As much as I admire his ideas, sometimes Ron Paul disappoints me.
by Jake, the Champion of the Constitution Originally published December 6, 2008 at http://www.nolanchart.com/article5596.html
In a thrilling, thought-provoking 4-part video series on Youtube (Part 1, 2, 3, 4) Stefan Molyneux of www.freedomainradio.com declares that “Statism is Dead.” At least in the moral sense, he is completely right. In reality, the Ron Paul rEVOLution and non-statists everywhere have a lot of teaching to do! [By the way, I particularly like Part 3, a movie where everyone, including most libertarians are compared to livestock. Funny, and it holds a lot of truth.]
In Part 2, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder,” Mr. Molyneux takes a shot at one of my heroes, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas for not pressing for the impeachment of George Bush. The charge is that not only did Bush purposefully mislead the American public about the Iraq War, but he also is committing the murder of his own Army.
Also a contributor to the Fox News Forums, he has written another brilliant piece discussing the attacks in Mumbai, New York Giant’s receiver Plaxico Burress, and the ill-advised (and unconstitutional) gun-control legislation that has harmed us as a society:
Banning guns is in the news. India practically bans guns, but that didn’t stop the horrific Muslim terrorist attacks this last week.
A football player concerned for his safety violates New York City’s tough gun control regulations by carrying a concealed handgun, and people call for everything from banning NFL players from carrying guns to demanding that the athlete serve many years in jail.
When police can’t promise to protect law-abiding citizens such Plaxico Burress or the victims in India, why don’t we allow people the right to protect themselves?
Where is the sympathy or debate in either case over letting people defend themselves? Given that the terrorists smuggled their machine guns in with them, would anyone argue that India’s extremely strict gun licensing and artificially high prices for guns helped prevent the terrorist attacks? In fact, the reverse is more likely the case.
Would Plaxico Burress, the New York Giant’s receiver who was arrested yesterday, really have been safer just trusting the police to protect him?
President-elect Barack Obama recently announced his pick for SecState: Senator Hillary Clinton. Here is some advice for her, from a former Secretary of State by the name of John Quincy Adams.
Obama’s choices so far for his advisors certainly should quell any libertarian optimism of any real “Change” from the past quarter century dominated by Bush-41-Clinton-42-Bush-43 rule. The most recent press conference announced that the Clintons will run, or have major influence over, foreign policy. The Clintons are well-known interventionists, so I do not suppose the following will change anything, but this article will be emailed to Senator Clinton anyways. Words of advice from July 4, 1821 for the POTUS candidate who this year (in a delusional lie, no less) claimed foreign policy experience as the First Lady bravely ducked enemy gunfire during a helicopter landing in Bosnia (fortunately she skipped Somalia, where her warmongering, draft-dodger husband launched another war):
I ran across this information recently, which puts the dollar amount of the current bailouts into perspective:
So, total up the cost of the major unconstitutional boondoggles in U.S. History and it’s still far less than the cost of the Big Bailout(s) of 2008, especially considering that now it’s estimated that the total of the current bailouts is closing in on eight trillion dollars. This is insanity.
In Ron Paul’s most recent column (Texas Straight Talk), he discusses the Keynesian loonies running the Fed who say that the $8,000,000,000,000.00 in bailout commitments is “just a start”, and again calls for the end of central banking.
As the printing presses for the bailouts run at full speed, those in power are no longer even pretending that the new giveaways will fix our problems. Now that we are used to rewarding failure with taxpayer-funded bailouts, we are being told that this is “just a start,” more funds will inevitably be needed for more industries, and that things would be much worse had we done nothing.
The updated total bailout commitments add up to over $8 trillion now. This translates into a monetary base increase of 75 percent over the last two months. This money does not come from some rainy day fund tucked away in the budget somewhere – it is created from thin air, and devalues every dollar in circulation. Dumping money on an economy, as they have been doing, is not the same as dumping wealth. In fact, it has quite the opposite effect.
Quote of the Day: “It was socialistic in every way. It rewarded market failures. It ripped off average families for the sake of billionaires. It was the worst form of Keynesian planning. It was an open conflict of interest, as the ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs funneled vast sums to Goldman Sachs. It had exactly zero chance of helping the economy. In fact, by draining productive private resources necessary for economic recovery, it makes a bad situation worse.” — Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
Subject: What is a troubled asset?
When Congress passed the Big Bailout they thought they were giving the Treasury Secretary nearly a trillion dollars to save the credit markets by purchasing and re-packaging bad mortgage securities.
This means that only $100 billion of the original $700 billion Bailout will have gone to purchase bad mortgage securities.
Don’t get us wrong. We like it when the government doesn’t spend our money. But we won’t applaud Paulson for “fiscal responsibility.” The fact is, Paulson sold one plan, and delivered another. He was supposed to buy “troubled assets.” Wasn’t he? The bailout bill defines “troubled asset” as:
“(A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages . . . the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and(B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability.”
In other words, a “troubled asset” didn’t have to be troubled. Paulson could have purchased (nationalized!) America’s strongest companies if he determined it would “promote market stability.”
Did anyone in Congress actually read this definition of “troubled asset?” Unlikely.
Browne ran for President twice on the Libertarian Party ticket, once in 1996 and again in 2000. Sadly, he passed away in 2006 and was paid tribute by Ron Paul. No doubt Harry Browne is looking down on America shaking his head saying, “I told you so.”
His biography on his website describes him perfectly: Harry Browne was an American free-market Libertarian writer and the Libertarian Party’s 1996 & 2000 candidate for President of the United States. He was also a well-known investment advisor for over thirty years, author of “Harry Browne’s Special Report” — a financial newsletter published from 1974-1997, author of 19 books and thousands of articles, Co-founder and Director of Public Policy of the libertarian Downsize DC Foundation, host of two weekly network radio shows — one a political and the other a financial show, host of an ETV (internet-based television) show called “This Week in Liberty with Harry Browne” on the Internet based Free Market News Network, a consultant to the Permanent Portfolio Family of Funds, and a popular inspirational public speaker.
For my money, he had a way of speaking that made you understand libertarian principles better than anyone. Lew Rockwell summed up the essence of Harry Browne’s abilities in an article following Browne’s death.
He was exceptional as a public speaker during the campaigns. No matter whether the topic was taxes, education, states rights, war and foreign policy, or the drug war, he took the right position and explained it in a way that allowed anyone to see his point of view. He changed minds, and stuck to principle the whole time. Harry was not tempted to sell out his message for the sake of more votes. He didn’t trim or compromise. His energies were spent trying to think of ways to make the core message more marketable and understandable.
Below are a few quotes from Harry Browne
“I am running for president because it is obvious that no Democrat or Republican is ever going to stop the relentless growth of the federal government. …only a Libertarian is going to set you free.”
“The government’s War on Poverty has transformed poverty from a short-term misfortune into a career choice.”
“The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First Amendment doesn’t say you have a right to speak out unless the government has a ‘compelling interest’ in censoring the Internet. The Second Amendment doesn’t say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t say you have the right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances.”
And finally a quote that encompasses the economic disaster of 2008/2009:
“The free market punishes irresponsibility. Government rewards it.”
Amen Harry. We miss you, but your message carries on.
There are those of us lamenting the potential demise of the so-called “freedom movement” or what has come to be called the Ron Paul Revolution now that Barack Obama is headed for the White House. Even if it wanes I believe the undercurrent will always be there because liberty is in our nature.
I believe every single human on earth is born with the freedom gene. It is only the social and cultural order that ends up pushing us away from it as we get older and “learn” how the world works. I’ve often spoke of Ron Paul as a teacher, but he could also be thought of as a de-programmer. It is hard to unlearn the political status quo dogma for far too many of us. It takes time, constant effort, and a little luck.
As sure as the sun rises Ron Paul will continue to deliver his freedom message. He does so again below in an interview with Russia Today.
Yes, freedom is popular. In fact, it is human nature.
After Inauguration, he should declare the war illegal because it was initiated by President George W. Bush pursuant to an unconstitutional delegation of power by Congress effectuated by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq (AUMFAI). Mr. Obama should announce that all combat operations in Iraq will cease 30 days after Inauguration unless Congress enacts a statute directing him to continue the war.
He can depend on congressional inaction. Members lack both the incentive and political backbone to take responsibility for sending men and women to die on a fool’s errand to make Shi’ites, Sunnis, and Kurds democrats after 5,000 consecutive years of despotism and vicious tribal, ethnic or religious enmities.
After Congress balks at President Obama’s challenge, all U.S. combat troops in Iraq would return home in an orderly fashion beginning February 2009. President Obama could blame any ensuing Iraqi strife, ethnic cleansing or domination by Iran on Congress for failing to prolong the war.
Fein goes a bit further and suggests that such action is a win-win for Obama.
The first three comments to this piece on the Washington Times site demonstrates the complete and utter ignorance many people still have about the authority of the Constitution. The document is law. It is not just law, but the “supreme law of the land.” Just because a lawmaking body in the 21st century makes a law in direct opposition to the Constitution doesn’t mean the 18th century document is null and void.
In practice though, that is what the Constitution has become and sadly, that may be all that matters. The great question of our time may be: How can the Constitution effectively protect our natural rights when the citizens have left it up to the federation of money and power hungry bureaucrats in Washington to enforce and follow it? They aren’t interested in natural right preservation. They are solely interested in power preservation.
Maybe the answer lies in the question itself. It is up to the people to enforce Constitutional restrictions on our government, but how can this be done in this era of government and citizen co-dependence?
In time, the only remedy for such co-dependence may be a new Declaration of Independence.
As often is the case, Ron Paul is the voice of reason when it comes to political and economic matters. In this week’s Texas Straight Talk he quite clearly opposes any types of bailouts — of the “Big Three” automakers, or otherwise — and reminds us that the true responsibility of the government is to be “good stewards” of our nation’s resources:
We must remember that governments do not produce anything. Their only resources come from producers in the economy through such means as inflation and taxation. The government has an obligation to be good stewards of these resources. In bailing out failing companies, they are confiscating money from productive members of the economy and giving it to failing ones. By sustaining companies with obsolete or unsustainable business models, the government prevents their resources from being liquidated and made available to other companies that can put them to better, more productive use. An essential element of a healthy free market, is that both success and failure must be permitted to happen when they are earned. But instead with a bailout, the rewards are reversed – the proceeds from successful entities are given to failing ones. How this is supposed to be good for our economy is beyond me.
Liberty Maven
Obama’s choices so far for his advisors certainly should quell any libertarian optimism of any real “Change” from the past quarter century dominated by Bush-41-Clinton-42-Bush-43 rule. The most recent press conference announced that the Clintons will run, or have major influence over, foreign policy. The Clintons are well-known interventionists, so I do not suppose the following will change anything, but this article will be emailed to Senator Clinton anyways. 
“, is right up there alongside 
as the two best campaign books of all time.
