Ron Paul appeared on Larry King Live tonight following Michael Moore to refute (and agree) with some of what Moore said. It was a very good appearance by Paul. He spoke about health care, foreign policy, and the difference between capitalism and corporatism.
Ron Paul participated in a House Foreign Affairs committee today regarding Iran and a bill that would “enhance” energy sanctions on Iran put in place in a 1996 bill.
Ron Paul uses his 5 minutes quite well as he declares that sanctions are an act of war and attempts to educate his peers on the unintended consequences of these types of sanctions.
This cover-up provision couldn’t have passed on its own merits. That’s why the Congressional leadership attached it to the completely unrelated DHS funding bill.
We must force Congress to stop combining unrelated legislation into one bill. Protest what they did with the cover-up measure and tell your representatives to introduce and pass DownsizeDC.org’s One Subject At A Time Act (OSTA).
Here’s what I wrote in my personal comments . . .
The Homeland Security Appropriations Act (H.R. 2892) is a perfect example of why we need OSTA. The prisoner abuse cover-up law it contained had absolutely nothing to do with the funding or activities of the DHS (Department of Homeland Security).
Those opposed to the cover-up measure had an ethical responsibility to oppose the bill as a whole. There was no urgency to pass this bill. Congress could have funded the DHS at current levels with a continuing resolution. That’s why I think a vote for H.R. 2892 was really a vote for the prisoner abuse cover-up.
Those who voted for this bill failed in their duty to uphold the law. Those who failed to protest the inclusion of the cover-up bill in unrelated legislation are likewise guilty. But it gets worse . . .
I also believe this cover-up will put our troops in greater peril than if the photographic evidence of prisoner abuse was revealed. America’s enemies will say that . . .
Ron Paul was interviewed by Tavis Smiley on his PBS show last night. I remember really enjoying Smiley’s questioning and demeanor throughout his questioning during one of the GOP primary debates during the campaign of 2008. A debate that some of us here at Liberty Maven attended.
In this interview they discuss the U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan, Ron Paul’s new book “End the Fed“, and how the Fed can be audited and eventually abolished.
Ever wonder what happened to that sense of hope and change that most of the voters in the United States were swept up by last fall?
America does need“hope.” America does need “change.”
However, the mainstream Republican and Democratic party machines are both repeating like bad records – “morespending,moretaxes,morewar,more debt.”
If you flip the record, all you hear is “lessliberty,fewerjobs,lessprosperity.”
Whydoesn’tAmerica consider a sound money and slashing federal spending?
Whydoesn’tAmerica consider auditing and cutting back the powers of the ruinous FED?
Whydoesn’tAmerica consider destroying theIMMORALandUNNECESSARY federal income tax?
Whydoesn’tAmerica consider a different foreign policy – where there is third choice besides bombing or economic sanctions? Why not replace the blowback our foreign policy has resulted in with a little love and peaceful trade?
Ron Paul participated in a House Committee of Foreign Affairs hearing on the U.S. policy in Afghanistan yesterday. To say he was a bit passionate and animated about his views is an understatement.
“It’s time to end the whole mess!”
When watching it one gets the impression he’s made these same arguments a few too many times. Judging from his demeanor he may be getting sick of replaying the same arguments and not have anyone really listen to him. Well, a few of us are listening, and agreeing.
Summary: As Congressman, I will drive for a rapid, immediate and orderly withdrawal from Iraq. Under no circumstances will I approve spending to extend this unconstitutional, preemptive war of aggression.
Besides the creating new dollars to debase the currency and spending taxpayer funds to fund war during adverse economic times, my justification for the position is the following:
First and foremost, without a declaration of war, the Iraq War is an unconstitutional and illegal war as it conflicts with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. In dereliction of their duty and oaths of office, the House voted down by unanimous vote a motion in committee to follow the Constitution and declare war in H.R.J. 114, the bill that authorized Bush II to invade with attack in March 2003. (1) (2)
As nominations were submitted before February 1, 2009, much of the world was shocked to find out that freshman President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. To his credit, Obama proclaimed he was “surprised and deeply humbled” and did not feel he deserved “to be in the company” of past Peace Prize winners. I must say that, politically-speaking, the former junior senator from Illinois is to be admired in many respects. To prevent and distract the press from analyzing his worthiness for the Peace Prices, the very next day he announcedthat he would (eventually) end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of the military – a crafty move that appeals to his base and Americans who champion and respect civil liberties and individual rights, which includes myself.
Per NobelPeacePrize.org, in 1895 Alfred Nobel signed his will to use most of his fortune to fund the Nobel Prizes. The Peace Prize was dedicated to “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
Has the President done the “most or best work for fraternity between nations”? I would say not. Four days after becoming President, he ordered the bombing of a village in Pakistan, which is yet another nation the United States has not declared war on.
Has the President worked for “the abolition or reduction of standing armies”? Certainly not that of the United States. In fact, per his website, he was elected on the promise that he would expand America’s standing army by about 100,000 troops.
A year ago when the Presidential election was in full swing the main buzzword we heard out of the Obama camp was “change”. In fact, “change you can believe in”. At the time we were pretty sure it was all hogwash and his first year in office has proven that assessment to be true.
A piece by Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com a few weeks ago points out many examples how so much of Obama’s talk of change was just that: talk.
“When it comes to uprooting (’changing’) the Bush/Cheney approach to terrorism and civil liberties — the issue which generated as much opposition to the last presidency as anything else — the Obama administration has proven rather conclusively that tiny and cosmetic adjustments are the most it is willing to do.
“They love announcing new policies that cast the appearance of change but which have no effect whatsoever on presidential powers.
“With great fanfare, they announced the closing of CIA black sites — at a time when none was operating.
“They trumpeted the President’s order that no interrogation tactics outside of the Army Field Manual could be used — at a time when approval for such tactics had been withdrawn.
“They repudiated the most extreme elements of the Bush/Addington/Yoo ‘inherent power’ theories — while maintaining alternative justifications to enable the same exact policies to proceed exactly as is.
“They flamboyantly touted the closing of Guantanamo — while aggressively defending the right to abduct people from around the world and then imprison them with no due process at Bagram.
“Their ‘changes’ exist solely in theory — which isn’t to say that they are all irrelevant, but it is to say that they change nothing in practice: i.e., in reality.”
“Isn’t it so interesting how the phrase ‘Patriot Act’ was the symbol of everything Democrats claimed to find so heinous during the Bush years, but now that there’s a Democratic President, Senate and Congress, it’s absolutely certain that the Patriot Act will continue, and civil libertarians are reduced to hoping that there may be some tiny modifications to it, and even that’s highly unlikely?”
Liberty Maven
“, and how the Fed can be audited and eventually abolished.
Ever wonder what happened to that sense of hope and change that most of the voters in the United States were swept up by last fall?
Follow LM on Twitter