Ron Paul

All news and views regarding Dr. Ron Paul as we take action for RonPaul2012!

Ron Paul ~ Liberty Defined Live Webcast 4/9/14, 4pm (PT) 7PM (ET)

0

 

Ron Paul ~ Liberty Defined: The Future of Freedom Live Webcast

 

4-9-2014 6-49-56 PM

 

The Independent Institute with co-sponsor The Smith Center for Private Enterprise Studies is hosting a event tonight, April 9th, in Hayward, CA in which a live webcast is available.  The start time is 4 PM (PT) – 7 PM (ET). The webcast is linked below.

About:

220px-Ron_Paul_official_Congressional_photo_portrait_2007Dr. Ron Paul
“Liberty Defined: The Future of Freedom”

Ron Paul, the former 12-term Congressman and Presidential candidate,
will take a candid look at America¹s increasingly dysfunctional political
system. Drawing on his 24 years in Congress, he will highlight the need
to rein in unchecked government power. The author of numerous
#1 “New York Times” bestselling books, Dr. Paul is a leading advocate for individual liberty, privacy, limited constitutional government, low taxes
and spending, free markets, restrained foreign policy, and sound money.

The event is to be streamed live on USTREAM here.

More information available here:

US ‘Democracy Promotion’ Destroys Democracy Overseas

0

 

Source: http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org

By Ron Paul

US ‘Democracy Promotion’ Destroys Democracy Overseas

 

It was almost ten years ago when, before the House International Relations Committee, I objected to the US Government funding NGOs to meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine. At the time the “Orange Revolution” had forced a regime change in Ukraine with the help of millions of dollars from Washington.

At that time I told the Committee:

We do not know exactly how many millions—or tens of millions—of dollars the United States government spent on the presidential election in Ukraine. We do know that much of that money was targeted to assist one particular candidate, and that through a series of cut-out non-governmental organizations (NGOs)—both American and Ukrainian—millions of dollars ended up in support of the presidential candidate…

I was worried about millions of dollars that the US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its various related organizations spent to meddle in Ukraine’s internal affairs. But it turns out that was only the tip of the iceberg.

Last December, US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland gave a speech in which she admitted that since 1991 the US government has:

[I]nvested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine…in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government.

This is the same State Department official who was caught on tape just recently planning in detail the overthrow of the Ukrainian government.

That five billion dollars appears to have bought a revolution in Ukraine. But what do the US taxpayers get, who were forced to pay for this interventionism? Nothing good. Ukraine is a bankrupt country that will need tens of billions of dollars to survive the year. Already the US-selected prime minister has made a trip to Washington to ask for more money.

And what will the Ukrainians get? Their democracy has been undermined by the US-backed coup in Kiev. In democracies, power is transferred peacefully through elections, not seized by rebels in the streets. At least it used to be.

The IMF will descend on Ukraine to implement yet another of its failed rescue plans, which enrich the well-connected and international bankers at the expense of the local population. The IMF adds debt, organizes sweetheart deals for foreign corporations, and demands that the local population accept “austerity” in exchange for “reform” that never seems to produce the promised results.

The groundwork for this disaster has been laid by NED, USAID, and the army of NGOs they have funded over the years in Ukraine.

Supporters of NED and its related organizations will argue that nothing is wrong with sending US dollars to “promote democracy” overseas. The fact is, however, that NED, USAID, and the others have nothing to do with promoting democracy and everything to do with destroying democracy.

It is not democracy to send in billions of dollars to push regime change overseas. It isn’t democracy to send in the NGOs to re-write laws and the constitution in places like Ukraine. It is none of our business.

How should we promote democracy overseas? First, we should stop the real isolationists — those who seek to impose sanctions and blockades and restrictions that impede our engagement overseas. We can promote democracy with a US private sector that engages overseas. A society that prospers through increased trade ties with the US will be far more likely to adopt practices and policies that continue that prosperity and encourage peace.

In 2005, arguing against funding NED in the US foreign assistance authorization bill, I said:

The National Endowment for Democracy…has very little to do with democracy. It is an organization that uses US tax money to actually subvert democracy, by showering funding on favored political parties or movements overseas. It underwrites color-coded ‘people’s revolutions’ overseas that look more like pages out of Lenin’s writings on stealing power than genuine indigenous democratic movements.

Sadly, matters are even worse now. To promote democracy overseas, NED and all other meddling US government funded NGOs should be disbanded immediately.

Ron Paul on CIA Targeting Congress

0

 

Source: http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org

By Adam Dick

Ron Paul on CIA Targeting Congress

 

RPI Chairman and Founder Ron Paul, speaking on the Fox Business show The Independents Wednesday night, addresses the Central Intelligence Agency’s spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee — seemingly to cover up torture revelations against the agency. Paul notes the irony that Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) “doesn’t care about our privacy, but, lo and behold, she does care about her own.”

Watch the complete interview here:

 

Ron Paul Endorses Murray Sabrin for US Senate

0

 

Source: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com

By

Ron Paul Endorses Murray Sabrin for US Senate

 

murraysabrin2014The 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!

0

 

Source: http://ronpaulinstitute.org

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.

 

CSPAN video capture

CSPAN video capture

 

YouTube Preview Image

 

The Difference Between Ron Paul & Ron Paul Inc: Dennis Fusaro Explains on The Robert Wenzel Show

0

 

Source: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com

By

The Difference Between Ron Paul & Ron Paul Inc:

Dennis Fusaro Explains on The Robert Wenzel Show

 

Robert Wenzel Show

 

Dennis Fusaro

Worked for the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential campaign. Dennis describes the difference between Ron Paul & Ron Paul Inc.

 

YouTube Preview Image

Download mp3

Miss a show? Here’s the archive.

 

Will No One Challenge Obama’s Executive Orders?

0

 

Source: http://ronpaulinstitute.org

By Ron Paul

Will No One Challenge Obama’s Executive Orders?

 

ronpaul-tst

 

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.

 

Warfare, Welfare, and Wonder Woman — How Congress Spends Your Money

0

 

Source: http://the-free-foundation.org

By Ron Paul

ronpaul-tst

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

0

 

Source: http://ronpaulinstitute.org

By Chris Rossini

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.

Enjoy!

 

1-7-2014 8-48-43 PM

 

YouTube Preview Image

###

Video capture from the Fox presidential debate added to original post.

Iraq: The ‘Liberation’ Neocons Would Rather Forget

0

 

Source: http://ronpaulinstitute.org

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.”

 

Go to Top