Peter Schiff Predicting the Economic Downturn Back in 2006

Neocons Turning on Sarah Palin?

After reading Kathleen Parker's vitriolic rant against Palin over at National Review Online, Christopher Manion thinks he knows the reason:

Now NR wants to electrocute Sarah Palin. Why? The only fundamental (in the musical sense) I recognize in this treachery is this:

When Palin was at the Convention, she was scheduled to meet with Phyllis Schlafly's supporters. They had clearly worked hardest to support an explicitly pro-life platform, and they succeeded.

But Sarah's new neocon "minders" canceled the Schlafly meeting, sequestered Sarah, and stuck her in a secret meeting with AIPAC for an entire day, at the end of which, AIPAC gave Sarah their benediction. Then, for two weeks, she was in lockdown.

Now the neocons suddenly want her out. I can draw only one conclusion: they believe her devotion to their single-minded, private international agenda is only skin-deep -- and they also recognize that Sarah Palin might be president some day. And then she will be her own woman.

Not theirs. A horrifying thought.

They have been desperate lately. I think they fear they might wind up sitting by the side of the road. Thus, the long knives come out.

Hell hath no fury...

Reading Material on the Bailout

A wealth of information concerning the current financial crisis can be found at Mises.org.

Ron Paul: My Answer to the President

Via e-mail:

Dear Friends:

The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion.

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.

H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.

In liberty,

Ron Paul

Get Ready for the REAL Economic Crisis

President Bush Is a Strong Believer in Free Enterprise?

Sure. He said so last night:

I'm a strong believer in free enterprise. So my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business. Under normal circumstances, I would have followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances. The market is not functioning properly. There's been a widespread loss of confidence. And major sectors of America's financial system are at risk of shutting down. ...

... I know that Americans sometimes get discouraged by the tone in Washington, and the seemingly endless partisan struggles. Yet history has shown that in times of real trial, elected officials rise to the occasion. And together, we will show the world once again what kind of country America is -- a nation that tackles problems head on, where leaders come together to meet great tests, and where people of every background can work hard, develop their talents, and realize their dreams.

The president believes in free enterprise so much that he wants to use the force of government to "liberate" every consumer in America -- kind of like what he did to the Iraqis, I suppose.

Excuse me, Mr. President, but why can't we just can't allow market forces to provide the solution? Given the fact that it was government intervention that created the problem in the first place, I would say that the market is functioning exactly as it should. Just let it run its course.

Ron Paul Predicted the Housing/Banking/Mortgage Crisis

It isn't surprising that Ron Paul would address the House Financial Services Committee concerning the housing crisis. But he delivered this speech back on September 10...in 2003:

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the Treasury Department's views regarding government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for taking time out of their busy schedules to appear before the committee.

I hope this committee spends some time examining the special privileges provided to GSEs by the federal government. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received 13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone. Today, I will introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act, which removes government subsidies from the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board.

One of the major government privileges granted to GSEs is a line of credit with the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion dollars. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.

The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase GSE debt. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSE management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the recent reports of mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, investors would demand Fannie and Freddie provide assurance that they follow accepted management and accounting practices.

Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again thank the Financial Services Committee for holding this hearing. I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for their presence here today. I hope today's hearing sheds light on how special privileges granted to GSEs distort the housing market and endanger American taxpayers. Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope this committee will soon stand up for American taxpayers and investors by acting on my Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

If only they had listened.

Killing and Governing Authority

What is the difference between "murdering" and "killing"? Is state-sanctioned killing always justified? Does the mere legality of the taking of a life negate one's culpability in such an act? In an age when the sanctity of life seems to be an antiquated notion, I think we need to seriously consider these questions.

Take abortion, for instance. Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, abortion on demand has been considered legal in the United States. Therefore, any woman seeking to murder her...sorry, terminate her pregnancy has been given full license to do so. Does that make it right? Absolutely not.

Those of us who think abortion is murder realize that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority. We know that the Constitution does not allow judges to legislate from the bench. We also know that even if there were no constitutional conflict, abortion would still be murder in the eyes of God.

We can conclude, then, that not all killing done under the authority of government is justified. So, what about the war in Iraq?

We are told that we must "support the troops." The reason, so we are told, is that those men and women in uniform are putting their lives on the line -- and in many cases making the ultimate sacrifice -- to see to it that you and I are safe. The least we can do is let them know their sacrifices aren't in vain. In short, we are being asked to support the killing of Iraqis and anyone else who stands in the way of our troops completing their mission -- whatever that may be.

But just what does it mean to "support the troops"? Does it mean that I am to stand in agreement with the cause for which they are fighting? Does it mean that even though I may disagree with their mission I will encourage them in their efforts? Does it mean that I should refrain from criticizing them or their leaders because they are only "doing their jobs," and that for me to do so is tantamount to treason? Or is it as simple as driving around with "Support Our Troops" and "God Bless America" bumper stickers on my car?

I don't understand. First of all, the troops are just as capable as anyone else to see through the lies this government perpetuated in order to start this war. Secondly, they are there by choice; they weren't conscripted into the military and forced to fight against their will. Thirdly, they swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, not to blindly obey any and all orders given to them. Believe it or not, there was a time when refusing to obey an immoral, unconstitutional order was actually considered noble.

What gets me is that so many Christians vehemently support this war and their so-called "Christian" president. Many of them point to Paul's epistle to the church in Rome as evidence that we should support the war in Iraq.

Let's take a look at the passage in question:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Romans 13:1-7)

See, Saddam Hussein was evil, and our government was merely exercising its divine authority to carry out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

But the Iraqi people were not and are not subject to the same governing authority we are. In addition, despite what many Christians may think, scripture does not condone government doing whatever it wants simply because it was instituted by God. As we can see in the abortion issue, just because something is "legal" does not mean it is right.

In our striving to be good American Christians (rather than good Christian Americans), we seem to have forgotten one very important fact: the earthly governing authority to which we are to be subject is the Constitution of the United States, not the selfish desires of a small group of pompous, over-paid, bureaucrats. In other words, "we, the people," are the governing authority.

We know the president and other leaders in government lied about the threat Saddam posed to our country. We know that the Constitution grants the power to declare war only to Congress, and that Congress cannot cede that authority to the executive branch by passing some meaningless resolution. Therefore, our actions in Iraq stand in defiance of the legitimate governing authority of this nation of states. Just as the Supreme Court refused to abide by the Constitution, so too has the Bush administration ignored its biblical obligation to govern justly.

As a Christian, I must be consistent in my views. I must see all unjustified killing for what it is: murder. And as far as I am concerned, whether we're talking about abortion or an unconstitutional war, the state is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

A Glimpse at the Universal Health Care Socialist Utopia

This country won't just jump into universal health care overnight. Like every other erosion of liberty, it requires a piecemeal approach to alleviate suspicion. That includes things like price-fixing, controlling the dispensing of drugs, telling doctors who they can and can't treat, which insurance plans they must accept, and so on. The result, of course, is an overall drop in the quality of care. Expect to see more stories like this in the near future:

The wait to see primary care doctors in Massachusetts has grown to as long as 100 days, while the number of practices accepting new patients has dipped in the past four years, with care the scarcest in some rural areas.

Now, as the state's health insurance mandate threatens to make a chronic doctor shortage worse, the Legislature has approved an unprecedented set of financial incentives for young physicians, and other programs to attract primary care doctors. But healthcare leaders fear the new measures will take several years to ease the shortage.

Those who support universal health care want everyone to be treated equally. So, when everyone is suffering because of their idiotic policies, they will know they have succeeded.

Chuck Baldwin Thanks Ron Paul

Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin thanks Ron Paul for his endorsement:

I was happy to support Ron Paul during the Republican primaries, because I believe in the same principles. I personally campaigned for him in several states and in this column. And I asked (or expected) nothing in return. In fact, I have stated this publicly, time and again: if Ron Paul had won the Republican nomination for President, I would not be running. I would still be supporting Ron Paul.

I am running for President because the Republican Party rejected Ron's Paul's message of constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and non-interventionism. Therefore, someone had to pick up the mantle and carry this message into the general election. The Constitution Party asked me to be their standard-bearer in order to bring this message to the American people in November. So, here I am. And now, Ron Paul's endorsement is further substantiation that the message of constitutional government will not die in 2008. The American people still have a real choice instead of the big-government, globalist, interventionist, "big box" party candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama. ...

... Needless to say, I am both humbled and honored that Ron Paul would place enough faith in me that he would endorse me for President. I can think of no higher compliment to my candidacy. I here and now publicly thank him for this vote of confidence. I know my Vice Presidential running mate, Darrell Castle (a former Marine Corps officer and Vietnam veteran), joins me in inviting all of Dr. Paul's supporters to help us take the message of constitutional government into the general election on November 4. Thank you.

The Inevitable Future of Socialized Medicine

In a country where the state assumes control of health care, don't be surprised when people stop talking about one's right to die and start talking about one's duty to die. That's what's happening in Great Britain. From The Telegraph:

Elderly people suffering from dementia should consider ending their lives because they are a burden on the NHS and their families, according to the influential medical ethics expert Baroness Warnock.

The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are "wasting people's lives" because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.

She insisted there was "nothing wrong" with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.

The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be "licensed to put others down" if they are unable to look after themselves.

Her comments in a magazine interview have been condemned as "immoral" and "barbaric", but also sparked fears that they may find wider support because of her influence on ethical matters.

When we abandon free market principles in health care, we are forced to allow politicians to make decisions for us. As a result, the state ends up deciding who lives and who dies. And since the state is only interested in the health of the state, it will naturally want to weed out the "undesirables."

How many times must we go through this crap until people start to wake up?

Ron Paul Endorses Chuck Baldwin for President

Ron Paul has officially endorsed Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin. (He also gets in a nice dig against Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr, who snubbed Paul at a recent press conference.)

From the Campaign for Liberty web site:

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for "remaining neutral" in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It's true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I'm a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

I've thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I'm supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

I hope others will join Dr. Paul in sending a message to the Washington elite this November that freedom-loving Americans are sick and tired of the status quo. The two-party stranglehold on the political process must end.

Ron Paul Admits He Was Wrong on Iraq

It takes a real man to admit when he's wrong, and Ron Paul has done just that:

Many scoffed at my "radical" predictions at the time, regarding them as hyperbole. Six years later, I am forced to admit that I was wrong. My "radical" predictions were in fact, not "radical" enough.

I warned of a draining 30-year occupation. Now, politicians glibly talk about a 100-year occupation as if it is no big deal. On cost, according to estimates from the Congressional Research Service, we have already burned through around $550 billion in Iraq, at a rate of about $2 billion per week. Economist Joseph Stiglitz's estimates are even higher, at $12 billion a month. It is a total price tag quickly heading into the trillions, if we don't stop bombing and rebuilding bridges in Iraq that lead us nowhere but bankruptcy! Bridges in this country are crumbling along with our economy, while some howl about earmarks. Earmarks are a drop in the bucket compared to war and occupation.

Yes, I was wrong about Iraq. I knew it would be bad. I didn't know it would be this bad.

The American people deserve better. Being asked to endorse such a farce is beyond insulting. Clearly, the rosy predictions of the neo-Conservatives from before the war are not coming true. Far from it! With a straight face, one official estimated the TOTAL cost of reconstruction in Iraq would be just $1.7 billion. Turns out that we spend more than that in ONE WEEK. Our friends are not pitching in to cover the cost. Expenses are not being covered by oil from a grateful and liberated Iraqi people. Rather, big corporate interests are benefitting, the price of oil has more than quadrupled, and the American economy is on its knees and sinking fast.

No one predicted the exact course of this war before it started. But to continue to listen to the foreign policy advice of those that were the MOST offbase will only lead to more foreign policy disasters. We need to keep this in mind as we think about Russia, Iran, Cuba and other countries. Keep in mind -- the doomsday predictions on the Iraq War from six years ago, sound like a cakewalk today. While what leaders in the administration had predicted, reads like a fairytale. Ask yourself, when listening to the same foreign policy "experts" explaining situations around the world and suggesting policy positions: In light of the facts of today, and the predictions of yesterday, how expert have they shown themselves to be?

John McCain supported the initial invasion and Barack Obama has supported the ongoing occupation. They're the ones who really owe the American and Iraqi people an apology.

Déjà Vu

Chief Inspector: Iraq Iran May Be Hiding Secret Nukes
"The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned Monday that Iran may be hiding secret nuclear activities, comments that appeared to reflect a high level of frustration with stonewalling of his investigators."

Military Intelligence: Iraq Iran Halfway to First Nuclear Bomb
"Iran is halfway to a nuclear bomb, and Hizbullah, Hamas and Syria are using this period of relative calm to significantly rearm, Brig.-Gen. Yossi Baidatz, the Military Intelligence's head of research, told the cabinet Sunday during a particularly gloomy briefing on the threats facing the country."

Everyone Needs to Worry about Iraq Iran
"Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits the United Nations in New York this week. Don't expect an honest update from him on his country's nuclear program. Iran is now edging closer to being armed with nuclear weapons, and it continues to develop a ballistic-missile capability."

Iraq Iran Has Enough Material to Make a Nuclear Weapon
"For the past several years, stories about Iran's potential nuclear threat against Israel have circulated; however, until now Israel had never officially confirmed the threat."

Efforts to Sanction Iraq Iran Are Futile
"An Israeli commander says that attempts by the IAEA, United States and the West to pass further sanctions on Iran have been in vain."

Statism Corrupting Sports

The uber patriots may disagree, but having cops throw out baseball fans who dare to make a trip to the bathroom during "God Bless America" doesn't really do much to help the image of professional sports.

Ron Paul on the Global Financial Crisis

Big Bird in Bed with Big Brother?

Since you're too stupid to know how to talk to your family about what to do in case of an emergency, Sesame Street is teaming up with the Department of Homeland Security during "National Preparedness Month" to do it for you. It's good to know our tax dollars aren't going to waste.

Republocrat Campaign Song

Mainstream Media: Mouthpiece for Washington

Peter Schiff is well-known within the circles of Austrian economics. He served as an economic adviser in Ron Paul's presidential campaign and has frequently appeared as a guest on news shows.

During one such appearance on Fox News in 2006 he accurately described what was going on in the housing market and predicted the mortgage crisis that has since forced tens of thousands of people from their homes and numerous lending companies into bankruptcy. None of the other "experts" Fox called in to gang up on Schiff had a clue about the topic at hand, and Mike Norman, the most clueless in the bunch, couldn't refrain from ridiculing Schiff for his alarmist views:

Schiff was proven right, but did anyone listen to him? Nope. Another "expert" appeared with him on CNBC a year later to voice her support for the official government rhetoric regarding inflation:

We see this time and again from the "objective" mainstream media. Their idea of being "fair and balanced" is to make sure the government's side is heard.

Arming Israel to Attack Iran

The Jerusalem Post recently reported that the U.S. Department of Defense is set to sell 1,000 bunker-busting smart bombs to Israel. According to the report, "Israel has also asked for 150 mounting carriages, 30 guided test vehicles and two instructors to train the air force in loading the bombs on its aircraft."

These are exactly the king of weapons that would be used in a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Liberty Straw Poll

Join us on September 17th, Constitution Day, for an exciting new event that will change the landscape of candidate fund raising: the inaugural Liberty Straw Poll where eight Congressional candidates will compete for your vote during the Liberty Straw Poll Forum.

The straw poll winners will receive the total value of purchased tickets as their prize, thereby concentrating the reward, heightening the intensity, and recognizing the winners as leaders among liberty supporters.



More at www.LibertyStrawPoll.com.

Principle Over Party

In a statement to the National Press Club earlier today, Ron Paul refused to endorse fellow Republican John McCain. In fact, he refused to take part in the two-party charade:

The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.

Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to a degree, overcome these difficulties. ...

... For me, though, my advice -- for what it's worth -- is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.

A huge vote for those running on principle will be a lot more valuable by sending a message that we've had enough and want real change than wasting one's vote on a supposed lesser of two evils.

Read the entire transcript here.

All this talk about change? Neither Obama nor McCain even know the meaning of the word. It's time to send a real message.

Ron Paul on Foreign Aid to Georgia

Ron Paul is hated because he is the only representative in Washington willing to stand up to the corrupt establishment:

How dare he question the bureaucratic elitists!

Thug Tactics at the RNC

John P. Wise, an editor with MyFox National, was one of about 20 journalists -- among a crowd of about 300 -- who were detained and/or arrested on the final night of the Republican National Convention:

More here.

McCain's Terrorist Ties

How soon we forget that only a few short years ago John McCain was cozying up to Joe DioGuardi, an apologist for the radical Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). AntiWar.com's Justin Raimondo covered this back in 2000, during McCain's last presidential bid.

The picture at the right shows McCain with DioGuardi in New York on Feb. 11, 2000, when McCain was in town attending fundraising events. Raimondo called on the McCain campaign to "immediately release the figures, and give us some 'straight talk' about the KLA-McCain connection: how much did they get -- and in return for what?" That question remains unanswered.

Back in March of this year, Doug Bandow also addressed this issue, reminding us that DioGuardi once said of McCain, "He did everything that we asked of him, including arming the KLA." No big deal, right? After all, we were helping them fight off those "evil" Serbs.

But even our own government considered members of the KLA as terrorists. The Washington Times reported that as recently as 1998, "State Department officials labeled the KLA a terrorist organization, saying it bankrolled its operations with proceeds from the heroin trade and from loans from known terrorists like bin Laden." Yes, the same bin Laden who planned the 9/11 attacks and is still at large.

Isn't it odd that, on the threshold of the "most important election of our lifetime," none of this is being brought to our attention? McCain supporters should thank their willing accomplices in the "liberal" mainstream press.

Intimidation at the RNC?

It was politics as usual at the Republican National Circus. Michael Nystrom of The Daily Paul shares his perspective:

I was not on the floor, but the story that follows is what I heard from one of my fellow delegates who did not support the deal. A few hours before the vote on Wednesday, a couple of Ron Paul delegates who were known to be planning to abstain were approached by members of the Mass GOP, who began pressuring them to change their vote to "show unity" for McCain, so as to avoid making the MA delegation "look bad." In an instant, they were joined by members of the McCain Campaign, and by Republican congressmen from other states, and other unknown individuals. The whole group was surrounded by secret service men/goons with ear pieces and mics listening in. The delegates were told that they had to change their vote.

At this point in your reading, it might be easy to say to yourself, "So what? They should have stood their ground. What could those guys have done?" ...

... After seeing the tremendous pressure put on people in real politics, live and in person, it puts me in flat out awe that Dr. Paul ever made it this far. He talks a tough game but he walks it courageously and unwaveringly. This past week I saw first hand exactly why Dr. Paul is so special. Standing for what he believes in takes the kind of courage that most people simply have not yet developed.

That kind of courage takes practice. This was a first test, and it will only be a failure if we learn nothing from it.

Be sure to read the entire account.

Videos from Rally for the Republic

I was out of town when Ron Paul was in Minneapolis, so I missed his Rally for the Republic. Fortunately, quite a few videos of the events that weekend can be found here.

Enjoy!

We Don't Need a Great Leader for President

Penn Jillette, "the larger, louder half of Penn & Teller," doesn't think America needs a great leader in the White House. He writes:

I'm worried about someone smarter than Bush taking over that tremendous power. Charisma and ambition increase my fear exponentially, and a great leader scares me to death.

We need someone stupid enough to understand that the president of the United States can't solve many problems without taking away freedom and therefore shouldn't try. The only reason John McCain scares me a little less is because I think he's a little less likely to win. They both promise a government that will watch over us, and I don't like that.

I don't want anyone as president who promises to take care of me. I may be stupid, but I want a chance to try to be a grown-up and take care of my family. Freedom means the freedom to be stupid, and that's what I want. I don't want anyone to feel my pain or tell me to ask what we can do for our country, or give us all money and take care of us. ...

... The choice shouldn't be which lesser of two evils should have the enormous power of our modern presidents. The question should be, who would do less as president? Who would leave us alone?

If we could find a lazier, less charismatic, stupider person than me to be president, I'd be all for it. But, it's not going to be easy; stupider than me is rare breed.