 By Chris Rossini Whenever a secession takes place, the larger political entity rarely takes the news with grace and dignity. Revenge and attacks are the usual response. America has gone through a few secession episodes itself, like many other nations throughout history. For example, when the American colonies seceded from Britain in 1776, the British did not take it too well, and war would follow. Neither did the U.S. northern states let the southern states secede peacefully in the 1860's. While it's great news to see England and Wales vote to get out of the European Union, it's not over 'till it's over. How will the globalist elites proceed from here? Will they the let the British leave without causing any trouble, or can we expect the usual revenge tactics? Former Reagan Administration member Paul Craig Roberts offers up some thoughts that argue the latter will likely take place: The EU and NATO are evil institutions. These two institutions are mechanisms created by Washington in order to destroy the sovereignty of European peoples. These two institutions give Washington control over the Western world and serve both as cover and enabler of Washington’s aggression. Without the EU and NATO, Washington could not force Europe and the UK into conflict with Russia, and Washington could not have destroyed seven Muslim countries in 15 years without being isolated as a hated war criminal government. [ ... ] Will the globalist elites strike back? That's yet to be seen. Does history suggest that the British should be vigilant if they're serious about their independence? Oh yeah. 
Yesterday's Brexit vote dealt a big blow to the establishment elites. It was a much-needed victory for decentralized power and secession. Ron Paul discusses the ramifications of the historic moment on today's Liberty Report!
By Chris Rossini
Fear is the go-to emotion that government preys upon. It's so reliable. The fear of the unknown causes most individuals to give away and sacrifice every liberty that they were naturally born with. A population that is perpetually afraid ultimately ends up fearing liberty itself! Government's sales pitch is that you need them. It is they who will protect you from a never-ending carousel of fears. Off course that's not even remotely true, but truth is not necessary for an aggrandizement of power to take place. Just look at the TSA for example. It has been shown over and over again to be nothing more than security theatre, yet it's still there making American lives miserable. Government has nothing of its own. It produces nothing. Everything that it has it must take from its victims by force. A pipeline of fear stands readily available to them with excuses to justify their theft. Fear is the currency used in the exchange of liberty for power. Thankfully, we have just witnessed an historic moment. British citizens have voted to leave the European Union! A gigantic lesson can be learned from this event. It proves that fear-mongering has its limits. It's not fool-proof. The propaganda used to get British citizens to stay in the European Union was astounding. It was around-the-clock and relentless. Even here in America, politicians and their subservient media were walking lockstep with each other in telling us why Britain should stick with the political elite's plan for the massive centralization of power. The concentration of power is a great enemy of liberty. Political power (if it exists) should be as decentralized as possible. The further away the power center from the individual, the harder it is to change it. If the centralization of power reaches a global scale, it becomes impossible to change. Naturally, those who have a lust for power also have a lust for global government. Britain's vote threw a major monkey wrench into the scheme. It's yet to be seen if Britain ends up being merely the first domino to fall. Will others follow and cascade away from elitist "globalism"? We can only hope. But for now, a victory over propaganda and constant fear-mongering should be celebrated with cheers!    By Ron Paul We all know that ethics is a marginal quality for Hillary Clinton, who has been in serious trouble with the FBI and government over her handling of emails as U.S. Secretary of State. Many emails disappeared! Sometimes people get into trouble when they erase evidence, but so far Hillary doesn't seem to be bothered too much. The Romanian hacker Gucifer was able to hack into the Clinton Foundation servers and has provided some important information. It really startled me as to the extensiveness of this information and the sheer number of individuals who felt compelled to send the Clinton Foundation money. Thus far, the media has kept this out of the limelight. It's funny how the New York Times thought that 51 State Department employees (out of 13,000 foreign service agents) writing a 'let's bomb Assad' letter should be front page news, while this tremendous story is being kept at arm's length. While Hillary was Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation was raising enormous amounts of money from foreign governments and government-tied businesses. Some of our friends, including Judge Andrew Napolitano, have been very clear in stating that Hillary has done something very serious and believe that it qualifies for a prosecution. However, I'm not very optimistic about our Department of Justice. I'm not holding my breath for that day to happen. Some people believe that they are above the law, and the Clintons have notoriously gotten away with things. This is just one more indication that tremendous changes are long overdue in our society. Ultimately, the attitudes that Americans have about morality and ethics are pretty darn important. That's surely not government's role. You can't legislate morality. It is however a role that all of us have to play in our own spheres of influence. 
House Democrats occupied the Floor yesterday and into this morning, demanding a vote on bills that would restrict firearm purchases for those on the US government's terror watch list. Are guns the real issue? Or lists?
 By Jeff Deist Decentralization and devolution of state power is always a good thing, regardless of the motivations behind such movements. Hunter S. Thompson, looking back on 60s counterculture in San Francisco, lamented the end of that era and its flower-child innocence: So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark — that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back. Does today’s Brexit vote, win or lose, similarly mark the spot where the once-inevitable march of globalism begins to recede? Have ordinary people around the world reached the point where real questions about self-determination have become too acute to ignore any longer? Globalism, championed almost exclusively by political and economic elites, has been the dominant force in the West for a hundred years. World War I and the League of Nations established the framework for multinational military excursions, while the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank set the stage for the eventual emergence of the US dollar as a worldwide reserve currency. Progressive government programs in Western countries promised a new model for universalism and peace in the aftermath of the destruction of Europe. Human rights, democracy, and enlightened social views were now to serve as hallmarks of a post-monarchical Europe and rising US. But globalism was never liberalism, nor was it intended to be by its architects. As its core, globalism has always meant rule by illiberal elites under the guise of mass democracy. It has always been distinctly anti-democratic and anti-freedom, even as it purported to represent liberation from repressive governments and poverty. Globalism is not, as its supporters claim, simply the inevitable outcome of modern technology applied to communication, trade,and travel. It is not “the world getting smaller.” It is, in fact, an ideology and worldview that must be imposed by statist and cronyist means. It is the civic religion of people named Clinton, Bush, Blair, Cameron, and Lagarde. Yes, libertarians advocate unfettered global trade. Even marginally free trade has unquestionably created enormous wealth and prosperity for millions around the world. Trade, specialization, and an understanding of comparative advantage have done more to relieve poverty than a million United Nations or International Monetary Funds. But the EU, GATT, WTO, NAFTA, TPP, and the whole alphabet soup of trade schemes are wholly illiberal impediments masquerading as real commercial freedom. In fact, true free trade occurs only in the absence of government agreements. The only legislation required is a unilateral one-sentence bill: Country X hereby eliminates all import duties, taxes, and tariffs on all Y goods imported from country Z. And as Godfrey Bloom explains, the European Union is primarily a customs zone, not a free trade zone. A bureaucracy in Brussels is hardly necessary to enact simple pan-European tariff reductions. It is necessary, however, to begin building what globalism truly demands: a de facto European government, complete with dense regulatory and tax rules, quasi-judicial bodies, a nascent military, and further subordination of national, linguistic, and cultural identities. Which brings us to the Brexit vote, which offers Britons far more than simply an opportunity to remove themselves from a doomed EU political and monetary project. It is an opportunity to forestall the juggernaut, at least for a period, and reflect on the current path. It is a chance to fire a shot heard around the world, to challenge the wisdom of the “globalism is inevitable” narrative. It is the UK’s last chance to ask — in a time when even asking is an act of rebellion — the most important political question of our day or any day: who decides? Ludwig von Mises understood that self-determination is the fundamental goal of liberty, of real liberalism. It’s true that libertarians ought not to concern themselves with “national sovereignty,” because governments are not sovereign kings and should never be treated as worthy of determining the course of our lives. But it is also true that the more attenuated the link between an individual and the body purporting to govern him, the less control — self-determination — that individual has. To quote Mises, from his 1927 classic (in German) Liberalismus: If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. Ultimately, Brexit is not a referendum on trade, immigration, or the technical rules promulgated by the (awful) European Parliament. It is a referendum on national sovereignty, which is a step away from globalism and closer to individual self-determination. Libertarians should view the decentralization and devolution of state power as ever and always a good thing, regardless of the motivations behind such movements. Reducing the size and scope of any single (or multinational) state’s dominion is decidedly healthy for liberty. This article was originally published at The Mises Institute. 
While the MSM has not given it extensive coverage, an apparent Romanian hacker's breach of the Clinton Foundation server shows the breathtaking level of foreign influence in the organization. Meanwhile, NATO declares computer hacking to be grounds to go to war. What's next?
By Ron Paul
The income tax is the worst kind of tax because it's based on the assumption that the government owns you and all of your income. Whether the rate is 1% or 99%, the principle behind the tax is the same. Instead of bickering about what the rate should be, we should be attacking the philosophy that underpins this nefarious tax. I discuss on Fox Business: 
By Ron Paul
This morning I was asked if there was ever an ideal American president. Of course, no one is perfect, but I particularly liked Grover Cleveland who was a gold-standard guy. He was also a non-interventionist when it came to foreign policy and he vetoed a lot of bills. My biggest issue with the modern presidency is the amount of power that the position wields. Today's president is the exact opposite of what the Founders intended. There were supposed to be "checks and balances" in our government and the office of the president was not designed to run a worldwide military empire. If there's one recurring pattern that has repeated itself throughout history, it's that there's a great tendency for power to concentrate in the executive. America's Founders tried to figure out a way to avoid such a concentration of power, but alas they failed as well. Power is now more concentrated in the President than ever. I'd like for the American president to have about as much power as Switzerland's president. Few even know who Switzerland's president is! That's the way it's supposed to be. American individuals should be free, and not constantly barraged by and focused on a 'Great Leader'. Liberty and 'Great Leaders' are mutually exclusive. It's either one or the other. You can't have both. America didn't become the wealthiest country in the world because of government or 'Great Leaders'. It was rather the exact opposite. It was the lack of government controls that freed up the entrepreneurial and productive energies of our ancestors. The "land of the free" needs a good dose of freedom. Weakening the power of government (and especially the president) will get us there sooner rather than later.  
By Ron Paul
It was a great pleasure to join C-SPAN's Washington Journal program this morning taking caller questions. We discussed guns, monetary policy, Bernie Sanders, and much more. I hope you enjoy it! |
Archives
September 2019
 
 
 
 
|
RSS Feed