The Dollar Is Going to Self Destruct: Talking Bitcoin With …

Dr. Ron Paul was into sound money before it was cool.

Before he became an initiate in the Austrian school of economics, he served as a flight surgeon in the United States Airforce and as a private practice OBGYN in Texas. Proselytized by the works of Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand, Paul decided to run for Congress in the 70s following the termination of the Bretton Woods agreement an international pact that was the dollar's final, albeit tentative, tie to the gold standard.

Nixons decision to withdraw from this agreement would have lasting consequences on U.S. monetary policy and Dr. Paul launched his political career as a crusade against these changes and the danger he saw in the fiat economy that they created. In his on-again-off-again career as a politician which included Texas Congressional Representative terms from 1976 to 1977, 1979 to 1985 and 1997 to 2013 as well as presidential runs in 2008 and 2012 the godfather of the modern right-wing Libertarian movement made a name for himself with his zealous advocacy of the gold standard and his uncompromising critique of the Federal Reserve and the hazards of its monetary policy.

As a fledgling congressman, his position on the House Banking Committee gave him a platform to disseminate his Austrian ideals. Today, his 2009 bestseller End the Fed and his 2012 presidential run can be seen as career capstones which also encapsulated the core tenets of his political philosophy: liberty, revolution and sound money.

Its not shocking, then, that Ron Paul is privy to Bitcoin. He and his son, former presidential candidate and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, accept bitcoin for their political foundation.

Dr. Paul attended this years Consensus conference as a guest of the Digital Asset Policy Network (DAPNet), a cryptocurrency policy and lobbying non-proft led by veteran campaign manager Jesse Benton and Bitcoin Center Founder Nick Spanos. During the conference, Bitcoin Magazine sat down with Dr. Paul to discuss his views on bitcoin as a disruptive and sovereign asset. Our conversation showed that gold bugs have more in kind with bitcoiners than not (and its also a good reminder that bitcoin is not age specific not every old bull is a salty no-coiner la Warren Buffet).

When did you first learn about bitcoin and what were your initial reservations with it?

There was no one time where I read an article and it struck me. I just heard a little about it, but I didnt pay too much attention to it. And then I finally got interested enough to watch what it was doing in the marketplace I love to watch markets and, you know, down to $0 up to $20,000, that was sort of fascinating. What does this mean? Im still trying to figure out what the endpoint is.

So that got me interested, and then I looked at the technology and Im not a computer person. If I had to explain blockchain technology, I wouldnt do well. Im interested in the issue of alternative currencies, Im interested in what happens when the market crashes and Im interested in preserving an environment where people can have alternative ideas that might help solve the problems we have. I think thats what bitcoin offers: an alternative. I want a free marketplace.

Ive heard you mention free markets in relation to bitcoin, in an interview with CoinDesk, for instance. I want to ask you about Congressman Shermans remarks on a ban of cryptocurrencies. What do you think this signals for Congress? Do you think were going to see hostility?

There will be hostility but it will be more dignified. They will work behind the scenes and put in roadblocks if they can. The more successful that cryptos are, the more the government will get involved. There are people like Sherman, but they wont be talking like that. I dont think that he has the clout since hes over the top. Theyre not [going to] all of a sudden pass this; I dont even think hell introduce a bill. It wont be a movement, it just got everyones attention.

Story continues

Do you think Congress is paying more attention to these things than its letting on? Because weve seen some incompetency from Congress when it comes to technical topics.

No, I dont think there are many [people in Congress] who are more knowledgeable than I am and [theyre] much less interested in the principles of the marketplace. And theyre less in agreement that big problems lie ahead, so they have less interest in Bitcoin. I dont think that if you did a poll for Congress about whether to ban it or tax it, they probably havent thought it through. Republicans I would think would tend more to be very tolerant, but lovers of big government like Brad Sherman they know what is going on. His reaction, his emotions are his belief, because he can see what could happen to the Federal Reserves monopoly over the monetary system. You cant allow people to talk about using alternative currencies. Usually, we punish people for that.

To your point toward the end there, it seems like Sherman has thought it through. Because if you listen to his argument, he basically says cryptocurrency poses a threat to the dollars dominance and the U.S.s international commerce.

That tells you a lot. Hes speaking for the deep state establishment, military people and everyone else in the banking system. Hes representing their position that You dont mess with the dollar. But I dont worry about that because the dollar is going to self-destruct.

Yeah, I want to touch on that. In End the Fed, you speak of the dollar like a ticking time bomb just waiting to go off. What do you think could accelerate it and do you see crypto acting as a sort of hedge as weve seen with gold and silver at times of market volatility?

I would think so, but someone else needs to answer that question. I just want to make sure that theres allowed to be a hedge. In our country, for a lot of years, we werent allowed to own gold as a hedge. I think that there are a lot of time bombs. We have difficulty figuring out what our foreign policy is. You know, the on-again-off-again with Syria and North Korea, Iran.

The John Boltons and Abrahams of the world and the senators that are wild as long as they are in charge, a bad accident can happen or a bad judgement made. That could change everything. That could change the dollar system; it could change the stock market.

In End the Fed, you talk about a financial crisis that is worse than in 2008 to 2009. Do you think that were starting to see the foundations shake? Is the writing on the wall?

I think so, but its been there a long time. I decided that this trend was established with our announcement that we no longer could honor the dollar. Which was really an announcement of bankruptcy, and its been steadily building up the problem. And the trust in the dollar has allowed the bubble to get bigger. Its held together for a long time and thats just going to make the crash worse.

Im glad you mentioned the word bubble because that gets thrown around a lot in this industry. What would you say about the volatility of bitcoin when taken in kind with the devaluation of the dollar through inflation?

Theres going to be volatility. The dollar is going to be volatile. You have the supply and demand of the dollar: how many people really want to use it versus how fast theyre printing the money. A lot of people look at prices in terms of supply and demand but they dont look at the purchasing power of the dollar, which is hard to calculate. The thing that I realized in 1971 was that, since Nixon took us off the gold standard, this is a different world. Now, we have the digital currencies and I think theyll follow the same economic laws, but there is going to be a subjective element to it. You cant deny that there was some subjectivity when bitcoin hit $20,000. But does that mean its worthless? No, I dont think so things do that. This is new, so its going to have ups and downs.

If we see a threat to it, when someone comes along and says, We need a law to ban cryptocurrencies to get rid of this uncertainty. That to me is going to be around and its going to be a lot worse.

Do you think that the best way to regulate this is to not regulate it at all? Or do you think that theres a way to let these bitcoin and blockchain companies grow organically while providing investor protections?

I believe in regulation and that it has to be strict, but who are the regulators? Ever since the Depression, weve had hundreds of thousands of rules and regulations regulating the financial system and yet we still had 2009. It didnt do any good. And then when they decided that they need to save the system, they went hog wild rewarding the people who had already been ripping us off: the mortgage companies. And the people who lost their mortgages didnt get rescued.

I want to return to gold really quickly. Have you seen Grayscales Drop Gold campaign? It is trying to make gold obsolete and replace it with bitcoin, which it says is a digital alternative.

Well, theyre missing the whole point. If its obsolete, the market will declare it obsolete. But in a crisis, even if people are using bitcoin in a crisis, gold is going to be used. Id think that youd be a very wealthy person if you had a bag of gold coins in Venezuela.

Bitcoin has gone on an insane uptrend recently while the DOW, S&P and other traditional markets are trending downward. Do you think that its a little bit early to say this shows a decoupling from traditional markets?

Yes, I think its too early to tell. I dont think anybody knows. Its hard to say, but theres obviously enough confidence in bitcoin for people to go and buy it. But did you have one million buyers or 15 buyers? That could be pretty important.

Last question: Do you own any bitcoin?

Do I own any bitcoin? No. We accept bitcoin at our foundation, but we immediately convert it because we need to pay our bills.

This article originally appeared on Bitcoin Magazine.

See more here:

The Dollar Is Going to Self Destruct: Talking Bitcoin With ...

Ron Paul: False Flag Could Ignite War in Venezuela

Former presidential candidate Ron Paul says he is concerned that a false flag provocation could be used to ignite war in Venezuela.

The countrys ruling socialist leader Nicolas Maduro is still in power after an attempt by opposition leader Juan Guaido failed to kick-start a military uprising fizzled.

Now Paul says that those who want to see the country plunged into more violence could stage a catalyzing event.

The big danger is a hard war breaking out, said the former Texas Congressman. Id still bet it wont be too bad, with thousands of troops moving. But it could be a guerrilla war or something like that. If there is a false flag or some important official on either side gets killed, you cant tell what might happen.

His co-host Daniel McAdams went further, suggesting that the deep state could assassinate Guaido.

He has been a kind of a hapless figure so far, said McAdams. He calls for mass protests and no one shows up. I dont think he realizes right now that he is actually now worth more dead than alive not only to the CIA, but also to his own opposition people. A shot in the crowd or something like that to take Guaido out. It might shock you, Dr. Paul, but the CIA is pretty good at this kind of things.

As we highlighted earlier this week, a government vehicle was caught mowing down a crowd of anti-Maduro, one of whom was reportedly killed.

Please support my work by getting one of the best energy drinks on the market without your support we cease to exist.

Visit link:

Ron Paul: False Flag Could Ignite War in Venezuela

Ron Paul TV Archives & Latest Videos | MidEast News Syria

{"id":3,"instanceName":"Player 2 (copy)","videos":[{"videoType":"youtube","prerollAD":"no","prerollGotoLink":"prerollGotoLink","preroll_mp4":"preroll_mp4","prerollSkipTimer":"prerollSkipTimer","midrollAD":"no","midrollAD_displayTime":"midrollAD_displayTime","midrollGotoLink":"midrollGotoLink","midroll_mp4":"midroll_mp4","midrollSkipTimer":"midrollSkipTimer","postrollAD":"no","postrollGotoLink":"postrollGotoLink","postroll_mp4":"postroll_mp4","postrollSkipTimer":"postrollSkipTimer","popupAdShow":"no","popupImg":"popupImg","popupAdStartTime":"popupAdStartTime","popupAdEndTime":"popupAdEndTime","popupAdGoToLink":"popupAdGoToLink"}],"googleAnalyticsTrackingCode":"","instanceTheme":"dark","playerLayout":"fitToContainer","videoPlayerWidth":1006,"videoPlayerHeight":420,"videoRatio":1.77777777777777767909128669998608529567718505859375,"videoRatioStretch":false,"iOSPlaysinline":true,"floatPlayerOutsideViewport":false,"videoPlayerShadow":"effect1","colorAccent":"#0033cc","posterImg":"","posterImgOnVideoFinish":"","logoShow":"Yes","logoPath":"","logoPosition":"bottom-right","logoClickable":"Yes","logoGoToLink":"http://ronpaul.tv/","allowSkipAd":true,"advertisementTitle":"Advertisement","skipAdvertisementText":"Skip advertisement","skipAdText":"You can skip this ad in","playBtnTooltipTxt":"Play","pauseBtnTooltipTxt":"Pause","rewindBtnTooltipTxt":"Rewind","downloadVideoBtnTooltipTxt":"Download video","qualityBtnOpenedTooltipTxt":"Close settings","qualityBtnClosedTooltipTxt":"Settings","muteBtnTooltipTxt":"Mute","unmuteBtnTooltipTxt":"Unmute","fullscreenBtnTooltipTxt":"Fullscreen","exitFullscreenBtnTooltipTxt":"Exit fullscreen","infoBtnTooltipTxt":"Show info","embedBtnTooltipTxt":"Embed","shareBtnTooltipTxt":"Share","volumeTooltipTxt":"Volume","playlistBtnClosedTooltipTxt":"Show playlist","playlistBtnOpenedTooltipTxt":"Hide playlist","facebookBtnTooltipTxt":"Share on Facebook","twitterBtnTooltipTxt":"Share on Twitter","googlePlusBtnTooltipTxt":"Share on Google+","lastBtnTooltipTxt":"Go to last video","firstBtnTooltipTxt":"Go to first video","nextBtnTooltipTxt":"Play next video","previousBtnTooltipTxt":"Play previous video","shuffleBtnOnTooltipTxt":"Shuffle on","shuffleBtnOffTooltipTxt":"Shuffle off","nowPlayingTooltipTxt":"NOW PLAYING","embedWindowTitle1":"SHARE THIS PLAYER:","embedWindowTitle2":"EMBED THIS VIDEO IN YOUR SITE:","embedWindowTitle3":"SHARE LINK TO THIS PLAYER:","lightBox":false,"lightBoxAutoplay":false,"lightBoxThumbnail":"","lightBoxThumbnailWidth":400,"lightBoxThumbnailHeight":220,"lightBoxCloseOnOutsideClick":true,"onFinish":"Play next video","autoplay":true,"loadRandomVideoOnStart":"No","shuffle":"No","playlist":"Right playlist","playlistBehaviourOnPageload":"closed","playlistScrollType":"light","preloadSelfHosted":"none","hideVideoSource":false,"showAllControls":true,"rightClickMenu":true,"autohideControls":2,"hideControlsOnMouseOut":"No","nowPlayingText":"Yes","infoShow":"Yes","shareShow":"Yes","facebookShow":"Yes","twitterShow":"Yes","mailShow":"Yes","facebookShareName":"Elite video player","facebookShareLink":"http://codecanyon.net/item/elite-video-player-wordpress-plugin/10496434","facebookShareDescription":"Elite Video Player is stunning, modern, responsive, fully customisable high-end video player for WordPress that support advertising and the most popular video platforms like YouTube, Vimeo or self-hosting videos (mp4).","facebookSharePicture":"","twitterText":"Elite video player","twitterLink":"http://codecanyon.net/item/elite-video-player-wordpress-plugin/10496434","twitterHashtags":"wordpressvideoplayer","twitterVia":"Creative media","googlePlus":"http://codecanyon.net/item/elite-video-player-wordpress-plugin/10496434","embedShow":"Yes","embedCodeSrc":"http://yourwebsite.com/player/deploy/index.html","embedCodeW":746,"embedCodeH":420,"embedShareLink":"http://codecanyon.net/","youtubeControls":"custom controls","youtubeSkin":"dark","youtubeColor":"white","youtubeQuality":"default","youtubeShowRelatedVideos":"Yes","vimeoColor":"00adef","showGlobalPrerollAds":false,"globalPrerollAds":"url1;url2;url3;url4;url5","globalPrerollAdsSkipTimer":5,"globalPrerollAdsGotoLink":"http://codecanyon.net/","videoType":"YouTube playlist","submit":"Save Changes","youtubePlaylistID":"PLbXCUk6yNbjSMiezLnYlrx9kBDYekqFJ_","youtubeChannelID":"UCkJ1N-7g9Q6n7KnriGit-Ig","rootFolder":"http://ronpaul.tv/wp-content/plugins/Elite-video-player/"}

Continued here:

Ron Paul TV Archives & Latest Videos | MidEast News Syria

Ron Paul – amazon.com

Ron Paul, an eleven-term congressman from Texas, is the leading advocate of freedom in our nation's capital. He has devoted his political career to the defense of individual liberty, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Judge Andrew Napolitano calls him "the Thomas Jefferson of our day."After serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s, Dr. Paul moved to Texas to begin a civilian medical practice, delivering over four thousand babies in his career as an obstetrician. He served in Congress from 1976 to 1984, and again from 1996 to the present. He and Carol Paul, his wife of fifty-one years, have five children, eighteen grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.Ron Paul, the New York Post once wrote, is a politician who "cannot be bought by special interests.""There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles," added a congressional colleague. "Ron Paul is one of those few."

Original post:

Ron Paul - amazon.com

RON PAUL: Is he the ONLY candidate who can speak PLAIN …

Whether he speaks plainly or not isn't the issue....what is the issue is this : he tells the flat truth about what's going on.

The rub is, that truth is what the leaders of the current and former status quo don't want. In turn, they're having all media blacklist the man because it's easier to make the brainwashed masses forget about him by not hearing his message than fighting the message head on.

When you come into direct combat with an idea, you firstly have to admit that there's a reason why you're doing so. If the Fed creates a blatant defensive front against Ron Paul people will question why. So, it's easier to make all media act like he doesn't exist....so hopefully people will forget about him completely or just assume he's out of the running (which he's by no means out in the slightest).

Hopefully, our march on Washington D.C. makes people realize that there are real numbers in support of this man, and the changes he wants to make. The news stations will cover it, except for FOX that is I'm sure (in consideraton that they're not even acknowledging that he exists).

If people want to think he, or his supporters are nutcases, please do so. When one runs into opposition one realizes that one's doing the right thing.

Ron Paul revolution 2008!!

http://www.infowars.com http://www.ronpaul2008.com http://www.freedomtofascism.com http://www.restoretherepublic.com

See original here:

RON PAUL: Is he the ONLY candidate who can speak PLAIN ...

Ron Paul spent $35M, yet only got 40,000 votes nationwide …

How many times are you planning to ask this?

He got 1.2 million votes in the Republican primaries, including huge chunks of the mountain west and coming in second in Las Vegas where he would have had a majority of delegates had the GOP not turned off the light and fled at the state convention when the delegate votes were all going Ron Paul's way. (Google it.) As is, he had the second number of votes of all candidates at the GOP convention.... oh... and held his own, FULLY PAID FOR convention, for a similar number of people as attended the GOP's. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfKSXcme6...

States don't count write in votes, most of them, unless you are registered and he wasn't running. His SUPPORTERS registered him or got him on the ballot in Ca Montana and Louisiana, where the candidate didn't have to agree to be registered, but by then he had made it clear he wasn't running. If you look at the CA votes, even they didn't count them individually to him in all counties, despite the law.

Link:

Ron Paul spent $35M, yet only got 40,000 votes nationwide ...

‘Racist newsletter’ timeline: What Ron Paul has said …

It's the biggest setback to hit Ron Paul's candidacy for president: publicity about racially charged statements and other controversial comments in newsletters published in Mr. Paul's name in the 1980s and 1990s.

On Thursday he responded at some length to the concerns during an Iowa radio interview, calling the newsletter statements "terrible" but insisting that he wasn't the one who wrote them. He added that the offensive comments totaled about "about eight or 10 sentences."

Some journalists who have researched the newsletters say it was a lot more than 10 sentences, and that the Texas congressman's response on the issue has changed over the years.

Here, in timeline format, are some prominent Paul statements tied to the issue drawn from transcripts, video clips, and news reports.

1985 to 1994

The controversial statements that have surfaced stem largely from this period. They were contained in newsletters with titles like Ron Pauls Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter, rarely under a byline (although many contained first-person references that readers would assume referred to Paul himself).

Some samples: A December 1989 newsletter quoted by James Kirchick in the New Republic predicted "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified instealing from mostly white 'haves.' "

Another letter said "I think we can assume that 95 percent of the black men in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

An August 1992 edition of the Ron Paul Report labeled former Rep. Barbara Jordan (D) of Texas "the archetypal half-educated victimologist," according to the Houston Chronicle.

1995 to 1996

In a 1995 C-Span interview, Paul talks up his newsletter and espouses some familiarity with its contents. He says it deals a lot "with the value of the dollar, the pros and cons of the gold standard, and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending our government seems to continue to do."

Paul, having been out of office for a decade, ran for Congress in 1996 and the content of the newsletters were raised by his opponent as a campaign issue. Paul's campaign doesn't deny authorship of the newsletters, but says the Democratic rival is taking the message out of context.

In a Dallas Morning News interview, Paul said the comment about black men in the District of Columbia arose from his study of a report by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia.

2001

In a story published by Texas Monthly, Paul tells the magazine that he didn't write "those words." The magazine itself says the newsletter statements are not "remotely like" Paul's public utterances.

"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me," Paul said, according to Texas Monthly. "It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter asI travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."

He said he had "some moral responsibility" for the words, and that his campaign aides said it would be "too confusing" to argue during the campaign that the words were not his. Paul quoted his aides saying "It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it."

2007 and 2008

Ron Paul runs for president and defends his record on race.

Separate from the newsletter issue, in 2007 he fielded Republican debate questions from Tavis Smiley and Ray Suarez of PBS. In more than one instance, he frames his views as beneficial for all Americans racial minorities in particular.

In saying he now opposes the death penalty, he says "If you're poor and you're from the inner city, you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted." He also cited DNA evidence that has shown someconvictions to have been mistaken.

Early in 2008, New Republic magazine publishes a James Kirchick story recounting incendiary passages from Paul's newsletters in detail. The article asserts that the newsletters show an "obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays."

In a 2008 TV interview, he responds to a question about racism by asserting that libertarians like himself "are incapable of being a racist" because they view "everybody as an important individual" rather than identifying people in groups.

In the interview, he says he enjoys strong support from blacks, for a Republican, in part because of his stands on the Iraq war and the so-called war on drugs. "In all [military] wars minorities suffer the most so they join me," he said. Regarding the war on drugs, he says "I am the only candidate, Republican or Democrat who would protect the minority against these vicious drug laws."

2011

Paul is running for president again, and is showing greater strength in opinion polls of potential primary voters. Mr. Kirchick (writing this time in the Weekly Standard) and others revive the newsletters as a hot topic.

The Houston Chronicle Tuesday quoted Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton saying that the newsletters were written by a ghostwriter in Paul's name. Mr. Benton acknowledged the point made by many critics of the candidate: that Paul "should have better policed" the newsletters that went out under his name.

"Dr. Paul has assumed responsibility, apologized for his lack of oversight and disavowed the offensive material," said Benton.

On Thursday, Paul reiterated on a Des Moines radio station (WHO-AM) that he did not write the controversial passages. He portrayed the volume of offensive content as small.

"These were sentences that were put in I think it was a total of about eight or ten sentences, and it was bad stuff," he told host Jan Mickelson. But, he added, "it wasn't areflection of my views at all, so it got in the letter, I think it was terrible, it was tragic."

In an email to Talking Points Memo, Kirchick said it's "preposterous" to say that only a handful of newsletter sentences were offensive. "As anyone can see from the scans of the newsletters available on the [New Republic] website or posted elsewhere, the documents contain pages upon pages of bigoted statements and outright paranoia."

While claiming "some responsibility" for the content, Paul said on Iowa radio that "I was not an editor. I'm like a publisher. There were many times when I did not edit the whole letter and other thingsgot put in."

Read more from the original source:

'Racist newsletter' timeline: What Ron Paul has said ...

GOP candidates blast Ron Paul over Iran policy. Is one side …

If you're wondering why Ron Paul is sometimes called an isolationist on foreign policy, his role in Thursday night's Republican debate sheds some light.

The congressman from Texas won some loud applause, but also walked out on a precarious limb with many conservative voters, for picking a fight with fellow Republican candidates on US military policy.

The issue was Iran.

Here's a look at who said what, and the sharp divide over foreign policy and national defense that it illuminated. The chasm was so wide that it left some political analysts saying Mr. Paul sounded crazy. ("Jumped the shark" was the specific phrase used by an analyst with the Fox News network, which hosted the debate.)

For his part, Paul was arguing that other Republicans are essentially pursuing a crazy policy. "Absurd" and "dangerous" were words he used. He also, on the day US military operations officially ended in Iraq, called the war launched there in 2003 by the US and its allies "useless."

Paul and his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination clashed over the seriousness of the threat from Iran, what Iran's geopolitical objectives are, and what US policy should be.

Moderator Bret Baier started the discussion with a question directed at Paul: What would he do, as president, if presented with intelligence showing that Iran had a nuclear weapon? And, by opposing economic sanctions against Iran, is he running to the left of President Obama?

Ron Paul: "You know what I really fear? ... It's another Iraq coming. It's war propaganda going on," he said. "To me, the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact."

He likened the current situation to views of Iraq in 2003: an atomosphere of alarm without solid evidence on the question of weapons capability. "If we lived through cold war, which we did, with 30,000 missiles pointed at us, we ought to really sit back and think, and not jump the gun.... Thats how we got involved in the useless war in Iraq and lost so much."

Similar to his position on Iraq back then, he voiced skepticism that Iran is close to obtaining a nuclear weapon. Paul said it's also important for US policymakers to keep the regional context in mind: Iran feels surrounded by other nations that have nuclear arms, and has seen evidence that nuclear nations get some respect.

Regarding sanctions, he called them an "act of war" that could damage the European economy by diminishing the flow of oil.

Rick Santorum: The former senator from Pennsylvania got a chance to respond to Paul's view, and hit back hard. Iran has essentially been "at war with us since 1979," he argued, citing Iran as a factory for the IED bombs that killed many US soldiers in Iraq.

"They are a radical theocracy," Mr. Santorum said. "Mutual assured destruction, like the policy during the cold war with the Soviet Union," wouldn't work on Iran because "their principal virtue is martyrdom.... They believe that it is their mission to take on the West."

He called for covert actions leading toward potential strikes, so the US can "say to them that if you do not open up those facilities and close them down, we will close them down for you."

Mitt Romney: The former Massachusetts governor criticized Mr. Obama for being timid by asking for a US drone back after it fell into Iranian hands. "A foreign policy based on pretty please? Youve gotta be kidding?" he said. Mr. Romney called for new buildup of the Navy fleet and for adding 100,000 soldiers to US ranks, saying a strong America must lead the free world.

Michele Bachmann: The congresswoman from Minnesota seized an opportunity to fire her own shot at Paul. "I think I have never heard a more dangerous answer for American security than the one we just heard from Ron Paul.... And the reason why I would say that is because we know without a shadow of a doubt Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally Israel off the face of the map. And they've stated that they will use it against the United States of America."

She added, "Look no further than the Iranian constitution, which states unequivocally that their mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually to set up a worldwide caliphate. We would be fools and knaves to ignore their purpose and their plan."

Paul: He offered a different take on the objectives of the Iranian regime and of the world's adherents of Islam in general. "To declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals. But they don't come here to kill us because we're free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden? I mean, that's absurd. If you think that is the reason, we have no chance of winning this. They come here and they explicitly explain it to us. The CIA has explained it to us. They said they come here and want to do us harm because we're bombing them."

He espoused a view of limited war powers for the executive branch, and of economic limits to American military engagement. "Why do we have to bomb so many countries? Why are we [having] 900 bases in 130 countries and we're totally bankrupt? How are you going to rebuild the military when we have no money?... We need a strong national defense ... and we need to only go to war with a declaration of war."

Bachmann: She took a rebuttal opportunity. Where Paul had talked about the danger of overreacting on Iran, she said it "would be that the greatest underreaction in world history if we have an avowed madman who uses that nuclear weapon to wipe nations off the face of the Earth and we have an IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] report that recently came out that said literally, Iran is within just months from being able to obtain that weapon."

Paul: He responded, saying the IAEA report did not contain hard evidence of an imminent nuclear weapon. Paul was booed, while later a CNN "truth squad" said Paul was factually correct on this point.

Because of the way the debate was structured, presidential contenders Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman Jr., and Rick Perry did not have an opportunity to weigh in on Iran. Mr. Gingrich has said he favors "regime change" in Iran, and that, if elected president, he could topple Iran's government within a year, but would use military force only as a last resort.

Mr. Huntsman has said the US and Israel will have to consider the military option to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, because economic sanctions won't be enough.

Governor Perry proposes to take "every economic and diplomatic effort" to stop Iran, and would have the military option "on the table." He lambasts Obama's Iran policy, but it's not clear how his would differ.

Read the original post:

GOP candidates blast Ron Paul over Iran policy. Is one side ...

Ron Paul – Official Site

mar 21, 2019 Neocons Want Brazil in NATO to Undermine Venezuela Daniel McAdams Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute joins News.Views.Hughes to discuss Trumps apparent 180 degree turn on NATO. While once he was outspoken in his criticism, President Trump now wants to expand the alliance by bringing Brazil into the fold. He argues that Trump has neocons whispering in his ear and that NATO is an expensive meeting club that has outlived its purpose... read on...

mar 20, 2019 Twitter Prevents Julian Assanges Mom from Posting, Restricts Viewing of Her Past Posts Christine Assange, the mother of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, has usedher Twitter pagetocriticizethe United States government effort to prosecute and imprison her son for making available leaked information exposing abusive government actions, as well as her sons harsh treatment including a prohibition on his communication with the outside world over the last year at Ecuadors London embassy where he obtained sanctuary in 2012. read on...

mar 19, 2019 Ron Paul Airs Concerns about the Trump Presidency Ron Paul, the libertarian communicator who ran three times for president, has been neither a never-Trumper nor a loyalist of President Donald Trump. Instead, Paul, through the 2016 presidential campaign and Trumps presidency, has judged Trumps various comments and actions against Pauls understanding of right and wrong. read on...

mar 16, 2019 Five Minutes Five Issues: Watching Assange, Ocasio-Cortez, Expungement, Bernie Sanders, Alaska Marijuana A new episode of Five Minutes Five Issues posted is out. You can listen to it, and read a transcript, below. You can also find previous episodes of the show atStitcher,iTunes,YouTube, andSoundCloud. read on...

mar 14, 2019 Lawrence Wilkerson: National Security Spending Should Be Cut, Not Increased President Donald Trump released this week his budget proposal thatincludesincreasing by five percent United States military spending. read on...

Follow this link:

Ron Paul - Official Site

xkcd: Secretary: Part 2

xkcd: Secretary: Part 2

Secretary: Part 2

News Anchor: Breaking news--the President has made a nomination to the new post of Internet Secretary. We know little about the man, shown here.Image Caption: Possibly a haberdasher?News Anchor: Attempts to reach the nominee at home were unsuccessful.Reporter: What the hell kind of apartment has a moat?News Anchor: To understand the culture from which he came--and which he may soon administer--we sent a reporter to what we're told is the source of that culture. Tom?Tom: I'm coming to you live from the 4chan b board. Despite the tube cloggage, nascent memes are flying fast and furious.News Anchor: Why are you wearing a helmet, Tom?Tom: I'm not sure.[[Meanwhile in Ron Paul's blimp...]]Ron Paul: Ahoy! What news of the blogs?Pilot: Dr. Paul! The President's named his nominee!Ron Paul: It's not me?Ron Paul: Wait! I remember that guy from the campaign! He's a notorious troll!Ron Paul: They mustn't put him in charge. Quick, call the capitol!Pilot: Can't, sir. The tubes just went down completely.Ron Paul: Blast!Ron Paul: Then we'll go ourselves. Full speed ahead!{{The blimp advances minutely.}}{{The blimp advances minutely.}}{{The blimp advances minutely.}}Ron Paul: I said full speed!Pilot: It's a blimp, sir!{{Title text: That helmet won't save him.}}

This work is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.

This means you're free to copy and share these comics (but not to sell them). More details.

Continue reading here:

xkcd: Secretary: Part 2

The Power of Stem Cells | California’s Stem Cell Agency

En Espaol

Stem cells have the potential to treat a wide range of diseases. Here, discover why these cells are such a powerful tool for treating diseaseand what hurdles experts face before new therapies reach patients.

How can stem cells treat disease?What diseases could be treated by stem cell research?How can I learn more about CIRM-funded research in a particular disease?What cell therapies are available right now?When will therapies based on embryonic stem cells become available?What about the therapies that are available overseas?Why does it take so long to create new therapies?How do scientists get stem cells to specialize into different cell types? How do scientists test stem cell therapies?Can't stem cell therapies increase the chances of a tumor?Is there a risk of immune rejection with stem cells?How do scientists grow stem cells in the right conditions?

When most people think about about stem cells treating disease they think of a stem cell transplant.

In a stem cell transplant, embryonic stem cells are first specialized into the necessary adult cell type. Then, those mature cells replace tissue that is damaged by disease or injury. This type of treatment could be used to:

But embryonic stem cell-based therapies can do much more.

Any of these would have a significant impact on human health without transplanting a single cell.

In theory, theres no limit to the types of diseases that could be treated with stem cell research. Given that researchers may be able to study all cell types via embryonic stem cells, they have the potential to make breakthroughs in any disease.

CIRM has created disease pages for many of the major diseases being targeted by stem cell scientists. You can find those disease pages here.

You can also sort our complete list of CIRM awards to see what we've funded in different disease areas.

Many clinical trials for embryonic stem cell-based therapies have begun in recent years. Results from those won't be available until the trials reveal that the therapies are safe and effectivewhich could take a few years.

While ten cell therapies have been approved around the world as of January 2016, the only widely used stem cell-based therapy is bone marrow transplantation. Blood-forming stem cells in the bone marrow were the first stem cells to be identified and were the first to be used in the clinic. This life-saving technique has helped thousands people worldwide who had been suffering from blood cancers, such as leukemia.

In addition to their current use in cancer treatments, research suggests that bone marrow transplants will be useful in treating autoimmune diseases and in helping people tolerate transplanted organs.

Other therapies based on adult stem cells are currently in clinical trials. Until those trials are complete we won't know which type of stem cell is most effective in treating different diseases.

There is no way to predict when the first human embryonic stem cell therapies will become widely available. Several applications with the FDA to begin human trials of embryonic stem cell-based therapies have been approved. In general, the path from the first human trial to widespread use is on the order of a decade. That long time frame is a result of the many steps a therapy must go through in order to show that it is both safe and effective. Only once those steps are complete will the FDA approve the therapy for general use.

If embryonic stem cells follow a normal path it could still be many years before therapies based on embryonic stem cells are widely available. However, if researchers gave up on therapies simply because the path towards FDA approval is long, we would not have any of the lifesaving technologies that are now commonplace: recombinant insulin, bone marrow transplantation or chemotherapy drugs.

Find Out More:Read the top ten things to know about stem cell treatments (from ISSCR) Alan Lewis talks about getting an embryonic stem cell-based therapy to patients (3:46)

Many overseas clinics advertise miraculous stem cell therapies for a wide range of incurable diseases. This phenomenon is called stem cell tourism and is currently a source of concern for reputable stem cell scientists. International (and even domestic) clinics are offering up therapies that have not been tested for safety or even for effectiveness. In the past few years, some patients who visited those clinics have died as a result of receiving unproven, untested stem cells.

Find Out More:Learn more about the issue on our StemCell Tourism page. Jeanne Loring discusses concerns about stem cell tourism (3:38) CIRM/ISSCR panel on stem cell tourism

Embryonic stem cells hold the potential to treat a wide range of diseases. However, the path from the lab to the clinic is a long one. Before testing those cells in a human disease, researchers must grow the right cell type, find a way to test those cells, and make sure the cells are safe in animals before moving to human trials.

Find Out More:Hans Keirstead talks about hurdles in developing a new therapy (5:07)

One of the biggest hurdles in any embryonic stem cell-based therapy is coaxing stem cell to become a single the cell type. The vital process of maturing stem cells from a pluripotent state to an adult tissue type is called differentiation.

Guiding embryonic stem cells to become a particular cell type has been fraught with difficulty. Normally, stem cells growing in a developing embryo receive a carefully choreographed series of signals from the surrounding tissue. In a lab dish, researchers have to mimic those signals. Add the signals in the wrong order or the wrong dose and the developing cells may choose to remain immatureor become the wrong cell type

Many decades of research has uncovered many of the signals needed to properly differentiate cells. Other signals are still unknown. Many CIRM-funded researchers are attempting to differentiate very pure populations of mature cell types that can accelerate therapies.

Find Out More:Mark Mercola talks about differentiating cells into adult tissues (3:37)

Once a researcher has a mature cell type in a lab dish, the next step is to find out whether those cells can function in the body. For example, embryonic stem cells that have matured into insulin-producing cells in the lab are only useful if they continue producing insulin once transplanted inside a body. Likewise, researchers need to know that the cells can integrate into the surrounding tissue.

Scientists test cells by first developing an animal model that mimics the human disease, and then implanting the cells to see if they help treat the disease. These types of experiments can be painstakingbecause even if the cells dont completely cure the disease, they may restore some functions that would still be of enormous benefit to people. Researchers have to examine each of these possible outcomes.

In many cases testing the cells in a single animal model doesnt provide enough information. Most animal models of disease dont perfectly mimic the human disease. For example, a mouse carrying the same mutation that causes cystic fibrosis in humans doesnt show the same signs as a person with the disease. So, a stem cell therapy that treats this mouse model of cystic fibrosis may not work in humans. Thats why researchers often need to test the cells in more than oneanimal model.

The promise of embryonic stem cells is that they can form any type of cell in the body. The trouble is that when implanted into an animal they do just that, in the form of tumors called teratomas. These tumors consist of a mass of many cells types and can include hair cells and many other tissues.

These teratomas are one reason why it is necessary to mature the embryonic stem cells into highly purified adult cell types before implanting into humans. Virtually all evidence has shown that the mature cells are restricted to their one identity and dont appear to revert to a teratoma-forming cell.

Find Out More:UC Davis researcher focuses on stem cell safety (from UC Davis)Paul Knoepfler talks about the tendency of embryonic stem cells to form tumors (4:10)

Transplanted stem cells, like any transplanted organ, can be recognized by the immune system as foreign and then rejected. In organ transplants such as liver, kidney, or heart, people must be on immune suppressive drugs for the rest of their lives to prevent the immune system from recognizing that organ as foreign and destroying it.

The likelihood of the immune system rejecting a transplant of embryonic stem cell-based tissue depends on the origin of that tissue. Stem cells isolated from IVF embryos will have a genetic makeup that will not match that of the person who receives the transplant. That persons immune system will recognize those cells as foreign and reject the tissue unless a person is on powerful immune suppressive drugs.

Stem cells generated through SCNT or iPS cell technology, on the other hand, are a perfect genetic match. The immune system would likely overlook that transplanted cells, seeing it as a normal part of the body. Still, some suggest that even if the cells are perfectly matched, they may not entirely escape the notice of the immune system. Cancer cells, for example, have the same genetic make up as surrounding tissue and yet the immune system will often identify and destroy early tumors. Until more information is available from animal studies it will be hard to know whether transplanted patient-specific cells are likely to call the attention of the immune system.

Find Out More: Jeffrey Bluestone talks about immune rejection of stem cell-based therapies (4:05)

In order to be approved by the FDA for use in human trials, stem cells must be grown in good manufacturing practice (GMP) conditions. Under GMP standards, a cell line has to be manufactured so that each group of cells is grown in an identical, repeatable, sterile environment. This ensures that each batch of cells has the same properties, and each person getting a stem cell therapy gets an equivalent treatment. Although the FDA hasnt yet issued guidelines for how pluripotent stem cells need to meet GMP standards, achieving this level of consistency could mean knowing the exact identity and quantity of every component involved in growing the cells.

Updated 2/16

Read more:

The Power of Stem Cells | California's Stem Cell Agency

Stem Cell Therapy – Top Rated Local Stem Cell Treatment In …

What are stem cells?

Stem cells are the basic building blocks of human tissue and have the ability to repair, rebuild, and rejuvenate tissues in the body. When a disease or injury strikes, stem cells respond to specific signals and set about to facilitate the healing process by stimulating your own body to repair itself.

Stem cells that come from perinatal tissue(healthy post-natal C-sections) have distinct functional properties including immunomodulation and anti-inflammation which support the repair and regeneration of damaged tissue associated with disease and injury.

There are four known types of stem cells which include:

We provide allogeneic regenerative cytokines and mesenchymal stem cells from health post-natal C-sections.

We tap into our bodys stem cell reserve daily to repair and replace damaged or diseased tissue. When the bodys reserve is limited and as it becomes depleted, the regenerative power of our body decreases and we succumb to disease and injury.

Three sources of stem cells from a patients body are used clinically which include adipose tissue (fat), bone marrow and umbilical cord matrix(Whartons Jelly).

We provide stem cell therapy for a wide variety of musculoskeletal conditions for which traditional treatment offers less than optimal options. Some conditions include Osteoarthritis, Bursitis, Plantar Fasciitis and Degenerative Disc Disease

Since each condition and patient are unique, there is no guarantee of what results will be achieved or how quickly they may be observed. According to patient feedback, many patients report results in one to three months, however, it may take as long as six to nine months. Individuals interested in stem cell therapy are urged to consult with their physician before choosing investigational allogeneic umbilical cord derived regenerative medicine allografts as a treatment option.

In order to determine if you are a good candidate for a regenerative medicine treatment, you will need to complete a medical history form which will be provided by our patient advocate team. Once you complete and submit your medical history form, our medical team will review your records and determine if you are a qualified candidate for a regenerative medicine therapy.

The side effects of intra-articular injection of a regenerative medicine allograft are minimal and may include but are not limited to: infection, minor bleeding at the treatment sites and localized pain. However, these side effects typically last no longer than 24 hours.

We provide regenerative medicine allografts from healthy post-natal C-section births that provide regenerative factors and mesenchymal stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are typically associated with ethical concerns. We do not offer embryonic stem cells.

Our regenerative medicine allografts are regulated as human cell and tissue transplants, similar to skin and bone. As structural human cell and tissue products regulated under FDA CFR 1271 Part 361, our allografts do not require FDA approval, rather we are strictly regulated to prevent the spread of communicable diseases and to maintain the structural integrity of the allografts as theyre harvested from umbilical cords and transferred for musculoskeletal cushioning, protection and supplementation. These regenerative allografts are FDA regulated rather than FDA approved. The FDA is a regulatory oversight body and doesnt exercise legal authority. If an FDA regulated tissue transplant or therapy is noted as non-compliant and not corrected according to FDA guidelines, the FDA may refer a significant public health risk to the Department of Justice or a state attorney general.

Stem cell treatment is not covered by health insurance at this time.

Although stem cells are found throughout our bodies, mesenchymal stem cells can only be harvested for native (non-cultured) use from adipose, bone marrow and umbilical cord matrix. The term amniotic stem cells is an oxymoron in that amniotic fluid and matrix products dont contain stem cells. They do however contain unique cytokines and other growth factors.

Read more here:

Stem Cell Therapy - Top Rated Local Stem Cell Treatment In ...

Ron Paul: Troops Out of Syria and Afghanistan? Thats a Good …

We all had a big shock this week when, seemingly out of the blue, President Trump announced that he was removing US troops from Syria and would draw down half of the remaining US troops in Afghanistan. The president told us the troops were in Syria to fight ISIS and with ISIS nearly gone the Syrians and their allies could finish the job.

All of a sudden the Trump haters who for two years had been telling us that the president was dangerous because he might get us in a war, were telling us that the president is dangerous because he was getting us out of a war! These are the same people who have been complaining about the presidents historic efforts to help move toward peace with North Korea.

There was more than a little hypocrisy among the never Trump resistance over the presidents announcement. Many of the talking heads and politicians who attacked George W. Bushs wars, then were silent for President Obamas wars, are now attacking President Trump for actually taking steps to end some wars. It just goes to show that for many who make their living from politics and the military-industrial complex, there are seldom any real principles involved.

Among the neoconservatives, Sen. Lindsey Grahams reaction was pretty typical. Though it seems Sen. Graham is never bothered when presidents violate the Constitution to take the US into another war without authorization, he cannot tolerate it when a president follows the Constitution and removes US troops from wars they have no business being involved in. Sen. Graham is now threatening to hold Congressional hearings in attempt to reverse the Presidents decision to remove troops from Syria.

Neoconservatives are among the strongest proponents of the idea that as a unitary executive, the president should not be encumbered by things like the Constitution when it comes to war-making. Now all of a sudden when a president uses his actual Constitutional authority to remove troops from a war zone the neocons demand Congressional meddling to weaken the president. They get it wrong on both fronts! The president does have Constitutional authority to move US troops and to remove US troops; Congress has the power and the obligation to declare war and the power of the purse to end wars.

Most of the Washington establishment especially the resistance liberals and the neocons are complaining that by removing US troops from these two war zones President Trump has gone too far. I would disagree with them. I call President Trumps announcement a good start. Americans are tired of being the worlds policemen. The United States does not lose influence by declining to get involved in disputes oceans away. We lose influence by spending more on the military than most of the rest of the world combined and meddling where we are not wanted. We will lose a whole lot more influence when their crazy spending makes us bankrupt. Is that what they want?

We should pay attention to Washingtons wild reaction to Trumps announcement. The vested interests do not want us to have any kind of peace dividend because they have become so rich on the war dividend. Meanwhile the middle class is getting poorer and were all less safe. Lets hope President Trump continues these moves to restore sanity in our foreign policy. That would really make America great again!

This article originally appeared on ronpaulinstitute.org

More:

Ron Paul: Troops Out of Syria and Afghanistan? Thats a Good ...

US needs to withdraw all troops from Mideast: Ron Paul

Former US presidential candidate and congressman Ron Paul has backed President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw American troops from Syria, adding that the United States needs to "have a clean cut" with military involvement in the Middle East.

In an interview with CNN, Dr. Paul, a libertarian and the father of Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, called Trumps announcement "fantastic."

"I don't see it as a political event as much as he had good defense. He campaigned on it. He said it was a bad war. He wanted to get out," Paul said. "I think he's doing great. I think it's fantastic that he's doing it."

Last week, Trump declared victory against Daesh terrorists in Syria and announced to pull out American troops from the country, saying that US troops cannot stay in Syria "forever.

Several senators on both sides of the aisle have accused Trump of making a hasty decision, with one administration official saying "the President's decision-by-tweet will recklessly put American and allied lives in danger around the world."

But Congressman Paul said the president did the right thing.

"I like people who stand out on principle in spite of their personal biases, and I think this is good. I'm so happy that he's going to maybe move it on to Afghanistan," Paul said.

Paul said the United States should decide if it is an empire or a republic.

"This is the whole point: Should we start our debate and our plans from the assumption that we have the moral obligation to run an empire -- that we are the great nation, we spread American exceptionalism and therefore we have this moral obligation -- or should we believe in a republic and we have no business there, which is designed by the Constitution?" Paul said.

Dr. Paul called Trumps announcement of withdrawing troops from Syria a step in the right direction.

"This is a teeny, teeny step away from the militant empire that we operate, and it's so impractical, but it's a step in the right direction," he said.

Dr. Pauls son, Senator Rand Paul, also defended Trump's decision to withdraw the American troops in Syria and asked him to end the 17-year-old war in Afghanistan as well.

Read more here:

US needs to withdraw all troops from Mideast: Ron Paul

Ron Paul: Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from Syria …

Former presidential candidate and congressman Ron Paul supports President Donald Trumps widely criticized decision to pull more than 2,000 US troops from Syria, calling his announcement fantastic.

I dont see it as a political event as much as he had good defense. He campaigned on it. He said it was a bad war. He wanted to get out, Paul said Saturday on CNNs Smerconish. I think hes doing great. I think its fantastic that hes doing it.

Trumps decision drew outcry from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, with one administration official saying the Presidents decision-by-tweet will recklessly put American and allied lives in danger around the world.

And a day after his announcement, Defense Secretary James Mattis resigned, writing that Trump should have a secretary of defense whose views are better aligned with his own. A day after that the US envoy to the coalition to fight ISIS resigned as well, also in part beacuse of the Syria decision.

But Paul said Trump did the right thing.

I like people who stand out on principle in spite of their personal biases, and I think this is good. Im so happy that hes going to maybe move it on to Afghanistan, Paul said.

When asked if the planned US withdrawal of troops from the country will leave the Kurds who fought ISIS alongside American forces vulnerable, Paul said the US needs to determine if it is an empire or a republic.

This is the whole point: Should we start our debate and our plans from the assumption that we have the moral obligation to run an empire that we are the great nation, we spread American exceptionalism and therefore we have this moral obligation or should we believe in a republic and we have no business there, which is designed by the Constitution? Paul said.

Paul, a libertarian and the father of Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, said the US needs to have a clean cut with military involvement in the Middle East.

This is a teeny, teeny step away from the militant empire that we operate, and its so impractical, but its a step in the right direction, Paul said.

Paul said the decision had more to do with a call between Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan than domestic politics, but that the Presidents execution and timing couldve been much better.

Diplomatically, he does a poor job even when hes doing the right thing, he said.

Continue reading here:

Ron Paul: Trump's decision to withdraw US troops from Syria ...

Ron Paul: Troops Out Of Syria And Afghanistan? That’s A Good …

Ron has a break-down of the good, the bad, and the ugly in response to President Trumps seemingly out-of-the-blue announcement from last week

by Ron Paul of Ron Paul Institute

We all had a big shock this week when, seemingly out of the blue, President Trump announced that he was removing US troops from Syria and would draw down half of the remaining US troops in Afghanistan. The president told us the troops were in Syria to fight ISIS and with ISIS nearly gone the Syrians and their allies could finish the job.

All of a sudden the Trump haters who for two years had been telling us that the president was dangerous because he might get us in a war, were telling us that the president is dangerous because he was getting us out of a war! These are the same people who have been complaining about the presidents historic efforts to help move toward peace with North Korea.

There was more than a little hypocrisy among the never Trump resistance over the presidents announcement. Many of the talking heads and politicians who attacked George W. Bushs wars, then were silent for President Obamas wars, are now attacking President Trump for actually taking steps to end some wars. It just goes to show that for many who make their living from politics and the military-industrial complex, there are seldom any real principles involved.

Among the neoconservatives, Sen. Lindsey Grahams reaction was pretty typical. Though it seems Sen. Graham is never bothered when presidents violate the Constitution to take the US into another war without authorization, he cannot tolerate it when a president follows the Constitution and removes US troops from wars they have no business being involved in. Sen. Graham is now threatening to hold Congressional hearings in attempt to reverse the Presidents decision to remove troops from Syria.

Neoconservatives are among the strongest proponents of the idea that as a unitary executive, the president should not be encumbered by things like the Constitution when it comes to war-making. Now all of a sudden when a president uses his actual Constitutional authority to remove troops from a war zone the neocons demand Congressional meddling to weaken the president. They get it wrong on both fronts! The president does have Constitutional authority to move US troops and to remove US troops; Congress has the power and the obligation to declare war and the power of the purse to end wars.

Most of the Washington establishment especially the resistance liberals and the neocons are complaining that by removing US troops from these two war zones President Trump has gone too far. I would disagree with them. I call President Trumps announcement a good start. Americans are tired of being the worlds policemen. The United States does not lose influence by declining to get involved in disputes oceans away. We lose influence by spending more on the military than most of the rest of the world combined and meddling where we are not wanted. We will lose a whole lot more influence when their crazy spending makes us bankrupt. Is that what they want?

We should pay attention to Washingtons wild reaction to Trumps announcement. The vested interests do not want us to have any kind of peace dividend because they have become so rich on the war dividend. Meanwhile the middle class is getting poorer and were all less safe. Lets hope President Trump continues these moves to restore sanity in our foreign policy. That would really make America great again!

Go here to read the rest:

Ron Paul: Troops Out Of Syria And Afghanistan? That's A Good ...

Ron Paul: US is barreling towards a 50% or more stock market drop

Ron Paul believes the bond trading pits are giving investors a dire message about the state of the nation's economy.

According to the former Republican congressman from Texas, the recent jump in Treasury bond yields suggest the U.S. is barreling toward a potential recession and market meltdown at a faster and faster pace.

And, he sees no way to prevent it.

"We're getting awfully close. I'd be surprised if you don't have everybody agreeing with what I'm saying next year some time," he said Thursday on CNBC's "Futures Now."

His remarks came as the benchmark 10-Year Treasury yield, which moves inversely to its price, rallied to seven year highs, intensifying fears over rising inflation. It may be beneficial for personal savings accounts, but it could deliver irrevocable damage to those in adjustable mortgages, or for auto buyers looking to finance a new vehicle.

"It can be pretty well validated by looking at monetary history that when you inflate the currency, distort interest rates and live beyond your means and spend too much, there has to be an adjustment," he said. "We have the biggest bubble in the history of mankind."

Paul is a vocal libertarian known for an ardent grassroots fan base that propelled him to multiple presidential runs, as well as his grim warnings about the economy. Yet he has been warning investors for years that an epic drop of 50 percent or more will eventually hit the stock market. He predicted the February correction, but not in size and scope.

By spring, the correction was over, and the S&P 500 and Dow were hitting all-time highs again by August and September, respectively. The Dow registered its latest all-time high of 26,951.81 last Wednesday.

Paul acknowledges his prior calls for a downturn haven't come to fruition. Yet, he points out it's just a matter of time, based on the looseness of U.S. monetary policy since the 2008 financial crisis.

"I know it's going to happen," Paul said. "It will come, and the bubble is bigger than ever before."

View post:

Ron Paul: US is barreling towards a 50% or more stock market drop

Ron Paul | American politician | Britannica.com

Ron Paul, byname of Ronald Ernest Paul, (born August 20, 1935, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.), American politician, who served as a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives (197677, 197985, 19972013) and who unsuccessfully ran as the 1988 Libertarian presidential candidate. He later sought the Republican nomination for president in 2008 and 2012.

Paul grew up on his familys dairy farm just outside Pittsburgh. He earned a bachelors degree in biology from Gettysburg College in 1957 and a medical degree from Duke University, in Durham, North Carolina, in 1961. He later served as a flight surgeon for the U.S. Air Force (196365) and the Air National Guard (196568). In 1968 Paul moved to Brazoria county, Texas, where he established a successful practice in obstetrics and gynecology.

Paul was inspired to enter politics in 1971 when Pres. Richard M. Nixon abolished the Bretton Woods exchange system. Paul believed that the abandonment of the last vestiges of the gold standard would lead to financial ruin for the United States. Though he was unsuccessful in his initial run for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1974, his opponent resigned before completing his term, and Paul won a special election to complete it. He lost the seat in the subsequent general election, only to regain it two years later. He chose not to seek reelection in 1984 and instead campaignedunsuccessfullyfor the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. He broke from the Republican Party to run as a Libertarian in the 1988 presidential election, ultimately winning more than 430,000 votes. He returned to the U.S. House of Representatives as a Republican in 1997, though his votes were often at variance with the majority of his party; for example, in the early 2000s he voted against authorizing the Iraq War and the USA Patriot Act.

Pauls presidential campaign platform remained libertarian in spirit. It focused on free-market economics, a radical reduction in the size of government, increased privacy protections for individuals, and a reduction of U.S. participation in international organizations. Having claimed only a handful of delegates, he ended his bid for the White House in June 2008 and launched Campaign for Liberty, a political action committee. In April 2011 Paul, who was popular within the Tea Party movement, formed an exploratory committee to assess the viability of a third presidential run. The following month he formally announced his candidacy. In July 2011, in order to focus on his presidential campaign, Paul announced that he would not seek a 13th term in Congress. Although supported by a devoted and energized base, Paul was selective in the states where he actively campaigned. A second-place showing in New Hampshire was among his best performances in January 2012. He garnered a number of other second-place finishes before announcing in May that he would not campaign in the remaining states. Paul did not endorse the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, and said on the night of the general election that he believed the only winner would be the status quo. He retired from the House in January 2013, at the age of 77.

Pauls views are outlined in Freedom Under Siege (1987), A Foreign Policy of Freedom (2007), and The Revolution: A Manifesto (2008).

See the original post:

Ron Paul | American politician | Britannica.com

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Why The …

Last week something historic happened in the US Senate. For the first time in 45 years, a chamber of the US Congress voted to pull US forces from a military conflict under the 1973 War Powers Act.

While there is plenty to criticize in the War Powers Act, in this situation it was an important tool used by a broad Senate coalition to require President Trump to end US participation in the Saudi war against Yemen. And while the resolution was not perfect there were huge loopholes it has finally drawn wider attention to the US Administrations dirty war in Yemen.

The four year Saudi war on neighboring Yemen has left some 50,000 dead, including many women and children. Weve all seen the horrible photos of school buses blown up by the Saudis using US-supplied bombs loaded into US-supplied aircraft. Millions more face starvation as the infrastructure is decimated and the ports have been blocked to keep out humanitarian aid.

Stopping US participation in this brutal war is by itself a wise and correct move, even if it comes years too late.

The Senate vote is also about much more than just Yemen. It is about the decades of Presidential assaults on the Constitution in matters of war. President Trump is only the latest to ignore Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, which grants war power exclusively to Congress. Yes, it was President Obama who initially dragged the US illegally into the Yemen war, but President Trump has only escalated it. And to this point Congress has been totally asleep.

Fortunately that all changed last week with the Senate vote. Unfortunately, Members of the House will not be allowed to vote on their own version of the Senate resolution.

Republican Leadership snuck language into a rule vote on the Farm Bill prohibiting any debate on the Yemen war for the rest of this Congressional session. As Rep. Thomas Massie correctly pointed out, the move was both unconstitutional and illegal.

However as is often the case in bipartisan Washington, there is plenty of blame to go around. The Republicans were able to carry the vote on the rule and thus deny any debate on Yemen only because of a group of Democrats crossed over and voted with Republicans. Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer is being blamed by progressives for his apparent lack of interest in holding his party together.

Why would Democrats help a Republican president keep his war going? Because, especially when you look at Congressional leadership, both parties are pro-war and pro-Executive branch over-reach. They prefer it to be their president who is doing the over-reaching, but they understand that sooner or later theyll be back in charge. As I have often said, there is too much bipartisanship in Washington, not too much partisanship.

Americans should be ashamed and outraged that their government is so beholden to a foreign power in this case Saudi Arabia that it would actively participate in a brutal war of aggression. Participating in this war against one of the worlds poorest countries is far from upholding American values. We should applaud and support the coalition in the Senate that voted to end the war. They should know how much we appreciate their efforts.

Continue reading here:

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Why The ...

Ron Paul: Market meltdown could spark depression-like conditions

Ron Paul is warning this year's corrections could be a precursor to an epic market collapse that may come sooner than investors think.

According to the former Republican presidential candidate, Wall Street is becoming more vulnerable to near-depression conditions within the next 12 months.

"Once this volatility shows that we're not going to resume the bull market, then people are going to rush for the exits," Paul said Thursday on CNBC's "Futures Now." The relentlessly bearish former congressman added that "It could be worse than 1929."

During that year, the stock market began hemorrhaging, falling almost 90 percent and sending the U.S. economy into a tailspin.

Paul, a well-known Libertarian, has been warning Wall Street a massive market plunge is inevitable for years. He's currently projecting a 50 percent decline from current levels as his base case, citing the ongoing U.S.-China trade war as a growing risk factor.

"I'm not optimistic that all of the sudden, you're going to eliminate the tariff problem. I think that's here to stay," he said. "Tariffs are taxes."

The scenario is exacerbating Paul's chief reason behind his bearish call: 2008 financial crisis easy money policies. He contended the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing has caused the "biggest bubble in the history of mankind."

"It's so important to understand the original cause of the problem, and that is the Federal Reserve running up debt and letting politicians spend money," he added.

Paul argued that Washington lawmakers do not have an ability to effectively fix the debt problem, and he's been highly critical of the 2017 Trump tax cuts for creating a dire debt situation.

The White House is estimating this year's budget deficit will total $1.09 trillion. The Obama administration saw deficits just as large while trying to solve the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent recession.

However, there may be a silver lining in Paul's forecast.

Unlike the Great Depression, Paul said the next historic downturn doesn't have to last a decade as long as Fed policy and lawmakers don't make the same financial mistakes.

"If you allow the liquidation, it doesn't last long," Paul said.

Original post:

Ron Paul: Market meltdown could spark depression-like conditions