Category Archives: Ron Paul

Former Congressman Ron Paul said the US knows more than it is telling about the Malaysian aircraft that crashed in eastern Ukraine last month, killing 298 people on board and seriously damaging US-Russian relations in the process.

In an effort to inject some balance of opinion, not to mention pure sanity, into the ongoing debate over what happened to Malaysian Flight MH17, Ron Paul is convinced the US government is withholding information on the catastrophe.

"The US government has grown strangely quiet on the accusation that it was Russia or her allies that brought down the Malaysian airliner with a Buk anti-aircraft missile," Paul said on his news website on Thursday.

Ron Paul to Obama: Lets just leave Ukraine alone!

Pauls comments are in sharp contrast to the echo chamber of one-sided opinion inside Western mainstream media, which has almost unanimously blamed anti-Kiev militia for bringing down the commercial airline. Incredibly, in many cases Washington had nothing to show as evidence to incriminate pro-Russian rebels aside from tenuous references to social media.

Weve seen that there were heavy weapons moved from Russia to Ukraine, that they have moved into the hands of separatist leaders,said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. And according to social media reports, those weapons include the SA-11 [Buk missile] system. In another instance, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reportersthe Russians intend to deliver heavier and more powerful rocket launchers to the separatist forces in Ukraine, and have evidence that Russia is firing artillery from within Russia to attack Ukrainian military positions. When veteran AP reporter Matthew Lee asked for proof, he was to be disappointed.

I cant get into the sources and methods behind it, Harf responded. I cant tell you what the information is based on. Lee said the allegations made by the State Department on Ukraine have fallen far short of definitive proof.

Just days after US intelligence officials admitted they had no conclusive evidence to prove Russia was behind the downing of the airliner, Kiev published satellite images as proof it didnt deploy anti-aircraft batteries around the MH17 crash site. However, these images have altered time-stamps and are from the days after the MH17 tragedy, the Russian Defense Ministry revealed, fully discrediting the Ukrainian claims.

In yet another inexplicable occurrence, Russian military detected a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet approaching the MH17 Boeing on the day of the catastrophe. No acceptable explanation has ever been given by Kiev as to why this fighter aircraft was so close to the doomed passenger jet moments before it was brought down.

[We] would like to get an explanation as to why the military jet was flying along a civil aviation corridor at almost the same time and at the same level as a passenger plane, Russian Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov demanded days after the crash.

Paul has slammed the Obama administration, despite its arsenal of surveillance technologies at its disposal, for its failure to provide a single grain of evidence to solve the mystery of the Malaysian airliner.

"Its hard to believe that the US, with all of its spy satellites available for monitoring everything in Ukraine, that precise proof of who did what and when is not available," the two-time presidential candidate said.

"Too bad we cant count on our government to just tell us the truth and show us the evidence," Paul added. "Im convinced that it knows a lot more than its telling us."

Although no sufficient evidence has been presented to prove that the anti-Kiev militia was responsible for the downing of the international flight, such an inconvenient oversight has not stopped the United States and Europe from slapping economic sanctions and travel bans against Russia.

Moscow hit back, saying it would place a ban on agricultural imports from the United States and the European Union. Russias tit-for-tat ban will certainly be felt, as food and agricultural imports from the US amounted to $1.3 billion last year, according to the US Department of Agriculture. In 2013, meanwhile, the EUs agricultural exports to Russia totaled 11.8 billion euros ($15.8 billion).

After the crash, Ron Paul was one of a few voices calling for calm as US officials were pointing fingers without a shred of evidence to support their claims. Paul has not been afraid to say the painfully obvious things the US media, for any number of reasons, cannot find the courage to articulate.

They will not report that the crisis in Ukraine started late last year, when EU and US-supported protesters plotted the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, Paul said. Without US-sponsored regime change, it is unlikely that hundreds would have been killed in the unrest that followed. Nor would the Malaysian Airlines crash have happened.

Paul also found it outrageous that Western media, parroting the government line, has reported that the Malaysian flight must have been downed by Russian-backed separatists, because the BUK missile that reportedly brought down the aircraft was Russian made.

They will not report that the Ukrainian government also uses the exact same Russian-made weapons, he emphasized.

More here:
Ron Paul: US 'likely hiding truth' on downed Malaysian Flight ...

Last night, Ron Paul was on The Daily Show, and under the gentlest of questioning from Jon Stewart, he said some truly insane things. After alleging that people who don't support him "don't understand what freedom is all about," Paul made his usual case that government is bad because it makes decisions for everyone, whereas "when you make a bad decision, it only hurts you."

Stewart tried to bring up cases in which private actors harm people, like industrial pollution, but each time Paul protested that no, no, that wasn't actually the market, that was corporations acting "in collusion with the government." His argument seemed to be that corporations are only capable of harming people when they're corrupted by government's influence. When Stewart asked whether the fact that government regulations can sometimes be ineffective means there should be no regulation at all, Paul made this truly amazing statement:

"The regulations are much tougher in a free market, because you cannot commit fraud, you cannot steal, you cannot hurt people, and the failure has come that government wouldn't enforce this. In the Industrial Revolution there was a collusion and you could pollute and they got away with it. But in a true free market in a libertarian society you can't do that. You have to be responsible. So the regulations would be tougher."

I trust I don't have to bother explaining just how nuts this is, but here's my question: Does Ron Paul really believe this? Does he really think that if there were no government, then no one would ever steal, cheat, or hurt anyone, just because they'd understand that the market would eventually make such behavior unprofitable? Is he really that stupid?

I guess he is. Paul is generally treated like the eccentric but cute uncle in the presidential race, and liberals favorably inclined toward Paul's views on defense and foreign policy are less likely to criticize him than they are some other Republican candidates. But we don't say often enough that his views about economics are every bit as bizarre and extreme as Michele Bachmann's views on the Rapture or Rick Perry's views on Social Security.

See the article here:
Ron Paul, Crazy Person - The American Prospect

Legal Notices: Stansberry Research LLC (Stansberry Research) is a publishing company and the indicators, strategies, reports, articles and all other features of our products are provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as personalized investment advice. Our recommendations and analysis are based on SEC filings, current events, interviews, corporate press releases, and what we've learned as financial journalists. It may contain errors and you shouldn't make any investment decision based solely on what you read here. It's your money and your responsibility.

Readers should be aware that trading stocks and all other financial instruments involves risk. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, and we make no representation that any customer will or is likely to achieve similar results.

Our testimonials are the words of real subscribers received in real letters, emails, and other feedback who have not been paid for their testimonials. Testimonials are printed under aliases to protect privacy, and edited for length. Their claims have not been independently verified or audited for accuracy. We do not know how much money was risked, what portion of their total portfolio was allocated, or how long they owned the security. We do not claim that the results experienced by such subscribers are typical and you will likely have different results.

Any performance results of our recommendations prepared by Stansberry Research are not based on actual trading of securities but are instead based on a hypothetical trading account. Hypothetical performance results have many inherent limitations. Your actual results may vary.

Stansberry Research expressly forbids its writers from having a financial interest in any security they recommend to our subscribers. And all Stansberry Research (and affiliated companies), employees, and agents must wait 24 hours after an initial trade recommendation is published on the Internet, or 72 hours after a direct mail publication is sent, before acting on that recommendation.

Go here to read the rest:
Dr. Ron Paul - Stansberry

Ron Paul at the launch of Rand Pauls presidential campaign in Louisville last month. (Photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP)

While Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul continues his bid for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, his father is starring in an ad that warns darkly that the United States is teetering on the brink of a devastating financial crisis whose effects can only be avoided by following his investment advice.

Hi, Ron Paul here, the former GOP congressman and two-time Republican presidential candidate says in the radio ad published by BuzzFeed. Today I have an urgent message for every American whos retired or thinking about retiring soon. You see, our own governments disastrous policies have now put you, me and everyone over the age of 50 at great risk. Sometime in the near future, were going to have yet another financial crisis. This one wont be solved with bailouts, and it will hit seniors the hardest.

The 79-year-old warns of a coming economic armageddon one not backed up by mainstream economic projections. According to a recent report from Moodys Analytics, the U.S. economy is expected to grow 3 percent for the year despite a slowdown due, in part, to an unseasonably bad winter. And the value of the U.S. dollar has increased almost 15 percent from last year.

I fear there will be civil unrest, a drop in stock prices, pension fund collapses, big changes to Social Security and Medicare, the erosion of personal liberties, bank and brokerage closings and ultimately a major crisis as the U.S. dollar is rejected for almost any nonpaper alternative, Paul continues.

Ron Pauls doomsday view could complicate his sons bid for the GOP nomination as Rand Paul looks to run a more mainstream campaign than did his father, who lost three separate bids for the presidency before leaving Congress and becoming a source of investment advice for apocalyptic thinkers.

This is the second most interesting father-son psychodrama in the presidential race, Washington Post political reporter Karen Tumulty told Yahoo News last month. On one hand, [Rand Paul] wants to draw distinctions [with Ron Paul], but on the other hand, tap into that energy his father was able to build.

The minute-long spots direct listeners to a website that includes a 54-minute infomercial-style video produced by Stansberry & Associates Investment Research, a conservative investment advice newsletter.

Dr. Ron Paul strongly believes when the next crisis hits, there will be no warning, and the government wont save you, a voice-over says. Go online to http://www.ronpaulwarning6.com, where youll learn simple steps you can take to protect your retirement.

In the video, billed as an exclusive interview with the 12-term former congressman, Paul says the pending crisis will be worse than our Great Depression.

In short, I believe that we as a nation are on the brink of a massive financial crisis infinitely worse than the crisis of 2008, he says. And thats because it wont be a banking and mortgage problem but a full-blown currency crisis the likes of which weve never experienced in this country. The savings of millions of people could be wiped out overnight. The stock market could crash by 50 percent or more. The way of life weve enjoyed as Americans for over 50 years could come to an end. Its not a question of if this will happen, but when.

The former Libertarian presidential candidate says that as a result of the inevitable currency crisis, the middle class gets wiped out, the way you work, live, retire in America everything is going to change.

But the real killer, Paul says, will be the effect of all this on our society and on our liberties.

Ron Paul also appears in a similar, Stansberry-produced video carrying the same message.

People wont have any clue what to do when theres a line around the block just to access the ATM, he says. I think well see problems in the big cities especially in fact, were already seeing the beginnings of that: Ferguson, the riots in New York and Detroit.

The informercial eventually offers viewers a $49.50 Stansberry hard-copy Survival Blueprint that includes, among other tips, the strategy that can save you and your neighborhood, how to quickly open a foreign bank account and the secret paper currency used by the worlds wealthiest people.

Read More

Those who try to leave the website are even prompted with a pop-up warning: Please: Dont wait until its too late.

Here is the original post:
Ron Paul investment ad predicts currency crisis, civil unrest

Excepts of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) from the documentary "FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution." Dr. Paul discusses the origins, operations and results of the Federal Reserve System and fiat currency on the U.S. and global economy.

The entire film, Fiat Empire, can be accessed at http://www.FiatEmpire.com or directly at Google Video at http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...

"This Telly Award-winning documentary on the Federal Reserve System was inspired by the well-known book, "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin, and features presidential candidate, RON PAUL.

To order a high-quality DVD or VHS tape (by mail) with up to 160-minutes of additional interviews, go to http://www.FiatEmpire.com/screener. To get instant downloads in a range of qualities, go to http://www.mecfilms.com/mid/ppv/ppvho... and select from the "Documentaries" menu.

Find out why some feel the Federal Reserve System is a "bunch of organized crooks" and others feel its practices "are in violation of the U.S. Constitution." Discover why experts agree the Fed is a banking cartel that benefits mainly bankers, their clients in need of easy money and a Congress that would rather increase the National Debt than raise taxes.

Produced by William L. Van Alen, Jr., the 1-hour documentary is a co-production between Matrixx Productions and Cornerstone Entertainment and features interviews by, not only G. Edward Griffin, but Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas); MOVIEGUIDE Founder, Ted Baehr; and constitutional attorney, Edwin Vieira (4 degrees from Harvard). FIAT EMPIRE was written and directed by James Jaeger and narrated by Kris Chandler. Associate producers are Ted Pollard, author and former Commissioner of Radnor Township and James E. Ewart, well-known author of MONEY.

Use a DVD for personal screenings and a VHS tape for free public and private screenings.

For more information on FIAT EMPIRE visit http://www.FiatEmpire.com or the mirror site at http://www.mecfilms.com/fiat. For various political, economic, sociological, media-related and philosophical essays by James Jaeger and others, visit UNIVERSAL ISSUES at http://www.mecfilms.com/universe.

For new films and updates on Matrixx Entertainment's activities, visit http://www.mecfilms.com/update.htm

Continued here:
Ron Paul on Federal Reserve, banking and economy - YouTube

Ronald Ernest Ron Paul (* 20. August 1935 in Green Tree, Pennsylvania) ist ein US-amerikanischer Arzt und Politiker. Er ist Mitglied der Republikanischen Partei und war zwischen 1976 und 2013 (mit Unterbrechungen) Abgeordneter im Reprsentantenhaus der Vereinigten Staaten. Paul war bei der US-Prsidentschaftswahl 1988 Kandidat der Libertarian Party und war ein Bewerber um die republikanische Kandidatur fr die US-Prsidentschaftswahl 2008 und 2012.

Ron Paul hat einige Vorfahren, die aus Hessen stammen.[1] Seine Eltern heirateten im Jahr 1929.[2] Er wurde als der dritte von fnf Shnen geboren und musste mit seinen Brdern im Milchladen der Familie mitarbeiten.[3] Nach dem Besuch der High-School in Dormont studierte er am Gettysburg College, an dem er 1957 mit einem Bachelor of Sciences in Biologie abschloss. Im gleichen Jahr heiratete er Carol Wells. Anschlieend studierte Paul an der Duke University Medizin. Als Arzt arbeitete er berwiegend in der Geburtshilfe und als Gynkologe in Lake Jackson, Texas.

Ron Paul hat mit seiner Frau Carol fnf Kinder, sein Sohn Rand Paul, ebenfalls Arzt, kandidierte bei den Wahlen im November 2010 fr die Republikaner in Kentucky erfolgreich fr den Senat der Vereinigten Staaten.

Paul begann 1971 sich aktiv in der Republikanischen Partei zu engagieren. Prsident Richard Nixon hatte den Goldstandard fr den Dollar aufgehoben eine Entscheidung, die Paul bis heute ablehnt.[4] 1974 kandidierte Paul erstmals fr den Kongress im 22. Wahlbezirk von Texas, verlor jedoch gegen den Demokraten Robert R. Casey. Von 1976 bis 1977 und von 1979 bis 1985 war er der Abgeordnete des 22. Wahlbezirks von Texas. Von seiner Wiederwahl 1997 an vertrat er bis zum 3. Januar 2013 den 14. texanischen Distrikt im US-Abgeordnetenhaus.

Bei den US-Prsidentschaftswahlen 1988 trat Paul als Kandidat der Libertarian Party an, nachdem er sich gegen den Sioux-Aktivisten Russell Means bei den Vorwahlen durchgesetzt hatte. Als Motivation fr die Kandidatur nannte Paul seine Unzufriedenheit mit der Finanzpolitik und dem hohen Defizit der Regierungen unter Prsident Reagan und Vizeprsident Bush. Am Ende erhielt er 431.750 (0,47%) Stimmen.[5]

Am 11. Januar 2007 gab Paul sein Interesse an einer Kandidatur fr die Prsidentschaftswahl 2008 bekannt und verkndete am 12. Mrz 2007 als Gast im Washington Journal des Senders C-SPAN offiziell seine Kandidatur.[6] Paul galt von Anfang an als Auenseiterkandidat, was sich im Echo der Printmedien und des Fernsehens niederschlug. Da Pauls Ansichten in mehreren Aspekten dem Mainstream der Republikanischen Partei widersprechen und er zudem weit weniger bekannt ist als Mitbewerber wie Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson und John McCain, wurden ihm bei der parteiinternen Kandidatenwahl hufig wenig Chancen eingerumt. Entsprechend erreichte Paul bei den nationalen Wahlumfragen von Meinungsforschungsinstituten lediglich zwischen 1 und 6%.[7] Er hielt seine Kandidatur bis zum 12. Juni 2008 aufrecht, obwohl John McCain seit Anfang Mrz eine absolute Mehrheit der Delegierten hinter sich versammelt hatte.[8]

Paul hatte whrend des Wahlkampfes eine aktive Untersttzergemeinde gewonnen, die sich berwiegend ber das Internet koordiniert. Laut Serverdiensten wie Alexa Internet wurde Pauls Website weitaus hufiger besucht als die Seiten der republikanischen und demokratischen Topkandidaten wie Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama oder John Edwards. Die groe Diskrepanz zwischen Popularitt im Internet und Berichterstattung in traditionellen Medien wird hufig von Kommentatoren bemerkt und ist bei Paul-Anhngern Anlass zu einer scharfen Kritik der Medien. Andere dagegen verweisen darauf, dass es sich dabei um informelle Umfragen handele (wie z.B. bei den Telefon- und Onlineumfragen, aus denen Ron Paul nach fnf der sechs TV-Debatten als Sieger hervorging), bei denen zum Beispiel mehrfaches Anklicken durch eine Person mglich sei und die daher wissenschaftlich nicht verwertbar seien. Bei serisen Umfragen hielten sich seine Werte im unteren einstelligen Bereich.[9]

Bei vielen der sogenannten Straw Polls Testwahlen, bei denen meistens eine Anwesenheit des Whlers erforderlich ist, der fr die Teilnahme Eintritt bezahlt schnitt Paul ebenfalls gut ab. So konnte Paul etwa Straw Polls in Regionen von Nevada, Alabama, Oklahoma, Oregon, Georgia, New Jersey, Maryland, New Hampshire, Texas, New York und Pennsylvania gewinnen. [10] Weitere Erfolge konnte Paul im Bereich des Fundraisings erzielen. So wurden im dritten Quartal 2007 gut fnf Millionen Dollar gespendet, was einen Anstieg von 114% gegenber dem zweiten Quartal bedeutete. Schlagzeilen machten zudem Berichte, dass Paul als einziger republikanischer Gegner des Irakkriegs mehr Spenden von Militrangehrigen erworben hat als jeder andere Bewerber, ob republikanisch oder demokratisch.[11]

Die uerst widersprchlichen Ergebnisse der Meinungsumfragen und die starke Zunahme von Spenden und Medienberichterstattung machten es schwer, im Vorfeld der Primaries das Abschneiden Pauls vorherzusagen. Bisweilen wurde Paul in den amerikanischen Massenmedien als dark horse (in etwa unbekannte Gre oder berraschungskandidat) beschrieben[12], allerdings hielten es die meisten Kommentatoren fr unwahrscheinlich, dass Ron Paul als Irakkriegsgegner die Vorwahlen in der republikanischen Partei gewinnen knnte.

Am 15. Mai 2007 rief Paul starken Widerspruch und ffentliche Reaktionen hervor, als er bei einer auf dem Fox News Channel ausgestrahlten Debatte der republikanischen Prsidentschaftskandidaten in Columbia (South Carolina) die amerikanische Auenpolitik mit fr die Terroranschlge am 11. September 2001 verantwortlich machte.[13][14]Rudolph Giuliani griff Paul daraufhin an, bezeichnete dessen Aussage als absurd und versuchte den Eindruck zu erzeugen, Paul htte die amerikanische Bevlkerung fr die Terroranschlge verantwortlich gemacht. In Interviews nach der Diskussion betonte Paul, dass er keineswegs die amerikanische Bevlkerung, sondern die Auenpolitik fr die Anschlge mitverantwortlich mache, und verwies auf das gleich lautende Urteil des Berichts der offiziellen Untersuchungskommission zu den Anschlgen am 11. September 2001.

Im September 2008 erklrte Paul, er werde keine Untersttzungserklrung (endorsement) der Kandidatur des republikanischen Prsidentschaftskandidaten McCain abgeben. Er begrndete dies mit grundlegenden inhaltlichen Differenzen, insbesondere in der Auen- und der Finanzpolitik.[15]

Siehe auch: Vorwahlergebnisse der Prsidentschaftswahl in den Vereinigten Staaten 2008

Am 13. Mai 2011 gab Ron Paul in der Sendung Good Morning America auf dem Sender American Broadcasting Company formell seine Kandidatur fr die Prsidentschaftswahl im Jahr 2012 bekannt.[16] Paul nahm daraufhin an verschiedenen Fernsehdebatten teil, wozu er im Gegensatz zu seiner Prsidentschaftskampagne 2008 bei allen greren Veranstaltungen eingeladen wurde. Einzig die Jewish Republican Coalition beschloss Paul von der Debatte auszuschlieen, da seine Positionen zum Verhltnis der USA mit Israel zu extrem seien. Paul hatte sich gegen die jhrliche Militrhilfe der USA an Israel in Hhe von 3 Milliarden US-Dollar ausgesprochen und angekndigt, sich im Konflikt zwischen Israel und dem Iran neutral zu verhalten.[17]

Mit den bereits aus 2008 bekannten Moneybombs konnte die Kampagne groe Spendenbetrge erzielen. Im dritten Quartal 2011 sammelte Paul Spenden im Umfang von 8 Millionen Dollar, von 100.000 verschiedenen Spendern. Der durchschnittlich gespendete Betrag ist somit 80 Dollar, sein Parteikollege Rick Perry, der wie Paul ebenfalls aus Texas stammt, sammelte im gleichen Zeitraum 15 Millionen Dollar, jedoch von nur 20.000 Spendern, was eine durchschnittliche Spendensumme von 750 Dollar ergibt. Daraus wird die groe Untersttzung der Graswurzelbewegung fr Paul deutlich.[18]

Groes Aufsehen erregte ein Beitrag der Daily Show mit deren Moderator Jon Stewart, worin Stewart die tendenzise Berichterstattung der groen Fernsehnetworks zum Ames Straw Poll satirisch verarbeitete. Paul schloss bei diesem Straw Poll mit 0.9% Rckstand als zweiter hinter Michele Bachmann ab, wurde aber bei den Kommentarrunden von CNN, MSNBC, CBS und Fox News nicht einmal erwhnt. [19]

Bei der wichtigen ersten Vorwahl in Iowa belegte Paul den dritten Platz mit 21.4% aller Stimmen. Bei der zweiten Vorwahl in New Hampshire erreichte Paul mit 22.9% der Stimmen den zweiten Platz, hinter dem Favoriten Mitt Romney.[20]

Seit am 10. April Rick Santorum und am 27. April Newt Gingrich ihre Rckzge verkndeten, waren nur noch zwei Bewerber im Rennen: Romney und Paul. Paul hatte wegen schwacher Wahlergebnisse kaum noch Chancen, von seiner Partei aufgestellt zu werden. Paul hat dennoch immer wieder erklrt, bis zum Ende des Nominierungsprozesses im Rennen bleiben zu wollen.[21] Am 14. Mai 2012 setzte er jedoch den Wahlkampf in den Primary-Staaten, die noch nicht gewhlt hatten, aus. Er werde lediglich weiter um Delegierte in den Staaten kmpfen, in denen die Vorwahlen stattgefunden hatten.[22] Paul beendete seinen Wahlkampf mit einer sechsstndigen Veranstaltung im Sun Dome in Tampa. Gem Ron Paul nahmen daran 11.000 Personen teil.[23]

Am 28. August 2012 wurde Mitt Romney offiziell zum republikanischen Prsidentschaftskandidaten gekrt; die Proteste Pauls, er sei beim Nominierungsparteitag bewusst an den Rand gedrngt worden, blieben folgenlos.

Innerhalb eines Tages, des 5. November 2007, mit Anlehnung an den Jahrestag des Gunpowder Plots, nahm Ron Paul durch eine von Graswurzelaktivisten gestartete, nicht mit der offiziellen Wahlkampagne abgestimmte Aktion[24] ca. 4,38 Mio. Dollar online ein.[25] Insgesamt spendeten rund 40.000 Untersttzer einen durchschnittlichen Betrag von 103 Dollar.[26] Dieses sogenannte Money Bomb Event fhrte zudem zu einer erhhten Aufmerksamkeit der TV-Nachrichtensender[27] und der Presse.[28][29]

Am 16. Dezember 2007, mit Anlehnung an die Boston Tea Party von 1773, konnte Ron Paul erneut durch eine weitere Graswurzel-Aktion[30] ca. 6,04 Mio. Dollar online einsammeln.[31] Diese Summe ist die hchste Summe, die weltweit ein Politiker innerhalb von 24 Stunden eingenommen hat.[32] Der bisherige Rekordhalter fr Off- und Online-Spenden war der ehemalige Prsidentschaftskandidat John Kerry im Jahr 2004 mit ca. 5,7 Mio. Dollar.[33]

Insgesamt spendeten rund 58.407 Untersttzer, wovon 24.915 erstmalige Spender waren, einen durchschnittlichen Betrag von 102 Dollar.[34] Erneut gelang es Paul, die Aufmerksamkeit der Medien auf sich zu ziehen.[35][36] Insgesamt betrugen 2007 die Spendeneinknfte von Paul ca. 28 Millionen Dollar, wovon ber 19,7 Millionen Dollar auf das vierte Quartal entfielen.

Nach Beendigung seiner Kampagne 2008 grndete Ron Paul mit den brigen Spendengeldern die Campaign for Liberty, eine Organisation welche sich gem eigner Beschreibung fr Individuelle Freiheit, eine verfassungsgeme Regierung, solides Geld, freie Mrkte und eine Auenpolitik des Nicht-Interventionismus mittels Bildung, Interessensvertretung und Mobilisierung einer Graswurzelbewegung einsetzt. Die Campaign for Liberty gab einen wichtigen Ansto zur Tea-Party-Bewegung.

Zusammen mit bekannten amerikanischen Anti-Kriegs-Politikern beider Parteien wie Dennis Kucinich und Walter B. Jones sowie weiteren Exponenten grndete Ron Paul 2013 das Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. [37] Unter akademischer Leitung von Gary North bietet Ron Paul eine Homeschooling-Platform fr die Stufen von Kindergarten bis High-School an. Seit August 2013 betreibt Ron Paul - nachdem er sich ber mangelnde Aufmerksamkeit in den US-Medien beklagt hatte - einen kostenpflichtigen Internetfernsehkanal unter dem Namen "Ron Paul Channel", welcher mehrmals wchentlich Interviews, News- und Kommentarbeitrge zu aktuellen Themen aus libertrer Perspektive bietet.[38] Sein Institut wurde whrend der Ukrainekrise 2014 ausgiebig von russischen Medien zitiert[39], wie er frher Kronzeuge der Friedensbewegung gegen einen "Krieg mit den Iran" war[40].

Pauls politische Einstellung wird von Beobachtern als palolibertr, konstitutionalistisch, isolationistisch und konservativ beschrieben. Grundlage der politischen Ansichten Ron Pauls ist ein strikter Konstitutionalismus, eine einflussreiche rechtspolitische Auffassung in den USA, der zufolge allen Verfassungsorganen nur genau diejenigen Handlungen erlaubt sind, die die Verfassung der Vereinigten Staaten ausdrcklich erlaubt, im Gegensatz zu derjenigen Auffassung, die der Politik ausschlielich ausdrckliche Verbote auferlegt. Darber hinaus befrwortet Paul individualistische Freiheit, die auch beinhaltet, dass jeder Brger seine Vorsorge fr Alter, Krankheit, Arbeitslosigkeit etc. selbst regelt und jede staatliche Verantwortung fr Sozialversicherungen wie Rentenversicherung, Krankenfrsorge etc. abgeschafft wird. Sich selbst sieht Paul in der Tradition der Grndervter. Dabei versteht er sich selbst als Republikaner der alten Schule und grenzt sich aktiv vom Neokonservatismus und von der Bush-Regierung ab. Seiner Ansicht nach vertritt er die ursprnglichen Ideale der Republikaner und wirft anderen Parteimitgliedern vor, sie htten diese Linie verlassen, da die Grnder der republikanischen Partei die Ziele seiner Politik verfolgt htten.[41]

Paul war bekannt fr seine Ablehnung des Irakkrieges und die Idee einer isolationistischen, nicht-interventionistischen Auenpolitik in der Tradition von George Washington und Thomas Jefferson[42] (siehe auch Monroe-Doktrin). Paul stimmte gegen die Irak-Kriegs-Resolution[43] und setzt sich fr einen unverzglichen Abzug der US-Armee aus allen Lndern ein. Die Untersttzung libyscher Rebellen im Verlauf des Arabischen Frhlings lehnte er folglich ebenso ab.[44] Pauls nichtinterventionistische Haltung geht so weit, dass er einen Austritt der USA aus NATO, UN und WTO befrwortet,[45] eine Position, die ihm den Vorwurf des Isolationismus eingetragen hat. Jedoch spricht er sich selbst deutlich gegen das aus, was er selbst unter Isolationismus versteht, und fordert ein starkes Amerika, das mit anderen Nationen offenen Handel treibt, sie bereist, mit ihnen kommuniziert und diplomatische Beziehungen aufrechterhlt. Paul erklrt zu seinen Gunsten, dass es stets republikanische Prsidenten wie Eisenhower gewesen seien, die die Streitkrfte aus aussichtslosen Engagements befreit htten. Darber hinaus wies er darauf hin, dass George W. Bush im Prsidentschaftswahlkampf 2000 noch mit einer explizit nichtinterventionistischen Auenpolitik geworben und seine Ablehnung von Militreinstzen und Nation building zum Ausdruck gebracht habe. Der Prsident sei diesen Grundstzen untreu geworden.

Entsprechend seiner nichtinterventionistischen Haltung bevorzugt er eine diplomatische Lsung internationaler Spannungen. So lehnt er einen Krieg gegen den Iran kategorisch ab und sieht darin eine Wiederholung des 'sinnlosen' Irak-Krieges.[46]

2014 erklrte Ron Paul, dass es die westlichen Mchte (USA) sind, die fr die Unruhen in der Ukraine gesorgt haben und es sie sind, die fr die Aufrechterhaltung der Spannungen verantwortlich sind.[47] Er kritisierte, die USA htten Russland den Krieg erklrt.[48]

Pauls innenpolitische Positionen brachten ihn ebenfalls in Konflikt mit weiten Teilen der Republikanischen Partei und der Regierung Bush. Er stimmte schon 2001 gegen den USA PATRIOT Act und erklrte: Alles, was wir als Antwort auf die Angriffe vom 11. September getan haben vom Patriot Act bis zum Irakkrieg , hat nur die Freiheit in Amerika verringert. [49] Er befrwortet eine Auflsung des Department of Homeland Security. Paul setzt sich zudem fr ein Ende des sogenannten War on Drugs und aufgrund seines Verstndnisses individueller Freiheit fr eine liberalere Drogenpolitik sowie die medizinische Nutzung von Cannabis ein. Paul befrwortet auch den Schutz der Meinungsfreiheit von Julian Assange und WikiLeaks im selben Ausma wie fr Mainstream-Medien in Bezug auf die Verffentlichung von Informationen.[50]

Bei anderen innenpolitischen Themen stimmt Paul mit konservativen Republikanern berein und weicht weit von den Position der Demokraten ab. Teil der persnlichen Selbstbestimmung ist nach Paul etwa das Recht, Waffen zu tragen; die Lobbyorganisation Gun Owners of America vergab an Paul als einzigem Prsidentschaftskandidaten ein A+ Rating (1+-Bewertung). Paul tritt zudem fr eine striktere Migrationspolitik ein und hat fr den Secure Fence Act of 2006 gestimmt, der den Bau eines ca. 1100 km langen Zauns an der Grenze zu Mexiko vorsieht, wobei er hervorhebt, dass er gegen dieses Abkommen stimmen wrde, wenn es keine staatlichen Sozialprogramme gbe.

Paul lehnt nationale Regelungen der gleichgeschlechtlichen Ehe ab und erklrt, dass die einzelnen Staaten jeweils ber ihre Einfhrung entscheiden sollen. Auf die Frage, ob er gleichgeschlechtliche Ehen untersttze, erklrte Paul: Ich untersttze jede freiwillig eingegangene Bindung, wie immer die Leute sie dann nennen mgen. [51] Paul beschreibt sich selbst als pro-life, also als Abtreibungsgegner. Er hat einen Gesetzentwurf initiiert, der festlegen soll, dass menschliches Leben mit der Empfngnis beginnt. Auerdem kmpft er dafr, den Bundesgerichten das Recht zu entziehen, von Bundesstaaten erlassene Abtreibungsgesetze zu berprfen, was auf eine Annullierung des Roe v. Wade-Urteils des Supreme Courts hinauslaufen wrde.[52]

Paul nennt die amerikanischen Sozialprogramme ein Kartenhaus, da die demographische Entwicklung die Programme in einigen Jahrzehnten unbezahlbar mache. Da er zudem rztliche Behandlung nicht als Menschenrecht ansieht, setzt er sich dafr ein, dass Arbeitnehmer eine Teilnahme an Sozialversicherungen wie Medicare und Medicaid ablehnen knnen, mit der Folge, dass sie keine Sozialbeitrge (payroll-tax) mehr zahlen mssen und dafr keinerlei Ansprche mehr haben [53]. Er ist ein Kritiker des amerikanischen Gesundheitssystems. Dabei lehnt er sowohl universal healthcare nach europischem Vorbild als auch private Krankenversicherungen ab, da deren Kosten immer weiter steigen wrden, solange nicht der Patient, sondern eine dritte Partei die Rechnungen bezahlt.[54]

Paul versteht sich als Vertreter der freien Marktwirtschaft im Sinne der sterreichischen Schule der Nationalkonomie. Ziele seiner Politik sind Deregulierung und geringe Steuern. Entsprechend schlgt er eine Auflsung der nationalen Steuerbehrde IRS und der Federal Reserve Bank (unter gleichzeitiger Wiedereinfhrung des Goldstandard) vor und spricht sich fr einen schlanken Staat aus. Paul lehnt das Handelsabkommen NAFTA und die Mitgliedschaft in internationalen Institutionen wie der WTO als Bedrohung der Souvernitt der Vereinigten Staaten ab. Zudem mchte er die bundesweit erhobene Einkommensteuer abschaffen.[55]

Im Januar 2008 geriet Ron Paul unter Druck, als The New Republic Auszge aus Newslettern verffentlichte, die in den 1980er und 1990er Jahren unter seinem Namen verffentlicht worden waren.[56] Diese Publikationen (Ron Pauls Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report und The Ron Paul Investment Letter) enthielten Kommentare, die als rassistisch, schwulenfeindlich und verschwrungstheoretisch kritisiert wurden.[57] Ron Paul erklrte dazu, er habe die kritisierten Beitrge weder selbst verfasst noch gelesen und wisse nicht, wer sie geschrieben habe; auerdem knne er als Libertrer kein Rassist sein, weil Rassismus eine kollektivistische Idee sei.[58] Die libertre Zeitschrift Reason benannte unter Berufung auf Quellen in der palolibertren Bewegung Lew Rockwell, der von 1978 bis 1982 Pauls Stabschef in dessen Kongressbro war und heute das Webmagazin LewRockwell.com betreibt, als den Ghostwriter, der in erster Linie die Beitrge in den Newslettern verfasste. Auerdem zitierte Reason einen Steuerbescheid aus dem Jahr 1994, dem zufolge die jhrlichen Einknfte der Firma Ron Paul & Associates, die die Newsletter publizierte, $ 940.000 betrugen.[59]

Read the original here:
Ron Paul Wikipedia

The Debt-Ceiling Charade

Dont mention the wars, the empire, or the welfare state, says Ron Paul.

10/20/2015

Politicians Murder Carloads Overseas

While being shocked, shocked about shootings here, says Ron Paul.

10/13/2015

Bombing Syria?

I wish no one were doing it, says Ron Paul.

10/8/2015

Blame America?

No, blame neocons, says Ron Paul.

9/22/2015

Congress Downs More Martinis

As they crash the economy, says Ron Paul.

9/15/2015

Why the Refugee Crisis?

Ron Paul on the crimes of empire.

9/7/2015

About This Bear Market

The guilty party is the Fed, not China, says Ron Paul.

9/2/2015

Subsidized Mass Migration

Ron Paul on the libertarian response.

8/25/2015

Only Full-Blown Libertarianism Works

Watering it down hurts the cause, says Ron Paul.

8/18/2015

Concentration Camps in America Again?

The military-police state complex sure wants them. Aricle by Ron Paul.

7/28/2015

A Victory for Peace, a Defeat for the Neocons

What could be better? Article by Ron Paul.

7/21/2015

Are We Greece Squared?

Ron Paul on the frightening economic future of the US.

7/14/2015

Stop Attacking the Cuban People

End US interventionism, says Ron Paul.

7/8/2015

Who Loves Fascist Care?

Blacked-robed dictators and Republicans, says Ron Paul.

6/30/2015

The Big Bear

Ron Paul on coming market turmoil.

6/24/2015

The US Stabs the Dollar

By bullying China and Russia, says Ron Paul.

6/23/2015

Government Ritual Murder

Ron Paul on the death penalty.

6/16/2015

The Soros Conspiracy

Ron Paul on making money off war.

6/8/2015

Don’t Hail the Court Ruling on Illegal Spying

The only way to reform the PATRIOT Act is to repeal it, says Ron Paul.

5/13/2015

If the Government Calls It ‘Freedom’

You know its evil. Article by Ron Paul.

5/5/2015

Politicians Hate the Productive

Thus the war to impoverish them. Article by Ron Paul.

4/28/2015

US Sends Troops to Ukraine

To support more political murders. Article by Ron Paul.

4/21/2015

Who Benefits From Militarism and War?

Ron Paul on the merchants of death.

4/14/2015

Congress Hates Us

So does the whole regime. Article by Ron Paul.

4/7/2015

Take a Sledgehammer to the IMF

And put it in the same grave as the Fed. Article by Ron Paul.

3/31/2015

The Stage Is Set for Another Big War

Ron Paul on why the US wants it.

3/28/2015

After 12-Years of Crime in Iraq

The US government must just march home, says Ron Paul.

3/24/2015

Why Do American Weapons End Up in Enemy Hands?

Or are they not enemies? Article by Ron Paul.

3/21/2015

One People, One World, One Government

Ron Paul on when the US sank its claws into the whole planet.

3/16/2015

What Is It Good for? Absolutely Nothing

Ron Paul on the DHS police state.

3/3/2015

A Criminal Year

Since the violent US coup in Ukraine. Article by Ron Paul.

2/24/2015

How Many More Piles of Corpses?

Ron Paul on governments signature occupation.

2/17/2015

Blank Check for Professional Hitmen

And the Merchants of Death. Article by Ron Paul.

2/13/2015

The Good Doctor

Continued here:
Ron Paul LewRockwell.com

The Federal Reserve is the chief culprit behind the economic crisis. Its unchecked power to create endless amounts of money out of thin air brought us the boom and bust cycle and causes one financial bubble after another. Since the Feds creation in 1913 the dollar has lost more than 96% of its value, and by recklessly inflating the money supply the Fed continues to distort interest rates and intentionally erodes the value of the dollar.

For the past 30 years, Congressman Ron Paul has worked tirelessly to bring much-needed transparency and accountability to the secretive bank. And in 2009 and 2010 his unfaltering dedication showed astonishing results: HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve, swept the country and made the central bankers shudder at their desks. The bill passed as an amendment both in the House Financial Services Committee and in the House itself.

But the usurpers of Americas future didnt take it lying down. They werent about to allow their secrets to be exposed and their magic money machine to be put under close scrutiny. They worked frantically behind the scenes to quietly derail all efforts to open up the Federal Reserve to an independent audit.

A handful of Fed-loving U.S. senators led by Chris Dodd rewrote the Senate version of the Financial Reform Bill to strip out Ron Pauls Audit the Fed amendment and actually expand the Feds power over banks, lending and money. As Ron Paul commented on here, the Dodd bill completely eliminated legislation to audit the Federal Reserve, which had already passed in the House.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced an amendment on the floor effectively adding the Grayson-Paul language to the Senate bill, but later changed his amendment under pressure by the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration. The altered Sanders amendment passed the Senate on May 11, 2010 by a unanimous 96-0 vote.

Sen. Vitter reintroduced an amendment with the original Audit the Fed language. The Senate rejected the amendment on May 11, 2010 by a 37-62 vote.

The House and Senate went to the conference committee which attempted to reconcile the differences between the two bills (and their amendments). Unfortunately, Ron Pauls tough language ended up not being included in the final bill.

On June 30, 2010, the GOP introduced Ron Pauls Audit the Fed bill as a motion to recommit, which was the last chance to alter the financial regulation bill. Audit the Fed failed by a vote of 229-198. All Republicans voted in favor of the measure with 23 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with Republicans. 114 co-sponsors of HR 1207, all Democrats, jumped ship and voted against Audit the Fed.

But lets start from the beginning. Heres the fascinating history of Ron Pauls Audit the Fed bill:

02/2009: Ron Paul introduces bill to Audit the Federal Reserve

On February 26, 2009, Ron Paul introduced HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve:

I rise to introduce the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserves loose monetary policy. How long will we as a Congress stand idly by while hard-working Americans see their savings eaten away by inflation? Only big-spending politicians and politically favored bankers benefit from inflation.

After a groundswell of grassroots support, HR 1207 and its counterpart in the Senate, S 604, went on to attract 320 and 32 co-sponsors respectively.

10/2009: Mel Watt Introduces Competing Placebo Amendment

With HR 1207 gaining momentum, Congressman Mel Watt introduced a competing banker-approved placebo amendment that would have replaced HR 1207 and actually increased the Federal Reserves secrecy.

11/2009: Victory over Mel Watt Amendment

On November 19, 2009, after a historic debate lasting several hours, Ron Pauls and Alan Graysons Audit the Fed amendment passed 43-26 in the House Financial Services Committee. The amendment called for a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve and replaced the opposing placebo amendment proposed by Mel Watt.

How they voted on Ron Pauls Audit the Fed amendment (HR 1207 co-sponsors in bold):

Note: Due to a clerical error, until 5/26/2010 this roll call erroneously listed Rep. Gary Miller (CA-42) as a Democrat who supposedly voted nay. However, the reality is that Rep. Miller is a Republican who was absent on the day of the vote. He is a co-sponsor of HR 1207. We apologize!

12/2009: Audit the Fed Passes in the House

The Audit the Fed amendment was attached to Barney Franks HR 3996, also known as the Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009. That bill was later combined, along with several other bills, into The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009 (HR 4173). The House passed the new bill on December 11, 2009 on a vote of 223-202.

03/2010: Treasury Officials Still Support Mel Watt Amendment

On March 8, 2010 Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein participated in a bizarre meeting with unnamed high level treasury officials:

The Treasury Department is vigorously opposed to a House-passed measure that would open the Federal Reserve to an audit by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a senior Treasury official said Monday. Instead, the official said, the Treasury prefers a substitute offered by Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.), and would like to see it enacted as part of the Senate bill.

The Watt measure, however, while claiming to increase transparency, actually puts new restrictions on the GAOs ability to perform an audit.

03/2010: Mel Watt Amendment Used in Senate Version of the Financial Reform Bill

Ron Paul: In the Senate, we didnt get enough strong support over there and the Republicans didnt really fight for it and at the Senate side it is not included. Matter of fact, they have included Mel Wattss language. His language and my language competed in the House Financial Services Committee and of course we won that pretty easily. But they inserted that in so Mel Watt and the bankers were able to influence the senators enough to put their language in there. So what probably will happen is the two bills will be passed. Itll be in one bill and not the other and then the fight will be to put pressure on the conference to go with the House [bill] instead of the Senate.

04/2010: Bernie Sanders Introduces Audit the Fed Amendment in the Senate

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced an amendment on the floor effectively adding the Grayson-Paul language to the Senate bill.

05/2010: Bernie Sanders Sells Out, Senate Passes Watered Down Amendment

On May 6, 2010 Bernie Sanders sold out to the bankers by modifying his amendment to the extent that it would allow the Fed to keep many of its activities secret. On May 11, 2010 the Sanders amendment passed the Senate by a unanimous 96-0 vote.

05/2010: David Vitter Comes To The Rescue But His Amendment is Defeated

Sen. David Vitter reintroduced an amendment with Ron Pauls original Audit the Fed language. The Senate rejected the amendment on May 11, 2010 by a 37-62 vote.

06/2010: 114 Democrats Jump Ship and Vote Down Audit the Fed

On June 30, 2010, Ron Pauls attempt to audit the Federal Reserve, which was previously co-sponsored by 320 members of the House (HR 1207), failed by a vote of 229-198. All Republicans voted in favor of the measure with 23 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with Republicans. 114 co-sponsors of HR 1207, all Democrats, jumped ship and voted against Audit the Fed.

The GOP had offered the Fed audit as the minoritys last chance to alter the financial regulation bill. The bill does have an watered-down audit provision in the conference report, but it is limited to loans made by the Fed during the height of the economic crisis. Ron Pauls bill would have allowed a total examination of the Feds books.

Democrats, Republicans, HR 1207 Co-Sponsors

YEA

Aderholt Akin Alexander Austria Bachmann Bachus Barrett (SC) Bartlett Barton (TX) Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Blackburn Blunt Boehner Bonner Bono Mack Boozman Boucher Boustany Brady (TX) Broun (GA) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny Buchanan Burgess Burton (IN) Buyer Calvert Camp Campbell Cantor Cao Capito Carney Carter Cassidy Castle Chaffetz Childers Coble Coffman (CO) Cole Conaway Crenshaw Critz Culberson Davis (KY) Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Djou Dreier Duncan Edwards (TX) Ehlers Emerson Fallin Flake Fleming Forbes Fortenberry Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly

NAY

Ackerman Adler (NJ) Altmire Andrews Arcuri Baca Baird Baldwin Barrow Bean Becerra Berkley Berman Berry Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Boccieri Boren Boswell Boyd Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Bright Brown, Corrine Butterfield Capps Capuano Cardoza Carnahan Carson (IN) Castor (FL) Chandler Chu Clarke Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly (VA) Conyers Cooper Costa Costello Courtney Crowley Cuellar Cummings Dahlkemper Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (IL) Davis (TN) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Deutch Dicks Dingell Doggett Donnelly (IN) Doyle Driehaus Edwards (MD) Ellison Ellsworth Engel Eshoo Etheridge Farr Fattah Filner Foster Frank (MA) Fudge Garamendi

Gonzalez Gordon (TN) Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Gutierrez Hall (NY) Halvorson Hare Harman Hastings (FL) Heinrich Herseth Sandlin Higgins Hill Himes Hinchey Hinojosa Hirono Holden Holt Honda Hoyer Inslee Isra-el Jackson (IL) Jackson Lee (TX) Johnson (GA) Johnson, E. B. Kagen Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick (MI) Kilroy Kind Kissell Klein (FL) Kosmas Kucinich Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee (CA) Levin Lewis (GA) Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lujn Lynch Maffei Maloney Markey (MA) Marshall Matheson Matsui McCarthy (NY) McCollum McDermott McGovern McMahon Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Melancon Michaud Miller (NC) Miller, George Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy (NY) Murphy, Patrick Nadler (NY)

Napolitano Neal (MA) Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor (AZ) Payne Perlmutter Peters Peterson Pingree (ME) Polis (CO) Pomeroy Price (NC) Quigley Rahall Rangel Reyes Richardson Rodriguez Rothman (NJ) Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Salazar Snchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Schakowsky Schauer Schiff Schrader Schwartz Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Serrano Sestak Shea-Porter Sherman Shuler Sires Slaughter Smith (WA) Snyder Speier Spratt Stark Stupak Sutton Tanner Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tierney Tonko Towns Tsongas Van Hollen Velzquez Visclosky Walz Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch Wilson (OH) Wu Yarmuth

Not Voting

Bishop (UT) Taylor Wamp Woolsey Young (AK)

Ron Pauls legislation is aimed at pulling back the curtain from a secretive and unaccountable Federal Reserve. Congress and the American people have minimal, if any, oversight over trillions of dollars that the Fed controls.

With recent bailouts and spending decisions shining a spotlight on the actions of the Federal Reserve, more and more pressure is bearing down on Congress to take action and demand accountability and transparency.

Auditing the Fed is only the first step towards exposing this antiquated insider-run creature to the powerful forces of free-market competition. Once there are viable alternatives to the monopolistic fiat dollar, the Federal Reserve will have to become honest and transparent if it wants to remain in business.

Ron Paul introduced bill H.R. 1207 on February 26, 2009 with the following speech to Congress:

Madame Speaker,

I rise to introduce the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserves loose monetary policy. How long will we as a Congress stand idly by while hard-working Americans see their savings eaten away by inflation? Only big-spending politicians and politically favored bankers benefit from inflation.

Serious discussion of proposals to oversee the Federal Reserve is long overdue. I have been a longtime proponent of more effective oversight and auditing of the Fed, but I was far from the first Congressman to advocate these types of proposals. Esteemed former members of the Banking Committee such as Chairmen Wright Patman and Henry B. Gonzales were outspoken critics of the Fed and its lack of transparency.

Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has always operated in the shadows, without sufficient scrutiny or oversight of its operations. While the conventional excuse is that this is intended to reduce the Feds susceptibility to political pressures, the reality is that the Fed acts as a foil for the government. Whenever you question the Fed about the strength of the dollar, they will refer you to the Treasury, and vice versa. The Federal Reserve has, on the one hand, many of the privileges of government agencies, while retaining benefits of private organizations, such as being insulated from Freedom of Information Act requests.

The Federal Reserve can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments, and the GAO is prohibited from auditing or even seeing these agreements. Why should a government-established agency, whose police force has federal law enforcement powers, and whose notes have legal tender status in this country, be allowed to enter into agreements with foreign powers and foreign banking institutions with no oversight? Particularly when hundreds of billions of dollars of currency swaps have been announced and implemented, the Feds negotiations with the European Central Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, and other institutions should face increased scrutiny, most especially because of their significant effect on foreign policy. If the State Department were able to do this, it would be characterized as a rogue agency and brought to heel, and if a private individual did this he might face prosecution under the Logan Act, yet the Fed avoids both fates.

More importantly, the Feds funding facilities and its agreements with the Treasury should be reviewed. The Treasurys supplementary financing accounts that fund Fed facilities allow the Treasury to funnel money to Wall Street without GAO or Congressional oversight. Additional funding facilities, such as the Primary Dealer Credit Facility and the Term Securities Lending Facility, allow the Fed to keep financial asset prices artificially inflated and subsidize poorly performing financial firms.

The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would eliminate restrictions on GAO audits of the Federal Reserve and open Fed operations to enhanced scrutiny. We hear officials constantly lauding the benefits of transparency and especially bemoaning the opacity of the Fed, its monetary policy, and its funding facilities. By opening all Fed operations to a GAO audit and calling for such an audit to be completed by the end of 2010, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act would achieve much-needed transparency of the Federal Reserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

This is the bill itself, H.R. 1207:

111th Congress 1st Session

H.R. 1207

A BILL To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes.

1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009.

SEC. 2. AUDIT REFORM AND TRANSPARENCY FOR THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.

(a) IN GENERAL. Subsection (b) of section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking all after shall audit an agency and inserting a period.

(b) AUDIT. Section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

(e) AUDIT AND REPORT OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.

(1) IN GENERAL. The audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks under subsection (b) shall be completed before the end of 2010.

(2) REPORT

(A) REQUIRED. A report on the audit referred to in paragraph (1) shall be submitted by the Comptroller General to the Congress before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which such audit is completed and made available to the Speaker of the House, the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the committee and each sub-committee of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and any other Member of Congress who requests it.

(B) CONTENTS. The report under subparagraph (A) shall include a detailed description of the findings and conclusion of the Comptroller General with respect to the audit that is the subject of the report, together with such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Comptroller General may determine to be appropriate..

In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul refutes Ben Bernankes interpretation of HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve, and explains why only an audit will protect the publics interest.

Date: 7/30/2009

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, the big guns have lined up against HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve. What is it that they are so concerned about? What information are they hiding from the American people? The screed is: transparency is okay except for those things they dont want to be transparent.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, argues that HR 1207, the legislation to audit the Federal Reserve, would politicize monetary policy. He claims that monetary policy must remain independent, that is; secret. He ignores history because chairmen of the Federal Reserve in the past, especially when up for reappointment, do their best to accommodate the president with politically driven low interest rates and a bubble economy.

Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Arthur Burns, when asked about all the inflation he brought about in 1971 before Nixons reelection, said that the Fed has to do what the president wants it to do, or it would lose its independence. That about tells you everything.

Not by accident Chairman Burns strongly supported Nixons program of wage and price controls the same year, but I guess thats not political. Is not making secret deals with the likes of Goldman Sachs, international financial institutions, foreign governments and foreign central banks politicizing monetary policy?

Bernanke argues that the knowledge that their discussions and decisions will one day be scrutinized will compromise the freedom of the Open Market Committee to pursue sound policy. If it is sound and honest and serves no special interest, whats the problem?

He claims that HR 1207 would give power to Congress to affect monetary policy. He dreamt this up to instill fear, an old statist trick to justify government power. HR 1207 does nothing of the sort. He suggested that the day after an FOMC meeting, Congress could send in the GAO to demand an audit of everything said and done. This is hardly the case. The FOMC function under HR 1207 would not change.

The detailed transcripts of the FOMC meetings are released every 5 years, so why would this be so different and what is it that they dont want the American people to know? Is there something about the transcripts that need to be kept secret, or are the transcripts actually not verbatim?

Fed sycophants argue that an audit would destroy the financial markets faith in the Fed. They say this in the midst of the greatest financial crisis in history brought on by none other than the Federal Reserve. In fact, Chairman Bernanke stated on November 14th 2007, A considerable amount of evidence indicates that Central Bank transparency increases the effectiveness of monetary policy and enhances economic and financial performance.

They also argue that an audit would hurt the value of the U.S. dollar. In fact, the Fed, in less than a 100 years of its existence, has reduced the value of the 1914 dollar by 96%.

They claim HR 1207 would raise interest rates. How could it? The Fed sets interest rates and the bill doesnt interfere with monetary policy. Congress would have no say in the matter and besides, Congress likes low interest rates.

It is argued that the Fed wouldnt be free to raise interest rates if they thought it necessary. But Bernanke has already assured the Congress that rates are going to stay low for the foreseeable future. And again, this bill does nothing to allow Congress to interfere with interest rate setting.

Fed supporters claim that they want to protect the publics interest with their secrecy. But the banks and Wall Streets are the opponents of HR 1207, and the people are for it. Just who best represents the publics interest?

The real question is: why are Wall Street and the Fed so hysterically opposed to HR 1207? Just what information are they so anxious to keep secret? Only an audit of the Federal Reserve will answer these questions.

Excerpt from Ron Pauls 4/22/2009 appearance on Judge Andrew Napolitanos Freedom Watch:

Ron Paul: After we came back yesterday from our 2-week break, I think have 15 new people signed on and somebody came up to me and says, I signed on your bill this morning because I went to my town hall meetings, I went four of them and in every meeting people were there and say, Its time that we have transparency of the Fed.'

But I call them the Fourth Branch of government. Some people dont think of them as part of the government because theyre so secretive. But we created it, we can end it, we take no responsibility to supervise it, and look at what theyre doing. We spend hundreds of billions, but the Fed deals in trillions, and they dont have any responsibility to tell us about it. So theres a lot of power there and it deserves looking at.

And I think I have to say Barney Frank has been sympathetic with this. Hes for transparency. Hes not for hard money and the type of monetary policy Im talking about. He believes that we should have more transparency of the Fed, so whether this bill gets passed or something very similar, the mood in the country is such that not only do they want us to be better in handling the appropriated fund and knowing where these TARP funds went, the American people have awakened to this whole idea of what the Federal Reserve does behind the scenes.

So Im delighted. Ive been pushing this monetary issue for more than 30 years believing it was THE significant economic issue of our time, and I think people are starting to realize this and were going to keep hearing about it and theres a good chance that it will eventually make it to the floor.

Excerpt from Ron Pauls 3/5/2009 appearance on Judge Andrew Napolitanos Freedom Watch:

Judge Napolitano: Before we switch gears, Congressman Paul, how did Ben Bernanke react to the legislation that you introduced calling for an audit of the Fed. Did he give you a call on the phone?

Ron Paul: Oh yes, he called me, wanted to congratulate me and he wanted to support my bill. You know, interestingly, just recently, I cannot name his name but I was talking to a former member of the Federal Reserve board and told him about the bill and he was friendly enough.

I said, What do you think of that? He said, I think its not a very good idea. And I said, Do the people at the Federal Reserve ever talk about, are concerned about the dollar. I said, you know, Im always talking about the dollar and what this is going to do to the dollar. And I said, Do they know that all this debt and inflation could hurt the dollar? He says, Yes, they do. He confirmed it. He said, They absolutely do. He says, But they cant answer your questions in public because it would cause panic.

Judge Napolitano: This administration came to power and we all knew the words that they used, hope and change. But one of the words that they really used was transparency. I would think the President himself should be in favor of transparency at the Fed if he wants to be ideologically consistent. What are they afraid we will find out, Congressman Paul?

Ron Paul: Well, what theyre going to find out is, thats the first step. Once we get the audit bill passed and we can reveal what they are doing, I think the next step is to end the Fed. Thats why they dont want that.

You know, we had some very good comments made by our Senator Bernie Sanders yesterday from Vermont. I talked with him this morning and were going to be talking a lot about the need for having transparency.

And I think the mood is right. The mood is right both with the Democrats and the Republicans, because they dont know exactly what is going on but they know the American people are sick and tired of just throwing money out there, whether its to the Treasury and nobody knows where it goes, whether they send it to Iraq and nobody knows where the bundles of money go, or whether the Federal Reserve can create 2 trillion dollars, and they dont even have to tell us.

As a government all onto itself, its bigger than the whole U.S. Congress. They create trillions in a day, you know, in a short period of time, and in the Congress we do talk a little bit when we pass 400 million or 800 million. But the Fed is a much bigger problem.

Excerpt from Ron Pauls 3/10/2009 interview with Alex Jones:

Read more:
Audit the Federal Reserve - Ron Paul .com

The US 2016 presidential race is mass entertainment orchestrated by the media, three-time presidential candidate and former congressman Ron Paul told RT, as he discussed frontrunner Donald Trump, the government and the bubble-making US economy.

Paul told RTs Ameera David that billionaire presidential hopeful Trump, who earlier vowed to build a massive border wall and end birthright citizenship for babies born to undocumented immigrants, is nothing but an authoritarian.

He is an authoritarian and he brags about it: I'm the boss, I tell people what to do. The government happens to be a little different than that. The only thing that you want to do if you believe in the market is you want to get rid of the government. But he is talking about having strong taxes on imports, he wants to punish people, he is the boss. So I think hed be very dangerous to the economy.

He is getting a lot of attention right now, but he is an authoritarian. He wants to run peoples lives and run the world and run the economy, because thats the way he lives his life. On occasion he comes up with the correct idea, but an authoritarian is the opposite of a libertarian. A libertarian wants to release creative energy to the individuals. We want to get the government out of our lives, out of the economy, and out of all these places around the world. It's quite a bit different from the way an authoritarian would approach our problems, Paul said.

READ MORE: All wars paid for through deficit financing, debasing the currency Ron Paul to RT

The US economy is set to grow 0.9 percent in the third quarter after a bigger-than-expected widening of the trade gap for goods in August, accordingto the Atlanta Federal Reserves GDPNow. This appeared to be a much slower rate from the regional Fed bank's prior estimate of 1.8 percent last week, the Atlanta Fed noted.

Its just the beginning of a downturn, nothings really happened yet, Paul said. Everything is misdirected because of the price of money. There are bubbles every place. You have a stock market bubble, you have still bubblemaking in housing when you see houses selling for $500 million, and you have a bubble in student loans.

The bubbles are all over the place. This is the problem. I dont see an easy way out. I think the markets are going to go down a lot more when you realize how serious this is. Actually we are doing better than the rest of the world but were in for trouble too because the world has never had a situation like this where a whole world endorsed a paper currency and had pyramiding of debt around the world by the reserve currency which is the dollar.

Its the biggest bubble ever, so its going to big the biggest crash ever, but it remains to be seen exactly when that's going to hit.

The source of the trouble is the Federal Reserve System, which simply cannot work in a real market economy, Dr Paul said.

In a true free market economy you have to have people work, use what they need to live on and then save money, and that dictates interest rates and tells businessmen what they should do. Well, that isnt the way it works any more. The so-called capital comes from the Fed and they create it out of thin air. So everything is a mistake and everything is going to be volatile. You can do this for a while when the country is very very wealthy, and a currency is very very strong.

But eventually people mistrust the government. They dont pay interest, they have a huge amount of principal to pay, and corporations are deeply in debt, they borrow a lot of money practically for free and they buy up their stocks. Its a mess. Its artificial. It has nothing to do with freedom, has nothing to do with free markets, and the sooner we realize this, the sooner well get rid of central economic planning and especially look into the serious problems we get from the Federal Reserve System.

More here:
Bubbles are all over the place: Ron Paul speaks to RT on ...

Blame America? No, Blame Neocons!

Is the current refugee crisis gripping the European Union all Americas fault? That is how my critique of US foreign policy was characterized in a recent interview on the Fox Business Channel. I do not blame the host for making this claim, but I think it is important to clarify the point.

It has become common to discount any criticism of US foreign policy as blaming America first. It is a convenient way of avoiding a real discussion. If aggressive US policy in the Middle East for example in Iraq results in the creation of terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda in Iraq, is pointing out the unintended consequences of bad policy blaming America? Is it blaming America to point out that blowback like we saw on 9/11 can be the result of unwise US foreign policy actions like stationing US troops in Saudi Arabia?

In the Fox interview I pointed out that the current refugee crisis is largely caused by bad US foreign policy actions. The US government decides on regime change for a particular country in this case, Syria destabilizes the government, causes social chaos, and destroys the economy, and we are supposed to be surprised that so many people are desperate to leave? Is pointing this out blaming America, or is it blaming that part of the US government that makes such foolish policies?

Accusing those who criticize US foreign policy of blaming America is pretty selective, however. Such accusations are never leveled at those who criticize a US pullback. For example, most neocons argue that the current crisis in Iraq is all Obamas fault for pulling US troops out of the country. Are they blaming America first for the mess? No one ever says that. Just like they never explain why the troops were removed from Iraq: the US demanded complete immunity for troops and contractors and the Iraqi government refused.

Iraq was not a stable country when the US withdrew its troops anyway. As soon as the US stopped paying the Sunnis not to attack the Iraqi government, they started attacking the Iraqi government. Why? Because the US attack on Iraq led to a government that was closely allied to Iran and the Sunnis could not live with that! It was not the US withdrawal from Iraq that created the current instability but the invasion. The same is true with US regime change policy toward Syria. How many Syrians were streaming out of Syria before US support for Islamist rebels there made the country unlivable? Is pointing out this consequence of bad US policy also blaming America first?

Last year I was asked by another Fox program whether I was not blaming America when I criticized the increasingly confrontational US stand toward Russia. Heres how I put it then:

I dont blame America. I am America, you are America. I dont blame you. I blame bad policy. I blame the interventionists. I blame the neoconservatives who preach this stuff, who believe in it like a religion that they have to promote American goodness even if you have to bomb and kill people.

In short, I dont blame America; I blame neocons.

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity

Read more here:
Blame America? No, Blame Neocons! by Ron Paul -- Antiwar.com