We have just dropped our 50,000th bomb in the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. What progress has been made? Can ISIS be defeated the way we are doing it? Vietnam has some lessons for how to lose a war.
By Ron Paul
I recently proposed that the liberty movement capitalize on Brexit with “Fed-exit”: a campaign to “secede" from the Federal Reserve. Fed-exit could be accomplished with a few simple policy changes.
Passing Audit the Fed is a good first step toward Fed-exit. Contrary to the Federal Reserve’s propaganda, auditing the Fed will not reduce the Federal Reserve’s mythical “independence.” It will simply allow Congress and the people to learn the full truth about the Fed’s conduct of monetary policy.
However, the desperation with which the Fed fights the audit bill suggests it believes increased transparency will boost support for Fed-exit. Considering what we discovered from the limited audit of the Fed’s activities during the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed’s fears may be justified. That audit revealed that between 2007 and 2008 the Federal Reserve loaned over $16 trillion — more than four times the annual budget of the United States — to foreign central banks and politically-influential private companies! Imagine what would be revealed by a full audit that includes looking at the Fed’s recent explosion of money creation via “quantitative easing.”
Once Congress and the public know the full truth about the Fed’s operations, we can begin working on ending, or at least reining in, the Fed. A good next step would be to explicitly forbid the Fed from making “loans” to private businesses or foreign governments. Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, which the Fed claims gives it the authority to provide "emergency assistance” to private companies, must be repealed.
Congress should also pass legislation reversing President Ronald Reagan’s executive order creating the “Plunge Protection Team.” Created after the 1987 stock market crash, the Plunge Protection Team’s “job” is to intervene whenever the financial markets appear to be on the verge of a meltdown, in order to prolong the Fed-created illusion of economic prosperity.
Congress should also restrict the Fed’s ability to purchase government securities, which the Fed uses to monetize the federal debt. Congress should also stop the Fed from manipulating interest rates. These actions would reduce the economic instability wrought by the Fed’s monetary policy. Ending the Fed’s monetization of the debt could also force Congress to not just halt the growth of, but actually begin to roll back, the welfare-warfare state.
The best way to rein in the Fed is to restore the gold standard. However, this must be a true gold standard, not the phony post-war Bretton Woods gold standard or the "gold price rule" promoted by the supply-siders. The “gold price rule” requires the Fed to raise interest rates whenever the price of gold matches or exceeds a Fed-determined target. Thus, this rule still allows the Fed to attempt to “fix” the price of money. It just provides the Fed with another after-the-fact indicator that the latest inflationary bubble is about to burst.
The most important step toward Fed-exit and the restoration of a true free-market monetary system is the repeal of all laws that in any way restrict individuals from using alternative currencies. Under a free-market monetary system, some individuals will choose to use metal-based currency, while others will choose to use digital currency. Some many even stick with fiat money. The important factor is not the type of currency individuals use, but that people have the right to decide for themselves what unit of exchange they use for their economic transactions.
As long as the Federal Reserve is allowed to manipulate the value of money and support the welfare-warfare state, we will never have a truly free market or a free society. Therefore, all those who seek liberty, peace, and prosperity should join the effort for a Fed-exit.
Call Monday-Friday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM (PST)
By Chris Rossini
American universities have become political correctness factories. Every year, a new flock of graduates, thoroughly indoctrinated in the ideas of "Cultural Marxism," come into the real world only to see victims everywhere! And of course, government and its violent force must be used to save these supposed victims.
Why do they see victims everywhere? Why do they see them in advertisements, speeches, tv shows, movies and even bathrooms? Why is someone always publicly apologizing for something? How did this bizarro world come to be?
Well, as libertarians are always preaching: ideas run the world. Nothing is more powerful than an idea that has come to dominate in people's minds. And it matters not that the idea be right or wrong, good or evil. Results will be produced accordingly.
The ideas of Cultural Marxism have hardened into beliefs in so many people, especially in those that come out of American universities. The beliefs act as goggles that these individuals view the world through.
All of us tend to notice in the world those things which match our internal beliefs, and the thoughts that dominate our thinking.
For example, did you ever buy a new car, and then all of a sudden notice the very same make and model all over the roads being driven by others? I remember when I was waiting for my SUV to arrive. I saw people driving it everywhere, and in every color.
Let's take another example. Imagine a hypothetical family party at your house. A cousin, who is a builder, notices the crown molding and admires your cove lighting. Everyone else walks around the room as if the lights aren't there. Meanwhile, your uncle, who is an optometrist, notices all the different types of glasses that everyone wears. And finally, with you being a barber, you can't help noticing who in your family needs a haircut.
We tend to notice and perceive those things that dominate our thinking.
Well, American universities are training innocent kids to see the world in a specific way. Since the "class struggle" of Marxism turned out to be totally bogus, a new idea was hatched: that society consists of "oppressor classes" and the "oppressed classes". You can think of this as a totalitarian pivot by the ivory tower intellectuals.
Cultural Marxism has various branches, or offshoots, that you may have heard of like: political correctness, modern feminism, pansexualism, and multiculturalism. The "oppressed" include, LGBT, women, minorities, and many other groups. The "oppressor class" consists of white heterosexual males, and any established norm or standard in society.
So when a retail giant puts out an advertisement to make customers aware of their products, the indoctrinated university graduate will scream "racism"! After all, only white children appear in the ad, while other races are not being "fairly" represented.
Likewise, when a women makes less then a man, the university student will cry "sexism"! They do not (and certainly will not) look into why the discrepancy in pay comes about organically. They have no interest in facts and economics. The only conclusion that they're capable of seeing is "sexism."
Of course, cultural marxists gravitate to violent government like bees to honey. Since human nature is what it is, the thought police have no patience for peaceful persuasion. Trying to convince others of their off-the-wall ideas would take much more work and persistence than they're willing to put out.
So violence is their chosen tool. They want the government gun.
Of course, this works out pretty well for government and its gaggle of tinpot dictators, does it not? Government meddlers are always standing ready to implement the impossible.
The root of the PC mobs and thought police are group of mistaken ideas. They can't help but see victims around every turn, which is an unfortunate way to live and view this amazing world of ours.
They can use a good course on individual responsibility, voluntary interactions, and private property.
Unfortunately, they won't get that at the schools and universities.
Call Monday-Friday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM (PST)
By Ron Paul
Sometimes Donald Trump will say a few things that I like about U.S. foreign policy, but then at other times he goes way off in talking about escalating war and killing civilians! He also seems to want to be the Chief of Police for the whole country! What are libertarians to make of this?
We often hear from neocon warmongers in America that they desire a Europe that is "whole, free, and at peace." What's in it for the warmongers? Is Europe "free" and "at peace"? Was it necessary to combine nations of different languages, cultures, and regional identities into a political creation known as the EU? Ron Paul gets to the truth on today's Myth-Busters!
By Chris Rossini
The backbone of libertarianism is peace and non-aggression. Donald Trump may not be a non-interventionist when it comes to foreign policy (which is unfortunate) but can there be some common ground when it comes to his stance on NATO? It is a bit of a challenge because Trump's position is fluid. But maybe there is a sliver of hope to move America in the right direction in this area.
Just as a refresher, NATO was created during the Cold War to counter Soviet Russia. It was claimed to be an organization that collectively protected Europe from attack. As we all know, the Cold War is long gone, but lo-and-behold NATO is still around. Bureaucrats never voluntarily go away. Always remember that. They either have to be forced out because of financial conditions or public pressure. If neither of the two occur, bureaucrats will stay right where they are and they'll continue to expand their power.
After the Cold War, promises were made to the Russians that NATO would not expand any closer to Russia's borders. Alas, those promises was broken. Here's another thing to remember: never trust bureaucrats to keep their promises either.
NATO is now knocking on Russia's door and is even holding massive military exercises right on the border! It seems reasonable to assume that Russia would find such moves to be very dangerous and provocative.
To paraphrase Jacob Hornberger: "Imagine if Russia were to absorb Cuba, Venezuela, Chile, and Mexico, with aims of installing Russian military bases on Mexico’s border with the United States." It would be reasonable to assume that Americans and American officials would view such moves as very provocative.
If there's one thing that America's failed foreign policy in the Middle East teaches us it's that if you swat at hornets nests long enough and hard enough, eventually you're going to get stung. Well, the same idea must be applied to Russia. Do we really need to risk being stung by a nuclear power?
So from a libertarian and non-interventionist standpoint, the provocative actions taken by NATO must be peeled back. Ideally, NATO would be disbanded and rendered into the history books like The Warsaw Pact. That should have happened after the Cold War ended. But since the ideal is not in the cards at the moment, the next best thing is to pull back the provocations.
Does Trump offer anything of value in this regard? Let's look at some of his statements.
Trump has said of NATO:
"I think it’s proven not to work, and we have a different country than we did then. We have $19 trillion in debt. We’re sitting, probably, on a bubble...We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore. NATO is costing us a fortune..."
This is something that Ron Paul has warned about. Our government is literally running on fumes financially. It's just not feasible to maintain foreign entanglements around the world. If the U.S. government doesn't quit it voluntarily, it'll be forced to quit because of a serious financial crisis.
At a later date, Trump's tune changed for the worse:
So NATO is something that at the time was excellent. Today, it has to be changed. It has to be changed to include terror.
This is the challenge with Trump. The fluidity of his position gives you no way to know where he really stands. He's right to say that NATO has "proven not to work" and that "we certainly can't afford to do this anymore." However tossing those ideas aside in favor of "changing" NATO to "include terror" is a horrendous idea!
Most recently, Trump gave an interview to the New York Times. Here are the latest thoughts on NATO:
If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting other countries, and in many cases the countries I’m talking about are extremely rich...but if we cannot make a deal...I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, “Congratulations, you will be defending yourself.”
While Trump's rebellious tone can be viewed positively (after all, establishment neocons view NATO as an absolute that must never be questioned) even if other countries ponied up more money, it doesn't make NATO any less aggressive, any less of a failure, and it surely doesn't make us any safer.
Finally, Trump made a statement that would give neocons a panic attack:
"I would love to have a good relationship where Russia and I, instead of, and us, and the U.S., instead of fighting each other we got along. It would be wonderful if we had good relationships with Russia so that we don’t have to go through all of the drama."
So trying to read Trump's true intentions with NATO is equivalent to trying to nail Jello to a wall. At times, there appears to be an opening for some progress. At others times, it looks like the status quo (or worse) are in the cards.
This has the feeling of a Trump casino.
Will the roulette wheel land on red or black?
Call Monday-Friday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM (PST)
After some 14 years the classified 28 pages of the Senate report on 9/11 have finally been released, albeit in redacted form. Founder of 28pages.org Brian McGlinchey joins the Liberty Report to explain how public pressure led to the release...and what the pages mean.
By Ron Paul
I didn't receive an invitation to this year's Republican convention. Would I have gone if invited? Would I have taken a speaking slot? I discuss these interesting questions and talk about what it would take for Trump to garner my support:
Are we all socialists now? Economist Thomas DiLorenzo joins the Liberty Report to discuss his powerful new book on socialism and its sudden re-emergence on the political stage.
By Ron Paul
Does the fact that Donald Trump is a successful businessman necessarily mean he will be a successful president? I discuss this popular belief on Fox Business: