Ron Paul to speak at "Sovrun" conference

[Unidyne]

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert ... gn-citizen

At the upcoming Freedom Law Conference in Irvine, CA, such notables as Peymon Mottahedeh, Joe Bannister & Larry Becraft will be giving seminars, and the guest speaker will be... wait for it... RON PAUL!



You can even pre-register on-line! http://freedomlawconference.org/

[Kestrel]

At the upcoming Freedom Law Conference in Irvine, CA, such notables as Peymon Mottahedeh, Joe Bannister & Larry Becraft will be giving seminars, and the guest speaker will be... wait for it... RON PAUL!

Becraft, Bannister, Mottahedeh.... and Paul. Together. Birds of a feather.

What was the title of that other thread? Ron Paul: Whacko magnet? Seems to me that it's more than just attracting them. He's actively seeking them out, and in the heart of the primary season. Fool.

There's an old saying that a man shall be known by the company he keeps. I wonder if the fifty-one-plus thousand decent people who voted Ron Paul in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota have any idea that Paul aligns himself with sov'run paytriot TD groups?

[Lambkin]

Assuming this is true, and I have to wonder...

Did somebody say "wacko magnet"? The dude should be a little more concerned about the company he keeps if he doesn't want to be tarred with the same brush.

EDIT: if you look at the image on the crooksandliars.com site, you will see he is described as "pending keynote speaker". IMO that means he isn't going to be there and the usual crowd of losers is using his name to sell their convention.

[Kestrel]

Well, if he wants to be disassociated with this bunch of losers he'd better do something strong and fast, because his name and face are prominently displayed all over the conference literature. In the internet age, it's difficult to believe that any competent prominent figure wouldn't know when his name and face are being blatantly misused.

Ron Paul may be planning to be a no-show on March 16th, but I doubt he's going to object to them using him. He seems to have a history of knowingly failing to object to his name and face are being used in a way that implicitly supports the whacko stuff. Then, when it blows up, he tries a plausible deniability excuse.

[Thule]

EDIT: if you look at the image on the crooksandliars.com site, you will see he is described as "pending keynote speaker". IMO that means he isn't going to be there and the usual crowd of losers is using his name to sell their convention.

Which might easily be translated to "We sent him an invitation. He'll probably decline, but his name will sell tickets."

[Burnaby49]

Keep in mind that making up fictitious speakers seems to be a standard ploy of the Freedom Law Conference. Devvy Kidd had a rant about Peymon Mottahedeh and "Phantom Speakers" over a decade ago as is archived in the Quatlosers Hall of Shame.

http://www.devvy.com/fraud_20011025.html

To summarize;

Ten days ago I received this color brochure.

This brochure is still up on Peymon's web site despite the fact that he knows right now, today, that neither Congressman Bartlett nor Bob Schulz will be speaking at his event:

This is very disturbing and in my opinion, out and out fraud. Peymon has been selling tickets to an event when he's known weeks in advance that two of the "hot" names he has listed as key note speakers on the front page of his expensive color brochure, had both declined the invitation. Knowing that neither Bob Schulz nor Roscoe Bartlett would appear at his event, he still put out the brochure through a mass postal service mailing (10,000 copies) and has it posted on his web site.

[snip an irrelevant rant]

I will be real interested to see what Peymon tells those people who purchased tickets to see Congressman Bartlett and Bob Schulz, who won't be there, which Peymon has known all along, what will he tell them? What will he tell the audience? "Due to circumstances beyond his control, Congressman Bartlett couldn't make it?" or something to that affect? How will he cover his lie at his "freedom rally?"

[Dezcad]

Keep in mind that making up fictitious speakers seems to be a standard ploy of the Freedom Law Conference. Devvy Kidd had a rant about Peymon Mottahedeh and "Phantom Speakers" over a decade ago as is archived in the Quatlosers Hall of Shame.

http://www.devvy.com/fraud_20011025.html

To summarize;

Ten days ago I received this color brochure.

This brochure is still up on Peymon's web site despite the fact that he knows right now, today, that neither Congressman Bartlett nor Bob Schulz will be speaking at his event:

This is very disturbing and in my opinion, out and out fraud. Peymon has been selling tickets to an event when he's known weeks in advance that two of the "hot" names he has listed as key note speakers on the front page of his expensive color brochure, had both declined the invitation. Knowing that neither Bob Schulz nor Roscoe Bartlett would appear at his event, he still put out the brochure through a mass postal service mailing (10,000 copies) and has it posted on his web site.

[snip an irrelevant rant]

I will be real interested to see what Peymon tells those people who purchased tickets to see Congressman Bartlett and Bob Schulz, who won't be there, which Peymon has known all along, what will he tell them? What will he tell the audience? "Due to circumstances beyond his control, Congressman Bartlett couldn't make it?" or something to that affect? How will he cover his lie at his "freedom rally?"

Note what it says about Ron Paul - "Pending":

Friday Night Pending Keynote Speaker: Ron Paul (FREE event!)

[Kestrel]

Here comes another nutjob crew closely linked to Ron Paul:

Super PAC supporting Ron Paul is operated by a 9/11 'truther'

A Super PAC supporting Paul has pledged to monitor the vote in all the remaining states, using an army of exit pollsters to fight what it calls results that are "outrageous, unacceptable and patently un-American." The group, called Revolution PAC, has spent half a million dollars supporting Paul with videos, webcasts, online ads, direct mail, billboards and radio ads in primary and caucus states.

As with many other so-called "independent" Super PACs, which can receive unlimited donations outside the normal rules of campaign finance, the pro-Paul group is operated by people with close ties to the candidate. The group's advisory board members include Penny Langford Freeman, Paul's political director from 1998 to 2007, and Joe Becker, chief legal counsel for Ron Paul 2008.

The leader of the group, its founder, chairman and treasurer, is Gary Franchi, a promoter of conspiracy theories and sophisticated social-media entrepreneur in the resurgent movement known as the Patriots.
The 34-year-old political activist from the Chicago suburbs told msnbc.com that his goal is a "non-violent intellectual revolution, which results in a full restoration of the federal Constitution."

[Mider]

It would be strange for Ron Paul to stump at the Sovrun Conference when most if not all of them do not believe in the US in the first place and probably would not vote since voting could be seen as placing themselves under the thumb of the government.

[Brandybuck]

Oh God. I've been edging away from the Ron Paul "movement" for a while now, and this may be the final straw. I blame this on Murray Rothbard, who had a "fusionist" philosophy of trying to attract rabid extremists into the libertarian sphere. At one time he was going after the far left. Then we went for the far right. This stuff is the result of it.

[Number Six]

He has been at this type of activity before, if he is a no show it will probably be because his political capital has risen since and may have more advantageous activities to attend.

What gets me is the twisted and dangerous reasoning of the sovereign conferance; the TP promoters are selling useless products for as much as they can, when simple and smart tax filings and payments would address their problems. And libertarians like Dr. Paul have profitted handsomely by keeping the twisted lines of reasoning alive that because the federal reserve and tax collection is unconstitutional or immoral or part of one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, that all good and righteous people have a duty to rebel against them.

What are the credentials and qualifications of the speakers at this "conferance"? Do any of them have advanced degrees except at Indictment U.?

[Kestrel]

And libertarians like Dr. Paul have profitted handsomely by keeping the twisted lines of reasoning alive that because the federal reserve and tax collection is unconstitutional or immoral or part of one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, that all good and righteous people have a duty to rebel against it.

What is it about having a medical degree that makes Doctor Paul think he is an accountant or a lawyer? Or has he just spent too long in politics?

From the outside looking in I would say that his problem comes from ignorance in both law and accounting, coupled with arrogance from being smart enough to be a doctor. All I can say is that with his superficial, ignorant, self-righteous attitude I sure wouldn't want him as my doctor.

[webhick]

From the outside looking in I would say that his problem comes from ignorance in both law and accounting, coupled with arrogance from being smart enough to be a doctor. All I can say is that with his superficial, ignorant, self-righteous attitude I sure wouldn't want him as my doctor.

Considering that he's on OB/GYN, I'm not sure he'd have you as a patient. You know, I read somewhere that he used to perform services for free. When I saw that, I got this image in my head of a run-down building with "Free Pap Smears!" scrawled on the side with spray paint.

[Brandybuck]

Considering that he's on OB/GYN, I'm not sure he'd have you as a patient. You know, I read somewhere that he used to perform services for free. When I saw that, I got this image in my head of a run-down building with "Free Pap Smears!" scrawled on the side with spray paint.

Actually not. His practice does not accept Medicare, so for some patients he has provided services for free rather than to bill Medicare. Unlike many folks (myself included at times) he puts his money where his mouth is.

p.s. As for ignorance in accounting, I have no idea where that comes from. That's a curve ball out of left field. Neither does he claim to be a lawyer nor offer legal advice. He does have a political opinion on the Constitution, but so does everyone else who has ever run for political office.

[Kestrel]

Considering that he's on OB/GYN, I'm not sure he'd have you as a patient.

He's an OB/GYN who didn't treat women? That's an interesting niche.

p.s. As for ignorance in accounting, I have no idea where that comes from. That's a curve ball out of left field. Neither does he claim to be a lawyer nor offer legal advice. He does have a political opinion on the Constitution, but so does everyone else who has ever run for political office.

It's my opinion - as an accountant - that many of the political positions he advocates make absolutely no sense economically. The math just doesn't compute.

[Brandybuck]

It's my opinion - as an accountant - that many of the political positions he advocates make absolutely no sense economically. The math just doesn't compute.

I'm not sure what it is you think doesn't compute, but I'm guessing it's related to tax cuts in some manner. It is possible to balance the budget with significant tax cuts. It just takes significant spending cuts as well. Maybe tax cuts are loony, but they do not defy mathematics.

Also, accountancy =/= economics. Ron Paul follows Austrian economics (F.A. Hayek) and not Keynesian economics, so perhaps you think it is his lack of support for deficits that makes him anti-accountants, but from my perspective it's the deficits themselves that should make every accountant scream in despair.

[Kestrel]

I'm not sure what it is you think doesn't compute, but I'm guessing it's related to tax cuts in some manner. It is possible to balance the budget with significant tax cuts. It just takes significant spending cuts as well. Maybe tax cuts are loony, but they do not defy mathematics.

Tax cuts and spending cuts are fine, as a general principle. But I do remember a question being asked at one of the debates, "How low should the income tax rate be?" Paul's answer: zero. And his proposals for what to tax instead just didn't jive.

Then there is the issue of abandoning a fiat currency and returning to the Gold Standard. It's another nice pet theory which sounds impressive but just doesn't wash. Do the math on that one. What would the price of gold have to be in order to fully support the amount of US currency outstanding? The US Gold Reserve is slightly more than 8100 tons; at $1500/ounce that's about 390 billion dollars. The current level of M1 is about 2.2 trillion dollars, which is more than 5 1/2 times the current market value of US government gold holdings. Can you imagine inflating gold prices to over $8,000 per ounce? Even after allowing for the portion of M1 that is not in paper money form, the whole idea of arbitrarily setting the price of gold high enough to support the outstanding US currency is completely unfeasible.

Going the other way, anyone who tried to shrink the money supply until it equalled the market value of the US Gold Reserve would plunge the US economy into a recession so deep that we'd never recover. This is all basic financial math, and Ron Paul seems incapable of drawing the connection.

[Brandybuck]

I think the problem you are having is making assumptions.

Tax cuts and spending cuts are fine, as a general principle. But I do remember a question being asked at one of the debates, "How low should the income tax rate be?" Paul's answer: zero. And his proposals for what to tax instead just didn't jive.

If the income tax were the sole source of Federal Government funding, then that might not jive, but the income tax is not. The personal income tax accounts for roughly half of the federal government's revenue. Cut spending roughly half, and you're on par again.

Yes, it's radical. Especially for a nation that thinks merely cutting the rate of government growth is too extreme. But it's not anti-mathematics.

Then there is the issue of abandoning a fiat currency and returning to the Gold Standard. It's another nice pet theory which sounds impressive but just doesn't wash. Do the math on that one. What would the price of gold have to be in order to fully support the amount of US currency outstanding?

You are assuming Ron Paul wants a mandatory 100% gold reserve currency. He does not. There are goldbugs that do want that, but Ron Paul is not one of them. What he wants instead is to allow competing currencies. Take away the Federal Reserve's monopoly on the creation of money, and allow private banks to issue their own if they want. Historically, decentralized banking systems used fractional reserves, which makes the gold price problem go away.

Is it radical? Yes. But it's still not anti-mathematics. There are numerous examples of it working in the past, and decentralized banking has been backed by at two Nobel Prize winners, Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.

[Kestrel]

If the income tax were the sole source of Federal Government funding, then that might not jive, but the income tax is not. The personal income tax accounts for roughly half of the federal government's revenue. Cut spending roughly half, and you're on par again.

Let's take a look at 2009 Federal Revenues and Spending. Scroll down to the pie charts.

Social security and medicare taxes are about 42% of government revenues, and about 39% of government spending. Interest is 5%, "other mandatory" is 17%, 39+5+17 = 61%. The government has a constitutional duty to provide for the national defense, so you still have to leave something in the budget for the military whether you like it or not.

You want to cut 50%. Not happening. Even if you omit the military you're still way over.

You are assuming Ron Paul wants a mandatory 100% gold reserve currency. He does not. There are goldbugs that do want that, but Ron Paul is not one of them. What he wants instead is to allow competing currencies. Take away the Federal Reserve's monopoly on the creation of money, and allow private banks to issue their own if they want. Historically, decentralized banking systems used fractional reserves, which makes the gold price problem go away.

Competing currencies within the same country??? That's completely ludicrous. It worked back in the colonial days only because interstate commerce was virtually non-existent. It won't work now.

One of the reasons the US got off the gold standard was because the reserve fraction was reduced so much during the Viet Nam War that the connection became nearly meaningless. There were other reasons, of course, but that was one. At today's market prices the fraction required would be far lower than what it was when we got off the gold standard.

Tell you what. You go ahead and vote for Ron Paul. I'll just be thankful that there's no way he can win.

[Pottapaug1938]

Even in colonial days, private-issue bank notes never worked well. If the issuing bank was any distance from the place where the banknote was tendered in payment, the note was usually discounted to cover the risk that the note might prove to be counterfeit, inadequately backed, or that the issuing bank might be insolvent and no longer in existence. The term "broken bank note" was devised to describe these notes. Eventually, during the Civil War (if I recall correctly), the Federal government allowed banks to issue their own currency (known as "National Currency"); but in appearance it was much like regular US currency, and was backed by bonds and securities deposited in the US Treasury. This law was repealed in 1935, since the advent of FRNs made the notes unnecessary.