Category: Ron Paul Page 32 of 33
World Affairs Brief March 31, 2006 Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief
BIG INFLATION COMING Freemarketnews.com reported this week that, “the federal reserve ordered two trillion dollars to be printed! … Three separate sources in the U.S. Treasury have told me that this week, the federal reserve ordered TWO TRILLION dollars to be printed! The US Treasury is allegedly running printing presses 24/7 to accommodate that order. Treasury employees were specifically ordered not to talk about this to anyone because it could cause economic collapse.” That’s a bit inflammatory. Press officials are never supposed to tell how much money is being printed. Even another $2 trillion isn’t going to cause a collapse, though it would and will eventually impact the value of the dollar. I’ve always said that the US has not yet used up all its power to inflate. I guess the PTB are starting in earnest. It is important to note that in response to growing dollar weakness, silver is at a ten year high and gold is nearing a 25 year high.
Robert HcHugh lets us in on what M3 was doing recently – and it was very inflationary. “M-3 has been launched into outer space, up another $56.3 billion last week, up $92.4 billion over the past two. This is some real horsepower. Over six weeks, the meaningless figure, ahem, is up $177.8 billion. These annualized growth rates are 28.7 percent, 23.6 percent, and 15.3 percent respectively. Those are the seasonally adjusted figures. The raw, non-seasonally adjusted, figure is up $293.3 billion over the past 12 weeks, on a pace to add 1.2 trillion in money to the economy … That’s right folks – soon to be discontinued money supply data ALREADY showing annualized growth rates in excess of 28% – and the Fed would have us all believe that this is a non-event.”
The staff at Free Market News tried to imply a direct relationship between the decision to not report M3 money supply figures and this new print move. “The M3 was the amount of cash the government printed to put into circulation, propping-up the U.S. economy.” This is not true, specifically. M1 is the sum of currency that is held outside banks, travelers checks, checking accounts (but not demand deposits), minus the amount of money in the Federal Reserve float. M2 is sum of M1 plus savings deposits (this would include money market accounts from which no checks can be written), small denomination time deposits (less than $100,000), and retirement accounts. M3 (discontinued) is M1 plus M2 plus the large time deposits (more than $100,000), Eurodollar deposits, dollars held at foreign offices of U.S. banks, and institutional money market funds. Cash eventually shows up in all of these, but the significance of removing M3 has more to do with hiding the numbers of dollars outside the US where most inflation goes so as to deny currency traders a key piece of the data which helps evaluate the dollar versus other currencies. They have alternates, of course, but losing M3 was important. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced legislation to require the Fed to resume reporting the M3 statistic. Urge your Congressmen to support The Sunshine in Monetary Policy Act.
Every time new dollars are printed and the money supply increases,
your income and savings are worth less.
Even as you save for retirement, the Fed is working against you.
Inflation is nothing more than
government counterfeiting by the Fed printing presses.
– U.S. Congressman Ron Paul
What do Rising Gold Prices Mean?
December 5, 2005
The market price for an ounce of gold rose to over $500 last week, a significant milestone for economists watching precious metals and commodities markets. The last time gold topped $500 was December 1987, in the wake of the “Black Monday” stock market collapse earlier that fall.
Gold prices historically rise when faith in paper currencies erodes, as investors seek the intrinsic value of gold to protect themselves from inflation. It’s interesting to note that while the U.S. dollar has regained some of its value relative to other paper currencies like the Euro, it continues to lose value relative to gold and other hard assets. This shows the folly of using one fiat currency to value another.
Gold is history’s oldest and most stable currency. Central bankers and politicians don’t want a gold-backed currency system, because it denies them the power to create money out of thin air. Governments by their very nature want to expand, whether to finance military intervention abroad or a welfare state at home. Expansion costs money, and politicians don’t want spending limited to the amounts they can tax or borrow. This is precisely why central banks now manage all of the world’s major currencies.
Yet while politicians favor central bank control of money, history and the laws of economics are on the side of gold. Even though central banks try to mask their inflationary policies and suppress the price of gold by surreptitiously selling it, the gold markets always cut through the smokescreen eventually. Rising gold prices like we see today historically signify trouble for paper currencies, and the dollar is no exception.
President Nixon finally severed the last tenuous links between the dollar and gold in 1971. Since 1971, the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury have employed a pure fiat money system, meaning government can create money whenever it decrees simply by printing more dollars. The “value” of each newly minted dollar is determined by the faith of the public, the money supply, and the financial markets. In other words, fiat dollars have no intrinsic value.
What does this mean for you and your family? Since your dollars have no intrinsic value, they are subject to currency market fluctuations and ruinous government policies, especially Fed inflationary policies. Every time new dollars are printed and the money supply increases, your income and savings are worth less. Even as you save for retirement, the Fed is working against you. Inflation is nothing more than government counterfeiting by the Fed printing presses.
From: House.gov/paul
January 29, 2007
The Pentagon recently reported that it now spends roughly $8.4 billion per month waging the war in Iraq, while the additional cost of our engagement in Afghanistan brings the monthly total to a staggering $10 billion. Since 2001, Congress has spent more than $500 billion on specific appropriations for Iraq. This sum is not reflected in official budget and deficit figures. Congress has funded the war by passing a series of so-called “supplemental” spending bills, which are passed outside of the normal appropriations process and thus deemed off-budget.
This is fundamentally dishonest: if we’re going to have a war, let’s face the costs– both human and economic– squarely. Congress has no business hiding the costs of war through accounting tricks.
As the war in Iraq surges forward, and the administration ponders military action against Iran, it’s important to ask ourselves an overlooked question: Can we really afford it? If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I’m quite certain it would end very quickly. The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes. When the costs are obscured, the question of whether any war is worth it becomes distorted.
Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank have a cozy, unspoken arrangement that makes war easier to finance. Congress has an insatiable appetite for new spending, but raising taxes is politically unpopular. The Federal Reserve, however, is happy to accommodate deficit spending by creating new money through the Treasury Department. In exchange, Congress leaves the Fed alone to operate free of pesky oversight and free of political scrutiny. Monetary policy is utterly ignored in Washington, even though the Federal Reserve system is a creation of Congress.
The result of this arrangement is inflation. And inflation finances war.
Economist Lawrence Parks has explained how the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 made possible our involvement in World War I. Without the ability to create new money, the federal government never could have afforded the enormous mobilization of men and material. Prior to that, American wars were financed through taxes and borrowing, both of which have limits. But government printing presses, at least in theory, have no limits. That’s why the money supply has nearly tripled just since 1990.
For perspective, consider our ongoing military commitment in Korea. In Korea alone, U.S. taxpayers have spent $1 trillion in today’s dollars over 55 years. What do we have to show for it? North Korea is a belligerent adversary armed with nuclear weapons, while South Korea is at best ambivalent about our role as their protector. The stalemate stretches on with no end in sight, as the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the men who fought in Korea give little thought to what was gained or lost. The Korean conflict should serve as a cautionary tale against the open-ended military occupation of any region.
The $500 billion we’ve officially spent in Iraq is an enormous sum, but the real total is much higher, hidden within the Defense Department and foreign aid budgets. As we build permanent military bases and a $1 billion embassy in Iraq, we need to keep asking whether it’s really worth it. Congress should at least fund the war in an honest way so the American people can judge for themselves.
Borrowing, Spending, Counterfeiting
By Congressman Ron Paul
August 22, 2005Few Americans truly understand how our Federal Reserve system enables Congress to spend far beyond its means, but the cycle of spending and printing money affects all of us. Simply put, the more money our Treasury prints, the less every dollar is worth. Our pure fiat money system, in place since the last vestiges of a gold standard were eliminated in the early 1970s, has reduced the value of your savings by 80%. Disregard the government’s Consumer Price Index, which substantially underreports price inflation. Monetary inflation is true inflation, and we only need to look at the cost of homes, cars, energy, and medical care to recognize that a dollar buys far less today than ever.
Economist Mark Thornton of the Ludwig von Mises Institute lays out a sobering case against the long-term health of the U.S. dollar. He identifies several facts and trends that bode ill for millions of Americans counting on dollar-denominated assets to fund their retirements.
First, federal debt continues to grow exponentially and shows no sign of abating. Americans were shocked at the notion of a $1 trillion federal debt in 1980; just 25 years later the total approaches $8 trillion. The Bush administration and the current Congress have increased spending at rates unseen since the New Deal and Great Society eras, and single-year deficits now exceed $500 billion. There is zero political will in Washington to curb spending, as evidenced by the shameful transportation bill recently passed by Congress.
Second, federal entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare will not be “fixed” by politicians who are unwilling to made hard choices and admit mistakes. Demographic trends will force tax increases and greater deficit spending to maintain benefits for millions of older Americans who are dependent on the federal government. Faced with uncomfortable financial realities, Congress will seek to avoid the day of reckoning by the most expedient means available— and the Federal Reserve undoubtedly will accommodate Washington by printing more dollars to pay the bills.
Third, future administrations are unlikely to challenge a foreign policy orthodoxy that views America as the world’s savior. We are hemorrhaging billions of dollars every month in Iraq, and we waste billions more every year through foreign aid and overseas meddling. A foreign policy based on nation-building and the imposition of “democracy” abroad, in direct contravention of our founders’ admonitions, is not economically sustainable. In Korea alone, U.S. taxpayers have spent nearly one trillion in today’s dollars over 55 years. A permanent military presence in Iraq and the wider Middle East will cost enormous amounts of money.
Finally, we face a reordering of the entire world economy. China, Japan, and Asia in general have been happy to hold U.S. debt instruments in recent decades, but they will not prop up our spending habits forever. Foreign central banks are increasingly reluctant to hold more U.S. dollars, understanding that American leaders do not have the discipline to maintain a stable currency. When the rest of the world finally abandons the dollar as the global reserve currency, both Congress and American consumers will find borrowing money a more expensive proposition.
All of these factors make it likely that the U.S. dollar will continue to decline in value, perhaps precipitously, in the coming decade. Will it take an economic depression before the American public finally holds the political class accountable for its reckless borrowing, spending, and counterfeiting?
The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch– Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference– that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naMtwqBzja0]
Cool Reggae band wants Ron Paul for President. Jimmy did the video accompaniment.
Ya think Rudy has a cool Reggae band that does songs for him? Somehow I doubt it.www.RonPaul2008.com
www.threeshoesposse.com
www.jackbloodforum.com“About this song” from Three Shoes Posse:
We were motivated to write this song because Dr. Ron Paul is the only true Constitutionalist presidential candidate. A true conservative, he believes the primary role of government is to protect the liberties, freedoms, and privacy of individuals. He believes in the original intent of the Founding Fathers which is limited federal government. Some criticize his fiscal policy of restricting federal spending on social and other programs. But one must realize the big picture – if the federal government didn’t rob our money in the form of taxes, they wouldn’t be able to offer our money back to us with strings attached. The states and local governments would have more money to take care of themselves and would have more freedom to decide how the money is spent, which ultimately would be better for the people. His proposals would eliminate inflation which hurts the middle class and the poor.
Ron Paul does not play the big-money game like the rest of them. The mainstream media tries to ignore and censor him. The gallup and other “scientific” polls do not include his name as an option when conducting the poll, then they turn around and say that Ron Paul didn’t do well in their poll. They rig the game. But Ron Paul is winning every internet poll and he also won the Fox cell phone text-message poll after the South Carolina debates.
He is gaining increasing support from liberals and conservatives alike. He has a strong base of people who consider themselves classic conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and even Green Party supporters. His message transcends the political spectrum. His words ring true and make sense to everybody.
Because the mainstream brainwashing media machine has tried to hide his massive grass-roots support as well as doing everything they can to portray him as “second-tier” instead of the true front-runner that he is, we are using our platform as musicians and artists to take the message of freedom and truth to the mainstream.
Please take the time to see what he is all about – www.RonPaul2008.com. Many people say, “Why would you support a candidate that doesn’t seem to have much of a chance of winning?” There are a couple of answers to this question. First, who’s opinion is it anyway that he doesn’t have much of a chance? The mainstream media? It is not the media’s role to dictate public opinion and try to tell us who we should consider a front runner. It is their job to report what we tell them public opinion is. And frankly, it looks like they are not doing a good job right now at reporting what public opinion really is, but rather they are trying to suppress it. We the people decide who we want, not the mainstream media, otherwise voters are disenfranchised and our Constitutional Republic is nullified.
The other reason is that this isn’t a horse-race or a football gambling pool at the office, folks. The mainstream media has tricked us into feeling like we must support “the winner”, that is, who they tell us the winner is. It is erroneous to think we should just “be on the side that’s winning”, as Bob Dylan so eloquently put it. That is not the purpose of voting. We are supposed to vote for who we feel best represents our views and who we think would do the best job. Voting is the voice of the people. We must stick to our principles without compromise.
We support Dr. Ron Paul with all our heart because he is the only man who is not a war-mongering hypocrite. He has over 20 years of experience as a U.S. Congressman and an immaculate congressional voting record to prove that he means what he says and is unwavering. He truly cares about the people. He most certainly represents “Hope For America.”
From WorldNetDaily
In an exclusive interview with WND, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul fired back at Newsweek for an article labeling the NAFTA Superhighway a baseless conspiracy theory.
“It’s the same old story,” Paul said. “If Newsweek can’t discredit the message, they have to discredit the messenger.”
The Newsweek article, by Gretel C. Kovach, keyed off an answer the Texas congressman gave during the Nov. 28 CNN presidential debate. A YouTube.com question asked him about a “conspiracy theory regarding the Council [on] Foreign Relations and some plan to merge the United States with Canada and Mexico.”
From: News with Views
George W. Bush and Karl Rove have made mincemeat out of the Religious Right. They have shown everyone that once you win the support of the Christian Right with rhetoric, you can get by with just about anything. Christians are horrible at holding Republicans accountable. […]
Have you wondered why Mike Huckabee is suddenly getting so much favorable attention from the mainstream media (who themselves are controlled by this gaggle of global elite)? To find the answer as to why a professing pro-life, conservative Christian would suddenly become the darling of the media, look no further than the fact that just a couple of months ago, Mr. Huckabee appeared before the globalist-minded Council on Foreign Relations. (Read his speech here) And when he did, it became abundantly clear that Huckabee was a man globalists could trust.
By the way, as you read Huckabee’s speech, you will find that he is George W. Bush on steroids! This is a man who intends to meddle in the affairs of nations around the world like you can’t believe. Talk about entangling alliances: Huckabee intends for our State, Energy, Housing, Education, Justice, Treasury, and Transportation departments to spend untold billions of tax dollars on just about anything and everything, including schools, medical facilities, roads, sewage treatment, water filtration, electricity, and legal and banking systems in countries all over the globe. And that is exactly the kind of man the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) wants in Washington.
Make no mistake about it: the CFR has dominated every administration, Republican and Democrat, since World War II. They hold sway over most every critical Presidential appointment. Look carefully and one will discover that the Republican President George W. Bush has had as many CFR members in his administration as Democrat President Bill Clinton did in his. The last time I counted, President Bush had nearly 200 members of the CFR in his administration.
Remember that the total number of CFR members is less than 5,000. Can one imagine what people would think if, say, the old Christian Coalition, which at one time numbered in the hundreds of thousands, had nearly 200 members in any one administration? Talk about conjectures of a conspiracy: the media would go ballistic. Yet, each and every administration, regardless of party, continues to fill their ranks with members of the CFR, and with those friendly with the CFR, and no one seems to notice. Do you now understand why nothing changes no matter which party wins the White House?
Now consider the current presidential candidates who are also members of the CFR. These include Christopher Dodd, Bill Richardson, John McCain, and Fred Thompson. Hillary is not a member of the CFR, but her husband, Bill, is. Plus, she has a plethora of advisors who are CFR members. And even though Mike Huckabee is not on this list (neither is George W. Bush), it is obvious that he will carry water for them in much the same way as the current President has done. Barack Obama has spoken at least once for the CFR. John Edwards has appeared before the CFR several times. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney both wrote for the CFR and have numerous advisors who are CFR members, as do Edwards and Obama.
This also explains why independent-minded candidates such as Ron Paul are forever cast in terms such as “fringe,” or “extremist,” or “nutty.” The same CFR elite that controls the Washington political establishment also controls the New York media and financial establishments. And they hate outsiders! Of course, outsiders are those who do not share the globalist, utopian, New World Order machinations of the CFR. …
Of the Presidential candidates in serious contention, Ron Paul, and Ron Paul alone, stands for change. Ron Paul, alone, would truly obey his oath to the Constitution and would work to restore freedom and liberty to the American people. Ron Paul, alone, would kick the globalist elite out of power in Washington, D.C., and restore this country to constitutional governance.
But, once again, the Christian Right just doesn’t get it. So, they will continue to support establishment, CFR-backed, globalist candidates who will, in turn, continue to do the bidding of the international elite.
One would think that Christians–more than anyone else–would understand the devilish nature of globalism. One would think that their study of the Sacred Text would lead them to resist any attempts at building modern-day Towers of Babel. One would think that Christians would love liberty enough to recognize its enemies. One would think that they would recognize that Washington, D.C., is a far greater threat to their freedom than either Baghdad or Tehran.
Related:
Mike Huckabee: “If you vote for me you live. If you don’t…”
Huckabee Jokes About Shooting Romney for Airing Negative Ads
Mike Huckabee Can Be Mean, Flirts with Vulgarity
World Affairs Brief, December 7, 2007. Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.
Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief
PUSHING HUCKABEE
In furtherance of the insider’s attempt to divert the support of Christian conservatives away from Ron Paul, the establishment is giving big play to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, an ordained Christian minister, with a penchant to go along with the globalist agenda. The PTB [powers that be – ed.] failed in their initial attempt to promote another phony and lack-luster conservative, former Sen. Fred Thompson. Now the establishment airways are full of “news” stories promoting Huckabee’s sudden rise in the Iowa polls. These puff pieces are worth millions in campaign dollars that Huckabee doesn’t have to spend. Notice that there has no commensurate coverage for Ron Paul’s huge success in raising money–almost $11 million this quarter so far.
Huckabee is riding the strong backing of uninformed fundamentalist Christians, who are strangely drawn to the globalist interventionists strategies out of a confused and mistaken linkage of America’s meddling in the Middle East with God’s covenant to preserve Israel as a heritage for the Jews. That’s why so many Christian reject Ron Paul’s non interventionist foreign policy. They don’t understand that God will preserve Israel for his own purposes, in his own way, and that the globalist intervention is NOT the hand of God working to preserve Israel but, in fact, a strategy to make it more vulnerable to international intervention and eventual control. And, that Israel’s own leaders are part of that globalist conspiracy (despite pretending to be right-wing).
Conservatives also don’t realize how flawed Huckabee’s record was while governor of Arkansas. Ever since the Clinton years, no one has gained high office in Arkansas without being controlled by the same establishment powers that brought us Bill Clinton. Huckabee was no exception. Phyllis Schlafly has written extensively on how much damage Huckabee did to the conservative Republicans in Arkansas during his tenure.
Pastor Chuck Baldwin, one of a handful of evangelical Christian leaders who really understands what’s happening in this nation, gives us more details on Huckabee’s flirtations with the globalists:
“To find the answer as to why a professing pro-life, conservative Christian would suddenly become the darling of the media, look no further than the fact that just a couple of months ago, Mr. Huckabee appeared before the globalist-minded Council on Foreign Relations. (Read his speech here) And when he did, it became abundantly clear that Huckabee was a man globalists could trust.
“By the way, as you read Huckabee’s speech, you will find that he is George W. Bush on steroids! This is a man who intends to meddle in the affairs of nations around the world like you can’t believe. Talk about entangling alliances: Huckabee intends for our State, Energy, Housing, Education, Justice, Treasury, and Transportation departments to spend untold billions of tax dollars on just about anything and everything, including schools, medical facilities, roads, sewage treatment, water filtration, electricity, and legal and banking systems in countries all over the globe. And that is exactly the kind of man the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) wants in Washington.”
Huckabee reminds me very much of the naive Jimmy Carter who the globalist played for a fool as president–though Carter wasn’t an actual co-conspirator. Carter’s CFR handler was his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was and is a globalist–despite his current pretensions as a critic of the Bush foreign policy. Baldwin’s final comment is right on target:
“But, once again, the Christian Right just doesn’t get it. So, they will continue to support establishment, CFR-backed, globalist candidates who will, in turn, continue to do the bidding of the international elite.” …
A Newsweek story critical of Rep. Ron Paul and labeling the NAFTA Superhighway a baseless conspiracy theory has generated approximately 250 adverse reader responses on the “comments” section of Newsweek’s website, many citing hard evidence that the proposed transcontinental trade corridor is quite real.”
There is a broad coalition of Americans developing across the United States who are opposed to a North American Union and know that Ron Paul is right and we need to take action now before it is too late,” Jesse Benton, national press secretary for the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign 08 told WND.
Particularly interesting among Newsweek’s reader comments were citations of Canadian government websites that openly discuss and declare plans to create a NAFTA Superhighway.
From: The New York Times, July 22, 2007
There is something homespun about Paul, reminiscent of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” …
Paul grew up in the western Pennsylvania town of Green Tree. His father, the son of a German immigrant, ran a small dairy company. Sports were big around there — one of the customers on the milk route Paul worked as a teenager was the retired baseball Hall of Famer Honus Wagner — and Paul was a terrific athlete, winning a state track meet in the 220 and excelling at football and baseball. But knee injuries had ended his sports career by the time he went off to Gettysburg College in 1953. After medical school at Duke, Paul joined the Air Force, where he served as a flight surgeon, tending to the ear, nose and throat ailments of pilots, and traveling to Iran, Ethiopia and elsewhere. “I recall doing a lot of physicals on Army warrant officers who wanted to become helicopter pilots and go to Vietnam,” he told me. “They were gung-ho. I’ve often thought about how many of those people never came back.”
Paul is given to mulling things over morally. His family was pious and Lutheran; two of his brothers became ministers. Paul’s five children were baptized in the Episcopal church, but he now attends a Baptist one. He doesn’t travel alone with women and once dressed down an aide for using the expression “red-light district” in front of a female colleague. As a young man, though, he did not protest the Vietnam War, which he now calls “totally unnecessary” and “illegal.” Much later, after the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, he began reading St. Augustine. “I was annoyed by the evangelicals’ being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that I was taught as a Christian,” he recalls. “The religion is based on somebody who’s referred to as the Prince of Peace.”
From: Infowars
The media campaign to deny the reality of the move towards a North American Union in the mold of the European Union, which would encompass a merging of the economies of The US, Canada and Mexico, continues with a sharp focus on attacking presidential candidate Ron Paul who has spoken about the move on numerous occasions.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADG448a4Qrk&feature=related]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6I5zYu541Q]
Statement of Faith
By Rep. Ron Paul, MD.
The Covenant News ~ July 21, 2007
We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.
I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.
I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of “just war.” This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort— for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success.
It has been and remains my firm belief that the current United Nations-mandated, no-win police action in Iraq fails to meet the high moral threshold required to wage just war. That is why I have offered moral and practical opposition to the invasion, occupation and social engineering police exercise now underway in Iraq. It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.
I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression, However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.
On September 17, 2001, I stated on the house floor that “…striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I’m certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.” I’m sorry to say that history has proven this to be true.
I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution. I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned.
Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.
Sincerely,
Ron Paul
For More Information Contact:
Paul Dorr
Iowa Field Director
RonPaul2008@iowatelecom.net
Phone: 712-758-3660Ron Paul 2008
Presidential Campaign Committee
www.RonPaul2008.com
Phone: 703-248-9115
FAX: 703-248-9119
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbq–pFYcLw]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX9Uei89TuE]
From: Dr. Mercola
Ron Paul supports all the basic principles of the Constitution – including limited government involvement.
What does this mean for your health?
Just as I encourage you to Take Control of Your Health, Ron Paul seeks to maximize your individual freedom, including those basic rights that pertain to your health.
Already, Paul has introduced The Health Freedom Protection Act, which would strongly and positively affect Mercola.com and many other natural health organizations and advocates, along with the field of natural health in general. This bill would curb restrictions imposed by the FDA and FTC regarding health claims for dietary supplements, preventing the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative or preventative effect of dietary supplements.
The fact that we need serious healthcare reform, and wider access and education about preventative health, is nothing new. Ron Paul understands these issues, and as President, he would have even more opportunities to introduce positive, and much-needed, change in the health-care arena. In terms of your health, Ron Paul:
• Wants to expand the ability of Americans 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 require immunizations or vaccinations.
Excerpt from News with Views:
The only presidential candidate who has a commitment to saving the lives of unborn babies and who understands the constitutional authority of Congress to end abortion-on-demand is Texas Congressman Ron Paul (with the exception of Alan Keyes, who recently announced his candidacy). You read it right. At this point, John McCain is all talk; Mitt Romney is all talk; Fred Thompson is all talk. And even Mike Huckabee is all talk. …
When it comes to ending abortion-on-demand and overturning Roe v. Wade, the only thing Mike Huckabee (and the rest of the Republican presidential candidates, save Ron Paul and Alan Keyes) will say is that they will appoint the right judges, as if they have no power as President to do anything else. (Good grief! Even Rudy Giuliani says as much.) …
Ron Paul seems to be the only presidential candidate who understands that under Article. III. Section. 2., the Constitution gives to the Congress of the United States the power to hold rogue courts in check and to overturn outlandish rulings such as Roe v. Wade.
Accordingly, Ron Paul has introduced and reintroduced the Sanctity of Life Act (including in the current Congress). If passed, this Bill would recognize the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” The Bill also recognizes the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, this Bill would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision. The Bill would also deny funding for abortion providers. In plain language, the Bill would overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion-on-demand.
Is it not more than interesting that “pro-life” President George W. Bush, along with the “pro-life” Republican Party leadership of both houses of Congress, refused–and continues to refuse–to support Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act? In addition, not a single “pro-life” presidential candidate outside of Ron Paul has even bothered to mention the Sanctity of Life Act, much less aggressively call for its implementation with a promise that, if elected President, he would sign it into law. Not Huckabee; not McCain; not Thompson; not Romney; none of them! …
Every four years, Republicans trot out a conservative façade during an election season for the purpose of obtaining the votes of susceptible Christians. And every four years, conservative Christians–like starving catfish–take the bait: hook, line, and sinker.
“Save us from the monster,” seems to be the cry of well-meaning–but easily manipulated–conservatives. The “monster” is whoever the Democrats nominate, of course. But, ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has done absolutely nothing to change the course of the country. Nothing! In fact, it has only gotten worse with Republicans in charge.
Ron Paul is the only candidate running against the status quo. He is the only candidate who takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. He is the only candidate who, if elected, would actually turn the country around. A Ron Paul victory would launch a new American revolution: a revolution of freedom and independence such as we have not seen since 1776. Furthermore, among the major Republican presidential contenders, Ron Paul is the only candidate whose pro-life commitment extends beyond rhetoric.
Related:
Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin at the Iowa Pastor’s Forum
The Christian Heart of Ron and Carol Paul—MP3 Interview
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg-qsOA0NPk]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOyDAiINLi8]
December 5, 2006:
“Politicians often manage to fool voters and the media, but they rarely fool the financial markets over time. …”
“This decline in the value of the dollar is simple to explain. The dollar loses value as the direct result of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury increasing the money supply. Inflation, as the late Milton Friedman explained, is always a monetary phenomenon. The federal government consistently wants to spend more than it can tax and borrow, so Congress turns to the Fed for help in covering the difference. The result is more dollars, both real and electronic – which means the value of every existing dollar goes down.”
From: The John Birch Society
The Associated Press carried a story about how a Nevada brothel owner had “endorsed” Ron Paul, downplaying the fact that the “endorsement” was actually arranged by the media.
From: The Ron Paul Library
This library is a collection of over 900 articles and speeches written by Congressman Ron Paul.
To understand his ideas, just review what he has written over the past 10 years.
From: InfoWars.com
“They’re getting awfully frightened,” said Paul, “I think we are a threat to the establishment, and they represent the establishment.”
“I see these people as very insecure – they don’t understand what freedom is about and they have to resort to this threatening….”
From: The Washington Post
lib•er•tar•ian
n. 1. a person who believes in the doctrine of the freedom of the will
2. a person who believes in full individual freedom of thought, expression and action
3. a freewheeling rebel who hates wiretaps, loves Ron Paul and is redirecting politics
From NationalReview.com:
Zogby Predicts Ron Paul Could Get 15 to 18 Percent in New Hampshire
On the Sean Hannity radio program, pollster John Zogby said that Texas Congressman Ron Paul could end up surprising the field – and “embarass a lot of the frontrunners” by wildly exceeding expectations taking 15 to 18 percent in the New Hampshire primary.
I was just listening to The Rick Williams Show on Ron Paul Radio http://www.ronpaulradio.com , where you never know what you’re going to hear.
Rick said he was kind of depressed by the bad news about the economy, but then he realizes that the good news about the bad economy is that it’s driving Ron Paul’s campaign–along with the backlash against the war.
– jeff
This started as a response to a close friend who was thinking this way about why Pat has endorsed Rudy:
To me, it seems obvious why Robertson endorsed Giuliani. He’s supporting Giuliani against Romney.
He’d rather have a liberal than a Mormon.
A partial explanation.
If Robertson is so anti-Mormon, then why did he allow Romney to give the commencement address at Regent?
Pat stated why he is supporting Giuliani, because basically he wants the most pro-war President possible.
Pat recently, again stated how right he was by calling for Chavez’ assassination.
Robertson is amillennialist, right, thinking the millennium is now? And apparently he’s counting on military might to get ‘er done; though, in reality he’s actually supporting Satan’s globalist, one-world-government agenda, for these wars seem to me to be designed to take out the opposition to the one-world government.
Why doesn’t Robertson ever support the candidate with the most Christian values at the beginning of the race, when they need name recognition and support? Why didn’t he support Keyes in ‘90, but loudly supported Bush? Why has he totally dissed Paul? Ron Paul would have a huge chance of winning had the religious right leaders supported him from early on. He still could win if people would become aware of what he could do for America, but most people still don’t even know who he is. No prominent religious leader will give him even one interview, let alone help America understand why Paul’s policies are so Godly, powerful, and loving.
Robertson unconstitutionally wants government to control people, to push his agenda. Paul wants government off of people’s backs, so the states can decide matters that aren’t in the Constitution. Ron Paul is hope for America. Giulliani will continue its destruction. And only Paul can beat Hillary. Unless Hillary’s evil acts get more coverage.
In the ‘70s, I actually enjoyed very, very much watching The 700 Club. It actually had a lot of good, sound Christian teaching on it. But when Pat turned it into a political platform along with religious soundbites, it no longer appealed to me, but felt weird and yukky. And more than one female co-host has had serious problems largely from their experiences with Pat. It is said that Danuta Soderman no longer claims to be a Christian.
And Sheila Walsh had a “nervous breakdown” while working with Pat. I’ve always liked Sheila:
Is it possible that Pat has become a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Has the love of money and maybe even power overtaken Pat? This is serious, and he’s leading millions astray, politically and spiritually.
America should change the channel.