Ron Paul, Lou Dobbs and Sharron Angle on Freedom Watch

Ron Paul, Former Ambassador John Bolton, CATO’s director of foreign policy studies Chris Preble, Democratic analyst Doug Schoen, and Judge Andrew Napolitano discuss “Obama’s War” in Afghanistan. Also on the show: Former CNN Anchor Lou Dobbs, Republican Nominee for U.S. Senate in Nevada, Sharron Angle, Jack Devine, Charles Gasparino, Nancy Skinner and Donald Boudreaux.



  • kasrkinmullet

    lol I love the judge’s hand gestures.

  • Youtoober22

    There is something very off with Angle. I don’t feel I trust her. Maybe it’s just that big fake smile and robotic voice, my first time seeing her, just saying.

  • LeeKwangEng

    The table is in the shape of an eye, why?
    Is a way to show us this is also staged by NWO?
    May be.

  • itsjiffy

    Its funny that the democratic pollester says liberals are for the war effort. Funny how things flip flop when their guy is in charge. None the less, I agree with Ron Paul and Napalotono that we should get out. The Cato rep made some good points too, we could be taking a much more conservative approach to these so called “wars”.

    Whats the reason Washington is so deaf??

  • launchpadmcquak

    this skinner chick has kool aid poisoning.

  • loserx69

    whether you agree with her or not, sharron angle is a well spoken, intelligent new voice.

  • jamo387

    Hey the democrat aligns with Lyndsey Graham, That’s honest. Graham is more of a democrat than a republican. I only hope we can get rid of him and McCain ASAP. Thank God for Dr Paul. He is the only honest man in Washington. BTW Graham, come out of the closet already. A little honesty please.

  • sundancekid122

    tea party should remain an unelected group who simply keeps these weasles scared shitless.

  • smallmaniac

    Sharron Angle reminds me why I like Ron Paul; he says what he means and doesn’t put some politicians smile or rhetoric into his words that he doesn’t use normally. I understand she may be a good candidate but she rubs me the wrong way. SPEAK LIKE A HUMAN BEING!!!! I fear that this realignment going on in conservatism will be infiltrated with neocons under the guises of the tea part and “fighting” big govt.

  • tonylee1973

    I like how the Democrat admits that the they are much closer to Establishment republicans than Rand Paul.

  • Meternych

    Thanks! Pavel

  • Yvonne

    The Board of Governers of the Federal Reserve System is worried because an account deficit is 6.5% of the GDP?
    No kidding.
    What does the board have to say about the 45% deficit in indivicual incomes due to income tax?

  • NCIcaucus

    End the FED!! The wars and wasteful government spending will HAPPEN AGAIN unless we END THE FED…it’s the government credit card!!

  • NCIcaucus

    This crap is such “sensationalism”…things will never improve until the average person makes it a part of their every day life to do something for freedom and get directly involved in the political process.

  • bradq

    now we have the green party and the tea party.
    When they merge we will have the “green tea party’

  • nhojflow

    Sharron Angle, what a joke…

  • Selecsosi135

    Hey Judge, when you talk at 23:35 about Rand Paul and Angle being the only ones fighting for senate positions DO NOT forget about Peter Schiff. He, realistically, is one of the few “fighters for liberty” that is not actually spewing currently popular statements about reducing government. I believe in Ron/Rand as fighters for the constitution but I still need to see some truth in action from the rest of these activists.

  • lizardgizard2002

    Well there is a fine group of right wing racists.

  • Dfens

    Since the beginning of this new century, the United States has lost more than three million manufacturing jobs. Three million more jobs have been lost to cheap overseas labor markets as corporate America campaigns relentlessly for “higher productivity, “efficiency,” and “competitiveness,” all of which have been revealed to be nothing more than code words for the cheapest possible labor in the world.

    Corporate America and our country’s political elites have combined to put this country’s middle-class working men and women into direct competition with the world’s cheapest labor. Salaries and wages now represent the lowest share of our national income than any time since 1929. Corporate profits have the largest share of our national income than at any time since 1950.

    The pursuit of so-called free trade has resulted in the opening of the world’s richest consumer market to foreign competitors without negotiating a reciprocal opening of world markets for U.S. goods and services. That isn’t free trade by any definition, whether that of classical economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo or that of current propaganda ministers who use the almost Orwellian term to promote continuation of the trade policies followed for the last three decades.

    How important is it that we reverse the course of these short-sighted and destructive policies? More than six years ago, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System had this to say about what happens when trade deficits exceed 5 percent of GDP: “We find that a typical current account reversal begins when the current account deficit is about 5 percent of GDP.” Again, our current account deficit now represents 6.5 percent of GDP. The authors of the study go on to say: “In general, these episodes involve a declining net international investment position that levels off, but does not reverse, a few years after the current account begins its recovery.”

    It is important to note that no recovery is underway, and that most importantly, the United States last year suffered negative investment flows. The cumulative effect of more than three decades of trade deficits and mounting external debt has produced our first investment income deficit on record. This is the first time that Americans have earned less on investments abroad than foreigners earned on their investments in the United States since 1946, when the Commerce Department began keeping records.

    Amazingly, even our own top trade officials admit that U.S. free trade policies aren’t working, unless they consider trade surpluses for our trading partners to be the objective of U.S. trade policy. – Lou Dobbs testifying on before Congress on the results of “free trade”.

    If Libertarians actually were Conservatives they would be concerned about the destruction of our middle class. Conservatives come primarily from the middle class. The “free trade” policies Ron Paul and the Libertarians are in favor of expose them as the Liberals they actually are.

    • EndtheFed

      “all of which have been revealed to be nothing more than code words”

      Since when? Evidence please.

      “Corporate America and our country’s political elites have combined to put this country’s middle-class working men and women into direct competition with the world’s cheapest labor.”

      You are suggesting that we “protect” our market and let the rest of the world dominate the global marketplace? Where would that leave us? Isolated instead of innovative.

      “The pursuit of so-called free trade has resulted in the opening of the world’s richest consumer market to foreign competitors without negotiating a reciprocal opening of world markets for U.S. goods and services”

      How so?

      “our current account deficit now represents 6.5 percent of GDP”

      This wouldn’t be so if we had sound money. World-wide inflationary policies cause trade deficits.

      “the United States last year suffered negative investment flows”

      They also had a negative savings rate. Go figure.

      “If Libertarians actually were Conservatives they would be concerned about the destruction of our middle class”

      Inflation is destroying the middle class too by re-distributing wealth to the politically well-connected. I don’t hear you complaining about that, though.

      You suggest that governments have not done enough, however when you take a closer look at the problems you just posted, the government has had their hands in all of those issues. The government has done too much already.

    • Dfens

      The same free-market principles that compel me to oppose subsidies apply to tariffs as well. Simply put, tariffs are taxes. Like subsidies, tariffs are paid for by American taxpayers and consumers. I vote against tariffs for the same reasons I vote against any federal taxes- I want to get the federal government out of your pocketbook. Many tariff bills in Congress are touted as pro-American, but they really just raise taxes by stealth. In a free society, consumers must be allowed to buy goods from abroad if they so choose. Americans should not be taxed simply because they determine that their family budgets are better served by purchasing an imported item.

      When Congress attempts to punish certain nations by imposing tariffs on their products, it really simply punishes average Americans who end up paying more for the goods they buy every day. Tariffs especially harm the poorest American families, who spend roughly half of their income on just two things: food and clothes. These basic necessities are the most highly-taxed items imported into the United States. Of course many families don’t realize that they pay very high import tariffs, because the taxes are buried in the cost of everyday items. Yet estimates show that most poor families pay $1,100 annually because of import taxes. So while it’s easy for Congress to impose self-righteous tariffs as a political statement, we forget that our own poorest citizens pay the real price. – Ron Paul on “free trade”

      How can you all be so simple minded as Ron Paul? If there are no jobs here what difference does it make how cheap the prices of TVs become? You can’t buy one because you don’t have a friggen job. Is that so hard to figure out? Millions of jobs shipped to Communist Red China because Ron Paul votes them “Most Favored Nation” trade status and you still don’t get it?

      • EndtheFed

        So let me get this straight.

        You propose having the government force all American consumers to pay more so that they can subsidize a few of their favored industries.

        If that doesn’t work, you would shut down international trade and have us produce everything on our own regardless of how inefficient it may be.

        Who gets to choose which industries get favorable treatment? You?
        How do you plan to make up for the gains of trade we rely on?

        Something tells me you haven’t thought this through.

        • Dfens

          You would rather promote political slavery in Chinese labor camps than buy your iPod from an American company employing American labor working in a clean factory under decent working condititions? It’s nice the way you euphemize that buy calling those decent American working conditions “less efficient”, when the fact of the matter is there is no more efficient worker than the American worker. If you hate America so much, why don’t you move to China instead of turning this nation into China?

        • EndtheFed

          Nice work changing the subject to slave labor.

          If you are having trouble distinguishing between international trade and slave labor, then that could be why you cant grasp the concept behind “the gains from trade”.

        • Dfens

          Changing the topic? You think the Communist Chinese labor force could be more efficient than a well paid, well fed, capitalist motivated American workforce without resorting to slavery? You have very little faith in capitalism for one who is supposed to be such a huge fan. I’m sure Libertarians love the part where the selection criteria for becoming a slave in China is primarily motivated by a person’s ability to think outside the confines of political correctness. Clearly this is a capability Libertarians cannot wait to have, once they’ve turned this great nation into Communist Red China.

        • EndtheFed

          “You think the Communist Chinese labor force could be more efficient than a well paid, well fed, capitalist motivated American workforce without resorting to slavery?”

          Efficiency doesn’t depend solely on wage. It also depends on productivity. You forget the very reason American workers were able to build a middle class; they were very productive.

          High productivity means high wages.

          You are so hell-bent on blaming China for our problems at home that you overlook the simple solution to the problem, which is to maintain high levels of worker productivity. That means quality education, not this government-run daycare we call a public school system.

          With education comes innovation. Newly innovated American products are typically manufactured inside of America.

          Therefore, if you would like to solve the problem instead of randomly placing blame for it, you should be concerned with how our own government is destroying our ability to maintain a middle class.

        • EndtheFed

          We both agree that the middle class is disappearing. We differ on what we think are the causes.

          The fact is that slave labor is not new. Something else must have changed.

          The fact is that our education levels have been slipping. India, among other places, now produces more scientists than we do.

          America was once the leader of innovation and technological progress.

          Big government is inefficient, and a leech on our economy. Just look at what happened in Greece recently, where over half of the population is either on the government payroll or on a pension. The private sector creates jobs and value, not the government.

          The American working class is now competing with slave labor because we aren’t producing a well-educated workforce and we aren’t creating innovative products like we used to.

          Sure, if we ended all trade we would cut off the competition from abroad, except we DO gain by trading (or else we wouldn’t make the trade).

          Therefore cutting trade relations and sparking trade wars will only harm us further, and will not address the real problem of our disappearing middle class.

    • GB

      Nothing has done more to destroy the middle class than monetary inflation, which, sir, libertarians vehemently oppose.

      • Dfens

        Last I checked we have a housing crisis. The “crisis” is that the price of houses is deflating, not inflating. The whole world was shocked by the fact that a nation of unemployed cannot afford expensive houses. Thanks, Libertarians, for sending all our jobs to Communist Red China so our middle class could be destroyed by deflation.

        • GB

          The housing crisis was caused by too much credit, i.e. money creation.

          Jobs aren’t going to China. Capital is going to China. Capital flows to where it gains its highest return.

        • Dfens

          Too much credit caused the price of houses to deflate 10% a year for the last 3 years in the best neighborhoods in town? Right. What a crock. Where did you get that crap, from the globalist news? Here’s a news flash for you, people working at McDonald’s can’t afford $250,000 houses. And another news flash, when capital goes overseas, so do jobs. What the hell do you think they do with that capital, but nice houses with views of the devastation industrialization has wrought on the Chinese countryside?

        • EndtheFed

          Houses are subject to the laws of supply and demand just like everything else.

          With easy credit available for too long, you get malinvestment when everyone and their mother is suddenly approved for a home mortgage. For example, “flipping” houses became so popular that there is even a few reality tv shows about it. Everybody assumed housing prices were going to keep skyrocketing forever, and as a result, demand for houses was way up. Producing homes to meet the demand seemed like a good idea to businessmen.

          When the bubble began to burst and people started defaulting on their mortgage payments, the illusion of demand for homes disappeared. Only now there were twice as many homes on the market, meaning the supply was way up.

          The rules of supply and demand say that when supply is high and demand is low, prices fall.

          The people at McDonald’s shouldn’t have been approved for a $250 000 house to begin with. You can blame that on government intervention. Greenspan certainly boasted about making homes affordable (up until the crash).

          When you artifically set interest rates, the businessman is unable to measure properly the allocation of production over time. The result is that you end up producing things that nobody needs. This is why the government is powerless to stimulate the economy by lowering the interest rate. All that does is create malinvestment that wastes resources which COULD have been used to produce something that adds REAL value to the economy.

          In short, government intervention is responsible for the violent turbulence in housing prices.

        • GB

          Yes, IMO, too much credit caused houses to “deflate” (perhaps better to say “disinflate”), in that the too-rapid run up in home prices prior to your three-year period example led to the contraction we’re seeing. Same thing happened in the late 1920’s. Artificial stimulus led to today’s contraction.

          I will not try and convince you on inflation being a monetary phenomenon, but will say I find your tone rude. Have a good one.

  • burb72

    doug, ok like 2 mins before you got the floor at 730, paul said 100-200 al qaeda are in afghanistan. then you said we are there fighting al qaeda???wtf