Ron Paul Channel Offers Petition For Snowden Clemency

Former Congressman Ron Paul on his Ron Paul Channel is now posting a petition demanding clemency for accused NSA leaker Edward Snowden. It seems that our Constitution still says that we are to be assumed innocent until proven guilty by a trial of our peers. If you would like to sign the petition, check out the following link. Click on "Take Action" and then "Demand Clemency For Snowden." Ron Paul Channel

Who Is Ron Paul? Ron Paul on the Issues

Who is Ron Paul? Ron Paul on the issues. Is Ron Paul a Mason? President Barack Obama, Ron Paul, Gordon Brown, George Bush, George W. Bush, John McCain, and other persons of note have all been photographed giving handshakes which were later discussed online as being Masonic handshakes. Ron Paul's wife is said to be an Eastern Star and his daughters Rainbow Girls.
Party: Republican
Age: 76
Education:
Gettysburg College, B.A.
Duke University School of Medicine, M.D.
Current Position: U.S. Representative, Texas
Experience: Surgeon, Obstetrician, Gynecologist, U.S. Representative, Texas
Declared Candidacy: May 13, 2011
Website: www.ronpaul2012.com 
 Ron Paul's Faith Snapshot:

Religion/Church: Baptist

Ron Paul was raised by Lutheran parents and attended the Lutheran Church regularly during his childhood. Before deciding to pursue a medical career, for a short time Paul considered becoming a Lutheran minister. Two of Ron's brothers, David and Jerrold, are Lutheran ministers. While in college Ron Paul was married to Carol Wells an Episcopalian, and together they baptized their five children in this denomination.
Eventually the couple stopped attending the Episcopal Church and began frequenting a Baptist church in Texas. Although Paul says he is uncomfortable discussing his faith as part of his political efforts, for those who ask, he has published a statement of faith on his campaign site. According to The Washington Post, Paul and his wife currently attend First Baptist Church of Lake Jackson, Texas.
Ron Paul's Expressions of Faith:

In his statement of faith, Ron Paul writes, "My faith is a deeply private issue to me, and I don’t speak on it in great detail during my speeches because I want to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain. Let me be very clear here: I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate."
Speaking about the First Amendment, Ron Paul says, "Similarly, the mythical separation of church and state doctrine has no historical or constitutional basis. Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment ... routinely referred to "Almighty God" in their writings, including the Declaration of Independence. It is only in the last 50 years that federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression."

AN EXPERIENCED PHYSICIAN

As an OB/GYN who delivered over 4,000 babies, Ron Paul knows firsthand how precious, fragile, and in need of protection life is.
Dr. Paul’s experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn’t also advocate respecting the God-given right to life—for those born and unborn.
After being forced to witness an abortion being performed during his time in medical school, he knew from that moment on that his practice would focus on protecting life.  And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption.  And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
Because he agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.
The strength of love for liberty in our society can be judged by how we treat the most innocent among us.  It’s time to elect a President with the courage and conviction to stand up for every American’s right to life.

A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY

A nation without borders is no nation at all.
It just doesn’t make sense to fight terrorists abroad while leaving our front door unlocked.
Unfortunately, for far too long, neither major political party has had the courage to do what is necessary to tackle the problem.
Instead, we’re presented with so-called “solutions” that involve amnesty proposals or further restricting Americans’ civil liberties through programs like REAL ID.
Ron Paul opposes both of these schemes and believes they will only make illegal immigration and the problems associated with it worse.  He has been proud to see states exercising their Tenth Amendment rights and protecting their citizens by refusing to comply with the unconstitutional REAL ID law.
While the federal government neglects its constitutional responsibility to protect our borders, it continues to push mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care to illegal immigrants at a time when the states are drowning in debt.   This must not be tolerated any longer.
Like most Americans, Ron Paul also understands just how valuable legal immigration is to our country.
Immigrants who want to work hard, obey our laws, and live the American Dream have always been great assets.

COMMON SENSE REFORMS

If elected President, Ron Paul will work to implement the following common sense reforms:
* Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.
* No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.
* Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration.  As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.
* End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.
* Protect Lawful Immigrants – As President, Ron Paul will encourage legal immigration by streamlining the entry process without rewarding lawbreakers.
As long as our borders remain wide open, the security and safety of the American people are at stake.
As President, Ron Paul will address immigration by fighting for effective solutions that protect our nation, uphold the rule of law, and respect every American citizen’s civil liberties.

THE FED: DISHONEST, IMMORAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL

There is no greater threat to the security and prosperity of the United States today than the out-of-control, secretive Federal Reserve.
Imagine that parents, overwhelmed by debt and months behind on their bills, sent their spendthrift teenagers out each weekend for a night on the town with credit cards and blank checks.  Would anyone be surprised if this family never got their finances under control?
Yet that is how a government which is almost 15 trillion dollars in the red behaves by entrusting taxpayers’ financial futures to the Federal Reserve, which pumps money into the economy whenever it chooses and makes secret deals with Wall Street executives, foreign central banks, and other politically-connected insiders without any significant oversight from Congress.
Snuck through Congress on Christmas Eve in 1913, the Federal Reserve Act established the Fed as America’s central bank.  The Fed essentially creates money out of thin air, manipulates interest rates, and interferes with the free market.  By doing so, the Fed fuels our economy’s boom-bust cycle and has helped devalue our dollar by over 95%.
According to the Minneapolis Federal Reserve branch’s own website, what you could buy with $1.00 in 1913 would now cost you $22.55.
Although Congress and the Treasury helped bring about the housing bubble and financial collapse with legislation, regulations, and keeping the funds flowing to reckless institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Fed was the main cause of the crisis.  Its interference in setting interest rates distorted the market, and its status as the “lender of last resort” ensured banks could hook individuals and businesses for loans on projects that weren’t in as high demand as forecasters believed.
When the crash occurred, common sense dictated a change in policy.  But the Federal Reserve only increased its lending and intervention to historic highs.
While selling Americans a bill of goods that the economy would never recover without unprecedented bailouts, we now know that at the peak of its “emergency lending,” the Fed was providing nearly 90% of its discount window loans to foreign banks!  This included making over 70 loans to a bank partially owned by the Bank of Libya.
The Fed was able to get away with these actions because Congress lacks the authority to thoroughly and completely audit it.  In fact, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke appeared before Congress early in the crisis and was able to refuse a direct request to disclose which institutions were receiving trillions of taxpayer dollars from the Fed.

IN THE SHADOWS

It was only thanks to overwhelming grassroots support for Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed legislation that we have been granted limited insight into the Fed’s operations.  If it hadn’t been for last minute efforts to water down his bill, we would have learned even more about the Fed’s actions before and during the crisis.

TIME FOR SOUND MONEY

As President, Ron Paul will work for passage of comprehensive audit legislation, and he will also fight to legalize sound money so Americans will have alternatives to the Fed’s inflated paper money.
Ultimately, he will lead the charge to end the dishonest, immoral, and unconstitutional Federal Reserve System, enabling America to take a giant step toward economic security, financial responsibility, and lasting prosperity.



 Who Is Ron Paul? Ron Paul On The Issues, Ron Paul Issues

Ron Paul On The Debt Crisis

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, the Congress is concerned about the debt, the people are concerned about the debt, the markets are concerned about the debt, the world is concerned about the debt and what we’re doing here today, because we live with a world fiat dollar standard and so the whole world is engulfed in this very serious problem.

I do not understand, though, that if the debt is the problem – and I agree, the debt is the problem – that for us to come here and raise the debt by 2.4 trillion dollars is the solution. That just baffles me. I think it’s a distraction, because when a country gets indebted to the degree that we’re indebted, the country always defaults. This is historic, especially if the country is a significant country. On occasion, a small country will quit sending the checks and they’ll go bankrupt; we’re not going to do that, but we will default because the debt is unsustainable.

This year it is said that we have a debt increase of 1.6 trillion dollars, but that’s not true. If you count what we borrow from the pension funds, the Social Security and highway funds, it’s 2 trillion dollars. But if you include the increase in the entitlement obligation, it’s 5 trillion dollars. So this is a huge, huge problem.

But the argument here is, how do you default. And it is said that if we don’t raise the debt limit, we’re going to default and not send out the checks. I don’t believe that for a minute, somehow or another the checks are going to go out.

But if you really wanted to live within the technicalities of law, there’s a very simple thing you could do. We owe the Federal Reserve 1.6 trillion dollars. Well, that’s not a real debt – they bought those treasury bills with money out of thin air. We could just write that off or quit paying the interest, tide ourselves over and get down to serious business to cut back and live within our means. And that would be a solution. But to increase the national debt will only encourage another type of default, and that’s what we’re going through. We’re engaged in the most difficult and a very bad way of defaulting; and that is through the destruction of the currency. Today we have an inflation rate of 9%, and that is defaulting. So if a government can default and print money, and if they can get a 50% inflation rate over a period of time, they’ve cut that debt in half. That is the goal, that is what’s happening, and that is very, very serious.

Just in these last 3 years in dealing with this crisis, the dollar has been devalued 50% against gold, and gold, of course, is the best measurement of the value of a currency and it’s been that way for thousands of years and it cannot be denied because it’s economic law. So we are defaulting, and when the American people go out and start buying goods and services, like they are now, they’re recognizing it costs a lot of money. So right now, we’re in the early stages of rampant inflation, which means we’re going to be hit with higher prices and higher interest rates. That is going to be a tax. So I see the only solution, and that is to cut spending.

Now the reason we don’t cut spending is one side loves entitlements, and the other side loves war. And even this token attempt of a 100 billion dollars of cuts when we have this huge, huge deficit… But there’s no mention of cutting military spending. I don’t want to cut defense spending. This military spending doesn’t defend us, it makes things worse.

Our problem in this country doesn’t come only from the Congress, it comes from the people! The people still have a strong appetite for big government programs. They’re not willing to cut, they think government can take care of us from cradle to grave, and that we can be the policeman of the world. So someday, we as a country, we as a people, and we as a Congress, will have to say, “What should the role of government be?” The founders had a pretty strong suggestion, they wrote a constitution that said the government should be very limited, and the government should be protecting our liberties and providing national defense and a sound currency. We don’t do any of that. We’ve embarked on a course that was destined to end badly and this is where we are today.

So if we don’t understand this, this default will not be because we don’t send out the checks – we will send out the checks – it will be defaulted on because people will get their money back, or they will get their Social Security checks, and it won’t buy anything.

That is much, much worse than facing the fact that we not raise the debt limit and work our way out of this. That is devastating economically, and it’s devastating politically, because if we just saw a taste of what happens, how the anger is built when you see other countries in Europe now defaulting and can’t pay their bills. So this is more significant than ever, because we provide the reserve currency of the world.

Ron Paul's Son Rand New US Senator From Kentucky

Dr. Rand Paul is much like his dad, popular Ron Paul, honest, smart, and independent. See http://www.randpaul2010.com/

Ron Paul's Son Running For Senate In Kentucky - Congressman Ron Paul Blog

By Kristi Keck
CNN
(CNN) -- The phrase "like father, like son" is ringing true for Texas Rep. Ron Paul.

Rand Paul says his career as a political outsider should be a plus for voters.
His son, Rand Paul, announced this week he's set his sights on the Kentucky Senate seat being vacated by retiring Republican Sen. Jim Bunning.

"I'm very worried about our country; I'm worried about the debt. I'm worried about what the debt will lead to," Paul said in an interview on CNN's "American Morning" when asked why he's jumping into the political arena. "Both sides of the aisle -- Republican and Democrat -- have been unwilling and afraid to address the deficit, and someone's got to."

The Kentucky Senate race is particularly high-profile since a seat held by a Republican will now be up for grabs.

Paul is expected to compete in the GOP primary next year with Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson. The winner will face either state Attorney General Jack Conway or Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo, who are seeking the Democratic nomination. Watch more on Rand Paul's Senate aspirations »

While Grayson is considered the frontrunner in the Republican primary, "Paul will make things interesting for sure," said Al Cross, a veteran political writer in Kentucky and director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky.

"Trey Grayson is a very capable person, has a great deal of potential, but he has never really run a high-profile, hardball race, and I think that Paul is going to have the resources and the determination to hold his feet to the fire when it comes to issues," Cross said.

Some Republicans aren't quite sure about Grayson, Cross noted, because he started his political life as a Democrat.

"[Paul] will have an impact in this primary. He will have money to spend. He will have a message to deliver, some people will find him a more authentic Republican conservative candidate than Grayson," Cross said.

Paul, however, has no traditional political base in Kentucky, and Grayson is more of a mainstream conservative like the state's other senator, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Paul, like his father, is a strict constitutionalist who believes in traditional Republican principles like small government and a free-market approach to the economy. And another thing he has in common with his father: He's also a doctor. Paul has worked as an eye surgeon in Bowling Green, Kentucky, for the past 18 years. He says his being a political outsider should be a plus for voters.

"You need people outside of government. If your primary goal is to continue your career, you tend to do things that are good for you, but not necessarily good for the country," he said.

He's also been a vocal advocate for smaller government and is the chairman of Kentucky Taxpayers United. He says the government needs to stop borrowing money, because "we cannot borrow our way into prosperity."

"For example, with the stimulus project, my little town -- they brought $1 million to. Republicans and Democrats clapped their hands and said, 'We have $1 million!' But no one asked the hard question: Where did that million dollars come from?

"If we have to borrow it from China, Japan or foreign countries, is that good for our country to go further and further in debt to build a new ballpark or a new a parking garage? We have to understand where does the money come from. But debt leads to inflation," he said.

Instead, he said, people need to look at the country's economic problems in the same way they view their personal budget.

"I have a lot of older patients who have grandkids. They come in to me, and I say, 'Would you borrow money to buy a gift for your grandkids?' No, you pay for gifts out of your savings. But you don't borrow money to give people cash for clunkers.

"I don't know how you get rich as a country by borrowing money and giving it to people and saying, 'Go to the mall and spend it,' and somehow we're supposed to be richer as a country," he said, echoing the sentiment his father shared during his 2008 presidential bid.

Ron Paul said his son's political aspiration came as no surprise to him. "He's been interested in politics for a long time," he said on "American Morning." "I think the family sort of expected that he would be the first one to get to politics like this."

His advice for his son: "Don't go with conventional wisdom."

"If you go with conventional wisdom and the usual advisers, they're about 10 or 15 years behind the people. And I think that's what you're sensing with these town hall meetings," Rep. Paul said.

"People, though, in a politician, they want to trust you. They want to like you, and they want to trust you. But it's up to the politician who's running to stand for something, and that's what energizes your base, your supporters, and raising your money."

Ron Paul, who has served in Congress for 12 years, first sought the presidential nomination in 1988, running as a Libertarian. He ran as a Republican in the 2008 primaries, and while his campaign didn't pick up much mainstream steam, he did attract a large group of enthusiastic followers who had a reputation for voicing support for their candidate online. His presidential run was centered on a grass-roots effort that conducted Internet drives for funds.

Name recognition probably won't help Rand Paul much, Cross said. Ron Paul doesn't have a high profile in the state because Kentucky's Republican presidential primary took place after Sen. John McCain had already become the party's presumptive nominee.

But if Ron Paul, who has proved to be a successful fundraiser, tells his supporters that the election of his son would send a message to the GOP that it needs to get back to its core conservative principles, "that's a pretty strong message that I think would motivate a lot of contributors," Cross said.
Samsung LN46C630 HDTV Review - Save Hundreds

Tithes and Offerings - Free King James Bible

Sarah Palin for President

Samsung LN40C630 HDTV - Massive Savings

Salvation - How to be Born Again

Freelance Writer Websites

Natural Cancer Cure - Free Newsletter

LN40C630 - Save Hundreds

Free King James Bibles Request

Forex Ambush Scam Review - Almost Perfect Record

Copy and Profit

Acne Home Remedies - How to Get Rid of Acne Fast

Congressman Ron Paul on Washington's Dirtiest Secrets by Dr. Mercola

There are many reasons why I support Ron Paul, but a major one has to do with his devotion to your freedom of choice.
He is a shining example of how one solitary voice can inspire necessary change. Dr. Paul is nearly single-handedly leading the charge against the perverted relationship between multi-national corporations and the U.S. government.

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist who seeks to minimize abuse by government; therefore, he is not a very popular figure in many corporate circles. Nevertheless, there is an increasing groundswell of public support for him, which the completion of the 2008 presidential election did nothing to deter.

He is in the news every bit as much now as while he was campaigning—actually probably more so now, as a growing number of Americans are realizing the fatal flaws in our existing health care system.

With the recent focus on health care reform, I believe Dr. Paul’s ideas are spot-on in bringing about the changes this country really needs.
Government-Run Health Care—REALITY CHECK

Ron Paul is one of the few physicians serving in Congress, and one of even fewer Congressmen who are trying to decrease government involvement in your health care.

In terms of your health, Ron Paul:

•Wants to expand your ability to use alternative medicine and new treatments
•Opposes legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers
•Believes the government should never have the power to force you to get vaccinations
Sound familiar? These are things I’ve been passionate about for decades. Ron Paul could almost be my personal spokesman!

One of the courageous actions Dr. Paul has taken was introducing the Health Freedom Protection Act to Congress in 2005, a bill that would strongly and positively affect Mercola.com and many other natural health organizations, and the field of natural health in general. The bill would curb restrictions imposed by the FDA and FTC regarding health claims for dietary supplements.

Dr. Paul indeed favors health care reform, but NOT in its present form—meaning the “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” the bill that is the focus of debate right now in the Senate.

This bill could cost the U.S. nearly two trillion dollars.

And What Exactly Would Those Two Trillion Dollars Buy You?

a. The limiting of unnecessary, ineffective treatments and the elimination of fraud

b. The lowering of exorbitant health insurance premiums, along with incentives for physicians to provide charitable care to the poor

c. The provision for effective, inexpensive, holistic treatment alternatives and the establishment of new nutritional guidelines that actually make sense

d. Promotion of health instead of preoccupation with disease

e. None of the above

If you answered “e,” you get an A.
The fact is, Big Pharma has a choke hold over our government, which is most likely why you do not see any discussions about these very real, underlying problems.
The fact that our political entities are so subject to influence by special interests, combined with the monumental amounts of money big corporations spend to manipulate them, means that a government-run program cannot fix America’s broken health care system.

Because the government is PART OF America’s broken health care system.

In fact, the “solution” might even be worse than the problem. Already many of your personal freedoms are being threatened at the hands of the government, and there is language in this new reform that gives the federal government unprecedented power to meddle in your personal health care affairs.

What’s REALLY needed is a radical change in consciousness about what health and health care really is.

As long as your focus is on drugs and surgical interventions, you will never see the fundamental changes that are so desperately needed. It can only be accomplished by a radical change in how you, and how society as a whole, think about health.
Old Geezers Unite!

David Brooks, columnist for the New York Times, published a great article entitled “The Geezers’ Crusade”[i] which addresses the question of who and what is needed to propel social change.

Brooks predicts that the changes we need won’t be coming from Washington, and he makes the case that our eldest generation—not our youth—are in a unique position to be the catalyst for this change.

In order to make this argument, he cites the following research findings:

•Your brain is capable of creating new connections and even new neurons throughout your life, which refutes outdated views that old people are no longer educable due to declining brain function.
•People report being happier, more outgoing, more self-confident and warmer as they pass from middle age into old age, and advanced age affords them a better ability to grasp “the big picture.”
•The elderly tend to want to provide for future generations, and they are happier after doing so. Seniors who perform service for the young have more positive lives and better marriages than those who don’t.
If you’ve ever spent any time listening to a wise grandparent or other elder, you’ve probably already witnessed the wisdom that comes with age.

However, Brooks says that the odd thing is, in politics, the opposite behaviors are true.

Politicians by and large, are taking valuable resources from younger generations—in the form of money, freedom, and opportunity.

The federal government now spends seven times as much on the elderly as it does on children. In the private sphere, seniors provide wonderful gifts to their grandchildren. But in the public arena, they take them away.

Brooks writes:

“Spontaneous social movements can make the unthinkable thinkable, and they can do it quickly. It now seems clear that the only way the U.S. is going to avoid an economic crisis is if the oldsters take it upon themselves to arise and force change.

The young lack the political power. Only the old can lead a generativity revolution—millions of people demanding changes in health care spending and the retirement age to make life better for their grandchildren.

It may

seem unrealistic—to expect a generation to organize around the cause of non-selfishness. But in the private sphere, you see it every day. Old people now have the time, the energy and, with the Internet, the tools to organize.”

We often hear that children are our future. And the expanding enthusiasm Dr. Paul is generating among the youth in this country is truly remarkable.

Dr. Paul says:

“I think [my support] is rapidly growing, and I go to the college campuses frequently and always get large crowds out, and the young people are really very receptive to these views. I think that’s very important.

I don’t think true revolutions occur if you don’t have the next generation ready to accept those ideas. And it doesn’t mean that only young people do it, but if you get the support of the young people, it means they know there is something wrong with the system. They have to think about the change in the system and the reception there is very, very good.”

The younger generations are going to be making tough, critical decisions in the future, which affect the world. But perhaps the elderly are even more important in leading them where they need to go.

There is something that every one of you can do to move us onto the right path.

There are 1.5 million people who receive this newsletter. We CAN make a huge difference. If only a small fraction of you spread this message within your little community of family, friends, and coworkers, just imagine what we can accomplish together.
Samsung LN46C630 HDTV Review - Save Hundreds

Tithes and Offerings - Free King James Bible

Sarah Palin for President

Samsung LN40C630 HDTV - Massive Savings

Salvation - How to be Born Again

Freelance Writer Websites

Natural Cancer Cure - Free Newsletter

LN40C630 - Save Hundreds

Free King James Bibles Request

Forex Ambush Scam Review - Almost Perfect Record

Copy and Profit

Acne Home Remedies - How to Get Rid of Acne Fast

Ron Paul on Haiti: Condolences YES, Occupation NO

Ron Paul on Haiti: Condolences YES, Occupation NO

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement in Opposition to H Res 1021, Condolences to Haiti
January 21, 2010

I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution. Certainly I am moved by the horrific destruction in Haiti and would without hesitation express condolences to those who have suffered and continue to suffer. As a medical doctor, I have through my career worked to alleviate the pain and suffering of others.

Unfortunately, however, this resolution does not simply express our condolences, but rather it commits the US government “to begin the reconstruction of Haiti” and affirms that “the recovery and long-term needs of Haiti will require a sustained commitment by the United States….” I do not believe that a resolution expressing our deep regret and sorrow over this tragedy should be used to commit the United States to a “long-term” occupation of Haiti during which time the US government will provide for the reconstruction of that country.

I am concerned over the possibility of an open-ended US military occupation of Haiti and this legislation does nothing to alleviate my concerns. On the contrary, when this resolution refers to the need for a long term US plan for Haiti, I see a return to the failed attempts by the Clinton and Bush Administrations to establish Haiti as an American protectorate. Already we are seeing many argue that this kind of humanitarian mission is a perfect fit for the US military. I do not agree.

Certainly I would support and encourage the efforts of the American people to help the people of Haiti at this tragic time. I believe that the American people are very generous on their own and fear that a US government commitment to reconstruct Haiti may actually discourage private contributions. Mr. Speaker, already we see private US citizens and corporations raising millions of dollars for relief and reconstruction of Haiti. I do not believe the US government should get in the way of these laudable efforts. I do express my condolences but I unfortunately must urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution committing the United States government to rebuild Haiti.
Samsung LN46C630 HDTV Review - Save Hundreds

Tithes and Offerings - Free King James Bible

Sarah Palin for President

Samsung LN40C630 HDTV - Massive Savings

Salvation - How to be Born Again

Freelance Writer Websites

Natural Cancer Cure - Free Newsletter

LN40C630 - Save Hundreds

Free King James Bibles Request

Forex Ambush Scam Review - Almost Perfect Record

Copy and Profit

Acne Home Remedies - How to Get Rid of Acne Fast

Be Prepared for the Worst by Congressman Ron Paul

Any number of pundits claim that we have now passed the worst of the recession. Green shoots of recovery are supposedly popping up all around the country, and the economy is expected to resume growing soon at an annual rate of 3% to 4%. Many of these are the same people who insisted that the economy would continue growing last year, even while it was clear that we were already in the beginning stages of a recession.

A false recovery is under way. I am reminded of the outlook in 1930, when the experts were certain that the worst of the Depression was over and that recovery was just around the corner. The economy and stock market seemed to be recovering, and there was optimism that the recession, like many of those before it, would be over in a year or less. Instead, the interventionist policies of Hoover and Roosevelt caused the Depression to worsen, and the Dow Jones industrial average did not recover to 1929 levels until 1954. I fear that our stimulus and bailout programs have already done too much to prevent the economy from recovering in a natural manner and will result in yet another asset bubble.

Anytime the central bank intervenes to pump trillions of dollars into the financial system, a bubble is created that must eventually deflate. We have seen the results of Alan Greenspan's excessively low interest rates: the housing bubble, the explosion of subprime loans and the subsequent collapse of the bubble, which took down numerous financial institutions. Rather than allow the market to correct itself and clear away the worst excesses of the boom period, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury colluded to put taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars. Those banks and financial institutions that took on the largest risks and performed worst were rewarded with billions in taxpayer dollars, allowing them to survive and compete with their better-managed peers.

This is nothing less than the creation of another bubble. By attempting to cushion the economy from the worst shocks of the housing bubble's collapse, the Federal Reserve has ensured that the ultimate correction of its flawed economic policies will be more severe than it otherwise would have been. Even with the massive interventions, unemployment is near 10% and likely to increase, foreigners are cutting back on purchases of Treasury debt and the Federal Reserve's balance sheet remains bloated at an unprecedented $2 trillion. Can anyone realistically argue that a few small upticks in a handful of economic indicators are a sign that the recession is over?

What is more likely happening is a repeat of the Great Depression. We might have up to a year or so of an economy growing just slightly above stagnation, followed by a drop in growth worse than anything we have seen in the past two years. As the housing market fails to return to any sense of normalcy, commercial real estate begins to collapse and manufacturers produce goods that cannot be purchased by debt-strapped consumers, the economy will falter. That will go on until we come to our senses and end this wasteful government spending.

Government intervention cannot lead to economic growth. Where does the money come from for Tarp (Treasury's program to buy bad bank paper), the stimulus handouts and the cash for clunkers? It can come only from taxpayers, from sales of Treasury debt or through the printing of new money. Paying for these programs out of tax revenues is pure redistribution; it takes money out of one person's pocket and gives it to someone else without creating any new wealth. Besides, tax revenues have fallen drastically as unemployment has risen, yet government spending continues to increase. As for Treasury debt, the Chinese and other foreign investors are more and more reluctant to buy it, denominated as it is in depreciating dollars.

Healthcare Plan Based on Economic Fantasy by Congressman Ron Paul

As the healthcare debate rages on, there is one reality that even the proponents of this hostile takeover of healthcare by government cannot ignore – and that is money. The government simply does not have the money for a new, expansive, public healthcare plan. The country is in a deep recession that will deepen even further with the coming collapse of the commercial real estate market. The last thing we need is for government to increase and expand taxes to pay for another damaging, wasteful program. Foreigners are becoming less enthusiastic about buying our debt, and creating another open-ended welfare program when we cannot pay for what is already in place, will not help. Champions of socialized medicine want to tax the rich, tax businesses that already cannot afford to provide health plans to employees, and tax people who don’t want to participate in the government’s scheme by buying an approved healthcare plan. Presumably, all these taxes are to induce compliance. This is not freedom, nor will it improve healthcare.


There are limits to how much government can tax before it kills the host. Even worse, when government attempts to subsidize prices, it has the net effect of inflating them instead. The economic reality is that you cannot distort natural market pressures without unintended consequences. Market forces would drive prices down. Government meddling negates these pressures, adds regulatory compliance costs and layers of bureaucracy, and in the end, drives prices up.

The non-partisan CBO estimates that the healthcare plan will cost almost a trillion dollars over the next ten years. But government crystal balls always massively underestimate costs. It is not hard to imagine the final cost being two or three times the estimates, even though the estimates are bad enough.


It is still surreal that in a free country we are talking only about HOW government should fix healthcare, rather than WHY government should fix healthcare. This should be between doctors and patients. But this has been the discussion since the 60’s and the inception of Medicare and Medicaid, when government first began intervening to keep costs down and make sure everyone had access. The result of Medicaid/Medicare price controls and regulatory burden has been to drive more doctors out of the system – making it more difficult for the poor and the elderly to receive quality care! Seemingly, there are no failed government programs, only underfunded ones. If we refuse to acknowledge common sense economics, the prescription will always be the same: more government.

Make no mistake, government control and micromanagement of healthcare will hurt, not help healthcare in this country. However, if for a moment, we allowed the assumption that it really would accomplish all they claim, paying for it would still plunge the country into poverty. This solves nothing. The government, like any household struggling with bills to pay, should prioritize its budget. If the administration is serious about supporting healthcare without contributing to our skyrocketing deficits, they should fulfill promises to reduce our overseas commitments and use some of those savings to take care of Americans at home instead of killing foreigners abroad.

The leadership in Washington persists in a fantasy world of unlimited money to spend on unlimited programs and wars to garner unlimited control. But there is a fast-approaching limit to our ability to borrow, steal, and print. Acknowledging this reality is not mean-spirited or cruel. On the contrary, it could be the only thing that saves us from complete and total economic meltdown.

We Can End The Fed by Ron Paul

What unprecedented anti-Fed days these have been! We had our Audit the Fed Congressional hearing, in which the central bank – for the first time in 96 years – was put on the defensive. End the Fed was chosen as a Main Selection of the Conservative Book Club; this book, the first anti-central banking bestseller in American history, debuted at #2 on Amazon.com and #6 on the New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestseller lists.

End The Fed – which the Mises Institute's Lew Rockwell calls “readable and persuasive beyond belief” – can climb up the NYT and WSJ lists week by week, eventually reaching #1, if you help me. Please, buy a copy. Buy one for a friend or family member. Spread the word. One businessman bought copies for all his 23 employees. Others have given them to students, a favorite use of mine.


Since 1913, the Fed has had it all its own way: booms and busts, dollar depreciation, redistribution to the government and the big banks from the middle and working classes. But just as Andrew Jackson abolished the predecessor of the Fed, we too can knock over this dangerous institution. End The Fed teaches all the fascinating history, and tells us what we can do for the future. It gives the constitutional, economic, moral, and libertarian arguments against what Jackson called "the Monster."

Ever seen the Fed’s marble palace in Washington, DC, on Constitution Avenue (of all streets!)? That bunch sure knows how to live. I’ve long had a dream of being the auctioneer when the Fed is sold off for private offices, or maybe a Museum of Sound Money! Help me dull its scissors and then break them, so the Fed can’t cut down our dollar’s value. Indeed, I believe that people ought to be ashamed to work at such a place; an institution that has done so much damage to American prosperity and freedom, as well as to the freedom and prosperity of the whole world. For example, I want no more bowing and scraping to the Fed chairman when he goes to Capitol Hill to peddle his nonsense. He is just a bureaucrat, albeit a disastrous one.

Together, you and I can change things. Indeed, we must. Buy End The Fed. Get copies for those you love. Certainly get copies for those who disagree with us. For all our futures, nothing is as important as cutting the Fed down to size. Join me: let’s End the Fed.

Starve the Iranians? No! by Ron Paul

Before the House of Representatives: Statement Opposing the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, December 15, 2009

I rise in strongest opposition to this new round of sanctions on Iran, which is another significant step toward a US war on that country. I find it shocking that legislation this serious and consequential is brought up in such a cavalier manner. Suspending the normal rules of the House to pass legislation is a process generally reserved for “non-controversial” business such as the naming of post offices. Are we to believe that this House takes matters of war and peace as lightly as naming post offices?

This legislation seeks to bar from doing business in the United States any foreign entity that sells refined petroleum to Iran or otherwise enhances Iran’s ability to import refined petroleum such as financing, brokering, underwriting, or providing ships for such. Such sanctions also apply to any entity that provides goods or services that enhance Iran’s ability to maintain or expand its domestic production of refined petroleum. This casts the sanctions net worldwide, with enormous international economic implications.


Recently, the Financial Times reported that, “[i]n recent months, Chinese companies have greatly expanded their presence in Iran's oil sector. In the coming months, Sinopec, the state-owned Chinese oil company, is scheduled to complete the expansion of the Tabriz and Shazand refineries – adding 3.3 million gallons of gasoline per day.”

Are we to conclude, with this in mind, that China or its major state-owned corporations will be forbidden by this legislation from doing business with the United States? What of our other trading partners who currently do business in Iran’s petroleum sector or insure those who do so? Has anyone seen an estimate of how this sanctions act will affect the US economy if it is actually enforced?


As we have learned with US sanctions on Iraq, and indeed with US sanctions on Cuba and elsewhere, it is citizens rather than governments who suffer most. The purpose of these sanctions is to change the regime in Iran, but past practice has demonstrated time and again that sanctions only strengthen regimes they target and marginalize any opposition. As would be the case were we in the US targeted for regime change by a foreign government, people in Iran will tend to put aside political and other differences to oppose that threatening external force. Thus this legislation will likely serve to strengthen the popularity of the current Iranian government. Any opposition continuing to function in Iran would be seen as operating in concert with the foreign entity seeking to overthrow the regime.

This legislation seeks to bring Iran in line with international demands regarding its nuclear materials enrichment programs, but what is ironic is that Section 2 of HR 2194 itself violates the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which both the United States and Iran are signatories. This section states that “[i]t shall be the policy of the United States…to prevent Iran from achieving the capability to make nuclear weapons, including by supporting international diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's uranium enrichment program.” Article V of the NPT states clearly that, “[n]othing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.” As Iran has never been found in violation of the NPT – has never been found to have diverted nuclear materials for non-peaceful purposes – this legislation seeking to deny Iran the right to enrichment even for peaceful purposes itself violates the NPT.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that many of my colleagues opposing war on Iran will vote in favor of this legislation, seeing it as a step short of war to bring Iran into line with US demands. I would remind them that sanctions and the blockades that are required to enforce them are themselves acts of war according to international law. I urge my colleagues to reject this saber-rattling but ultimately counterproductive legislation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economy Flounders, Despite the Stimulus by Congressman Ron Paul

A year after a nearly $800 billion stimulus package was passed, the U.S. economy still finds itself mired in mediocrity.

Economic growth is stagnant, unemployment remains higher than almost any time since the Great Depression and millions of Americans are upset that trillions of taxpayer dollars have been committed to numerous government bailout programs with no improvement of the economy within sight.

They question, rightfully, where this money is going and why it hasn't been as helpful as the government has claimed.

The problems with stimulus packages are manifold. The primary reason they fail is because they do not address the roots of the problem. If you are unable to identify the cause of your problem, then your solution is doomed to fail.


In the case of the current economic crisis, it had its root in loose monetary policy and easy credit that skewed the allocation of resources within the economy.

Combined with other measures to promote home ownership, these easy money policies caused a massive housing bubble. Money that would have been put to other uses was used to produce raw materials, hire workers and loaned to homebuyers, all while home prices spiked.


The boom was, of course, unsustainable, as many prognosticators pointed out during the housing bubble's peak. But the damage was done, and now that the bubble has burst, we need to stand back and allow the mess to unwind. Yet the government does everything in its power to stave off true recovery and is attempting to re-inflate the bubble.

Rather than allow prices to fall so that the housing market returns to a sustainable level, the government does everything in its power to try to keep housing prices elevated.

The reasoning behind the stimulus package was that underconsumption was to blame for the collapse of the housing bubble and the resulting economic crisis. The government seems to think that if consumption can be spurred, then the economy will be return to normal.

In reality, the collapse of the economy was not caused by a sudden lack of consumption but rather a malinvestment of resources into sectors of the economy that were unsustainable without easy credit. The rise in housing prices was not, in fact, indicative of the new normal but rather an indicator that something was seriously wrong.

Be Prepared for the Worst by Congressman Ron Paul

Any number of pundits claim that we have now passed the worst of the recession. Green shoots of recovery are supposedly popping up all around the country, and the economy is expected to resume growing soon at an annual rate of 3% to 4%. Many of these are the same people who insisted that the economy would continue growing last year, even while it was clear that we were already in the beginning stages of a recession.


A false recovery is under way. I am reminded of the outlook in 1930, when the experts were certain that the worst of the Depression was over and that recovery was just around the corner. The economy and stock market seemed to be recovering, and there was optimism that the recession, like many of those before it, would be over in a year or less. Instead, the interventionist policies of Hoover and Roosevelt caused the Depression to worsen, and the Dow Jones industrial average did not recover to 1929 levels until 1954. I fear that our stimulus and bailout programs have already done too much to prevent the economy from recovering in a natural manner and will result in yet another asset bubble.

Anytime the central bank intervenes to pump trillions of dollars into the financial system, a bubble is created that must eventually deflate. We have seen the results of Alan Greenspan's excessively low interest rates: the housing bubble, the explosion of subprime loans and the subsequent collapse of the bubble, which took down numerous financial institutions. Rather than allow the market to correct itself and clear away the worst excesses of the boom period, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury colluded to put taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars. Those banks and financial institutions that took on the largest risks and performed worst were rewarded with billions in taxpayer dollars, allowing them to survive and compete with their better-managed peers.

It Is Time To Leave Afghanistan by Ron Paul

Statement before the Foreign Affairs Committee, United States House of Representatives, December 10, 2009


Mr. Speaker thank you for holding these important hearings on US policy in Afghanistan. I would like to welcome the witnesses, Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry and General Stanley A. McChrystal, and thank them for appearing before this Committee.

I have serious concerns, however, about the president’s decision to add some 30,000 troops and an as yet undisclosed number of civilian personnel to escalate our Afghan operation. This “surge” will bring US troop levels to approximately those of the Soviets when they occupied Afghanistan with disastrous result back in the 1980s. I fear the US military occupation of Afghanistan may end up similarly unsuccessful.

In late 1986 Soviet armed forces commander, Marshal Sergei Akhromeev, told then-Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, "Military actions in Afghanistan will soon be seven years old. There is no single piece of land in this country which has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier. Nonetheless, the majority of the territory remains in the hands of rebels.” Soon Gorbachev began the Soviet withdrawal from its Afghan misadventure. Thousands were dead on both sides, yet the occupation failed to produce a stable national Afghan government.

Eight years into our own war in Afghanistan the Soviet commander’s words ring eerily familiar. Part of the problem stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. It is our presence as occupiers that feeds the insurgency. As would be the case if we were invaded and occupied, diverse groups have put aside their disagreements to unify against foreign occupation. Adding more US troops will only assist those who recruit fighters to attack our soldiers and who use the US occupation to convince villages to side with the Taliban.


Proponents of the president’s Afghanistan escalation cite the successful “surge” in Iraq as evidence that this second surge will have similar results. I fear they might be correct about the similar result, but I dispute the success propaganda about Iraq. In fact, the violence in Iraq only temporarily subsided with the completion of the ethnic cleansing of Shi’ites from Sunni neighborhoods and vice versa – and all neighborhoods of Christians. Those Sunni fighters who remained were easily turned against the foreign al-Qaeda presence when offered US money and weapons. We are increasingly seeing this “success” breaking down: sectarian violence is flaring up and this time the various groups are better armed with US-provided weapons. Similarly, the insurgents paid by the US to stop their attacks are increasingly restive now that the Iraqi government is no longer paying bribes on a regular basis. So I am skeptical about reports on the success of the Iraqi surge.
If you like this site, please help keep it going and growing.




Likewise, we are told that we have to “win” in Afghanistan so that al-Qaeda cannot use Afghan territory to plan further attacks against the US. We need to remember that the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 was, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, largely planned in the United States (and Germany) by terrorists who were in our country legally. According to the logic of those who endorse military action against Afghanistan because al-Qaeda was physically present, one could argue in favor of US airstrikes against several US states and Germany! It makes no sense. The Taliban allowed al-Qaeda to remain in Afghanistan because both had been engaged, with US assistance, in the insurgency against the Soviet occupation.

Nevertheless, the president’s National Security Advisor, Gen. James Jones, USMC (Ret.), said in a recent interview that less than 100 al-Qaeda remain in Afghanistan and that the chance they would reconstitute a significant presence there was slim. Are we to believe that 30,000 more troops are needed to defeat 100 al-Qaeda fighters? I fear that there will be increasing pressure for the US to invade Pakistan, to where many Taliban and al-Qaeda have escaped. Already CIA drone attacks on Pakistan have destabilized that country and have killed scores of innocents, producing strong anti-American feelings and calls for revenge. I do not see how that contributes to our national security.


The president’s top advisor for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, said recently, “I would say this about defining success in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the simplest sense, the Supreme Court test for another issue, we’ll know it when we see it.” That does not inspire much confidence.

Supporters of this surge argue that we must train an Afghan national army to take over and strengthen the rule and authority of Kabul. But experts have noted that the ranks of the Afghan national army are increasingly being filled by the Tajik minority at the expense of the Pashtun plurality. US diplomat Matthew Hoh, who resigned as Senior Civilian Representative for the U.S. Government in Zabul Province, noted in his resignation letter that he “fail[s] to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year-old civil war.” Mr. Hoh went on to write that “[L]ike the Soviets, we continue to secure and bolster a failing state, while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by [the Afghan] people.”

I have always opposed nation-building as unconstitutional and ineffective. Afghanistan is no different. Without a real strategy in Afghanistan, without a vision of what victory will look like, we are left with the empty rhetoric of the last administration that “when the Afghan people stand up, the US will stand down.” I am afraid the only solution to the Afghanistan quagmire is a rapid and complete US withdrawal from that country and the region. We cannot afford to maintain this empire and our occupation of these foreign lands is not making us any safer. It is time to leave Afghanistan.

Should The US Colonize And Militarize Haiti? by Ron Paul

I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution. Certainly I am moved by the horrific destruction in Haiti and would without hesitation express condolences to those who have suffered and continue to suffer. As a medical doctor, I have through my career worked to alleviate the pain and suffering of others.

Unfortunately, however, this resolution does not simply express our condolences, but rather it commits the US government “to begin the reconstruction of Haiti” and affirms that “the recovery and long-term needs of Haiti will require a sustained commitment by the United States….” I do not believe that a resolution expressing our deep regret and sorrow over this tragedy should be used to commit the United States to a “long-term” occupation of Haiti during which time the US government will provide for the reconstruction of that country.

I am concerned over the possibility of an open-ended US military occupation of Haiti and this legislation does nothing to alleviate my concerns. On the contrary, when this resolution refers to the need for a long-term US plan for Haiti, I see a return to the failed attempts by the Clinton and Bush Administrations to establish Haiti as an American protectorate. Already we are seeing many argue that this kind of humanitarian mission is a perfect fit for the US military. I do not agree.

Certainly I would support and encourage the efforts of the American people to help the people of Haiti at this tragic time. I believe that the American people are very generous on their own and fear that a US government commitment to reconstruct Haiti may actually discourage private contributions. Mr. Speaker, already we see private US citizens and corporations raising millions of dollars for relief and reconstruction of Haiti. I do not believe the US government should get in the way of these laudable efforts. I do express my condolences but I unfortunately must urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution committing the United States government to rebuild Haiti.