Federal Inspector General Investigation proves Ron Paul’s claims “Bizarre”

{Updated annotation 05 April 2012: There is a cost to the “bizarre” accusations made by Rep. Dr. Ron Paul, MD (R-TX) during that Congressional hearing. As a direct result of his accusations, a 16-month long Inspector General investigation was conducted, which undoubtedly cost “we the people,” aka taxpayers, several millions of dollars.}

It’s one thing to say “the moon is made of green cheese.”

It’s an entirely different matter to say it and truly believe it.

In this case, Rep. Dr. Ron Paul, MD (R-TX), believes it.

God help him.

God help us all when kooks like him get elected to any public office.

I rather think this solitary example is proof positive that Rep. Dr. Ron Paul is unfit for office.

Following are various news items referencing the recently released findings.

Along with the news items about the findings is a link to Rep. Dr. Ron Paul’s, MD (R-TX) column hosted on the LewRockwell.com website. Lew Rockwell is another prime example of a kook, who, like Rep. Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX) subscribes to the theories of the “Austrian School of Economics” which – though it’s Mises Institute is headquartered in Auburn, Alabama – has no ties with the city or university located in that town.

{Note to the reader: Throughout this entry, there are numerous links to references and resources about the highlighted items. None of the links are advertising, and most all links refer to entries on Wikipedia, while some refer to original or referenced resources.}

—

Excerpted from Marketplace, Morning Report, Wednesday, 04 April 2012 – “Fed money played no role in Watergate.“

Marketplace’s David Gura is here live from Washington to tell us about something a little juicier. Morning David.

David Gura: Morning Jeremy.

Hobson: So this item, I gather, comes from the Fed’s inspector general?

Gura: That’s right; so we’re learnign about the Fed’s history. First, we learned that the Federal Reserve was not involved in the Watergate burglary back in 1972; the cash used in the scandal did not come through the Federal Reserve. And second, there is no evidence the Fed helped Saddam Hussein, helped Iraq, get billions of dollars to buy weapons in the 80s.

Hobson: OK, all good to know — but why was the inspector general looking into this?

Gura: So, back in February of 2010, Ben Bernanke was testifying before the House Financial Services Committee. And Republican Congressman Ron Paul — one of the Fed’s biggest critics — made these two claims, about the Fed and Watergate, and about the Fed supposedly loaning money to Saddam Hussein.

And this is was Ben Bernanke’s reply, at the hearing back then:

What does an unregulated, “free market economy” look like?

{Ed note: This post is dedicated to: governmental deregulators, those whom subscribe to the school of Austrian economics, and their defenders, the ivory-towered theorists of the Mises Institute, whose pie-in-the-sky ramblings are errant and theoretical only, having no real world solutions to real world problems – and whom, ironically enough, have never created anything of any value.}

Let’s travel to La Riconada, Peru – once an outpost for men in the Andes of South America, now an increasingly populous village/town/city, which at approximately 30,000 population, and 16,732 feet above sea level, is reputedly the highest elevated human habitation in the world.

Because of an increase in the global price of gold, physicians & attorneys among others, have flocked to the area, seeking their fortunes, to work in a gold mine in the area.

Here are some interesting photos… and heart-wrenching descriptions of what it is like for people to live in an area that has no formal economy, no taxes and no government services.

Electricity and cell phone service are reliable but sewage and trash collection are non-existent. Even with the harsh conditions, the city’s population keeps growing. Photo by Michael Robinson Chavez/ Los Angeles Times.

Peter Schiff exposes a TEA Party fatal flaw at Occupy Wall Street

In a YouTube video entitled “Peter Schiff nails Wall Street Protesters,” Peter Schiff asks one of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators the following question – verbatim: “Wouldn’t you like to get in the 1%? You don’t want more money?”

By asking that question, Mr. Schiff makes a very critical error. In fact, it’s a very simple one to understand. Not everyone will be the 1%. By adding more to the category identified as “the 1%,” it suddenly becomes more than 1%.

As the video progresses, Mr. Schiff continues rhetorically down that deeply and fundamentally flawed path, so that by the end of the video, the conclusions he infers from the statements he makes seem to make reasonable, rational and logical sense. They are, however, founded upon logically flawed premises.

I posit that most viewers would not even casually consider such a blatant problem.

Video follows the break.

Was the Wall Street Bailout Socialist?

Having viewed an interview on MSNBC by Martin Bashir with Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, I was taken with a question Mr. Bashir asked Sen. Sanders toward the conclusion of the interview.

Martin Bashir: Mr. Sanders, how is it possible that people like Eric Cantor appear to encourage capitalism for everyone until a bank fails, and then socialism is acceptable because ‘we have to bail out the banks… we have to support them.’ But all of us – individual citizens in this society – well, if capitalism swipes us aside, we have to accept that?

Because it’s always good to be certain, I doubled checked a couple resources to be certain of what I was hearing.

Here’s what I found: