her think.”
        Ah, the joy of epigrams…

        • Fred the Protectionist



          • Thom

            Whore to culture?

            Darn, I didn’t want to give it away but…
            Oh well.


  • Fred the Protectionist

    Reg-reg-reg-regulate the FED?

    REGULATION?! OMG! *jumps off cliff*

    “Rand Paul,” geez. I can’t believe he named his kid after a jewish female former Soviet Communist gone anarchist. That’s quite a leap, going from Commie to Anarchist. lawl.

    Well whoever or whatever ‘she’ is, her views certainly are alien to America.

    • longshotlouie

      Are you running around in circles, on a chair, wearing tri-colored and pointy hat and shoes with bells on the end?
      Rand is short for Randall. Get a grip.

      I guess we should be offended that our token shill is such a blathering idiot,
      …….. if it weren’t so damn funny.

      • Fred the Protectionist

        No, he named him after that Soviet freak Ayn Rand.

        • longshotlouie

          That’s odd. His name is Randall.

      • Forest

        I am no longer the ‘token shill’?


        • longshotlouie

          Nah Forest, you are the real shill.

  • Master

    Henry Kissinger’s 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide

    by Joseph Brewda
    Dec. 8, 1995

    On Dec. 10, 1974, the U.S. National Security Council under Henry Kissinger completed a classified 200-page study, “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” The study falsely claimed that population growth in the so-called Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs) was a grave threat to U.S. national security. Adopted as official policy in November 1975 by President Gerald Ford, NSSM 200 outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in those countries through birth control, and also, implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as national security adviser (the same post Scowcroft was to hold in the Bush administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture.

    The bogus arguments that Kissinger advanced were not original. One of his major sources was the Royal Commission on Population, which King George VI had created in 1944 “to consider what measures should be taken in the national interest to influence the future trend of population.” The commission found that Britain was gravely threatened by population growth in its colonies, since “a populous country has decided advantages over a sparsely-populated one for industrial production.” The combined effects of increasing population and industrialization in its colonies, it warned, “might be decisive in its effects on the prestige and influence of the West,” especially effecting “military strength and security.”

    NSSM 200 similarly concluded that the United States was threatened by population growth in the former colonial sector. It paid special attention to 13 “key countries” in which the United States had a “special political and strategic interest”: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia. It claimed that population growth in those states was especially worrisome, since it would quickly increase their relative political, economic, and military strength.

    For example, Nigeria: “Already the most populous country on the continent, with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria’s population by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million. This suggests a growing political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa.” Or Brazil: “Brazil clearly dominated the continent demographically.” The study warned of a “growing power status for Brazil in Latin America and on the world scene over the next 25 years.”

    want to know more then follow the link

  • Master

    I have a soultion for all American nation to save from Economic Terrorism

    Eliminate all Jew
    yes I’m not joking
    and this book is written by HENRY FORD, SR.
    here is link
    plz plz read the book and then plz let me know ur views via email
    how these basted rule the nations

    • Fred the Protectionist

      A) It wasn’t written by Ford.

      B) It was a series of articles published by a magazine owned by Ford, the Dearborn Independant.

      C) The Libertarians (neocons) have brought this on themselves, if they don’t back down soon we will need a scapegoat. And when that happens you can kiss all your liberal progress goodbye.

      • longshotlouie

        If there were a few readers left that actually took you seriously, you just kicked them in the head.
        How could they even consider you credible when you compare polar opposites.

        Libertarians = Neo-Cons? Did you recently have to double your meds?

        Liberal progress is an oxymoron. Fred is an oxycotin moron.

        • Fred the Protectionist

          Libertarians are the NewConservatives (neocons), because your social liberals and radical anarcho capitalists who insist on being called Conservatives.

          Statism and Hawkishness aren’t mutually exclusive with Conservatism, nutto.

          • longshotlouie

            Thanks again for proving that you are dumber than a box of rocks.

            “social liberals and radical anarcho capitalists” ????????????

          • Fred the Protectionist

            You you’re social liberals + anarcho capitalists.

            You would get rid of all safety nets, get rid of the EPA, you’re open border free traders (anarcho capitalism).

            You’re baby killers, think it’s ok for women to be lugging around M-16’s and shooting people, give homosexuals and non-whites special rights. (social liberals)

            Anarcho Capitalism + Social Liberalism is an invention of the 60’s, which makes you NEW (neo); you insist on being called Conservative; so you are NeoCons.

          • longshotlouie

            All of that bridge building must have you delirious.

      • Matt

        Fred, I’m guessing that at some point your search for free marijuana led you to an article on this site and somehow you got hooked?

        Libertarianism is not a product of the 60’s, unless you meant the 1760’s. Though that would hardly make it new and you’d be about a decade early. The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776 and was a great resource for policy makers during the incredible time of America’s framing.

        Also, to a Libertarian there are no “special rights” only “equal rights”. So you might want to only read your political theory websites when you’re not hitting the weed.

        • Fred the Protectionist

          Libertarian economic beliefs (anarcho-capitalism) mostly mirrors the Confederate economic beliefs of the old South. But I don’t ever recall the Old South having liberal beliefs like abortion, anti-Christian, gay-minority-female special rights and privilege beliefs.

          Libertarianism is a 60’s construct, it’s new, not old.

  • longshotlouie

    Fear looks good on you, D.

  • Dfens

    I wonder when Ron Paul will turn on his country and his fellow Americans again and tell us how horrible it is that an American company will win this competition for the KC-X tanker competition?

    Northrop and EADS both made it clear they would not bid again, leaving the competition to sole contender Boeing. Northrop chief executive Wes Bush says the request for proposals “clearly favours Boeing’s smaller refuelling tanker and does not provide adequate value recognition of the added capability of a larger tanker, precluding us from any competitive opportunity”. – Flight Global

    Here’s another golden opportunity for Ron Paul to show how he is just like his hero, John McCain. Why the silence? Why no ringing endorsement for “free trade”? Is Ron Paul a fair weather, free traitor?

    • Al

      Unpopular speech should not be silenced-


      I am not sure exactly what events you are talking about. If you are saying that Ron Paul should speak out against the contract preferences and back room deals, I don’t disagree with you. I assume that Ron Paul would oppose much of the trade, (that I assure you is in no way free), with the Boeing corporation, Raytheon, Northrop, IAI, etc….

      Boeing is a money pit that receives huge gifts of taxpayer money for its somewhat embarrassing military contract history, even when it fails to deliver. I would be surprised if Ron Paul supported such arrangements with Boeing, or to say… IAI, who we also backdoor money and contracts to. The US taxpayer subsidizes military contractors both here and abroad and then turns around and hands lucrative contracts to them. They use this leverage to spread the market regulation to third parties by demanding what each contractor can sell to their customers to shift the market to specific producers. This is not only a sure way to drive price up and quality down by not only restricting the market, but also by handing out capital to the ‘in’ crowd of producers.

      • Dfens

        Companies like Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, and Lockheed Martin are what keeps your sorry ass free, and don’t you ever forget that. Those companies are chock full of American patriots who work hard every day so you can go on the free internet and trash them even when the only thing they’ve ever done to you is make your country strong enough that we’ve never had to fight a foreign opponent on domestic soil. These companies do not get “subsidized” as you seem to think, unless you call a government contract a “subsidy” in which case the KC-X program was a choice between whether our government should “subsidize” an American or a foreign company, and natually Ron Paul would like our government to subsidize foreign companies with our tax dollars because that’s the kind of traitor he is.

        Now as for the kind of “bang for your buck” you get from defense contractors, well, once upon a time, they were the best in the world at turning out high quality weaponry at great prices, but then your government under the watchful eye of people like Ron Paul decided to change the rules on the way the contracting game was played. Instead of paying a company more for good weapons that kept costs low and performed well, they went to a procurement system that rewards failure, pays more to companies that jack costs through the roof and produce over priced weapons at an extremely slow rate of development.

        Now, I personally have a hard time blaming Boeing for doing a bad job when you pay them more to drag out development and jack up the price of new weapons. If you want them to produce good weapons on-time and on-budget then you should pay them more to do that. Instead you pay them more to screw you and then complain when they do. From that, I can only observe that you are an idiot.

        If you think you’ll get better weapons under that same procurement system from some foreign weapons maker, then good luck. You’re damn lucky you get as good as you do. It is a testament to the patriotism of companies like Boeing that you get any weapons at all.

        • Well, Well, Well! Sounds like Dfens is drinking the Neo-Con and corporate KOOL-AID and getting drunk off of them thinking the whole country revolves around the Fed!

          • Fred the Protectionist


          • I am not a Libertarian, nor a neo-con. However I agree with them on many issues! You sound like the Neo-Cons Fled!

          • I am an Independent voter! I say Ron Paul is an honest and upstanding person unlike you!

          • Fred the Protectionist

            “I am not a Libertarian, nor a neo-con. However I agree with them on many issues! You sound like the Neo-Cons Fled!”

            You seem confused, don’t know what you are.

            Libertarians are the neocons.

        • longshotlouie

          ” If you want them to produce good weapons on-time and on-budget then you should pay them more to do that.”
          Pay them more? Than what? Did they bid a price? We should pay more than they bid?

          By the way, are you a fan of Blackwater?

          • Fred the Protectionist

            Oh no Blackwater *waves hands*, black helicopters, concentration camps, jews with guns. RUN!

          • longshotlouie

            Hard to tell if that was a yes or a no.

          • Fred the Protectionist

            Hard to tell what any of ‘you people’ say. The letters are all standard, but nobody understands the words coming out.

          • longshotlouie

            We have little trouble believing that you do not understand.
            Did you learn to read with ‘Look/See’ method?

        • longshotlouie

          You heard it here first, folks. Mega-Corps keep you free.


        • Dfens and Fled since you guys like bashing Libertarians, Independents, and Dr. Paul! Then why the hell are you two even here in this site?

          • Fred the Protectionist

            Why do you Ronulans leave this site and go elsewhere to spread your filthy beliefs?

          • longshotlouie

            The same reason you do.

    • Lindsey

      Dfens: Are you from Kansas? Also, Boeing is an American company. I think they will win the bid but I do agree with you that foreign countries should be severely restricted in bidding for our defense contracts. NOT eliminated, just severely restricted. Yes, that is a national security issue.