“Phone Banking” for Peter Schiff in the final week of this election could spark a revolution in Connecticut.
http://schiffforsenate.com/
http://www.schiffstorm.com/
Economy, Federal Reserve, Gold, Mining Stocks, Politics, Rumor
We started this movement.
Since then our slogan, the “Tea Party” has now been co-opted for gain by those such as Glenn Beck, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin and many other individuals.
We are the original grassroot supports of the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential campaign, of which Debra Medina was apart. Debra is a true American liberty fighter and anyone who associates themselves with the tea party and does not support Debra Medina should drop the slogan.
Chuck Baldwin wrote an excellent piece today reminding everyone that the current tea party movement had nothing to do with these individuals such as Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and many others who now banter under the term the “Tea Party.”
A WARNING TO THE TEA PARTY NATION
By Chuck Baldwin
February 12, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
The Tea Parties of 2010 remind me very much of the Conservative Revolution of 1994. And if the Tea Party Nation is not very careful, they will succumb to the same fate. The signs of a silent takeover of the movement are already appearing.
First of all, the Tea Parties were actually born during the Presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas in 2007 and 2008. For all intents and purposes, the Tea Parties and the Ron Paul Revolution were one and the same. These were (mostly) young people, who were sick and tired of the same old establishment Republican Party. They were tired of establishment Republicans selling out the principles of limited government; they were tired of the US Constitution being ignored and trampled by both Republicans and Democrats; they were tired of an incessant interventionist US foreign policy that keeps sending US forces overseas to advance a burgeoning New World Order (NWO); they were tired of perpetual war; they were tired of the bank bailouts; they were tired of the Federal Reserve; etc.
I know this because I met–and spoke before–the Tea Party Nation in State after State as I campaigned for Dr. Paul during the Republican primaries back in 2008. And I met them again all over America, as I was running as an Independent candidate for President–with Ron Paul’s endorsement, no less. I was with them in scores of meetings (big and small) from Washington, D.C., to Spokane, Washington, and all points in between.
But now many of the Tea Parties are distancing themselves from Dr. Paul and embracing establishment players such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Even Newt Gingrich is being courted. Watch out, Tea Party Nation: you’re in danger of losing your soul! Newt Gingrich is not one of you. He is not your friend. He is an imposter. He will destroy you just like he almost single-handedly destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994.
Plus, be careful about Sarah Palin and other establishment Republicans. Palin is currently playing both sides. She is promoting Big Government neocons such as John McCain on the one hand, and sincere conservative-libertarians such as Rand Paul on the other hand. But if one wants a real barometer of Palin’s true colors, look no further than her endorsement of Rick Perry in Texas.
Perry is the quintessential establishment Republican. Perry has been in office for some 9 years, and what has he done to thwart the NWO in Texas? Nothing! Perry is even a Bilderberg Group attendee. What has he done for State sovereignty in Texas? Nothing! In fact, he supports the North American Union and the NAFTA superhighway. What has he done to resist Obama’s universal health care proposals? Nothing! What has he done to protect the citizens of Texas against an emerging Police State? Nothing! What has he done to fight illegal immigration? Nothing!
As a result of both Rick Perry’s establishment business-as-usual politics in Texas and the proliferating grassroots Tea Party movement, counterattacking establishment politics, a Tea Partier herself has entered the race for Texas governor. Her name is Debra Medina. As the Tea Party Nation in Texas already knows, Medina is one of you.
Medina is committed to preserving Texas’ independence and sovereignty. She is opposed to the Patriot Act. She will secure the Texas border. She will give Texas Vermont-style open carry freedoms for gun owners. She wants to get rid of unconstitutional property taxes in Texas. She will stop the NAFTA superhighway. Medina is the real deal.
So, what did Sarah Palin do? She went to Texas and endorsed Rick Perry! I’m sorry, ladies and gentlemen, playing political games in order to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars on the speaking and book-signing circuits is not what the Tea Parties are all about.
Tea Parties are supposed to be about putting principle over politics, supporting and defending the US Constitution, supporting limited government and personal liberty, getting rid of the Federal Reserve, abolishing the IRS, ending preemptive and pervasive wars, and putting truth and integrity back into government.
Entirety at http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin569.htm
Three cheers to a Constitutional Government!!! Long live the Republic envisioned by James Madison, Samuel Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and all Founders of the United States.
They would have violently opposed the bankrupting of the country due to our corrupt elected officials, the loss of our Civil liberties, the massive expansion of the President and the Executive Branch, the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, and the centralization of our Republic, which now barely exists. Our Bill of Rights has been eaten by our Government and no longer exists. This movement is a long time coming.
We all should gather our Strength, those of us with an alike conscinous to help these candidates for office. All of these love the founders more than lobbyists and personal recognition. Some of these I’ve talked about for a long time on this blog.
Debra Medina Running for Governor of Texas
Peter Schiff Senate from Connecticut to replace Chris Dodd’s seat
Rand Paul Senate from Kentucky
Adam Kokesh House from New Mexico
R.J. Harris House from Oklahoma
The 2008 presidential campaign may be over, but the “revolution” spawned by Rep. Ron Paul’s candidacy continues to echo through the political world.
Paul (R-Tex.), capitalizing on a healthy distrust of government and his strident opposition to the war in Iraq, became an Internet phenomenon — using the Web to raise an astounding $35 million for his long-shot candidacy.
The financial network Paul built during his campaign has, amazingly, continued to reap dividends for two men seeking to be the congressman’s political heirs in the 2010 elections.
Rand Paul, who is running for the Senate in Kentucky and is the son of the congressman, has already raised $827,000, even though nearly the entire Republican Party establishment in the Bluegrass State has lined up behind Secretary of State Trey Grayson.
Peter Schiff, an economic adviser to Paul’s presidential campaign and a likely senatorial candidate in Connecticut, has raised more than $1 million, although he has yet to officially declare.
Both men have used the “money bomb” approach (encourage all donors to give on a certain day to post large 24-hour totals) to fundraising strategies that Paul pioneered.
Jesse Benton, a former Paul campaign spokesman, said he was not surprised by the amount of money that Rand Paul and Schiff have raised to date.
He called the Paul movement “legitimate” and “real,” noting that the Campaign for Liberty — an organization formed after the campaign and of which Paul serves as honorary chairman — has raised $4 million since its founding in February.
“These are people who want to return to our traditional values of self-reliance and liberty,” Benton added.
It remains to be seen whether Rand Paul or Peter Schiff can turn fundraising capacity into actual votes.
There is an inexplicable, but somehow widely held, belief that stock market movements are predictive of economic conditions. As such, the current rally in U.S. stock prices has caused many people to conclude that the recession is nearing an end. The widespread optimism is not confined to Wall Street, as even Barack Obama has pointed to the bubbly markets to vindicate his economic policies. However, reality is clearly at odds with these optimistic assumptions.
In the first place, stock markets have been taken by surprise throughout history. In the current cycle, neither the market nor its cheerleaders saw this recession coming, so why should anyone believe that these fonts of wisdom have suddenly become clairvoyant?
According to official government statistics, the current recession began in December of 2007. Two months earlier, in October of that year, the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 both hit all-time record highs. Exactly what foresight did this run-up provide? Obviously markets were completely blind-sided by the biggest recession since the Great Depression. In fact, the main reason why the markets sold off so violently in 2008, after the severity of the recession became impossible to ignore, was that it had so completely misread the economy in the preceding years.
Furthermore, throughout most of 2008, even as the economy was contracting, academic economists and stock market strategists were still confident that a recession would be avoided. If they could not even forecast a recession that had already started, how can they possibly predict when it will end? In contrast, on a Fox News appearance on December 31, 2007, I endured the gibes of optimistic co-panelists when I clearly proclaimed that a recession was underway.
Rising U.S. stock prices – particularly following a 50% decline – mean nothing regarding the health of the U.S. economy or the prospects for a recovery. In fact, relative to the meteoric rise of foreign stock markets over the past six months, U.S. stocks are standing still. If anything, it is the strength in overseas markets that is dragging U.S. stocks along for the ride.
In late 2008 and early 2009, the “experts” proclaimed that a strengthening U.S. dollar and the relative outperformance of U.S. stocks during the worldwide market sell-off meant that the U.S. would lead the global recovery. At the time, they argued that since we were the first economy to go into recession, we would be the first to come out. They claimed that as bad as things were domestically, they were even worse internationally, and that the bold and “stimulative” actions of our policymakers would lead to a far better outcome here than the much more “timid” responses pursued by other leading industrial economies.
At the time, I dismissed these claims as nonsensical. The data are once again proving my case. The brief period of relative outperformance by U.S. stocks in late 2008 has come to an end, and, after rising for most of last year, the dollar has resumed its long-term descent. If the U.S. economy really were improving, the dollar would be strengthening – not weakening. The economic data would also show greater improvement at home than abroad. Instead, foreign stocks have resumed the meteoric rise that has characterized their past decade. The rebound in global stocks reflects the global economic train decoupling from the American caboose, which the “experts” said was impossible.
Though the worst of the global financial crisis may have passed, the real impact of the much more fundamental U.S. economic crisis has yet to be fully felt. For America, genuine recovery will not begin until current government policies are mitigated. Most urgently, we need a Fed chairman willing to administer the tough love that our economy so badly needs. That fact that Ben Bernanke remains so popular both on Wall Street and Capital Hill is indicative of just how badly he has handled his job.
Contrast Bernanke’s popularity to the contempt that many had for Fed Chairman Paul Volcker in the early days of Ronald Reagan’s first term. There were numerous bills and congressional resolutions demanding his impeachment, and even conservative congressman Jack Kemp called for Volcker to resign. Had it not been for the unconditional support of a very popular president, efforts to oust Volcker likely would have succeeded. Though he was widely vilified initially, he eventually won near unanimous praise for his courageous economic stewardship, which eventually broke the back of inflation, restored confidence in the dollar, and set the stage for a vibrant recovery. Conversely, Bernanke’s reputation will be shattered as history reveals the full extent of his incompetence and cowardice.
As congress and the president consider the best policies to right our economic ship, it is my hope that they will pursue a strategy first developed by Seinfeld character George Costanza. After wisely recognizing that every instinct he had up unto that point had ended in failure, George decided that to be successful, he had to do the exact opposite of whatever his instincts told him. I suggest our policymakers give this approach a try.
Peter Schiff
The donors who poured millions into Ron Paul’s presidential campaign coffers aren’t done yet. On Saturday, libertarian financier and commentator Peter Schiff raised more than $200,000 in a 24-hour “money bomb” as he continues to explore a bid for the Republican nomination to run against Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.).
Having now collected more than $790,000 in campaign contributions since mid-July, the Ron Paul Republican Schiff is competitive financially with the frontrunners for the GOP nomination. Former Congressman Rob Simmons raised $754,000 through June 30 while former ambassador Tom Foley has taken in $528,000 since mid-June.
Schiff’s fundraising haul wasn’t the only reason libertarian-leaning Republicans had to cheer last week. Rand Paul, the ophthalmologist son of the 11-term Texas congressman and former presidential candidate, announced he was going to run for the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY). As in Schiff’s case, the party establishment has other plans — the heavy favorite for the GOP nomination is Secretary of State Trey Grayson — but Paul is likely to take after his father when it comes time for his own money bomb later this month.
As Ron Paul Republicans have slowly been making inroads within the party structure, Congressman Paul himself has been gaining in influence over the GOP. Every Republican in the House is a now a co-sponsor of his bill to audit the Federal Reserve. Mainstream conservatives quote liberally from Paul’s reading list, including Thomas Woods’ Meltdown and some of Schiff’s work, when grilling Obama Treasury officials about the economy.
Even on issues of war and peace, Paul isn’t always in the minority anymore. A handful of conservatives who supported the Iraq war, like Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), have joined him in questioning President Obama’s Afghanistan escalation. All but five Republicans voted with Paul against the supplemental funding of Iraq and Afghanistan, including the entire leadership. They haven’t suddenly become noninterventionists — the issue for most Republicans was extraneous spending, not the wars themselves — but it is nevertheless a major departure from the party’s stance under President Bush.
It is of course the Obama administration and the financial meltdown that have given Paulian ideas a new resonance, not so much his dissent on the war. (Though Paul’s success in fundraising and attracting the kind of young voters who have been fleeing the GOP in droves has had an impact as well.) But efforts to expand this influence appeared to take a hit when South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford was found crying with his mistress in Argentina. Sanford was a possible bridge between the Ron Paul Republicans and the mainstream conservative movement — and, until his extramarital affair, a credible 2012 presidential contender.
Now with Sanford likely out of the running, Ron Paul Republicans will once again have to reach within their own ranks. Peter Schiff has been an apostle of economic doom who claims vindication in the current malaise. “Though the worst of the global financial crisis may have passed,” he wrote recently, “the real impact of the much more fundamental U.S. economic crisis has yet to be fully felt.” That fundamental crisis, in his view, is the result of massive debt, unsustainable government spending, and a reckless monetary policy that is undermining the dollar’s strength.
While Schiff advised Ron Paul’s Republican presidential campaign, Rand Paul got his start in politics supporting his father’s bids for public office. In both appearance and speech, he bears a striking resemblance to the elder Dr. Paul but is somewhat less old-fashioned. It is hard to imagine Ron Paul saying, as his son often does, that the Republican Party “has lost its mojo.”
Paul and Schiff have very different approaches to the GOP. In a speech to the Connecticut Libertarian Party, Schiff openly talked about using it as a vehicle for libertarian ideas because its electoral debacles make it ripe for a takeover. His theory is that a leader-less and idea-less major party could be reshaped faster than a minor party could be made politically viable.
Rand Paul is much more conciliatory toward regular Republicans. Like Grayson, he said he would not run unless Bunning retired. When the senator obliged, Paul announced on his Facebook page that he had “nothing but good things to say” about Bunning and thanked the outgoing senator for his vote against the bailout (politely leaving unmentioned Bunning’s vote for the Iraq war).
They’ve never seen a Senator like me. I’m not there to get reelected. They can’t bribe me.
Congressman Ron Paul of the 14th District of Texas has sent out a letter today calling for support of a challenge to Christopher Dodd’s Senate Seat from Connecticut.
Dear Supporter,
Our good friend in Liberty, Peter Schiff, is planning a run for Senate in Connecticut against Chris Dodd. The grassroots across the country are organizing a money bomb for him today to raise money and send a powerful message to the political elites that freedom is popular and that Liberty can.
Our contry needs Peter Schiff in Washington, and you can help today. Please go to www.Schiffathon.com right now and make a contribution. Together, we can help make history.
In Liberty,
Ron Paul
LibertyGrotto.com has officially endorsed Peter Schiff’s run for the Senate and made a donation on this Friday. Please join me in this MONEYBOMB for Peter Schiff to make a run for the Senate of the United States of America. Donate here Patriots of this land who remember the benefits of Freedom!
One of the Senate seats said to be up for grabs in 2010 is Chris Dodd’s in Connecticut. Peter Schiff, of Internet and free-market capitalism fame, may be planning a run to oust the five-term Democrat.
For those unfamiliar with Peter Schiff, he’s president of Euro Pacific Capital and has gained popularity based on a YouTube video that shows other economists laughing at him when he predicts (accurately, as it turns out) the housing crisis.
Schiff follows the Austrian school of economics, an extremely pro-free-market, anti-government-intervention movement. As Schiff reasons in the many television appearances he has made, the U.S. economy borrows too much and produces too little, and at some point a structural shift is needed to right the ship.
The question for Republicans in Connecticut is whether Schiff gives them the best chance at winning. As the national debt and level of government intervention in business continues to grow with bailouts, stimulus funding and a health care overhaul, Schiff and other free-market capitalists are looking like better candidates.
