Submitted by SadInAmerica on Wed, 03/05/2008 - 7:46pm.


Face it friends, Ronald Reagan is dead.  The "Reagan Revolution" was not really a revolution, per se, but merely a realignment of some members of the political class.  And it was a reaction to the financial calamity that preceded Reagan's 1980 presidential victory.   

While few believe what I am about to write, the fact is that the late 1970s so-called "Carter-caused" financial calamity was less about President Carter than the fact that the dollar* having recently been finally- and completely- severed from real money, that is gold, went into free-fall as it sought its new, unsupported level.  No longer backed by gold, the dollar became merely a green piece of paper with pictures of some great Americans (and some not so great Americans).  The only reason that it retained any value is because Americans were/are compelled (under threat of incarceration) to pay taxes with dollars.   

That was for a short period of time. 

Then came the agreement for large oil-producing nations to accept only dollars for payment for their oil and the dollar then stabilized, having been buoyed by this second, very significant action of linking the dollar to a valuable, tangible and useful asset.  If a nation wanted to purchase oil it needed dollars and could only get them from us, the US (and the Federal Reserve Bank; the FED).  That made the dollar stabilize significantly so that the FED could then continue its larcenous practice of inflation at a slower, more easily sustained and hidden rate.  The FED benefited greatly from the stagflation during the time between the destabilization (completely being severed from gold) and the re-stabilization (being linked to oil from the greatest "producers" of oil) the dollar underwent.  But as useful as stagflation was to the FED, it had to end or the golden goose- that is inflation- would have been cooked if allowed to continue without re-stabilization of the dollar.

So what is this about Ron Paul's record reflecting Ronald Reagan's rhetoric you ask?  Well the fact is, as you all know, that MOST people, when running for office merely tell voters what they believe voters want to hear.  At least they tell voters what they believe enough of them want to hear so as to pull the lever for them come election time.  Reagan was no different in that.  However, it does seem that when Reagan told voters what he believed they wanted to hear, he was telling them what HE believed.  Anyway, that's the common story among Reagan supporters who've turned President Reagan from a person into a legend into a desire to have, again, what they think they once had.  

Reagan rode into office on the back of deep financial troubles.  Ronald Reagan benefited from uncertainty in the future of the United States because the financial calamity that gripped our nation was real- and real Americans were real scared.  So Reagan said that he would restore America to the place it had traditionally been: In adherence to the Constitution; practicing sound financial policies (less- only necessary and Constitutionally allowed- spending); A strong military DEFENSE; and, yes, honesty in budgeting.  This was his rhetoric; these were his campaign promises.

His rhetoric included, in a nutshell (I paraphrase, offering no quotations):  Government, at times anyway, is not the solution, it is the problem.  Government that taxes less, that burdens its citizens less, is better.  Unconstitutional agencies, departments and laws are anathema to freedom.  Less government is better than more.  While President Reagan did raise taxes eventually and did not rid us of the Department of Education which he said he would, and which is not Constitutionally allowed to exist, his rhetoric was astonishingly American.  And when I say astonishingly American I mean that his rhetoric was astonishingly about governing by the Constitution, governing by law, not governing by the opinions of a man. 

As we look back at his Presidency, and the actions the government took at that time, we realize that Reagan's rhetoric was better than his actions.  With Congress, he raised taxes, he (with Congress) spent profligately (some argue justifiably) nearly tripling the national debt and, alas, the unConstitutional Department of Education survived his eight years and continues to plague American taxpayers and students today; President Bush allowing Senator Ted "Aqua Man" Kennedy to write the education bill.  

Now, take a look, not at Congressman Ron Paul's campaign rhetoric but look at his record also.  It's there for all to see.  If you're looking for somebody to "be Reagan" to be the Reagan that Reagan supporters wanted, check out Ron Paul's record.  If you liked Ronald Reagan's rhetoric, you will love Ron Paul's record.  Ron Paul's record reflects Ronald Reagan's rhetoric:

* It is important to make note that what we call a dollar today is not what it is legally defined as in accordance with its creation by the 1792 Coinage Act

 In fact a dollar is a unit of weight, as is a grain or a gram or a pound.  The dollar is defined as (approximately) 1/20th of an ounce of gold (actually 495 grains).  Therefore, 20 dollars is defined as equal to one ounce of gold.  As of today (March 1, 2008 A.D.) an ounce of gold will buy approximately 1000 dollars.  Therefore the larceny of the Federal Reserve System has debased the dollar to the extent that the dollar is now equal to two percent of what it originally was. An ounce of gold has always been able to feed you and your family for a week.  At one time (nearly 100 years ago) you and your family could have been fed for a week on 20 dollars.  Would 20 dollars, today, feed you and your family even for a day?


Mike Smith - March 5, 2008 - posted at

Tag this page!
Submitted by SadInAmerica on Wed, 03/05/2008 - 7:46pm.