On Thursday, Congressman Paul questioned Fed Governor Elizabeth Duke during a House Financial Services Subcommittee hearing on consumer protections and the Federal Reserve.
As Dr. Paul argues in this video, additional regulations will be just another tax on consumers, and until we address the underlying problem of the Federal Reserve System itself, consumers will continue to watch the value of their savings decline.
No sooner does the representative from Texas’ 14th Congressional District, nicknamed “Dr. No” by his detractors, find himself embraced by mainstream Republicans (and even some Democrats) on domestic policy issues, than he pivots his focus to foreign affairs.
Obama, Paul told POLITICO during a sit-down in his office this week, “has talked a little better than his action, but he has already expanded [the number of troops] in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He became the peace candidate: ‘Yeah, we’re going to end that war in Iraq.’ But it’s not sincere. I don't think they had any intention, never did.”
It’s a unique time for Paul. With the economy in the tank, the same cable news shows that spurned him during the election now keep asking him on to talk monetary policy. Republican House
members are finally voting with him on spending measures.
See Bob Higgs's great post in response to the prominent mainstream economists who have called on Congress to continue protecting the Fed's "independence."
Even Great Britain, America's closest ally in Europe, is considering cutting back on military spending. Reports the Christian Science Monitor:
By a quirk of geography, the English market town of Wootton Bassett has come to symbolize the pride that the British public continue to has in its armed forces.
Without fail, large crowds of ordinary townsfolk line its streets on at least a weekly basis every time a cortege carrying the remains of the latest soldier to fall in Afghanistan passes through from a nearby airbase.
But at a time of overwhelming public support for its service men and women, the global recession is causing Britain to face hard choices about its future military role in the world - putting at risk plans to build new aircraft carriers and heralding consequences for everything from operations alongside the US in Afghanistan to whether the UK remains nuclear-armed.
The start of the first full-scale official review of Britain's defense forces in more than 10 years was announced on Tuesday. It came within days of three of Britain's most influential independent research institutes forecasting that the £34 billion (about $54 billion) defense budget will be seriously cut.
The question of whether to support a £76 billion ($124 billion) program to replace Britain's aging Trident nuclear weapons system also looms large.
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), warned that the UK cannot afford much of the defense equipment it plans to buy, questioned the value of renewing the submarine-launched Trident nuclear deterrent, and said it was "delusional" to think the UK could act alone without closer European defense cooperation.
The squeeze is likely also to have implications for Afghanistan. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has refused to send substantial reinforcements despite appeals from President Barack Obama for more assistance from NATO allies.
Pulling back might make sense for the British. But it is time for policymakers in Washington to make clear that other nations no longer can expect a free or cheap ride on the U.S. Americans no longer can afford to subsidize everyone everywhere, defending prosperous and populous allies which would prefer to spend their money on social welfare and economic investment.
The U.S. needs a foreign policy and military budget appropriate for a republic, not an empire. The American people need to post a "do not disturb" sign for the next time a rich ally shows up on the nation's doorstep demanding that America solve its problem.
Well, at least former House Speaker Newt Gingrich didn't advocate an air raid. Rather, he suggested guerrilla--and dare I suggest "terroristic"--attacks on Iran's energy industry.
The former speaker of the US House of Representatives has said that the US should "sabotage" Iran's oil and gas infrastructure as part of its efforts to bring down the government.
In an interview with Al Jazeera's Avi Lewis for the Fault Lines programme, Republican Newt Gingrich said targeting Iran's refinery would spark an economic crisis that would destabilise the government in Tehran.
He said the US should "use covert operations ... to create a gasoline-led crisis to try and replace the regime".
"I think we have a vested interest, the world has a vested interest, in a responsible Iranian government, just as we have a vested interest in a responsible North Korean government," he said.
Does Mr. Gingrich really believe that terrorist sabotage would likely result in a more pliable Iranian government? More likely, it would allow Tehran to build public support and convince the regime that it must have nuclear weapons to protect itself from attack by the one foreign nation which has routinely used its power to impose regime change on countries around the world--including in Iran itself back in 1953.
Needless to say, I'm very proud of South Carolina's junior Senator right now:
"While Bush and McCain were "abandoning free-market principles to save the free-market system" by signing off on an $800 billion Wall Street Bailout, the Republican establishment still treated the truly free-market Ron Paul as some sort of crazy, irrelevant money crank.
It's amazing the difference a year makes.
As of this writing, every single Republican in the House and over 60 Democrats have co-sponsored Paul's H.R. 1207 Federal Reserve Transparency Act, which calls for an audit of the Federal Reserve. Given the current economic crisis, it turns out that many legislators are eager to see just how the Fed is able to print new money out of thin air. In the 1980's, Paul introduced similar legislation with virtually no help from his fellow Republicans. In 2009, the entire party has lined up behind Ron Paul.
And big kudos are in order for one Republican who has gone out of his way to help form that line - Senator Jim DeMint."
Posted by Matt Hawes on 07/17/09 Last updated 07/16/09
On Thursday, Congressman Paul used his opening remarks during a hearing on regulatory reform, consumer protections, and the Federal Reserve to challenge his colleagues to confront the real threat to consumers - the Fed and our system of fiat money.
(The hearing was only available on the internet, so the audio is the best possible.)
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
RSS Feed
