Add to EJ Playlist  http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://RonPaulC urriculum.com http://RonPaulI nstitute.org http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://DailyPau l.com http://FFF.org http://Mises.or g http://LewRockw ell.com The IRS's Job Is To Violate Our Liberties by Ron Paul "What do you expect when you target the President?" This is what an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agent allegedly said to the head of a conservative organization that was being audited after calling for the impeachment of then-President Clinton. Recent revelations that IRS agents gave "special scrutiny" to organizations opposed to the current administration' s policies suggest that many in the IRS still believe harassing the President's opponents is part of their job. As troubling as these recent reports are, it would be a grave mistake to think that IRS harassment of opponents of the incumbent President is a modern, or a partisan, phenomenon. As scholar Burton Folsom pointed out in his book New Deal or Raw Deal, IRS agents in the 1930s where essentially "hit squads" against opponents of the New Deal. It is well-known that the administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson used the IRS to silence their critics. One of the articles of impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon dealt with his use of the IRS to harass his political enemies. Allegations of IRS abuses were common during the Clinton administration, and just this week some of the current administration' s defenders recalled that antiwar and progressive groups alleged harassment by the IRS during the Bush presidency. The bipartisan tradition of using the IRS as a tool to harass political opponents suggests that the problem is deeper than just a few "rogue" IRS agents—or even corruption within one, two, three or many administrations . Instead, the problem lays in the extraordinary power the tax system grants the IRS. The IRS routinely obtains information about how we earn a living, what investments we make, what we spend on ourselves and our families, and even what charitable and religious organizations we support. Starting next year, the IRS will be collecting personally identifiable health insurance information in order to ensure we are complying with Obamacare's mandates. The current tax laws even give the IRS power to marginalize any educational, political, or even religious organizations whose goals, beliefs, and values are not favored by the current regime by denying those organizations "tax-free" status. This is the root of the latest scandal involving the IRS. Considering the type of power the IRS excises over the American people, and the propensity of those who hold power to violate liberty, it is surprising we do not hear about more cases of politically-mot ivated IRS harassment. As the first US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall said, "The power to tax is the power to destroy" — and who better to destroy than one's political enemies? The US flourished for over 120 years without an income tax, and our liberty and prosperity will only benefit from getting rid of the current tax system. The federal government will get along just fine without its immoral claim on the fruits of our labor, particularly if the elimination of federal income taxes are accompanied by serious reduction in all areas of spending, starting with the military spending beloved by so many who claim to be opponents of high taxes and big government. While it is important for Congress to investigate the most recent scandal and ensure all involved are held accountable, we cannot pretend that the problem is a few bad actors. The very purpose of the IRS is to transfer wealth from one group to another while violating our liberties in the process, thus the only way Congress can protect our freedoms is to repeal the income tax and shutter the doors of the IRS once and for all.

Add to EJ Playlist  http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://RonPaulI nstitute.org http://RonPaulC urriculum.com http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://facebook .com/ronpaul http://DailyPau l.com http://FFF.org http://Mises.or g http://LewRockw ell.com What No One Wants to Hear About Benghazi by Ron Paul Congressional hearings, White House damage control, endless op-eds, accusations, and defensive denials. Controversy over the events in Benghazi last September took center stage in Washington and elsewhere last week. However, the whole discussion is again more of a sideshow. Each side seeks to score political points instead of asking the real questions about the attack on the US facility, which resulted in the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Republicans smell a political opportunity over evidence that the Administration heavily edited initial intelligence community talking points about the attack to remove or soften anything that might reflect badly on the president or the State Department. Are we are supposed to be shocked by such behavior? Are we supposed to forget that this kind of whitewashing of facts is standard operating procedure when it comes to the US government? Democrats in Congress have offered the even less convincing explanation for Benghazi, that somehow the attack occurred due to Republican sponsored cuts in the security budget at facilities overseas. With a one trillion dollar military budget, it is hard to take this seriously. It appears that the Administration scrubbed initial intelligence reports of references to extremist Islamist involvement in the attacks, preferring to craft a lie that the demonstrations were a spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic video that developed into a full-out attack on the US outpost. Who can blame the administration for wanting to shift the focus? The Islamic radicals who attacked Benghazi were the same people let loose by the US-led attack on Libya. They were the rebels on whose behalf the US overthrew the Libyan government. Ambassador Stevens was slain by the same Islamic radicals he personally assisted just over one year earlier. But the Republicans in Congress also want to shift the blame. They supported the Obama Administration' s policy of bombing Libya and overthrowing its government. They also repeated the same manufactured claims that Gaddafi was "killing his own people" and was about to commit mass genocide if he were not stopped. Republicans want to draw attention to the President's editing talking points in hopes no one will notice that if the attack on Libya they supported had not taken place, Ambassador Stevens would be alive today. Neither side wants to talk about the real lesson of Benghazi: interventionism always carries with it unintended consequences. The US attack on Libya led to the unleashing of Islamist radicals in Libya. These radicals have destroyed the country, murdered thousands, and killed the US ambassador. Some of these then turned their attention to Mali which required another intervention by the US and France. Previously secure weapons in Libya flooded the region after the US attack, with many of them going to Islamist radicals who make up the majority of those fighting to overthrow the government in Syria. The US government has intervened in the Syrian conflict on behalf of the same rebels it assisted in the Libya conflict, likely helping with the weapons transfers. With word out that these rebels are mostly affiliated with al Qaeda, the US is now intervening to persuade some factions of the Syrian rebels to kill other factions before completing the task of ousting the Syrian government. It is the dizzying cycle of interventionism . The real lesson of Benghazi will not be learned because neither Republicans nor Democrats want to hear it. But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens. The disputed talking points and White House whitewashing are just a sideshow.

Add to EJ Playlist  http://RonPaulI nstitute.org http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://RonPaulC urriculum.com http://facebook .com/ronpaul http://DailyPau l.com http://FFF.org http://Mises.or g http://LewRockw ell.com Federal Reserve Blows More Bubbles by Ron Paul Last week at its regular policy-setting meeting, the Federal Reserve announced it would double down on the policies that have failed to produce anything but a stagnant economy. It was a disappointing, but not surprising, move. The Fed affirmed that it is prepared to increase its monthly purchases of Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities if things don't start looking up. But actually the Fed has already been buying more than the announced $85 billion per month. Between February and March, the Fed's securities holdings increased $95 billion. From March to April, they increased $100 billion. In all, the Fed has pumped more than a half trillion dollars into the economy since announcing its latest round of "quantitative easing" (QE3) in September 2012. Although many were up in arms when the Fed said it would buy $600 billion in government debt outright for the previous round, QE2, all seems quiet about the magnitude of QE3 because it doesn't come with huge up-front total price tag. But by year's end the Fed's balance sheet could hit $4 trillion. With no recovery in sight, where's all this money going? It is creating bubbles. Bubbles in the housing sector, the stock market, and government debt. The national debt is fast approaching $17 trillion, with the Fed monetizing most of the newly issued debt. The stock market has been hitting record highs for the past two months as investors seek to capitalize on the Fed's easy money. After all, as long as the Fed keeps the spigot open, nominal profits are there for the taking. But this is a house of cards. Eventually, just like in 2008-2009, the market will discipline the bad actions of the Fed and seek to find the real normal. In the meantime, real families are suffering. While Wall Street and the government take advantage of access to the Fed's new "free" money, the Fed claims there is no inflation. But who hasn't paid higher prices at the grocery store, the gas pump, for tuition, for insurance? It's bad enough that household incomes have stagnated, but real purchasing power has declined so much that one in seven Americans, 47.3 million people, are on food stamps. Five million are collecting unemployment insurance with 21.5 million afflicted by unemployment according to the government's own figures. That's 13.9 percent -- close to double the 7.5 percent unemployment number reported last week. We are certainly not in a recovery. We don't see the long unemployment and soup kitchen lines like in the Great Depression, but that's just because the lines are electronic now. It is not surprising the Fed has decided to hand the American people more of the same failed policies. But it is disappointing. We know what the real solution is: allow the marketplace to work. Allow entrepreneurs the chance to create instead of stifling innovation with arbitrary regulations. Allow interest rates to rise to equal the risks in the economy. Allow bad debts to be liquidated so we can build on a firm foundation. Stop printing money to benefit the government and big banks. Restore sound money to the economy and the American people. Sound money is the bedrock for prosperity and the best check on big government and crony capitalism.

Add to EJ Playlist  http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://RonPaulC urriculum.com http://facebook .com/ronpaul http://DailyPau l.com http://FFF.org http://Mises.or g http://LewRockw ell.com Liberty Was Also Attacked in Boston by Ron Paul Forced lockdown of a city. Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down. These were not the scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic, but rather the scenes just over a week ago in Boston as the United States got a taste of martial law. The ostensible reason for the military-style takeover of parts of Boston was that the accused perpetrator of a horrific crime was on the loose. The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city. This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself. What has been sadly forgotten in all the celebration of the capture of one suspect and the killing of his older brother is that the police state tactics in Boston did absolutely nothing to catch them. While the media crowed that the apprehension of the suspects was a triumph of the new surveillance state -- and, predictably, many talking heads and Members of Congress called for even more government cameras pointed at the rest of us -- the fact is none of this caught the suspect. Actually, it very nearly gave the suspect a chance to make a getaway. The "shelter in place" command imposed by the governor of Massachusetts was lifted before the suspect was caught. Only after this police state move was ended did the owner of the boat go outside to check on his property, and in so doing discover the suspect. No, the suspect was not discovered by the paramilitary troops terrorizing the public. He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police. And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police. As journalist Tim Carney wrote last week: "Law enforcement in Boston used cameras to ID the bombing suspects, but not police cameras. Instead, authorities asked the public to submit all photos and videos of the finish-line area to the FBI, just in case any of them had relevant images. The surveillance videos the FBI posted online of the suspects came from private businesses that use surveillance to punish and deter crime on their property." Sadly, we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect our liberties. Once the government decides that its role is to keep us safe, whether economically or physically, they can only do so by taking away our liberties. That is what happened in Boston. Three people were killed in Boston and that is tragic. But what of the fact that over 40 persons are killed in the United States each day, and sometimes ten persons can be killed in one city on any given weekend? These cities are not locked-down by paramilitary police riding in tanks and pointing automatic weapons at innocent citizens. This is unprecedented and is very dangerous. We must educate ourselves and others about our precious civil liberties to ensure that we never accept demands that we give up our Constitution so that the government can pretend to protect us.

Add to EJ Playlist  http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://RonPaulC urriculum.com http://DailyPau l.com http://facebook .com/ronpaul http://FFF.org http://Mises.or g http://LewRockw ell.com Congress Exploits Our Fears to Take Our Liberty by Ron Paul This week, as Americans were horrified by the attacks in Boston, both houses of Congress considered legislation undermining our liberty in the name of "safety." Gun control continued to be the focus of the Senate, where an amendment expanding federal "background checks" to gun show sales and other private transfers dominated the debate. While the background check amendment failed to pass, proponents of gun control have made it clear they will continue their efforts to enact new restrictions on gun ownership into law. While it did not receive nearly as much attention as the debate on gun control, the House of Representatives passed legislation with significant implications for individual liberty: the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). CISPA proponents claim that the legislation is necessary to protect Americans from foreign "cyber terrorists," but the real effect of this bill will be to further erode Americans' online privacy. Under CISPA, Internet corporations are authorized to hand over the private information of American citizens to federal agents, as long as they can justify the violation of your privacy in the name of protecting "cyber security". Among the items that may be shared are your e-mails, browsing history, and online transactions. Like the PATRIOT Act, CISPA violates the fourth amendment by allowing federal agencies to obtain private information without first seeking a warrant from a federal judge. The law also allows federal agencies to pass your information along to other federal bureaucrats — again without obtaining a warrant. And the bill provides private companies with immunity from lawsuits regardless of the damage done to anyone whose personal information is shared with the government. CISPA represents a troubling form of corporatism, where large companies cede their responsibility to protect their property to the federal government, at the expense of their customers' privacy and liberty. In this respect, CISPA can be thought of as an electronic version of the Transportation Security Administration, which has usurped the authority over airline security from private airlines. However, CISPA will prove to be far more invasive than even the most robust TSA screening. CISPA and the gun control bill are only the most recent examples of politicians manipulating fear to con the people into giving up their liberties. Of course, the people are told the legislation is for "limited purposes," but authority granted to government is rarely, if ever, used solely for the purpose for which it is granted. For example, the American people were promised that the extraordinary powers granted the government by the PATRIOT Act would only be used against terrorism. Yet soon after the bill became law, reports surfaced that it was being used for non-terrorism purposes. In fact, according to data compiled by the American Civil Liberties Union, 76 percent of the uses of the controversial "sneak-and-peak " warrants where related to the war on drugs! Sadly, I expect this week's tragic attacks in Boston to be used to justify new restrictions on liberty. Within 48 hours of the attack in Boston, at least one Congressman was calling for increased use of surveillance cameras to expand the government's ability to monitor our actions, while another Senator called for a federal law mandating background checks before Americans can buy "explosive powder." I would not be surprised if the Transportation Security Administration uses this tragedy to claim new authority to "screen" Americans before they can attend sporting or other public events. The Boston attack may also be used as another justification for creating a National ID Card tied to a federal database with "biometric" information. The only thing that will stop them is if the American people rediscover the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin that you cannot achieve security by allowing government to take their liberties.

Add to EJ Playlist  http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://RonPaulC urriculum.com http://facebook .com/ronpaul http://DailyPau l.com http://FFF.org http://Mises.or g http://LewRockw ell.com Why Can't We All Travel To Cuba? by Ron Paul Earlier this month, entertainers Jay-Z and Beyoncé were given a license by the US government to travel to Cuba. Because it is not otherwise legal for Americans to travel to Cuba, this trip was only permitted as a "cultural exchange" by the US Treasury Department. Many suspect that the permission was granted at least partly due to the fame, wealth, and political connections of the couple. Some Members of Congress who continue to support the failed Cuba embargo, demanded that the Administration explain why these two celebrities were allowed to visit Cuba. The trip looked suspiciously like tourism, they argued in a letter to the White House, and American tourism is still not allowed in Cuba. They were photographed eating at the best restaurants, dancing, and meeting with average Cubans, which these Members of Congress frowned on. Perhaps it is true that this couple used their celebrity status and ties to the White House to secure permission to travel, but the real question is, why can't the rest of us go? The Obama administration has lifted some of the most onerous restrictions on travel to Cuba imposed under the previous Bush administration, but for the average American, travel to the island is still difficult if not impossible. However, even those who are permitted to go to Cuba are not allowed to simply engage in tourist activities -- to spend their money as they wish or relax on a beach. The US government demands that the few Americans it allows to travel to Cuba only engage in what it deems "purposeful travel," to "support civil society in Cuba; enhance the free flow of information to, from, and among the Cuban people; and help promote their independence from Cuban authorities." They must prove that they maintain a full-time schedule of educational activities, according to Treasury guidelines for "people-to-peop le" travel. Leave it to the federal government to make the prospect of visiting that sunny Caribbean island sound so miserable. The reason the US so severely restricts and scripts the activities of the few Americans allowed to travel to Cuba is that it believes travel must promote the goal of taking "important steps in reaching the widely shared goal of a Cuba that respects the basic rights of all its citizens." Although I have no illusions about the Cuban government -- or any government for that matter -- it is ironic that the US chose to locate a prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba because the indefinite detention and torture that took place there would have been illegal on US soil. Further, the US government continues to hold more than 100 prisoners there indefinitely even though they have not been found guilty of a crime and in fact dozens are "cleared for release" but not allowed to leave. Does the administration really believe that the rest of the world is not annoyed by its "do as we say, not as we do" attitude? We are told by supporters of the Cuba embargo and travel ban that we must take such measures to fight the communists in charge of that country. Americans must be prohibited from traveling to Cuba, they argue, because tourist dollars would only be used to prop up the unelected Castro regime. Ironically, our restrictive travel policies toward Cuba actually mirror the travel policies of the communist countries past and present. Under communist rule in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere it was only the well-connected elites who were allowed to travel overseas -- people like Jay-Z and Beyoncé. The average citizen was not permitted the right. Although the current administration' s slight loosening of the restrictions is a small step in the right direction, it makes no sense to continue this nearly half-century old failed policy. Freedom to travel is a fundamental right. Restricting this fundamental right in the name of human rights is foolish and hypocritical.

Add to EJ Playlist  http://RonPaulC urriculum.com http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://DailyPau l.com http://facebook .com/ronpaul http://FFF.org http://Mises.or g http://LewRockw ell.com Homeschooling: The Future of Liberty by Ron Paul A common feature of authoritarian regimes is the criminalization of alternatives to government-cont rolled education. Dictators recognize the danger that free thought poses to their rule, and few things promote the thinking of "unapproved" thoughts like an education controlled by parents instead of the state. That is why the National Socialist (Nazi) government of Germany outlawed homeschooling in 1938. Sadly, these Nazi-era restrictions on parental rights remain the law in Germany, leaving parents who wish greater control over their children's education without options. That is why in 2006 Uwe and Hannalore Romeike, a German couple who wanted to homeschool their three children for religious reasons, sought asylum in the United States. Immigration judge Lawrence Burman upheld their application for asylum, recognizing that the freedom of parents to homeschool was a "basic human right." Unfortunately, the current US administration does not see it that way, and has announced that it is appealing Judge Burman's decision. If the administration is successful, the Romeikes could be sent back to Germany where they will be forced to send their children to schools whose teaching violates their religious beliefs. If they refuse, they face huge fines, jail time, or even the loss of custody of their children! The Administration' s appeal claims that the federal government has the constitutional authority to ban homeschooling in all fifty states. The truth is, the Constitution gives the federal government no power to control any aspect of education. Furthermore, parents who, like the Romeikes, have a religious motivation for homeschooling should be protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The federal government's hostility to homeschooling is shared by officials at all levels of government. Despite the movement's success in legalizing homeschooling in every state, many families are still subjected to harassment by local officials. The harassment ranges from "home visits" by child protective agencies to criminal prosecution for violating truancy laws. Every American who values liberty should support the homeschoolers' cause. If the government can usurp parental authority over something as fundamental as the education of their children, there is almost no area of parenthood off limits to government interference. Homeschooling has proven to be an effective means of education. We are all familiar with the remarkable academic achievements, including in national spelling bees and other competitions, by homeshcooled children. In addition, homeschooled students generally fare better than their public school educated peers on all measures of academic performance. It makes sense that children do better when their education is controlled by those who know their unique needs best, rather than by a federal bureaucrat. A strong homeschooling movement may also improve other forms of education. If competition improves goods and services in other areas of life, why wouldn't competition improve education? A large and growing homeschooling movement could inspire public and private schools to innovate and improve. When the government interferes with a parent's ability to choose the type of education that is best for their child, it is acting immorally and in manner inconsistent with a free society. A government that infringes on the rights of homeschooling will eventually infringe on the rights of all parents. Homeschooled children are more likely to embrace the philosophy of freedom, and to join the efforts to restore liberty. In fact, I would not be surprised if the future leaders of the liberty movement were homeschooled. I believe so strongly in the homeschooling movement that I have just announced my own curriculum for homeschooling families. Please visit this revolutionary new project at http://www.RonP aulCurriculum.c om.

Add to EJ Playlist  http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://facebook .com/ronpaul http://DailyPau l.com http://FFF.org http://Mises.or g http://LewRockw ell.com The Great Cyprus Bank Robbery by Ron Paul The dramatic recent events in Cyprus have highlighted the fundamental weakness in the European banking system and the extreme fragility of fractional reserve banking. Cypriot banks invested heavily in Greek sovereign debt, and last summer's Greek debt restructuring resulted in losses equivalent to more than 25 percent of Cyprus' GDP. These banks then took their bad investments to the government, demanding a bailout from an already beleaguered Cypriot treasury. The government of Cyprus then turned to the European Union (EU) for a bailout. The terms insisted upon by the troika (European Commission, European Central Bank, International Monetary Fund) before funding the bailout were nothing short of highway robbery. While bank depositors have traditionally been protected in the event of bankruptcy or liquidation, the troika insisted that all bank depositors pay a tax of between 6.75 and 10 percent of their total deposits to help fund the bailout. While one can sympathize with EU taxpayers not wanting to fund yet another bailout of a poorly-managed banking system, forcing the Cypriot people to pay for the foolish risks taken by their government and bankers is also criminal. In their desire to punish a "tax haven" catering supposedly to Russian oligarchs, the EU elites ensured that ordinary citizens would suffer just as much as foreign depositors. Imagine the reaction if in September 2008, the US government had financed its $700 billion bank bailout by directly looting American taxpayers' bank accounts! While the Cypriot parliament rejected that first proposal, they will have no say in the final proposal delivered by the EU and IMF: deposits over 100,000 euros are likely to see losses of at least 40 percent and possibly as much as 80 percent. "Temporary" capital controls that were supposed to last for days will now last at least a month and might remain in effect for years. Especially affected have been the elderly, who were unable to use ATMs or to transfer money electronically. Despite the fact that ATMs severely limited the size of withdrawals during the two week-long bank closure, reports indicated that account holders who had access to Cypriot bank branches in London and Athens were able to withdraw most of their funds, leading to speculation that there would be no money available when banks finally opened up again. In other words, the supposed Russian oligarch money may well be already gone. Remember that under a fractional reserve banking system only a small percentage of deposits is kept on hand for dispersal to depositors. The rest of the money is loaned out. Not only are many of the loans made by these banks going bad, but the reserve requirement in Euro-system countries is only one percent! If just one euro out of every hundred is withdrawn from banks, the bank reserves would be completely exhausted and the whole system would collapse. Is it any wonder, then, that the EU fears a major bank run and has shipped billions of euros to Cyprus? The elites in the EU and IMF failed to learn their lesson from the popular backlash to these tax proposals, and have openly talked about using Cyprus as a template for future bank bailouts. This raises the prospect of raids on bank accounts, pension funds, and any investments the government can get its hands on. In other words, no one's money is safe in any financial institution in Europe. Bank runs are now a certainty in future crises, as the people realize that they do not really own the money in their accounts. How long before bureaucrat and banker try that here? Unfortunately, all of this is the predictable result of a fiat paper money system combined with fractional reserve banking. When governments and banks collude to monopolize the monetary system so that they can create money out of thin air, the result is a business cycle that wreaks havoc on the economy. Pyramiding more and more loans on top of a tiny base of money will create an economic house of cards just waiting to collapse. The situation in Cyprus should be both a lesson and a warning to the United States. We need to end the Federal Reserve, stay away from propping up the euro, and return to a sound monetary system.

Add to EJ Playlist  http://LewRockw ell.com http://Mises.or g http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://DailyPau l.com http://facebook .com/ronpaul http://FFF.org

Add to EJ Playlist  http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://facebook .com/ronpaul http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://DailyPau l.com http://FFF.org http://Mises.or g http://LewRockw ell.com Neo-Con War Addiction Threatens Our Future by Ron Paul William Kristol knows what is wrong with the United States. As he wrote recently in the flagship magazine of the neo-conservativ es, the Weekly Standard, the problem with the US is that we seem to have lost our appetite for war. According to Kristol, the troubles that have befallen us in the 20th century have all been the result of these periodic bouts of war-weariness, a kind of virus that we catch from time to time. He claims because of the US "drawdown" in Europe after World War II, Stalin subjugated Eastern Europe. Because of war weariness the United States stopped bombing Southeast Asia in the 1970s, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. War weariness through the 1990s led to Rwanda, Milosevic, and the rise of the Taliban. It was our fault for not fighting on! According to Kristol, our failure to act as the policeman of the world is why we were attacked on September 11, 2001. Of the 1990s, he wrote, "[t]hat decade of not policing the world ended with 9/11." That revisionism is too much even for fellow neo-conservativ es like Paul Wolfowitz to swallow. In a 2003 interview, Wolfowitz admitted that it was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia that led to the growth of al-Qaeda: "(W)e can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina." But for Kristol and his allies there is never enough war. According to a new study by Brown University, the US invasion of Iraq cost some 190,000 lives, most of them non-combatants. It has cost more than $1.7 trillion, and when all is said and done including interest the cost may well be $6 trillion. Some $212 billion was spent on Iraqi reconstruction with nothing to show for it. Total deaths from US war on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have been at least 329, 000. None of this is enough for Kristol. The neo-con ideology promotes endless war, but neo-cons fight their battles with the blood of others. From the comfortable, subsidized offices of magazines like the Weekly Standard, the neo-conservativ es urge the United States to engage in endless war -- to be fought by the victims of the "poverty draft" from states where there are few jobs. Ironically, these young people cannot find more productive work because the Federal Reserve's endless money printing to keep the war machine turning has destroyed our economy. The six trillion dollars that will be spent on the Iraq war are merely pieces of printed paper that further erode the dollar's purchasing power now and well into the future. It is the inflation tax, which is the most regressive and cruel of all. Yes, Americans are war weary, concedes Kristol. But he does not blame the average American. The real problem is that the president has dropped the ball on terrifying Americans with the lies and imaginary threats that led to the invasion of Iraq. Writes Kristol: "One can't, for example, be surprised at the ebbing support of the American public for the war in Afghanistan years after the president stopped trying to mobilize their support, stopped heralding the successes of the troops he'd sent there, and stopped explaining the importance of their mission." If only we had more war propaganda from the highest levels of government we could be cured of this war-weariness. Ten years ago the US invaded Iraq under the influence of neo-conservativ e lies. Those lies continued to promote US military action in places like Libya, and next on their agenda is Syria and then on to Iran. It is time for the American people to shout "enough!"

Add to EJ Playlist  http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://DailyPau l.com http://facebook .com/ronpaul http://FFF.org http://Mises.or g http://LewRockw ell.com The Congressional Budget Debate Is Just a Sideshow by Ron Paul Federal spending once again dominated the debate in Washington last week, as House Republicans and Senate Democrats began work on their ten-year budget plans. Contrary to claims, neither party's budget reduces spending. While the Republican plan increases spending a little less than the Democrat plan, it would still spend $5 trillion in 2023, an almost two trillion dollar increase over this year's budget. Of course, these projections of future budgets are meaningless, as a current Congress cannot bind a future one. Therefore, the projected spending for next year is the only part of the budget with any significance. So is there a great gulf between the two parties' budgets for next year? No. For fiscal year 2014, the Democrat budget proposes spending $3.7 trillion, while the "radical" Republican budget spends $3.5 trillion! While the two parties bicker over minor differences in spending, the stock market, which many in Washington predicted would crash unless the parties reached a "grand bargain" on taxes and spending, seems unaffected by the various manufactured budget crises. Unfortunately, the market's indifference to Washington spending games is based on the fallacy that the deficit does not matter as long as the Federal Reserve is willing to monetize the federal debt. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is certainly doing all he can to facilitate deficit spending. The Federal Reserve's desire to monetize the federal debt is a main reason for the aggressive program of buying federal debt via the continuous quantitative easing. Under Chairman Bernanke, the Federal Reserve is pumping as much as $85 billion a month into the American economy. This out-of-control monetary policy is largely conducted behind closed doors, yet it has much more effect on the do day-to-day lives of Americans than Congress's phony budget debates. The Federal Reserve's polices erode the value of the dollar, causing prices to rise, which in turn diminishes people's standard of living. This inflation tax may be the most hideous tax of all because it is both hidden and regressive. Of course, the Federal Reserve can only keep this up for so long before doing serious damage to the economy. The Austrian school of economics teaches that the Federal Reserve is responsible for the boom-and-bust cycles that plague modern economies. The Federal Reserve's aggressive money pumping runs the risk of creating hyperinflation -- especially once banks stop hoarding their reserves and began flooding the economy with Fed-created fiat currency. Even though the economic crisis of 2008 proved the Austrians correct, there are still too many in D.C. and on Wall Street who believe the Keynesian fallacy that government and the Federal Reserve can spend-and-infla te our way to prosperity. But, as is the case with the narcotics addict, the longer the Federal Reserve enables Congress's habit of deficit spending, the more painful will be the withdrawal when Congress is finally forced to kick the habit. The role of the Federal Reserve in facilitating deficit spending by the US -- and even foreign governments -- means it is a mistake to segregate monetary and fiscal policy. Our nation will never get its fiscal house in order until we reform monetary policy. The first step is letting the American people know the real facts about the Federal Reserve's actions. The debate over the federal budget and even the battle over the Federal Reserve are ultimately arguments over symptoms rather than the cause. The root of the fiscal crisis is the belief that the federal government is qualified to manage the economy, provide for the people's needs, and spread democracy throughout the world through either by foreign aid or by force of arms. Neither party in Washington questions the welfare-warfare state. Until Congress begins debating questions such as whether or not we really need thousands of military facilities around the world, whether or not we should shut down the Education Department and return control to local communities and parents, and whether we should allow young people to completely op-out of the entitlement programs, the so-called debates in Washington, D.C. will continue to amount to nothing but sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Add to EJ Playlist  http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://DailyPau l.com http://facebook .com/ronpaul http://LewRockw ell.com http://Mises.or g http://FFF.org Congress, Drones, and The Imperial Presidency by Ron Paul Last week the US Senate took a break from debating the phony cuts known as "sequestration, " for Senator Rand Paul to hold a 13-hour filibuster to force the Obama administration to state whether it believes the President has the right to kill American citizens with drones on US soil. I find it tragic that there has to be a discussion on an issue that should be so self-evident. However, feeling the pressure, the administration finally said "no," but in language so twisted that no one should feel in the slightest bit reassured. According to Attorney General Eric Holder, the president does not believe he has the right to use the military to kill an American who is "not engaged in combat on American soil." Left undefined is how the administration defines "combat." As constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley wrote last week, "one can easily foresee this or a future president insisting that an alleged terrorism conspiracy is a form of 'combat'." The administration' s outrageous response to the most serious Constitutional question of all -- when a government can kill its own citizens -- is clear evidence of an executive branch out of control. Many of the drafters of the Constitution envisioned the presidency as an office with very limited powers, but even the most dedicated proponents of a strong presidency at the time would be shocked to see the concentration of power in the modern presidency. Today the presidency is viewed as the center of the federal government, with each successive administration expanding the power of the executive at the expense of Congress and the people. Ironically, some of the worst offenders are those who campaigned promising to reverse the power grabs of their predecessors. For example, candidate George W. Bush campaigned on a "humble foreign policy," but as president he attacked Iraq based on his own administration' s lies and claimed the right to indefinitely detain anyone he deemed an "enemy combatant." Candidate Barack Obama promised he would reverse his predecessor's constitutional abuses. Yet not only has President Obama not closed Guantanamo Bay, he reportedly holds weekly meetings in the oval office to draw up "kills lists," uses drones against American citizens, and routinely sends the US military into combat abroad without even consulting Congress! The modern use of "executive orders" also usurps the lawmaking function of Congress. The most notable recent example was President Obama's January series of executive orders on gun control, but unfortunately there are countless other examples over the last several administrations . Ultimately, the fault for the expansion of presidential power lies with Congress. Too many members of Congress are all too eager to avoid responsibility for controversial actions, preferring to "pass the buck" to the president. For example, Congress no longer declares war, but instead passes an "authorization of force" telling the president he can go to war when or if he wants! On domestic policy, Congress passes large, vaguely-worded pieces of legislation and leaves it to the president and the bureaucrats to fill in the details. Many members of Congress score points with their constituents railing against "the faceless D.C. bureaucrats" while never mentioning that they voted for the law that gave the bureaucrats their power! Last week, a group of "fiscally conservative" senators even tried to give President Obama more authority over spending as a part of sequester replacement that would have "required" Obama to decide where to reduce spending and where to increase it. They want to restrain the president by giving him more authority? Growth of executive power is a threat to liberty. Fortunately, Congress can restrain the executive simply by exercising its constitutional powers. The American people must demand that Congress stop passing the buck on its foreign and domestic policy responsibilitie s. If the people care about liberty, they will demand their representative stand up to the imperial president. Let us hope last week's filibuster will give Congress the backbone it needs to do its job. Link to Jonathan Turley's article: http://jonathan turley.org/2013 /03/08/holder-i ssues-new-state ment-on-obamas- right-to-kill-c itizens-without -charge-or-conv iction/

Add to EJ Playlist  http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://facebook .com/ronpaul http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://DailyPau l.com http://FFF.org http://Mises.or g http://LewRockw ell.com The Sequester 'Crisis' And What Should Be Done by Ron Paul Despite what the media and politicians would have us believe, the United States did not collapse last Friday when the package of spending reductions known as "sequestration" went into effect. The financial markets hardly blinked, as they have come to be more skeptical about these periodic government-hype d "crises." What had been portrayed as a drastic reduction in government spending was merely a decrease in the projected rate of increase in government spending over the next decade. Under sequestration, government spending increases by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion without it. So we are speeding toward collapse at only 100 miles per hour instead of 110 miles per hour. Some in Congress are using the panic over sequestration to justify another surrender of legislative authority to the executive branch. These members want to "pass the buck" on prioritizing federal programs by giving the president, cabinet officials, and high-level bureaucrats authority to set spending priorities. However, it is Congress's job to set priorities in federal spending. The drafters of the Constitution give the legislature the authority over spending because they recognized it was a threat to liberty to allow this power to be concentrated in the executive branch. Congress's willingness to cede more authority to the executive should be opposed by everyone who values liberty and limited government. Some of the loudest objections to sequestration have come from the champions of the military-indust rial complex. Yet under sequestration defense spending will still increase by 18 percent over 10 years as opposed to 20 percent without sequestration. There are claims that the military will face a one-time real reduction back to 2007 levels of spending, before beginning to climb again next year. That remains to be seen. However, few claimed at the time that 2007 levels of military spending, occurring as they did during the huge post 9/11 build-up, were inadequate. But despite the fact that the US spends more on military than the rest of the world combined, we are told that even this modest, short-term reduction would be, in the words of outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, "shameful" and "irresponsible. " A return to 1980's levels of military spending in real dollars -- a time of significant military build-up -- is considered outrageous even though the US faces no Soviet Union or equivalent threat. In fact, the entire $1.2 trillion dollars that the sequester is supposed to save could be realized by cutting one unneeded, wasteful boondoggle: the $1.5 trillion F-35 fighter program. The F-35, billed as the next generation all-purpose military fighter and bomber, has been an unmitigated disaster. Its performances in recent tests have been so bad that the Pentagon has been forced to dumb-down the criteria. It is overweight, overpriced, and unwieldy. It is also an anachronism: we no longer face the real prospect of air-to-air combat in this era of 4th generation warfare. The World War II mid-air dogfight era is long over. As defense analyst Winslow Wheeler wrote last year: "It's time for Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the U.S. military services, and Congress to face the facts: The F-35 is an unaffordable mediocrity, and the program will not be fixed by any combination of hardware tweaks or cost-control projects. There is only one thing to do with the F-35: Junk it." We should not look for cancellation of the F-35 program any time soon, however. The military industrial complex understands the political necessity of spreading its military Keynesianism as widely across Congressional districts as possible. That is why F-35 manufacturer Lockheed-Martin can boast on its website that "the F-35 provides 127,000 direct and indirect jobs in 47 states and Puerto Rico." What is unfortunately not understood is that these 127,000 workers would be far better utilized producing needed goods and services rather than treated as a jobs program disguised as national defense. Despite the alarm over cuts that are not real cuts, it is clear that the US government is not serious at all about changing its ways. In a recent tour of the Middle East, newly-confirmed Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the US would be sending another $60 million to the rebels seeking to overthrow the Syrian government -- in the midst of the sequester "crisis"! Despite the rhetoric, there appears no intention on the part of the government to take our fiscal crisis seriously or abandon the idea that we should run the rest of the world.

Add to EJ Playlist  http://LewRockw ell.com http://Mises.or g Ron Paul talks with Lew Rockwell about government, war, economics and the future.

Add to EJ Playlist  http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://DailyPau l.com http://FFF.org http://Mises.or g http://LewRockw ell.com When They Came for the Raw Milk Drinkers... by Ron Paul While I oppose most gun control proposals, there is one group of Americans I do believe should be disarmed: federal agents. The use of force by federal agents to enforce unjust and unconstitutiona l laws is one of the major, albeit overlooked, threats to liberty. Too often Americans are victimized by government force simply for engaging in commercial transactions disproved of by Congress and the federal bureaucracy. For example, the offices of Rawesome Foods in Venice, California, have been repeatedly raided by armed federal and state agents, and Rawesome's founder, 65-year old James Stewart, has been imprisoned. What heinous crime justified this action? Rawesome sold unpasteurized (raw) milk and cheese to willing customers -- in a state where raw milk is legal! You cannot even drink milk from a cow without a federal permit! This is hardly the only case of federal agents using force against those who would dare meet consumer demand for raw milk. In 2011 armed agents of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raided the business of Pennsylvanian Amish farmer Dan Allgyer. Federal agents wasted a whole year and who knows how many millions of our tax dollars posing as customers in order to stop Allgyer from selling his raw milk to willing customers. The use of force against individuals making choices not approved of by the political elite does not just stop with raw milk. The Natural News website has documented numerous accounts of federal persecution, including armed raids, of health food stores and alternative medical practitioners. Federal bureaucrats are also using force to crack down on the makers of gold coins for fear that people may use these coins as an alternative to the Federal Reserve's fiat currency. Bernard von NotHaus, the founder of Liberty Dollars, is currently awaiting sentencing on federal counterfeiting charges — even though Mr. von NotHaus took steps to ensure his coins where not used as "legal tender." Yet, the federal government was so concerned over the possibility that Mr. von NotHaus's customers might use his coins in regular day-to-day commerce they actually labeled Mr. von NotHaus a "terrorist." These type of police state tactics used against, among others, raw milk producers, alternative health providers, and gold coin dealers is justified by the paternalistic attitude common in Washington, D.C. A member of Congress actually once told me that, "The people need these types of laws because they do not know what is good for them." This mindset fuels the growth of the nanny state and inevitably leads to what C.S. Lewis said may be the worst from of tyranny "...a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims." All Americans, even if they do not believe it is a wise choice to drink raw milk or use gold coins, should be concerned about the use of force to limit our choices. This is because there is no limiting principle to the idea that the government force is justified if used "for our own good." Today it is those who sell raw milk who are being victimized by government force, tomorrow it could be those who sell soda pop or Styrofoam cups. Therefore, all Americans should speak out against these injustices.

Add to EJ Playlist  http://FFF.org

Add to EJ Playlist  http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://DailyPau l.com http://FFF.org http://LewRockw ell.com http://Mises.or g The Drone Threat by Ron Paul Last week, Senators threatened to put a "hold" on the nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director over his refusal to answer questions about the use of drones to kill Americans on US soil. That the president's nominee to head the agency that has used drones to kill perhaps thousands overseas could not deny their possible use at home should be shocking. How did we get to this point? The Obama administration has rapidly expanded the use of drones overseas, as they appear a way to expand US military action without the political risk of American boots on the ground. In fact they are one of the main reasons a recent Gallup survey of Pakistan, where most US drone strikes take place, found that 92% disapprove of U.S. leadership. This is the lowest approval rate Pakistan citizens have ever given to the United States. And it is directly related to US drone strikes. The risk of blowback increases all the time. However the false propaganda about the success of our drone program overseas leads officials to believe that drones should also be used over US soil as well. In attempt to ease criticism of the use of drones against Americans, some in Congress propose more oversight, as if that should make us feel any better. In last week's hearings, CIA nominee Brennan suggested that he was open to a Congressional proposal to set up a secret court to oversee the president's program to kill Americans by drone. Should we cheer that a court selected by government officials will meet in secret to oversee the president's secret decisions on killing Americans without charge or trial? Has the Constitution been so eroded that we accept such a horrific and terrifying prospect? While touting the success of its overseas drone program, the US administration refuses to even admit publicly that the CIA has an overseas drone program. In response to a recent ACLU Freedom of Information request regarding the existence of the CIA's drone program, the Department of Justice responded, ""the very fact of the existence or nonexistence of such documents is itself classified." How is that for government transparency? Recently, Federal Aviation Administration official, Jim Williams, stated that no armed drones would presently be permitted in US airspace. But what good are the promises of government officials when the Constitution, and especially the Fourth Amendment, has been gutted? More than1,400 applications to use drones in US airspace have been approved, including for police, universities, and at least seven federal agencies. Do we want to live in a society where the government is constantly watching us from above? The East Germans and Soviets could only dream of such technology in the days of their dictatorship. We might ask ourselves how long before "extraordinary" circumstances will lead to a decision to arm those drones over US territory. The US government justified its attack on Saddam Hussein in Iraq and against Gaddafi in Libya, and elsewhere, with claims that these despots were killing their own citizens without trial or due process. It is true that extra-juridical killing is the opposite of justice in a free society. As Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote last week about the president's assassination program, "When [the president] kills without due process, he disobeys the laws he has sworn to uphold, no matter who agrees with him. When we talk about killing as if it were golf, we debase ourselves. And when the government kills and we put our heads in the sand, woe to us when there is no place to hide."

Add to EJ Playlist  http://FFF.org

Add to EJ Playlist  http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://DailyPau l.com http://FFF.org http://LewRockw ell.com http://Mises.or g Beware The Consequences of Pre-Emptive War by Ron Paul Last year more US troops died by suicide than died in combat in Afghanistan. More than 20 percent of military personnel deployed to combat will develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Some 32 percent of US soldiers reported depression after deployments. More than 20 percent of active-duty military are on potentially dangerous psychotropic drugs; many are on multiple types. Violent crime among active duty military members increased 31 percent between 2006-2011. The statistics, compiled by the military last year, are as telling as they are disturbing. The Defense Department scrambles to implement new programs to better treat the symptoms. They implement new substance abuse and psychological counseling programs while they continue to prescribe more dangerous psychotropic drugs. Unfortunately, most often ignored are the real causes of these alarming statistics. The sharp rise in military suicides, drug and alcohol abuse, and domestic and other violence, is the unintended consequence of a violent foreign policy -- of an endless and indefinable "global war on terrorism." Particularly in the past decade or so, we have lived in a society increasingly marked by belief in the use of force as a first and only option. We have seen wars of preemption and aggression, everywhere from Iraq to Pakistan to Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere. We have seen an unprecedented increase in the use of drones to kill overseas, often resulting in civilian deaths, which we call "collateral damage." We have seen torture and assassination (even of American citizens) become official US policy. When asked by Senator Ron Wyden last week if the president has the right to assassinate American citizens on US soil, President Obama's nominee to head the CIA, John Brennan, could not even give a straight answer. The warning that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword" goes not only for individuals but for entire societies. It is a warning to all of us. A country or a society that lives with the violence of pre-emptive war in fact self-destructs. Let us not forget that this endless war is brought to us primarily by the neo-conservativ es who dominate foreign policy in both political parties and who never cease agitating for US military deployments overseas. Of course with very few exceptions they have declined to serve in the military themselves. These endless wars would not be possible, we should also remember, without the Federal Reserve printing the money out of thin air to finance our overseas empire. We are speeding toward national bankruptcy while at the same time turning the rest of the world against us with our aggressive foreign policy. Does anyone really believe this will make us safer and more secure? Many who claim to support the military look the other way when the service-members return home broken in mind and body after years of deployments abroad. I served five years as a US military doctor in the difficult 1960s and even then saw some of this first-hand. During the 1960s the consequence of an unwise prolonged war tragically resulted in violence in our streets, and even students being shot by our military at Kent State University. The truth is, killing strangers in unconstitutiona l and senseless wars causes guilt to the participant no matter what kind of military indoctrination is attempted. Those afflicted may attempt to bury the pain in alcohol or drugs or other destructive behaviors, but we see that only leads to more problems. It may not be popular to point this out, but it goes against human nature to kill a fellow human being for retaliating against those who initiate a war of aggression on their soil. Who cares most for those in military service, those who agitate for more of what is destroying their lives and weakening our national defense, or the many of us who are urging a foreign policy of non-interventio n and peace? If we are to survive, we must beware the seen and unseen consequences of pre-emptive war.

Add to EJ Playlist  http://FFF.org http://UStream. com/Future-of-F reedom-TV is the Future of Freedom Foundation's livestreaming home. Here we will capture and share lectures, presentations and updates to help introduce viewers to the ideas of liberty. The mission of The Future of Freedom Foundation is to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government. http://fff.org As a (501)(c)(3) non-profit foundation that advances the freedom philosophy, The Future of Freedom Foundation does not accept government grants or loans. The principal source of our revenue is tax-deductible donations from our supporters. We welcome your support, which enables us to advance liberty more effectively. http://fff.org/ support

Add to EJ Playlist  http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://DailyPau l.com http://LewRockw ell.com http://Mises.or g http://FFF.org Immigration 'Reform'...

Add to EJ Playlist  http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://DailyPau l.com http://FFF.org http://LewRockw ell.com http://Mises.or g US Action in Mali is...

Add to EJ Playlist  http://UStream. com/Future-of-F reedom-TV is the Future of Freedom Foundation's livestreaming home. Here we will capture and share lectures, presentations and ...

Add to EJ Playlist  http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://DailyPau l.com http://FFF.org http://LewRockw ell.com http://Mises.or g The Coming Debt Limi...

Add to EJ Playlist  http://FFF.org.

Add to EJ Playlist  http://The-FREE -Foundation.org http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://DailyPau l.com http://FFF.org http://Mises.or g http://LewRockw ell.com On Obama's New Natio...

Add to EJ Playlist  http://FFF.org.

Add to EJ Playlist  http://paul.hou se.gov http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://DailyPau l.com http://FFF.org http://Mises.or g http://LewRockw ell.com New Year's Resolutions for Co...

Add to EJ Playlist  http://paul.hou se.gov http://Campaign ForLiberty.org http://DailyPau l.com http://FFF.org http://LewRockw ell.com http://Mises.or g Government Security is Just A...

Add to EJ Playlist  http://FFF.org.