To try to be clearer, the Constitution isn't followed anymore.
For example, the lack of declaring wars, the lack of constitutional authority to do things, etc...
It's simply a dead letter.
In the middle of the country in courthouses today if a Person brings up the constitutionality of something a judge will and Has responded by saying, "I don't want any of that cr*@ in my courtroom!"

Not that I'm against what the ideas in the document seem to mean or what I was taught they mean, it's just that it doesn't really mean anything, especially to those in power.
If Ron Paul wants to try to get the goberment to follow the Constitution, great, but it doesn't seem like any of the other candidates want to do that.

How familiar are you with the writings of Gary North?
Seen these yet?:

"That which is not authorized by the Constitution is prohibited.

Conservatives say they believe this. But do they?"
Click to view link

The Most Successful Fraud in American History
Click to view link

No room for Panarchy in your view, Bishoff?
From your response it seems you like the patriot act?
You say "predictable" as if it's a bad thing? Being consistent is predictable, some would call that a good thing.

I've read Locke and likely some of the others, as a result, I Don't walk in lock step with anyone, I pick the best idea. I suspect most anarchists are the same way. It's funny you use the phrase, lock step, of all the phrases to describe libertarians or anarchists, that is one that does not seem to fit.

As far as reading Smith goes, hmph, you might want to scroll down and read this short take on the man:

Click to view link

Instead of saying, "people who don't espouse anarchy must be questioned as to their motives." You might be more accurate saying, "people who don't espouse freedom and individual liberty and instead prefer "group rights" and vauge meaningless terms found in old documents signed by men who had no authority to do so, it is they who must be questioned as to their motives."

At any rate, the old system is done. It didn't work. What's next? Stepping back into the same old routine, or stepping forward into something better?

"Do you also support the right of the state to put people in jail for ingesting certain plants?"

Smoke whatever weed you want to smoke. Snort whatever powder you want to snort. It's none of my darn business. I could care less what you ingest.

"Gingrich threatened central banking about as much as Henry Kissinger does."

What's the connection... ??? What does Kisinger have to do with central banking, except that he may like it.

I don't think you have the foggiest idea who the Fed central bank interests are... ??? The DB certainly doesn't.

"What do you think of Cass Sunstein and the proposals to infiltrate radicalizing conspiracy theorist websites? good idea?"

It's a totally stupid idea. I find all ideas coming from Cass Sunstein to be stupid.

As to your list of reading material, it could use some expansion. No wonder you have the narrow, lock step anarchist view you espouse. Mix a little Locke, Hume, Montesque, Quenay, Smith, Mills, George, Rittershausen and Menger into your reading list, and your world view may widen. From your comments here, you are even unable to judge my positions, but then that might be due to my broken English.

You somehow seem to indicate that this website is the home of the libertarian anarchists, the home of the followers of Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, and all those who drink their Kool Aid, that people who don't espouse anarchy must be questioned as to their motives.

While I recognize that the DB's news analysis comes from the libertarian prospective, I am wondering whether you have been tasked by the DB to judge the readers, and those who comment on the DB analysis? Are you trying to use the site to built a cadre, and you don't want disagreeable opinions... ??? Is that it... ???

Personally, I just don't like the anarchist Kool Aid. I am unable to swallow it. But hey, if you want to be an anarchist, that's your business. I like the Constitution just fine. Therefore, I will continue to argue for its protection and its defense.

If you want to determine, if a person is a libertarian anarchist, just ask about the "Patriot Act". From the response, you can be 100% assured. It's funny how predictable the libertarian anarchists are.

Rogers has made a lot of very good calls lately.

For sure there is a lot of cash sloshing around the markets all of a sudden.

Wish someone gave me some sloshing around cash. Actually, though, those people who do receive it are my competition. What ends up happening is that the regular investor needs to take on more risk to earn a return. When risk appetite decrease, the regular guy gets wiped out. Fancy little middle class pogram if you control the cash.

"show him as anything, but compassionate. "

odd that you pick this term... "compassionate" ... tell me were you a supporter of "compassionate" conservatives in 2000? Possibly a big fan of William F Buckley's?

"The only question I have, why does Ron Paul cozy up to the candidate of the central banking crowd, Mitt Romney... ??? "

Ingo, Do you seriously think the central banking crowd only has ONE candidate?

It remains to be seen if Ron Paul will really cozy up to Romney. I doubt he will, but if he does I will have no hesitation in turning away from Ron Paul forever. I my view Santorum, Rick Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Guliani, Huntsman are all establishment approved candidates.

Romney has the biggest organization and best funded campaign and there is nothing that will knock him out of the primaries before the convention... the other guys are only being pushed forward in order to keep Ron Paul and his views and supporters out of the national stage and media. This is why Ron Paul keeps knocking them down one by one. I don't think it is mean-spiritness, it is merely Ron Paul's desire to get libertarian/austrian/non-interventionist/anarcho-capitalist ideas put before a wider audience.

This desire to spread good ideas is fueled by his concern for humanity and the world his great-grandchildren will live in.

If you think drug wars and trade sanctions are good then I can see why you dislike Ron Paul. Please try to be honest about it and then we can debate the costs and benefits of the drug war and using food as a weapon on working class civilian populations.

I could be wrong in my assumptions about the people who come here. But I know how I got to this world view.

short version:

1.(early libertarian years): reading Hayek, Mises, Rand, Hazlett.

2.(radicalizing libertarian years): Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, Frederic Bastiat

3. uncovering the lies years: drug war research history of the drug trade, antitrust law research, Creature from Jekyll Island,

4. (full fledged conspiracy nut years)... Us funded House of Saud and Al Qaeda False flag attacks, Alex Jones, Smedley Butler, None Dare Call it a Conspiracy, Caroll Quigley Books, Study JFK assasination,study 9/11 and OKC bombings, read as much as I can about everyone who signed off on Operation Northwoods(what organizations were they members of? who did they work with in later years, read biographies of people and families who keep coming up(Dulles, Rockefellers, Warburgs,Wilson, Aldrich, Kissinger, Brezinski,Strauss, Wolfowitz, Warburgs, Carnegie, Morgan(all Chernow books) read the bio of the biographers Study the various commissions (Reece, Warren,9/11 read about the people in charge of them how they went about their work). Read the biographies of various CIA heads.

The interviews with Russo on Rockefeller were interesting.

After all that, I naturally ended up here at the Daily Bell because their views were very similar tom mine, but more nuanced/sophisticated and eloquent than my own. I don't come to the Daily Bell to change minds..I come here because they were saving me time. Alex Jones was fun for a awhile, but I am not christian and AJ is less analytical than the DB.

You call me an anarchist as if it would hurt my feelings :) This makes you seem out of touch with the community here, perhaps it is me who is out of touch... but if that is so I'd expect you'd have a convincing story about how a old dude that is a Gingrich/Santorum supporting drug warrior fan of the patriot act could end up at the Daily Bell?

What do you think of Cass Sunstein and the proposals to infiltrate radicalizing conspiracy theorist websites? good idea?

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks. Let's see if he answers ...

Brilliant. Thanks, Hoss.

"I suport Newt Gingrich, because he proved to have political skills which balanced budgets, shrank welfare and threatened the central bank."

Central banking interest support communism and Fabian socialism at the same time they supported William F Buckley... .welfare is a small percent of the federal budget and a mere political football to the ruling elite. Gingrich threatened central banking about as much as Henry Kissinger does.

Gingrich helped escalate the drug war... a radical crucifixion of the constitution if there ever was one. Do you also support the right of the state to put people in jail for ingesting certain plants?

We haven't had enough authoritarian jerks herding us like cows. We need another one, and we shouldn't be so stupid as to doubt it. The State owns you, and it'll be better for you if you just learn to hold still and take it.

"Curious... ??? Actually, it's none of your business. However, I have been a reader and feedbacker of the DB long before you ever heard of it. "

Yes curious, because big government republican messages are broadcast loudly through hundreds of channels. They have been ruling the country with their friends the Fabian socialist for decades... you are enjoying the fruits of their labor now. I just find it odd that you wouldn't be happily going about your other interest comfortable in the knowledge that military budgets will remain large and various good natured global institutions are looking out for your interests.

Why bother yourself with a bunch of paranoid anarchists?

I have no problem with you coming here to bring your praise for Gingrich and Santorum. I am just trying to save you from wasted effort as I doubt most people here are going to be converted into Santorum supporters. In fact it is ammusing to watch you try. The only thing I would not be happy about is if you tried to hide your support for such obvious clowns. Please do more posts comparing Gingrich and Santorum to Ron Paul and explaining why good old fashioned big government republicans are the answer to our problems.

Reply from The Daily Bell

"Why bother yourself with a bunch of paranoid anarchists."

It IS curious ...

What's your point... ???

-----------

That I bumped into another limited hangout ops by Bloomberg ...

Gee, what's YOUR point, Ingo?

Reply from The Daily Bell

It was a great catch.

Bischoff,

Did you support the trade sanctions on Iraq beween 1993 and 2001?

Do you support the Patriot Act?

"You think it is "mean-spirited" for Ron Paul to call Santorum a fake?"

The biggest fake there is, is Ron Paul...

Spare me all this Ron Paul praise. He is an anarchist pure and simple. All of his constitutional talk is a bunch of huey.

"Just curious, why do you choose to come here instead of National Review or Red State or The Economist?"

Curious... ??? Actually, it's none of your business. However, I have been a reader and feedbacker of the DB long before you ever heard of it.

This stupid question of yours intimates that the DB is the website of the anarchists, and what the hell am I doing here writing about conservative thought.

This is the "brain washing" attitude of the MSM. You appear to be just another propagandist, who doesn't like his efforts of propagandizing the uninitiated to be undermined by a contrary message. You seem to be a "libertarian anarchist" who hates the thoughts of constitutional conservatives. That's ok by me. However, if you are convinced about the rationality of your position, why be worried about me having a different position... ???

"In the last 24 years how much legislation passed was unconstitutional?"

What did Ron Paul do about it... ??? I think he whined and jammered and voted "no", but did he ever built a coalition to fight the attempts to undermine the Constitution... ??? "No".

The only time he voted "Yes", is when it came to earmarks. Earmarks, which at the time were an integral part of the central banking scheme the Congress was running for special interests.

Ron Paul fighting central banking... ??? How... ??? By voting for earmarks, and by supporting Romney in double tagging Santorium and Gingrich... ???

Please... !!! Ron Paul is not a constitutionalist. He is an anarchist like his idol Murray Rothbard, who hated conservatives. Romney is no conservative and Ron Paul, who is no conservate, finds an easy ally in Romney.

I am a conservative. Newt Gingrich and Santorum are conservatives. I suport Newt Gingrich, because he proved to have political skills which balanced budgets, shrank welfare and threatened the central bank.

Where was Ron Paul... ??? Nowhere.

So you buy into Ron Paul's schtick, but there should be no doubt about what ideas you support, in comparison to the ideas I support.

@ DB

"The cat is well and truly "out of the bag."

Care to elaborate... ???

Reply from The Daily Bell

Read the comments below the article. People simply don't believe the Federal Reserve was created for "their" benefit. Even you have now admitted it was not merely a innocuous enterprise. It wasn't. It isn't. We even think it may be on the way out.

What's your point... ???

Gee, just bumped into this ... in case you haven't seen it already:

"The Secret Meeting That Launched the Federal Reserve: Echoes" (Bloomberg, Feb 15, 2012)

Quote: "Of course, the Jekyll Island conference, which met that month, was dodgy even by the standards of the Gilded Age: a self-selected handful of plutocrats secretly meeting at a private resort island to draw up a new framework for the nation's banking system. Add in the gnarly live oaks and dripping Spanish moss of coastal Georgia, and the baronial becomes baroque.

(... )

Today, a central bank is the global standard. All 187 members of the International Monetary Fund have them. In November 2010, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke held a press conference on Jekyll Island to celebrate the centennial of the meeting. Aldrich and his colleagues would have been proud of their accomplishment -- but mortified by the publicity.

Click to view link

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks. Just read the comments! The cat is well and truly "out of the bag."

[Ron Paul has accomplished "zip" legislatively in all his 24 years in Congress. Not a great record to recommend him as a politician.] Bischoff

In the last 24 years how much legislation passed was unconstitutional? My guess is damn near all of it. Maybe if the rest of those parasites that vote the way their paid and the constitution be damned did the same as RP we citizens wouldn't be government assassin targets. And Maybe we wouldn't be holding our shoes in our hands waiting to be XXXrayed or felt up like good little serfs.

We wouldn't know how much and who the Federal Reserve gave it's freshly printed up paper to,,, now would we?

As the Bell and most others know,,, I have some questions about RP but his voting record isn't one of them. That's more than I can say about the others and especially Obomber who is a quote, "constitutional scholar" His entire life is sealed so how do we know where his area of expertise lies.

It isn't the quantity of legislation... it's the quality.

more fluoride please.