Ron Paul Endorses Colorado Senate Candidate Owen Hill

Former Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul has made an endorsement in the 2014 Colorado Senate Race by backing State Senator Owen Hill.

Hill is a young Air Force veteran who holds a Ph.D. in policy analysis and has worked as a financial manager for charities, in addition to being elected to the Colorado State Senate earlier this year.

More information about Hill can be found on his website: http://www.owenhillforsenate.com/

Read the endorsement below:

Ron Paul Institute Board Members Weigh In On Syria

Members of the Ron Paul Institute For Peace And Prosperity (RPI) advisory board have been making their views on Syria known to media outlets lately. Unsurprisingly, all are against military involvement in Syria's civil war.

Ron Paul, for his part, wrote this in his syndicated column this week:

"I agree that any chemical attack, particularly one that kills civilians, is horrible and horrendous. All deaths in war and violence are terrible and should be condemned. But why are a few hundred killed by chemical attack any worse or more deserving of US bombs than the 100,000 already killed in the conflict?

 Why do these few hundred allegedly killed by Assad count any more than the estimated 1,000 Christians in Syria killed by US allies on the other side? Why is it any worse to be killed by poison gas than to have your head chopped off by the US allied radical Islamists, as has happened to a number of Christian priests and bishops in Syria?

For that matter, why are the few hundred civilians killed in Syria by a chemical weapon any worse than the 2000-3000 who have been killed by Obama’s drone strikes in Pakistan? Does it really make a difference whether a civilian is killed by poison gas or by drone missile or dull knife?"

Walter Jones, the staunchly anti-war Republican Congressman who says he will take his vote invade Iraq to his grave, and who previously introduced legislation to impeach Obama for unilateral action in Syria and Libya, released the following statement:

“I will vote against any proposal to authorize U.S. military intervention in Syria,” said Congressman Jones. “The reality of America’s dismal fiscal situation is that any money spent to bomb Syria will be borrowed from overseas or will be taken from the Defense Department’s already-shrinking budget – resulting in even fewer resources for Eastern North Carolina military installations. Neither of these options is acceptable.”

“Furthermore, there are serious questions about the credibility of the Obama administration’s claims regarding the use of sarin gas in Syria.  The president has failed to explain how our national security depends on engaging in yet another Middle Eastern civil war on the side of radical Islamist rebels who have been documented as possessing sarin gas and beheading Christians, among other atrocities.”

John Duncan Jr., the only remaining Republican Congressman to vote against the Iraq War, who like Jones is firmly anti-war, released this statement:

"I am opposed to us getting involved in another war in the Middle East.  We do not have the authority under our Constitution or even under international law to get involved in a civil war in another country.

While what is going on in Syria is very sad, if we keep getting into situations like this, we will be in a state of almost permanent war.

We spent and will be spending several trillion dollars that we could not afford in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even so called limited wars have usually led to much greater involvement later on, and I simply do not want to see any young Americans killed in Syria.

We need to start taking care of our own people, and stop trying to run the whole world."

Dennis Kucinich, the former Democratic Congressman who is known as the left's version of Ron Paul in terms of foreign policy, said this in an interview with The Hill:

“So what, we're about to become Al Qaeda's air force now?” Kucinich said. “This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we're just going to have a 'targeted strike' — that's an act of war. It's not anything to be trifled with.”

Additionally, Kucinich wrote an excellent opinion editorial entitled "Top 10 Unproven Claims for War Against Syria".

Last but not least, Judge Andrew Napolitano called out the legality issues of Obama's proposed intervention in his Townhall.com column.

Because of the vicissitudes of history, the personalities of presidents and the myopic compromises of past Congresses, the area of presidential war-making has different legal and constitutional ramifications. Under the Constitution, only Congress can authorize the offensive use of military force. James Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention in 1787 make it obvious that the Framers were nearly unanimous in their resolve to keep the war-making power away from the president and repose it exclusively with Congress. They did this clearly and unambiguously in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

 Notwithstanding the precise language of the Constitution and the history of the nation's birth, the War Powers Resolution (WPR), a federal statute enacted in 1973 over President Nixon's veto, does permit the president on his own to use the military for offensive wars for a maximum of 90 days. Thus, under current federal law, Obama may lawfully bomb Syria even if Congress declines to authorize him to do so and even though such an act would violate international law.

 But the WPR is profoundly unconstitutional because it cedes Congress' constitutional war-making power to the president. The WPR was an ill-conceived political compromise effectuated by a Watergate-weakened president, congressional hawks who approved of Nixon's unilateral invasion of Cambodia and sober congressional heads more faithful to the separation of powers.

 This diverse coalition made up of conservatives, liberals, and libertarians is not only occurring within the RPI, but all across the country as Americans are overwhelmingly against war in Syria. Polls are showing it, and a vote would go a long way of confirming it. As Ron Paul put it in his interview with MSNBC:

“If this vote is won, that is defeat the request to have more military approach to Syria, I think it’d be historic because it’ll be a grand coalition of the libertarian Republicans and the Democratic progressives.”

Ron Paul on Abortion

Former Congressman Ron Paul is a libertarian. Many people associate libertarians with the pro-abortion movement, and some libertarians are apart of that movement. However, many libertarians, including Ron Paul, are strongly pro-life in their convictions. As opposed to mainstream America, libertarians derive their position on abortion, whatever it might be, from pursuing the question of what is best in line with protecting liberty.

For Paul, it boils down to the famous phrase he uttered during a presidential debate: 

 “If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?” 

Ron Paul wrote extensively about that very question in his book Abortion and Liberty, written in 1983 and with a forward by C. Everett Koop, which can be read at this link: 

http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron%20Paul-Abortion%20and%20Liberty.pdf

He also wrote about it in a more recent book, Liberty Defined. The audio book version can be listened to on YouTube:

With Paul's pro-life credentials established, what is his solution to the problem?

He believes it should be handled on the state level like other forms of violence and criminalized accordingly. While he supports federal legislation defining life at conception, the enforcement would occur at the state level. Currently, under Roe v. Wade, this is not an option. 

Roe v. Wade held that abortion was an essential liberty extended by the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment:

[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

This interpretation is faulty. First, it denies the human life of the baby in question. Secondly, one does not have the liberty to kill, or to forfeit the implied contract that is a pregnancy.

The ruling by the Supreme Court was as an appellate action pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789, in which it was granted jurisdiction over federal courts such as the one were the case originated. The Constitution describes the jurisdiction of the court as follows:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

As you can see, the domain of the Supreme Court is very small. It can be expanded, however only under regulations specifically prescribed by Congress.

It is certainly possible that states could employ state nullification or interposition as articulated by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, which Ron Paul supports. Another option is a less controversial. This option would still cause enormous uproar and possibly a constitutional crisis, but likely to a lesser degree than nullification.

This option would involve Congress retroactively putting restrictions on the Court's power to rule on cases of abortion, and would declare Roe v. Wade invalid and void. Immediately, this would send all abortion regulation to the state level under the 10th amendment.

The bill that would accomplish this is the Sanctity of Life Act. First introduced by Congressman Steve Stockman of Texas, it was subsequently re-introduced by Ron Paul for years.

Some in the pro-life movement ironically oppose this motion to return the authority to the states. If they cannot achieve a total ban, they will not accept any ban. This is unfortunate.

The pro-life movement ought to unite behind Ron Paul's solution to the abortion calamity. It is something libertarians and social conservatives can agree on. And it is much more viable than hoping the Court will overrule itself in the coming decades.

Ron Paul on Obama's Syria WMD Claim (VIDEO)

Ron Paul makes some excellent points in his latest video. Namely, the fact that the Syria-hype is eerily similar to Iraq, and the idea that Assad would use chemical weapons knowing the consequences of doing so is irrational. Additionally, he points out the fact that Al-Qaeda is heavily entrenched among the rebels, as well as China and Russia having interests as well.

Observations on the Sanford/Colbert-Busch debate (SC-1)

The debate between the candidates for the seat of the 1st Congressional District of South Carolina, Mark Sanford and Elizabeth Colbert-Busch, was painful to watch.

First of all, the crowd was rowdy, resembling British soccer hooligans. And while both candidates had their share of supporters, the supporters of Colbert-Busch stood out as extremely rude.

This blog has endorsed Sanford, and it is no surprise to us that he ran on his excellent record without shifting his positions. Colbert-Busch, on the other hand, noticeably presented herself as a centrist in contrast with her true progressive views.

For example, after taking a tough stance on illegal immigration in terms of tone and words, she completely erased credibility by saying she would support the Graham immigration proposal, which only promises border security and grants citizenship to illegals.

Another example is in regards to Colbert-Busch's response to ObamaCare. While criticizing it for increasing costs on businesses, she then went on to support certain parts of the bill. What she did not mention was that those portions are policies which increase costs on businesses.

Colbert-Busch did a poor job responding to the outside money from liberal organizations pouring into the race. Her defense was all she could reasonably say, which was that she would not listen to special interests. That did not make it any more believable. By contrast, Sanford has been abandoned by national groups, and will not owe anybody anything if he pulls out a win.

Sanford successfully defended his record on port funding, Social Security reform, and school choice and was also able to rebut low-blow attacks in regards to his 2009 affair debacle. He was wonky and sincere, while Colbert-Busch relied on imagery and positioning. 

With the news that Rand Paul will follow his father's footsteps and endorse Mark Sanford, hopefully late momentum will propel him to victory and allow him to join the growing pro-liberty contingent in the House.

Here is the video of the full debate, below: 

Ron Paul endorses Paul Broun and Mark Sanford

Retired Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has alerted his supporters via email of his decision to support two of his old colleagues and allies of liberty in their current races. Paul Broun, a Congressman from Georgia who is seeking the open Senate seat being vacated by Saxby Chambliss. Mark Sanford, a former Congressman and Governor from South Carolina, is seeking to win back his old House seat left open by the appointment of  Rep. Tim Scott to Sen. Jim DeMint's seat after he resigned.

Here is the Broun endorsement:

Dear Fellow Conservative, 

There are those in Congress who attack our liberties, push for increased government takeovers of private industry, and support out-of-control spending. They have put our nation on the path to fiscal ruin. 

These "go along to get along" politicians in Washington are more concerned about re-election than about defending the Constitution from federal government overreach. 

Thankfully, there are a few strong defenders of the Constitution who stand firm against out-of-control spending and overreach by politicians in both political parties... 

...Dr. Paul Broun of Georgia's 10th District is one of those principled Constitutional conservatives in Congress. 

He has worked hard to get federal spending under control by sponsoring a balanced budget amendment and a bill to repeal ObamaCare. He's pushed for over $155 Billion in spending cuts over these last two years alone! 

He has also been a strong proponent for oversight of the Federal Reserve and is now sponsoring my "Audit the Fed" bill in Congress. I cannot thank him enough for leading on this issue. 

A few weeks ago Congressman Broun launched his campaign for U.S. Senate. He's counting on grassroots Constitutional conservatives like you to rally with me in support of his campaign. 

Below is a personal email from Congressman Broun to you about his grassroots campaign for U.S. Senate. 

Please take a few moments to read it. Then join his efforts today with your most generous contribution of $2,600, $1,000, $500, $250, $100, $70, or $35.

Congressman Broun has been a staunch ally against out-of-control spending from politicians in both parties, and he will continue that fight in the Senate. We need Paul there! Like me, he's also one of the few remaining veterans of our armed forces serving in Washington. 

You and I have an excellent opportunity to send one of our own to the U.S. Senate in 2014, and we must seize it. 

Now more than ever, we must elect principled Constitutional conservatives who will reject the deficit-spending, "go along to get along" mentality in the U.S. Senate. 

I am confident Paul Broun would join the ranks of principled U.S. Senators like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and my son Rand Paul. 

Please read Congressman Broun's enclosed letter. Then join me in support of his grassroots campaign today with your generous gift of $2,600, $1,000, $500, $250, $100, $70, or $35. 

If we're going to restore our Constitution and put our nation back on the path to prosperity, we must elect principled conservatives who will fight in Washington. 

Paul Broun will continue fighting, and that's why I endorsed his candidacy for U.S. Senate in Georgia. 

Before you do anything else today, I ask you to read Congressman Paul Broun's enclosed letter and join his grassroots campaign with your generous contribution of $2,600, $1,000, $500, $250, $100, $70, or $35. 

Thank you for standing with me and Congressman Broun today. 

Congressman Ron Paul, MD 
U.S. Congressman (ret) 

P.S. Patriotic, constitutional conservatives like you and me have an opportunity to send a proven, principled leader to the U.S. Senate. Please take a few moments to read the enclosed letter from Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia. 

Once you've read his letter, please join his grassroots campaign for U.S. Senate with your most generous contribution of $35, $70, $100, $250, $500, $1,000, or even the federal maximum of $2,600. Thank you.

The Sanford endorsement:

Dear Friend,

If you’re anything like me, when you hear GOP establishment types coming out of the woodwork to defeat a fellow Republican, it certainly piques your interest.

Well, in South Carolina’s Congressional District 1 Special Election race on May 7, the naysayers are doing literally everything they can to defeat Republican Mark Sanford – even if it means electing a Democrat.

Of course, the reasons they all give are one thing.

But I suspect they know just as well as I do what a strong ally Mark has always been to our Liberty Movement.

Now, even the national Republican Party is pulling funding for his race!

That’s why, today, I’m endorsing Mark Sanford for Congress.

And with time running out, I hope you’ll agree to contribute to him as generously as you can.

As you may know, Mark and I served together in the U.S. House for several years, until his run for Governor of South Carolina.

During his time in the U.S. House and as Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford stood strong for limited government and lower taxes – even when that meant standing up to fellow Republicans.

In fact, when the GOP-controlled House in South Carolina couldn’t stop their addiction to spending, Governor Sanford protested by showing up in in the House with two piglets under his arms named “pork” and “barrel.”

While Republicans in Washington, D.C. were spending like there was no tomorrow, Governor Sanford issued 106 budget vetoes in 2004 alone!

That’s more than eight times the number of vetoes President Bush issued during his entire Presidency!

If elected to Congress, he’s pledged to pick up where he’s left off, including:

*** Auditing the Federal Reserve;

*** Repealing the so-called “PATRIOT” Act;

*** Ending indefinite detention of American citizens without trial;

*** Repealing ObamaCare;

*** Opposing a national ID program.

Of course, that’s far from the end of it.

His stellar record goes on and on.

I, for one, would love to see him back in Washington, D.C. fighting the fiscal madness that’s put our nation nearly $17 TRILLION in debt.

So I hope you’ll agree to generously support him today.

For Liberty,

Ron Paul

P.S. During his time in the U.S. House and as Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford stood strong for limited government and lower taxes – even when that meant standing up to fellow Republicans.

Today, I’m endorsing Mark Sanford for Congress.

And with time running out before the May 7 Special Election, I hope you’ll agree to contribute to him as generously as you can.

Below: Broun and Sanford, left and right respectively.

 

Texas is shooting to reclaim it's gold

According to the Star-Telegram: 

Texas Rep. Giovanni Capriglione has introduced a bill that would establish a gold depository run by the state, and he has Gov. Rick Perry's support.

In the article, Capriglione, Perry, and former Congressman Ron Paul all showed strong support for the idea of Texas reclaiming its gold from the federal government:

"Something on the scorecards of a lot of these businesses in deciding whether they want to come to Texas is stability and gold as being one of those items," Capriglione said. "I think it's been in his consciousness for a while in trying to get some sort of depository in the state of Texas."

 "If we own it," Perry said, "I will suggest to you that that's not someone else's determination whether we can take possession of it back or not."

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/03/21/4721036/tarrant-lawmaker-seeks-to-create.html#storylink=cpy

 "If you think gold is a hedge, or a protection, you always want it as close to the individual and the entity as possible," Paul told The Texas Tribune on Thursday. "Texas is better served if it knows exactly where the gold is rather than depending on the security of the Federal Reserve."

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/03/21/4721036/tarrant-lawmaker-seeks-to-create.html#storylink=cpy

 All of this makes sense, considering the Federal Reserve's inner secrets still escape government audits to this day. Paul's "Audit the Fed" bill passed the House during the last session, but Majority Leader Reid refused to bring it up for a vote in the Senate despite his strong support for an audit earlier in his career.

With all of the complex currency swaps that are constantly being made, it would not be surprising to find out that most or all of the gold held in Fort Knox and the New York Federal Reserve Bank is either gone or owned by a foreign government.

Should it still be there, it is in the interest of Texas to hold on to its gold as protection against a currency crisis which is almost guaranteed with the nation's debt levels and willingness to pay for it with the hidden tax, inflation.

It is likely Perry is taking cues from Paul, but also Wall Street veteran Jim Rickards, whom he cited during a Presidential debate as heavily informing him on currency issues.

Here is a recent interview of Rickards discussing and voicing support for the depository plan:

Vintage Ron Paul supporting the gold standard during his Congressional run in 1976.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/03/21/4721036/tarrant-lawmaker-seeks-to-create.html#storylink=cpy