http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

Chuck Baldwin is a true Conservative whereas John McCain is nothing more than a CFR sponsored Necon running against a CFR sponsored Democrat in Obama. One thing you know out front is Chuck Baldwin nor Ron Paul are members of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations).

I believe the Rally for the Republic was not allowed to introduce all the constitutionalists running for Congress because of IRS rules. The Campaign for Liberty is a 501©(4).

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/events/

nader paul kucinich gravel
mckinney ventura
perot charts
rage

Got honesty?

September 6th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
So, Don Grundmann of the American Independent Party. Does that mean that Alan Keyes will also be there? The reason I ask, is maybe Ron Paul has the BRILLIANT idea about really bringing all the third party candidates together to form ONE third party. Sure they may bicker about the assorted issues (left and right) BUT, if they were united against a common enemy, such as the global elitist that are running the show now? Well, then we may actually get somewhere in this country after all.”

Response : Wendy – The Alan Keyes that would show up anywhere these days is NOT the Alan Keyes that may have been before or that you may imagine him to be. Unfortunately Keyes is involved in a very corrupt action and with some very corrupt people against the AIP of California. In past times he may have been a moral authority that people could look to but those times are completely gone as he is now a empty suit hiding behind his former image. The reality of Alan Keyes is that he has, as the leader of his corrupt subordinates who act as surrogates and with his permission and endorsement, performed, and continues to do so to this day, extremely corrupt actions inclusive of filing false documents with the California Secretary of State office to deceive that office in the performance of its functions. Keyes has benefitted materially for his and their corrupt actions. It is a sad end for someone who could have helped the nation but chose instead to betray it while hiding behind a now fake image of who he is and what he represents. His current corruption will be exposed and stopped followed by his unfortunate ignominious fade into history. He is not who he claims to be and any imagined benefits from acting in concert with him will be short lived until his inevitable betrayal of any and all working with him surfaces. When we ” unite against a common enemy ” we will unfortunately get nowhere and less than that when we have a traitor acting within our midst.

This charade won’t generate 1 KB in news coverage.

http://www.monetary.org/hughdowns.htm

‘Odder than Oz’
by Hugh Downs

What do you suppose Alan Greenspan, Judy Garland, and the American Civil war have in common? Give up? They are all connected to turn-of-the-century U.S. monetary policy, of course! Not so obvious? Let me explain.

Just before the American Civil War broke out, Americans used dollar bills that had been issued by banks. The government didn’t make any money, except coins. When the war began, the government (like all governments at war,) needed a great deal of money fast. President Lincoln decided to print it just like banks did. These early government notes were called “greenbacks” and, as you might expect, printing all those greenbacks led to rampant inflation.

Eventually, about 15 years after the war was over, people who held Federal notes, the greenbacks, could redeem them for gold coin. Few people bothered to make this trade because the war was long over, gold reserves were healthy, and people had faith in the government. Money was once again backed by real gold, but this created a new problem. The government could not print any more money that was not backed by gold, and that constricted the money supply.

People who already had money, that is rich people, didn’t want any more money added to the supply because an inflated money supply, devalues savings. Inflation is always bad for people with money because their money becomes less valuable. But people without money, especially poor farmers, were clamoring for the government to print more. Inflation always helps the poor because debts can be repaid in cheaper dollars and money becomes more available for loans, investments, for everything. By 1874 a new political party called the Greenback Party demanded that the government mint unlimited amounts of coin, print more paper money and give $50 to every U.S. citizen. Poor farmers were demanding an inflationary monetary policy.

The Greenback Party dissolved in about 10 years, but a new party emerged and took up the inflationary baton. They were known as the Populist Party and legions of Midwestern and Southern farmers joined. The Populists eventually supported the Democrats because both parties were part of the Free Silver Movement. Remember the problem with the gold standard: the government couldn’t print any more without discovering more gold to back it up. The Free Silver Movement wanted the government to add silver as yet another standard, in addition to gold. Having two standards would allow the government to inflate the money supply and provide relief to farmers. The price of crops had plummeted but debts still had to be paid in gold backed currency.

On July 8, 1896, during the Democratic national convention, a young 36 year old congressman named william Jennings Bryan gave a brilliant rhetorical flourish to the crowd’s sentiments. Bryan exclaimed: “You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold.” The ecstatic crowd elected William Jennings Bryan as their presidential candidate.

The “cross of gold,” of course, referred to the single standard; the rigid link between gold and money. The gold standard, favored by Eastern bankers and financiers, was also known as the “hard money policy.” Bryan and his friends championed bi-metallism instead. With two standards, the government could create and back more money – a policy known as “easy money.” Farmers were burdened by bank mortgages on their farms. They were forced to borrow gold backed notes. But the price of gold continued to go up, while the price for crops continued to go down. If U.S. monetary policy eased the money supply, farmers might have a chance to survive.

William Jennings Bryan lost the 1896 election to William McKinley. He lost again to McKinley in 1900 and then, in 1908, Bryan lost yet another presidential election to William Howard Taft. But the dream of a looser money supply, and hatred of Eastern bankers lingered on. The Democratic and Progressive Parties, and others, adopted some of the economic principles forged in the Greenback and Populist Parties. Most interesting, though, is that the spirit of the Free Silver Movement and its resentment for Eastern bankers found its way into one of America’s most original fairy tales: the Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

In 1900, Frank Baum, the author of the Wizard of Oz, was a staunch supporter of the Free Silver Movement and, like many Americans at the time, he distrusted the East coast banking establishment. And now we learn a fascinating story told to us by anthropologist Jack Weatherford. Weatherford tells us, in his new book THE HISTORY OF MONEY, that Baum’s tale of Oz is a thinly disguised parable of turn-of-the-century monetary policy. The Wizard of Oz is the wizard of the gold ounce, the abbreviation of ounce is, of course, oz.

Dorothy, the lead character made famous in the screen version by Judy Garland, represented the average rural American. Dorothy, says Weatherford, was probably modeled on the populist orator Leslie Kelsey who was known as “the Kansas Tornado.” Dorothy, and Toto, are flung by the tornado to the East where they discover the Yellow Brick Road – meaning a gold road. The road leads to Oz “where the wicked witches and wizards of banking operate.”

The Scarecrow is the American farmer. The Tin Woodman is the American factory worker, and the Cowardly Lion is William Jennings Bryan. Weatherford says: “The party’s march on Oz is a re-creation of the 1894 march of Coxey’s Army, a group of unemployed men led by … Jacob S. Coxey to demand (a) public issue of 500 million greenbacks…for (the) common people.” The Wizard himself represented Marcus Hanna who controlled both the Republican Party and the McKinley administration. The Munchkins “were the simpleminded people of the East who did not understand how the wizard … pulled the levers … that controlled the money, the economy, and the government.”

The simpleminded residents of Oz were required to wear green tinted glasses fastened by gold buckles. Off to the West, the Wicked Witch of the West had enslaved the yellow Winkies, which Weatherford explains, “is a reference to the imperialist aims of the Republican administration, which had captured the Phillipines from Spain and refused to grant them independence.”

At the end of the story the Wizard and the Witches are exposed as crude fakes. This dramatic revelation makes everything better. The scarecrow, who represents the farmer, discovers that he is really intelligent and not stupid. The Cowardly Lion, who is really William Jennings Bryan, finds courage. And the Tin Woodman, actually the American factory worker, “received a new source of strength in a bimetallic tool – a golden axe with a blade of silver.”

In the original edition of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Dorothy returns to Kansas by clicking the heels of her silver slippers together. The moviemakers decided that red looked better on screen than silver and that’s the way most of us remember the tale. As you can see, and thanks to Jack Weatherford for pointing it out, most of us have completely forgotten the secret story behind the Wizard of Oz.

Today, the Federal Reserve Bank determines America’s monetary policy, but the Fed wasn’t created until 1913. The modern equivelent of the Wizard of Oz – or Marcus Hanna – is, of course, the ever-charming Alan Greenspan. So now you know. The Civil War, Judy Garland and Alan Greenspan, really are connected.

...it appears some of the earliest historical records of ‘christianity’
(back when ‘christianity’ was OBVIOUSLY much more ‘pure’ than it is now) show that it was peopled by martyrs…some/many of whom meekly went to their deaths for their beliefs..

...but some of you con. party freaks appear the type of snarling, finger-pointing, fucks who would’ve cheered for the lions over the saints!.. (no, not the detroit lions or new orleans saints!)

...heck, brother lowell would have me beaten and abused for merely eating meat…as did, apparently, his hero jesus (the original ‘community organizer’)...

...and do put away all this hate directed at your fellows here!!...maybe learn a little about your stinking money system, you monetary ignoramusses, and save your hate for today’s fucking ‘moneychanger$’..who surely own your asses..and your stinking republicrat government..they surely deserve your hate! ;o)

..have a good day!..

Barr should have prevented Root from being his VP.

On the Ron Paul Forum this story is evolving as Paul inviting Baldwin, Barr, Nader and McKinney to join him at the National Press Club. Does NOT sound like an endorsement to me.—-
A Third Party Coalition perhaps…

“I try to live my own life according to what I believe to be God’s standards (but I fail a lot!), but I CANNOT force someone else to do that, NOR SHOULD I.”

Aw, come on, William, go ahead, force yourself on someone. Shove your way of life down someone’s throat. You’re going to be accused of doing that anyway so why not be guilty of it for once. Grab some amoral, sociopathic libertarian – or some homosexual – by the lapels and make him eat a Bible page-by-page. And when you’re done ask him if it tasted good. If he says, no, make him eat another one until he catches on. I see no point whatsoever in allowing those that see themselves as oppressed by the mere existence of Christian beliefs not to have some concrete reality to their fears.

Is it likely that MOST of the founders were Christian? I think so, but at least at the time the Declaration of Independence was written, Jefferson (the chief writer, was he not?) was most likely a Deist. As was, Andy points out, Benjamin Franklin.

I think Don needs to read Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

All my life I’ve heard my fellow Christians go on and on about how this is a “Christian” nation and I’ve heard Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and the like go on and on about how we have to be good and vote Republican, blah blah blah. But seriously, the best environment for Christianity to flourish, at least in my opinion, would be one of Liberty. You can’t force someone to be a Christian, nor can you insist that non-Christians live up to your Christian standard. It is alien to them, just like someone asking me to follow Islamic teaching to the letter. I can’t—it’s alien to me. Are there laws that we can argue have their roots in Christianity? Certainly. Jesus was known as “The Prince of Peace,” (yet so many of the Religious Right must think his name is really “Trumpeter of War” with their blind support of unconstitutional Military occupations.)

I try to live my own life according to what I believe to be God’s standards (but I fail a lot!), but I CANNOT force someone else to do that, NOR SHOULD I. I believe it was St. Thomas Aquinas who said “The law cannot make a man virtuous.”

“John: you called Paul a much worse name than Barr, a certain yiddish word. No response to this.”

Wonderful, Stefan, you picked up on the Yiddish! I find Yiddish particularly expressive, it reaches through to a depth at times equalled only by Italian hand gestures. The term was “schmeggegie”, meaning buffoon. I might also have used “schlemeil” which has a similar although not quite the same meaning. Paul earned this description when he wussed out on doing an independent candidacy earlier in the year. He abandoned dedicated followers so as to insure his re-election as a Republican, about the most self-serving thing he might have done. There’s another, more precise Yiddish name for someone like Paul and its “farbrecher”. Look it up.