Processing your request, Please wait....
Promote Liberty
Get the latest Ron Paul Bumper Stickers, T-Shirts, Posters, Mugs, Speakers, Mousepads, Shoes, Ties, and other Ron Paul Gear.
Ron Paul .com
Ron Paul is America's leading voice for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, sound money, and a pro-American foreign policy.
Ron Paul: Why Can’t We All Travel To Cuba?
24 Responses
by Ron Paul
Earlier this month, entertainers Jay-Z and Beyoncé were given a license by the US government to travel to Cuba. Because it is not otherwise legal for Americans to travel to Cuba, this trip was only permitted as a “cultural exchange” by the US Treasury Department. Many suspect that the permission was granted at least partly due to the fame, wealth, and political connections of the couple.
Some Members of Congress who continue to support the failed Cuba embargo, demanded that the Administration explain why these two celebrities were allowed to visit Cuba. The trip looked suspiciously like tourism, they argued in a letter to the White House, and American tourism is still not allowed in Cuba. They were photographed eating at the best restaurants, dancing, and meeting with average Cubans, which these Members of Congress frowned on.
Perhaps it is true that this couple used their celebrity status and ties to the White House to secure permission to travel, but the real question is, why can’t the rest of us go?
The Obama administration has lifted some of the most onerous restrictions on travel to Cuba imposed under the previous Bush administration, but for the average American, travel to the island is still difficult if not impossible.
However, even those who are permitted to go to Cuba are not allowed to simply engage in tourist activities — to spend their money as they wish or relax on a beach.
The US government demands that the few Americans it allows to travel to Cuba only engage in what it deems “purposeful travel,” to “support civil society in Cuba; enhance the free flow of information to, from, and among the Cuban people; and help promote their independence from Cuban authorities.” They must prove that they maintain a full-time schedule of educational activities, according to Treasury guidelines for “people-to-people” travel.
Leave it to the federal government to make the prospect of visiting that sunny Caribbean island sound so miserable.
The reason the US so severely restricts and scripts the activities of the few Americans allowed to travel to Cuba is that it believes travel must promote the goal of taking “important steps in reaching the widely shared goal of a Cuba that respects the basic rights of all its citizens.”
Although I have no illusions about the Cuban government – or any government for that matter — it is ironic that the US chose to locate a prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba because the indefinite detention and torture that took place there would have been illegal on US soil. Further, the US government continues to hold more than 100 prisoners there indefinitely even though they have not been found guilty of a crime and in fact dozens are “cleared for release” but not allowed to leave.
Does the administration really believe that the rest of the world is not annoyed by its “do as we say, not as we do” attitude?
We are told by supporters of the Cuba embargo and travel ban that we must take such measures to fight the communists in charge of that country. Americans must be prohibited from traveling to Cuba, they argue, because tourist dollars would only be used to prop up the unelected Castro regime. Ironically, our restrictive travel policies toward Cuba actually mirror the travel policies of the communist countries past and present. Under communist rule in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere it was only the well-connected elites who were allowed to travel overseas – people like Jay-Z and Beyoncé. The average citizen was not permitted the right.
Although the current administration’s slight loosening of the restrictions is a small step in the right direction, it makes no sense to continue this nearly half-century old failed policy. Freedom to travel is a fundamental right. Restricting this fundamental right in the name of human rights is foolish and hypocritical.
Homeschooling: The Future of Liberty
52 Responses
by Ron Paul
A common feature of authoritarian regimes is the criminalization of alternatives to government-controlled education. Dictators recognize the danger that free thought poses to their rule, and few things promote the thinking of “unapproved” thoughts like an education controlled by parents instead of the state. That is why the National Socialist (Nazi) government of Germany outlawed homeschooling in 1938.
Sadly, these Nazi-era restrictions on parental rights remain the law in Germany, leaving parents who wish greater control over their children’s education without options. That is why in 2006 Uwe and Hannalore Romeike, a German couple who wanted to homeschool their three children for religious reasons, sought asylum in the United States. Immigration judge Lawrence Burman upheld their application for asylum, recognizing that the freedom of parents to homeschool was a “basic human right.”
Unfortunately, the current US administration does not see it that way, and has announced that it is appealing Judge Burman’s decision. If the administration is successful, the Romeikes could be sent back to Germany where they will be forced to send their children to schools whose teaching violates their religious beliefs. If they refuse, they face huge fines, jail time, or even the loss of custody of their children!
The Administration’s appeal claims that the federal government has the constitutional authority to ban homeschooling in all fifty states. The truth is, the Constitution gives the federal government no power to control any aspect of education. Furthermore, parents who, like the Romeikes, have a religious motivation for homeschooling should be protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
The federal government’s hostility to homeschooling is shared by officials at all levels of government. Despite the movement’s success in legalizing homeschooling in every state, many families are still subjected to harassment by local officials. The harassment ranges from “home visits” by child protective agencies to criminal prosecution for violating truancy laws.
Every American who values liberty should support the homeschoolers’ cause. If the government can usurp parental authority over something as fundamental as the education of their children, there is almost no area of parenthood off limits to government interference.
Homeschooling has proven to be an effective means of education. We are all familiar with the remarkable academic achievements, including in national spelling bees and other competitions, by homeshcooled children. In addition, homeschooled students generally fare better than their public school educated peers on all measures of academic performance.
It makes sense that children do better when their education is controlled by those who know their unique needs best, rather than by a federal bureaucrat. A strong homeschooling movement may also improve other forms of education. If competition improves goods and services in other areas of life, why wouldn’t competition improve education? A large and growing homeschooling movement could inspire public and private schools to innovate and improve.
When the government interferes with a parent’s ability to choose the type of education that is best for their child, it is acting immorally and in manner inconsistent with a free society. A government that infringes on the rights of homeschooling will eventually infringe on the rights of all parents. Homeschooled children are more likely to embrace the philosophy of freedom, and to join the efforts to restore liberty. In fact, I would not be surprised if the future leaders of the liberty movement where homeschooled.
I believe so strongly in the homeschooling movement that I have just announced my own curriculum for homeschooling families. Please visit this revolutionary new project at http://www.ronpaulcurriculum.com.
Ron Paul: The Great Cyprus Bank Robbery
53 Responses
by Ron Paul
The dramatic recent events in Cyprus have highlighted the fundamental weakness in the European banking system and the extreme fragility of fractional reserve banking. Cypriot banks invested heavily in Greek sovereign debt, and last summer’s Greek debt restructuring resulted in losses equivalent to more than 25 percent of Cyprus’ GDP. These banks then took their bad investments to the government, demanding a bailout from an already beleaguered Cypriot treasury. The government of Cyprus then turned to the European Union (EU) for a bailout.
The terms insisted upon by the troika (European Commission, European Central Bank, International Monetary Fund) before funding the bailout were nothing short of highway robbery. While bank depositors have traditionally been protected in the event of bankruptcy or liquidation, the troika insisted that all bank depositors pay a tax of between 6.75 and 10 percent of their total deposits to help fund the bailout.
While one can sympathize with EU taxpayers not wanting to fund yet another bailout of a poorly-managed banking system, forcing the Cypriot people to pay for the foolish risks taken by their government and bankers is also criminal. In their desire to punish a “tax haven” catering supposedly to Russian oligarchs, the EU elites ensured that ordinary citizens would suffer just as much as foreign depositors. Imagine the reaction if in September 2008, the US government had financed its $700 billion bank bailout by directly looting American taxpayers’ bank accounts!
While the Cypriot parliament rejected that first proposal, they will have no say in the final proposal delivered by the EU and IMF: deposits over 100,000 euros are likely to see losses of at least 40 percent and possibly as much as 80 percent. “Temporary” capital controls that were supposed to last for days will now last at least a month and might remain in effect for years.
Especially affected have been the elderly, who were unable to use ATMs or to transfer money electronically. Despite the fact that ATMs severely limited the size of withdrawals during the two week-long bank closure, reports indicated that account holders who had access to Cypriot bank branches in London and Athens were able to withdraw most of their funds, leading to speculation that there would be no money available when banks finally opened up again. In other words, the supposed Russian oligarch money may well be already gone.
Remember that under a fractional reserve banking system only a small percentage of deposits is kept on hand for dispersal to depositors. The rest of the money is loaned out. Not only are many of the loans made by these banks going bad, but the reserve requirement in Euro-system countries is only one percent! If just one euro out of every hundred is withdrawn from banks, the bank reserves would be completely exhausted and the whole system would collapse. Is it any wonder, then, that the EU fears a major bank run and has shipped billions of euros to Cyprus?
The elites in the EU and IMF failed to learn their lesson from the popular backlash to these tax proposals, and have openly talked about using Cyprus as a template for future bank bailouts. This raises the prospect of raids on bank accounts, pension funds, and any investments the government can get its hands on. In other words, no one’s money is safe in any financial institution in Europe. Bank runs are now a certainty in future crises, as the people realize that they do not really own the money in their accounts. How long before bureaucrat and banker try that here?
Unfortunately, all of this is the predictable result of a fiat paper money system combined with fractional reserve banking. When governments and banks collude to monopolize the monetary system so that they can create money out of thin air, the result is a business cycle that wreaks havoc on the economy. Pyramiding more and more loans on top of a tiny base of money will create an economic house of cards just waiting to collapse. The situation in Cyprus should be both a lesson and a warning to the United States. We need to end the Federal Reserve, stay away from propping up the euro, and return to a sound monetary system.
Ron Paul on the Lew Rockwell Show: Empire, Blood and Banking
Leave a response
Transcript
Lew Rockwell: Good morning, this is the Lew Rockwell Show, and what an honor it is to have Dr. Ron Paul as our guest. What do we say about Dr. Paul, I can take up the entire podcast just describing his qualifications and his achievements. And I’ll not even begin to go over them, I’ll just simply say he’s the great leader for liberty, free markets and Austrian Economics, he has influenced millions of people all over the world, especially the young people. Ron, it’s great to have you with us, and I thought we’d get started by talking about your wonderful last column where you discussed the neo-cons, the people who seem to want perpetual war, the role Will Kristol and similar intellectuals are playing in promoting the warfare state and the empire.
Ron Paul: Yes, Kristol had written this recent article and he was lamenting the fact that the problem with Americans is they get war-weary after ten years or more and many, after many deaths and hundreds of thousands of people suffering, and an epidemic of suicides. And people get sick and tired of it, and he’s crying about it. But he goes in and tries to expand on this that we didn’t end the World War II right, we didn’t fight Vietnam long enough, 60,000 lives lost weren’t enough, so he goes on and on. But, hopefully, he’ll lose credibility. Unfortunately, the neo-cons have a lot to say about the war propaganda that gets out and converts the people into a pro-war stance. But maybe he went over the top this time, but I’m not holding my breath, because, so often, the American people start off being quite opposed to war. Just look at the Iraqi war, 60% – 70% people were opposed to it then the neo-cons came in with the war propaganda and changed that. Even before World War II, most Americans were opposed to us getting involved until things were orchestrated in a certain way that the people more or less had to join in. But no, I think the neo-cons should lose credibility, which means that he doesn’t want us to ever leave Iraq, ever leave Afghanistan, he wants us to continue to build up in Syria, and he’s the kind of guy that anxious for us to march on to Iran. It is scary, and I wish the people would wake up, but I’m sort of subtly optimistic that this will have to end, and, in a sad sort of way in one sense, in that this country we will be bankrupt and we will have to quit, more of less how the soviets had to give up their empire. So, maybe some good could come out of a bit of a financial crisis that will come, and we have to admit that this financial crisis has been perpetuated and extenuated by the fact that we spend all this money on the military and on all these useless wars.
Continue reading “Ron Paul on the Lew Rockwell Show: Empire, Blood and Banking”
Ron Paul: Neo-Con War Addiction Threatens Our Future
21 Responses
by Ron Paul
William Kristol knows what is wrong with the United States. As he wrote recently in the flagship magazine of the neo-conservatives, the Weekly Standard, the problem with the US is that we seem to have lost our appetite for war. According to Kristol, the troubles that have befallen us in the 20th century have all been the result of these periodic bouts of war-weariness, a kind of virus that we catch from time to time.
He claims because of the US “drawdown” in Europe after World War II, Stalin subjugated Eastern Europe. Because of war weariness the United States stopped bombing Southeast Asia in the 1970s, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. War weariness through the 1990s led to Rwanda, Milosevic, and the rise of the Taliban. It was our fault for not fighting on! According to Kristol, our failure to act as the policeman of the world is why we were attacked on September 11, 2001. Of the 1990s, he wrote, “[t]hat decade of not policing the world ended with 9/11.”
That revisionism is too much even for fellow neo-conservatives like Paul Wolfowitz to swallow. In a 2003 interview, Wolfowitz admitted that it was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia that led to the growth of al-Qaeda:
“(W)e can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It’s been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina.”
But for Kristol and his allies there is never enough war. According to a new study by Brown University, the US invasion of Iraq cost some 190,000 lives, most of them non-combatants. It has cost more than $1.7 trillion, and when all is said and done including interest the cost may well be $6 trillion. Some $212 billion was spent on Iraqi reconstruction with nothing to show for it. Total deaths from US war on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan have been at least 329, 000. None of this is enough for Kristol.
The neo-con ideology promotes endless war, but neo-cons fight their battles with the blood of others. From the comfortable, subsidized offices of magazines like the Weekly Standard, the neo-conservatives urge the United States to engage in endless war – to be fought by the victims of the “poverty draft” from states where there are few jobs. Ironically, these young people cannot find more productive work because the Federal Reserve’s endless money printing to keep the war machine turning has destroyed our economy. The six trillion dollars that will be spent on the Iraq war are merely pieces of printed paper that further erode the dollar’s purchasing power now and well into the future. It is the inflation tax, which is the most regressive and cruel of all.
Yes, Americans are war weary, concedes Kristol. But he does not blame the average American. The real problem is that the president has dropped the ball on terrifying Americans with the lies and imaginary threats that led to the invasion of Iraq. Writes Kristol: “One can’t, for example, be surprised at the ebbing support of the American public for the war in Afghanistan years after the president stopped trying to mobilize their support, stopped heralding the successes of the troops he’d sent there, and stopped explaining the importance of their mission.”
If only we had more war propaganda from the highest levels of government we could be cured of this war-weariness. Ten years ago the US invaded Iraq under the influence of neo-conservative lies. Those lies continued to promote US military action in places like Libya, and next on their agenda is Syria and then on to Iran. It is time for the American people to shout “enough!”
Ron Paul: Let’s Not Over-React to North Korean Saber Rattling
15 Responses
Tensions on the Korean peninsula have again reached a flashpoint, as the US and South Korea trade threats with the government of North Korea. North Korea has threatened retaliation for US/South Korean provocations and has, it claims, abrogated the armistice that ended the Korean War some 60 years ago.
On the other side, the US and South Korea held a three day naval exercise last month that included, among many other warships, an American nuclear-powered submarine. This month, the US and South Korea are conducting another joint military exercise, this time with the US flying nuclear-capable B-52 bombers over the Korean peninsula.
Much of the current escalation came after the US drew up yet another set of sanctions for the UN Security Council to impose on North Korea. US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, who drafted the language, promised that this round of sanctions “will bite and bite hard.” That is unlikely, as sanctions have a pretty lousy track record. However, the North Korean government retaliated against the new sanctions with bellicose threats to launch a nuclear first strike against the US.
The US response to the threats has been entirely predictable. Rather than seek a way to tone down the rhetoric, newly confirmed Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced that the Pentagon, which just weeks ago claimed the “sequestration” would leave the US defenseless, would spend another billion dollars to deploy additional missile interceptors along the Pacific. This means money and jobs for a military-industrial complex that never really faced any threat of belt-tightening, as both parties continue to view the military as essentially a jobs program.
Secretary Hagel, when announcing the additional $1 billion spending spree, sounded far more hawkish than his recent dovish defenders probably hoped, stating, “We will strengthen our homeland defense, maintain our commitments to our allies and partners, and make clear to the world that the United States stands firm against aggression.” Obviously, monthly US-South Korean joint military exercises near North Korean borders are not considered aggression. Only North Korean bellicosity. I wonder how the Obama Administration would view a Chinese-Mexican joint military exercise on the Texas border.
Where will it all end? From the look of it, not well. The US foreign policy playbook has only one page: do the same thing over and over that has not worked in the past and hope it begins to work in the future.
The real question is why are we still in Korea at all. Why, after 60 years, is the United States military still occupying South Korea, patrolling its borders, inserting itself into the dispute between North and South? What might have happened if the US had not maintained such a force in Korea, enforcing the De-Militarized Zone (DMZ) and keeping families on either side from having contacts with each other?
The popular view is that because North Korea is an isolated dictatorship run by irrationals, the only possible US response is to keep the situation militarized. To maintain the military threat. To continue to provoke. And always, impose more US-authored sanctions. However, one reason North Korea is isolated is the isolationist policies of the US government. It is isolationist to impose sanctions, to prohibit Americans from doing business, to impede or forbid travel by US citizens to countries with which the US government disagrees. North Korea is isolated in part because our government has isolated it. North Korea threatens to attack South Korea and the United States partly because South Korea and the United States continue to mount very provocative military exercises on North Korea’s border. That does not mean that I am in favor of the North Korean government. Far from it. Nor do I believe they are necessarily in favor of peace. But I do recognize when a policy is counter-productive.
I am the opposite of an isolationist. I believe we must engage the rest of the world, not with force or arms or hectoring about internal political developments. We must engage the rest of the world with our ideas, bringing people together rather than building walls or DMZs to keep them apart. A change in our policy may not produce an instant opening or improvement, but haven’t we tried the old, failed approach long enough? Does continuing to provoke North Korea show any real hope of diffusing the gathering storm?
What is the real Korean threat? The real “Korea threat” is the threat to the US economy by over-reacting to saber rattling by a third world country with another billion dollars in military spending. We cannot afford this empire, and sooner or later it will end.
Ron Paul Endorses Anti-Fed Movie “Silver Circle”
1 Response
Silver Circle, the animated, anti-Federal Reserve film that is hitting New York City tonight (3/22) for its official theater release was officially endorsed by Former Congressman, and legendary figure in the End the Fed movement, Dr. Ron Paul!
Ron Paul: “I am very excited about Silver Circle, which spreads the message of liberty and sound money via an exciting tale of a future where the Federal Reserve has killed the dollar, the US economy has collapsed, and the federal government has slid into complete authoritarianism. Fortunately, a brave band of rebels works to restore liberty and undermine the Federal Reserve’s power via an alternative currency.
Using popular culture to spread our message is key to the long-term victory of our rEVOLUtion, as movies like Silver Circle enable us to reach audiences who otherwise might not be exposed to the ideas of liberty.”
Ron Paul most notably became connected with Silver Circle when he held up a one ounce Silver Circle round in front of Ben Bernanke in a financial committee testimony over a year ago. Now, just 24 hours before the official premiere of Silver Circle in New York City, Ron Paul has come out with supportive words about the indie film’s tackling of a very serious subject in an entertaining way.
Experience the rebellion tomorrow and into next week at Cinema Village in New York City for the premiere of Silver Circle. Click here to reserve your seats!
About Silver Circle
Why are gas prices are so high? Why is it getting harder to put food on the table? Some seek answers from government, but those who control the money control everything. Silver Circle is the story of our world in 2019, after the worst economic collapse in US history. Powerful players within the Federal Reserve use the crisis as an opportunity to grab power, forming the Department of Housing Stability (HousStab). Opposite them stands a group of Underground Rebels led by the tenacious Zoe Taylor (Philana Mia). As the Rebels put their lives and secret hideout on the line, Zoe confronts a vigilant federal agent, Jay Nelson (De’Lon Grant), asking him to question his own allegiance to the Fed and join their cause. This film represents a new venture in the liberty movement; educating and sharing ideas through pop culture and creative story-telling.
