Ron Paul Liberty Report: Chris Rossini: 'Who Pays For All The Government Free Stuff?'

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and U.S, Representative Alecandria O. Cortez: the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Congressional Free Stuff Caucus. LOL

Source:The New Democrat

"Benjamin Franklin said that: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” How prescient and true. Once theft and redistribution by government is considered acceptable, the downward spiral of civilization begins. It can last for decades, or even centuries. But the end result is always bankruptcy as countless factions ruthlessly fight with one another to be on the receiving end of the heist. When theft by government is no longer considered acceptable, the upward march of civilization resumes."

From Ron Paul Liberty Report

This blog post is perfect timing ( if I may say so myself ) because CNN had a marathon of town halls on Monday with like 5 Democratic presidential candidates including Senator's Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders ( the two farthest left Democratic presidential candidates ) and they're both making the basic argument that the rich has too much money and everyone else doesn't have enough and are struggling to pay their basic bills like college, health care, paid leave, etc and that it's the job of the Federal Government to come in and somehow correct that. And say that it's wrong for rich people to even be rich to begin with, especially when we have so many Americans who are struggling just to pay their own bills.

There are two questions that any voter and taxpayer should ask any politician or candidate who is seeking reelection or a new office, when they make a lot of promises to people about new government services, especially if they argue that these new services would be free:

How are you going to pay for all of these so-called free services? If they say the rich are going to pay for it with some new wealth tax ( lets say ) then you should ask especially if you're familiar with the Internal Revenue Service, our tax code, and how the wealthy avoid paying taxes ( including these so-called Hollywood Leftists ) who is going to pay for these new and current government services when the wealthy avoids paying their new taxes. The only way that government can pay for anything when they're short on revenue like through tax avoidance are two ways: pass those taxes onto the middle class. Or just just borrow that money from China or another country and add to their budget deficit and debt.

I would have a lot more respect for these Socialists running for office ( whether they're self-described Socialists or not ) if they were just upfront and candid about how they would pay for their new government services and just say: "you middle class taxpayers are going to pay for these new government services through new payroll taxes or other new taxes." Or they could say that they believe that deficits and debt doesn't matter and therefor we could just borrow the money from other countries and add to our deficits and debt. But don't overpromise and pander especially to young voters, especially young Democrats who tend to be overly idealistic to begin with and believe that government can solve every problem itself, if you just give it the money to do that.

Ron Paul Liberty Report: 'Emergencies Do Not Trump The Constitution': Ron Paul- On President Donald Trump's National Emergency

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report- U.S. Representative Ron Paul, R, Texas. 

Source:The New Democrat

"Using "national emergencies" to rule by diktat is an old and unfortunate tradition among U.S. presidents. It is also unconstitutional."

From Ron Paul Liberty Report

In the United States we have not only separation of powers, but three branches in our national government that all have different roles and responsibilities. Whether they're all equal or not and under the Constitution they're supposed to be, they all have different roles and responsibilities. If the President wants new funding to pay for one of his new priorities or additional funding to an existing program in the government, he has to get that approved by Congress. He can't just pass that new funding and objective on his own. he has to get that approved by House and Senate and sign it into law.

Source:Newsmax- President Donald Trump: "what national emergency?"

I'm not a lawyer and neither is Representative Ron Paul, but just looking at President Trump's so-called national emergency there are at least two obvious problems with looking at it from the outside.

The first one is practical and that the emergency that the President Trump is declaring simply doesn't exist. Not even Fox News, Newsmax, Breitbart, America One News, or any other right-wing pro-Trump media outlet is reporting that there are millions, thousands, or even hundreds of less of people coming across our southern border right now illegally. If there is any emergency whatsoever as it relates to illegal immigration in America and I don't believe there is one, but the fact that have 10-15 million illegal immigrants in America in a country of 320 million people is certainly an issue that this country has been trying to deal with going back to the Reagan Administration.

President Trump said himself the day that he declared his so-called national emergency that he didn't have to declare right now. I don't know about you and I image everyone would agree with this, but if my house was on fire I would call the Fire Department right away to get the fire put out, because that would obviously be an emergency. Donald Trump ever since he started running for President in the summer of 2015 has been talking about the need for a border wall on our southern border and there is an emergency at the border.

Donald Trump, was elected President a year and a half later after he announced his presidential campaign and has been President for 25 months now and not once until after Republicans lost the House in November 2018, did he either officially declare an emergency at the national border, or send up a bill to the Republican Congress in 2017-18 to get his border wall completed. And you can talk about 60 vote rule in the Senate all you want and that Democrats had 48-49 seats in the Senate during that Congress, but if you're familiar with Congressional spending rules, you know that Congress can pass a spending bill out of the House and Senate with simple majorities in both chambers.

President Trump and Congressional Republicans could've passed a border security bill on their own with just Republican votes both in the House and Senate under reconciliation. But they chose to spend six months on ObamaCare repeal and when they failed there they went to tax cuts where they did pass their tax cuts through reconciliation in the House and Senate. So President Trump seriously has a credibility problem claiming that there is an emergency at the border which is why he declared his national emergency, when he's already admitted that he didn't have to declare his emergency.

The other issue with President Trump's so-called national emergency is constitutional. Congress, not the execute appropriates money for the Federal Government. Congress, has the power of the purse and gets to decide what the government can spend and what they can't spend. Meaning that the executive can only spend money that has already been approved by Congress to spend on the priorities that Congress has approved at the levels that Congress has approved. In other words, Congress decides what the levels of funding are in the budget and where and how that money is spent . Once the President and Congress agree on what levels of funding and where that money is going to be spent by the government, then the Executive has the responsibility to spend and enforce those laws that have already been passed and sign into law.

As much Donald Trump might want to be President of the Russian Federation or the King of the Saudi Kingdom, or lead any other right-wing or any other dictatorship in the world, unfortunately he's the President of the United States and just our problem to deal with. But we still have our checks and balances and separation of powers. Things that every single American gets to learn about when they're in high school. I took U.S. Government as a sophomore in high school. This is not something that we have to read books or listen to documentaries about as adults, but something that we learn in high school and take further courses on in college if we decide to do that, but something that Donald Trump seems to have very little knowledge about or interest in.

Ron Paul Liberty Report: 'Republicans Responsibility For Socialism's Comeback'

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report- U.S, Representative Dr. Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) 

Source:The New Democrat 

"According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos survey, 70 percent of Americans, including about 50 percent of Republicans, support Medicare for all, the latest incarnation of single-payer health care. Republican support for a health plan labeled “Medicare for all” is not surprising considering that Republican politicians support Medicare and that one of their attacks on Obamacare was that it would harm the program. Furthermore, the biggest expansion of Medicare since its creation — the Part D prescription drug program — occurred under a conservative president working with a conservative Congress." 

From the Ron Paul Liberty Report

I think the way I would look at this would be to go back to George W. Bush's Administration. where Republicans with help from Congressional Democrats expanded the Federal role in public education in 2002. And then instead of reforming Medicare in 2003 a Republican Congress with some help from Senate Democrats and no help from House Democrats, expanded Medicare in 2003 with the prescription drug benefit in Medicare.

I'm not calling President George W. Bush a Socialist, but to argue that he was a Conservative doesn't sound right either. He expanded the Federal Government almost across the board except when it came to the regulatory state where his administration almost had an hands off approach when it came to government regulations of the economy. And you could argue that Ayn Rand approach to government regulations contributed to the 2008 financial crisis that lead to the Great Recession, with the Bush Administration being asleep at the wheel while American banks and investors were making irresponsible investments on Wall Street that they couldn't cover the losses for.

I believe the real reasons why socialism is making a comeback in America, has to do with President George W. Bush and his handling of the economy that you could at least argue is at least partially responsible for the Great Recession of 2008-09 and young Americans getting stuck with the bill for that economic collapse and finding themselves either with college diplomas, but are unable to find jobs that makes them financially independent or having to work multiple jobs just to pay their bills. Along with have college loans that they can't pay back that are eating away at their income.

And then you have people like Senate Bernie Sanders ( the only self-described Socialist member of Congress ) come along and make all sorts of promises of government being able to do this and that for the people and all of these new government services and expansion of current government services are going to be free and young naive people thinking that sounds cool ( or awesome ) to them and they get behind someone like a Senator Sanders and back his message of socialism.

Ron Paul Liberty Report: Ron Paul & Chris Rossini- 'Government's Can't Legislate Morality'

Source:Ron Paul Liberty Report- The U.S. Constitution, on fire?

Source:The New Democrat 

"America's Founders did not delude themselves into believing that government was a moral institution with a responsibility to take care of people. They understood that government was violent force, and that the best way individuals to thrive was to chain that force down as much as possible. Those chains have obviously been removed, and the terrible results should not be a surprise. Ron Paul discusses on today's Liberty Report." 

From the Ron Paul Liberty Report

I agree with Ron Paul on one thing here: Chris Rossini makes a good point that I'll mention as well, but Representative Paul said that government is one of the last institutions to legislate morality. Why is that? Because government represents and governs the people. 

Government is only as good as the people they represent. Rarely if ever better and in many cases worst. Americans tend not to avoid paying their taxes and taking bribes. Legislatures who vote for bills because thats what their donors want them to do. But a lot of politicians do and you could argue every politician takes bribes at least in the sense that lobbyists tell them that if they vote for or against this piece of legislation, they'll give them their support. Financial support, as well as their endorsement.

When politicians do corruption, its what's called legalized bribery. Joe or Mary Jones (or whatever name you want to use) tells Senator Smith or Wilson, that if they vote for or against this legislation, they'll back their reelection campaign financially and verbally. But if a private citizen offers a police officer 20 bucks if they don't write them a ticket, that person could be arrested for attempting to bribe a police officer. If people want a moral government, then they need to vote for moral people to represent them in government and then hold them accountable.

It's easy for anyone to run on morality in a political campaign. But that old cliche of actions speak louder than words, the intelligent person who came up with that quote must of had politicians in mind when they said that. Because behaving in office and actually doing what you campaign on, is hell of a lot different than saying we need morality and I'm in favor of this against that and this is what I'm going to do if you elect or reelect me.

Government is only as good as the people it represents and that is government when its at its best. And there are good moral politicians and I believe most civil servants, as well as law enforcement officers, foreign affairs officers, military personal, as well as a lot of politicians, are generally good people who want to do the right thing. (No, I really believe that) 

But if government wants a moral society, than they need to set the example and not try to hold the people they're supposed to represent to a higher standard than they are willing to hold themselves simply because they think they can get away with it and have the power. Because at the end of the day the people always have the power in a liberal democracy. The power to fire politicians who don't do a  good job representing them.

David Seaton: Ron Paul Interview (1988)

Source: David Seaton- U.S. Representative Ron Paul R, Texas.

Source:The New Democrat

Ron Paul, sounding less radical even as a Libertarian than I was expecting from him in 1988. He was talking about eliminating the income tax, which is something I would like to do, but then replacing it with a national sales tax, which is also something I want to do. Which is a top for another post. And he was also talking about sending more money and power back down to the states. Not eliminating public education, but making private education available to students. Very radical for lets say a Progressive, or Social Democrat on the left whose never in favor of eliminating, or even lowering taxes and not in favor of reducing the power of the Federal Government at least as it relates to the economy. But for a Libertarian not very radical.

Generally when you hear libertarian political candidates speak they say they're going to repeal at least two amendments from the Constitution, eliminate the income tax, the New Deal, Great Society, pull all Americans troops out of Europe and Japan on day one of getting into office. Even if they know enough about that government that doing even a few of those things are not very practical. Because of the opposition that would come from both Republicans and Democrats. But also the voters as well. But by the time Representative Paul ran for president in 1988 he was already in his sixth term in the House and had a pretty good idea about how Congress worked. So he wasn't proposing to repeal a bunch of constitutional amendments and that sort of thing, because he knows how difficult that is.
David Seaton: Ron Paul Interview 1988 A Must See!

Ron Paul: 'Ron Paul's Message to Paul Krugman'

Source: Ron Paul- Get the point? 

Source: The New Democrat 

"Ron Paul responds to Paul Krugman's recent smear, "The Old Man and the CPI." Krugman's ageist and racially-charged argument is demolished."

From Ron Paul

I can't really comment on what Paul Krugman supposedly said about Ron Paul, because I haven't seen that Paul Krugman column. I don't read him that often. From time to time I see him on TV. But I believe one of the issues that the Krugman crowd and his followers have with Representative Paul, is that Paul represents everything that they are against. At least from an economic perspective and to a certain extent and social perspective as well. Since Paul doesn't support the welfare state, or the nanny state and people as far as the left as Krugman tend to believe in both. That people need need big government to manage their economic affairs for them, but also tell them what they can eat and drink. And tell them they need to wear bike helmets and that sort of thing.

And because Ron Paul Libertarians represents everything that Paul Krugman Progressive/Socialists lets say hate, they try to make Paul look worst than  he is  and to make him look like something that he's not. So they'll try to tie him to these so-called white racist groups. Or to say that Ron Paul actually supports some big government and isn't as libertarian as he claims, because he's pro-life on abortion, or has ties with Far-Right Christian-Conservative groups. Representative Paul, is pro-life on abortion, as well as the death penalty, as his record in Congress in the House of Representatives makes clear. But he's also pro-life on the death penalty. Something the Far-Left won't give him credit for. But other than abortion he has no real connections to Religious Conservative groups. Other than protecting freedom of religion.

I'm not a big fan of Ron Paul either, other than we tend to agree on the social issues. Except for abortion, but the reason why Paul has so much support with young voters who tend to be liberal and libertarian and even liberal-libertarians, is because he doesn't want big government in our wallets and homes. And despite the political support that Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is getting with his presidential campaign, that is where young Americans tend to be today. And the Paul Krugman followers are smart enough to know that. And know to bring some of those Paul people to them they feel they need to make Ron Paul look like something that he's not. Which is a bigot, who hates minorities and poor people and everything else that they care about.

ABC News: Terry Moran: Ron Paul Explains a Socialist

Source: ABC News- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas)

Source:The New Democrat

The person who put together this YouTube video, titled it, “Ron Paul Explains a Socialist!” Even though Representative Paul only talked about Socialists in referring to Elizabeth Warren once and for about a minute. To talk about public education infrastructure and labeling Warren as a Socialist, because she supports the collective and all of these public works funded by taxpayers and are government-run. And because of this, I’m really only interested in this interview itself.

Ron Paul, is 2012, running for President in a party that still had a very young and developing conservative libertarian faction in it. And never had a blizzards chance in South Florida of ever winning the Republican nomination for president. Remember, the 2012 presidential race, was between Flip Flopper, I mean Mitt Romney, but we all know why Mitt is called Flip Flopper. And a big government Neoconservative in Rick Santorum. Who spent sixteen years in Congress voting in favor of big government and higher debt and deficits. At least while he was in the Senate and especially after George W. Bush became President in 2001.

2016, can be different for Ron’s son Senator Rand Paul. Who will now have a growing and more mature and bigger conservative libertarian faction behind him. And the opportunity to combine his father’s positions on civil liberties and personal freedom and keeping Federal power in check and even shrinking it. While at the same time develop a national security and foreign policy that doesn’t try to have American policing the world on its own. But doesn’t turn the rest of the world off either. That listens to and works with our allies. A conservative internationalist foreign policy in the mold of Ronald Reagan.
Source:ABC News

Ross Ruffing: Ron Paul- The 10 Principles of a Free Society

Source:Ross Ruffing- Ron Paul.

Source:Ross Ruffing

I'm going to start off this post not trying to sound partisan in an ideological sense which is different than being partisan in a party sense, but Social Democrats (lets call them) not all, but a good deal of them have the sense that democracy is about voting and majority rule. That if fifty-percent or more says this is what we should be doing a country state, country, etc then thats Democracy. So if fifty- percent of the country plus one, or more says free speech is dangerous and therefore it should be outlawed, or gun rights, or religion, whatever the case is, privacy and property rights are also good examples, then the majority should rule and these rights, or just one or some of them should be outlawed to protect the will of the people and so-forth. And that things like requiring a two-thirds in both chamber's of Congress to amend or eliminate parts of the U.S. Constitution are somehow undemocratic.

And that the U.S. Senate which happens to be the upper chamber of the U.S. Congress is somehow undemocratic, because it requires super majorities to pass certain things like treaties as well as constitutional amendments. This might be a form of democracy, but it's not liberal democracy it's what's known as majoritarian democracy, which is different. People tend to forget that Adolph Hitler became Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany by democratic means. By majority vote or his party had the most members of in the Federal Parliament there. But anyone on a two-month drinking binge knows that Adolph Hitler was no Democrat and certainly not a Liberal Democrat. He was simply smart enough to know that he could come to power in Germany and pass his racist Nazi agenda through majoritarian democratic means. What liberal democracy is, it's about individual rights, freedom and constitutional rights for the individual.

And that these things always have to be protected and respected under law, even when and if they were to become unpopular, or with a large minority of people who believe they should be thrown out. Liberal democracy at it's core is individualistic, that we the people are entitled to basic rights that can never be taken away from us as long as we aren't hurting innocent people with what we are doing. Liberal democracy goes to the heart of why I'm a Liberal Democrat and a big part of what I blog about. That we the people are entitled to life, freedom, property rights, that we are able to keep what we make and produce. At least a large percentage of that and be able to keep what we obtain in life and that we can live our own lives as we see fit, as long as we aren't hurting any innocent people with what we are doing. And for me at least it starts with the First Amendment. And then goes to right to privacy, which also covers property rights and every other right thats guaranteed to us by the U.S. Constitution. Thats what it means to live in a liberal democracy, not majoritarian or social democracy.

Forbes Magazine: Ron Paul: How We Can Solve the Problems With Public Education in America

Source:The New Democrat

First of all just to respond to a couple of points that former Representative Ron Paul made about public education in America. As far as the U.S. Department of Education being unconstitutional. The Federal courts have already ruled on this and guess what the U.S.D.E still exists and is in place since 1979. And I'm not a fan of it and don't believe we need it. And would rather see a White House Office on Education and make to part of the Domestic Affairs Council or something. But it is constitutional under the commerce and welfare clauses as the courts have already ruled. Maybe the commerce and welfare clauses should be what you focus on and whether U.S.D.E should be in place on policy grounds instead of constitutional grounds. That would be a better avenue to go.

As far as homeschooling, I'm not a fan of it, but if parents who are qualified to teach in America decide to do that for their kids, more power to them. The real focus here should be on public schools because parents who can afford to send their kids to private schools will continue to do that especially if they feel those schools are better than what the public schools have to offer. But for everyone else the overwhelming ninety-percent of us public schools are going to be the avenue for them. So you want public schools working better and the means no longer sending kids to schools based on where they live especially if they live in a bad school district which a lot of low-income students do. And instead letting their parents decide where they go to school instead.

Stop funding schools based on where they are located. And instead fund schools based on what they need to do a good job in a fiscally responsible manner. That means changing how schools are funded and moving away from the regressive property tax.

Stop paying educators based on how long they've been teaching. And instead pay them based on how well their kids are learning.

As far as students loans and student debt instead lets just make college affordability universal. Free college for the qualified for college students who go to an instate public university. If you go out of state and college financing plan that would be paid for by a combination of students, parents, employers and even government chipping in over a twenty year period to finance the students college education.

Instead of making education in America what is best for the private school industry, or make it what is best for teacher unions we instead should make it what is best for the students themselves. And that means choice within the public school system. Paying teachers based on how well their students are learning. Funding schools base on need and not location. And making college affordable for all qualified students.

Ron Paul: Learn a Little Economics

Source:The New Democrat

If you are talking about raising the minimum wage from $7.25 and hour to 10-12 dollars an hour without any relief for small employers especially people who run, lets say local restaurants or hardware stores, then I would agree with you that giving low-skilled workers making seven or eight bucks and hour would hurt those business’s. But that is not the minimum wage increase that I’m on favor of. What I want to do is raise it to 10-12 dollars an hour with a thirty-percent tax break at least for small employers.

Which means these employers payroll costs wouldn’t go up a dime based on the minimum wage. And for any minimum wage increase to come out of this divided Congress with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, the tax break I’m talking about is probably going to have to be part of that minimum wage increase. Otherwise it probably has about a zero percent chance of passing and even with the tax break, the chances of it passing aren’t very good to begin with.

The economics of increasing the minimum wage to 10-12 bucks and hour again with the tax break that I’m talking about are very clear. You want more people working and fewer people collecting public assistance, than work simply has to pay more than not working. And that is not the case right now if you add up all the benefits that low-income people can make in dollars from public assistance. A low-skilled person can get more money not working at all and perhaps not even looking for work. Which doesn’t do that person much good or their kids much good or the economy as a whole much good.

The minimum wage isn’t a cure-all for poverty in America. You need more educational and job training opportunities for our low-skilled adult population as well. But you increase the minimum wage to the point that this population makes more money working whatever the job, than not working and you make education and job training available for these adults, they can get themselves good jobs and get off of public assistance all together which benefits everyone.

Actually having the minimum wage as low as it is right now at $7.25 an hour hurts the economy, because the taxpayers have to pick up the rest of the bill that these employers don’t pay to take care of our less-fortunate population. And that means keeping taxes high to the point to pay for those public assistance benefits. Which any real Conservative shouldn’t be in favor of

Ron Paul 2008: 'Wealth Belongs To Those Who Generate It- Not To The Government'

Source:Ron Paul- on wealth in America.

"Wealth Belongs To Those Who Generate It- Not To The Government"

Source:Ron Paul 2008

I would add that most of the wealth that individuals create belongs to those individuals, but that government also has a duty to provide the services that it has the constitutional authority to provide that we need it to provide. Not what we want government to provide and takes taxes to finance what we need government to do for us.

Even if you believe in limited government, which I do as a Liberal, you believe in at least some form of government. Even if you believe in small government, which is what a lot of Libertarians believe in, you believe in at least some level and form of government. 

If you're a small government Libertarian and believe in the nation-state, you believe in at least some form of a national government. And generally small government Libertarians believe in federalism and the federal republic. 

All forms of government needs revenue to pay for the operations that the people need government to do. Unless you want high tariffs and discourage foreign companies from investing in your own and don't support free trade, or you want to borrow most of the money that government needs to fund itself, you need a tax system to pay for your government operations. And that means the people people who consume those services pay taxes for those services. Low tax rates on everyone who can afford to pay them would fund your limited government. 

Brook Siliva-Braga: Ron Paul: 'Democrats & Republicans Are Dinosaurs

Source:Ron Paul- Brook Silva-Braga, I believe interviewing U.S. Representative Ron Paul, back in 2008.

"Ron Paul: Republican and Democrats are dinosaurs"

Source: Ron Paul 

I at least borderline hate the two-party system and this is coming from a let's say Independent Democrat, whose only a Democrat because Democrats tend to believe in progress and pluralism. And I'll be a Democrat, as long as the Far-Left of the party (Democratic Socialists and Neo-Communists) don't take over the party. 

But I think I agree with Ron Paul, at least to this extent and perhaps would put it differently. The two-party system in America is a dinosaur. We simply have two main parties, but in name only. We have a Democratic Party that not just represents the Center-Left (the real Progressives) in America, but the Far-Left (the Socialists) and parts of the Center-Right (the Classical Liberals) who are not Republicans because of the Christian-Right. 

And then we have a Republican Party that use to at least represent the Center-Right in America (Classical Conservatives and Right-Progressives) but now they represent the Far-Right (Nationalist-Populists and Christian-Theocrats) and certain extent Libertarians. So we have maybe 5 different parties in America, at least ideologically, but we really only have two main political parties. And that needs to change, if we're ever going to have a functioning political system, that can govern the country again and isn't thrown out every two years.

Ron Paul: '5 Greatest Dangers to a Free Society'

Source:Twitter- U.S. Representative Dr. Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas)

"Recently by Ron Paul: Bombing the Gaza Prison Camp

This is an excerpt from Ron’s Farewell to Congress address which was given on November 15, 2012.

What are the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five.

1. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the onrush of tyranny.

2. Violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of "blow-back" is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result.

3. The ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the UN or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression.

4. A financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning, by the Federal Reserve must be understood.

5. World government taking over local and US sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking, a world currency, taxes, property ownership, and private ownership of guns." 

From Lew Rockwell

Ron Paul: "Secession Is an American Principle"

Source: Ron Paul-

Source: Ron Paul: Secession Is An American Principle

If these nutty right wingers, far-right wingers who haven't gotten the memo that it's no longer the 1950s and the United States is a much different country now, then let then secede and take the poor Bible Belt states with them. And they won't have to live  with different people and different lifestyles and cultures of so-forth. With people who are more openminded about how Americans should live and what it means to be an American. Instead of this narrow-minded view of what it means to be an American. Because this is exactly what it is, old Americans trying to continue to fight a culture war with new Americans. People who grew up in the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s, people who view people as people and don't see people who aren't exactly like them as Un-American. Tolerant of different people, lifestyles and cultures. This whole succession debate is about the fact that we now have an African-American President who was reelected last Tuesday. And these far-right Neo-Confederates not being able to deal with that fact.

If Neo-Confederates want to secede from the union, by all means good riddance! We already have way too many ignorant Americans in this country, but they are going to have to leave their states in the country, because the overwhelming majority of the country wants to remain American. And remain a part of the United States. Where all Americans no matter, their racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, and national background have an opportunity to succeed in this country. This is not the Euro States of America, or the Caucasian States of America, or even the Anglo States of America, for the nationalist Far-Right who don't even like non-English Americans, even the Irish, because they're Catholic and don't like Southern Europeans, because they have olive skin and are Catholic, or Jews and Slavs, because they have different cultural and ethnic backgrounds and practice different religions than the Southern Baptists. This is the United States of America where everyone is welcomed, as long as they're productive, responsible and obey rule of law. 

Ron Paul: 'A New Beginning'

Source:Ron Paul- perhaps when he was running for President 2011-12.

"America is over $16 trillion in debt. The “official” unemployment rate still hovers around 8%.

Our federal government claims the right to spy on American citizens, indefinitely detain them, and even assassinate them without trial.

Domestic drones fly over the country for civilian surveillance.

Twelve million fewer Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008, yet political pundits scratch their heads.

It’s not hard to see why, though.

To go along with endorsing a never-ending policy of bailouts, “stimulus packages,” and foreign military adventurism, the establishment of neither major party questions the assaults on Americans’ liberties I’ve named above." 

From Eurasian View

Now that Representative Ron Paul will be leaving Congress at the end of the year, hopefully for the libertarian movement he'll spend his retirement while he still can, to continue to build this movement. Whether it's either through the Republican Party and trying to convince Libertarians and Classical Conservatives that they need to save this party, before Tea Party Nationalists ruin it and make it no longer competitive at the Federal level, for both President and the Senate. 

Tea Party Nationalists, can still get elected at the local level and for state government and the U.S. House, but the last two Federal elections, Republicans have been losing very winnable Senate elections, because they are nominating Far-Right Nationalists who can't stand to see America for what it is. And want to take the country back to the 1950s, when if had they just nominated Conservatives or even Libertarians, they probably win those elections.

So Libertarians I believe have a couple options going forward. Take over the Republican party and knock the Tea Party Nationalists, out of the leadership and start running Libertarians in Republican primaries and put the resources that are necessary to win those primaries and even run primary challenges against Far-Right Republicans who are currently in office. 

Or, Libertarians can put their resources behind the Libertarian Party and recruit new voters to that party who don't like big government Republicans or Democrats. And make the LP big and strong enough to compete with Republicans and Democrats in the future.

The New American: Thomas R. Eddlem- 'The Ron Paul Revolution: Moves to Congress'

Source:The New American- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas)

"Libertarian-leaning Republican Congressman Ron Paul lost his bid for the Republican presidential nomination this year, but a number of his acolytes ran for Congress as Republicans and won November 6. Is Congress the real location of the growing “Ron Paul revolution”?

Source:The New American

Source:Scott Nix- The Libertarian Dr. Ron Paul 

The future of libertarianism in the GOP? 

Well, Ron Paul is now 77 years old and is leaving the House of Representatives, so at the very least will no longer be much of a presence even in the House, let alone Congress as a whole. Senate Democrats will once again be in control of the Senate in the next Congress and just added two seats to their majority in 2012. And House Republicans will have a smaller majority in the next Congress than they have in this Congress. So, enough about Congress as far as Ron Paul. Besides, I'm tired of talking about Congress anyhow. 

But the movement that Representative Paul launched with my Generation X and even some Millennial's, who have the most support for socialism as far as generation (which is really the opposite of libertarianism) has real momentum with young adults in America. And there still plenty of members of Congress in both parties and in both chamber's, like Senator Rand Paul, (Ron Paul's son) Representative Justin Amash, Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Mike Lee, Representative Walter Jones, and many others who've have real respect for libertarianism. And perhaps at least could be described as Conservative Libertarians. Because they believe in economic freedom, civil liberties, and federalism.

Ron Paul: 'How to Sell Liberty (1990)'

Source:CSPAN- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) talking about liberty in 1990.

Source:Real Life Journal

“Dr. Ron Paul has been a three-time candidate for President of the United States; as a Libertarian in 1988 and as a Republican in 2008 and 2012. He served for many years as the U.S. Representative for Texas’s 14th congressional district, and is widely known for his libertarian views and his criticism of the federal government’s foreign, domestic, and monetary policies. He is the author of several books including The Case for Gold (1982), A Foreign Policy of Freedom (2007), The Revolution: A Manifesto (2008), and Liberty Defined (2011).

In this video Dr. Paul speaks to a crowd in San Francisco in 1990 at an International Society for Individual Liberty conference. Having run for office under the Libertarian Party’s banner two years prior, Dr. Paul shares his experience on how to sell libertarianism to make it palatable to both liberals and conservatives." 

From Libertarianism.Org 

What supposed to pass as Libertarians and libertarianism in 2012, are essentially right-wing Anarchists who call themselves voluntarists. People who don’t have a role for an organized, publicly financed government to do anything. People who are antigovernment, not anti-big government, but antigovernment all around. People who believe that everything that’s done in society should be done voluntarily with no rules for anything.

What’s supposed as a Libertarian and libertarianism today in 2012, is not what you get from Ron Paul when he was first elected to the U.S. House in 1976, ran for President of the Libertarian Party in 1988, got elected to the House again in 1996, ran for President in 2007-08, and again in 2011-12.

Ron Paul to me is the face of the American Libertarian movement. Perhaps not the father, but you are talking about someone who believes in both personal and economic freedom, just as long as people aren’t hurting any innocent person with what they’re doing. Which is his role for government, which is to protect the innocent from people who hurt them. But not to run anyone’s lives for them, or assist anyone with public assistance when people fall on hard times. Just to protect the people from predators both foreign and domestic.  

Libertarian Party: ‘The Libertarian Party’s 41 Year Campaign to Abolish the Federal Reserve’

Source:Libertarian Party- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for President.

Source:Real Life Journal 

“The Libertarian Party’s 41 year campaign to abolish the Federal Reserve”

From the Libertarian Party

President Richard Nixon, the Federal Reserve and War on Drugs, probably are reasons for the creation of the Libertarian Party in 1971-72. But you could probably go back to the New Deal of the 1930s, the creation of the Federal highway system of the 1950s and the Great Society of the 1960s, as other reasons for the Libertarian Party.

The Christian-Right comes about in the mid and late 1970s, the New-Left in the Democratic Party from the late 1960s and 1970s that you see as part of the Green Party today. These are all reasons for why we have a Libertarian Party today because there isn’t a pure anti-big government party in America between either the Democratic or Republican parties. Both parties have anti-big government factions, but aren’t purely anti-big government.

The Republican Party has the Christian-Right and Conservative Republicans who support thinks like Social Security, Medicare, and environmental regulations. The Democratic Party has the New-Left (Far-Left, really) a combination of Democratic Socialists who want to bring Sweden to America as far as how our economic system looks. And they even have people farther left than that who sound more like Marxists when it comes to free speech in that they don’t seem to believe in it.

The Democratic Party also has the whole so-called political correctness movement that wants to ban offensive, or critical speech towards groups that they believe are vulnerable. As well as people who want to use government to tell Americans by force what they can eat and drink. Nanny statists on the Far-Left.

These are all reasons for the Libertarian Party today. And I’m not a Libertarian even though I’m completely against big government myself, but whether you’re a Libertarian or not at least we have a party in this country that believes in individual freedom completely as a party. They don’t have factions, or groups that believe in both economic and personal freedom. But they believe in those things completely as a party.

The Libertarian Party believes in the U.S. Constitution as a whole and don’t just speak about aspects of it that they like as they’re trying generally in secret to weaken aspects of the Constitution they don’t like, or constantly trying to amend it and strip protections from the Constitution that they disapprove of.

Morton Downey Show: Ron Paul (1988)

Source:Buzz Feed- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) on the Morton Downey Show, in 1988.

Source:Real Life Journal 

“Ron Paul has never been considered a conventional politician, but his 1988 appearance on the Morton Downey Jr. Show is bizarre even by his standards. Paul took, on among others, Guardian Angel Lisa Sliwa in 15 minute showdown that featured Paul defending the traditional Libertarian policy he still defends today.” 

From Buzz Feed 

“Hilarious raucus TV appearance with a chain-smoking host, eccentric guests and a wild audience”

Source:Andy Warhol- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian Texas) on the Morton Downey Show in 1988.

From Andy Warhol

Morton Downey Jr. who died from the overuse of tobacco in 2001, tobacco being an illegal narcotic drug in America and yet he was in favor of the War on Drugs, here debating U.S. Representative Ron Paul on the War on Drugs. Well, actually the War on Illegal Drugs, drugs that are seen by the U.S. Government as too dangerous for personal use and personal choice. Well, that is Washington speak for: “Drugs that do not have a strong enough lobbying operation to lobby Congress and the White House for legalization.” 

Nate Cox: ‘Ron Paul on the Principles of the Libertarian Party (1988)’

Source:Nate Cox- U.S. Representative Ron Paul (Libertarian, Texas) 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for POTUS.

Source:Real Life Journal

“Ron Paul explains the principles of the Libertarian Party. This footage was taken in the 80’s when he was running for President under the Libertarian Ticket.” 

From Nate Cox 

When I was growing up at least in the 1980s and early 90s, a Libertarian was essentially someone who believed in the non-aggression principal. Which means you don’t hurt me and I won’t hurt you and as long as people aren’t hurting any innocent person, people should be as free as birds to live their own lives. And where government comes in is to protect innocent people from predators, but not to run people’s lives for them.

I believe that’s changing today where you have people who call themselves Libertarians, but who are essentially right-wing Anarchists who don’t seem to have any role for government whatsoever.

Representative Ron Paul at least as long as I’ve been falling him since he returned to the House of Representatives in 1997 as a Republican, seems to be in the first school of Libertarians. And does believe in at least some government, but not big enough to run our lives for us.