Last week U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, held a hearing on his proposed Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011 (H.R. 1098), which would repeal legal tender laws, restrictions on private mints, and taxes on gold and silver, since such taxes interfere with the metals’ circulation as money. Testifying were the executive director of the Foundation for the Advancement of Monetary Education, Lawrence M. Parks, and George Mason University Economics Professor Lawrence H. White. Video of the hearing is not quite an hour long and you can watch it here:

The full text of the legislation is simple and concise and can be found here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1098

The legislation would seem to legalize the Liberty Dollar coins whose issuer recently was convicted on vague charges in federal court in North Carolina. Professor White quotes New York Sun editor and Wall Street Journal contributor Seth Lipsky to the effect that it doesn’t make much sense to suppress private money that is sound to protect money that is unsound.

Unfortunately the Free Competition in Currency Act has no co-sponsors and its introduction and this week’s hearing seem to be mainly an educational exercise. But that’s where everything starts.

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

Paul has pushed for balancing the budget aggressively, stood up for consumer choice, and all the while doing everything in his power to cut government spending. Now, he’s revealing his diamond-tough huevos by going up against the whimsical idiot-savants of hypocrisy in his own party and the truth-bending emotionally-charged demagogues on the other side. His only allegiances are his promises and the U.S. Constitution. If enough of his peers in DC started doing the same our Founding Fathers might stop rolling over and over in their graves to salute the flag once again.

Listen here to Rand Paul discussing recent renewal vote on The PATRIOT Act with everyone’s favorite Neo-Conservative whipping boy, Sean Hannity (from Hannity’s radio show). Near the end Rand Paul reveals who he may vote for in the upcoming POTUS 2012 election and touches on his own potential aspirations for that same office.

Download audio file (randpaul-hannity-05262012.mp3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yc5PtFAtn0

In the morning, Ron Paul appeared on Fox and Friends:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efXKfNgfSHg

Then Ron Paul appeared on MSNBC with Eliot Spitzer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RGU78a1ba8

And Paul then appeared within the friendly confines of Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGhM_ZFsT1Y

Here is the previously promised Colbert appearance:

And finally, look for Ron Paul on John Stossel’s show Stossel on Fox Business on Thursday night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLY19PnY2m8

Letterman, basically said what Rand was saying didn’t sound right, but he didn’t know why. Hillary’s response to the elder Paul was more or less “sometimes we get it right and sometimes we don’t”. That is another non-answer, but that’s why they are called politicians I suppose. Check out the exchange below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oqKdjwwmXM

Some are saying it was a disaster for Rand Paul. I don’t see it that way. What do you think? Check out the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeWOEASzVnY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjVvEH6oEbI

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Rand Paul (Ky.) released the following Dear Colleague letter to his fellow Senators this morning regarding the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Dear Colleague:

James Otis argued against general warrants and writs of assistance that were issued by British soldiers without judicial review and that did not name the subject or items to be searched.

He condemned these general warrants as “the worst instrument[s] of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever w[ere] found in an English law book.” Otis objected to these writs of assistance because they “placed the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.” The Fourth Amendment was intended to guarantee that only judges—not soldiers or policemen—would issue warrants. Otis’ battle against warrantless searches led to our Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable government intrusion.

My main objection to the PATRIOT Act is that searches that should require a judge’s warrant are performed with a letter from an FBI agent—a National Security Letter (“NSL”).

I object to these warrantless searches being performed on United States citizens. I object to the 200,000 NSL searches that have been performed without a judge’s warrant.

I object to over 2 million searches of bank records, called Suspicious Activity Reports, performed on U.S. citizens without a judge’s warrant.

As February 28th approaches, with three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act set to expire, it is time to re-consider this question: Do the many provisions of this bill, which were enacted in such haste after 9/11, have an actual basis in our Constitution, and are they even necessary to achieve valid law-enforcement goals?

The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in the wake of the worst act of terrorism in U.S. history, is no doubt well-intentioned. However, rather than examine what went wrong, and fix the problems, Congress instead hastily passed a long-standing wish list of power grabs like warrantless searches and roving wiretaps. The government greatly expanded its own power, ignoring obvious answers in favor of the permanent expansion of a police state.

It is not acceptable to willfully ignore the most basic provisions of our Constitution—in this case—the Fourth and First Amendments—in the name of “security.”

For example, one of the three provisions set to expire on February 28th—the “library provision,” section 215 of the PATRIOT Act—allows the government to obtain records from a person or entity by making only the minimal showing of “relevance” to an international terrorism or espionage investigation. This provision also imposes a year-long nondisclosure, or “gag” order. “Relevance” is a far cry from the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of probable cause. Likewise, the “roving wiretap” provision, section 206 of the PATRIOT Act, which is also scheduled to expire on the 28th, does not comply with the Fourth Amendment. This provision makes possible “John Doe roving wiretaps,” which do not require the government to name the target of the wiretap, nor to identify the specific place or facility to be monitored. This bears an uncanny resemblance to the Writs of Assistance fought against by Otis and the American colonists.

Other provisions of the PATRIOT Act previously made permanent and not scheduled to expire present even greater concerns. These include the use and abuse by the FBI of so-called National Security Letters. These secret demand letters, which allow the government to obtain financial records and other sensitive information held by Internet Service Providers, banks, credit companies, and telephone carriers—all without appropriate judicial oversight—also impose a gag order on recipients.

NSL abuse has been and likely continues to be rampant. The widely-circulated 2007 report issued by the Inspector General from the Department of Justice documents “widespread and serious misuse of the FBI’s national security letter authorities. In many instances, the FBI’s misuse of national security letters violated NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, or the FBI’s own internal policies.” Another audit released in 2008 revealed similar abuses, including the fact that the FBI had issued inappropriate “blanket NSLs” that did not comply with FBI policy, and which allowed the FBI to obtain data on 3,860 telephone numbers by issuing only eleven “blanket NSLs.” The 2008 audit also confirmed that the FBI increasingly used NSLs to seek information on U.S. citizens. From 2003 to 2006, almost 200,000 NSL requests were issued. In 2006 alone, almost 60% of the 49,425 requests were issued specifically for investigations of U.S. citizens or legal aliens.

In addition, First Amendment advocates should be concerned about an especially troubling aspect of the 2008 audit, which documented a situation in which the FBI applied to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to obtain a section 215 order. The Court denied the order on First Amendment grounds. Not to be deterred, the FBI simply used an NSL to obtain the same information.

A recent report released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) entitled, “Patterns of Misconduct: FBI Intelligence Violations from 2001-2008,” documents further NSL abuse. EFF estimates that, based on the proportion of violations reported to the Intelligence Oversight Board and the FBI’s own statements regarding NSL violations, the actual number of violations that may have occurred since 2001 could approach 40,000 violations of law, Executive Order, and other regulations.

Yet another troublesome (and now permanent) provision of the PATRIOT Act is the expansion of Suspicious Activity Reports. Sections 356 and 359 expanded the types of financial institutions required to file reports under the Bank Secrecy Act. The personal and account information required by the reports is turned over to the Treasury Department and the FBI. In 2000, there were only 163,184 reports filed. By 2007, this had increased to 1,250,439. Again, as with NSLs, there is a complete lack of judicial oversight for SARs.

Finally, I wish to remind my colleagues that one of the many ironies of the rush to advance the PATRIOT Act following 9/11 is the well-documented fact that FBI incompetence caused the failure to search the computer of the alleged 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui. As FBI agent Coleen Rowley stated, “the FBI headquarters supervisory special agent handling the Moussaoui case ‘seemed to have been consistently almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents’ efforts” to meet the FISA standard for a search warrant, and therefore no request was ever made for a warrant. Why, then, was the FBI rewarded with such expansive new powers in the aftermath of this institutional failure?

In the words of former Senator Russ Feingold, the only “no” vote against the original version of the PATRIOT Act,

“[T]here is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists. But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.”

I call upon each of my Senate colleagues to seriously consider whether the time has come to re-evaluate many—if not all—provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Our oath to uphold the Constitution demands it.

Sincerely,

Rand Paul, M.D.
United States Senator

During Trump’s speech there were some vocal activists shouting out Ron Paul’s name, among other things. At one point when Trump mentioned there were no good GOP candidates the shouts of Ron Paul became too much for him. The video below shows what happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_-0hMID67A

Yes, the out-of-touch celebrity with lots of money reacts by telling the crowd that Ron Paul has zero chance of winning. I immediately said something that was later echoed by Rand Paul, “Trump has an even less of a chance of winning than Ron Paul”. That was only the beginning.

Next, Rand Paul delivered his excellent speech highlighted by the following quote, “If you refuse to acknowledge that there’s any waste in the military budget, you are a big government conservative.” Watch Rand Paul’s entire speech here.

Immediately following Rand Paul’s speech, it was time for the presentation of the Defender of the Constitution award to none other than Donald Rumsfeld. Giving Rummy this award is the equivalent of giving Ron Paul the Warmonger of the Year award. It truly boggles the mind. This was, naturally, not lost on the Ron Paul faithful still in the ballroom. Some loud boos were heard. Some shouts of “war monger” were heard. And a great number of people just stood up and walked silently out of the room in protest.

My initial take on this is that it’s OK to boo and shout from the point of introduction up to the point where the speech begins. Then the respectful thing to do would be to be silent or walk out silently. The minute you interfere with their speech you are being a thief of free speech and that’s not very libertarian is it?

However, this is Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld we are talking about. Do they deserve respect? Perhaps if they respected human liberty and actually defended the Constitution those boos today would have been cheers instead.

After dinner we attended the Liberty Forum with Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jack Hunter, and Thomas Woods. It was a laid-back affair and enjoyable but was without the fiery speeches that marked last year’s Liberty Forum at CPAC when Judge Andrew Napolitano brought the house down with his great speech. I for one missed the Judge tonight.

Day 1 of CPAC was quite eventful. I’m sure tomorrow will bring more interesting moments. Ron Paul speaks in the main ballroom tomorrow afternoon and the cerebral strategists and the balls-to-the-wall activists will be there to applaud, cheer, or jeer. No matter what the media writes or other conservatives say, the goal will always be to promote liberty in the best way they as individuals see fit. And no matter the results, at least they are out here doing something for the cause of freedom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwnDdEm3xRg

During his campaign he opposed renewing the Patriot Act and sure enough he promises to oppose it while in office. Watch the video below for Paul’s statement on the Patriot Act renewal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSDBswx90Cs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE_fD-_rzJ8