Ron Paul on Competing Currencies

Ron Paul, among other things, has been a supporter of alternative currencies - which would compete against one another - being allowed to circulate among the American people, giving them other options than the failing U.S. dollar.

Before the United States House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy, Hearing on Sound Money: Parallel Currencies and the Roadmap to Monetary Freedom, August 2, 2012, Paul said this:

One of the most pressing issues of our time is the push for monetary freedom. The only sound monetary system is one which protects sound money and allows consumers, businesses, and investors the freedom to transact in the currency of their choice. The importance of sound money is summed up nicely by Ludwig von Mises: "It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments." It is no wonder that governments fight tooth and nail against sound money, as sound money protects the well-being of the middle class and the poor while preventing the expansion of government.

As we've talked here a number of times, Paul also noted that since the creation of the Federal Reserve, it has debased the U.S. dollar by 96 percent.

Over the past 100 years, the Federal Reserve has continually pumped new money into the economy, resulting in a 96 percent devaluation of the dollar. This devaluation does not affect everyone equally, as the banks who receive this new money first benefit from using it before prices rise, while average Americans suffer the price rises first and receive only a trickle of money well afterward. In this way the Fed enriches Wall Street while impoverishing Main Street, leading to a growing disparity of wealth.

Shaming the American government and the Federal Reserve by countries that already allow competing currency options in their countries, he cited Mexico, Singapore, and other countries in Asia as those already participating in the practice.

Mexican workers can set up accounts that are denominated in ounces of silver, and can take delivery of that silver whenever they want, tax-free. In Singapore and some other Asian countries, individuals can set up bank accounts denominated in gold and silver. Debit cards can be linked to gold and silver accounts so that customers can use their gold and silver to make point of sale transactions, a service which is only available to non-Americans. In short, Americans have far fewer options to protect their wealth than citizens of many foreign countries do.

The solution to this problem is to legalize monetary freedom and allow the circulation of parallel and competing currencies. There is no reason why Americans should not be able to transact, save, and invest in the currency of their choosing. Unfortunately, decades of government restrictions and regulations have hampered and prevented the circulation of parallel currencies and destroyed the familiarity of Americans with any sort of money aside from Federal Reserve Notes or bank deposits denominated in U.S. dollars. The thought of introducing parallel currencies undoubtedly scares many people who understandably wish to minimize their financial risk.

All financial activity is fraught with risk. Most people understand the risks inherent in stock or bond investment, but the risk of holding savings accounts or cash is still drastically under-appreciated. Everyone is familiar with the maxim "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" and investors and savers are constantly urged to diversify their portfolios, yet the U.S. government continues to set roadblocks that force Americans to transact and save in dollars that continue to depreciate.

Paul is absolutely correct in his assertions. Most Americans are subject to the strength or weakness of the U.S. dollar and interest rates in association with it.

Now people have their money in savings accounts that generate almost nothing in interest, while inflation continues to run at about a 2 percent annual rate. That means the average American, or anyone in a country with no competing currencies, are subject to the practices of the central bank, which in America is of course the Federal Reserve.

The more Americans and people around the world understand the inherent risk in relying upon a single currency, the more they'll work towards eliminating central banking and also for the adoption of alternative currencies in their respective countries.

Audit the Fed and Bernanke's Word Games

The legislation introduced by Ron Paul overwhelmingly passed the House on July 25 by a vote of 327 to 98. But as long as the Democrats control the Senate, there is little chance of seeing the Federal Reserve audited any time soon.

What Paul and millions of Americans want to know is how and what the Federal Reserve has been specifically doing when bailing out giant banks, and what it is it is doing in distributing funds to foreign nations that American citizens are on the hook for.

Here's the disingenuous and consistent argument of Bernanke:

"We fully accept the need for transparency and accountability, but it is a well-established fact that an independent central bank will provide better outcomes."

What's wrong with that statement? For one thing, there is no established fact whatsoever that the central bank operates better than one that is under the scrutiny of the American people.

More importantly, there is absolutely no connection between being transparent and what Bernanke calls an "independent" central bank. What does being independent have to do with transparency? Absolutely nothing. The words aren't even close in meaning. It's a play on words and ploy by Bernanke, which his media supporters grab onto in order to take away the actual meaning of the word transparency and completely change it into a completely different concept altogether.

Ron Paul concurs he says:

"When the Fed talks about independence, what they’re really talking about is secrecy. What the GAO cannot audit is monetary policy. It would not be able to look at agreements and operations with foreign central banks, and governments, and other banks, transactions made under the direction of the FOMC, and discussions or communications between the board and the Federal Reserve system relating to all those items. And why this is important is because of what happened 4 years ago. It’s estimated that the amount of money that went in and out of the Fed overseas is $15 trillion. How did we get into this situation where Congress has nothing to say about bailing out all these banks?"

The very secrecy itself confirms that Bernanke's statement is nothing more than a lie. His assertion that an "independent" Federal Reserve produces better outcomes is unprovable as long at the central bank is allowed to continue operating in secrecy. Bernanke is blowing hot air when he says the bank operates better when left alone.

From a point of view of Jesus Christ, everything is open before his eyes, and the transparency revealed throughout the Holy Scriptures concludes that transparency is part of His person hood, and by extension, to be part of the world we live in.

This is especially true when talking about an institution that has almost unlimited economic power (everything is limited under God), to do whatever it chooses to do.

We need to never stop insisting the Federal Reserve is audited. Eventually, we as Christians need to oppose central banking around the world, putting an end to these monstrosities that are attempting to control the fate of mankind in a move to subvert the Jesus Christ and His people.

There is a date the Lord has with central banks, and they will be facing a day when Jesus will put an end to this atrocious and brutal power which destroys the lives of people by debasing currencies, buying power and offering support to things we have no idea about.

The first step is to audit the Federal Reserve. There is no doubt the battle is over what is being done in secret and under the noses of the American people, and by central banks in other countries as well.

Once that is revealed, it is certain there will be an uprising against the Federal Reserve, which will ultimately lead to its banishment forever.

After all, it's the central banks of the world, and the Federal Reserve specifically, which give governments the capital to continue to expand and enlarge at the loss of liberty of people everywhere.

Christians need to know their unique position in the world of being a counterculture and testimony against these abuses, puts them squarely in the sights of power, as it has since the time Jesus Christ physically walked the earth.

Consequently, we all need to reject the central bank and large government as legitimate entities, and work and pray for the day when the Federal Reserve and other central banks around the world are abolished, and governments brought back to their very limited roles instituted by Jesus Christ for this world.

Ron Paul Supporters Confront Alec Baldwin

Supporters of Ron Paul challenged actor Alec Baldwin on several issues Paul believes in.

One of the questions was in connection to the Federal Reserve and whether it should be abolished as Paul has suggested.

Baldwin responded:

Capitalism is worthwhile. I don't want the capital markets to be dismantled. I think capitalism is worthwhile, and capitalism demands the flow of money.

When asked if he would commit to supporting Ron Paul, Baldwin refused to. With all of Baldwin's blather, you would think Paul would be someone he would be glad to support.

It appears limited government and getting rid of the banksters is too much for Baldwin to grasp or get behind.

Baldwin does call for major changes in the Securities and Exchange Commission, especially in relationship to conflicts of interests in regard to bankers and regulations.

President Ron Paul Would Cut $1 Trillion in Spending

If Ron Paul is elected President, a probability if he manages to win the Republican nomination, he has vowed to cut $1 trillion in Federal spending, as well as get rid of five governmental departments, according to The Brody File.

Among the departments Paul would cut are the Departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce and Interior.

According to a senior official with Paul's campaign, some of the existing functions of these departments would be rolled over into other departments, for example, pell grant programs currently overseen by the Department of Education.

Ron Paul has been consistent with all of the values he represents throughout the years, and is currently reminding social conservatives of his pro-life position concerning abortion.

The positions of Ron Paul have been the main conversational driver of the Republican debates, even though mainstream media has feverishly attempted to pretend he doesn't exist.

Paul would demolish Obama in a direct confrontation.

Ron Paul on Pro-Life Stance

Presidential hopeful Ron Paul has released a commercial reminding conservative votes of his long-term stance as an opponent of abortion, and other life-related issues.

Paul again cites the fact that he has delivered over 4,000 babies, and continues to be "committed to protecting life."

The commercial started to air on October 14 in Iowa, and will continue on for weeks, according to the campaign, expanding to New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, the other three states where primaries will initially be held.

Conservatives Applaud Ron Paul

Ron Paul has been somewhat of an enigma to conservatives over the years, who don't fully understand why Paul's message, at times, appears to contradict their values.

But with the out-of-control spending and expansion of the U.S. government, along with Paul's pro-life position, they are starting to take a strong second look at the candidacy of Paul as he once again runs for president.

Paul and conservatives, in general, have largely agreed on the need for limited government, although they differ on how that would play out. Conservatives still haven't been able to discern between having a strong military for domestic defense and the overreaching of the U.S. government as it continues to be the world's policeman.

Another difficult barrier between the two is Paul's stance on having the states do the majority of governing, while conservatives continue to embrace the federal government as the chief instrumentality in that regard.

If Paul and conservatives could come together on that, his candidacy has a very real chance of being a success. Paul has the majority of libertarians backing him, as well as a number of liberals, who back his opposition to the wars we continue to engage in. Paul could literally blow away all competitors if a coalition of these groups emerged.

At a recent rally at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, Paul mentioned the Biblical roots behind the principles which drive his message. The conservative crowd roared its approval; something that hasn't been part of Paul's past experience, which could be a good sign going forward in his campaign.

It would be amazing and strongly beneficial to America if Christians embraced Paul and voted him into the Presidency. What he represents, believes, and lives, is just what the nation needs at this hour.

Hopefully petty differences with ancillary issues don't result in conservatives turning away from Paul. He has a lot more in common with them than possibly they know, and he would make a great President.

Ron Paul Beats Obama in Latest Harris Poll

According to the latest Harris Poll, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul beats out Obama by a 51 percent to 49 percent margin; something that will probably get better for Paul as the Republican race to produce a presidential candidate continues on.

Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton, said this, “This is yet another poll that clearly proves how competitive Ron Paul is against the sitting President. Dr. Paul is making strides, affirming that the American people are looking for conviction instead of the typical status quo rhetoric being offered by establishment candidates.”

Paul has consistently been the top performer against Obama of all declared Republican candidates for president, and if he wins the nomination, would almost certainly beat Obama to become president of the United States.

All of this even though the mainstream media outlets act as if Paul isn't a viable candidate or one that could compete against Obama and beat him. As time goes on, we should see Paul extending his lead over Obama, suggesting it would be a wise move for Republicans to start to rally behind him.

Ron Paul Wins Orlando Debate says Fox News Poll

In an odd response by Fox News, when polling viewers on who won the Orlando Republican debate, they resoundingly said Ron Paul won the debate, with almost 40 percent voting his way. Fox pulled the results and bizarrely declared Mitt Romney the winner, even though only 22.89 percent agreed with that viewpoint.

Ron Paul, according to poll, generated 39.27 percent, or 27,573 of just over 70,000 votes, who thought he was the clear winner, as you see below.

To me it's not right to distort the fact that Ron Paul is connecting with voters and make it appear he isn't really in the race.

Establishment types just don't want to hear Paul's message of limited government, less spending, and lower taxes. It's a threat to the regime, which is attempting to hold onto its power and status in the world, even though the United States and its people can no longer afford it.

Click on Image for Larger View

Ron Paul Blasts Big Government in California

At a Republican convention in California, Texas congressman Ron Paul spoke to a raucous audience of supporters, continuing his consistent message through his long political career of the need to slash the size of the American government.

This time around he targeted some of the continual suspects, including the need to shut down the Federal Reserve, bring U.S. troops home, get out of NATO, and end the war on drugs.

Paul has also lashed out at so-called social-net programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. He has stated because people in many cases are totally dependent upon them, that would have to be addressed gradually.

Many people don't understand that Paul opposes many of these programs at the Federal level and wants it to be brought back to the states to deal with.

He rightly sees a large central government as a threat to our liberties, and that has been proven out as it attempts to extend its tentacles into all areas of our lives. Christians should be wary of any government getting that powerful, as historically, our enemies have aligned with that power to persecute us.

Remember Joseph. Just because a government in one period of time is favorable to us doesn't mean that it will continue. Eventually it will attempt to remove our liberties and enslave us all into dependence upon it, if we allow the government to do so.

Ron Paul's Pro-Life Stance

Here's a video of Ron Paul responding to a question about pro-life at the American Principles Project Palmetto Freedom Forum in Columbia, S.C.

When asked if he would choose a pro-life running mate for vice president, Paul, along with others, answered yes.

Giving Must be Voluntary and Private Says Ron Paul

At the recent presidential debate, hopeful Ron Paul talked about the crucial and Biblical aspect of charity, in that it must be privatized and voluntary.

That is in contrast to the progressive, socialist evil of "mandatory charity" via the extraction from taxpayers and redistribution according to the will of politicians, which is used for the purpose of buying votes at the expense of future and current generations.

We must as a people reject the idea of government programs replacing voluntary charity, as they are extremely costly and ineffective, and are bringing the United States to its financial knees, as they're totally unsustainable.

This doesn't bother most politicians, as they're extremely shortsighted and look at things in the short term, rather than the Christian view and outlook of the long term, and in reality, the eternal.

Even when Ananias and Sapphira were stuck dead by the Holy Spirit, it wasn't because they refused to give, because the voluntarily did. It was because they lied about the amount they gave.

Peter noted that as long as it was in the hands of the couple, they had the right to do with it as they chose to, confirming voluntary giving. But once they voluntarily turned it over, it was a different matter.

The point is of course is even in this terrible judgement by God, it wasn't related to being required to give that was the sin, but that the couple lied about how much they gave.

There is no uncertainty that there was no requirement to give, and that it was completely voluntary by all those involved in the early church.

As Ron Paul said in our time, the principle of voluntary and charitable giving needs to remain private and the choice of those choosing to give. Anything else is against the Biblical record and Christ Himself, who confirmed it by the Holy Spirit.

This is one of the reasons why socialism and progressivism are enemies of Christ.

Ron Paul Battles Perry in Texas Showdown

The sparks were flying during the Wednesday presidential debate between Rep. Ron Paul and Rick Perry, as the two battle head to head over who is best suited to lead the country.

Even when the cameras weren't rolling the atmosphere was tense, as Paul has aggressively pursued Perry concerning his credentials as a real conservative.

Paul has pointed out Perry's written support of Hillary Clinton and her attempt to impose Hillarycare on the United States when her husband was president. Paul responded to the apparent hypocrisy of Perry in his criticism of Romney's health care law he signed in Massachusetts.

Also during the commercial breaks of the debate, ads also pointing out Perry's support for Al Gore when he ran for president in the 1980s were run by Paul's campaign.

The point is, just because Perry showed up at some prayer gathering doesn't mean it's not all opportunism and show. can the leopard change his spots. Maybe. But this has happened over much of Perry's political career, and must be carefully evaluated.

As for Ron Paul, he has been consistent throughout his political career, and we know exactly where he stands on the issues that are important to us all.

Ron Paul handily won a poll after the debate. Here are the results of 147,750 votes cast:

Ron Paul 51.5% (76,019 votes)
Mitt Romney 16.7% (24,726 votes)
Rick Perry 13.9% (20,536 votes)
Jon Huntsman 6.9% (10,141 votes)
Newt Gingrich 4.6% (6,842 votes)
Herman Cain 3.3% (4,883 votes)
Michele Bachmann 2.1% (3,099 votes)
Rick Santorum (1,504 votes)

Jim Rogers Talks Ron Paul, Economy

Jim Rogers talks in this interview with the Financial Times about Ron Paul, the economy, and other topics like gold, the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Constitution, inflation, and the U.S. dollar.

Ron Paul on 2012, Media Blackout, Moneybomb, Income Tax, Libya & Perry

Ron Paul talks on the media blackout in 2012, Perry, Libya, income tax and the moneybomb.

Ron Paul's Views on Abortion and Stem Cell Research

Ron Paul gives his views on abortion and stem cell research in this video.

Ron Paul Rejects Human Evolution

It's been a bizarre situation to see various media outlets attempt to smear those campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination with the rejection of the theory of evolution, as if it had anything to do with governance.

Not only that, as science has improved since the time of Darwin, more and more proof has emerged that refutes the ridiculous theory, and it is evolution that is backtracking, not creationism, which an enormous number of Americans believe in.

Paul said in 2007 when asked about the question of where he stands on the issue.

"Well, first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that I know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."

Of course since we as Christians operate in faith, the proof is in the intelligence associated with faith, not in refuting a theory which has no reality behind it. Do we have to prove there's no easter bunny as well, or no tooth fairy? They're as real as the silly evolution theory that is crumbling under the weight of a growing amount of scientific evidence revealing it's nonsense.

Having said that, the idea that God created the universe being attempted to be positioned as an extreme position which would undermine the credibility of a candidate for the presidency is ludicrous and bizarre.

It speaks more to the misguided mindset of someone who would misinterpret the American public in such a way, rather than it does any candidate believing in our Creator.

Ron Paul Getting Media Blackout

After years of staying on message, presidential candidate Ron Paul is capturing the hearts and minds of a growing number of people, being perceived as a real threat from Democrats and Republicans alike.

That has resulted in both parties putting pressure on media outlets to ensure Paul gains no more traction.

John Kass said:

Why is the American media so intent on ignoring congressman Ron Paul and his prickly libertarian views?

Paul is running for president in the Republican primaries, and it's plain that the handmaidens of the political establishment — Democrats as well as Republicans — are freezing him out.

Libyan Civil War (2011) He came within a few votes of winning last week's Iowa straw poll, just 152 votes short among almost 17,000 cast.

But rather than shower this intriguing candidate and his views with attention, the news media willfully forgot about him. The question is, why?

Perhaps the answer could be found during the recent Fox News debate in Iowa, in which Paul trashed Republican saber-rattling toward a potentially nuclear Iran.

"They're building up this case like, just like we did in Iraq — build up the war propaganda," Paul said. "It's time we quit this. It's time — it's trillions of dollars we're spending on these wars."

After that, he couldn't get himself into a news story for days.

But this media freeze-out started long before. The Project for Excellence in Journalism studied media coverage of Paul from January through Aug. 14, and demonstrated that he received much less coverage than non-candidates such as Donald Trump and Sarah Palin.

After reading that, I got a little paranoid and did what any reasonable guy would do. I fashioned a cone-shaped hat from aluminum foil and put it on as I typed this column. The last thing I needed was to have my mind channeled by either Democratic Merlin David Axelrod or Republican Rasputin Karl Rove.

Even liberal comedian Jon Stewart, not my typical go-to source, seemed ashamed of the media's treatment of Paul. On his show last week, Stewart ran clips of broadcast news coverage that slapped Paul around.

News anchors gushed over the "top tier" Republicans in Iowa, and even though Paul came in second behind U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, he wasn't considered "top tier" enough to be mentioned.

"Really?" asked Stewart, as Paul's photo flashed on the screen. "You're not forgetting … say, an ideologically consistent 12-term congressman who came within less than 200 votes of winning the straw poll? Isn't anyone going to give that gentleman any love?"

Love may indeed be the reason the media ignores Ron Paul. Under this theory, the media is merely trying to provide us with loving protection from Paul and those challenging libertarian ideals:

Such as the view we shouldn't be eager to be groped in airports or to fund another war in the Middle East, or that we should legalize drugs rather than fight the drug wars, or the wild idea that a coffee shop waitress should not be expected to pay taxes on her tips.

These are extreme notions, though the principles behind them were once held dear by a few old guys in powdered wigs who founded this country.

The TV people are happy to do the work for you, and tell you what notions are fit for public debate. Thinking for yourself is really, really hard, and it's just easier to watch TV and listen to discussions about Bachmann's hair.

Another possible reason why the media is ignoring Paul could be fear rather than love. Perhaps Democrats and Republicans are afraid of him.

Paul is anti-war, and there are many independent Democrats who've been anti-war, including those who elected President Barack Obama in 2008 and have since turned on him because, well, he recently help start a war in Libya, turning America's two wars into three.

Paul also doesn't campaign on social issues, like outlawing abortion, or involving the government in the bedroom. He's not a political evangelical, so Paul's stance would be attractive to many Democrats.

And that is why I put on my tinfoil hat, lest magic-man Axelrod zap me with one of his mind-control spells before I could finish typing. Yet it's obvious that tin-foil brain prophylactics are also needed against the powers of Axelrod's doppelganger, Rove.

For years now, Rove has sputtered angrily about the libertarians, and it's obvious Republicans see Paul as a threat. Perhaps it's the fact that Paul ridicules the GOP military drumbeat against Iran. It may be that he appeals to tea party fiscal conservatives, and if these voters begin to lean toward Paul, the establishment GOP will be left with defense contractors, neocons and evangelicals, not enough to win a national election.

I'm not picking a candidate yet, and I reserve the right to flip and flop like any other voter, depending on what the candidates say and how their hair looks on TV.

Paul loathes government even more than I do, but his throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater philosophy of reform gives me pause. Still, he's intriguing.

So even a blind goose can see that by freezing Paul out, the media serves the political establishment, but that's about it.

"It is hard for them to accept," Paul told Politico's liberal Roger Simon in a recent interview about the candidate's media treatment after the Iowa vote. "They (the media) believe this guy is dangerous to the status quo, but that is a reason to be more energized."

Paul is dangerous to the status quo. And that's a reason not to ignore him.

The bottom line to me is Paul has earned and the public deserves far broader coverage of his campaign, as much that he represents, especially in regard to government spending and economics, is what is needed at this time in the country. Hopefully the media will respond so a wider representation of people will hear an alternative and refreshing message than they've heard for some time.

What is the Tea Party?

As with many seemingly surprising movements throughout history, the Tea Party is one that has its roots far back in time, and has emerged in response to the realization government is out of control, and its policies, along with those of the Federal Reserve, are leading us to destruction.

That destruction will be the inevitable result of those of liberals, or progressives, which is just another name for the socialists Americans and much of the former free world all opposed in the past.

So while the Tea Party appeared to explode out of nowhere, in reality it has been building up for years, and soared onto the public scene in light of the Obama Administration, emboldened by the Carte Blanche offered it by the press, brought past socialists policies to entire new levels, even taking the healthcare bill and ramming it down the throats of the majority of Americans who opposed it.

Obama didn't start the policies leading to the emergence of the Tea Party, but his arrogance and dictator-like actions brought what has been boiling under the surface for decades to the top.

Even though it's true the Tea Party has largely backed Republican candidates, it's not because they are necessarily apologists for the Republican Party, but rather it's because Democrats have refused to listen to and heed the underlying concerns of the Party.

As to the Tea Party, it's not a political party, but is identified as that from a reference to dissent long ago when Americans opposed taxation without representation from the British. It is in fact a loose conglomeration of locally focused people.

Along with the disastrous healthcare bill forced upon the people, other laws generating and producing the resultant political dissent included, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Some see the bailing out of the banks as the major catalyst which brought people to the streets. But the refusal of Obama and the Democrats, especially, to listen their voices, was also an important part of the political uprising.

Republicans in general don't get off the hook either, as 87 percent of those organizing local tea parties say they aren't satisfied with the mainstream leaders of the Party.

At this time the Tea Party is made up of libertarian and conservative people, with a strong emphasis on lowering taxes, slashing the national debt, cutting the federal budget and reducing government spending. All of this is under the auspices of adhering to the United States Constitution, and not, as Obama has contended, interpreting it as a "moving" document. In other words, making it say whatever you want it to say to justify your policies.

On the social side, supporters of the Tea Party, according to a University of Washington poll, are very conservative, with 88 percent approving of the law put into effect by Arizona, 82 percent opposing homosexual marriage, and another 52 percent saying homosexuals have far too much political power. Obama's policy with foreign countries is also opposed by 73 percent of those identifying with the Tea Party.

From these disparities, you can see the Tea Party, in fact, is made up of libertarians and conservatives.

Contrary to media reports, a sizable percentage of those supporting Tea Party principles aren't white, with 21 percent saying they're of another race. The idea it's also a bunch of older people isn't true either, as 60 percent say they're younger than 55, according to a Bloomberg National Poll of adults 18 and over. As for Christians, 44 percent identify themselves as being born again.

On the libertarian side, and for conservatives emphasizing fiscal responsibility and smaller government, Ron Paul is largely the figurehead of the movement. Michele Bachmann is another powerful force in the movement, embracing the social issues important to conservatives, something that has always been perceived as a weakness for Ron Paul. Bachmann struggles with her signing of the Patriot Act, something many in the Tea Party movement oppose, as it granted even more power to an already too powerful government.

Even so, when asked about who best represents the local Tea Party groups, 34 percent responded with "no one," suggesting the resistance to someone co-opting the movement with a personal or national agenda.

Others identified on the national level as having influence, along with Paul and Bachmann, are Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint and Glenn Beck, although as time goes on, it seems the latter three are diminishing in importance, rather than gaining strength among Tea Partiers.

Having said all this, it appears at this time there is no real leader of the Tea Party, and hopefully that will remain the case; at least on the national level. Even Ron Paul, who as far as fiscal issues and big government go, has always adhered to these beliefs, and with or without the Tea Party, will continue to, has offered advice for which direction the Tea Party should go on certain issues, but hasn't attempted to step in and lead it. And I don't think he could. Neither will Michelle Bachmann, or any other visible leader; now or in the future. If they are able to, the essence of the Tea Party will disappear, and it'll be relegated to an interesting side note in the march of history, but nothing that had sustainable impact. Hopefully that won't happen.

We'll talk a lot about and follow the Tea Party as the events of our day unfold. Those who are considered as having an impact, like some of those mentioned above, we'll look more closes at, but also, and more importantly, what is happening on the local and regional levels with the movement.