Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Ron Paul speech at Boise State University, Idaho

On Saturday March 27, 2010 - 1,500-2,000 people packed the house at BSU's Morrison Centre to hear Ron Paul speak.

Monday, March 29, 2010

"Healthcare Bill Will Bankrupt US" - Congressman Paul discussed a wide range of issues with Russia Today's Dina Gusovsky.

Posted by Gregory J. Chamberlain

Congressman Paul discussed a wide range of issues with Russia Today's Dina Gusovsky.

She and the congressman discussed Health Care and why he thinks this Health Care Reform legislation is heading the U.S. in the wrong direction. Congressman Paul explains his position that healthcare IS NOT a right.

"We have a right to our life and we have a right to our liberty and you ought to have a right to keep what you earn in a free country. But you don't have a right to stuff. you don't have a right to services or things like a house or a job. Because, in order to get that, the government would have to take it from somebody else."

He makes a strong point when he says, "If somebody has a right to something, they have to violate somebody else' right. The most you can expect when living in a free society is for government to make an attempt at protecting rights, not to try to redistribute wealth. If you do that, all people lose their rights."

He discusses that this health care reform bill is NOT going to increase quality at all, it will not bring down prices and that it is putting the U.S. closer to a bigger economic crisis coming as the national debt is going up two trillion dollars. Congressman Paul points out the fact that that this legislation may soon force us to face up to the fact that the U.S. is technically bankrupt.

Later in the interview Ms. Gusovsky steered the questions toward Congressman Kuchinich's Afghanistan Resolution that failed to pass in the House recently. Congressman Paul has cosponsored the legislation and talks about how it's not the President who is supposed to declare war, but it's the Congress, according to the constitution. She allowed Congressman Paul to elaborate on his recent article he published entitled "Supporting the War instead of Supporting The Troops", which is posted on this blog not long ago. He, said, "I would feel a lot better having somebody (a Government) that would be a lot more cautious about sending our troops around the world. If you just support war, you don't support the troops." He went on to say that Congress has reneged on it's responsibilities regarding what Kuchinich said, in handing the responsibility of declaring war over to the President. He mentions that for those in Congress who can't get their legislation passed, they ask the President to sign an executive order.

Ms. Gusovsky went on to recognize that what was supposed to be 90 in Afghanistan, for the U.S., has turned into almost a decade. She asked Congressman Paul, "When do you think it will end and what the ultimate goal for the United States over there (in Afghainistan)?". Congressman Paul replied. "Well, the goal is occupation and to control the oil and to control that region and to be the world's policeman. But it's going to end when we go bankrupt, just as the Soviet's ended their occupation. The Soviet's ended for economic reasons. We did not have to fight the Soviet's. They had a lot of nuclear weapons. But they finally just had to close their tent, because their economic system wasn't viable. Our economic system isn't viable either."

There is so much more to hear in this video including topics such as the CIA carrying out covert missions that are creating more enemies of the U.S. and trade relations with the U.S.A.'s banker, China. - - Please watch.

Healthcare and Economic Realities - By Ron Paul

by United States Congressman Ron Paul

With passage of last week’s bill, the American people are now the unhappy recipients of Washington’s disastrous prescription for healthcare “reform.” Congressional leaders relied on highly dubious budget predictions, faulty market assumptions, and outright fantasy to convince a slim majority that this major expansion of government somehow will reduce federal spending. This legislation is just the next step towards universal, single payer healthcare, which many see as a human right. Of course, this “right” must be produced by the labor of other people, meaning theft and coercion by government is necessary to produce and distribute it.

Those who understand Austrian economic theory know that this new model of healthcare will cause major problems down the road, as it has in every nation that ignores economic realities. The more government involves itself in medicine, the worse healthcare will get: quality of care will diminish as the system struggles to contain rising costs, while shortages and long waiting times for treatment will become more and more commonplace.

Consider what would happen if car insurance worked the way health insurance does. What if it was determined that gasoline was a right, and should be covered by your car insurance policy? Perhaps every gas station would have to hire a small army of bureaucrats to file reimbursement claims to insurance companies for every tank of gas sold! What would that kind of system do to the costs of running a gas station? How would that affect the prices of both gasoline and car insurance? Yet this is exactly the type of system Congress is now expanding in health insurance. In a free market system, health insurance would serve as true insurance against serious injuries or illness, not as a convoluted system of third party payments for routine doctor visits and every minor illness.

While proponents of this reform continue to defy all logic and reason by claiming it will save money, I worry about cataclysmic economic events. Already investors are more reluctant to buy US Treasuries, fearing that the healthcare bill, along with other spending, will cause government debt to explode to default levels. I had the opportunity last week to address my concerns with both Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, especially about the potential for the coming serious inflation. I am not optimistic that these important decision makers truly understand what is coming, why it is coming, and how best to deal with it.

The Federal Reserve finds itself in an unprecedented and unenviable position. To keep up with government spending and corporate irresponsibility, it has increased the monetary base by nearly $1.5 trillion since September of 2008. Excess bank reserves remain at historically high levels, and the Fed's balance sheet has ballooned to over $2 trillion. If the Fed pulls this excess liquidity out of the system, it risks collapsing banks that rely on the newly created money. However, if the Fed fails to pull this excess liquidity out of the system we risk tipping into hyperinflation. This is where central banking inevitably has led us.

The idea that a handful of brilliant minds can somehow steer an economy is fatal to economic growth and stability. The Soviet Union's economy failed because of its central economic planning, and the U.S. economy will suffer the same fate if we continue down the path toward more centralized control. We need to bring back sound money and free markets- yes, even in healthcare- if we hope to soften the economic blows coming our way.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Take Back the GOP - A Ron Paul supporter made video of recent past and the future of the GOP

Posted by Greg Chamberlain at ThePresident.Com

As United States Congressman Ron Paul ran for high office in the 2008 presidential election, the observant and informed electorate witnessed a media blackout on Ron Paul, despite the size and scope of his grassroots initiated campaign successes. Dr. Paul also endured a blackout by his own party, which pretends to be "Conservative", when Ron Paul is considered by the informed to be THE MOST CONSERVATIVE member of Congress. One just needs enough time to study his distinguished voting record to come to that final conclusion.

This video below was produced by a supporter of Ron Paul and revisits moments of the recent past referenced above as well as the future of the GOP.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Ron Paul Reveals Plan To Eliminate The Middle Class!

Congressman Paul asks Laurence Ball, Larry Meyer, Marvin Goodspeed and John Taylor about inflation and the government's role in the value of money.

Ron Paul questions Ben Bernanke

At a House Financial Services hearing on Thursday, March 25, 2010, Congressman Ron Paul spoke on the recent court ruling requiring Fed transparency and questioned Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke concerning the Fed's balance sheet and price fixing.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Is Health-Care Reform Unconstitutional? - Analysis by Judge Andrew Napolitano

House Financial Services Committee hearing - Ron Paul Questions Geithner on Austrian economic theory

What part of Austrian economic theory don't you agree with?

During a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, Congressman Paul questioned Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Austrian economic theory and government's creation of moral hazard.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Ron Paul weighs in on the impact of health-care legislation on Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard with David Asman

Healthcare Reform Passes - Essay By Ron Paul

Healthcare Reform Passes - Essay By Ron Paul

Following months of heated public debate and aggressive closed-door negotiations, Congress finally cast a historic vote on healthcare late Sunday evening. It was truly a sad weekend on the House floor as we witnessed further dismantling of the Constitution, disregard of the will of the people, explosive expansion of the reach of government, unprecedented corporate favoritism, and the impending end of quality healthcare as we know it.

Those in favor of this bill touted their good intentions of ensuring quality healthcare for all Americans, as if those of us against the bill are against good medical care. They cite fanciful statistics of deficit reduction, while simultaneously planning to expand the already struggling medical welfare programs we currently have. They somehow think that healthcare in this country will be improved by swelling our welfare rolls and cutting reimbursement payments to doctors who are already losing money. It is estimated that thousands of doctors will be economically forced out of the profession should this government fuzzy math actually try to become healthcare reality. No one has thought to ask what good mandatory health insurance will be if people can’t find a doctor.

Legislative hopes and dreams don’t always stand up well against economic realities.

Frustratingly, this legislation does not deal at all with the real reasons access to healthcare is a struggle for so many – the astronomical costs. If tort reform was seriously discussed, if the massive regulatory burden on healthcare was reduced and reformed, if the free market was allowed to function and apply downward pressure on healthcare costs as it does with everything else, perhaps people wouldn’t be so beholden to insurance companies in the first place. If costs were lowered, more people could simply pay for what they need out of pocket, as they were able to do before government got so involved. Instead, in the name of going after greedy insurance companies, the federal government is going to make people even more beholden to them by mandating that everyone buy their product! Hefty fines are due from anyone found to have committed the heinous crime of not being a customer of a health insurance company. We will need to hire some 16,500 new IRS agents to police compliance with all these new mandates and administer various fines. So in government terms, this is also a jobs bill. Never mind that this program is also likely to cost the private sector some 5 million jobs.

Of course, the most troubling aspect of this bill is that it is so blatantly unconstitutional and contrary to the ideals of liberty. Nowhere in the constitution is there anything approaching authority for the Federal government to do any of this. The founders would have been horrified at the idea of government forcing citizens to become consumers of a particular product from certain government approved companies. 38 states are said to already be preparing legal and constitutional challenges to this legislation, and if the courts stand by their oaths, they will win. Protecting the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, should be the court’s responsibility. Citizens have a responsibility over their own life, but they also have the liberty to choose how they will live and protect their lives. Healthcare choices are a part of liberty, another part that is being stripped away. Government interference in healthcare has already infringed on choices available to people, but rather than getting out of the way, it is entrenching itself, and its corporatist cronies, even more deeply.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Congressman Paul Discusses Healthcare Reform on Fox Business News with Stuart Varney

Congressman Ron Paul and Stuart Varney discuss the problems with the healthcare reform bill on Sunday March 21, 2010.

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Who wants to kill Ron Paul's HR 1207 bill to audit The Fed? - See who at Maplight.Org

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

How to get your own Ron Paul Commercial on national TV for $100

posted by Greg Chamberlain

Slate's Seth Stevenson exposes a Google service that is still almost underground. It allows for users to buy national television commercials for as little as $100.

I am assuming that armed with this information, Ron Paul supporters will be producing their own advertisements and running them on national TV.

In the Ron Paul 2008 Campaign, the best Ron Paul commercials were made by supporters and posted to YouTube. In fact, as I was watching the official campaign ads (used on TV) vs. the supporter made commercial ideas (that never made it to TV), the supporter made ads were the best. By FAR!

I kept calling the powers that be to consider running certain supporter made youtube videos as campaign commercials. It never happened, to my knowledge. Maybe next time. It would sure save the campaign money so more ads could be bought.

This time, I suppose certain supporters will be logging into to promote their favorite candidate.

Why 'the Hurt Locker' Hurts -This year's Best Picture Oscar went to a movie about America at its worst - By Jack Hunter (a.k.a. The Southern Avenger)

by Jack Hunter

The Oscar for Best Picture this year went to Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker, and rightfully so. It was a great movie with a powerful message. But what was the message? Was it a pro-war one, as some critics claim, or an anti-war one as others declare? Neither. Regardless of its political slant, one thing remains clear: The Hurt Locker is about war -- and war is awful.

The Hurt Locker follows a unit of Army specialists whose daily, often deadly mission is to defuse and dispose of "IEDs" (improvised explosive devices) placed by insurgents along roads, in cars, and inside the bodies of murdered children -- and pretty much anywhere else imaginable. The group of specialists is led by Staff Sgt. William James (Jeremy Renner, also nominated for best actor). James' somewhat reckless, cowboy attitude is unnerving to his fellow soldiers, whose main concern is simply surviving each mission. Without getting into too many of the gory details (and scenes that will disturb and stay with the viewer), The Hurt Locker is a story about American soldiers who, in dealing with inhumanity every day, become satisfied with just making it through another one.

The characters in this film do not talk about "victory" or "winning" or the politics of the situation in which they find themselves. Indeed, given the everyday situations these soldiers experience, notions of victory seem almost laughable. The closest thing to political commentary occurs when an Iraqi taxi driver is manhandled by American soldiers; Renner's character remarks, "If he wasn't an insurgent, he sure the hell is now."

Former CIA terrorism expert Michael Scheuer recently criticized "Obama's brass" for "continuing to reassuringly chant the Bush-Clinton-Bush lie to Americans that Islamists attack us because of our way of life, not because of our interventionism." Though still hard for some Americans to comprehend, Scheuer's observation that U.S. foreign military intervention breeds Islamic terrorists would not be considered controversial, but fairly obvious, to the soldiers in this film.

The film's intention is to make us think about the Iraq war in realistic terms, and it accomplishes this as much as any Hollywood production possibly could. Writing for the Japan Times, film critic Giovanni Fazio explains the hopelessness of The Hurt Locker: "The whole question of 'why we should/shouldn't be in Iraq' is practically a moot point. American soldiers walk down devastated streets ... count the days until their tour is up, and view every Iraqi they see as a potential threat. Iraqis, glimpsed in windows and doorways, are just as wary of the Americans, viewing them with fear, curiosity, or hostile intent. The gulf between them is immense. All that neocon talk about 'flowers in the streets' and 'an Iraqi Marshall Plan' now seems like so much la-la faerie-land head-tripping. The only goal left seems to be -- survive."

Indeed. It is not the soldier's job to ask questions. Soldiers simply do their duty, and hopefully, survive. Asking questions is our job. When leaving the theater after seeing this movie in July, my first question was "Was Iraq worth all that?"

Virtually everything we were told about our reasons for invading Iraq -- Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to the US -- turned out to be untrue. Though there is plenty of evidence to suggest the Bush administration had been less than forthright from the beginning, let's just say, for argument's sake, that the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war had been a succession of honest mistakes. Why do so many continue to still say the Iraq war was worth it? If this is true, then any war our government can possibly conceive of could be considered "worth it."

Americans too often tend to justify war for its own sake. As citizens we neglect our important role of questioning our government, and that neglect has translated into too many de facto endorsements of the reckless use of our military. It seems we would rather eternally send more soldiers into even more "hurt lockers" than confront and deal with gross government incompetence on foreign policy. If we cannot admit Iraq is a mistake, it's hard to imagine Americans admitting any war is a mistake.

Typically couched in a vague context of yellow ribbons, waving flags, and political rhetoric, questions of war become questions of patriotism in the most wrong-headed ways imaginable. If our government pushes for government healthcare or stimulus spending, there is no end to the questioning. But if our government decides to go to war, too many Americans assume that it is their patriotic "duty" to support those wars without question. This is obscene, as the only thing standing between a soldier and a bad government decision is the American public. With the invasion of Iraq, Americans did not "support the troops" -- we needlessly abused them. The Hurt Locker is a movie about that abuse.

Connect Direct with Jack Hunter at SouthernAvenger.Com

Friday, March 19, 2010

Government should protect rights, not divvy up the loot.

posted by Greg Chamberlain

Ron Paul speaks clearly about what a free society really is as the Congressman recently appeared on CNN's brand new show entitled John King USA to discuss topics including health care, the Tea Parties, and online politics. Ron Paul stresses that a free society protects rights, doesn't take them away. Government should protect rights, not divvy up the loot.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Ron Paul in The Atlantic - "Ron Paul on the Dodd Proposal's Treatment of the Fed"

Dr. Paul discusses Senator Chris Dodd's financial regulatory "reform" proposal in this recent interview:

The Atlantic: Dodd wants financial stability to now be an explicit function of the Fed. What do you think the outcome of that would be?

Ron Paul: Financial stability? Well you need a stable dollar to have that. You can't allow somebody to double the money supply in one year and have the financial community wondering: when is he gonna take that off the balance sheet? You don't get stability that way. It's impossible....

Go to the following link for the whole story:

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Making the Case for Free Market Economics - Congressman Paul Questions Fed Chairman Bernanke

Congressman Paul questioned Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on interest rates and the boom-bust cycle during Wednesday's House Financial Services Committee Hearing.

Message direct fromRon Paul: URGENT! Help Keep Rand on TV!!

Dear Friend,

My son Rand is running a great campaign in Kentucky. Through hard work and your support, he is winning! We have a real chance to send the most principled, limited government leader to the United States Senate in a generation.

But now, he needs you more than ever.

The big government establishment has turned on their fundraising machine to try and defeat Rand. According to media reports, Rand's challenger has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past several weeks. The sources? Disgusting! PAC's, special interests and the banking industry - all of whom are opening up their wallets for Rand's opponent.

Remember when AIG took billions of taxpayer bailout dollars not once, but twice? Well, I have it on good information that AIG's chief lobbyist just held a high dollar, big money fundraiser for Rand's rival. I am sure you can figure out why.

Rand has shrewdly purchased all the television airtime he needs from mid-April through his May 18th Primary. The commercials are produced, the voter data is being assembled and a tremendous turnout machine is being put in place.

Rand's career politician opponent is lashing out - he has turned on an attack machine of vicious distortions and outright lies. Rand is working hard to knock them back and fight for our principles.

But, Rand does not have enough money to stay on TV and fight off the establishments smear tactics over the next few weeks. Unless he gets a substantial infusion of cash, he will not be able to purchase airtime from March 24 through mid April. And with all of his opponent's lies and fear mongering, he needs your help to stay on Kentucky statewide television during this critical time.

On Tuesday, March 23, the grassroots have organized a Money Bomb for Rand. If we have a successful day, Rand will be able to purchase the airtime he needs for the next few weeks and fund the last several mail pieces he will need down the stretch. You can donate directly at Rand's website,

We need you more than ever. I dearly hope I can count on your support. We have a tremendous opportunity, and if we come together on March 23, I know we can win.

In Liberty,
Ron Paul

P.S. Please view this video.(Below) Rand's team out together, and forward it to your friends and family. Every single person's contribution counts, and anything you can do to spread the message is greatly appreciated!

Ron Paul's Opening Statement in Financial Services Hearing

Congressman Ron Paul Paul of Texas gives an opening statement at a hearing on Fed bank supervision and monetary policy. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Paul Volcker are in attendance to testify.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Congressman Paul was interviewed on Fox Business today concerning financial reform

Congressman Paul was interviewed on Fox Business today concerning financial reform where he got into great detail on many issues.

Monday, March 15, 2010

"The Fed is the lender of last resort for politicians" - Ron Paul on The Ed Show

On Monday March 16, 2010, Congressman Paul appeared on MSNBC's The ED Show to discuss Senator Dodd's financial regulatory reform bill and monetary policy.

Supporting the War Instead of the Troops - Essay by Ron Paul

Supporting the War Instead of the Troops
by United States Congressman Ron Paul of Texas' 14th District

Last week, Congress debated a resolution directing the President to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan no later than the end of this year. The Constitution gives the power to declare war to the Congress, so it is clearly appropriate for Congress to assert its voice on matters of armed conflict. In recent decades, however, Congress has defaulted on this most critical duty, essentially granting successive presidents the unilateral (and clearly unconstitutional) power to begin and end wars at will. This resolution was not expected to pass; however, the ensuing debate and floor vote served some very important purposes.

First, it was important to finally have an actual floor debate on the merits and demerits of continuing our involvement in the conflict in Afghanistan. Most congressional action regarding Afghanistan has concerned continued funding for the conflict. Thus, members of Congress have cloaked their support for an increasingly unpopular war in terms of financial support of the troops. But last week’s resolution had nothing to do with funding or defunding the war, but rather dealt directly with the wisdom of an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops (and hundreds of billions of tax dollars) in Afghanistan. Members opposing the resolution had to make their case for the ongoing loss of American lives as well as the huge expenditures required for an intractable conflict.

In my opinion, this was an impossible case to make.

Supporters of the war made the same intellectually weak arguments for continuing our occupation of a nation with a long and bloody history of resisting foreign occupation. Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.

The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 in the aftermath of Vietnam. It was intended to prevent presidents from slipping this country so easily into unwinnable wars, wars with indistinct enemies and vague goals. Unfortunately, it has had the opposite effect by literally legalizing undeclared wars for 90 days. In the case of Afghanistan, 90 days has stretched into nearly a decade. The original purpose of the initial authorization of force – to pursue those responsible for the attacks on September 11 – is no longer applicable. Al Qaeda has left Afghanistan; we are now pursuing the Taliban, who never attacked us. The Taliban certainly are not our friends, but the more of them we kill, the more their ranks grow and the stronger they become. Meanwhile, we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan and accelerating our plunge toward national bankruptcy. Whose interests do we serve by continuing this exercise in futility?

Osama Bin Laden has said many times that his strategy was to bankrupt America, by forcing us into protracted fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan. The Soviet Union learned this lesson the hard way; and ultimately was forced to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan in defeat and humiliation. This same fate may await us unless we rethink our policy and resist any escalation of our military efforts in Afghanistan. Our troops should be used for defending our country, making us safer and stronger at home- not for occupying foreign nations with no real strategy or objective.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Ron Paul on Bloomberg - Giving the Fed more power makes "no sense whatsoever."

Congressman Paul appeared on Bloomberg TV to discuss the Federal Reserve, placing the Consumer Financial Protection Agency under the Fed, and the need for government to stop intervening in the economy.

Minimal House support of Kuchinich Afghanistan Resolution - A Courageous Few Speak Out

by Greg Chamberlain

Whether you are on the Right or the Left, if you are amongst the growing number of American's who would like to end the U.S. occupation of the Middle East, you would have liked Congressman Dennis Kucinich's introduction of H Res 248. It was bill that recently did not pass that was titled "Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan". The House vote tally was 65 Yeas to 356 Nays.

This is the video he put out explaining what the bill would be.

The full text of the bill is short and can be read at

The 21 cosponsors of the bill were:
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 3/4/2010
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 3/4/2010
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 3/4/2010
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 3/4/2010
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 3/4/2010
Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] - 3/10/2010
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 3/9/2010
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 3/4/2010
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] - 3/4/2010
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 3/4/2010
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] - 3/4/2010
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 3/4/2010
Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] - 3/10/2010
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 3/4/2010
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] - 3/4/2010
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 3/4/2010
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 3/4/2010
Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1] - 3/4/2010
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 3/4/2010
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 3/9/2010
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 3/4/2010

The debate raged at times and lasted for three hours.

Here is a clip of Congressman Kucinich explaining what the intent of the bill is during the debate.

Congressman Paul addressed House of Representatives in support of Dennis Kuchinich's Afghanistan Resolution.

Congressman John Duncan addresses House of Representatives on Dennis Kucinich's Afghanistan Resolution in a speech being called "War vs. Conservatism"

A voice of the majority Nays in support of continuing the war in Afghanistan, Congressman Ted Poe of Texas, shares his opinion against Congressman Kucinich's resolution.

Barbara Lee speaks in support in Congressman Kucinich's resolution.

Perhaps the most memorable speech in support for Congressman Kucinich's bill was by Patrick Kennedy and his boisterous lambasting of the National Press Corps.

Part 22
Congressman Kucinich discusses oil and gas interests related to occupation of Afghanistan. Congressman Phil Roe follows and speaks in strong opposition against supporting Congressman Kucinich's resolution.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Census: A Little Too Personal - Essay by Ron Paul for week of March 8 2010

Census: A Little Too Personal -
Essay by Ron Paul for week of March 8 2010

Last week Congress voted to encourage participation in the 2010 census. I voted “No” on this resolution for the simple, obvious reason that the census- like so many government programs- has grown far beyond what the framers of our Constitution intended. The invasive nature of the current census raises serious questions about how and why government will use the collected information. It also demonstrates how the federal bureaucracy consistently encourages citizens to think of themselves in terms of groups, rather than as individual Americans. The not so subtle implication is that each group, whether ethnic, religious, social, or geographic, should speak up and demand its “fair share” of federal largesse.

Article I, section 2 of the Constitution calls for an enumeration of citizens every ten years, for the purpose of apportioning congressional seats among the various states. In other words, the census should be nothing more than a headcount. It was never intended to serve as a vehicle for gathering personal information on citizens.

But our voracious federal government thrives on collecting information. In fact, to prepare for the 2010 census state employees recorded GPS coordinates for every front door in the United States so they could locate individuals with greater accuracy! Once duly located, individuals are asked detailed questions concerning their name, address, race, home ownership, and whether they periodically spend time in prison or a nursing home - just to name a few examples.

From a constitutional perspective, of course, the answer to each of these questions is: “None of your business.” But the bigger question is - why government is so intent on compiling this information in the first place?

The Census Bureau claims that collected information is not shared with any federal agency; but rather is kept under lock and key for 72 years. It also claims that no information provided to census takers can be used against you by the government.

However, these promises can and have been abused in the past. Census data has been used to locate men who had not registered for the draft. Census data also was used to find Japanese-Americans for internment camps during World War II. Furthermore, the IRS has applied census information to detect alleged tax evaders. Some local governments even have used census data to check for compliance with zoning regulations.

It is not hard to imagine that information compiled by the census could be used against people in the future, despite claims to the contrary and the best intentions of those currently in charge of the Census Bureau. The government can and does change its mind about these things, and people have a right to be skeptical about government promises.

Yet there are consequences for not submitting to the census and its intrusive questions. If the form is not mailed back in time, households will experience the “pleasure” of a visit by a government worker asking the questions in person. If the government still does not get the information it wants, it can issue a fine of up to $5000.

If the federal government really wants to increase compliance with the census, it should abide by the Constitution and limit its inquiry to one simple question: How many people live here?

Friday, March 5, 2010

Ron Paul discusses CIA & Federal Reserve and need for transparency

Part I

Part II

Ron Paul on Non-Interventionism during vote on Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution

News headlines around the world report that Turkey is outraged about the House Resolution H. Res. 252 named the Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution (see full text at ),

Congressman Ron Paul made the following statement in favor of a Non-Interventionist position for the U.S. and urged his colleagues in Congress against bringing up the resolution and/or voting yes or no on the resolution.

Greg Chamberlain for The President

More Terrorist Blowback from U.S. Foreign Policy

by Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation at

Immediately after 9/11, Bush administration officials declared the motivation of the terrorists: that the terrorists hated America for its "freedom and values."

In other words, the 9/11 attacks, according to President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and other U.S. officials, had absolutely nothing to do with the boiling rage in the Middle East over U.S. foreign policy.

Sure, the U.S. government had supported Saddam Hussein, even delivering to him those infamous WMDS (see:, and had supported other corrupt, authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, such as Iran, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

Sure, the U.S. government had killed countless Iraqis during the Persian Gulf War and intentionally destroyed Iraq's water-and-sewage treatment plants during the war after a Pentagon study determined that such action would help to spread infectious illnesses among the Iraqi people. (See:

Sure, the U.S. government enforced one of the most brutal and deadly systems of sanctions in history against Iraq for more than ten years, which succeeded in contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. (See:

Sure, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright had declared to the world on "Sixty Minutes" that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children had been "worth it." (See:

Sure, the U.S. government had stationed troops near Islamic holy lands knowing that such would antagonize people of Muslim faith in the Middle East.

Sure, the U.S. government continually provided unconditional financial and military aid to the Israeli government.

But no, according to Bush, Cheney, and their cohorts, none of this had anything to do with why people in the Middle East were boiling over with rage prior to 9/11. According to them, people in the Middle East were apparently either indifferent to all this death, destruction, and humiliation at the hands of the U.S. Empire or maybe even favored it.

You see, the mindset among the neocon community has always been: The U.S. Empire is incapable of doing anything morally or legally wrong to foreigners, especially to those living in the Middle East. The Empire is good per se. And anyone who suggests that the Empire's actions motivated the terrorists is crazy, irrational, or just plain unpatriotic. Every normal-thinking American is expected to know that the Empire is all-good, all-caring, all-compassionate, all saintly, and all-godly.

One of the best examples of this mindset in the political arena took place in the first Republican Party debate in the 2008 presidential race -- the debate that launched the presidential campaign of Ron Paul. When Paul declared in the debate that the terrorists are over here because the U.S. government is over there, he was met with absolute shock by his statist opponents. In their minds, suggesting that the U.S. Empire's actions over there had motivated the terrorists was akin to heresy.

Now, let's look at the case of Najubullah Zazi , who pled guilty yesterday to terrorism-related charges in U.S. District Court in New York.

Let's examine what Zazi told the judge as to why he was motivated to commit terrorist acts against the United States: "I would sacrifice myself to bring attention to what the U.S. military was doing to civilians in Afghanistan."

Now, do you see anything about hating America's freedom and values in that statement?

Well, actually a neocon would say "Yes!" because, you see, neocons consider imperialism and interventionism to be an integral part of America's "freedom and values."

But neocons are wrong. America's heritage of freedom and values is based on the concept of individual liberty, free markets, and a constitutional republic, not an interventionist empire that glories in support of brutal regimes, sanctions and embargoes, and invasions, undeclared wars of aggression, and occupations.

Zazi's statement about what motivated him to commit terrorism against America was really no different in principle than what Ramzi Yousef, the terrorist bomber of the World Trade Center in 1993, said at his sentencing hearing two years later in U.S. federal court. He cited U.S. foreign policy, including the deadly sanctions against Iraq, not America's freedom and values, as the motivating factor behind his actions.

When neocons claim that 9/11 changed everything, they are wrong. It didn't change U.S. foreign policy at all. The invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, along with all the death and destruction they have wrought, were nothing more than a continuation of an imperialist and interventionist foreign policy, one that continues to motivate people to commit terrorist attacks against our country.

Copyright © 2010
Article Reprinted by Permission

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
He is a regular writer for The Future of Freedom Foundation's publication, Freedom Daily, and is a co-editor or contributor to the eight books that have been published by the Foundation.

Origins of the Federal Reserve - by Murray Rothbard

In many of Congressman Ron Paul's speeches, media appearances and other addresses, he often references Murray Rothbard. Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School of Economics. He was an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher.

When Congressman Paul spoke to high school students last year in Washington DC, he suggested Murray Rothbard as one of the authors that students read.

Please consider reading Origins of the Federal Reserve, just one of many articles and books written by Murray Rothbard. The very in depth article, definitely the size of a small book) can be read at the Ludwig von Mises Institute website at the following link:

From there, please dig through the Mises.Org website and gain more insight into the economic school which Ron Paul prescribes over the present U.S. practice of Keynesianism.

Greg Chamberlain for ThePresident.Com

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Ron Paul: Fed Needs to Clear the Air on its History

The Federal Reserve may grow in power under the Senate's plans for financial reform, but Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said on Washington Unplugged today that Congress has abdicated its oversight responsibilities, allowing the Fed to funnel money to whomever it pleases -- even possibly the Watergate burglars.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Regardless of whether such a plot is true, "it gives you a good reason to audit the Federal Reserve," Paul told moderator Bob Schieffer.

Paul and other legislators have blasted Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, charging he has failed to maintain sound credit markets, among other things. Paul has led a popular legislative effort to audit the Fed.

At a congressional hearing last month at which Bernanke testified, Paul charged the Federal Reserve with facilitating the Watergate burglars, as well as funneling $5.5 billion to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. Bernanke called the allegations "bizarre."

On Unplugged today, Paul said his charges are backed up by a book by former House Financial Services Committee staffer Robert Auerbach, now a professor at the University of Texas.

For the rest of the story, go to:

Monday, March 1, 2010

Bizarre Spending Habits - Essay by Ron Paul for March 1, 2010

Bizarre Spending Habits - Essay by Ron Paul for March 1, 2010

Last week I had the opportunity to bring up spending and transparency in two important hearings. On Wednesday I questioned Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on some highly questionable uses of funds at the Federal Reserve, and on Thursday I asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about exorbitant spending at the State Department.

It is extremely important to continue bringing these issues up, especially in light of our difficult economic times, when so many are out of work, as I saw up close in my district at the Oceans of Opportunity Job Fair in Galveston two weeks ago. Those who are working live with the fear of losing their jobs as they struggle to pay bills. Meanwhile, Washington is talking of increasing their taxes, something voters were promised, clearly and adamantly, would not happen in this administration.

Government also struggles with money, but the struggle centers on how to get more of your money into government coffers. Rather than expanding the Federal budget in the face of economic downturn, we should be focusing on eliminating waste and being the very best stewards of public funds that we can possibly be. Most businesses have had to streamline and cut back in order to survive, and so it is only fair for our government to do the same.

Instead, the State Department is building a $1 billion embassy in London, the most expensive ever built. The plans even include surrounding it with a moat! I asked the Secretary of State about this massive expenditure, and she claimed the funds for this were coming from the sale of other properties. If money can be saved, then save it! Don’t spend it on such an extravagant structure overseas when people back home can’t find jobs or pay bills. Not only that, but the administration has committed to doubling foreign aid. That is one promise that is likely to be kept, despite our economic crisis.

I asked Chairman Bernanke about Federal Reserve agreements with foreign central banks and if he had had any conversations about bailing out Greece, which he flatly denied. However, he recently announced that the Federal Reserve will be looking into Goldman Sachs’ derivative agreements with Greece. Goldman Sachs, as we know, has “too big to fail” status with the Fed, so it is conceivable that any Greece-related catastrophic losses at Goldman Sachs will once again be passed on to taxpayers.

Perhaps most sinister are the revelations in Robert Auerbach’s book “Deception and Abuse at the Fed” that $5.5 billion was sent to Saddam Hussein in the 80’s - money that allowed Iraq to build up its military machine to fight Iran prior to the first Gulf War, the very machine turned against our brave men and women within just a few years! I agree with Bernanke’s characterization of this – it is indeed “bizarre” to think that Americans at the Federal Reserve could engage in this type of behavior, which a some have called “criminal”. However, Professor Auerbach served as a banking committee investigator, and as an economist at the Treasury Department and at the Federal Reserve. His claims are hardly without merit. In fact, they are solidly backed by court rulings and other evidence.

The lack of accountability and transparency in our leaders on government spending is appalling. We simply must keep pressing these issues and voicing our objections if we are ever to reverse our failed policies.
Congressman Paul's official congressional website is www.House.Gov/Paul and his very active official MySpace page is www.MySpace.Com/RonPaul

Ron Paul on CNN's Cafferty File - "The Government is Broken"

Congressman Paul's official congressional website is www.House.Gov/Paul and his very active official MySpace page is www.MySpace.Com/RonPaul