||Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
|(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix|
|News||The Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum Homepage||Recommended Links||Andrew Bacevich on the New American Militarism||Corporatism||American Exceptionalism|
|Understanding Mayberry Machiavellis||War Is a Racket||War is a Racket - Incredible Essay by General Smedley Butler||Ron Paul Youtube Videos||Humor||Etc|
March 6, 2016 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and ProsperityThe Republican presidential debates have become so heated and filled with insults, it almost seems we are watching a pro wrestling match. There is no civility, and I wonder whether the candidates are about to come to blows. But despite what appears to be total disagreement among them, there is one area where they all agree. They all promise that if elected they will "rebuild the military."
What does "rebuild the military" mean? Has the budget been gutted? Have the useless weapons programs like the F-35 finally been shut down? No, the United States still spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. And the official military budget is only part of the story. The total spending on the US empire is well over one trillion dollars per year. Under the Obama Administration the military budget is still 41 percent more than it was in 2001, and seven percent higher than at the peak of the Cold War.
Russia, which the neocons claim is the greatest threat to the United States, spends about one-tenth what we do on its military. China, the other "greatest threat," has a military budget less than 25 percent of ours.
Last week the Pentagon announced it is sending a small naval force of US warships to the South China Sea because, as Commander of the US Pacific Command Adm. Harry Harris told the House Armed Services Committee, China is militarizing the area. Yes, China is supposedly militarizing the area around China, so the US is justified in sending its own military to the area. Is that a wise use of the US military?
The US military maintains over 900 bases in 130 countries. It is actively involved in at least seven wars right now, including in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and elsewhere. US Special Forces are deployed in 134 countries across the globe. Does that sound like a military that has been gutted?
I do not agree with the presidential candidates, but I do agree that the military needs to be rebuilt. I would rebuild it in a very different way, however. I would not rebuild it according to the demands of the military-industrial complex, which cares far more about getting rich than about protecting our country. I would not rebuild the military so that it can overthrow more foreign governments who refuse to do the bidding of Washington's neocons. I would not rebuild the military so that it can better protect our wealthy allies in Europe, NATO, Japan, and South Korea. I would not rebuild the military so that it can better occupy countries overseas and help create conditions for blowback here at home.
No. The best way to really "rebuild" the US military would be to stop abusing the military in the first place. The purpose of the US military is to defend the United States. It is not to make the world safe for oil pipelines, or corrupt Gulf monarchies, or NATO, or Israel. Unlike the neocons who are so eager to send our troops to war, I have actually served in the US military. I understand that to keep our military strong we must constrain our foreign policy. We must adopt a policy of non-intervention and a strong defense of this country. The neocons will weaken our country and our military by promoting more war. We need to "rebuild" the military by restoring as its mission the defense of the United States, not of Washington's overseas empire.
Copyright © 2016 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute
therealnews.comSettingTheNarrative, linkBe nice to have a book called "The Foreign Policy of the 1%". Maybe include references to GATT, TPP, oil wars as mentioned in the presentation.ForDemocracy, link
1) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to Economic Hitman, John Perkins?
2) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to conservative founders like Jeane Kirkpatrick?
3) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to rise to Regan Revolution? Trump?This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation process of global capitalism & its "1%" class.Trainee Christian, link
Deepest thanks to Vijay Prashad...and to others like professor Bennis (present in the audience)... whose in-depth analysis of the system can, if studied, contribute to putting the nascent 'political revolution' Bernie calls for...into a real democratic movement in this country. We are so woefully ignorant as 'members of the 99%'- it seems worst of all in America-- intentionally kept isolated from knowing anything about this country/corporation's 'foreign policy' (aka as Capitalist system policy or 'the 1% policy) that Bernie cannot even broach what Vijay has given here. But he at least opens up some of our can of worms, the interrconnectdedness of class-interests and the devastation this country's (and the global cabal of ) capitalist voracious economic interests rains upon the planet.
The Mid-East is a product of Capitalism that will, if we don't recognize the process & change course & priorties, will soon overtake all of Africa and all 'undeveloped' (pre-Capitalist) countries around the globe--The destruction and never-ending blur of war and annihilation of peoples, cultures and even the possibility of 'political evolution' is a product of the profit-at-any-and-all-costs that is the hidden underbelly of a system of economics that counts humanity as nothing. It is a sick system. It is a system whose sickness brings death to all it touches... and we are seeing now it is bringing ITS OWN DEATH as well.
The '99% policy' (again a phrase Prashad should be congratulated for bringing into the language) is indeed one that understands that our needs --the people's needs, not 'national interests' AKA capitalist corporate/financial interests --- are global, that peace projects are essentially anti-capitalist projects.... and our needs-to build a new society here in the U.S. must begin to be linked to seeing Capitalism as the root cause of so much suffering that must be replaced by true democratic awakening a- r/evolutionary process that combines economic and civic/political -- that we must support in every way possible. Step One: support the movement for changed priorities & values by voting class-consciously.The 1% or the oligarchy have completely won the world, our only way to fight against such power is to abandon buying their products, take great care on who you vote for in any election, only people who have a long record of social thinking should be considers. They can be diminished but not beaten.Sillyputta, linkOne of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating, is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination economic empire is the goal.denden11, link
The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see the whole electoral mirage for what it is.All of what's been said about the elites, the one percent, has already been said many years ago. The conversation about the wealthy elites destroying our world has changed only in the area of how much of our world has and is being destroyed. Absolutely nothing else has changed, nothing else.Vivienne Perkins -> denden11, link
Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing, especially the race war against the Arab people. Meanwhile, as we continue to speak the ocean is licking at our doorstep, the average mean temperature has ticked up a few notches and we are all completely distracted by which power hungry corporate zealot is going to occupy the office which is responsible for making our human condition even more dire. The circus that is this election is merely a ploy by the elites to make us believe that we actually do have a choice. Uh-huh; yet if I were to suggest what REALLY needs to be done to save the human race I would be in a court which functions only to impoverish those of us who try to speak the truth of our situation objectively. The 'Justice' system's only function is to render us powerless. Whether one is guilty or innocent is completely irrelevant anymore. All they have to do is file charges and they have your wealth. Good luck to all of us as we all talk ourselves to death.Dear denden11: You get gold stars in heaven as far as I'm concerned for telling the exact truthTrainee Christian ->Vivienne Perkins link
in the plainest possible terms. Bravissimo. "Talk/ing/ ourselves to death" is, I'm sorry to say, what we are doing. I've been working on these issues for forty years, looking for an exit from this completely interlocked system. I'm sorry to say I haven't seen the exit. I do understand how we have painted ourselves into this corner over the past 250 years (since the so-called Enlightenment), but without repentance on our part and grace on God's part, we're doomed because we all believe the Big Lies pumped into us moment by moment by Big Brother. And it's the Big Lies that keep us terminally confused and fragmented.Well-done, you know the truth.dreamjoehill -> Vivienne Perkins linkDon't Believe the Hype was an NWA rap anthem over twenty year ago. I always liked the shouted line, "And I don't take Ritalin!"Vivienne Perkins -> dreamjoehill link
Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump?
In defeat, will Sander's campaign supporters radicalize or demoralize into apathy or tepid support for Hillary - on the grounds that she's less of an evil than Trumpty Dumbty?
If not defeated, will Sanders and his campaign mobilize the People to fight the powers that be? Otherwise, he has no real power base, short of selling out on his domestic spending promises and becoming another social democratic lapdog for Capital- like Tony Blair.Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept. It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show. What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing.dreamjoehill -> Vivienne Perkins linkAs material conditions change drastically for tens of millions of USAns, the old propaganda loses effect. New propaganda is required to channel the new class tensions. Still an opening may be created. People can't heat their homes with propaganda, the kids are living in the basement and grandpa can't afford a nursing home and he's drinking himself to death. That's the new normal, or variations on it for a lot of people who don't believe the hype anymore.WaveRunnerMN , link
Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more acute.
Interesting times.Great work Vijay...got my "filters" back on. Cut and pasted original comment below despite TRNN labeling of "time of posting" which is irrelevant at this point.WaveRunnerMN -> WaveRunnerMN link
Wow...now that I got my rational filters back on this was a great piece by Vijay and succinctly states what many of us who "attempt" to not only follow ME events but to understand not only the modern history by the motives of the major players in the region. Thanks for this piece and others...looking forward to the others.Posted earlier while my mind was on 2016 election cycle watching MSM in "panic mode"Alice X link
Thought this was going to be a rational discussion on US foreign policy until the part on ? "Trumps Red Book". I had hoped to rather hear, "The Red Book of the American Templars" ...taking from the Knights Templar in Europe prior the collapse of the feudal system. I will say that Vijay's comment on Cruz was quite appropriate though it would also have been better to not only put it into context but also illustrate that Cruz's father Rafael Cruz believes in a system contrary to the founding ideals of the US Constitution: He states in an interview with mainstream media during his son's primary campaign that [to paraphrase] "secularism is evil and corrupt". Here is an excerpt of his bio from Wiki:
"During an interview conducted by the Christian Post in 2014, Rafael Cruz stated, "I think we cannot separate politics and religion; they are interrelated. They've always been interrelated." Salon described Cruz as a "Dominionist, devoted to a movement that finds in Genesis a mandate that 'men of faith' seize control of public institutions and govern by biblical principle." However, The Public Eye states that Dominionists believe that the U.S. Constitution should be the vehicle for remaking America as a Christian nation."
Fareed Zakaria interviewed a columnist from the Wall Street Journal today on Fareed's GPS program and flatly asked him [paraphrased], "Is not the Wall Street Journal responsible for creating the racist paradigm that Trump took advantage of "? Let us begin with rational dialogue and not demagogy. Quite frankly with regard to both Cruz and Trump [in context of the 2016 elections cycle] a more insightful comment would have been...Change cannot come from within the current electoral processes here in the US with Citizen's United as its "masthead" and "Corporations are people as its rallying cry"!
Thank you, a valuable piece. There are a number of takeaway quotes, but the ringer for me was from Ray McGovern (rhetorically):WaveRunnerMN ->Alice X linkwhy do American politicians become incontinent when they mention Saudi Arabia
Shortly thereafter Vijay Prashad in what he calls the Saudi post 1970s recycling mechanism for capitalism says:there is a suicidal death pact between the West and Saudi ArabiaNot the West....just the F.I.R.E industries...driving the housing bubble; shopping malls; office buildings; buying municipal bonds [as they the municipalities bought and built prisons; jails; SWAT vehicles and security equipment (developed by the Israelis); and keeping the insurance companies afloat while AllState had time after Katrina to pitch their subsidiaries allowing these subsidiaries to file for bankruptcy]...now all the maintenance expense is coming due and cities and counties are going broke... along with the Saudi investments here in US.itsthethird linkProtecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. What about the 99 percent? While populations simply need and want also income and investment security globally.sisterlauren link
What about populations in massive consumer debt for education, housing, etc. to fund one percent Growth. Laborers across globe are all in same boat simply labor for food without anything else to pass along to progeny but what is most important ethics. A world government established by corporatism advantage by authority of law and advantage all directed toward endless returns to oligarchy family cartels is not an acceptable world organization of division of resources because it is tranny, exclusive, extraction and fraudulent. Such madness does NOT float all boats.
All this while oligarchs control Taxation of government authority and hidden excessive investment and fraud return taxation. While Governments in west don't even jail corporate criminals while west claims law is just while skewed in favor of protecting one percent, their returns on investment and investments. Billionaires we find in some parts of so called Unjust regions of world not yet on board with cartel game are calling out fraud that harms individuals and society aggressively.
TEHRAN, Iran - An Iranian court has sentenced a well-known tycoon to death for corruption linked to oil sales during the rule of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the judiciary spokesman said Sunday.
Babak Zanjani and two of his associates were sentenced to death for "money laundering," among other charges, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejehi said in brief remarks broadcast on state TV. He did not identify the two associates. Previous state media reports have said the three were charged with forgery and fraud.
"The court has recognized the three defendants as 'corruptors on earth' and sentenced them to death," said Ejehi. "Corruptors on earth" is an Islamic term referring to crimes that are punishable by death because they have a major impact on society. The verdict, which came after a nearly five-month trial, can be appealed.Looking forward to a transcript. I really enjoyed listening to this live yesterday.aprescoup linkSo when Bernie winds up on the regime change band wagon (of mostly leftist governments) and stays silent in the face of US aided and approved of coups (Honduras/Zelaya being the next most recent before Ukraine) while railing against the billionaire class on Wall Street and the neoliberal trade agreements, he's not only missing the elephant in the room; he's part of this elephant.ForDemocracy -> aprescoup linkFor many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism) has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru history 'The 99%'...).WaveRunnerMN -> aprescoup link
And as all past power-elites have done, our '1%' has misread the age-old evolution of culture when an old system NO LONGER WORKS that makes freedom, imagination & rebellion more acceptable more attractive, more exciting and NECESSARY. Then, once energized BY NEED, DESIRE, and yes HOPE....change begins and can't be stopped like a slow-moving rain that keeps moving. As with past eras & past changes, in our own day this 'millennial plus 60's' powerful generational tide is JUST BEGINNING to feel our strength & ability. Turning what was supposed to be a globalist-coronation into what right now certainly seems like a step towards real change, towards building a recognition of the power, we 'the 99%' can --IF WE ACT WISELY & WITH COMMITTMENT begin the work of creating a new world.
Criticising Bernie is criticizing the real way progress works...We need to get out of an ego-centric adolescent approach to human problem-solving, understand we need to keep our movement growing even if it doesn't look the WAY WE EXPECTED IT TO LOOK...keep clear on GOALS that Bernie's campaign is just a part of. The 'left' needs to recognize its our historic moment: to either move ahead or SELF-destruct.. Impatience needs to be replaced by a serious look down the road for our children's future. If we don't, the power elite of the System wins again (vote Hillary?? don't vote??). We need to take a breath & rethink how change really happens because this lost opportunity Is a loss we can no longer afford. The movement must be 'bigger than Bernie'.I just hope he does not get forced to resign which the L-MSM is now beginning to parrot so Hillary can win given the huge turnouts the Repugs are getting in the primaries. I want to see four candidates at the National Convention...in addition to Third parties.itsthethird -> aprescoup, linkNo one can be elected Commander and Chief by stating they will not defend oligarchs interests as well as populations interests. We agree populations interests are negated and subverted all over earth . That cannot be changed by armed rebellion but it can be changed by electing electable voices of reason such as Sanders. Sanders will fight to protect populations and resist oligarchy war mongering while holding oligarchs accountable. Sanders will address corrupted law and injustice. Vote Sanders.Trainee Christian -> itsthethird, linkYou are probably correct in your thinking, but the real power will never allow any potential effective changes to the system that is. People who try usually end up dead.itsthethird -> Trainee Christian , linkThis is why we must as citizens become active players in government far greater then we are today, we must do far more then voting. We must have time from drudgery of earning a substandard wage that forces most to have little time for advancing democracy. Without such time oligarchs and one percent end-up controlling everything.aprescoup -> itsthethird link
We can BEGIN the march toward mountain top toward socializations which will promote aware individualizations. We don't expect we will advance anything without oppositions in fact we expect increased attacks. Those increased attacks can become our energy that unites masses as we all observe the insanity they promote as our direction. We merely must highlight insanity and path forward toward sanity. Nothing can make lasting change this generation the march will take generations. The speed advance only will depend on how foolish oligarchs are at attempts to subvert public awareness seeking change. As they become more desperate our movements become stronger. We must refrain from violence for that is only thing that can subvert our movement.So long as he rises to militarily protect "National Interests" abroad - read: imperial billionaire class interests - he's really one of them.Johnny Prescott -> itsthethird link
Maybe this will help:
Vijay Prashad: The Foreign Policy of the 1% - http://therealnews.com/t2/inde...What exactly leads you to contend that Sanders is going to "resist oligarchy war mongering"?aprescoup -> sisterlauren linkHe could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor.Rob M -> aprescoup link
Instead he does the LOTE thing for the neoliberal-neocon party "D". That's just dishonest bullshit opportunism.Opportunism with good intent...I'll take that.jo ellis , linkDo not receives daily email for a long time without clue why? so haven't in contact with TRN's daily report until subject video appears on youtube website. and impressed by the panelists's congregated pivotal works done thru all these years.Serenity NOW , linkimportant lecture for those who want to better understand the crises of capitalism and globalization.William W Haywood , linkExcellent discussion and lecture. A very important part of the 'due diligence' of democratic participation and research by the people.
Washington has a long history of massacring people, for example, the destruction of the Plains Indians by the Union war criminals Sherman and Sheridan and the atomic bombs dropped on Japanese civilian populations, but Washington has progressed from periodic massacres to fulltime massacring. From the Clinton regime forward, massacre of civilians has become a defining characteristic of the United States of America.
Washington is responsible for the destruction of Yugoslavia and Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and part of Syria. Washington has enabled Saudi Arabia's attack on Yemen, Ukraine's attack on its former Russian provinces, and Israel's destruction of Palestine and the Palestinian people.
The American state's murderous rampage through the Middle East and North Africa was enabled by the Europeans who provided diplomatic and military cover for Washington's crimes. Today the Europeans are suffering the consequences as they are over-run by millions of refugees from Washington's wars. The German women who are raped by the refugees can blame their chancellor, a Washington puppet, for enabling the carnage from which refugees flee to Europe.
In a recent article, Mattea Kramer points out that Washington has added to its crimes the mass murder of civilians with drones and missile strikes on weddings, funerals, children's soccer games, medical centers and people's homes. Nothing can better illustrate the absence of moral integrity and moral conscience of the American state and the population that tolerates it than the cavalier disregard of the thousands of murdered innocents as "collateral damage."
If there is any outcry from Washington's European, Canadian, Australian, and Japanese vassals, it is too muted to be heard in the US.
As Kramer points out, American presidential hopefuls are competing on the basis of who will commit the worst war crimes. A leading candidate has endorsed torture, despite its prohibition under US and international law. The candidate proclaims that "torture works" - as if that is a justification - despite the fact that experts know that it does not work. Almost everyone being tortured will say anything in order to stop the torture. Most of those tortured in the "war on terror" have proven to have been innocents. They don't know the answers to the questions even if they were prepared to give truthful answers. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn relates that Soviet dissidents likely to be picked up and tortured by the Soviet secret police would memorize names on gravestones in order to comply with demands for the names of their accomplices. In this way, torture victims could comply with demands without endangering innocents.
Washington's use of invasion, bombings, and murder by drone as its principle weapon against terrorists is mindless. It shows a government devoid of all intelligence, focused on killing alone. Even a fool understands that violence creates terrorists. Washington hasn't even the intelligence of fools.
The American state now subjects US citizens to execution without due process of law despite the strict prohibition by the US Constitution. Washington's lawlessness toward others now extends to the American people themselves.
The only possible conclusion is that under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama the US government has become an unaccountable, lawless, criminal organization and is a danger to the entire world and its own citizens.
Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org.
Mar 5, 2015 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and ProsperityRPI Director Daniel McAdams is interviewed on RT. Transcript below; video here.
Victoria Nuland's anti-Russian rhetoric comes from the neocon camp of US politics, seeking to stir the Ukraine crisis, thrilled by the prospect of defense industry expansion and more arms sales, Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Peace Institute told RT.
RT: World leaders and international monitors agree the situation in Ukraine is generally improving. Why are we still witnessing aggressive rhetoric from some US officials?
Daniel McAdams: Because the US does not want peace to break out. The US is determined to see its project through. But unfortunately like all of its regime change projects this one is failing miserably. Victoria Nuland completely disregards the role of the US in starting the conflict in Ukraine. She completely glosses over the fact that the army supported by Kiev has been bombarding Eastern Ukraine, as if these independent fighters in the east are killing themselves and their own people. Victoria Nuland was an aid to Dick Cheney; she is firmly ensconced in the neocon camp. The neocons believe very strongly in lying, the noble lie They lied us into the war in Iraq; they are lying now about Ukraine. Lying is what the neocons do.
RT: Nuland listed a lot of hostile actions by Russia without providing any reliable proof. Do you think she can she be challenged on these topics?
DM: Maybe she is right but the US hasn't provided one piece of proof, except for Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt's Rorschach tests he passes off as a satellite photo. Maybe they are true but we have to present some evidence because we've seen now the neocons have lied us into the war. This is much more serious than the attack on small Iraq. This has the potential for a global nuclear war. So I think they should be held to a higher level of scrutiny. Thus far they have not provided any. We do know however that the US is providing military aid. As the matter of fact this week hundreds of American troops are arriving in Ukraine. Why is that not an escalation? Why is it only an escalation when the opponents of the US government are involved?
RT: How probable is that the Western nations ship lethal aid to Ukraine?
DM: It is interesting because Victoria Nuland this week spent some time with Andriy Parubiy, one of the founders of the fascist party in Ukraine and I believe one of the founders of the Joseph Goebbels Institute. She met with him this week and had a photo taken with him. He came back to Ukraine and assured his comrades that the US will provide additional, non-lethal weapons - whatever that means - and felt pretty strongly that they would provide lethal weapons. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey has been urging the US government to provide lethal weapons as has the new US defense secretary [Ashton Carter], both of whom come from the military industrial complex which is thrilled by prospect of a lot more arms to be sold.
RT: Nuland has said the State Department is in talks with EU leaders for another round of sanctions on Russia. Do you think the EU will agree?
DM: I think they will be pressured into agreeing. It is interesting that Nuland said that the new Rada, the new Ukrainian parliament, in this first four months has been a hive of activity. I was just watching some videos from the fights in the Ukrainian parliament. So that was one bit of unintentional humor probably in her speech. It looks like a fight club over there.
- Private Police: Mercenaries for the American Police State - 3 March 2015
- Department of Homeland Security: What is it Good For? - 1 March 2015
- Liberty in Search of Protector - Interview With Vaclav Klaus - 28 February 2015
- Ron Paul: Is Government Regulation of Internet Helpful? - 27 February 2015
- State Department Gives 87 Percent of Afghan Funds to Only Five Recipients - 27 February 2015
Apr 12, 2015 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Militarism and military spending are everywhere on the rise, as the new Cold War propaganda seems to be paying off. The new "threats" that are being hyped bring big profits to military contractors and the network of think tanks they pay to produce pro-war propaganda.
Here are just a few examples:
The German government announced last week that it would purchase 100 more "Leopard" tanks a 45 percent increase in the country's inventory. Germany had greatly reduced its inventory of tanks as the end of the Cold War meant the end of any threat of a Soviet ground invasion of Europe. The German government now claims these 100 new tanks, which may cost nearly half a billion dollars, are necessary to respond to the new Russian assertiveness in the region. Never mind that Russia has neither invaded nor threatened any country in the region, much less a NATO member country.
The US Cold War-era nuclear bunker under Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, which was all but shut down in the 25 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, is being brought back to life. The Pentagon has committed nearly a billion dollars to upgrading the facility to its previous Cold War-level of operations. US defense contractor Raytheon will be the prime beneficiary of this contract. Raytheon is a major financial sponsor of think tanks like the Institute for the Study of War, which continuously churn out pro-war propaganda. I am sure these big contracts are a good return on that investment.
NATO, which I believe should have been shut down after the Cold War ended, is also getting its own massively expensive upgrade. The Alliance commissioned a new headquarters building in Brussels, Belgium, in 2010, which is supposed to be completed in 2016. The building looks like a hideous claw, and the final cost if it is ever finished will be well over one billion dollars. That is more than twice what was originally budgeted. What a boondoggle! Is it any surprise that NATO bureaucrats and generals continuously try to terrify us with tales of the new Russian threat? They need to justify their expansion plans!
So who is the real enemy? The Russians?
No, the real enemy is the taxpayer. The real enemy is the middle class and the productive sectors of the economy. We are the victims of this new runaway military spending. Every dollar or euro spent on a contrived threat is a dollar or euro taken out of the real economy and wasted on military Keynesianism. It is a dollar stolen from a small business owner that will not be invested in innovation, spent on research to combat disease, or even donated to charities that help the needy.
One of the most pervasive and dangerous myths of our time is that military spending benefits an economy. This could not be further from the truth. Such spending benefits a thin layer of well-connected and well-paid elites. It diverts scarce resources from meeting the needs and desires of a population and channels them into manufacturing tools of destruction. The costs may be hidden by the money-printing of the central banks, but they are eventually realized in the steady destruction of a currency.
The elites are terrified that peace may finally break out, which will be bad for their profits. That is why they are trying to scuttle the Iran deal, nix the Cuba thaw, and drum up a new "Red Scare" coming from Moscow. We must not be fooled into believing their lies.
Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute Related
- 'Nuland Ensconced in Neocon Camp Who Believes in Noble Lie' - 5 March 2015
- Private Police: Mercenaries for the American Police State - 3 March 2015
- Department of Homeland Security: What is it Good For? - 1 March 2015
- Liberty in Search of Protector - Interview With Vaclav Klaus - 28 February 2015
- Ron Paul: Is Government Regulation of Internet Helpful? - 27 February 2015
October 3, 2014 | War, The Fed, and More Wars: Ron Paul's LPAC 2014 Speech!
Ron Paul delivered a barn burner of a keynote speech at this year's LPAC conference. It was an hour long tour-de-force on fiat currency, attacks on civil liberties, the Federal Reserve, war -- and most importantly how all of these fit together and deprive us of our life, liberty, and happiness.
Dr. Paul decried the one-party state we live in, particularly when it comes to war. Speaking about the recent Congressional passage of a continuing resolution to keep the government funded at current levels, he said that while the resolution keeps spending at the same level, war spending is exempt and will rise.
He mocked those Members on both sides who voted for the resolution:We gotta to keep the war going! And we gotta rubber stamp what Obama wants! Oh no, we don't like Obama. Yes but we love his wars! Except for one thing: he's not bombing enough people!Watch the whole speech here:
October 06, 2014 | Antiwar.comAfter 13 years of war in Afghanistan the longest in US history the US government has achieved no victory. Afghanistan is in chaos and would collapse completely without regular infusions of US money. The war has been a failure, but Washington will not admit it.
More than 2,000 US fighters have been killed in the 13 year Afghan war. More than 20,000 Afghan civilians were also killed. According to a study last year by a Harvard University researcher, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost in total between four and six trillion dollars. There is no way of looking at the US invasion of Afghanistan and seeing a success.
So in light of this failure, what does the Obama Administration do? Do they admit the mistake? Do they pull the remaining US troops out of Afghanistan and try to avoid making matters even worse? No! As with all US government programs, if the desired result is not achieved they just pump in more resources and continue with the same policies. The past 13 years have been an utter failure, so this past week the US government signed on for ten more years of war!
US troops were legally required to be out of Afghanistan by the end of this year, according to a status of forces agreement between the US and Afghanistan. The US was unsuccessful in negotiating a new status of forces agreement with outgoing president Hamid Karzai. The Afghan leader had grown critical of the US military presence which has actually increased under President Obama. So, the US needed a new puppet in government.
As international correspondent Eric Margolis pointed out recently, the elections in Afghanistan earlier this year were a farce. The candidates were hand-picked by the US government. Furthermore, wrote Margolis, "[t]he largest, most popular party in Afghanistan, Taliban [has] been excluded as 'terrorists' from the current and past elections."
But they got their new status of forces agreement. US troops will remain through 2024.
The United States' war on Iraq has also been a failure. The neocons want to blame the current disintegration of Iraq on President Obama for pulling US troops out. This is historical revisionism at its worst. The real blame goes to those who put the troops in in the first place.
In fact, President Obama didn't even want to pull US troops out of Iraq. He had tried to re-negotiate a new status of forces agreement with the Maliki government in Iraq, but Maliki hesitated to extend immunity from prosecution to the remaining US troops. The US responded by turning on Maliki, eventually demanding that he step down even though he had been elected.
Maintaining US troops in Iraq would not have prevented the current unrest there for the simple reason that it was the presence of US troops in the first place that caused the unrest. It was the US invasion that led to the emergence of al-Qaeda in Iraq and other extremist Islamist groups. This should not have been a surprise to war planners: Saddam Hussein had been using brutal means to keep these groups at bay for decades. The same is true with Afghanistan.
The Taliban government of 2001 in Afghanistan did not attack the United States. Al-Qaeda did. But the 2003 US attack on Iraq under false pretenses removed a leader who had fought ruthlessly against al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist fighters. The result was that the al-Qaeda we were supposed to be fighting in Afghanistan flourished in post-invasion Iraq, along with other even more brutal groups. Will our government ever learn that invasion and occupation are not the solution, but rather the problem? No new status of forces agreement can change that basic fact.
The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity
September 22, 2014 at 7:02 pm
If we want to stop radical terrorists from operating in Syria and Iraq, how about telling our ally Saudi Arabia to stop funding and training them? For that matter, how about the US government stops arming and training the various rebel groups in Syria and finally ends its 24 year US war on Iraq. Remember, they come over here because we are over there. So let's not be over there any longer.
The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
A big part of the US government's trickery, Kucinich notes at the beginning of the interview, is that US "ally" Qatar is funding ISIS while the US government is bombing ISIS. Asked by Colmes what Kucinich, a two-time presidential candidate, would do regarding ISIS if Kucinich were "in power," Kucinich responds:Well, I'd start with having Qatar stop funding them. I mean, to me it's not even credible that Qatar could be providing money to ISIS and the US spending $80 billion a year on so-called intelligence doesn't know that.
Forty years ago many Americans celebrated the demise of the imperial presidency with the resignation of Richard Nixon. Today it is clear they celebrated too soon. Nixon's view of presidential powers, summed up in his infamous statement that, "when the president does it that means it is not illegal," is embraced by the majority of the political class. In fact, the last two presidents have abused their power in ways that would have made Nixon blush.
... ... ...
Many today act as apologists for the imperial presidency. One reason for this is that many politicians place partisan concerns above loyalty to the Constitution. Thus, they openly defend, and even celebrate, executive branch power grabs when made by a president of their own party.
Another reason is the bipartisan consensus in support of the warfare state. Many politicians and intellectuals in both parties support an imperial presidency because they recognize that the Founders' vision of a limited executive branch is incompatible with an aggressive foreign policy. When Republicans are in power "neoconservatives" take the lead, while when Democrats are in power "humanitarian interventionists" take the lead. Regardless of party or ideological label, they share the same goal to protect the executive branch from being constrained by the constitutional requirement that the president seek congressional approval before waging war.
The strength of the bipartisan consensus that the president should have limitless discretion in committing troops to war is illustrated by the failure of an attempt to add an article dealing with Nixon's "secret bombing" of Cambodia to the articles of impeachment. Even at the low point of support for the imperial presidency, Congress still refused to rein in the president's war-making powers.
The failure to include the Cambodia invasion in the articles of impeachment may well be the main reason Watergate had little to do with reining in the imperial presidency. Because the imperial presidency is rooted in the war power, attempts to rein in the imperial presidency that do not work to restore Congress' constitutional authority to declare war are doomed to fail.
August 22, 2014 | voicesofliberty.com
Former Congressman and 2012 Presidential Candidate Ron Paul believes you deserve to know what's in the 28 pages of the 9/11 report that have been classified since the report was issued in 2002.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sGC5hfEL4o4Though criticism has come to those who are certain that we do not know the full story of what happened that fateful day, it is important for us to set aside the conjecture and come together on the principle that we must always seek the truth.
Members of Congress are pushing to bring the truth to light, and they need your support. Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) and Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) introduced legislation at the end of 2013-H. Res. 428-to get the administration to reveal the redacted information from the 9/11 report.
You, as an American, deserve to know the information concealed in these 28 pages. And the only way to make that information public is to call on members of Congress to support H. Res. 428., which would make public those pages of the "Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001" report
... ... ...
Here's what the individuals who have seen the classified pages of the report said about their experience reading the information therein and the importance of making it public:
Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) in an interview with Ron Paul recorded on August 14, 2014 - "You have to go down into a room that is guarded by uniformed officers, and then also you have an FBI person to sit there in the room. you can't make any notes. The Bush people do not want it released. It's not a national security issue. But it would be embarrassing to the previous administration if this information is opened for the public. . . . There will be no hope for America's future if the American people don't know the truth about a tragedy such as 9/11."
Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) in a December 2, 2013 press conference with Congressman Jones - "Twelve years after the horrific September 11 attacks, unanswered questions still remain. These pages contain information that is vital to a full understanding of the events and circumstances surrounding this tragedy. The families of the victims and the American people deserve better; they deserve answers, they deserve a full accounting, and that has not happened yet."
Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) in a March 12, 2014 press conference with Congressman Jones and Congressman Lynch - "This is something the families deserve to know, this information. It's been a decade-over a decade, 13 years-since this event happened. And we've had a narrative in the media and in the press and in the collective American conscience of what happened that day. But I don't think it's fully informed and it won't be fully informed until everybody gets to see these 28 pages. . . . I had to stop every couple pages and just sort of absorb and try to rearrange my understanding of history for the past 13 years and the years leading up to that. It challenges you to rethink everything."
Former Senator and Chairman of the Senate intelligence Committee Bob Graham (D-Fl.) in an interview with HuffPost Live in December 2013 - "This is not just a matter of something that happened a dozen years ago. This has real consequences today. It has real consequences in terms of justice. There are thousands of Americans who are victims of 9/11 who have been trying to secure justice through our federal court system and who have been largely blocked by our federal government through denying them access to information that would be necessary to successfully pursue their litigation and raising sovereign immunity on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."
Former Congressman and Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) in an interview with independent journalist Luke Rudowski in 2001 - "We do not claim in this report to have written the final truth."
And former Congressman Hamilton on C-SPAN coverage of the 9/11 Commission Report 10th Anniversary on July 22, 2014 - "I am embarrassed that they are not declassified. We emphasized throughout transparency. And I assumed incorrectly that our records would be public-all of them, everything. And then when I learned that a number of the documents were classified and even redacted, I was surprised and disappointed. I want those documents declassified. I am embarrassed to be associated with a work product that is secret."
August 22, 2014 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
In a Ron Paul Channel commentary on Wednesday, Ron Paul took issue with aspects of the August 7 New York Times article "Has the 'Libertarian Moment' Finally Arrived?" In particular, Paul argues that the article describes the growing influence of libertarianism wrongly when it pigeonholes libertarianism within the Republican Party. Instead, Paul explains, the crucial issue is Americans' expanding understanding of libertarian ideas.
Paul explains that a shift toward libertarian ideas becoming dominant in America is arising from a change in the views of Americans and "has nothing to do really with the Republican Party." The important battle, Paul explains, is between liberty and interventionism, not between Republicans and Democrats.
Right at the start, Paul corrects the article's suggestion that libertarian ideas are confined within the Republican Party. Paul explains:The big question [New York Times article author Robert Draper] was trying to answer is "Is libertarianism becoming significant in changing the way Washington is working?" and he dwells on whether or not and how much libertarian influence there is in the Republican Party. And he leaves it there. But, I think that's missing a major point. Libertarianism isn't a political party. It's an idea. It's ideological.
As Paul has said on other occasions, he welcomes people seeking to advance freedom in association with various political parties or no political party. Paul himself has run for president as both a Republican in 2008 and 2012 and as a Libertarian in 1988. The ideas Paul championed did not change with the party associated with his name on a ballot.
Paul proceeds in his commentary to look back in American history to the promulgation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution where Paul identifies an earlier "libertarian moment" with libertarian ideology "in many ways" for over 100 years basically "the thrust of our society" and not "limited to one party."
Paul then jumps forward in American history to around 1914 when interventionism, both domestic and abroad, started to take hold as the dominant American ideology.
Paul also describes the current state of interventionism's dominance:Most people think - especially in Washington and news media-that it's always a contest between Republicans and Democrats. They never stop to think, you know, interventionism is what controls Republicans and Democrats and most of the independents, and that's what we have lived with.
The "libertarian moment" occurring now, Paul explains, is not a sudden shift from out of nowhere. It is a transition that has been developing from educational efforts dating back to the 1950s.
Paul also suggests that "the obvious failure of what has been going on these last 100 years" is a reason the message of individual liberty is "being very well received" now.
Paul, the chairman and founder of RPI, points out that what we are seeing with a "libertarian moment" is potentially much more significant than the tunnel-visioned and inaccurate version the New York Times article depicts. Paul explains:I see us entering an age which is very exciting, very important, has the libertarian message. But the effect on the Republican Party - that is so minor compared to what I'm thinking about. Because, if libertarianism has its "moment," believe me it's not going to be a faction in the Republican Party that finally wins control over the party and changes the world. It's going to be like Keynesianism; Keynesianism is endorsed by just about all the politicians in Washington, although there's variety.
Watch Paul's complete commentary here:
Aug 24, 2014 | The GuardianCalling Hillary Clinton "a war hawk," Senator Rand Paul says that if the former secretary of state seeks the presidency, some voters will worry that she will get the US involved in another Middle East war.
Paul is a leading anti-interventionist in the GOP and is considering running for president. Last year he opposed President Obama's call for military action in Syria.
In an interview that aired Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, Paul predicted a "transformational election" if the Democrats nominate "a war hawk like Hillary Clinton."
"I think that's what scares the Democrats the most, is that in a general election, were I to run, there's gonna be a lot of independents and even some Democrats who say, 'You know what? We are tired of war,'" Paul said. "We're worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war, because she's so gung-ho."
As a senator in 2002, Clinton voted in favor of giving President George W Bush the broad authority to invade Iraq. She has said over the years that she regrets that vote, and in her new book Hard Choices wrote that "I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."
snix, 24 August 2014 2:45pm
Clinton is the feminine face of fascism always pushing intervention and war .Psychopathic tendencies delivered with faux tenderness.
MerkinOnParis, 24 August 2014 2:48pm
Whoever runs we will get the same Foreign Policy.
A policy written in the middle east.
JinTexas MerkinOnParis, 24 August 2014 2:52pm
You mean written in Langley, Virginia?
No matter who gets in the white house the CIA and pentagon run foreign policy and the insurance, pharmaceutical, banking lobbies run domestic policy. That's why they'll never let a guy like Rand Paul in, they're still scared to death from when his dad ran at the idea there could actually be a meaningful change.
samlebon23 MerkinOnParis, 24 August 2014 3:08pm
Same shit, different outfit.
samlebon23 JinTexas, 24 August 2014 3:11pm
That's why they'll never let a guy like Rand Paul in
He did the first step, he traveled to Jerusalem and kissed the western wall. He's working on getting the blessing of AIPAC.
Haigin88, 24 August 2014 2:56pm
This'll be where the action is if/when Clinton runs. The lockstep Democrats/liberal apologists/MSNBC water carriers will be able to bleat all they want to but Rand Paul - completely wrong on maybe two thirds of the issues while completely correct on the other third - will be able to hammer Clinton over and over and over again on her neo-con-artistry and demented interventionist Hawkishness and he'll be correct in what he says over and over and over again. Remember this when you hear someone pout and peddle the 'Well, I'm way more liberal than Hillary but progressives need to get behind someone who can win.'. Paul could do Hillary (the supposed 'safe choice') an awful lot of damage.
retarius, 24 August 2014 2:57pm
Well sadly he's right. And sadly I sent money to Hillary's campaign for New York senator back in maybe 2002 or 2004....I didn;t know that she would turn into such a monster. How embarrassing was she as secretary for state? Anyone who manages to make John Kerry seem statesmanlike has to be truly awful, and she was awful and more.
And don't think I like the GOP...I wouldn't vote for the GOP if they were the last party on Capitol Hill...a bunch of bigoted, racist, hypocritical, white men...but it is said that even Hilter had his good points (apparently he was fond of dogs), so maybe Rand Paul is correct this once.
If Hillary is the Dem nominee in 2016, I won't vote.
diddoit, 24 August 2014 3:10pm
Like what Rand Paul has to say. But you'd imagine powerful forces are amassing to stop him getting anywhere near the Presidency, as they did to thwart his father.
He's right though, that military interventionism and political meddling have been a complete disaster for America. Every problem 'solved' has led to two new ones springing up.
Victor Chan, 24 August 2014 3:14pm
Her war mongering tone (calling Putin a Hitler and condoning and blindly supporting Israelis military operation in Gaza and her book being banned in China) outweights her "feminism." :) She will become the Margaret Thatcher of America....
Think about it...by the time Obama is done with his presidency, the would would be in at the brink of a new cold war with Russia. America's relation with China would still be rocky. The middle east crisis, with the Israeli and Gaza conflict, and the IS, would have escalated. How would she handle these global conflicts and to make the world a safer, a peaceful place?
The National Interest
...Or, if only we had come down harder on Putin he wouldn't be mucking around in eastern Ukraine today. Yet another repeated feature is an equation of leadership with forceful action, especially military action-as illustrated by Corker's charge that President Obama is "uncomfortable being commander in chief".
Also recurrent is the invoking of very hedgehog-like calls for a single "coherent strategy" or "organizing principle" or some such thing, with those making the calls secure in the knowledge that rhetorically such formulations always have an advantage over anything that can be belittled as ad hoc or reactive. The oversimplification involved is grossest when applied to U.S. policy toward the entire world, but there is still oversimplification when such a call is applied even to a single country. We hear, for example, that problems of U.S. policy toward Iraq are a simple matter of deciding whether the United State has a mission of stabilizing Iraq. Actually, it's not really anywhere near that simple. Instability in Iraq has many different facets, some of which should concern the United States and some of which should not, and some of which are amenable to U.S. influence and some of which are not.
Hillary Clinton, whose recent pronouncements must be dismaying to progressive realists fearing they will not have any acceptable choice at the top of the ballot in November 2016, has been talking in the same mode. She tells us that not doing stupid stuff is not an "organizing principle," and a great nation like the United States needs an organizing principle for its foreign policy. Two things about that comment make it, well, not quite smart. One is that the world is a very disorganized place, and any single organizing principle is too simple to be effective in dealing with all, or even most, of the problems the world throws at us.
The other thing wrong with that comment is that not doing stupid stuff is so important that it deserves to be at the top of any president's checklist, just as Hippocrates taught that "first do no harm" should be at the top of any physician's checklist. Think about the Middle East, and ask what development, whether involving an action or inaction by the United States, has had the biggest effects, for good or for ill, on U.S. interests in recent years. The answer has to be-firmly implanted on the "for ill" side of the ledger-the Iraq War. The most important thing any U.S. president should do is not to do stupid stuff like that, or to get into a position with a serious risk of sliding into something like that.
... ... ...
We haven't seen ANYTHING YET! On the odd chance Obama doesn't get us all killed... Wait till Hillary gets elected! O.O
David -> Mike Bittinger
I think that Obama is keeping us out of war. I also think he is doing it mainly because we can't afford it with the economy the way it is and the increase in US multinationals that are moving their base of operation to countries with practically no cooperate taxes. The US economy just can't afford to pay for another war. The next President can fight it out with Russia. As for China, I think that all the bashing they got from their neighbors made them see the light. We will see if they learned their lesson or not in the next year or so. Their alignment with Russian will not be militarily but will be only to secure sources of energy and markets for their products. China is too dependent on the US to cause any serious trouble, and the Chinese know understand this point perfectly.
Title should say: "US narcissist foreign policies drove others away."
UNDERSTANDING THE Ukrainian crisis requires to watch this :
The Ukraine Crisis - What You're Not Being Told SCG News
and not to whitewash Americans foreighn policy ( supporting jihadist and alqaeda in Syria and neo nazis in Ukraine ) , just look at the map and NATO bases that are getting closer and closer to China and Russia . Neo - cons gambled BIG trying to take Crimea for themselves and nearly started ww3 .
Excellent article and it should be read by everyone not just the Administration.There is no question that Putin will not be bullied and the crisis in Ukraine could have and should have been avoided and w should have never backed the coup.I have posted many times that Putin didn't have his eye on Crimea and was surprised by the coup.And I never thought that Putin was trying to restore the Soviet Union as he himself called Stalin a tyrant but he did want to restore Russia to a measure of significance in the eyes of the world, no surprise.The big danger right now for America is that there are many even some friends who would like the dollar to be devalued because America has arrogantly used the dollar as a tool for blackmail, lets face it what is,is.If this were to happen it would change our lives dramatically and not for the good and there are already plans in place among the Russians, Chinese,Iran just to mention a few and it may very well succeed.
It is simply disgusting and almost unbelievable that some one can called U.S peaceful and almost Victim of the PUTIN...Jesus CHRIST..Like that Serbia 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Libya Attempt in Syria, and before that , All around South American installing of worst Dictators on the planets, Vietnam etccc...from this Column some ALIEN can conclude how America is one peaceful country which never ever will be capable to be involved in any kind of war. POOR peaceful Americans...
Let's face it. The Zionist NWO thugs; Israel, United States, Great Britain are pushing the envelope. They want war. They will forge ahead hell or high water to accomplish their satanic dream.
A long, meandering, circular, and ultimately self-contradicting essay that goes a long way to go nowhere at all. The EU, NATO,US (CIA et al) by way of fomenting the soft overthrow of a corrupt Russian puppet government have achieved their objective in this "conflict". The EU has a new 3rd world labor pool in western Ukraine. Russia continues its decline and as it does its aging nukes continue to be the most pressing worry.
RT USAFormer Congressman Ron Paul said the US knows 'more than it is telling' about the Malaysian aircraft that crashed in eastern Ukraine last month, killing 298 people on board and seriously damaging US-Russian relations in the process.
In an effort to inject some balance of opinion, not to mention pure sanity, into the ongoing debate over what happened to Malaysian Flight MH17, Ron Paul is convinced the US government is withholding information on the catastrophe.
"The US government has grown strangely quiet on the accusation that it was Russia or her allies that brought down the Malaysian airliner with a Buk anti-aircraft missile," Paul said on his news website on Thursday.
Ron Paul to Obama: Let's just leave Ukraine alone!
Paul's comments are in sharp contrast to the echo chamber of one-sided opinion inside Western mainstream media, which has almost unanimously blamed anti-Kiev militia for bringing down the commercial airline. Incredibly, in many cases Washington had nothing to show as evidence to incriminate Russian rebels aside for references to social media.
"We've seen that there were heavy weapons moved from Russia to Ukraine, that they have moved into the hands of separatist leaders," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. "And according to social media reports, those weapons include the SA-11 [Buk missile] system."
In another instance, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters "the Russians intend to deliver heavier and more powerful rocket launchers to the separatist forces in Ukraine, and have evidence that Russia is firing artillery from within Russia to attack Ukrainian military positions." When veteran AP reporter Matthew Lee asked for proof, he was to be disappointed.
"I can't get into the sources and methods behind it," Harf responded. "I can't tell you what the information is based on." Lee said the allegations made by the State Department on Ukraine have fallen far short of "definitive proof."
Just days after US intelligence officials admitted they had no conclusive evidence to prove Russia was behind the downing of the airliner, Kiev published satellite images as 'proof' it didn't deploy anti-aircraft batteries around the MH17 crash site. However, these images have altered time-stamps and are from the days after the MH17 tragedy, the Russian Defense Ministry revealed, fully discrediting the Ukrainian claims.
In yet another yet-to-be explained event, Russian military detected a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet approaching the MH17 Boeing on the day of the catastrophe. No acceptable explanation has ever been given by Kiev as to why this fighter aircraft was so close to the doomed passenger jet moments before it was brought down.
"[We] would like to get an explanation as to why the military jet was flying along a civil aviation corridor at almost the same time and at the same level as a passenger plane," Russian Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov demanded days after the crash.
Paul has slammed the United States, despite its arsenal of surveillance technologies at its disposal, for its failure to provide a single grain of evidence to solve the mystery of the Malaysian airliner.
"It's hard to believe that the US, with all of its spy satellites available for monitoring everything in Ukraine, that precise proof of who did what and when is not available," the two-time presidential candidate said.
"Too bad we can't count on our government to just tell us the truth and show us the evidence," Paul added. "I'm convinced that it knows a lot more than it's telling us."
Although no sufficient evidence has been presented to prove that the anti-Kiev militia was responsible for the downing of the international flight, such an inconvenient oversight has not stopped the United States and Europe from slapping economic sanctions and travel bans against Russia.
Moscow hit back, saying it would place a ban on agricultural imports from the United States and the European Union. Russia's tit-for-tat ban will certainly be felt, as food and agricultural imports from the US amounted to $1.3 billion last year, according to the US Department of Agriculture. In 2013, meanwhile, the EU's agricultural exports to Russia totaled 11.8 billion euros ($15.8 billion).
After the crash, Ron Paul was one of a few voices calling for calm as US officials were pointing fingers without a shred of evidence to support their claims. Paul has not been afraid to say the painfully obvious things the US media, for any number of reasons, cannot find the courage to articulate.
"They will not report that the crisis in Ukraine started late last year, when EU and US-supported protesters plotted the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych," Paul said. "Without US-sponsored 'regime change,' it is unlikely that hundreds would have been killed in the unrest that followed. Nor would the Malaysian Airlines crash have happened."
Paul also found it outrageous that Western media, parroting the government line, has reported that the Malaysian flight must have been downed by "Russian-backed separatists," because the BUK missile that reportedly brought down the aircraft was Russian made.
"They will not report that the Ukrainian government also uses the exact same Russian-made weapons," he emphasized.
Bookworm Doe 10.08.2014 17:43
Too bad he didn't mention the OSCE observer
Michael Bociurkiw who was on scene within hours of it being shot down, and what he saw and photographed conclusive evidence that---the Malaysian plane had been hit by very, very strong machine-gun fire, not by ground-based missile-fire.
Both sides of the cockpit where the pilots sat were riddled with huge bullet holes. This is so disgusting, and to think the US has been behind Kiev's planning every step of the way is repulsive to me as an American.
What if the Cockpit Audio Recorder was full of non-stop frightening talk? Why haven't we heard it?
July 25, 2014 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Facing a tough but respectful grilling on Fox Business's The Independents over his recent comments on Ukraine and the apparent downing of a Malaysia Air plane, Ron Paul argues that the US government wants to blame Russia for the shoot-down while providing no evidence for its conclusion. Paul points out that the US claim that Russia was to blame for the disaster because they supply weapons to the rebels in east Ukraine is hypocritical because the US has armed oppositionists in Syria who went on to attack the US-backed government in Iraq.
But the best moment was when one of the hosts trotted out the old "aren't you're blaming America?" question, which was previously used by the likes of Giuliani and the other neocons over the 9/11 attacks.
Responded Paul to the claim:That is a misrepresentation of what I say. I don't blame America. I am America, you are America. I don't blame you. I blame bad policy. I blame the interventionists. I blame the neoconservatives who preach this stuff, who believe in it like a religion -- that they have to promote American goodness even if you have to bomb and kill people.Watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FCB8A4KiG4A
They say 'oh Ron Paul blames America therefore he's a bad guy and we can't listen to him.' Well I'll tell you what: the American people are listening more carefully now than ever before. ...Non-intervention is the wave of the future.
Jul 20, 2014 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Just days after the tragic crash of a Malaysian Airlines flight over eastern Ukraine, Western politicians and media joined together to gain the maximum propaganda value from the disaster. It had to be Russia; it had to be Putin, they said. President Obama held a press conference to claim even before an investigation that it was pro-Russian rebels in the region who were responsible. His ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, did the same at the UN Security Council just one day after the crash!
While western media outlets rush to repeat government propaganda on the event, there are a few things they will not report.
They will not report that the crisis in Ukraine started late last year, when EU and US-supported protesters plotted the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych. Without US-sponsored "regime change," it is unlikely that hundreds would have been killed in the unrest that followed. Nor would the Malaysian Airlines crash have happened.
The media has reported that the plane must have been shot down by Russian forces or Russian-backed separatists, because the missile that reportedly brought down the plane was Russian made. But they will not report that the Ukrainian government also uses the exact same Russian-made weapons.
- They will not report that the post-coup government in Kiev has, according to OSCE monitors, killed 250 people in the breakaway Lugansk region since June, including 20 killed as government forces bombed the city center the day after the plane crash! Most of these are civilians and together they roughly equal the number killed in the plane crash. By contrast, Russia has killed no one in Ukraine, and the separatists have struck largely military, not civilian, targets.
- They will not report that the US has strongly backed the Ukrainian government in these attacks on civilians, which a State Department spokeswoman called "measured and moderate."
- They will not report that neither Russia nor the separatists in eastern Ukraine have anything to gain but everything to lose by shooting down a passenger liner full of civilians.
- They will not report that the Ukrainian government has much to gain by pinning the attack on Russia, and that the Ukrainian prime minister has already expressed his pleasure that Russia is being blamed for the attack.
- They will not report that the missile that apparently shot down the plane was from a sophisticated surface-to-air missile system that requires a good deal of training that the separatists do not have.
- They will not report that the separatists in eastern Ukraine have inflicted considerable losses on the Ukrainian government in the week before the plane was downed.
- They will not report how similar this is to last summer's US claim that the Assad government in Syria had used poison gas against civilians in Ghouta. Assad was also gaining the upper hand in his struggle with US-backed rebels and the US claimed that the attack came from Syrian government positions. Then, US claims led us to the brink of another war in the Middle East. At the last minute public opposition forced Obama to back down and we have learned since then that US claims about the gas attack were false.
Of course it is entirely possible that the Obama administration and the US media has it right this time, and Russia or the separatists in eastern Ukraine either purposely or inadvertently shot down this aircraft. The real point is, it's very difficult to get accurate information so everybody engages in propaganda. At this point it would be unwise to say the Russians did it, the Ukrainian government did it, or the rebels did it. Is it so hard to simply demand a real investigation?
Copyright © 2014 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute
May 03, 2014 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
It looks like the civil war in Ukraine is getting much worse. Western Ukraine right now is being urged on by its Western supporters, meaning its NATO supporters, the European Union, the United States, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Western Ukraine has moved to take back control of the cities in Eastern Ukraine that have been taken over by supporters of Russia.
Of course, it's said in the major media that Russia has started all of this trouble, and so all this has to be done. The truth is, the coup of several weeks ago to overthrow the elected leader Viktor Yanokovych was stirred up by the same group: NATO, the European Union, the US, and the IMF.
Since this whole mess was started, we've been very much involved, spending more than $5 billion to control Ukraine. And this intervention continues. But the current fighting looks like a serious escalation that may get out of control, even though it's in the interest on both sides, the West as well as Russia, not to escalate. There have been a lot of threats and intimidation on sanctions and economic penalties, which very well could get out of control.
March 31, 2014 | Antiwar.com
Last week Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill approving a billion dollars in aid to Ukraine and more sanctions on Russia. The bill will likely receive the president's signature within days. If you think this is the last time US citizens will have their money sent to Ukraine, you should think again. This is only the beginning.
This $1 billion for Ukraine is a rip-off for the America taxpayer, but it is also a bad deal for Ukrainians. Not a single needy Ukrainian will see a penny of this money, as it will be used to bail out international banks who hold Ukrainian government debt. According to the terms of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)-designed plan for Ukraine, life is about to get much more difficult for average Ukrainians. The government will freeze some wage increases, significantly raise taxes, and increase energy prices by a considerable margin.
But the bankers will get paid and the IMF will get control over the Ukrainian economy.
The bill also authorizes more US taxpayer money for government-funded "democracy promotion" NGOs, and more money to broadcast US government propaganda into Ukraine via Radio Free Europe and Voice of America. It also includes some saber-rattling, directing the US Secretary of State to "provide enhanced security cooperation with Central and Eastern European NATO member states."
The US has been "promoting democracy" in Ukraine for more than ten years now, but it doesn't seem to have done much good. Recently a democratically-elected government was overthrown by violent protesters. That is the opposite of democracy, where governments are changed by free and fair elections. What is shocking is that the US government and its NGOs were on the side of the protesters! If we really cared about democracy we would not have taken either side, as it is none of our business.
Washington does not want to talk about its own actions that led to the coup, instead focusing on attacking the Russian reaction to US-instigated unrest next door to them. So the new bill passed by Congress will expand sanctions against Russia for its role in backing a referendum in Crimea, where most of the population voted to join Russia. The US, which has participated in the forced change of borders in Serbia and elsewhere, suddenly declares that international borders cannot be challenged in Ukraine.
Those of us who are less than gung-ho about sanctions, manipulating elections, and sending our troops overseas are criticized as somehow being unpatriotic. It happened before when so many of us were opposed to the Iraq war, the US attack on Libya, and elsewhere. And it is happening again to those of us not eager to get in another cold or hot war with Russia over a small peninsula that means absolutely nothing to the US or its security.
I would argue that real patriotism is defending this country and making sure that our freedoms are not undermined here. Unfortunately, while so many are focused on freedoms in Crimea and Ukraine, the US Congress is set to pass an NSA "reform" bill that will force private companies to retain our personal data and make it even easier for the NSA to spy on the rest of us. We need to refocus our priorities toward promoting liberty in the United States!
March 07, 2014 | RT USA
Dr. Paul is a great leader. Putin is a great leader. Different men with different opinions yet both contribute so much to our world.
It is good RP cleared up on this issue, still I think it is pretty weak the way he presented it in his video message, a little disappointed
Pon Paul's interviews on mainstream media usually get caught in the middle of satellite problems.
More on RP's take on the Ukraine
w.u snews.co m/news/articles/2014 /03/06/ron-paul-crim ea-has-right-to-join -russia-obamas-sanct ions-criminal
if you're interested.
The American Conservative
It seems to me that Paul's greatest advantage over other Republican politicians is that he has reliably been an early and vocal opponent of unnecessary wars. Unlike every other Republican in elected office today, Paul was on record as an opponent of the Iraq war from the beginning. Today even most Republicans acknowledge that the war was a failure, and there is clearly no appetite for anything like that again. While other Republicans were berating Obama for intervening in Libya too slowly, Paul was opposed to the war, and he was likewise an early critic of attacking Syria and arming the opposition. This has put him on the right side of public opinion and distinguished him from the Obama administration on a few high-profile issues.
At the same time, Paul has been careful to talk about war in a way that so-called "Jacksonians" are supposed to appreciate and understand. When he spoke to the Center for the National Interest earlier this month, he said this:
There is certainly a time for war. But the threshold should be high, and the cause clear [bold mine-DL].
Colin Powell was fond of saying that "war should be the politics of last resort. We should have a purpose our people understand and support."
When America is attacked or our interests directly threatened, our country should and will defend itself with the force and authority of our collective wills. We will seek no other military objective than complete victory over our attackers.
There are also probably many more Republicans in agreement with Paul's position on Iran than Dueck believes. The Iran debate gives Paul the distinction of being virtually the only Republican in Congress to argue against undermining diplomacy. Earlier this week, Sen. Paul said that he was opposed to the new sanctions bill while negotiations are ongoing. He said:
I think while they're negotiating, and if we can see that they're negotiating in good faith, I don't think it's a good idea to pass sanctions while we're in the midst of negotiations. I think the bottom line is we should give negotiations a chance. My hope is that sanctions will avoid war. We've been involved in two long wars in the Middle East. And I think it would be best if we can do anything possible to try to avoid another war now.
Jan 21, 2013 | Mises Institute
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.
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."
I love that guy. He is persistant and consistant in his stances and resistant to the corruption and compromises of power.
I think I just like his no-pretenses style of speaking even though it doesn't glitter like a Romney or Obama.
I am hopeful that the truth will have it's day.
If a "real leader" emerged, he'd be terminated.
We will get a faux behind-the-scene-appointed leader, at best. If he doesn't follow the script, he gets terminated as well.
More than likely we get an obvious pre-appointed party apparatichik like Hillary, just so they can rub people's noses in the level of control they have over the elections.
Off topic. From a former 20 year World Bank insider. "The goal is control. They want all of us enslaved to debt, they want all of our governments enslaved to debt, and they want all of our politicians addicted to the huge financial contributions that they funnel into their campaigns. Since the elite also own all of the big media companies, the mainstream media never lets us in on the secret that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way that our system works."
December 11, 2010 | globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Ron Paul's Nine Questions
In case you missed Ron Paul's passionate speech on Wikileaks please watch. this video.
With a tip of the hat to From The Old here are the questions Ron Paul asked in his speech.Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?Please note the common sense discussion of Ron Paul vs. the completely hysterical (as well as totally misguided) reaction of Sarah Palin: "Assange is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"
Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?
Number 3: Why is the hostility directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?
Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?
Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?
Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?
Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?
Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?
Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised 'Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed'
Bonus 10th Question
Here is a key 10th question Ron Paul failed to ask: Since when does the US have the right to impose its laws on the rest of the world?
The answer, no matter what neocons may think, is "we don't".
Sarah Palin cannot think clearly, she just reacts, perpetually grubbing for attention. The simple truth of the matter is she is not fit for office no matter how much media attention she receives. Hopefully Republicans come to their senses regarding her electability before it's too late.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/nine-simple-questions-fed-ron-pauls-not.html#vTTzKrkOXGWwmveq.99
Bonus 10th Question
Here is a key 10th question Ron Paul failed to ask: Since when does the US have the right to impose its laws on the rest of the world?
The answer, no matter what neocons may think, is "we don't".
Sarah Palin cannot think clearly, she just reacts, perpetually grubbing for attention. The simple truth of the matter is she is not fit for office no matter how much media attention she receives. Hopefully Republicans come to their senses regarding her electability before it's too late.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
Rachel Mills for Birch Gold Group (BGG): This is Rachel Mills for Birch Gold Group. I am speaking with Ron Paul today. How are you, Ron Paul?
Ron Paul (RP): I am doing very well. Nice to talk to you Rachel.
BGG: It's good to talk to you again, and by the way of information for Birch's audience, I was your last press secretary on Capitol Hill in Congress and I worked for you for the 5 years. So I may be cheating a little bit because a lot of your answers to my questions I maybe have a pretty good guess at what you might say.
BGG: But, just really quick today with you I'd like to go over several things. But I'd like to ask your opinion on things like Janet Yellen as the next Fed Chair, about debt ceiling and shutdown issues. I want to get into, briefly, if you are still a buyer of gold even though it is so "expensive". But first I wanted to introduce Birch Gold's listeners to your background a little bit because I think it's fascinating. In 1971, Nixon closed the gold window which led to the end of the Bretton Woods agreement. That was very important event for you, I know for sure, because you knew at the time that it would eventually destroy the currency, which we are still experiencing. And you said that that was what got you into politics to begin with. Had you been reading Austrian economists before that?
RP: Yes, for a good while. As a matter of fact, it was 1971, there was confirmation of the Austrian economic writers who had been predicting that would happen as early as Henry Hazlitt said when the IMF was set up in 1945. He said it wouldn't work and Bretton Woods would break down. And by the 50′s and the 60′s people were rejecting it and it was so artificial and it was fragile. So people did know that it was coming, and mainly it was coming because the governments pretended that the dollar would be as good as gold at $35 an ounce forever, yet they kept printing dollars and it was pretty simple logic to figure out there'll be a limit. The governments worked real hard to convince the people that there was no problem, that the dollar would always be valued at $35 an ounce.
But finally the market overwhelmed. The politicians and Congresses, and Central Banks can manipulate things for a while but eventually if they are out of sync with the market, the market will overwhelm. And even if the government won't permit it legally to do it, it just drives the whole system into the underground economy. So fixed exchange rates and different things don't work, they just hide the fact. But in 1971, it was confirmation that everything that the Austrians were saying as far back as the beginning of the Bretton Woods, that was true. And of course we've been suffering the consequences from that ever since.
BGG: Yeah and I've heard people argue that the dollar is doing well against other currencies. But I know for Austrians and for people who understand gold, like you and me, that's not much solace because it's all on a race to the bottom.
RP: Right and the ultimate measure of the value of the currency is what it purchases, so gold is a good indicator long term, I don't think it's a good indicator short term, because there are a lot of factors, just like in the 50′s and 60′s, they were able to hold gold at $35 an ounce when it should have been $235 an ounce! But anyway, overall in the long term it's what the dollar will purchase. And even though our government tells us today there is no inflation, they are trying to get prices to rise at at least 2% a year, yet there are some things in our economy, the prices are soaring: the price of a bond, the price of education, the price of medical care all of these things are going up.
So there is a lot of price inflation, but that's the ultimate tests. You can measure one currency against another, gold is a long-term indicator. But if none of the prices were affected by printing money, it would be no big deal. But they are and of course the major problem is not only the price increases, it's the malinvestment, the overinvestment, the bubbles that form and the corrections that have to come. That's where the real problem is, in addition to the cost of living going up and hurting the poor and the middle class, much more so than it will the wealthy.
BGG: Right, which leads nicely to Janet Yellen as the next Fed Chair, as recently has been announced. What do you think of Janet Yellen? Do you think she's going to solve all our problems?
RP: No, she'll make them worse. She's inherited a mess, although she was a participant in the mess and she always argued for more inflation. One thing I find a little bit interesting is that she has a reputation for transparency. She wants to tell the markets exactly what their decisions are early on and let the markets know what they are doing. But if it comes true transparency, like allowing an audit of the Federal Reserve, and letting us know who they bail out and when they bail out and what they did in '09 with their trillions of dollars, and all the international transactions, there's no way that's going to be permissible. Because that's where all the power and control is accomplished, it's behind the scenes with the Fed on international transactions.
"The longer [Quantitative Easing] lasts, the worse the correction will be when eventually people give up on our dollar and give up on our debt."
But if anything, she takes a position, not only did she endorse what Bernanke was doing, she was always much more dovish on trying to prevent prices from going up and having, you know, price inflation. She was arguing the case for even more, so the odds of her having the guts or the wisdom to start backing off the purchase of debt, it's slim to none. So that will certainly continue and it's still working on the surface. The longer it lasts, the worse the correction will be when eventually people give up on our dollar and give up on our debt.
BGG: So do you think Larry Summers would have been any better? He was rumored to be Obama's preferred choice. What do you think?
RP: No, the policies wouldn't be all that different, even if he had been slightly more reserved in credit creation. He was also a person that would there is a subjective factor in markets too and he would have added as another subjective factor because people didn't like him. And he might be just, you know, annoying the marketplaces because that is a factor, they might trust him less. But overall they're very much the same both of them. Anybody who can even be considered to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve will be an endorser of Keynesian economics, that the lender of last resort is crucial for the banks and all the currencies and Central Banks of the world.
And they believe, though of course, the most important role for the Fed and Congress never talks about it, but they secretly acknowledge it without the Fed, who would buy the debt? And if somebody didn't buy the debt, interest rates would soar. So even this big talk about all the arguments in Washington on the issues of war and spending and welfare and debt, they're in total agreement with each other, and they all support the Fed's role in being not only the lender but the printer of the last resort. Print what you need but just common sense tells you that this can't last.
"Since they will not work out of [Quantitative Easing] gracefully and deliberately, we will probably go on to having a major crash of the dollar."
BGG: Who would've you picked?
RP: I would've picked nobody. I don't think we should have a Fed, so I wouldn't pick a Chairman. But even though in the Presidential campaign when they pushed me "well, you'll have to pick someone to unwind it" or something like that I always threw out Jim Grant's name. Because I've known him, he's an Austrian economist, he knows that monetizing the debt is bad and if they were trying to work on a transition, somebody like that, you know, would move us in the right direction. But he wouldn't last either because if he decided right now to only buy $75 billion worth of government debt per month, the markets would crash probably and then they would want to throw him out. So it's a system that is very friable and unworkable and since they will not work out of it gracefully and deliberately, you know, we will probably go on to having a major crash of the dollar that's what I see happening.
BGG: Yeah, scary. Moving on, I wanted to ask you about the debt ceiling. We are up against the debt ceiling again, as we always find ourselves every few months it seems. And so, we've had an impending crisis if they don't raise the debt ceiling, which everyone expects they will find a way to raise it. But then, before you know it, we will be right up against it again. So what is the point of the debt ceiling anymore?
RP: Well, it was intended to restrain government but some people don't even like it, they want to get rid of it, just so the government never has to be hesitant in spending as much as they want. But you're right: Once they raise it, they just go back to doing the same thing. The debt ceiling isn't as necessary this October 17th day isn't as crucial as they pretend, because that's an arbitrary date. They could have picked the 16th or the 20th or any date they wanted.
Besides, the national debt hasn't moved since May because they're always taking money elsewhere and spending it and paying all the bills. So they can continue to do that for a week or a month or a year if they really wanted to. Just pay the bills as the money comes in and they could always pay the interest rates. And the other thing if, say, we were in charge and we wanted to change things to work our way out of it and we wanted to deal with this national debt, just eliminate the debt we owe to the Federal Reserve. We pay a lot of interest to the Federal Reserve and they turn this money and they use this money for all kinds of things, so I would just wipe that debt off the books. But if we did that today, that means they would have a lot of room for more debt that would lower the national debt by $2 trillion.
BGG: Yeah but it wouldn't solve the spending problems
RP: This government would spend more money if we got this freebie! But I would only think that would be worthwhile thinking about it is, you know, to tide this over and work our way out of it. But when the reforms are necessary when a crash comes and if we have to pay off the debt, you don't have to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve if you are going to eliminate it or restore confidence and quit printing and quit monetizing debt you could eliminate that. There is no moral obligation, there is really no legal obligation either because the institution isn't even constitutional, you know
BGG: institution to begin with, yeah. It seems like debt ceiling, the only purpose anymore is just to create an artificial crisis which Washington seems to thrive on.
RP: Yeah they do and then they argue which authoritarian is going to run they show. And they don't argue over the issue, it's just the matter of which one, and then they are always talking about compromise, but they're never talking about compromise between two authoritarians who want to manage the economy in different ways. They always want those who believe in limited government, the Constitution and freedom to give up so much of it, and then they call it, you know, a "good" thing to sacrifice liberty for the benefit of the authoritarians. But the authoritarians are in charge and I don't think that people who don't believe in that system should yield anything.
I think that we all should stick to our guns and say that the rule of law is important, our privacy is important, our First Amendment is important, the way we go to war is important, and never give in. But right now these battles that we have when it comes down to shutting down government as a political stunt or the debt limit, it's another stunt for the two variations of compulsion, you know, by government. They're fighting over who has the power. And I think the American people are sick and tired of it, and rightfully so, but I don't think they fully understand that it's actually where the divisions are. They keep thinking that, you know, if those of us who believed in limited government would just give in and say, "Okay, go ahead and increase the national debt instead of by $1 trillion, increase it by $500 billion and worry about it next week", and that's supposed to be a good type of compromise. It solves nothing and makes our problems worse.
"I would think people who are in it for the long term, it looks to me like this would be a very good time to buy gold."
.. ... ...
BGG: Yeah, I've looked into your homeschooling curriculum and I'm a subscriber to the Ron Paul Channel, so it's all very exciting.
RP: Wonderful. Hey, RonPaulChannel.com.
BGG: Good! Well thank you so much for joining me today. I really enjoy talking to you. Again, my old boss, Congressman Ron Paul. Thank you so much.
June 24, 2013 | Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk
Last week the Taliban opened an office in Doha, Qatar with the US government's blessing. They raised the Taliban flag at the opening ceremony and referred to Afghanistan as the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan"-the name they used when they were in charge before the US attack in 2001.
The US had meant for the Taliban office in Doha to be only a venue for a new round of talks on an end to the war in Afghanistan. The Taliban opening looked very much like a government in exile. The Karzai government was annoyed that the US and the Taliban had scheduled talks without even notifying Kabul. Karzai's government felt as irrelevant to negotiations on post-war Afghanistan as they soon will be on the ground. It seemed strangely like Paris in 1968, where the US met with North Vietnamese representatives to negotiate a way out of that war, which claimed nearly 60,000 Americans and many times that number of Vietnamese lives.
For years many of us had argued the need to get out of Afghanistan. To end the fighting, the dying, the destruction, the nation-building. To end the foolish fantasy that we were building a Western-style democracy there. We cannot leave, we were told for all those years. If we leave Afghanistan now, the Taliban will come back! Well guess what, after 12 years, trillions of dollars, more than 2,200 Americans killed, and perhaps more than 50,000 dead Afghan civilians and fighters, the Taliban is coming back anyway!
The long US war in Afghanistan never made any sense in the first place. The Taliban did not attack the US on 9/11. The Authorization for the use of force that we passed after the attacks of 9/11 said nothing about a decade-long occupation of Afghanistan. But unfortunately two US presidents have taken it to mean that they could make war anywhere at any time they please. Congress, as usual, did nothing to rein in the president, although several Members tried to repeal the authorization.
Afghanistan brought the Soviet Union to its knees. We learned nothing from it.
We left Iraq after a decade of fighting and the country is in far worse shape than when we attacked in 2003. After trillions of dollars wasted and tens of thousands of lives lost, Iraq is a devastated, desperate, and violent place with a presence of al Qaeda. No one in his right mind speaks of a US victory in Iraq these days. We learned nothing from it.
We are leaving Afghanistan after 12 years with nothing to show for it but trillions of dollars wasted and thousands of lives lost. Afghanistan is a devastated country with a weak, puppet government-and now we negotiate with those very people we fought for those 12 years, who are preparing to return to power! Still we learn nothing.
Instead of learning from these disasters brought about by the interventionists and their failed foreign policy, the president is now telling us that we have to go into Syria!
US Army Col. Harry Summers told a story about a meeting he had with a North Vietnamese colonel named Tu while he visiting Hanoi in 1975. At the meeting, Col. Summers told Tu, "You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield." Tu paused for a moment, then replied, "That may be so. But it is also irrelevant."
Sadly, that is the story of our foreign policy. We have attacked at least five countries since 9/11. We have launched drones against many more. We have deposed several dictators and destroyed several foreign armies. But, looking around at what has been achieved, it is clear: it is all irrelevant.
Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
June 17, 2013 | RonPaul.com
President Obama announced late last week that the US intelligence community had just determined that the Syrian government had used poison gas on a small scale, killing some 100 people in a civil conflict that has claimed an estimated 100,000 lives. Because of this use of gas, the president claimed, Syria had crossed his "red line" and the US must begin to arm the rebels fighting to overthrow the Syrian government.
Setting aside the question of why 100 killed by gas is somehow more important than 99,900 killed by other means, the fact is his above explanation is full of holes. The Washington Post reported this week that the decision to overtly arm the Syrian rebels was made "weeks ago" in other words, it was made at a time when the intelligence community did not believe "with high confidence" that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons.
Further, this plan to transfer weapons to the Syrian rebels had become policy much earlier than that, as the Washington Post reported that the CIA had expanded over the past year its secret bases in Jordan to prepare for the transfer of weapons to the rebels in Syria.
The process was identical to the massive deception campaign that led us into the Iraq war. Remember the famous quote from the leaked "Downing Street Memo," where representatives of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's administration discussed Washington's push for war on Iraq?
Here the head of British intelligence was reporting back to his government after a trip to Washington in the summer of 2002: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
That is exactly what the Obama Administration is doing with Syria: fixing the intelligence and facts around the already determined policy. And Congress just goes along, just as they did the last time.
We found out shortly after the Iraq war started that the facts and intelligence being fixed around the policy were nothing but lies put forth by the neo-con warmongers and the paid informants, like the infamous and admitted liar known as "Curveball." But we seem to have learned nothing from being fooled before.
So Obama now plans to send even more weapons to the Syrian rebels even though his administration is aware that the main rebel factions have pledged their loyalty to al-Qaeda. Does anyone else see the irony? After 12 years of the "war on terror" and the struggle against al-Qaeda, the US decided to provide weapons to the allies of al-Qaeda. Does anyone really think this is a good idea?
The Obama administration promises us that this is to be a very limited operation, providing small arms only, with no plans for a no-fly zone or American boots on the ground. That sounds an awful lot like how Vietnam started. Just a few advisors. When these few small arms do not achieve the pre-determined US policy of regime change in Syria what is the administration going to do? Admit failure and pull the troops out, or escalate? History suggests the answer and it now appears to be repeating itself once again.
The president has opened a can of worms that will destroy his presidency and possibly destroy this country. Another multi-billion dollar war has begun.
For years, Ron Paul published a series of newsletters that dispensed political news and investment advice, but also routinely indulged in bigotry. Here's a selection of some especially inflammatory passages, with links to scanned images of the original documents in which they appeared.
"A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided."
The November 1990 issue of the Political Report had kind words for David Duke.
This December 1990 newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
A February 1991 newsletter attacks "The X-Rated Martin Luther King."
An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg,"and "Lazyopolis " would be better alternatives-and says, "Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."
A May 1990 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report cites Jared Taylor, who six months later would go onto found the eugenicist and white supremacist periodical American Renaissance.
The January 1993 issue of the Survival Report worries about America's "disappearing white majority."
The July 1992 Ron Paul Political Report declares, "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems," and defends David Duke. The author of the newsletter-presumably Paul-writes, "My youngest son is starting his fourth year in medical school. He tells me there would be no way to persuade his fellow students of the case for economic liberty."
A March 1993 Survival Report describes Bill Clinton's supposedly "illegitimate children, black and white: 'woods colts' in backwoods slang."
The December 1989 Ron Paul Political Report contains entries on a "new form of racial terrorism," cites former Congressman Bill Dannemeyer's claim that "the average homosexual has 1,000 or more partners in a lifetime," and quotes Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, in the third person.
In January 1990, the Ron Paul Political Report cites "a well-known libertarian editor" who "told me: 'The ACT-UP slogan on stickers plastered all over Manhattan is 'Silence=Death.' But shouldn't it be Sodomy = Death'?"
The September 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report states that "those who don't commit sodomy, who don't get blood a transfusion, and who don't swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay."
The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
A January 1994 edition of the Survival Report states that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
Survivalism and Militias
The January 1995 issue of the Survival Report-released just three months before the Oklahoma City bombing-cites an anti-government militia's advice to other militias, including, "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."
The October 1992 issue of the Political Report paraphrases an "ex-cop" who offers this strategy for protecting against "urban youth": "If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."
This 1978 newsletter says the Trilateral Commission is "no longer known only by those who are knowledgeable about international conspiracies, but is routinely mentioned in the daily news."
A 1989 newsletter compares Salman Rushdie to Ernst Zundel, a Canadian Holocaust-denier.
Anti-Government Paranoia/Conspiracy Theories/Survivalism
A fundraising letter from Paul's 1984 Senate campaign in which Paul complains about the "minions of Kissinger and Rockefeller" and "the big New York banks, and their pals in Texas" who "want me silenced."
The January 1988 Ron Paul Political Report approvingly cites Dr. William C. Douglass, who "believes that AIDS is a deliberately engineered hybrid" developed at a World Health Organization experiment conducted at Ft. Detrick. Douglass has long been a fringe medical guru, and today claims that "smoking can help you live longer!!!"
The November 1989 Ron Paul Political Report reports on the Bohemian Grove and Ronald Reagan's "old Trilateralist agenda item of four-year terms for Congressmen."
This 1993 Ron Paul Strategy Guide entitled, "How to Protect Yourself from Urban Violence," is a special supplement to the Ron Paul Survival Report.
In the April 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report, the author-writing in the first person-states, "Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little." The newsletters also warns readers to "do your very best to keep your family away from inner cities. If you can't, have a haven remote from the metropolitan areas."
The May 1995 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report warns of "The Trilateralist Alan Greenspan" and its author writes, "Now that my five children are grown and educated, I've listened to the many supporters who've urged me to return to office. I can now give up my medical practice, and dedicate every fiber of my being to saving our country." The newsletter also contains an advertisement for the Ron Paul congressional exploratory committee.
The September 1995 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report asks about "Black Helicopters?"
The June 1996 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report refers to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms officers as "Jackbooted Thugs."
The November 1992 Ron Paul Survival Report defends chess champion and Holocaust-denier Bobby Fischer, saying that "the brilliant Fischer, who has all the makings of an American hero, is very politically incorrect on Jewish questions, for which he will never be forgiven, even though he is a Jew. Thus we are not supposed to herald him as the world's greatest chess player."
In January 1992, Paul writes about his consideration of a presidential bid which he dashed after Pat Buchanan expressed his intention to run. Paul wrote of "the essential compatibility between [Buchanan's] ideas and mine" and "agreed to serve as the chairman of his economic advisory committee."
A 1992 issue of the Rothbard-Rockwell-Report tells of Paul's decision to defer to Pat Buchanan in the 1992 Republican presidential primary.
The masthead of March 1987 Ron Paul Investment Letter lists "the Hon. Ron Paul" as "Editor and Publisher" and "Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr." as one of several contributing editors.
An undated personal solicitation letter-signed by Paul-asking the recipient to subscribe to his newsletter in anticipation of (presumably) the 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential nominating convention.
The April 1988 Ron Paul Investment Letter lists Paul as Editor.
The May 1988 Ron Paul Investment Letter lists Lew Rockwell as Editor. It also advertises books by the far-right conspiracy theorist Gary Allen, who was a contributing editor to the Ron Paul Investment Letter.
National Government Examiner.comOnce again, the terrorists are threatening America, this time in the guise of a 16-year-old boy expressing his support for Ron Paul, that dastardly extremist who's so violent that he advocates nonviolence.
Created as a project for his American Government class, the 16-year-old, Justin Hallman, created a video supporting Paul's campaign which details how the United States is turning into a police state.
"The video touches on a number of issues," writes Paul Joseph Watson, "including the National Defense Authorization Act, evidence suggesting the Republican caucus in Maine was fixed to disenfranchise Ron Paul, the hacktivist group Anonymous, military drills taking place in American cities, as well as eviscerations of the right to free speech."
In response, Hallman was visited by a duo of FBI agents. The agents visited Hallman's house, leaving their card after the teenager refused to answer them at the door. When his mother called the number listed on the card, she was told by the agents, "We need to talk to your son."
The two FBI agents returned to the house and began to talk to Hallman about his interests and hobbies, a tactic Hallman saw as the FBI agents attempting to gain his trust.
The FBI agents then attempted to recruit Hallman to spy on Anonymous. "They wanted me to be an informant, to possibly put my life in danger, to help them arrest and gain intel on occupy protesters and hackers," he writes.
The agents then began to question Hallman about his support for Ron Paul's presidential campaign as well as a conversation he had conducted with his teacher about the Illuminati secret society.
"They also asked me why I had talked to my teacher about the Illuminati," writes Hallman. "I told them it was just harmless talk about the 1776 Illuminati that formed from the enlightenment era. I said my teacher said they are/were terrorists and not to talk about them (this caused the FBI agents to look puzzled and they changed the subject very fast to Anonymous). In the end they finally left for an "important meeting."
Hallman is now concerned for future employment opportunities, commenting, "My record (is) forever scarred with the truth that the FBI questioned me. When getting a job they will see that, when getting a passport they will see that, when going to college they will see that."
For some time now, the government has been demonizing Paul supporters, as well as libertarians and conservatives.
In 2009, the infamous report titled "The Modern Militia Movement" from the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) was leaked. The report lists "supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as 'militia' influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties."
In July, a study by the Department of Homeland Security titled "Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008," mentions that those who are "suspicious of centralized federal authority" or are "reverent of individual liberty" are "extreme right-wing" terrorists.
Even further back, during the Clinton administration, the Phoenix-FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force released a flier that lists "'defenders' of US Constitution against federal government and UN "as right-wing extremists.
No wonder politicians are constantly breaking their oath to defend the Constitution, otherwise they'd be listed as terrorists.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul warned the U.S. is "slipping into a fascist system" dominated by government and businesses as he held a fiery rally Saturday night upstaging established Republican Party banquets a short distance away.
The Texas congressman drew a couple thousand standing and chanting people to Kansas City's Union Station as the party's establishment dined on steak across the street at the Missouri GOP's annual conference. Kansas Republicans were holding a similar convention in a suburb across the state line.
Paul staged his rally near the nation's World War I museum, asserting that the U.S. got off track about 100 years ago during the era of President Woodrow Wilson, who led the nation through World War I and unsuccessfully advocated for the nation's involvement in a forerunner of the United Nations.
"We've slipped away from a true Republic," Paul said. "Now we're slipping into a fascist system where it's a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen."
Although campaign aides were aware, Paul told reporters after his speech that he did not know his rally was coinciding with long-established Missouri and Kansas Republican Party events, where Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell - a vice presidential prospect - was the keynote speaker.
Several Republicans slipped away from the banquets to join the Paul rally. Among them was Ralph Munyan, a Republican committeeman in Kansas City's home county, who said he agreed with Paul's warnings of a "fascist system" and his pledge to the end nation's involvement in wars overseas and against drugs.
"His foreign policy is one of peace," Munyan said.
Paul repeatedly denounced President Barack Obama's recent enactment of a law requiring military custody of anyone suspected to be associated with al Qaeda and involved in planning an attack on the U.S. Obama said when he signed the legislation that his administration would not authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens without a trial.by Vlad-RF February 28, 2012 8:48 AM ESTBeg your pardon for my English, but ... I believed in US when I was younger and the more I have discovered about USA and its external policy the less I trusted it - I'm talking about the government, not regular people, I know some, made friends with some good americans... US has broke my dream and the further it goes the more I believe in my country. US government has forgotten what the democracy is, US is ruining our world. After these US wars in Iraq, Libya, now Syria I very often recall a pic I came across in the Internet: B-52 in the air dropping the bombs down and a statement below: "If you done come to democracy, democracy will come to you". I'm not trying to say that we in Russia have a true democracy, no, but obviously we're on our own way, not following the example of US democracy where americans are forced to chose between republicans and democrats. Democracy first of all means choice - obviously americans have no choice but "choose" the continuously interchanging Reps and Dems for decades, both in conjunction with corporations stick to the same principles keeping folks in fear. Seems like you even have no freedom of word anymore - should anyone in US critisize US president in rough language, the next day men in black will come after a poor folk and he'z gone.. now Russian opposition puts so much **** on Putin these days in mass media with support of western media and feels like you can do as much as you want - you will not be chased at all... anyway, I want to believe in future for my country and my children, as well as for yours... I hope the current external policy of US will change anytime soon and US will cease wars and focus on internal issues.... no responses requiredvenusvegasvadaDeclaration of Independence:by obbop February 20, 2012 11:54 AM EST
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Declaration of Exploitation:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created to be exploited to the fullest extent possible by law, except those in charge of the exploited that are endowed by their Creator with the financial means to avoid being exploited themselves and to enjoy their unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.""Declaration of Exploitation"by occupy_cbs February 20, 2012 12:12 PM EST
Decades of life experience, education, extensive non-fiction reading and general research into many aspects of that comprising the "whole" that results in the existence of the USA tells me that you are correct.
"I pledge allegiance, to the stocks and bonds, of the corporate states of America, and to the capital for which it stands, one chairman, under the board, highly divisive, with profit and revenue for me."
by occupy_cbs February 20, 2012 10:18 AM ESTTexasStar99: "Fascism is neither left nor right"
Fascists are very pro-violence, anti-democracy, and anti-communism, that identify enemies/scapegoats as unifying causes for the population, with a supremacy of the military and obsession with national security, as religion and government are intertwined and corporate power is protected, with a government that is male dominated and labor power and unions are suppressed, that have disdain for the intellectuals and the arts and an obsession with crimes and punishment.
Sounds just like the far-right extremists of the republican party, waving their guns and bibles, calling everyone they don't like "Communists," and waging an endless war against unions, intellectuals and women (and all other minorities), while protecting corporate power with a huge expansion of the military-industrial complex and the prison/justice system!
by McClarinJ February 19, 2012 9:10 PM EST
Please try educating yourself!
Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology that is commonly described as "extreme right" due to its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism.
Mussolini said that Fascism is revolutionary against liberalism "since it wants to reduce the size of the State to its necessary functions." Mussolini claimed that Italian Fascism's economic system of corporatism could be identified as state capitalism which he claimed was state socialism "turned on its head".
Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program 'The Doctrine of Fascism,' stating: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century."The National Defense Authorization Act is no help in refuting Paul's concern. Besides gearing up for a long-planned attack on Iran there are ominous preparations underway for a clampdown on Americans in America. When Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party are demonstrating side-by-side against the NDAA it should tell you that this concern is not crass partisan politics. No matter who is elected in November I don't want them to have the unconstitutional power to kill, seize, and hold without trial American citizens in America. This is the kind of tyranny we fought our war of independence over.by GeraldMon February 19, 2012 5:02 PM ESTIn the twentieth century, every war has been led by a democrat in the white house with the exception of the Persian Gulf Conflict. WWI, Wilson, WWII, Roosevelt, Korea, Truman, Vietnam, Johnson. People will say its the republicans in congress, but since 1931, the republicans have been in power a total of 16 years, many times the democrats held a filibuster proof majority, especially during the vietnam war, at one point in the 70s, there was a 74-16 democrat majority. and even so, the president has to present it to congress and sign it into actionby jfb100 February 19, 2012 7:17 PM EST
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090121095931AA74kmBLegally declaring war is not in-iself associated with Fascism - so your point has little or no relevance, especially wrt WWI.by commonworkingman February 19, 2012 4:56 PM EST
It is in the more recent past defined by right wing Republicans who can't think of an oil producing nations that they would not invade, or a person whose human rights they would not grind under their boots while committing criminal torture ostensibly in the name of nationalism.
We invade countries after no provocation then torture their citizens. It is a dubious rationalization, and a slippery slope to ethical degeneracy.hundred years ago, so how does he know how it was back then? Until you've lived it, you don't know. From the history I've read, it wasn't so great
19/02/2012, 18:07Чтобы по настоящему стать демократией, все страны должны позаимствовать у США следующие институты:
19/02/2012, 18:09Политика США - ложь, лицемерие, пропаганда, двойные стандарты, цинизм, заговоры, провокации, подстрекательства к переворотам, проплаченные цветные революции, дистабилизации, тайные тюрьмы, пытки, насилие, влияние, давление и вмешательства в дела чужих стран, свержение неугодных правителей, интервенции, вторжения, оккупация, военные базы по всему миру, убийства и геноцид мирного индийского народа на рубеже 19 века, - когда американцы жгли дома, насиловали и зверски убивали женщин и детей. Жестокие издевательства и убийства америкосами усыновленных российских детей и безнаказанность неадекватного американского правосудия. Япония (Хиросима, Нагасаки), Корея, Вьетнам, Ирак, Югославия, Афганистан, Ливия - и миллионы мирных людей погибли от рук и бомбежек американских империалистов. Пиндосы только все разрушают, воруют мировые природные ресурсы - в угоду своих алчных интересов, устанавливают по всему миру свою империалистическую диктатуру - под предлогом "демократии и свободы"... США - паразит мировой экономики (печатный станок и госдолг 15 триллионов долларов). США - самая агрессивная, преступная, высокомерная, самолюбивая, авторитарная и диктатурная страна в мире. США - ИМПЕРИЯ ЗЛА!!!
19/02/2012, 18:30А вообще, Рон пол знает, чт оего не выбирут, да и старый уже и из политики скоро уйдет.
19/02/2012, 19:18�Мы отошли от принципов настоящей республики, - заявил Пол. - И теперь мы движемся к формированию фашистской системы, которая представляет собой сочетание правительства, крупного бизнеса, авторитарной формы правления и нарушения прав всех американских граждан�.
Есть ещё честные люди и в американском истэблишменте. Но, как я понимаю, они в крайне незначительном меньшинстве! И это не может не беспокоить мировое сообщество.
Граждане США! Вам надо с этим что-то делать!
19/02/2012, 19:35Обосновал, что всякое свободолюбие и борьба за равные права - бессмысленны. Большой капитал железом и свинцом беспощадно подавит инакомыслие.
19/02/2012, 19:48Посмотрите, как целеустремлённо, методично, как говорится, с упорством, достойным лучшего
19/02/2012, 20:22В 1978 году был похищен и убит премьер Италии Альдо Моро левацкой группировкой "Красные бригады". Сейчас доказано что эта группировка (как и Аль-Каеда) была создана цру. Убийство Моро было спланировано и финансировалось также цру для дискретизации компартии Италии.
Ron Paul has warned the U.S. is 'slipping into a fascist system' dominated by government and businesses.
The Republican presidential candidate made the bold claim as he held a rally on Saturday - upstaging other nearby Republican Party banquets.
The Texas congressman drew thousands to Kansas City's Union Station while the party's establishment dined on steak across the street at the Missouri GOP's annual conference.Kansas Republicans were holding a similar convention in a suburb across the state line.
Paul staged his rally near the nation's World War I museum, asserting that the U.S. got off track about 100 years ago during the era of President Woodrow Wilson.
Wilson led the nation through World War I and unsuccessfully advocated for the nation's involvement in a forerunner of the United Nations.
- Obama's team fires back at Santorum for calling President's faith 'phony theology'
- Sarah Palin on the defensive as she calls the upcoming movie about the failed 2008 election 'a false narrative'
'We've slipped away from a true Republic,' Paul said. 'Now we're slipping into a fascist system where it's a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen.'
Although campaign aides were aware, Paul told reporters after his speech that he did not know his rally was coinciding with long-established Missouri and Kansas Republican Party events, where Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell - a vice presidential prospect - was the keynote speaker.Several Republicans slipped away from the banquets to join the Paul rally.
Among them was Ralph Munyan, a Republican committeeman in Kansas City's home county, who said he agreed with Paul's warnings of a 'fascist system' and his pledge to the end nation's involvement in wars overseas and against drugs.
'His foreign policy is one of peace,' Munyan said.
Paul repeatedly denounced President Barack Obama's recent enactment of a law requiring military custody of anyone suspected to be associated with al-Qaida and involved in planning an attack on the U.S. Obama said when he signed the legislation that his administration would not authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens without a trial.
BEWARE: UK and US going down same Police State road - NadePaulKuciGravMcKi, the states, 22/2/2012 23:42 Click to rate Rating 4 Report abuse HT, uk,They are called RINO's here. Republican in name only. - Paul, Pontiac, 21/2/2012 02:51
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103295/Ron-Paul-says-U-S-turning-fascist-state.html#ixzz1njiMWC9L
Have you noticed that the Neocons never lost control of the White House? - NadePaulKuciGravMcKi, the states, 20/2/2012 21:51 Click to rate Rating 25 Report abuse Ron you're a breath of freash air but it's all up hill against the status quo, if America doesn't wake up and smell the coffee. - martin, kent, 20/2/2012 21:47 Click to rate Rating 40 Report abuse He couldn't be more right! Mussolini himself would be proud of the government/corporate intercourse that's occurring in the US right now! I vote 3rd party because the corps don't spend money backing them...therefore they don't have any bribes that need to be repaid to the corporations later! The US Congress is the best that MONEY CAN BUY!!!!
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103295/Ron-Paul-says-U-S-turning-fascist-state.html#ixzz1njiUucz9
Jan 6, 2012 | CNN
I agree with Phil on the war stuff...but his left wing ideas on health are stupid. Piers and his comment about medicine being "free" is as ignorant as possible. Nothing is free Piers. Only someone with a brain of an infant would believe that.
Amazing video. Shows just what is wrong with this country and why Ron Paul is the sane choice. Wake up Americans!
why? so we can be marginalized in a 2 party dictatorship? Rand acted like an ass for whatever strategic reason. Ron didnt.
so how about you can take your third part and shove it up your ass. Lets talk about Ralph Nader then eh? until the Republic is restored on these 2 awful parties will be represented unless they can be co opted by the Liberty movement. that is a longshot.
Dec 27, 2011 | Yahoo
Jill Lawrence | National Journal
Ron Paul is not having the best holiday season. First the media discovered racist, anti-Semitic newsletters that went out under Paul's name in the 1970s, '80s and '90s. Then the New York Times did a story about the support Paul draws from white supremacists and anti-Semites.
Now there's former Paul staffer Eric Dondero purporting to describe the ins and outs of Paul's positions on everything from Israel (it shouldn't exist) to Hitler (we shouldn't have fought him) to 9/11 (U.S. authorities may have known about the attacks) to Afghanistan (we shouldn't have invaded). He calls Paul's foreign policy "sheer lunacy."
Or, as the conservative Weekly Standard summarized in hits headline: "Ex-Aide Says Ron Paul Is a 9/11 Truther & Isolationist Who Thinks U.S. Shouldn't Have Fought Hitler."
In his 2,100-word piece, posted at RightwingNews.com, Dondero says he held several campaign and Capitol Hill posts with Paul from 1987 to 2003. At his own website, LibertarianRepublican.net, he said he was revealing much of the information for the first time. "Much of what I have to say will not please the liberal media hacks. Though, the Ron Paul diehards will find much objectionable, as well," Dondero wrote.
Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton, in a statement circulated to the media, called Dondero "a disgruntled former staffer who was fired for performance issues. He has zero credibility and should not be taken seriously."
Still, Dondero's bill of particulars was getting wide pickup on Twitter and on conservative sites such as the Standard, National Review and HotAir.
Dondero goes out of his way to say that Paul is not anti-Semitic or a racist. He said Paul has hired many black and Hispanic employees and "I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once." In fact, Paul's current campaign spokesman, Gary Howard, is black.
Still, any way you cut it, the picture Dondero paints isn't pretty. Among his contentions:
--Paul is anti-Israel. "His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs."
-- "He is not all bigoted towards homosexuals. He supports their rights to do whatever they please in their private lives. He is however, personally uncomfortable around homosexuals" and refused to use a bathroom in a gay supporter's home.
-- "Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11." He planned to vote against the invasion despite threats of staff resignations and a constituent uproar, Dondero says; he changed his mind at the last minute.
"If Ron Paul should be slammed for anything, it's not some silly remarks he's made in the past in his Newsletters. It's over his simply outrageously horrendous views on foreign policy, Israel, and national security for the United States. His near No vote on Afghanistan. That is the big scandal," he concludes.
Paul has said he did not know what was in the newsletters. The Times looks at the newsletter issue more broadly, and gets Paul to comment on his less savory supporters. He told the newspaper that he rejects their extremist views but not their backing.
CBS's Rodney Hawkins contributed.
This is a man who would eliminate five of the 15 cabinet-level departments (Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior he has no problem reciting them all); recall American troops from all foreign lands, not just war zones; repeal the 16th Amendment, which created the federal income tax; reduce his own presidential salary from $400,000 to $39,336 the median salary of an American worker.
These are not the planks of a mainstream candidate's platform. But Paul rolls along, attracting a hard-core following and collecting millions in contributions.
How does he do it?
Perhaps it is not so complicated: He applies the lessons learned in a life that stretches back to the Depression.
Paul's grandfather, Casper, fled the economic wreckage of post-World War I Germany and went to work in the Pittsburgh steel mills at age 14. Ron Paul grew up on stories about rampant inflation and the dangers of paper currency.
"I remember my grandmother wanting to hang onto some property my dad thought she should sell," he says. "And she said, `No. The money might go bad.'"
Casper eventually saved up enough to buy some land outside the city. He started a small vegetable and chicken farm, then opened a dairy, which his sons eventually took over and relocated to nearby Carnegie. Ron Paul's first job was making sure no dirty bottles made it to the filling crates. He was paid a penny per bottle; when they were old enough, the Paul boys all five of whom shared one bedroom took over the summer milk routes to give the drivers some time off.
His brother Jerry says Ronnie was no goodie two-shoes. In fact, he was kicked out of school twice. The first time was for allegedly bribing a grade school chum "two bits" to throw a baseball through a window. The second was for bringing firecrackers to Dormont High and that time he ratted on himself.
"He couldn't stand the principals who were dictatorial," Jerry says. "He would call them fascists."
Still, he was elected president of the student council at Dormont and won the school's service award three years running. But he really excelled at track. His junior year, Paul placed first in the state in the 220-yard dash, second in the 440 and third in the 100. Pennsylvania State University offered him a full athletic scholarship.
When he tore the cartilage in his right knee playing touch football that summer, Penn State was still willing to take a chance on him. But Paul decided he couldn't accept in good conscience. "I was not confident I could meet the standards of honoring that scholarship," he says.
Instead, he chose Gettysburg College, a small Lutheran school near the famous battlefield. Paul paid his own way, using money earned from hisn The Bullet Hole, and washing dishes at the Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity house. In his senior year, he married Carolyn Wells, who had first noticed him when a friend pointed out the lanky upperclassman running around the track at Dormont.
Paul went on to attend Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, N.C. During his second year of residency in Detroit, Paul got a letter from the Selective Service. He could be drafted into the Army as a "buck private," or join as a physician and receive an officer's commission.
"I volunteered immediately," he says, chuckling.
Paul served two years in the Air Force as a flight surgeon and three more in the Air National Guard. While he did not see any action, he says he's seen enough of war's aftermath to convince him "the way we go to war so often is the reason that we have difficulty getting out of war.
"My firm belief is that the founders were absolutely correct in going to war very, very cautiously, very, very rarely," he told the Greenville crowd. "And NOT by one individual deciding."
During his residency, Paul found time for some light reading: "The Road to Serfdom" by the free-market economist Friedrich Hayek. It was an epiphany. In short order, he devoured the works of Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises, the dean of Austrian school of laissez-faire economics.
Paul had been stationed at Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio. When his service was up in 1968, he stayed on in Texas, eventually taking over the practice of the only obstetrician-gynecologist in tiny Lake Jackson, south of Houston. It was a busy office; often, Paul would deliver four babies in a single night, and in the course of his career, he estimates he brought more than 4,000 babies into the world.
There was minor shock in the office when Paul informed the staff they would no longer participate in the federal Medicaid or Medicare programs.
"People will pay as they can," scrub nurse Donna White, who later married her boss's youngest brother, recalls the doctor saying. "And if they can't, that's fine."
One family, she says, paid him in fresh-caught shrimp.
Paul can remember the date when he decided to enter politics. It was Aug. 15, 1971, the day President Richard Nixon decoupled the U.S. dollar from the nation's gold reserves.
"After that day, all money would be political money rather than money of real value," he told a writer from Texas Monthly. "I was astounded."
Paul lost his first congressional race in 1974 but won a special election two years later to fill the incumbent's unexpired term. Several months later, he lost the general election to Democrat Robert Gammage by fewer than 300 votes.
Paul defeated Gammage in 1978 and won back-to-back re-elections. His pledge to "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution" earned him a nickname: Dr. No.
He refused to vote for any tax increase or any budget that was not balanced, and eschewed most "pork barrel" projects for his district. He even voted against awarding Congressional Gold Medals to Mother Teresa, Nancy and Ronald Reagan, and civil rights icon Rosa Parks though he suggested his colleagues "each put in 100 bucks" to pay for the $30,000 cost of a medal for Parks.
He has refused to enroll in the House pension program, saying it would be "hypocritical and immoral" to accept a benefit unavailable to the taxpayers who fund it. He also discouraged his five children including the future Kentucky U.S. senator and tea party darling Rand Paul from applying for government-backed student loans.
In 1981, Dr. No teamed up with "Senator No" (North Carolina's Jesse Helms) to pass legislation that formed the 17-member Gold Commission, which was to study "the role of gold in the monetary system." Appointed by Reagan, Paul argued for a gold coin "without a dollar denomination" as legal tender.
"I wanted people to think of money as weight," he wrote.
In 1984, Paul ran for the U.S. Senate. When that bid failed, he returned full time to his medical practice.
Four years later, Paul won the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination. He placed third in the election, with less than 1 percent of the popular vote, but he now had a national base.
In 1997, Paul retired from medicine and returned to Congress; he's been there ever since. In 2008, he made his second run for president, this time as a Republican. He raised almost $35 million, including more than $6 million on Dec. 16, 2007, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.
Still, in the end, it was projected that he had amassed just 42 delegates.
The 2008 race also brought Paul's closest brush with scandal. A controversy arose over statements in his monthly newsletters "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be"; Martin Luther King Jr. was a "pro-Communist philanderer"; "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Paul denied writing the offending passages they were, he said, the work of ghostwriters, though he acknowledged that he bore "some moral responsibility" for them. And he said he was not a detractor of King's the civil rights leader was a champion of individual rights and one of his heroes.
Now trotting sprightly along on two artificial knees, the high school sprinter has proved to be a steady long-distance runner. He placed a close second in the August Iowa straw poll, though he polls in single digits in most states.
The former fringe candidate is tapping into some mainstream anger. During a news conference at the Greenville airport, Paul looking, as always, slightly rumpled in his workaday suit and sensible shoes laughs when asked if throwing thousands of federal employees out of work in the current down economy is a good idea.
"Let `em go to work at McDonald's," he says, his brown eyes twinkling impishly beneath untamed eyebrows. "They should have a REAL job. Bureaucrats don't create wealth. They interfere with wealth production."
Downtown at the convention center, hundreds queue up for vinegary "eastern-style" barbecue, hush puppies, cole slaw and foam cups of sweet iced tea. One man sports a hat with a "REPEAL ObamaCare" button, while another wears a T-shirt cataloguing the supposed evils of fluoridated drinking water.
Paul's campaign takes pride in portraying him as a kind of Beltway Cassandra, ignored and marginalized by the "mainstream media." At the end of the food table sits a pile of business cards announcing Paul's latest "moneybomb" (the Oct. 19 drive raised more than $2.75 million) and daring news outlets to "BLACK THIS OUT!"
When the candidate arrives, the cheering crowd leaps to its feet. He then launches into a 33-minute, no-notes speech covering everything from 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat to the right to consume raw milk.
He speaks repeatedly of our "recession/depression" and says the "No. 1 cause" of the current financial crisis was the Federal Reserve.
"THEY are the ones who are responsible for so much suffering," he says, his already high-pitched voice rising to a near squeak. The Fed, he declares, is a "counterfeiter."
The crowd chants the title of one of Paul's books: "End the Fed! End the Fed!"
By speech's end, Todd Bennett, 45, of nearby Farmville, is sweating and hoarse.
"He's not the most charismatic man, by any stretch," says Bennett, a hospital supply courier and father of 10-year-old twin boys. "He's not got the greatest delivery by any stretch. But the words he says lights a fire in my soul. I'm ready to run through a brick wall for him."
Paul inspires that kind of devotion. But there are many naysayers, even among those who know him best. Jerry Paul, a retired Presbyterian minister and registered Democrat, says his brother "does not appreciate the depth" of human sinfulness and selfishness. He goes as far as to call Ron Paul's philosophy "kind of naive." Life is complicated, he suggests.
"Freedom, to me, really comes with responsibility ... to work together with others in the political realm, to work on behalf of the governed," he says. "That we're going to have a safety net ... Who else is going to do that, other than our political structure?"
The candidate freely acknowledges that the free market "is not perfect." But he says it adjusts for its mistakes.
"I think the people who assume that a few people in Washington, the bureaucrats and the politicians, know what's best for us, and we can trust them, that's being REALLY naive," he says.
When late-night comedian Jon Stewart recently asked Paul why he keeps running, the representative replied: "I think if you plant a seed, it tends to grow."
Years ago, Paul says, a congressional colleague slipped a laminated piece of paper into his hand. It was a passage from Elie Wiesel's 1970 book, "One Generation After."
In it, a child asks the one "Just Man" why he walks the streets of Sodom railing against wickedness, when he knows it is hopeless. The man replies: "if I continue my protest, at least I will prevent others from changing me."
Paul can't recall who gave him the quote. But he still has it, tucked away with his House voting card.
Allen G. Breed is a national writer, based in Raleigh, N.C. He can be reached at features(at)ap.org.
December 10, 2011 | Antiwar.com
The Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear bomb on August 29, 1949, leading to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, shared by both the USA and the Soviets. The unwritten agreement by the two superpowers deterred nuclear war with an implied threat to blow up the world, if need be, to defend each of their interests.
I well remember the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962, having been drafted into the military at that time. Mutually Assured Destruction had significant meaning to the whole world during this period. This crisis, along with the escalating ill-advised Vietnam War, made me very much aware of the problems the world faced during the five years I served as a USAF flight surgeon.
It was with great pleasure and hope that I observed the collapse of the Soviet Empire between 1989 and 1991. This breakup verified the early predictions by the free market economists, like Ludwig von Mises, that communism would self-destruct because of the deeply flawed economic theories embedded in socialism. Our nukes were never needed because ideas are more powerful than the weapons of war.
Many Americans at the time were boldly hopeful that we would benefit from a generous peace dividend. Sadly, it turned out to be a wonderful opportunity wasted. There was to be no "beating their swords into plowshares," even though history shows that without weapons and war there's more food and prosperity for the people. Unfortunately, our leaders decided on another course that served the special interests who benefit from constant wars and the arbitrary rearrangement of national borders for control of national resources.
Instead of a peace dividend from ending the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction, US leaders opted for a foreign policy of American world domination as its sole superpower. It was all in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson's idealistic goal of "making the world safe for democracy" by pursuing a war to end all wars.
The mantra became that American exceptionalism morally required us to spread our dominance world-wide by force. US world dominance, by whatever means, became our new bipartisan foreign policy. There was to be no peace dividend, though our enemies were virtually non-existent.
In many ways America had been "exceptional" but in an opposite manner from the neocon driven foreign policy of the last 20 years. If America indeed has something good to offer the cause of peace, prosperity, and liberty it must be spread through persuasion and by example; not by intimidation, bribes, and war.
Maintaining world domination is based on an intellectually and financially bankrupt idea that generates dependency, war, loss of civil liberties, inflation, and debt, all of which contribute to our economic crisis.
Saddest of all, this policy of American domination and exceptionalism has allowed us to become an aggressor nation, supporting pre-emptive war, covert destabilization, foreign occupations, nation building, torture, and assassinations. This policy has generated hatred toward Americans and provides the incentive for almost all of the suicide attacks against us and our allies.
To continue to believe the fiction that the militants hate us for our freedoms and wealth may even result in more attacks against us - that is, unless our national bankruptcy brings us to our knees and forces us to bring our troops home.
Expanding our foreign military intervention overseas as a cure for the attacks against us, tragically, only guarantees even more attacks. We must someday wake up, be honest with ourselves, and reject the notion that we're spreading freedom and America's goodness around the world. We cannot justify our policy by claiming our mission is to secure American freedoms and protect our Constitution. That is not believable. This policy is doomed to fail on all fronts.
The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction has been gone now for 20 years, and that is good.
The policy of American domination of the world, as nation builder-in-chief and policeman of the world, has failed and must be abandoned - if not as a moral imperative, then certainly out of economic necessity.
My humble suggestion is to replace it with a policy of Mutually Assured Respect. This requires no money and no weapons industry, or other special interests demanding huge war profits or other advantages.
This requires simply tolerance of others' cultures and their social and religious values, and the giving up of all use of force to occupy or control other countries and their national resources. Many who disagree choose to grossly distort the basic principles shared by the world's great religions: the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, and the cause of peace. Religions all too often are distorted and used to justify the violence engaged in for arbitrary power.
A policy of Mutually Assured Respect would result in the U.S.:
- Treating other nations exactly as we expect others to treat us.
- Offering friendship with all who seek it.
- Participating in trade with all who are willing.
- Refusing to threaten, bribe, or occupy any other nation.
- Seeking an honest system of commodity money that no single country can manipulate for a trade advantage. Without this, currency manipulation becomes a tool of protectionism and prompts retaliation with tariffs and various regulations. This policy, when it persists, is dangerous and frequently leads to real wars.
Mutually Assured Respect offers a policy of respect, trade, and friendship and rejects threats, sanctions, and occupations.
This is the only practical way to promote peace, harmony, and economic well-being to the maximum number of people in the world.
Mutually Assured Respect may not be perfect but far better than Mutually Assured Destruction or unilateral American dominance.Read more by Rep. Ron Paul
Republicans are not smart enough to vote for Ron Paul. Democrats are not lucky enough to have him.
Holy crap. Bill Maher is right about something! It's a sign of the Apocalypse!
RON PAUL 2012
I think Ron Paul as president would make a great and big change for America. He's finally starting to be heard, because Fox and other politicians do their best to censor him, and try to make
Dear God, FFS how is Ron Paul not the OVERWHELMING front runner for the republican nomination? Is America too stupid to see what is patently obvious? The next election has serious implications for the entire world, as an Australian I'm literally begging americans to vote for Ron Paul. Before it's too late.
McCain looks like a baffoon....
@alandonald Americans are trained to be stupid. They just don't know better because all their lives they are thought to think one way through media and stupid ass distraction tv shows. So when they hear something logical they just don't get it. Its something new to them. But people need to wake up and start doing their own research. I believe self education is the best eduction.
This is man is extremely smart. holy shit
What can he do any different then anyone else is new pawn from the same pond!
@alandonald You Are Correct.....as it has been for 100+ years the rigged media is lying.... lying about the republican candidates....lying about their poles that they control and they report the results.....their chosen 1 Brobama must be challenged by the 1 they pick.....Never By The Peoples Choice....look at the 2008 elections NO ONE NEW RON PAUL WAS EVEN RUNNING....the medias pick was John Mcain......the media is shoving their picks down our throats and ignoring the rest.....
McCain and Romney were both giving him that treatment. They are an interchangeable pair of stooges for the international banksters that are destroying this country and imposing a murderous, collectivist world government. Since they're both made-men for that cabal, they no doubt hate & fear RP because he is genuine & good, rather than being long ago sold-out, totally compromised, degenerate political prostitutes as they are.
Ron Paul is a great man. His time has come to lead, and he will get us out of this mess that we are in, if we give him a chance to do it. Obama promised change, and all we got was more of the same. Let's think outside the box. Let's give Ron Paul a chance to get this country back on it's feet.
Listen, Ron Paul isn't some all holy politician come to save us all. His policies have flaws and potential negative consequences like every other politician. However, Ron Paul basis his decisions on knowledge, facts, history, and truth. Neither party endorses him because he chooses to back what he feels is actually RIGHT for our nation and its people, regardless of party affiliation. I will be voting for Ron Paul in 2012 not because does no wrong, but because he is actually a LEADER in America.
It's not enough to say "Vote Ron Paul"
In order for Dr.Paul to win, HE NEEDS THE PRIMARY. That's the toughest part.
IF YOU WANT TO VOTE IN PRIMARY YOU HAVE TO BE REGISTERED REPUBLICAN! If you don't switch parties in time, (3 months ahead in some states from now) YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE!!
Go to BLUEREPUBLICAN(dot)ORG and register ASAP! Copy and paste this everywhere! Thumbs up to help this be on top.
Google matched content
Report: Paul Has An 'Anyone-But-Romney' Strategy
Can you blame him:
Maybe Rand Paul has a thing for Forthy Mix?
No photo id -- strange...