All news and views regarding Dr. Ron Paul as we take action for RonPaul2012!
All news and views regarding Dr. Ron Paul as we take action for RonPaul2012!
Ron Paul Endorses Murray Sabrin for US Senate
The Murray Sabrin campaign has just released the below press release announcing the endorsement of Murray Sabrin by Ron Paul. I am very pleased to see Dr. Paul endorse Murray. Most politicians don’t impress me, but Murray is one of the few that is truly a consistent advocate of liberty. You can find out more about Murray’s exciting campaign here. He needs to be the Republican nominee. It will be fun watching him go up against Cory Booker:
HIGHTSTOWN, N.J., March 6, 2014 – Murray Sabrin is pleased and proud to announce that his candidacy for the United States Senate seat currently held by Cory Booker has been enthusiastically endorsed by former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, perhaps America’s leading champion of individual liberty, limited government and human rights.
In a letter dated March 5 (attached), Rep. Paul recounts his 30-year friendship with Murray and discusses many of the critical issues facing the United States today, including the disaster that is Obamacare, government spying on its own citizens and encroaching upon their civil liberties and the need to create a productive, job-creating economic climate through free market principles while ending government giveaways to corporate cronies and campaign donors.
Rep. Paul wrote:
“I have known Murray for 30 years, and he is a
true champion of liberty. I am proud to endorse his campaign
for U.S. Senate in New Jersey.”
Not only is Rep. Paul known as a champion of freedom and constitutional principles, but he has attracted loyal and prodigious support from around the country throughout his political career, which is represented by his ability to raise millions of dollars in campaign contributions not from super PACs or large donors, but from individual contributions made by ordinary Americans who share his beliefs.
“I’m honored and humbled to have the support of my friend, Ron Paul,” said Murray, “and I know his endorsement sends a strong message throughout New Jersey that I’m in this race all the way and in it to win.”
“America and New Jersey cannot afford Cory Booker in the Senate for a full, six-year term given his support of job-killing taxes, environmental regulations that will cost almost 8,500 New Jerseyans their jobs over the next 10 years and, of course the increasingly problematic Obamacare. We can’t afford to let Cory Booker pay attention to the nation’s business in the same way The New York Times recently exposed he failed to pay attention to the city of Newark’s business when he was mayor. The hard working people of New Jersey deserve better, and I will give that to them when I’m elected to the United States Senate.”
For further information contact campaign press secretary Scott St. Clair, 206-919-6047206-919-6047.
To donate to Murray’s campaign, click here. Think of it as sponsoring a libertarian rabble rouser for the entire 2014 political season.
Imaged added to Bob’s original post with image credit to murraysabrin2014.com
Ron Paul Rewind: Questions US Meddling in Ukraine…in 2004!
Ron Paul questions US Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft on US meddling in Ukraine back in December 7, 2004. Rep. Paul presents the Ambassador with evidence at the time that the US was deeply involved in internal Ukrainian affairs by openly funding NGOs affiliated with certain presidential candidates. He suggests that an audit be made of all US aid to Ukraine.
The Difference Between Ron Paul & Ron Paul Inc:
Dennis Fusaro Explains on The Robert Wenzel Show
Worked for the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential campaign. Dennis describes the difference between Ron Paul & Ron Paul Inc.
Miss a show? Here’s the archive.
By Ron Paul
Will No One Challenge Obama’s Executive Orders?
President Obama’s state of the union pledge to “act with or without Congress” marks a milestone in presidential usurpation of Congressional authority. Most modern presidents have used executive orders to change and even create laws without Congressional approval. However President Obama is unusually brazen, in that most Presidents do not brag about their plans to rule by executive order in state of the union speeches.
Sadly, his pledge to use his pen to implement laws and polices without the consent of Congress not only received thunderous applause from representatives of the president’s party, some representatives have even pledged to help Obama get around Congress by providing him with ideas for executive orders. The Constitution’s authors would be horrified to see legislators actively adding and abetting a president taking power away from the legislature.
Executive orders are perfectly legitimate and even necessary if, in the words of leading Constitutional Scholar Judge Andrew Napolitano, they “…. guide the executive branch on how to enforce a law or…complement and supplement what Congress has already done.” The problem is that most modern presidents have abused this power to issue orders that, as Judge Napolitano puts it, “restates federal law, or contradicts federal law, or does the opposite of what the federal law is supposed to do.”
Political opponents of the president rightly condemned Obama for disregarding the Constitution. However, it was not that long ago that many of the same politicians where labeling as “unpatriotic” or worse anyone who dared question President Bush’s assertions the he had the “inherent” authority to launch wars, spy on Americans, and even indefinitely detain American citizens.
Partisan considerations also make some members of the opposition party hesitate to reign in the president. These members are reluctant to set a precedent of “tying the president’s hands” that could be used against a future president of their own party.
The concentration of power in the office of the president is yet one more negative consequence of our interventionist foreign policy. A foreign policy based on interventionism requires a strong and energetic executive, unfettered by Constitutional niceties such as waiting for Congress to pass laws or declare war. So it simply was natural, as America abandoned the traditional foreign policy of non-interventionism, for presidents to act “without waiting for Congress.” After all, the president is “commander-in-chief” and he needs to protect “national security,” they argued. Once it became accepted practice for the president to disregard Congress in foreign affairs, it was only a matter of time before presidents would begin usurping Congressional authority in domestic matters.
It should not be surprising that some of the biggest promoters of an “energetic” executive are the neoconservatives. They are also enthusiastic promoters of the warfare state. Sadly, they have misled many constitutionalists into believing that one can consistently support unchecked presidential authority in foreign policy, but limit presidential authority in domestic matters. Until it is fully understood that virtually limitless presidential authority in foreign affairs cannot coexist with strict limits on Presidential authority in domestic matters, we will never limit the power of the Presidency.
The people must also insist that politicians stop viewing issues concerning the separation of powers through a partisan lens and instead be willing to act against any president who exceeds his constitutional limitations. Thankfully we have scholars such as Louis Fisher, who has just published an important new book on presidential power, to help us better understand the Founders’ intent with regard to separation of powers. The key to achieving this goal is to make sure the people understand that any president of any party who would exceed constitutional limitations is a threat to liberty, and any member of Congress who ignores or facilitates presidential usurpation is being derelict in his Constitutional duty.
By Ron Paul
Warfare, Welfare, and Wonder Woman — How Congress Spends Your Money
Supporters of warfare, welfare, and Wonder Woman cheered last week as Congress passed a one trillion dollar “omnibus” appropriation bill. This legislation funds the operations of government for the remainder of the fiscal year. Wonder Woman fans can cheer that buried in the bill was a $10,000 grant for a theater program to explore the comic book heroine.
That is just one of the many outrageous projects buried in this 1,582 page bill. The legislation gives the Department of Education more money to continue nationalizing education via “common core.” Also, despite new evidence of Obamacare’s failure emerging on an almost daily basis, the Omnibus bill does nothing to roll back this disastrous law.
Even though the Omnibus bill dramatically increases government spending, it passed with the support of many self-described “fiscal conservatives.” Those wondering why anyone who opposes increasing spending on programs like common core and Obamacare would vote for the bill, may find an answer in the fact that the legislation increases funding for the “Overseas Continuing Operations” — which is the official name for the war budget — for the first time since 2010. This $85 billion war budget contains $6 billion earmarked for projects benefiting Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and other big defense contractors.
Ever since “sequestration” went into effect at the beginning of last year, the military-industrial complex’s congressional cheering session has complained that sequestration imposed “draconian cuts” on the Pentagon that will “decimate” our military — even though most of the “cuts” were actually reductions in the “projected rate of growth.” In fact, under sequestration, defense spending was to increase by 18 percent over ten years, as opposed to growing by 20 percent without sequestration.
Many of the defenders of increased war spending are opponents of welfare, but they are willing to set aside their opposition to increased welfare spending in order to increase warfare spending. They are supported in this position by the lobbyists for the military-industrial complex and the neoconservatives, whose continued influence on foreign policy is mystifying. After all, the neocons were the major promoters of the disastrous military intervention in Iraq.
While many neocons give lip service to limiting domestic spending, their main priority remains protecting high levels of military spending to maintain an interventionist foreign policy. The influence of the neocons provides intellectual justification for politicians to vote for ever-larger military budgets — and break the campaign promises to vote against increases in spending and debt.
Fortunately, in recent years more Americans have recognized that a constant defense of liberty requires opposing both war and welfare. Many of these Americans, especially the younger ones, have joined the intellectual and political movement in favor of limiting government in all areas. This movement presents the most serious challenge the bipartisan welfare-warfare consensus has faced in generations. Hopefully, the influence of this movement will lead to bipartisan deals cutting both welfare and warfare spending.
The question facing Americans is not whether Congress will ever cut spending. The question is will the spending be reduced in an orderly manner that avoids inflecting massive harm on those depending on government programs, or will spending be slashed in response to an economic crisis caused by ever-increasing levels of deficit spending. Because politicians are followers rather than leaders, it is ultimately up to the people what course we will take. This is why it is vital that those of us who understand the dangerous path we are currently on do all we can to expand the movement for liberty, peace, and prosperity.
Ron Paul Rewind: Defense Spending vs. Empire Spending
Last year, debate “moderators” from Fox News had a hard time understanding the difference between legitimate spending on defending the U.S. versus the wasteful spending on the military empire. Dr. Paul explained it with passion and in true smackdown form, leaving the warmongers on stage, and in the audience, speechless.
Video capture from the Fox presidential debate added to original post.
By Ron Paul
Iraq: The ‘Liberation’ Neocons Would Rather Forget
Remember Fallujah? Shortly after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the US military fired on unarmed protestors, killing as many as 20 and wounding dozens. In retaliation, local Iraqis attacked a convoy of US military contractors, killing four. The US then launched a full attack on Fallujah to regain control, which left perhaps 700 Iraqis dead and the city virtually destroyed.
According to press reports last weekend, Fallujah is now under the control of al-Qaeda affiliates. The Anbar province, where Fallujah is located, is under siege by al-Qaeda. During the 2007 “surge,” more than 1,000 US troops were killed “pacifying” the Anbar province. Although al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before the US invasion, it is now conducting its own surge in Anbar.
For Iraq, the US “liberation” is proving far worse than the authoritarianism of Saddam Hussein, and it keeps getting worse. Last year was Iraq’s deadliest in five years. In 2013, fighting and bomb blasts claimed the lives of 7,818 civilians and 1,050 members of the security forces. In December alone nearly a thousand people were killed.
I remember sitting through many hearings in the House International Relations Committee praising the “surge,” which we were told secured a US victory in Iraq. They also praised the so-called “Awakening,” which was really an agreement by insurgents to stop fighting in exchange for US dollars. I always wondered what would happen when those dollars stopped coming.
Where are the surge and awakening cheerleaders now?
One of them, Richard Perle, was interviewed last year on NPR and asked whether the Iraq invasion that he pushed was worth it. He replied:
I’ve got to say I think that is not a reasonable question. What we did at the time was done in the belief that it was necessary to protect this nation. You can’t a decade later go back and say, well, we shouldn’t have done that.
Many of us were saying all along that we shouldn’t have done that – before we did it. Unfortunately the Bush Administration took the advice of the neocons pushing for war and promising it would be a “cakewalk.” We continue to see the results of that terrible mistake, and it is only getting worse.
Last month the US shipped nearly a hundred air-to-ground missiles to the Iraqi air force to help combat the surging al-Qaeda. Ironically, the same al-Qaeda groups the US is helping the Iraqis combat are benefiting from the US covert and overt war to overthrow Assad next door in Syria. Why can’t the US government learn from its mistakes?
The neocons may be on the run from their earlier positions on Iraq, but that does not mean they have given up. They were the ones pushing for an attack on Syria this summer. Thankfully they were not successful. They are now making every effort to derail President Obama’s efforts to negotiate with the Iranians. Just last week William Kristol urged Israel to attack Iran with the hope we would then get involved. Neoconservative Senators from both parties recently introduced the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013, which would also bring us back on war-footing with Iran.
Next time the neocons tell us we must attack, just think “Iraq.”
By Ron Paul
Government Policies Hurt Low-Wage Workers
Fast-food workers across the county have recently held a number of high profile protests to agitate for higher wages. These protests have been accompanied by efforts to increase the wages mandated by state and local minimum wage laws, as well as a renewed push in some states and localities to pass “living wage” laws. President Obama has proposed raising the federal minimum wage to ten dollars an hour.
Raising minimum wages by government decree appeals to those who do not understand economics. This appeal is especially strong during times of stagnant wages and increased economic inequality. But raising the minimum wage actually harms those at the bottom of the income ladder. Basic economic theory teaches that when the price of a good increases, demand for that good decreases. Raising the minimum wage increases the price of labor, thus decreasing the demand for labor. So an increased minimum wage will lead to hiring freezes and layoffs. Unskilled and inexperienced workers are the ones most often deprived of employment opportunities by increases in the minimum wage.
Minimum wage laws are not the only example of government policies that hurt those at the bottom of the income scale. Many regulations that are promoted as necessary to “rein in” large corporations actually hurt small businesses. Because these small businesses operate on a much narrower profit margin, they cannot as easily absorb the costs of complying with the regulations as large corporations. These regulations can also inhibit lower income individuals from starting their own businesses. Thus, government regulations can reduce the demand for wage-labor, while increasing the supply of labor, which further reduces wages.
Perhaps the most significant harm to low-wage earners is caused by the inflationist polices of the Federal Reserve. Since its creation one hundred years ago this month, the Federal Reserve’s policies have caused the dollar to lose over 95 percent of its purchasing power—that’s right, today you need $23.70 to buy what one dollar bought in 1913! Who do you think suffers the most from this loss of purchasing power—Warren Buffet or his secretary?
It is not just that higher incomes can afford the higher prices caused by Federal Reserve. The system is set up in a way that disadvantages those at the bottom of the income scale. When the Federal Reserve creates money, those well-connected with the political and financial elites receive the newly-created money first, before general price increases have spread through the economy. And most fast-food employees do not number among the well-connected.
It is not a coincidence that economic inequality has increased in recent years, as the Federal Reserve has engaged in unprecedented money creation and bailouts of big banks and Wall Street financial firms. As billionaire investor Donald Trump has said, the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing policies are a great deal for “people like me.” And former Federal Reserve official Andrew Huszar has called QE “the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time.”
Many so-called champions of economic equality and fairness for the working class are preparing to confirm Janet Yellen as next Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Yet Yellen is committed to continuing and even expanding, the upward redistributionist polices of her predecessors. Washington could use more sound economic thinking and less demagoguery.
By increasing unemployment, government policies like minimum wage laws only worsen inequality. Those who are genuinely concerned about increasing the well-being of all Americans should support repeal of all laws, regulations, and taxes that inhibit job creation and economic mobility. Congress should also end the most regressive of all taxes, the inflation tax, by ending the Federal Reserve.
By Tyler Durden
The World According To Ron Paul
With 72% of those polled believing “big Government” is more of a problem now than 4 years ago, it is hardly surprising that Ron Paul blasts “the failure of government is all around us” in this brief FOX news interview. Perhaps it is the fact that “Obamacare has been such a trasparent failure of big government,” along with Keynesian economics, and the NSA debacles; that more and more of even the most liberal are realizing just what America has become. “It’s really great news that people are starting to recognize this,” Paul adds, because there is no way to replace the status quo “until people give up on what we have.”
Video capture of FOX News interview with Ron Paul added to original post.
Banks and Reid working together? “Nuclear Option,” a move to make sure Yellen is confirmed and QE continues? (Video)0
Banks and Reid working together? “Nuclear Option,” a move to make sure Yellen is confirmed and QE continues? (Video)
This in an interesting take on why Reid moved when he did. From one of the best connected people in politics, Ron Paul. (He does have a son in the Senate.)
End the Fed.
Image credit: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org