Four years ago, a line of GOP Presidential candidates stood on stage and took turns attempting to attack the traditionally Republican, non-interventionalist foreign policy of Ron Paul.  One of the candidates came pretty close to agreeing with Paul, but implied it would shame America to leave the countries we'd invaded.  No one else agreed, and, in fact, many wanted to expand to other countries without any real evidence of a threat to our nation.  Boy, things sure were different Monday night.

None of them said they'd invade another country.  Only one candidate was brave enough, on this night, to take the role of Commander in Chief, and that was Ron Paul.  Pawlenty, who wasn't brave enough to defend his 'Obamneycare' comment, said he'd bomb another country if his generals said we needed to do so.  Bombing someone doesn't take a lot of courage, and is generally a bad idea, unless you are actively defending your nation.  Clinton's cowardly bombing of Afghanistan back in the '90s is a big part of why we're mired down in the middle east, now.

Idealogically, Ron Paul has won the debate.  That fact is clear.  You need only observe all of the candidates backing away from the interventionist policies of the recent past.  But he also won Monday night by the criteria of a debate: he knew the material best with the most comprehensive understanding of the topics being discussed.  Yes, some of the candidates showed decent comprehension, and some understood most, but Dr. Paul was the only one who understood them all.  He should... he's been talking about them for decades.

Every answer Paul gave showed an understanding of the topic.  If you watched the debates in '07, you recongize how the information he was fighting to get out, then, is now part of all of the candidates' repertorie.  The only issue they won't talk about is monetary policy.  Cain, former FED bank head and government crony, hasn't parted his lips once to defend his former employer from Paul's attacks.  He's so afraid of it that he claims he's never worked for the government.  I guess he's admitting that Federal Reserve isn't part of the government.  Yet, on all of the other topics, the candidates sound like little Ron Pauls.

Perhaps a Monetary Policy debate is in order.  I doubt many of the other candidates would show up, though.  It's hard to look good in a pressed $1000 suit when you don't know what you're talking about.

Debates aren't posing contests.  They're not beauty contests where you judge the candidates by the white of their teeth or the sheen of their hairspray, they're not joke-telling contests; debates are forums where you win by showing your adeptness at the topics being discussed.  Ron Paul easily won.  The rest are just... well... posers.

After months of stumping, bringing their names back into the political discourse, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump et al, have opted out of competing in the first GOP debate tonight. The Obama administration has gained a tremendous boost from the alleged capture/assassination of Osama bin Laden, intimidating the very candidates said to be his best opposition. The only top-tier candidate not afraid to still show up is Ron Paul.

The 'godfather' of the Tea Party movement, Paul will be the lightning rod of the debate. There will be a few others participating, mainly those counting on this debate to gain some name recognition, but the only one who comes into this with any political clout is Paul. None of the other candidates in the debate are currently in office, though there are two former governors and a former Senator.  Paul will be the standard-bearer for the GOP.

On May 3, 2007, the so-called top tier Huckabee, Romney, McCain (and Ron Paul) were more than happy to face-off in an early debate. Why not this year? Why is Ron Paul the only one in 2011? The difference is that this year they all face an incumbent who's popularity has very recently shot up. The question should be asked: If the other top-tier candidates can't take the heat in an early debate, why should we expect them to be able to handle the office of President of the United States for 4 years?

On the news tonight there will be more coverage of the election controversy in Iran.  The media will be hyping up some sort of action against Iran.  We'll be the 'defenders of democracy' against the tyrants of Iran.

To this, only one question comes to mind:  What about Saudi Arabia?  The people have NO RIGHT TO EVEN VOTE there.  Women aren't to be seen in public without a man, and women showing ANY skin are treated very badly. 

Then comes the argument, "But the Saudis aren't threatening the USA." 

WHAT!?

Where do you think the terrorist hijackers on 9/11 came from?  They came from SAUDI ARABIA! 

Why aren't we irritated with how the Saudis mistreat their people, not even allowing them a real say in government, AT ALL.  Why aren't media outlets speaking out against them?  Heck, we're selling the Saudis all our assets.  General Electric sold off it's most profitable segment, the Plastics division, from which came both Jack Welch and GE's current CEO, Jeff Immelt.  It was the most innovative and dependable division of GE, training the company's leaders.  Now it belongs to the Saudi Arabian Basic Industries Corporation, a business in which you and I can't even invest, because you have to be Saudi to buy stock!

Our nation's leaders, Obama included, are too close to the Saudis to EVER turn on them militarily.  Not that we should.  Nor should we get involved with Iran.  George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founders warned against ever getting involved in the affairs of other nations.  It's entangling, costs our nation too many lives and too much of it's treasury.  It also puts us at risk for what the CIA today refers to as 'blowback'.  Yet our leaders, in search of more wealth and power, are anxious to bend over backwards to please these tyrants, and far too anxious to attack the ones they see as profitable without regard for their own nation's future.

Audits of the Federal Reserve Board and Federal reserve banks may not include -

        (1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization;

        (2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market operations;

Let's get this one thing straight up front:  There will always be taxes.  As long as there is government, money will have to be collected and spent for national defense, upkeep of public buildings, etc...  The real argument is HOW the revenue is collected.

The most democratic way of collecting tax is through apportionment, which is what the US Constitution originally demanded. ^[1]  Our national defense, our economy, and our government were extremely successful with this type of taxation.  Dividing the tax burden equally among all citizens worked, and never failed to generate enough revenue to fund government.

In 1910, a small group of bankers met, in secret, to discuss the creation of a centralized bank that would control credit and monetary policy for the country. ^[2]  An income tax was to be implemented as the best way to fund this bank.  This concept had been long though of as anathemic to democracy and freedom, being defeated several times before ^[3] (see Andrew Jackson quote at bottom.) ^[4]   Nevertheless, through a rather convoluded series of then-legal discussions and transactions between the bankers and a set of congressmen, an income tax act was passed in 1913, altering the Constitution and making it legal to tax a percentage of a person's income. ^[5]

Outraged citizens, when they realized what was being done, began to raise the alarm.  Congressmen who previously supported a central bank, when they realized their huge mistake, began speaking out openly against the back-door tactics of the bankers.  Just when the public awareness was reaching critical mass, World War I broke out.  The attention of the citizenry was drawn elsewhere, and the central bank was allowed to take root. 

After WWI, with the attention of the public returning to domestic affairs, criticism of the central bank concept began to rise again.  The artificial credit created by the central bank resulted in a large economic bubble, simulating prosperity.  For a decade, the country grew in debt, while spending dollars that only existed on the ledgers of banks.  When the voice of dissent began to reach a fevered pitch, the FED pulled the rug out from under the economy, calling in debts for which they knew there were no real dollars to pay, thus popping the bubble.  The country entered a depression. ^[6]

Again, concerns were drawn away from the central bank.  Families worried more about feeding their children and loved ones than what was going on in Washington.  Ironically, government grew to an unprecedented size as socialist programs were instated to help the poor that the Federal Reserve created with it's economic policies. ^[7]  Almost instantly, reliance on government assuaged most strong dissent.

Yet there were still those who argued vehemently against the income tax and Federal Reserve.  They continued their arguments against the unprecedented, cancer-like growth of the central government.  By the end of the 1930's, many people recognized the role the Federal Reserve played in creating the Great Depression. In response to this threat, the FED created the FOMC ^[8], which was almost instantly seen as an appeasement tactic that appeared to create a governmental check on the privately owend and run Federal Reserve system, but did no such thing.  In fact, the FOMC made the FED more invasive than ever.  Before anything could be done about it, however, war broke out again in Europe. 

As WWII raged, government continued to grow in size and scope.  With the collective attention of the country drawn to faraway lands, monetary policy was virtually unchecked.  Defeating the Axis powers was the goal, and anything done that could even be perceived as contributing to acheive this goal was allowed.

With the end of WWII, again the public scrutiny turned towards the Federal Reserve and IRS.  Then came Korea.  After Korea, Vietnam.  Following Vietnam, however, a new public awareness was created.  The public ire raised by Vietnam was great enough that leaders like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were allowed enough time to attack the bloated government bureacracies created over the last 4 decades. ^[9]

But the FED and IRS were so rooted, their tentacles so deep into government, that by the time Reagan was elected, little reform could be accomplished in the 8 years of his presidency.  The tax 'simplification' reform of 1986 was so influenced by big money that it became a farce, and grew to a size that dwarfed the original code. 

Today, most people are so confused that they believe the Federal Reserve and IRS are institutions as old as the country.  The bank-controlled media will do nothing to correct this misconception, either.  Most of the media outlets, and their employees, will promote this deception, either willfully, or through ignorance. 

If you are one who still believes this to be the case, I'll leave you with the words of Andrew Jackson as he dismantled the 'Federal' bank that tried to control our country's money supply when he was President:

"If Congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given to be used by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations."

"I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country."