August 15, 2011 By Joseph P. Farrell

Well, it's been a few days since the Iowa Republithug presidential debate, and I've calmed down now, and hope I can be semi-rational in my reactions to what I heard.

What amazed me was that two candidates, Ron Paul and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, both called into question the notoriously corrupt Federal Reserve Bank's role in the financial meltdown. Both men, in my opinion, are essentially correct: it is ludicrous in a free society to turn control of the nation's money over to a coterie of private bankers who render their decisions in secrecy, and who refuse to tell to whom the bailout money was given. Both candidates, in my opinion, are correct.

Then, amid several passionately argued pleas, candidate Ron Paul also called into question our whole imperial war-on-terror policy. Then, much to my surprise, Paul echoed the call of the Tea Party contingent, calling for a return to the gold standard.

Here I can hear the distinctive echoes of the argument that banksters have used throughout history, namely, that a bullion-backed currency is the only hedge against inflationary policies of runaway governments. But let's face certain facts here. The "backing" of a state-issued currency isn't bullion, it is the gross domestic product of the nation issuing such currency itself. Consider: mere bullion has never been a hedge against nations printing and borrowing money. Most nations of the world were on a bullion standard prior to World War One, but the vast expenditure of that war by all combatants forced them into a situation to borrow - again from private bankers - money in amounts beyond that which could be backed by their bullion stocks.Governments, and bankers, inflated their currencies notwithstanding the "backing" of bullion. In fact, by the end of the war, it was clear that the bullion backing had broken down.

Bullion itself, is in the hands of the very banking class that now loans its monetized debt into circulation. In short, we don't need a bullion backed currency, though arguments can be advanced that such backing is a stabilizing feature for currency. What we really need is two things: (1) constitutional money, real money, not monetized debt which is the facsimile of money, and (2) we need to honor and service the existing debt, and to bring it down.  After all, bankers, corporations, and countries have invested in American debt in good faith.

We will not get constitutional money until we realize the Federal Reserve is not an institution of the Federal government, but a private bank. But by the same token, we need to realize that simply lunging in like Philip le Bel and shutting it down in one "coordinated strike" will probably prove no more successful than his own lame attempt against the Templars. Tackling the problem of the Federal Reserve and its undue influence over this nation's economic health requires care. An audit, to my mind, would be the place to start.

What is ultimately refreshing is something that candidate Ron Paul observed: it is refreshing that the mainstream media is finally alive to the fact that the Federal Reserve itself is a legitimate issue for political discussion. That is, to put it mildly, a massive sea change from 2008, when candidate Paul was all but censored out of existence by the mainstream media for presuming to raise the issue. Whether or not this will remain a main issue remains to be seen. We need to insure that it does.