• sailingaway

    by Published on 07-26-2018 01:00 PM

    The Truth About Neoconservatism
    by Ron Paul - July 10, 2003

    The modern-day, limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Political party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.

    Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who's really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy ...
    by Published on 03-19-2016 11:40 AM

    By Gregory Krieg
    Sat March 19, 2016




    New York (CNN)Former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Friday that the party outsmarted itself in passing a 2012 rule that he said was aimed at blunting his influence on that summer's convention.

    The GOP's "Rule 40(b)" requires candidates win the "support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight or more states" in order to have their named placed on the nominating ballot. The raised threshold -- it had previously been a plurality from five states -- helped to prevent Paul's supporters from upstaging or distracting from the presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney, on national television.

    "They did not want my name to come up and so they changed the rules because we had the votes," Paul told CNN "At This Hour" anchors Kate Bolduan and John Berman. "We had the numbers to allow my name to be put into nomination, but they wouldn't do it."

    Four years later, the same establishment figures who spearheaded the 2012 rules changes are facing a different kind of challenge: Donald Trump. But this time around, the requirement threatens to undermine a late effort to derail the billionaire front-runner.

    "I think it's a bit of an irony and they deserve the problem," Paul said. "They're terrified of competition, and now the establishment has competition that really looks strong and there's a lot of people behind Trump. So this is a big problem for them."

    more:
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/18/politi...ion/index.html
    by Published on 06-15-2013 09:11 PM

    National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.


    NSA director Keith Alexander says his agency's analysts, which until recently included Edward Snowden among their ranks, take protecting "civil liberties and privacy and the security of this nation to their heart every day."
    (Credit: Getty Images)

    The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.
    Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."

    If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

    Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

    Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.

    The disclosure appears to confirm some of the allegations made by Edward Snowden, a former NSA infrastructure analyst who leaked classified documents to the Guardian. Snowden said in a video interview that, while not all NSA analysts had this ability, he could from Hawaii "wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president."

    There are serious "constitutional problems" with this approach, says Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who has litigated warrantless wiretapping cases. "It epitomizes the problem of secret laws."
    more, and internal links here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...hout-warrants/
    by Published on 06-14-2013 06:28 PM



    Truth as always. He notes as I did as soon as Obama started justifying giving Rebels military aid based on reports of chemical use, that a couple of weeks ago the administration seemed to agree with the UN investigators that it was the Rebels, not Assad using the gas. Not that I think Assad is wonderful, just that we don't want to be responsible for the actions of either.

    http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives...BjCSeE.twitter
    by Published on 06-02-2013 11:55 PM


    http://the-free-foundation.org/tst6-3-2013.html

    Iraq Collapse Shows Bankruptcy of Interventionism

    May was Iraq’s deadliest month in nearly five years, with more than 1,000 dead – both civilians and security personnel -- in a rash of bombings, shootings and other violence. As we read each day of new horrors in Iraq, it becomes more obvious that the US invasion delivered none of the promised peace or stability that proponents of the attack promised.

    Millions live in constant fear, refugees do not return home, and the economy is destroyed. The Christian community, some 1.2 million persons before 2003, has been nearly wiped off the Iraqi map. Other minorities have likewise disappeared. Making matters worse, US support for the Syrian rebels next door has drawn the Shi’ite-led Iraqi government into the spreading regional unrest and breathed new life into extremist elements.

    The invasion of Iraq opened the door to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which did not exist beforehand, while simultaneously strengthening the hand of Iran in the region. Were the “experts” who planned for and advocated the US attack really this incompetent?

    Ryan Crocker, who was US Ambassador to Iraq from 2007-2009, still speaks of the Iraqi “surge” as a great reconciliation between Sunni and Shi’ite in Iraq. He wrote recently that “[t]hough the United States has withdrawn its troops from Iraq, it retains significant leverage there. Iraqi forces were equipped and trained by Americans, and the country’s leaders need and expect our help.” He seems alarmingly out of touch with reality. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...rab-insurgents

    It is clear now that the “surge” and the “Iraqi Awakening” were just myths promoted by those desperate to put a positive spin on the US invasion, which the late General William Odom once called, “the greatest strategic disaster in American history." Aircraft were loaded with $100 dollar bills to pay each side to temporarily stop killing US troops and each other, but the payoff provided a mere temporary break. Shouldn’t the measure of success of a particular policy be whether it actually produces sustained positive results?

    Now we see radical fighters who once shot at US troops in Iraq have spilled into Syria, where they ironically find their cause supported by the US government! Some of these fighters are even greeted by visiting US senators.

    The US intervention in Iraq has created ever more problems. That is clear. The foreign policy “experts” who urged the US attack on Iraq now claim that the disaster they created can only be solved with more interventionism! Imagine a medical doctor noting that a particular medication is killing his patient, but to combat the side effect he orders an increase in dosage of the same medicine. Like this doctor, the US foreign policy establishment is guilty of malpractice. And, I might add, this is just what the Fed does with monetary policy.

    From Iraq to Libya to Mali to Syria to Afghanistan, US interventions have an unbroken record of making matters far worse. Yet regardless of the disasters produced, for the interventionists a more aggressive US foreign policy is the only policy they offer.

    We must learn the appropriate lessons from the disaster of Iraq. We cannot continue to invade countries, install puppet governments, build new nations, create centrally-planned economies, engage in social engineering, and force democracy at the barrel of a gun. The rest of the world is tired of US interventionism and the US taxpayer is tired of footing the bill for US interventionism. It is up to all of us to make it very clear to the foreign policy establishment and the powers that be that we have had enough and will no longer tolerate empire-building. We should be more confident in ourselves and stop acting like an insecure bully.

    Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


    Picture from Ron's facebook page which you can like here: http://facebook.com/ronpaul
    by Published on 05-25-2013 07:52 PM

    "This past Thursday and Friday, President Obama delivered two speeches designed to outline his new thinking on national security and counter-terrorism. While much was made in the media of the president’s statements at the National Defense University and the US Naval Academy suggesting that the most active phase of US military action overseas was coming to an end, this “new” approach is but the same old policy wrapped in new packaging. In these addresses, the president panders to the progressives, while continually expanding and solidifying the "enabling act” principle.

    The president will continue and even expand drone attacks overseas because they are “less deadly” than ground invasions. He promises to be more careful in the future.

    He is entertaining the introduction of “kill courts” which will meet in secret to decide who is to be executed without trial or charge. He promises these will have sufficient oversight.

    He will seek a new and updated Authorization for the Use of Military Force to expand his legal authority to wage war wherever and whenever he wants. He promises it will one day be repealed.

    He will continue to indefinitely detain at Guantanamo individuals who have been neither charged nor convicted of any crime, and who cannot even be tried because they were tortured and thus the evidence is tainted. He promises to “commit to a process of closing GTMO.”

    The speech speaks of more war and more killing and more interventionism all masked in the language of withdrawal."


    read the rest of the article at the RPI site: http://t.co/K4NouiYwTY

    Ron Paul ‏@RonPaul 4h
    My comments on Obama's recent speeches -- only at my Ron Paul Institute site:
    http://tinyurl.com/qfqp7o5


    https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/338359742219046912
    by Published on 05-15-2013 10:35 AM



    New Directive:
    Feb. 27, 2013:
    DoD Instruction 3025.21 Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies

    [From link below] "...For the past 30 years, police departments throughout the United States have benefitted from the government’s largesse in the form of military weaponry and training, incentives offered in the ongoing “War on Drugs.” For the average citizen watching events such as the intense pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers on television, it would be difficult to discern between fully outfitted police SWAT teams and the military.

    The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

    The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:

    Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.
    Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”

    A defense official who declined to be named takes a different view of the rule, claiming, “The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy.” Moreover, he insists the Pentagon doesn’t “want to get involved in civilian law enforcement. It’s one of those red lines that the military hasn’t signed up for.” Nevertheless, he says, “every person in the military swears an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States to defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

    One of the more disturbing aspects of the new procedures that govern military command on the ground in the event of a civil disturbance relates to authority. Not only does it fail to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders.” According to the defense official, a commander is defined as follows: “Somebody who’s in the position of command, has the title commander. And most of the time they are centrally selected by a board, they’ve gone through additional schooling to exercise command authority.”

    As it is written, this “commander” has the same power to authorize military force as the president in the event the president is somehow unable to access a telephone. (The rule doesn’t address the statutory chain of authority that already exists in the event a sitting president is unavailable.) In doing so, this commander must exercise judgment in determining what constitutes, “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”

    “These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” says Afran. “It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.”

    Afran also expresses apprehension over the government’s authority “to engage temporarily in activities necessary to quell large-scale disturbances.”

    “Governments never like to give up power when they get it,” says Afran. “They still think after twelve years they can get intelligence out of people in Guantanamo. Temporary is in the eye of the beholder. That’s why in statutes we have definitions. All of these statutes have one thing in common and that is that they have no definitions. How long is temporary? There’s none here. The definitions are absurdly broad.”

    The U.S. military is prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs except where provided under Article IV of the Constitution in cases of domestic violence that threaten the government of a state or the application of federal law. This provision was further clarified both by the Insurrection Act of 1807 and a post-Reconstruction law known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (PCA). The Insurrection Act specifies the circumstances under which the president may convene the armed forces to suppress an insurrection against any state or the federal government. Furthermore, where an individual state is concerned, consent of the governor must be obtained prior to the deployment of troops. The PCA—passed in response to federal troops that enforced local laws and oversaw elections during Reconstruction—made unauthorized employment of federal troops a punishable offense, thereby giving teeth to the Insurrection Act.

    Together, these laws limit executive authority over domestic military action. Yet Monday’s official regulatory changes issued unilaterally by the Department of Defense is a game-changer.

    The stated purpose of the updated rule is “support in Accordance With the Posse Comitatus Act,” but in reality it undermines the Insurrection Act and PCA in significant and alarming ways. The most substantial change is the notion of “civil disturbance” as one of the few “domestic emergencies” that would allow for the deployment of military assets on American soil.

    To wit, the relatively few instances that federal troops have been deployed for domestic support have produced a wide range of results. Situations have included responding to natural disasters and protecting demonstrators during the Civil Rights era to, disastrously, the Kent State student massacre and the 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee.

    Michael German, senior policy counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), noted in a 2009 Daily Kos article that, “there is no doubt that the military is very good at many things. But recent history shows that restraint in their new-found domestic role is not one of them.”

    At the time German was referring to the military’s expanded surveillance techniques and hostile interventions related to border control and the War on Drugs. And in fact, many have argued that these actions have already upended the PCA in a significant way. Even before this most recent rule change, the ACLU was vocal in its opposition to the Department of Defense (DoD) request to expand domestic military authority “in the event of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high yield explosive (CBRNE) incidents.” The ACLU’s position is that civilian agencies are more than equipped to handle such emergencies since 9/11. (ACLU spokespersons in Washington D.C. declined, however, to be interviewed for this story.)

    But while outcomes of military interventions have varied, the protocol by which the president works cooperatively with state governments has remained the same. The president is only allowed to deploy troops to a state upon request of its governor. Even then, the military—specifically the National Guard—is there to provide support for local law enforcement and is prohibited from engaging in any activities that are outside of this scope, such as the power to arrest.

    Eric Freedman, a constitutional law professor from Hofstra University, also calls the ruling “an unauthorized power grab.” According to Freedman, “The Department of Defense does not have the authority to grant itself by regulation any more authority than Congress has granted it by statute.” Yet that’s precisely what it did. This wasn’t, however, the Pentagon’s first attempt to expand its authority domestically in the last decade.


    the whole thing is worth reading. http://www.longislandpress.com/2013/...s-into-effect/

    Old directive:
    Jan. 15, 1986:
    DoD Instruction 5525.5 DoD Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Officials
    Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
  • Top Activist Efforts

  • Activism News & Discussion

    Donna D'Errico

    Hello fellow Ron Paul supporters!

    Thread Starter: Donna D'Errico

    I just wanted to extend a greeting to everyone here, and to thank everyone for all that they are doing to spread the word about Ron Paul. I am a huge supporter, and am honored to be a part of the movement to get him elected President. ~Donna D'Errico

    Last Post By: WisconsinLiberty 03-30-2024, 09:38 AM Go to last post
  • Ron Paul & Rand Paul: News & Discussion

  • General News & Politics

    Anti Federalist

    The funeral procession of NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller.

    Thread Starter: Anti Federalist

    I probably won't make any friends. https://twitter.com/AntiFeder1776/status/1774631264449892506 1774631264449892506

    Last Post By: sparebulb Today, 12:33 AM Go to last post
    jct74

    60 Minutes claims evidence of foreign adversary behind Havana Syndrome attacks

    Thread Starter: jct74

    1773412210305270180 https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1773412210305270180

    Last Post By: Swordsmyth Today, 12:26 AM Go to last post
    Anti Federalist

    LAPD-If you are being robbed, do not resist robbery suspects; cooperate and comply

    Thread Starter: Anti Federalist

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FDta9pfVUAAq5at?format=jpg&name=small LAPD Advises City Residents to ‘Cooperate and Comply’ with Robbers https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/11/10/lapd-advises-cooperate-comply-robbers/ AWR HAWKINS 10 Nov 2021

    Last Post By: Occam's Banana Today, 12:25 AM Go to last post
    Anti Federalist

    Taking things from white people

    Thread Starter: Anti Federalist

    This is an excerpt from a opinion piece written by Michael Harriot published 11 July 2023 and titled: Take things from white people In the piece he goes on to say how, because of white supremacy and violent white people maiming and killing decent black folks, there is no choice to but to take everything from from white people: Lets examine some of these claims:

    Last Post By: Anti Federalist Yesterday, 11:20 PM Go to last post
    jmdrake

    Lawsuit alleges that man posing as transgender woman raped female prisoner at Rikers

    Thread Starter: jmdrake

    Reported by NBC New York. (I didn't see this posted anywhere else. If it's a duplicate please merge) Note : This isn't about people with the mental condition of gender identity dysphoria but rather if the bar is so low that anyone who says he's a trans woman is treated as one....well you can see the result. ...

    Last Post By: Anti Federalist Yesterday, 11:10 PM Go to last post
    Occam's Banana

    Gun grabbers are not impressive people

    Thread Starter: Occam's Banana

    Per this post, I thought might be edifying (or at least amusing) to have a thread dedicated to examples of just how stupid, ignorant, and/or foolish gun grabbers can be. (Such people are one of the reasons the "War on Guns" is lost.) Please feel free to post any such items here, if you wish. "The white pill is in realizing that they are in fact sending their best." -- Michael Malice ...

    Last Post By: Occam's Banana Yesterday, 08:56 PM Go to last post
    Occam's Banana

    The most corrupt mayor in America?

    Thread Starter: Occam's Banana

    Here's a story I've been following via AJW for several months now. It involves the mayor of an Illinois township (because of course it does - where else but one of the most corrupt states in the union?) who is a raging narcissist (among other things, she has referred to herself as a "Super Mayor") and who indulges in cartoonish levels of blatant "in your face" corruption. She has so far...

    Last Post By: Occam's Banana Yesterday, 07:20 PM Go to last post
    A Son of Liberty

    Coleman Hughes interviews James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian

    Thread Starter: A Son of Liberty

    //

    Last Post By: Occam's Banana Yesterday, 07:18 PM Go to last post
    Occam's Banana

    Feds sought data on everyone who watched certain YouTube videos

    Thread Starter: Occam's Banana

    Feds Sought Data on EVERYONE Who Watched A Certain Video Last Year https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8jMSs8du-o {Steve Lehto | 26 March 2024} We don't know if they turned it over or not, however. Here is the article referenced in the video:

    Last Post By: jmdrake Yesterday, 07:09 PM Go to last post
    Origanalist

    Violent, dangerous transgenders

    Thread Starter: Origanalist

    While the violence they commit gets posted often, I think it's now clearly become a big enough threat to people it deserves it's own thread. I'll start; 1642024373484912642

    Last Post By: Occam's Banana Yesterday, 07:07 PM Go to last post
  • Gold Price Chart

    [Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]
  • Silver Price Chart

  • Economics News & Discussion

    Matt Collins

    CPI jumps 5% in May of 2021, fastest since 2008

    Thread Starter: Matt Collins

    If they are admitting a 5% jump, the true number is probably more like 15%-20% https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/business/consumer-price-index-may-2021.html

    Last Post By: Occam's Banana Yesterday, 09:17 PM Go to last post
    CaptUSA

    US Debt: "Severe, Irreversible Scars"

    Thread Starter: CaptUSA

    America will be left with ‘severe, irreversible scars’ if national debt goes unchecked. Now, a blockbuster report warns the bill is higher than believed, hitting $141T by 2054 ...

    Last Post By: Occam's Banana Yesterday, 06:46 PM Go to last post
    Bern

    Central Bank Digital Money (CBDC) is not "crypto"

    Thread Starter: Bern

    As a tangent to an RPF crypto thread, I commented that CBDCs <> crypto. I spent some time this morning writing an article on the subject to explore it in a little bit more depth. This issue is a fundamental battleground for financial liberty. I hope it helps clarify the issue for people: CBDCs = TOFO (Tools of Financial Oppression)

    Last Post By: Bern Yesterday, 06:42 AM Go to last post
  • Bitcoin Price Chart

  • Living Free and Healthy

  • Education & Thought Power

    Liberty_Tree

    Why Democracy Leads to Tyranny

    Thread Starter: Liberty_Tree

    Last Post By: CCTelander Yesterday, 10:33 PM Go to last post
    Occam's Banana

    Man faces felony charge for signs he placed in his own yard

    Thread Starter: Occam's Banana

    Here's an interesting case. It touches upon some basic questions that are central to the application of libertarian theory, such as "what is a 'threat'?" and "when and under what circumstances do threats become actionable?" (i.e., it is related to the closely similar issue of "fighting words"). What say you? (I think it's a legitimate concern. Let a local jury decide on the basis of...

    Last Post By: Working Poor Yesterday, 11:29 AM Go to last post
    PAF

    Squatters’ Rights: What to Know as a Landlord & Laws per State

    Thread Starter: PAF

    NYC - Woman locks out squatters in her home, gets arrested for changing the locks] Published February 8, 2024 By: Jealie Dacanay As a landlord, understanding squatters’ rights and regulations is crucial to protecting your property and ensuring a smooth tenancy. Squatting is an often misunderstood property ownership aspect, but in this guide, I provide a roadmap for landlords to safeguard...

    Last Post By: PAF 03-31-2024, 06:33 PM Go to last post
    A Son of Liberty

    Dave Smith / Part of the Problem

    Thread Starter: A Son of Liberty

    I'll endeavor to post each episode of Dave Smith's, Part of the Problem podcast here, going forward. Feel free to discuss/opine.

    Last Post By: Occam's Banana 03-31-2024, 04:26 PM Go to last post
    Madison320

    Thought experiment to show why protectionism damages the economy

    Thread Starter: Madison320

    I've heard a lot of people say the problem with free trade is that it only works when both countries are allowing trade. That's wrong. For example even if China sells to us but doesn't allow us to sell to them, it still benefits us (and hurts China). Suppose in the US, a strange new volcano started spewing perfectly formed free high grade steel. Should the US ban the free steel because it...

    Last Post By: acptulsa 03-30-2024, 05:46 AM Go to last post
    PAF

    Guido Hülsmann's Gratuitous Intellectual Donation

    Thread Starter: PAF

    Mises Wire David Gordon 03/29/2024 Abundance, Generosity, and the State: An Inquiry into Economic Principles by Jörg Guido Hülsmann Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2024; 452 pp.

    Last Post By: Occam's Banana 03-29-2024, 11:55 AM Go to last post
  • Follow us on Twitter! Subscribe to our top news RSS Feed!