Duel between Rep. Paul and Bernanke...

Rep. Ron Paul and Ben Bernanke are locked in a clash of titans. Paul, the 74-year-old House libertarian from Texas with the high-pitched voice, has fought for decades to kill off the Federal Reserve. Bernanke, the mild-mannered ex-Princeton professor and chairman of the bank, is waging a high-stakes battle for the Fed’s reputation. And he’s doing everything possible to knock out Paul. The fight is still in the early rounds. But with the full House expected to vote this week to give government auditors more power to scrutinize the Fed, Paul has the upper hand. The Senate is a much more difficult round for Paul, though a similar stew of liberal and conservative support is starting to simmer in the upper chamber behind the Republican’s wonky auditing measure...Link

79% Now Favor Auditing the Fed.......

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke on Thursday voiced his opposition to legislation calling for regular audits of the Fed’s monetary policies, but 79% of Americans think auditing the Fed is a good idea. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just seven percent (7%) of adults oppose auditing the Federal Reserve and making those results available to the public. Fourteen percent (14%) are not sure...Link

Ron Paul: Who Wants War?.........

by Ron Paul | Texas Straight Talk
December 7, 2009

If anyone still doubted that this administration’s foreign policy would bring any kind of change, this week’s debate on Afghanistan should remove all doubt. The President’s stated justifications for sending more troops to Afghanistan and escalating war amount to little more than recycling all the false reasons we began the conflict. It is so discouraging to see this coming from our new leadership, when the people were hoping for peace. New polls show that 49 percent of the people favor minding our own business on the world stage, up from 30 percent in 2002. Perpetual war is not solving anything. Indeed continually seeking out monsters to destroy abroad only threatens our security here at home as international resentment against us builds. The people understand this and are becoming increasingly frustrated at not being heard by the decision-makers. The leaders say some things the people want to hear, but change never comes.

One has to ask, if the people who elected these leaders so obviously do not want these wars, who does? Eisenhower warned of the increasing power and influence of the military industrial complex and it seems his worst fears have come true. He believed in a strong national defense, as do I, but warned that the building up of permanent military and weapons industries could prove dangerous if their influence got out of hand. After all, if you make your money on war, peace does you no good. With trillions of dollars at stake, there is tremendous incentive to keep the decision makers fearful of every threat in the world, real or imagined, present or future, no matter how ridiculous and far-fetched. The Bush Doctrine demonstrates how very successful the war lobby was philosophically with the last administration. And they are succeeding just as well with this one, in spite of having the so-called “peace candidate” in office.

We now find ourselves in another foreign policy quagmire with little hope of victory, and not even a definition of victory. Eisenhower said that only an alert and informed electorate could keep these war racketeering pressures at bay. He was right, and the key is for the people to ensure that their elected leaders follow the Constitution. The Constitution requires a declaration of war by Congress in order to legitimately go to war. Bypassing this critical step makes it far too easy to waste resources on nebulous and never-ending conflicts. Without clear goals, the conflicts last forever and drain the country of blood and treasure. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war precisely because they feared allowing the executive unfettered discretion in military affairs. They understood that making it easy for leaders to wage foreign wars would threaten domestic liberties.

Responses to attacks on our soil should be swift and brief. Wars we fight should always be defensive, clearly defined and Constitutional. The Bush Doctrine of targeting potential enemies before they do anything to us is dangerously vague and easily abused. There is nothing left to win in Afghanistan and everything to lose. Today’s military actions are yet another futile exercise in nation building and have nothing to do with our nation’s security, or with 9/11. Most experts agree that Bin Laden and anyone remotely connected to 9/11 left Afghanistan long ago, but our troops remain. The pressures of the war racketeers need to be put in check before we are brought to our knees by them. Unfortunately, it will require a mighty effort by the people to get the leadership to finally listen.

US recovery has 'way to go' to be self-sustaining.

The US recovery from deep recession has "some way to go" before it becomes rooted enough to be "self-sustaining," Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke said Monday. "Though we have begun to see some improvement in economic activity, we still have some way to go before we can be assured that the recovery will be self-sustaining," Bernanke said in a speech to the Economic Club of Washington...Link

We are going to be there for a long time.....

A contradiction in stated Afghanistan War goals has emerged at the highest levels of American government. While President Barack Obama has indicated he would like US troops to begin leaving Afghanistan in 2011, Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton point out there is no deadline or exit strategy. "We're not talking about an abrupt withdrawal. We're talking about something that will take place over a period of time," Gates told Meet the Press. "We will have 100,000 troops there. And they are not leaving in July of 2011. Some handful or some small number or whatever the conditions permit, will begin to withdraw at that time."..Link

Is There a Doctor in the House?.............

I have to admit that I kind of like Rep. Ron Paul. Partly it's that we're both from Pittsburgh, and both began our careers as paperboys for the Pittsburgh Press. More important, Paul is something unusual in politics. He appears to believe in something. His fundamental views have not changed since 1971, when he decided to run for Congress in Texas because President Nixon abandoned the gold standard. I don't like labels, but in this case I'll use some. Paul, a Duke-trained physician, is an angry, apocalyptic, populist, hard-currency libertarian. He is against paper money, the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and most of the federal government's role in our lives, from fighting in Afghanistan to printing Social Security checks. Paul never saw an establishment he didn't loathe. Many of his ideas are unworkable, some are dangerous, and some of his supporters are conspiracy theorists so paranoid, they probably think this column is part of the Plot...Link

The Best of Leon - watch more funny videos

Fourth senator joins move to block Bernanke.

Bernanke a 'key architect of the Bush economy,' Sanders says

Bunning to Bernanke: You are 'the definition of moral hazard'

Update: A fourth senator has joined three other senators in placing a hold on the Fed Chairman's nomination. Louisiana Republican David Vitter will also move to keep the chairman's nomination from coming to the floor...Link