YouTube Removes Ron Paul Page From Website, Cites ‘Repeated violations of Community Guidelines’

On Thursday, Ron Paul said YouTube had abruptly removed one of his pages without warning.

“Very shocked that @YouTube has completely removed the Channel of my Ron Paul Institute: no warning, no strikes, no evidence,” Paul said on Twitter. “Only explanation was "severe or repeated violations of our community guidelines." Channel is rarely used. The appeal was automatically rejected. Help?”

A separate page operated by the former Texas Congressman and presidential candidate, the Ron Paul Liberty Report, remains active on YouTube.

The news comes one day after the Washington Post ran an article noting that YouTube, which is owned by Google, is blocking “all anti-vaccine content and banning prominent anti-vaccine activists.”

“YouTube is taking down several video channels associated with high-profile anti-vaccine activists including Joseph Mercola and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who experts say are partially responsible for helping seed the skepticism that’s contributed to slowing vaccination rates across the country,” the Post’s Gerrit De Vynck reported. “As part of a new set of policies aimed at cutting down on anti-vaccine content on the Google-owned site, YouTube will ban any videos that claim that commonly used vaccines approved by health authorities are ineffective or dangerous."

This is not the first time Dr. Paul has run afoul of Big Tech.

In January, Paul found himself locked out of his own Facebook page. The company later said the issue was the result of a page administrator’s access accidentally being removed, a mistake Facebook corrected.

A Thorny Issue

The growing problem of social media censorship is a thorny issue for libertarians. As private companies, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook have the right to decide what content they choose to allow on their platform. (Although the government has no right to intimidate these companies into censoring, as it evidently does.) That said, many see the cultural values of viewpoint diversity and the free exchange of ideas as the cornerstones of a tolerant society and classical liberalism.

This is why many viewed bans on controversial figures such as radio personality Alex Jones and former Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos as dangerous, even if they disagreed with many (or all) of the things they said.

“Twitter is a private company. It can set its own speech policies, and those policies don't have to be fair. There's no universal human right to own a Twitter account,” Reason’s Robby Soave pointed out after Milo Yiannopoulos was banned in 2016. “But if Twitter wants to live up to its stated commitment to maintaining a public forum where provocative, controversial, and even occasionally rude or hurtful speech is tolerated, then it should consider restoring Yiannopoulos's profile.”

Unfortunately, Big Tech has not listened to these sensible pleas. And as some predicted, the bans did not end with Jones and Yiannopoulos. More and more people have found themselves purged from social media platforms for Wrongthink.

How did we get here? I asked this very question when Paul was locked out of his account by Facebook earlier this year.

Banning the president of the United States was shocking. Taking action against Ron Paul is horrifying. It is senseless. Paul is a man of principle and peace. He is 85 and not active in politics. Paul does not incite violence and is a threat to no one.

How did we go from banning Alex Jones to taking action against Ron Paul in the space of two years? The answer is not hard to find. It lies in a principle abandoned.

“Once you start making exceptions to a universal principle/general rule, you begin to undermine it; it becomes easier to make further exceptions,” FEE’s Dan Sanchez pointed out in 2017. “If the hate speech of Nazis are to be restricted, why not the hate speech of traditionalist conservatives? If the violent, seditious rhetoric of Nazis are too dangerous to allow, why should the violent, seditious rhetoric of communists be tolerated, or any fundamental criticism of the government?”

Free Speech Is an Essential Value

Americans need to remember that having the power to silence someone is not the same thing as being correct. (As Tyrion Lannister noted in Game of Thrones, “When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”)

Free speech and free expression are vital to a vibrant society. And yet while stifling scientific discussion (even on sensitive topics like vaccines) runs counter to the very idea of scientific inquiry, Google and co. are under no obligation to embrace these values.

Fortunately, we live in a market economy. That means users have other options, and as some on Twitter suggested, it may be time for Americans to seek these options out.

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.

Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times. 

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

YouTube Removes Ron Paul Page From Website, Cites ‘Repeated violations of Community Guidelines’

Dr. Ron Paul: Unleash the Market to Lower Drug Prices

Whenever politicians say they’ll “do something” about high drug prices, disastrous discussion of price controls isn’t very far behind. It makes no sense because price controls lead to shortages and rationing which, in the case of pharmaceuticals, could cost lives.

Proponents of price controls pretend that high drug prices are a result of a free market in pharmaceuticals. This is the exact opposite of the truth. The real reason pharmaceutical prices are so high is government policies that allow big pharmaceutical companies to exclude their competitors from the marketplace. Therefore, an effective way to bring down the price of pharmaceuticals and increase access to the drugs is to reform by changing government policies that stifle the development of a competitive market in prescription drugs.

The CREATES Act

What we need is legislation that would inject needed competition into the drug industry, and we have that in the CREATES Act (H.R.2212;/S. .974). The CREATES Act creates a way to lower drug prices. It does so by making it much easier for drugs with expired patents to be sold in less expensive, generic brands.

Support for the bill crosses party and ideological lines. Liberal Democrats such as Dianne Feinstein and Richard Durbin and very conservative Republicans including my son Rand and my Senator Ted Cruz support this bill. Also included in the coalition are organizations as far afield as my Campaign for Liberty and the AARP.

This bill is broadly popular because it reforms government policies that allow big drug companies to obtain long-term monopoly protection by keeping their generic competitors out of the marketplace. This is key. Patents grant makers of new drugs temporary monopolies only, so they can recoup huge investments in research and development and use some of their profits to chase other cures. Once a patent has expired, other drug manufacturers are supposed to be able to reproduce a “generic” but effectively identical version of that drug so that consumers may purchase quality medicines at lower prices.

Whatever you think of this system (and there are good libertarians on all sides of this debate) most agree the current system is not working the way Congress intended. This is because too many drug companies exploit the complexity of the post-patent rules to make it very time-consuming and costly for competitors to enter the marketplace. They can even withhold supplies of their drugs from companies that—under Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules—must obtain them to make sure they’re copying them correctly. The result is the big drug companies are able to extend their de facto monopolies well beyond the intent of Congress, thus keeping the supply of the drugs artificially low and prices artificially high.

In one case that will not go away, drug maker Turing refused to sell its off-patent drug Daraprim to would-be competitors. That might not have been so bad but for the fact that the same company then turned around and hiked its prices from $14 a pill to $750. That they could get away with that with off-patent medicine is a sign that something needs to change.

The long-term solution is to reduce the power of the FDA and create a true free market in pharmaceuticals. The CREATES Act takes a step toward creating a competitive marketplace by ensuring generic drug companies can obtain the necessary samples to get FDA approval for their products and thus allow consumers to benefit from lower prices.


Ron Paul


Ron Paul is an American author, physician, and former politician. He served on the board of trustees of the Foundation for Economic Education.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Bernie vs. Ron Paul: There’s No Comparison

Bernie vs. Ron Paul: There’s No Comparison


Super Tuesday may have been the beginning of the end for the Bernie Sanders campaign, but the ideas that propelled it are likely to linger for quite some time. With some writers comparing Bernie to Ron Paul (not in terms of economics and philosophy, of course, but as insurgent candidates), now seemed like an opportune moment to examine the Sanders message and legacy, and compare it to Ron’s.

Like Ron, Bernie surprised all the pundits with his fundraising, polling, and electoral success. In fact, so successful has Sanders been that Hillary Clinton has been reduced to a pathetic and unconvincing “me, too” campaign — I can be just like Bernie, if that’s what you rubes want!

Bernie has gained a lot of traction from his complaints that Hillary is in the tank for Wall Street and the big banks. He’s likewise pointed to the six-figure honoraria Hillary has earned from speeches given to the big banks.

The best the now-hapless Bill Clinton could do in reply was to note that Bernie, too, had been paid to give speeches. Technically, Bill was right. Bernie had earned money from public speaking: a whopping $1,800 over the course of a year. The year before that, Bernie had earned $1,300 from public speaking. All of this money was donated to charity, as is the requirement for US senators.

It’s true that Bernie is better than Hillary on foreign policy, but in keeping with Rothbard’s Law — everyone concentrates in the area in which he is worst — Bernie speaks very little about issues of war and peace. And even there, consistency and principle are elusive: he supported Bill Clinton’s bombing of Serbia over Kosovo, an act of terror based on propaganda that rivaled anything George W. Bush ever peddled. Sanders favors the ongoing drone campaigns, too, and even supported the F-35, one of the biggest boondoggles in the Pentagon’s long and sorry history.

Bernie’s primary legacy will be to have resuscitated the idea of socialism in the minds of many Americans. It is a very confused socialism, to be sure. The young people who follow Bernie can’t even seem to define socialism, according to recent surveys. And in fact Bernie’s economics is really just a hyper-Keynesianism rather than out-and-out socialism. But by suggesting that the Scandinavian countries constitute a model that the United States should emulate, he has encouraged the idea that only large-scale, systemic change in the direction of vastly increased government power can produce the kind of society Americans want.

Capitalism ought to be our default position, since it conforms to the basic moral insights we acquired in our youth: keep your word, live up to your agreements, don’t take what doesn’t belong to you, and do not cause anyone physical harm.

But thanks to years of propaganda to the contrary, socialism has come to appear to many people as not simply a morally plausible position but clearly and obviously desirable and superior to the capitalist alternative. The free market, they are convinced from what they recall from their elementary school textbooks, leads to “monopoly” and oppression.

Bernie speaks as if the system is rigged against the people because of business influence in government — a fair enough point, as far as it goes — but it’s hard to take this criticism seriously when his proposed solution is to extend the influence of politics over more and more areas of life and increase the powers and scope of the very government he is supposed to be criticizing.

The Sanders narrative is rooted in two major historical claims, both of them dead wrong.

First, Sanders believes “capitalism” was to blame for the 2008 crash. But as mises.org readers know, that downturn, like the Great Depression before it, was preceded by years of Federal Reserve credit expansion. According to the Austrian theory of the business cycle, the artificial lowering of interest rates below free-market levels sets in motion an unsustainable economic boom. The economy is set on a path that could be sustained only if real resource availability were greater than it really is. Eventually, when real savings and resources turn out not to exist in the abundance that the Fed’s interventions misled people into expecting, projects have to be abandoned and the phony prosperity becomes real recession.

Sanders supporters will no doubt point to the great number of bad mortgages originated by private lenders. But would these mortgage loans have been extended in the first place if institutions like Countrywide couldn’t sell them to the government-privileged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Fannie and Freddie enjoyed special tax and regulatory advantages and had a special line of credit from the US Treasury — a line of credit everyone knew would be essentially limitless if push ever came to shove.

It was the perfect storm: the Fed’s crazed monetary policy injected huge quantities of additional credit circulating throughout the economy, and the federal government’s various mandates and regulations made real estate an artificially attractive outlet for all that new money. When this ramshackle edifice came crashing down, capitalism — which, in the midst of all this money creation and regulatory lunacy, had never been tried — took the blame.

Indeed, what could be intellectually easier than blaming the “free market” for a phenomenon a critic doesn’t understand? Ron Paul, on the other hand, never tired in his own presidential campaigns of going beyond surface explanations to account for what really happened in the disaster of ’08, and identify who the real culprits were.

The other part of the Sanders story — Scandinavia — is shallow and misleading, too.

In fact, Denmark’s own prime minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, finally had to correct the Vermont senator’s references to his country as “socialist.” “I would like to make one thing clear,” Rasmussen said. “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

Still, there’s no question Denmark has a large public sector. And it’s starting to suck the life out of the place. Denmark’s various benefits subsidize idleness to an absurd and unmanageable degree. In the country’s 98 municipalities, guess how many have a majority of residents working. If you answered three, you know far more about Denmark than Bernie and his supporters do.

It’s a similar story in the rest of Scandinavia. For instance, Sweden’s welfare state was able to develop only because of the wealth created by decades and decades of a prosperous market economy. Private-sector job creation was anemic to nonexistent in the decades following the radical expansion of the Swedish welfare state. And as for Norway, there are lots of “free” things there, it’s true — if you’re prepared to pay a 75 percent effective tax rate.

The comparison of Bernie to Ron goes like this: both launched insurgent, anti-establishment presidential campaigns while in their 70s, shook up their respective party establishments, and attracted large youth followings. But Bernie is no Ron.

Just on the surface: Bernie is a grump and difficult to work with; Ron is a kindhearted gentleman who always showed his appreciation for the people in his office.

More importantly, Ron urged his followers to read and learn. Countless high school and college students began reading dense and difficult treatises in economics and political philosophy because Ron encouraged them to. Bernie’s followers receive no such encouragement. And why should they? Bernie’s platform merely regurgitates the fallacies and prejudices his young followers already imbibed in school. What more is there to read?

Ron’s followers, meanwhile, were curious enough to dig beneath the surface. Is the state really a benign institution that can costlessly provide us whatever we might demand? Or might there be moral, economic, and political factors standing in the way of these utopian dreams?

Bernie’s supporters demand material things for themselves, to be handed to them at the expense of strangers they have been taught to despise. But like Ron himself — who as an OB/GYN opposed restrictions on midwives even though doing so was not in his material interest — the young Paulians embraced the message of liberty without a thought for material advantage.

First They Came For the iPhones…

First They Came For the iPhones…


The FBI tells us that its demand for a back door into the iPhone is all about fighting terrorism, and that it is essential to break in just this one time to find out more about the San Bernardino attack last December. But the truth is they had long sought a way to break Apple’s iPhone encryption and, like 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act, a mass murder provided just the pretext needed. After all, they say, if we are going to be protected from terrorism we have to give up a little of our privacy and liberty. Never mind that government spying on us has not prevented one terrorist attack.

Apple has so far stood up to a federal government’s demand that it force its employees to write a computer program to break into its own product. No doubt Apple CEO Tim Cook understands the damage it would do to his company for the world to know that the US government has a key to supposedly secure iPhones. But the principles at stake are even higher. We have a fundamental right to privacy. We have a fundamental right to go about our daily life without the threat of government surveillance of our activities. We are not East Germany.

Let’s not forget that this new, more secure iPhone was developed partly in response to Ed Snowden’s revelations that the federal government was illegally spying on us. The federal government was caught breaking the law but instead of ending its illegal spying is demanding that private companies make it easier for it to continue.

Last week we also learned that Congress is planning to join the fight against Apple — and us. Members are rushing to set up yet another governmental commission to study how our privacy can be violated for false promises of security. Of course they won’t put it that way, but we can be sure that will be the result. Some in Congress are seeking to pass legislation regulating how companies can or cannot encrypt their products. This will suppress the development of new technology and will have a chilling effect on our right to be protected from an intrusive government. Any legislation Congress writes limiting encryption will likely be unconstitutional, but unfortunately Congress seldom heeds the Constitution anyway.

When FBI Director James Comey demanded a back door into the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone, he promised that it was only for this one, extraordinary situation. “The San Bernardino litigation isn’t about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message,” he said in a statement last week. Testifying before Congress just days later, however, he quickly changed course, telling the Members of the House Intelligence Committee that the court order and Apple’s appeals, “will be instructive for other courts.” Does anyone really believe this will not be considered a precedent-setting case? Does anyone really believe the government will not use this technology again and again, with lower and lower thresholds?

According to press reports, Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. has 175 iPhones with passcodes that the City of New York wants to access. We can be sure that is only the beginning.

RNC Rules to Stifle Ron Paul in 2012 Could Come Back to Bite in 2016

RNC Rules to Stifle Ron Paul in 2012 Could Come Back to Bite in 2016


The Republican National Committee, or RNC, may use the tactics it used to stifle Ron Paul in 2012 to handle a possible floor fight over Donald Trump.

The first order of business at the Republican Convention this coming June will be to ratify new rules. What this means is that the rules the RNC agreed on after the Convention in 2012 will expire as soon as the gavel drops to open the new meeting.

Now, usually this is mainly procedural – the party affirming the parts of the Convention rules that are still applicable, maybe changing around some things for the benefit of also-rans or the standard bearer.

However, in recent years there’s been a push to use the rule changes to undercut the party’s more extreme, populist and anti-government wings.

In 2012 there was a very real chance that Ron Paul’s supporters would upend the entire Convention by forcing a fight over their candidate. Rick Ungar has a good breakdown of what happened, but here’s a quick play-by-play of the situation.

Paul’s supporters were going to use pluralities in five states to force Paul’s name onto the ballot through Rule 40 (B). The rule specified that that be the threshold for placing a candidate’s name on the ballot.

In other words, 40 (B) said that any candidate with the largest share of delegates in five states could be placed on the ballot for nomination. If Paul, for example, had 30 percent but no one had higher, he would have a plurality.

As a way to stop the insurgency against Romney and ensure his victory, the RNC changed the rule to a majority of delegates in eight states. Now a candidate needed to win at least 50.1 % of delegates from eight states to be on the ballot. And that’s still the way it is, and the way it will be until the 2016 Convention.

Under these current rules, there’s no way of determining a clear delegate winner until Super Tuesday, at least. By switching from plurality to majority, it makes New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina relatively meaningless. All three states will see a roster of candidates over ten deep. Getting a majority of those delegates is near impossible by primary voting.

The problem for the RNC only gets worse when you consider the threat of Donald Trump’s poll numbers.

Rand Paul & Ron Paul To Host Liberty Rally In Iowa City

Rand Paul & Ron Paul To Host Liberty Rally In Iowa City


Rand Paul will host the ‘Revolution Continues Rally’ at the University of Iowa on Sunday, January 31, 2016. Rand Paul will be joined by special guest Ron Paul, and together they will focus on energizing the youthful base by discussing the importance of protecting the entire Bill of Rights and being boldly for conservative ideals that limit the powers of the Washington Machine.

Rand’s unique message of liberty can unite Constitutional conservatives, young voters, and independent voters, which will lead to a successful showing on caucus night.

Aside from his father, Rand will also be joined by over a dozen family members who will host their own events throughout the state and speak at caucuses on the evening of Monday, February 1st.

Details of this joint appearance can be found below. Additional events and availabilities will be announced soon.

SUNDAY, JANUARY 31, 2016

WHAT: The Revolution Continues Rally

TIME: 7:00 pm CT

WHO: Rand Paul & Ron Paul

WHERE: University of Iowa- Iowa Memorial Union, Main Lounge

125 North Madison Street

Iowa City, Iowa 52242

Ron Paul to campaign with his son, Rand Paul

Ron Paul to campaign with his son, Rand Paul


Former presidential candidate Ron Paul will return to Iowa a day before the caucuses to campaign for his son.

Ron and Rand Paul will host a “The Revolution Continues Rally” at the University of Iowa on Jan. 31. The younger Paul is a Kentucky senator who is running for the Republican presidential nomination.

It will be the first time Ron Paul has appeared on the campaign trail to stump for his son this cycle.

The event will be held at 7 p.m. at the Iowa Memorial Union, 125 N. Madison St., in Iowa City.

House Benghazi Hearings: Too Much Too Late

House Benghazi Hearings: Too Much Too Late


Last week the US House of Representatives called former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to appear before a select committee looking into the attack on a US facility in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012. The attack left four Americans dead, including US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

As might be expected, however, the “Benghazi Committee” hearings have proven not much more than a means for each party to grandstand for political points.

In fact, I would call these Congressional hearings “too much, too late.”

Four years after the US-led overthrow of the Libyan government – which left the country a wasteland controlled by competing Islamist gangs and militias – the committee wants to know whether Hillary Clinton had enough guards at the facility in Benghazi on the night of the attack? The most important thing to look into about Libya is Hillary Clinton’s e-mails or management style while Secretary of State?

Why no House Committee hearing before President Obama launched his war on Libya? Why no vote on whether to authorize the use of force? Why no hearing after the President violated the Constitution by sending the military into Libya with UN authorization rather than Congressional authorization? There are Constitutional tools available to Congress when a president takes the country to war without a declaration or authorization. At the time, President Obama claimed he did not need authorization from Congress because the US was not engaged in “hostilities.” It didn’t pass the laugh test, but Congress did next to nothing about it.

When the Obama Administration decided to attack Libya, I joined Rep. Dennis Kucinich and others in attempt to force a vote on the president’s war. I introduced my own legislation warning the administration that, “the President is required to obtain in advance specific statutory authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces in response to civil unrest in Libya.”

We even initiated a lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia asking the courts to rule on whether the president broke the law in attacking Libya.

Unfortunately we got nowhere with our efforts. When it looked like we had the votes to pass a resolution introduced by Rep. Kucinich to invoke War Powers Resolution requirements on the president for the use of force in Libya, Speaker Boehner cancelled the vote.

Why were there no hearings at the time to discuss this very important Constitutional matter? Because the leadership of both parties wanted the war. Both parties — with few exceptions — agree with the ideology of US interventionism worldwide.

Secretary Clinton defended the State Department’s handling of security at the Benghazi facility by pointing out that there are plenty of diplomatic posts in war zones and that danger in these circumstances is to be expected. However she never mentioned why Benghazi remained a “war zone” a year after the US had “liberated” Libya from Gaddafi.

Why was Libya still a war zone? Because the US intervention left Libya in far worse shape than it was under Gaddafi. We don’t need to endorse Gaddafi to recognize that today’s Libya, controlled by al-Qaeda and ISIS militias, is far worse off – and more of a threat to the US – than it was before the bombs started falling.

Stop equating Donald Trump to Ron Paul. It’s ridiculous

Stop equating Donald Trump to Ron Paul. It’s ridiculous


On Friday, Megan McCardle at the Bloomberg View argued that Donald Trump is the new Ron Paul.

She made the case that both figures represent seemingly fresh alternatives to conventional insiders like Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush. McCardle foreshadowed Trump’s ultimate failure, because she thought that like Paul, Trump wouldn’t be able to expand his appeal beyond a small base.

McCardle’s right that Donald Trump is bound to failure. But that’s the only bulls-eye she was even close on.

Let’s go through them.

nt polling of Trump supporters suggests his cadre is overwhelmingly old, white, and male. That might be okay for a Republican primary, but that’s not going to win you a general election, let alone keep your party nationally viable for another 10 years.

Unlike Trump, Ron Paul’s campaign made massive gains among Millennials, winning nearly half the under-30 vote in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2012.

Trump’s past leaves us guessing what he really believes about anything. His speeches are full of vague, technocratic appeals to competency, as if we only need better bureaucrats running an inherently flawed system.

Ron Paul had a platform and a record of principled dedication to freedom. It’s no surprise that younger voters appreciated his consistency.

Trump thrives on exploiting tribalism to pit people against each other– whether he’s saying ridiculous things about Latinos, women, or Vietnam POWs.

Paul saw people as individuals and brought them together in a common struggle for liberty. At the same time, he realized how government policies can disproportionately impact our most vulnerable.

A Foreign Policy of Freedom by Ron Paul

A collection of statements Congressman Ron Paul has made over the past 30 years dealing with foreign policy from the date he was first elected to Congress. Ron Paul provides a history of economic policy in the United States and uses this history to argue that the same free market principals applied to U.S. domestic policy should be applied to U.S. foreign policy

Bernie Sanders Is Not the Left’s Ron Paul

Bernie Sanders Is Not the Left’s Ron Paul


Ever since Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, announced that he would seek the Democratic nomination for president, he has drawn comparisons to a similarly disheveled, longtime politician with a cult-like following and a strong independent streak: former Congressman Ron Paul, who ran for the Republican nomination in 2008 and 2012. It’s true that Sanders and Paul have a lot in common: They both have rabid fan bases, don’t hold their tongues, and embrace ideologies that are rejected by the establishment of their respective parties. And like Paul, Sanders could challenge his party’s frontrunner early on, but doesn’t stand much of a chance of winning the nomination. As Slate’s Jamelle Bouie wrote this week:

Sanders won’t be the Democratic nominee. But that doesn’t mean he won’t be important. Here, it’s useful to think of Ron Paul … He helped bridge the divide between libertarians and the Republican right, and he inspired a new group of conservative and libertarian activists who have made a mark in the GOP through Paul’s son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. If Sanders can sustain and capture the left-wing enthusiasm for his campaign, he could do the same for progressives.

I disagree; Sanders’s campaign isn’t simply one that will put “democratic socialist” ideas on stage against a more mainstream Democratic view, as Paul sought to do with his libertarian ideas. Rather, his candidacy represents a wing of the Democratic Party whose influence on the establishment is increasing with each election, as moderate Democrats (and their Republican counterparts) become extinct.

For a more apt Republican analog to Sanders’ campaign, one must go back to 2000. John McCain, like Sanders, was thought to have little chance to defeat George W. Bush, who, as the son of a former president and governor of a major electoral state, had more money and more party support. But McCain harnessed the anti-establishment sentiment of the time to build a strong online following, at a time when the internet’s infancy as a political tool. He fought a hard campaign against Bush, even winning the New Hampshire primary, before being knocked out of the race in early March.

Apart from the major issue of campaign finance reform, however, he had very little major policy or ideological differences with Bush and the Republican establishment. What set him apart was his press-appointed “maverick” status: He was willing to say things in public that no other candidate would—what David Foster Wallace, in his classic profile of the McCain campaign, called “obvious truths that everyone knows but no recent politician anywhere’s had the stones to say.” (His campaign bus was even called the “Straight Talk Express.”)

Likewise, Sanders refuses to hold his tongue. In June, he opened an interview with HBO’s Bill Maher by saying, “This campaign is about a radical idea: we’re going to tell the truth.” And that message seems to be working with liberals and even disaffected voters. As one New Hampshire resident, a self-described undecided independent voter, told The New Republic recently, “Do I think he can win? No. But I do like the somewhat fresh take of being a straight shooter.”

The Revolution by Ron Paul

This Much Is True: You Have Been Lied To.

• The government is expanding.
• Taxes are increasing.
• More senseless wars are being planned.
• Inflation is ballooning.
• Our basic freedoms are disappearing.

The Founding Fathers didn't want any of this. In fact, they said so quite clearly in the Constitution of the United States of America. Unfortunately, that beautiful, ingenious, and revolutionary document is being ignored more and more in Washington. If we are to enjoy peace, freedom, and prosperity once again, we absolutely must return to the principles upon which America was founded. But finally, there is hope . . .

In THE REVOLUTION, Texas congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has exposed the core truths behind everything threatening America, from the real reasons behind the collapse of the dollar and the looming financial crisis, to terrorism and the loss of our precious civil liberties. In this book, Ron Paul provides answers to questions that few even dare to ask.

Despite a media blackout, this septuagenarian physician-turned-congressman sparked a movement that has attracted a legion of young, dedicated, enthusiastic supporters . . . a phenomenon that has amazed veteran political observers and made more than one political rival envious. Candidates across America are already running as "Ron Paul Republicans."

"Dr. Paul cured my apathy," says a popular campaign sign. THE REVOLUTION may cure yours as well.

2016 Republicans: Ron Paul was right all along about the Iraq War

2016 Republicans: Ron Paul was right all along about the Iraq War


During a 2007 Republican presidential debate, candidate Ron Paul said of the Iraq War, “We never should have gone in.”

Most on the debate stage that night laughed at him.

In the Wall Street Journal, former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan wrote of the reaction to Paul, “The debate was full of fireworks about Iraq, about its essentials — the rightness of the endeavor…” adding, “After Mr. Paul spoke, it seemed half the room booed, but the other applauded.”

Noonan continued, “When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of the eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something’s going on.” Noonan observed, “As he spoke, you could hear other candidates laughing in the background.”

“They should stop giggling, and engage in a serious way,” she advised.

Last week, they finally did.

Likely 2016 candidate Jeb Bush was forced, begrudgingly, to say that his brother had made a mistake in invading Iraq, after originally saying the war was justified. In the three days it took for Bush to clarify, most of the Republican presidential field rushed to say they thought the war was a mistake. Chris Christie said it. Ted Cruz said it too. John Kasich chimed in. Rand Paul has always it was a mistake to invade Iraq. Marco Rubio said it was a mistake and then tried, clumsily, to take it back.

But why would Republicans start saying this now?

For the same reason Jeb Bush saw the practical need to change his position—if you want to become president, it’s become a necessity.

For years—including in 2007—most Americans considered the Iraq War one of the worst foreign policy decisions in modern history. Because of its overwhelming unpopularity, supporting or defending the Iraq War has become a significant political liability.

Just ask Hillary Clinton.

Last week reflected Republicans finally playing catch-up—albeit almost a decade after Ron Paul had tried to tell them the same thing.

When viewed through a partisan lens, support for something even as tragically misguided as the Iraq War is not hard to understand. In 2007, that war still had support among most Republicans because it was the primary feature of George W. Bush’s foreign policy. Supporting it, and opposing a vociferous anti-war left, had been integral to Republican identity for a better part of the decade.

Republicans had no more intention of disavowing their president’s foreign policy agenda than Democrats had in running away from Obama’s healthcare agenda (unless politically forced, similar to Jeb Bush). Popular or not, logical or not, these positions were part of who they were as a party.

And this partisan stubbornness has cost Republicans dearly.

Many Republicans continued to mock Paul throughout his 2008 and 2012 campaigns, while the Iraq War and its legacy played no small part in delivering the White House to Barack Obama. Twice.

On stage that night in 2007 when Ron Paul was laughed at, stood 2008 Republican nominee John McCain, an early supporter of the Iraq War and unrepentant hawk. Also present was 2012 nominee Mitt Romney, who said, “It was the right decision to go into Iraq.”

To get rid of this baggage, or begin to get rid of it, there would have to be a dramatic break or some visible shift within the GOP.

That’s what last week was about.

RON PAUL: The Real War on the Middle Class

RON PAUL: The Real War on the Middle Class


One of the great ironies of American politics is that most politicians who talk about helping the middle class support policies that, by expanding the welfare-warfare state, are harmful to middle-class Americans. Eliminating the welfare-warfare state would benefit middle class Americans by freeing them from exorbitant federal taxes, including the Federal Reserve’s inflation tax.

Politicians serious about helping middle-class Americans should allow individuals to opt out of Social Security and Medicare by not having to pay payroll taxes if they agree to never accept federal retirement or health care benefits. Individuals are quite capable of meeting their own unique retirement and health care needs if the government stops forcing them into one-size-fits-all plans.

Middle class families with college-age children would benefit if government got out of the student loan business. Government involvement in higher education is the main reason tuition is skyrocketing and so many Americans are graduating with huge student loan debts. College graduates entering the job market would certainly benefit if Congress stopped imposing destructive regulations and taxes on the economy.

Politicians who support an interventionist foreign policy are obviously not concerned with the harm inflicted on the middle class populations of countries targeted for regime change. These politicians also disregard the harm US foreign policy inflicts on Americans. Middle- and working-class Americans, and their families, who join the military certainly suffer when they are maimed or killed fighting in unjust and unconstitutional wars. Our interventionist foreign policy also contributes to the high tax burden imposed on middle class Americans.

Middle class Americans also suffer from intrusions on their liberty and privacy, such as not being able to board an airplane unless they submit to invasive and humiliating searches. Even children and the physically disabled are not safe from the Transposition Security Administration. These assaults are justified by the threat of terrorism, a direct result of our interventionist foreign policy that fosters hatred and resentment of Americans.

Some “military Keynesians” claim that middle class workers benefit from jobs in the military-industrial complex. Military Keynesians seem to think that the resources spent on militarism would disappear if the Pentagon’s budget were cut. The truth is, if we reduced spending on militarism, those currently employed by the military-industrial complex would be able to find new jobs producing goods desired by consumers. Even those currently employed as lobbyists for the military-industrial complex may be able to find useful work.

Few things would benefit the middle class more than ending the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies erode middle class families’ standards of living while benefiting the financial and political elites. Middle class Americans may gain some temporary benefits from Federal Reserve created booms, but they also suffer from the inevitable busts.

As I write this, the dollar still reigns as the world’s reserve currency. However, there are signs that other economies are moving away from using the dollar as the reserve currency, and this trend will accelerate as the Federal Reserve continues to pump more fiat currency into the economy and as resentment toward our foreign policy grows. Eventually, international investors will lose confidence in the US economy, the dollar will lose its reserve currency status, and the dollar bubble will burst.

These events will cause a major economic downturn that may even be worse than the Great Depression. The main victims of this crisis will be average Americans. The only way to avoid this calamity is for the American people to force Congress to free them from the burdens of the warfare state, the welfare state, taxation, and fiat currency.

Ron Paul: 2-party US political system in reality a monopoly

Ron Paul: 2-party US political system in reality a monopoly


Former Congressman Ron Paul told RT in the midst of Tuesday’s midterm elections that the “monopoly” system run by the leaders of the two main parties is all too evident as Americans go to the polls this Election Day.

“This whole idea that a good candidate that’s rating well in the polls can’t get in the debate, that’s where the corruption really is,” Paul, the 79-year-old former House of Representatives lawmaker for Texas, told RT during Tuesday’s special midterm elections coverage. “It’s a monopoly…and they don’t even allow a second option,” he said.

“If a third party person gets anywhere along, they are going to do everything they can to stop that from happening,” the retired congressman continued.

House approves Ron Paul’s ‘Audit the Fed’ bill

House approves Ron Paul’s ‘Audit the Fed’ bill


Former Rep. Ron Paul’s push to audit the Federal Reserve got another boost Wednesday when the House passed the bill for the second time in three years, and by a bigger margin than before.


The bill, now sponsored by Rep. Paul Broun, Georgia Republican, was approved on a 333-92 vote, with all but one Republican and 106 Democrats in favor of it. That’s a major jump from last time, when a majority of Democrats voted against it.


Still, despite the overwhelming support, the law is likely to die. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who had previously indicated support for such an audit, reversed himself in 2012 and said he wouldn’t let the bill come to to the Senate floor.

Liberty Defined by Ron Paul

In Liberty Defined, congressman and #1 New York Times bestselling author Ron Paul returns with his most provocative, comprehensive, and compelling arguments for personal freedom to date.

The term "Liberty" is so commonly used in our country that it has become a mere cliché. But do we know what it means? What it promises? How it factors into our daily lives? And most importantly, can we recognize tyranny when it is sold to us disguised as a form of liberty?

Dr. Paul writes that to believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust in the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation. It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions. It is the seed of America.

End The Fed by Ron Paul

In the post-meltdown world, it is irresponsible, ineffective, and ultimately useless to have a serious economic debate without considering and challenging the role of the Federal Reserve.

Most people think of the Fed as an indispensable institution without which the country's economy could not properly function. But in END THE FED, Ron Paul draws on American history, economics, and fascinating stories from his own long political life to argue that the Fed is both corrupt and unconstitutional. It is inflating currency today at nearly a Weimar or Zimbabwe level, a practice that threatens to put us into an inflationary depression where $100 bills are worthless. What most people don't realize is that the Fed -- created by the Morgans and Rockefellers at a private club off the coast of Georgia -- is actually working against their own personal interests. Congressman Paul's urgent appeal to all citizens and officials tells us where we went wrong and what we need to do fix America's economic policy for future generations.

Ron Paul group to defy IRS

Ron Paul group to defy IRS

Ron Paul’s nonprofit Campaign for Liberty will fight the Internal Revenue Service’s demand that it reveal its donor list to the agency, despite having already been fined for refusing to do so.

“There is no legitimate reason for the IRS to know who donates to Campaign for Liberty,” Megan Stiles, the communications director at Campaign for Liberty, told the Washington Examiner in an email on Tuesday. “We believe the First Amendment is on our side as evidenced by cases such as NAACP v. Alabama and International Union UAW v. National Right to Work. Many 501(c)(4) organizations protect the privacy of their donors in the very same way as Campaign for Liberty. For some reason the IRS has now chosen to single out Campaign for Liberty for special attention. We plan to fight this all the way.”

Crimea secedes. So what?

Crimea secedes. So what?

Residents of Crimea voted over the weekend on whether they would remain an autonomous region of Ukraine or join the Russian Federation. In so doing, they joined a number of countries and regions — including recently Scotland, Catalonia and Venice — that are seeking to secede from what they view as unresponsive or oppressive governments.

 These latter three are proceeding without much notice, while the overwhelming Crimea vote to secede from Ukraine has incensed U.S. and European Union officials, and has led NATO closer to conflict with Russia than since the height of the Cold War.

 What’s the big deal? Opponents of the Crimea vote like to point to the illegality of the referendum. But self-determination is a centerpiece of international law. Article I of the United Nations Charter points out clearly that the purpose of the U.N. is to “develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.”

 Why does the U.S. care which flag will be hoisted on a small piece of land thousands of miles away?

 Critics point to the Russian “occupation” of Crimea as evidence that no fair vote could have taken place. Where were these people when an election held in an Iraq occupied by U.S. troops was called a “triumph of democracy”?