The US Supreme Court is set to take up the case of a Colorado baker who on religious grounds refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Is this case about religion? Freedom of expression? Discrimination? Or something else? Ron Paul Institute Senior Fellow Adam Dick joins the program today.
By Adam Dick
Ron Paul returned to the Scott Horton Show on Friday to discuss Paul’s new book The Revolution at Ten Years. As Paul explains in the interview, the revolution mentioned in the book title is the “libertarian revolution” that “came to light” in Paul’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns. While Paul acknowledges that “Washington hasn’t changed” since then, he also comments that the revolution continues with people “laying the groundwork for the necessary changes that will come” after the political system in America “falls apart.”
In addition to Paul’s book, Paul and host Scott Horton discuss topics including United States foreign policy and the Federal Reserve.
Listen to Paul’s interview here.
Purchase Paul’s book here.
This article was originally published at The Ron Paul Institute.
Ron Paul returns to the hot seat in another Liberty Report where our viewers get to ask the questions... Which questions did we pick? How did Ron answer? Any surprises? Tune in!
By Liberty Report Staff
The Fed has once again distorted the economy with its interest rate manipulations and creation of trillions of dollars in new money.
Paintings going for $450 million ... Bitcoin ... the bond market ... the stock market...
The Fed's printing press is setting us up for another round of economic pain.
Central planning is a total disaster and a terrible idea. We should have learned that from the Soviets.
Free markets with sound money, and interest rates set by the marketplace are the only escape.
Ron Paul discusses in the following videos:
By Chris Rossini
Maria emails the following:
Chris, I wonder if you and Dr Paul can discuss for how long Western governments can continue to create fiat currency before it finally crashes and how will that happen? And can there be another financial crisis given the actions of the Fed and the banks to prevent one?
These are very good questions, and they are asked quite often.
The answers, however, are not very extravagant. To be blunt: it's not possible to predict crashes ahead of time with exact certainty. The reason for this is the same reason that the central planning of an economy never works: there are just too many variables.
The U.S. economy is made up of hundreds of millions of people. Everyone is making decisions based on their own personal value scales. So to make a prediction that a currency will crash at a certain date in the future is impossible because no one has the knowledge of all the variables in play.
One should always be wary of pundits who say things like: "The dollar will crash in 6 months," or "The debt can't go any higher," or "So-and-so event will cause everything to fall apart."
There's just no way of knowing with such precise certainty.
One can only know that crashes will occur in a general sense. In other words, economic laws (like supply & demand) are constants. Understanding basic economic laws will at least guide you to know that because of (A), we can expect (B).
This is not a perfect analogy because we're not dealing with human action, but think about the weather. A meteorologist cannot know what the temperature in Philadelphia will be on Aug 20, 2020 with exact certainty. There are just too many variables at play to make such a precise prediction. However, the meteorologist can make a general statement that the weather will be warm, and the chances are very unlikely that it will snow.
When it comes to economics, we can know which phase of the Fed's boom/bust cycle that we're in. The Austrian Business Cycle Theory explains how central banks create artificial bubbles, that must ultimately burst, because of the central bank's manipulations of interest rates and the money supply.
We can say (with certainty) that when central banks artificially suppress interest rates, they create mal-investments in the economy that must ultimately be liquidated. The specific events that will occur to precipitate the liquidations cannot be foretold with precise accuracy.
Can central banks prevent the crash and liquidations?
They can forestall them, which is what has happened from 2008 to the present.
We didn't get the full correction that was necessary back then. Instead, the Fed inflated the money supply by many trillions, amounts of monetary inflation that had never been done before.
This forestalled the necessary liquidations that should have occurred in 2008, but it doesn't prevent them from happening at some point in the future.
In fact, the economic pain will likely be even worse in the future because the Fed merely created a bigger bubble that has to pop.
The key to remember is that the real crisis is the Fed manipulating interest rates. That's the genuine crisis.
What we call the "crisis" is actually the cure to the Fed's manipulations. The liquidations are a return to economic reality. That return is always painful though, which is why it's called a "crisis."
We should never leave economic reality in the first place. If America had a free market economy, with a sound currency and no central bank, none of this discussion would be necessary.
Money arose via market transactions, and precious metals have served as money for thousands of years. Then government, for its own reasons, monopolized the creations of money. It has been a disaster ever since. Competing currencies, without government intrusion, will clean up this mess. Is Bitcoin a step in the right direction?
By Jacob G. Hornberger
One of the most mystifying aspects of the Donald Trump presidency has been his caving in to the U.S. national-security establishment. Among the biggest expectations that people had for Trump was that he would be the first president since John F. Kennedy to stand up to the military, the CIA, and the NSA. There were even some hopes that he would significantly diminish U.S. interventionism abroad, including withdrawing all U.S. troops from the 16-year-old war in Afghanistan.
Trump’s early hostile relations with the CIA was so bad that New York Congressman Charles Schumer was even motivated to warn, “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” Trump’s adverse relationship with the CIA caused former senior CIA official Paul Pillar to exclaim, “The relationship is the worst of any incoming administration ever.”
Not anymore. Surrounding himself with generals and giving the national-security establishment carte blanche to do anything it wants to protect “national security,” Trump, for all practical purposes, has been absorbed by the national-security establishment, even permitting the CIA to continue keeping its long-secret, 50-year-old JFK-assassination records secret from the American people.
It is safe to say that for the balance of Trump’s term in office, his actions in foreign affairs will be no different than anything that Hillary Clinton, who undoubtedly would have been a loyal servant of the national-security establishment, would have done with respect to foreign affairs.
What gives? Why the dramatic shift in Trump? Why didn’t he stick to his guns, like Kennedy did?
The reason is found in the excellent book National Security and Double Government by Michael J. Glennon. This is a book I highly recommend reading, as it provides the best explanation for the consequences the followed the federal government’s conversion to a national-security state.
Glennon has credentials. He is a professor in the law school at Tufts University. From 1977-1980, he was counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The reason that Trump ended up caving to the national-security establishment is that it quickly dawned on him, primarily owing to the massive attacks leveled on him relating to supposed “collusion” with Russia, that it’s the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA that are in charge of the federal government, not the president, not Congress, and not the federal judiciary. Trump came to the realization that for all practical purposes, he, like everyone else in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, works for the national-security section of the government, not the other way around.
What is a national security state? It’s a particular type of governmental structure, one that is inherent to totalitarian regimes. North Korea is a national-security state. So is China. So is Egypt. So is the United States.
A national-security state consists of three primary components, all of which can be centralized into one entity or divided into separate departments and agencies.
One component is a massive military establishment, one that plays a dominant role in society, both economically and sociologically. Another component consists of covert state-sponsored assassinations and cover-ups. The third component is secret monitoring of the citizenry — e.g., secretly listening in on telephone conversations, secretly reading people’s emails, secretly watching what people do on the Internet, and keeping secret files on people.
In the United States, these three components are divided into three entities — the military establishment, the CIA, and the NSA.
It’s interesting to compare the Egyptian national-security state with the U.S. national-security state. When Mohamad Morsi was elected president of Egypt, the big mistake he made was in thinking that he was in charge and that the military establishment answered to him since he was president. Morsi learned what Trump has learned: that it was actually the Egyptian military, which had long controlled the country (with the full support of the U.S. government) that was simply permitting Morsi to be president. Once he got out of line and became a bit too independent, they simply ousted him, arrested him, and incarcerated him, while restoring full military control over the country, with U.S. foreign aid, especially armaments, continuing to flood into the country.
It’s easy to recognize Egypt as a full-fledged national-security state because the military-intelligence establishment fully controls the government and, like the U.S. military-establishment plays a major role in the Egyptian economy and society.
It appears to be different here. That’s because when the federal government was converted into a national-security state, the national-security establishment decided that it would be expedient to continue permitting the other three branches of the federal government to continue operating, even to the point of letting them continue the illusion that they were the ones actually in charge of the government. That is, it has never mattered to the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA that people perceive that the other three branches are in control of the federal government. What has mattered to the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA is the realty of the situation — that they are the ones who are really in charge, even if the citizenry don’t recognize it.
That’s the thesis of Glennon’s book. America has double government — one that maintains the façade of being in control and the other being the part of the government that is actually in control, just like in Egypt and other societies that are based on a national-security state type of governmental structure.
Why was the federal government converted into a national-security state after World War II? U.S. officials said that such a revolutionary change in America’s governmental system was necessary in order to combat the Soviet Union, which also was a national-security state.
Ironically, however, when the Cold War ended some 45 years later, the U.S. national-security establishment didn’t voluntarily self-dissolve. Why should it have? Who’s going to make it do so?
This article was originally published at The Future of Freedom Foundation.
A recent investigation by the Daily Beast suggests US troops in Somalia were involved in the murder of ten civilians - including three children - in a small village in August. However, AFRICOM released a statement yesterday affirming that everyone killed was an enemy combatant. Should we believe them?
By Liberty Report Staff
In 1931, G.K. Chesterton wrote in NY Times Magazine: “The golden age only comes to men when they have, if only for a moment, forgotten gold.”
It's glaringly evident that governments, central banks, and their media arms have succeeded in conditioning everyone away gold. "Legal Tender Laws" keep their money monopoly in place for the time being.
But economic reality has not changed.
The long game belongs to gold.
Are we on the eve of a new bull market in gold?
Ron Paul shares his thoughts below in a Special Market Update:
By Ron Paul
It is disappointing but not surprising that Jerome Powell is likely to follow the same easy money policies as Janet Yellen. Powell’s hints at a rate increase in December should not be taken as a sign of a change in direction since any hike is likely to leave rates at record low levels.
Janet Yellen is receiving much undeserved praise for her tenure as Fed chair. The truth is that Yellen’s time at the Fed was marked by historically low interest rates and money creation. Yellen’s policies benefited the economic and financial elites as well as big spending politicians. However, Yellen’s low interest rate policies failed to generate even the illusion of prosperity for middle-and-lower income Americans.
Yellen’s failures where inevitable since she had the misfortune of trying to stimulate the economy with fiat currency at a time when the fiat system is reaching its end. The popularity of cyber currencies like Bitcoin and the growing movement to pass bills recognizing gold, silver, and other precious metals as legal tender are signs that more Americans are realizing that our current monetary system is unstable and are seeking alternatives to the Federal Reserve’s phony money.
Before voting on the Powell nomination, Congress should take the first step toward reining in the Federal Reserve by voting on and passing Audit the Fed.
This statement was originally published at Campaign for Liberty.