Bit Coins.

Sorry, I couldn’t type that with a straight face.

The monetary issue IS the same as the foreign policy issue. Soldiers have a habit of not soldiering when they don’t get paid. 

The defense industry, just as Eisenhower warned, has found a way to latch on to the Federal Reserve titty. It has become a bureaucracy like any other. When you actually look at the foreign policy of the United States in timeline format, it really does open the eyes to what a bunch of egghead globalists are running our foreign policy. 

Frankly, I seriously doubt Paul will be elected. I also seriously doubt that we will pose any problem for Iran, the Chinks or Norks. We won’t have the money to do so because the country is ignoring what Paul has to say needs to be done to FedGov. Frankly, I will not be surprised if the Obummer is re-elected as I refuse to overestimate the intelligence of the US voter. If not, Romney and Gingrich are not different enough from the Obummer to matter anyway. They will try to maintain the status quo by tweaking a few things so Joe Six Pack can go back to the couch and be comatose again. Joe Six Pack only cares about not having to worry, and he will listen to anyone that tells him he doesn’t have to and hands him a few goodies to think he doesn’t have to worry.

Just something to think about …

The candidates are set. They all have track records and proposals. One candidate understands economics, monetary policy, wants to slash the federal budget, and bring liberty back to America. The others want to “spread democracy” across the globe. None of them offer both.

The reason none of them offer both is because they require adherence to 2 radically opposing governing philosophies. In other words, someone who wants to intervene abroad naturally wants to intervene at home. After all, if government can immanentize the eschaton, why stop at doing so only home or abroad?

You can’t have it all. So, conservatives have a tough choice to make. Domestic liberty or foreign wars. There is no third way.

Since the odds of America being invaded, let alone conquered, is about slim to none, the threat of going the way of Greece seems a lot more imminent to me.

Well, this election is about the economy.  There won’t be much of a US if we don’t fix things here.

Unfortunately we are long past the time for tweaking.  We don’t need someone who tweaks, we need an iconoclast.

You might want to go to the library and actually read what he’s written on the subject.  He doesn’t actually advocate a gold standard.  He likes the idea of competing currencies.

Speaking of looking like an idiot, by all means, let’s take your advice and  stay on board this sinking ship.

Incidentally this was Hayek’s idea as well.

Hmm, sold arms to both sides, seems to be a sound business model, really clever how Sir Basil got that Hitler feller to invade Poland.
As for debt our grew six fold from 41 to 1946 comprising 97.82% of the debt increase from 1900 to 1950. Having our future allies pay us in gold for war material, food and fuel etc. adding substantially to our reserves, it was when they ran out that FDR came up with lend lease. Our war effort was largely financed by our citizenry purchasing war bonds making the foundation of our currency um flexible.

As for Donald McCormick I suspect his hat was made of tinfoil, possibly making it more effective than those made of aluminum foil.

So what are these competing currencies going to be based on? Gold? Silver? Both? And what difference does it make whether you have a bunch of competing currencies based on gold or one national currency based on gold? Or perhaps more to the point, what’s the difference between competing fiat currencies and one? It’s still unworkable. The economy would be too big even if there wasn’t any debt, but the debt itself kills the idea right there. I give Paul props for trying to come up with what he probably honestly thinks is a valid solution, but I just don’t think it is.

It was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_McCormick

A British Joe McGinniss, it would seem.