Congressman Paul discusses U.S. failed interventionist policy and Walter Reed.

This video includes Ron Paul, Lou Dobbs, Judge Napolitano, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin & Bob Barr as they all talk about the excesses of Federal interventionism. Wars, occupations, civil liberty violations... when will it ever end? When we are free from DC. Sic Semper Tyrannus

The recent GOP debates have been a learning process for many of the Neo-Conservatives. First Rudy got a little education and now McCain can get some good information he can use from the good Dr. Paul about the difference between Isolationism and Non-Interventionism.. I also got a plug in here for the Austin Ron Paul Revolution. http://ronpaul.meetup.com/14/

On Monday 30th April, a panel of leading Ministers, MPs, and thinkers came together in the Houses of Parliament to discuss the future of humanitarian intervention, after the conflict in Iraq. Discussion topics included the recent crisis in both Darfur and also Somalia, the failure of the Left to deal with the arguments surrounding the promotion of democracy and international law, and the future for intervention. The speakers were: - Rt. Hon. Hilary Benn MP, the Secretary of State for International Development and a candidate for the Labour party deputy leadership. Prof. Brian Brivati, Professor of Contemporary History and Human Rights at Kingston University. Nick Cohen, journalist for the Observer and New Statesman, and author of 'What's Left? How Liberals lost their way'. Brendan Cox, Director of CrisisAction and co-organiser of Day for Darfur. Gary Kent, Director of Labour Friends of Iraq. Pat McFadden MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Cabinet Office The meeting was chaired by: Karen Pollock, Chief Executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust. This is clip 1/8, all clips are available on youtube.com/eustonmanifesto

I am no longer a paleocon but a market anarchist libertarian...

http://causeoffreedom.blogspot.com http://paulestine.blogspot.com http://libertyia.ning.com http://www.myspace.com/mercedforfreedom learn economics: http://www.FAME.org http://www.mises.org

Braveheart Ron Paul is among the few individuals who are an asset to any nation. United States is lucky to have a brave, unbigoted, courageous, intelligent and kind Son of Liberty like Dr. Ron Paul.

Business owner "Delfina" moves to Hillary Clinton after voting for George W. Bush (twice) over national security issues.

This video forms part of my project for an art class at Paderborn university, taught by Dr. Inga Lemke. Music: "More Than A Woman" by the "Bee Gees"

This video forms part of my project for an art class at Paderborn university, taught by Dr. Inga Lemke. Music: "Jump" by "House of Pain" (1992) The video images are entirely composed of 3 seconds of an arte news-clip covering a conference about changes in world climate.

...

http://campaignforliberty.com/ Ron Paul discusses his non-interventionist policies vs. the current top two candidates interventionism on CNN.

Is the financial meltdown a crisis of capitalism or interventionism?

Republican: A History Lesson About Republican Wars, Interventions, And Liberations This took me a while to make and I couldn't list all the sources it took to finish this. I'm sick and tired of Ron Paul and Bob Barr cultists telling me what my party used to stand for. I'm tired of non-interventionists calling me a neo-conservative just because I'm not a carbon copy of Robert Taft. News flash- Taft lost to Eisenhower and he lost for a reason. The Isolationists and non-interventionists NEVER had firm control of the Republican Party except during a select few years as a result of WWI and American contempt for Europe. Only two real isolationist Republicans ever got elected president, Harding and Hoover, who both kind of sucked and even still followed interventionism quietly while denouncing it in public. Truly, people only supported non-interventionism when it came to global, European disputes, and I can't blame them. That didn't stop them, though, from intervention in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. I'll repeat it again, the Party was never firmly isolationist or non-interventionist. In fact, the Republican Party was founded on interventionist philosophy. It emerged from the ashes of the Free Soil Party and Whig Party out of an effort to stop the expansion of slavery. So it's true that some conservatives and Republicans, after seeing young Americans go off to fight and die for imperialist Europeans for no reason, didn't want anything to do with getting involved in world affairs or global disputes. But that doesn't mean Libertarians can go around telling me what my party used to stand for, because the anti-Europe and anti-war sentiment didn't start until WWI came around. But what about before WWI? Are we going to completely ignore the first Republican presidents and statesmen? Lincoln defeated the South and occupied it and Republicans put in military governments. Grant continued this and fought the Ku Klux Klan, the terrorist wing of the beaten Democratic Party, and oversaw Reconstruction. William McKinley lead the US in the Spanish-American War and liberated Spanish colonies and ended human rights abuses, and intervened elsewhere in places like China during the Boxer Rebellion. Roosevelt followed McKinley with Big Stick Diplomacy. Taft with Dollar Diplomacy. Why forget that conservatives and Republicans were NOT originally like Robert Taft? Because it's easier than learning the facts. The Party has always been interventionist. Some times in the early 20th century after the Wilson era that was less obvious, but from Fremont to McCain we've stood strong in the belief that freedom is worth fighting for. From the Civil War, to Indian Wars, to Banana Wars, to the Spanish-American War, to the many interventions before, during, and after the Cold War, conservative Republicans have answered the call. Hell, many generals and soldiers have historically been Republicans like Eisenhower, MacArthur, Grant, and Pershing. The military today is overwhelmingly Republican and conservative. These are not neo-con allegations; these are the facts. If almost every conservative and/or Republican since Fremont and Lincoln have been chickenhawk neo-conservatives, then the Ron Paul types are nothing but chickenchicken neo-isolationists. Truth- It's what's for dinner!

Hillary lied about her trip to Bosnia. BUT DO WE REMEMBER WHY WE WERE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? It was good old Tony Blair and Bill Clinton's "Humanitarian Interventionism": remember that? This wasn't even mentioned! WE NEED RON PAUL: NO INTERVENTIONISM, NO NATION-BUILDING! Was our intervention successful? Well Kosovo recently claimed independence which Russia doesn't recognise; yeah we sorted them out! HILARY, DO YOU HAVE THE SAME POLICY AS BILL AND BELIEVE IN HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTIONSM? IF SO, HOW MUCH WILL IT COST AMERICA?

Senator John "what the hell is wrong with your neck" McCain was sharply rebuked by the honorable Ron Paul. Even the audience boo'ed McCain's attempt to pass off the prefered propaganda of choice of the pro-zionoist lobby. I actually had indifference towards John McCain until this incident during the debates, but for me, this was the last straw. Keith Olberman called out McCain the following day on Countdown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBfAedeP_PI Let's take a moment and laugh at sleepy Senator John McCain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TPN00EofE8

http://italians4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ Ron Paul CNN debate reagan library italian transl. (slow) he wants to know if you agree with Senator McCain's statement that the United States might need to have U.S. troops in Iraq for as long as even 100 years? Onorevole Paul, questa domanda viene da Jay Majumdar (ph) da Roswell, Georgia il quale vuole sapere se è d'accordo con l'affermazione del Senatore McCain per il quale gli Stati Uniti potrebbero avere bisogno di mantenere le truppe in Iraq per tutto il tempo necessario, fossero anche cent'anni. PAUL: I don't even think they should have gone, so keeping them for 100 years, where's the money going to come from? Paul: I penso che non sarebbero neppure dovute andare e e tanto meno di doverle lasciare lì per cento anni. Dove troveremmo i soldi? (APPLAUSE) You know, the country is in bankruptcy. And when I listen to this argument, I mean, I find it rather silly, because they're arguing technicalities of a policy they both agree with. Vede, il paese è in bancarotta. E quando sento queste affermazioni, voglio dire, le trovo pazzesche, stanno entrambi discutendo di semplici particolari di una visione della politica estera sui cui sono più o meno d'accordo. They agreed with going in; they agreed for staying, agreed for staying how many years? And these are technicalities. We should be debating foreign policy, whether we should have interventionism or non-interventionism, whether we should be defending this country or whether we should be the policemen of the world, whether we should be running our empire or not, and how are going to have guns and butter? Erano d'accordo sul fatto di andare, erano d'accordo sul dover restare, di restare per quanto tempo è la domanda? Queste sono sfumatre. Dovremmo essere qui a discutere di politica estera, se è il caso che si debba adottare una politica interventista oppure no, se vogliamo defendere il nostro paese oppure se vogliamo essere i poliziotti del mondo, se vogliamo governare un impero oppure no, e come pensiamo di avere la botte piena e la moglie ubriaca. You know, the '70s were horrible because we paid for the guns and butters of the '60s. Now we're doing the same thing. And nobody even seems to care. The dollar is crashing, and you're talking about these technicalities about who said what when? Vede, gli anni 70 sono stati orribili perché abbiamo voluto la botte piena e la moglie ubriaca nel decennio precedente. Ora stiamo facendo la stessa cosa. E nessuno sembra accorgersene. Il dollaro sta crollando, e noi siamo qua a discutere sul chi ha detto che cosa e quando? I mean, in 1952, we Republicans were elected to stop the war in Korea. In 1968, we were elected to stop the war in Vietnam. And, tragically, we didn't stop it very fast: 30,000 more men died. Voglio dire, nel 1952, noi repubblicani siamo stati eletti per porre fine alla guerra in Korea. Nel 1968 siamo stati eletti per porre fine alla guerra in Vietnam. E tragicamente, non l'abbiamo fatto abbastanza in fretta: altri 30.000 soldati hanno fatto in tempo a morire. So when I talk about these long-term stays, I think, "How many men are you willing to let die for this, for something that has nothing to do with our national security?" Quindi, quando mi trovo a discutere su queste permanenze che si protraggono, penso: "quanti uomini abbiamo intenzione di lasciar morire, per qualcosa che non ha nulla a che fare con la nostra sicurezza nazionale?" There were no al Qaeda there. It had nothing do with 9/11. And there was no threat to our national security. They never committed aggression. It's unconstitutional. It's an undeclared war. Non c'era nessuna al Qaeda laggiù. Non Aveva nulla a che fare con l'11 settembre. E non c'era nessuna minaccia per la nostra sicurezza. Non ci hanno mai aggredito. È una guerra incostituzionale. È una guerra che non è stata neppure dichiarata. And we have these silly arguments going on about who said what when. I think it's time to debate foreign policy and why we don't follow the Constitution and only go to war with a declaration of war. E ci ritroviamo a portare avanti queste discussioni pazzesche sul chi ha detto che cosa e quando. I penso che sia tempo di discutere di politica estera e sul perché non seguiamo i dettami della costituzione ed andiamo in guerra almeno con una dichiarazione di guerra. (APPLAUSE) (less)

8/28/2008 Ron Paul discusses his non-interventionist policies vs. the current top two candidates interventionism on CNN. http://campaignforliberty.com

Ron Paul gives a speech on non-interventionist foreign policy based on his book, "A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship" to The Future Freedom Foundation's "Restoring the Republic: Foreign Policy & Civil Liberties" conference, June 3, 2007, at the Hyatt Regency Reston, in Reston, Virginia.

Ron Paul gives a speech on non-interventionist foreign policy based on his book, "A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship" to The Future Freedom Foundation's "Restoring the Republic: Foreign Policy & Civil Liberties" conference, June 3, 2007, at the Hyatt Regency Reston, in Reston, Virginia.

Ron Paul gives a speech on non-interventionist foreign policy based on his book, "A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship" to The Future Freedom Foundation's "Restoring the Republic: Foreign Policy & Civil Liberties" conference, June 3, 2007, at the Hyatt Regency Reston, in Reston, Virginia.

This is a classic and timely speech by the legendary Charles Lindbergh on the subject of non-interventionism in European affairs. He gave this presentation at an America First rally a couple months prior to the December 7, 1941 "surprise attack" by Japan on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor. The majority of the American people wanted no part of the conflicts raging in Europe and Asia, but behind the scenes President Franklin D. Roosevelt, while promising to keep the U.S. out of any these wars, was secretly steering the country into them. The historical record conclusively proves that the Roosevelt administration had advance knowledge of the Japanese plan to strike Pearl Harbor but did nothing to warn military commanders in Hawaii to have it prevented. The attack was allowed to go forward so America would be forced into another world war just as Roosevelt had been planning all along to legitimize communism and further the drive to build world government under the United Nations that would be created at the close of the war. Links to informative news articles and essays by The New American magazine: Dauntless High Flyer Charles Lindbergh campaigned to keep the United States out of war as leader of the America First Committee, then placed himself in harm's way when we did go to war. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_/ai_n25010897 Pearl Harbor: The Facts Behind the Fiction The raid on Pearl Harbor took the U.S. Pacific Fleet by surprise, but back in Washington, the Roosevelt administration was fully aware of the coming onslaught. http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=403975945&blogID=445421556 Motives Behind the Betrayal No explanation of Pearl Harbor is more consistent with the facts than to cast blame for the treachery on pro-Communist and globalist influences within FDRs administration. http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=403975945&blogID=445422243 Why We Fought Despite popular misconceptions, America's involvement in WWII was brought on not by isolationism but by globalism—a concerted, clandestine effort to build world government. http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=403975945&blogID=445423809 The FDR Legacy: Lest We Forget http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=403975945&blogID=447049456 FDR's Patriot Purge In its efforts to suppress patriotic dissent, the pro-soviet FDR administration used many of the tactics falsely attributed to Senator Joe McCarthy. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_/ai_n25069553 Minding Our Own Business American foreign policy has moved away from the prudent non-interventionism of the founders to the present policy of global police action and empire building. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_/ai_n25044077 Fallacies of Isolationism Exposed Internationalists claim that "isolationism" causes incidents like Black Tuesday, but their faulty logic — and the value of minding one's own business — is easily demonstrated. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_/ai_n25044078 Sowing the Wind: Myths and Realities of the Second World War http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=403975945&blogID=447046748 Irreconcilable Differences In 1919, a group of patriotic senators saved America from becoming entangled in the fledgling League of Nations. These stalwart souls became known as "The Irreconcilables." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_/ai_n25058113

9/18/2008 Congressman Ron Paul has issued a stinging address concerning the financial crisis in which he outlines how the current economic problems, created via malinvestment and shift to a debt based economy, are now being mismanaged by private interests in secret. Whats more he says he is not sure the Federal Reserve has any idea what to do next and that the Congress is totally oblivious to the whole sorry state of affairs - a cocktail of elements he warns puts the middle class of America in serious jeopardy. Today we had a lot of financial fireworks in the markets, a lot of things are going on, and I think we are in the middle of something very big. the Congressman stated. Speaking on the recent collapse and government bailout of several big financial institutions he warned: Were talking about big bucks, were not talking about hundreds of millions or even hundreds of billions, were talking about trillions of dollars, the obligation is immeasurable. The interesting thing is that they (the financial institutions) dont come to the Congress, I mean the Federal Reserve buys them out, they own it. We as tax payers now own Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and know one knows how much that will cost. They dont come to the Congress, we dont have appropriations, its done by secret government, private individuals behind the scenes maneuvering and manipulating and trying to patch things up. While in the meantime, Im sure theres a few people making a couple of bucks out of this whole thing. The Congressman highlighted how an economy structured on debt and credit and a financial system based on interventionism and self serving moral hazard has led to gross devaluation of the dollar and ultimately lies at the root of the current financial meltdown. Our problems come first of all from the Federal Reserve. It is a monopoly and it controls interest rates artificially low, causes people to make mistakes, thats the basic source. But then on top of that in the Housing market we had the community reinvestment act which told investors that they had to loan to risky borrowers, and that was a risky complication. HUD contributes to this, FDIC contributes, its called moral hazard, everything that we have done over here creates moral hazard, that is we assure people or assume that we will take care of everybody, just go out and create the risk, it is the opposite of the market place. Paul stated. You cant create money like were doing in order to support the dollar, because ultimately it hurts the dollar and everything we do in Washington today whether its on the appropriations side, whether its what the Fed is doing, buying up America, its all putting pressure on the dollar. One of these days were just going to have to wake up and say that we need to liquidate debt. This is malinvestment. he urged. The Congressman then slammed those who have blamed the crisis on failures of the free market: And then they have people come along and say see, this is the failure of capitalism, this has nothing to do with capitalism, this is something that started off as interventionism and us being too involved in the economy for the benefit of special interests. But now it is being socialized out in the open. The end of this comes when people reject the dollar and I think were getting awfully close to this. Paul stated echoing comments from leading investors such as Jim Rogers, who predicted Monday that the dollar would soon lose its world reserve status. When you see the movement in the markets that we have today, you know that there are serious problems out there and Congress basically are oblivious, they have no idea whats going on. Paul continued. As a matter of fact Im not even sure the Federal Reserve has any idea what to do about this. Theyve been manipulating and maneuvering for their own benefit over the years but eventually the market wins out. The Congressmans comments were echoed today by reports indicating that the Congress cannot agree on any form of action and is likely to simply adjourn and get out of the way. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters that no one knows what to do. In a stark warning, Ron Paul stressed that the longer the value of the dollar is allowed to depreciate, the greater the risk becomes for the majority of Americans: The reason this is so important is that if you care about people in a humanitarian sense, what you want to do is protect the value of the money. Just think of the third world nations when they have total run away inflation, the middle class gets wiped out. And what we are seeing today is the middle class being jeopardized by this type of system that we have, unlimited spending, unlimited debt, unlimited creation of new credit. So its time that we wake up The answers are in the free market, sound money and our Constitution. Paul concluded. Watch the full address by the Congressman:

Ron Paul gives a speech on non-interventionist foreign policy based on his book, "A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship" to The Future Freedom Foundation's "Restoring the Republic: Foreign Policy & Civil Liberties" conference, June 3, 2007, at the Hyatt Regency Reston, in Reston, Virginia.

Some are blaming the economic crisis on capitalism, and saying this is the end of capitalism. Is it? Ron Paul gives us his thoughts.