This is Ron Paul’s “predictions” speech, given just a short time after 9/11, in April of 2002. It’s scary just how accurate he was about the government’s actions in the wake of the tragedy, and their consequences for freedom. This is a day to commemorate all those who lost their lives 12 years ago, and the many heroes who emerged, but also a day to remember the liberties that make America truly great.
September 11, 2013
April 30, 2013
Photo credit: Gage Skidmore
I am working on a blog post about the Boston bombing, the lockdown, and the capture of suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. While I am getting my thoughts organized, former Congressman Ron Paul came out with an absolutely great column on the subject, which I agree with 100%. It is reproduced below in its entirety.
Forced lockdown of a city. Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.
These were not the scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic, but rather the scenes just over a week ago in Boston as the United States got a taste of martial law. The ostensible reason for the military-style takeover of parts of Boston was that the accused perpetrator of a horrific crime was on the loose. The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city. This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.
What has been sadly forgotten in all the celebration of the capture of one suspect and the killing of his older brother is that the police state tactics in Boston did absolutely nothing to catch them. While the media crowed that the apprehension of the suspects was a triumph of the new surveillance state – and, predictably, many talking heads and Members of Congress called for even more government cameras pointed at the rest of us – the fact is none of this caught the suspect. Actually, it very nearly gave the suspect a chance to make a getaway.
The “shelter in place” command imposed by the governor of Massachusetts was lifted before the suspect was caught. Only after this police state move was ended did the owner of the boat go outside to check on his property, and in so doing discover the suspect.
No, the suspect was not discovered by the paramilitary troops terrorizing the public. He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police. And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police.
As journalist Tim Carney wrote last week:
“Law enforcement in Boston used cameras to ID the bombing suspects, but not police cameras. Instead, authorities asked the public to submit all photos and videos of the finish-line area to the FBI, just in case any of them had relevant images. The surveillance videos the FBI posted online of the suspects came from private businesses that use surveillance to punish and deter crime on their property.”
Sadly, we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect our liberties. Once the government decides that its role is to keep us safe, whether economically or physically, they can only do so by taking away our liberties. That is what happened in Boston.
Three people were killed in Boston and that is tragic. But what of the fact that over 40 persons are killed in the United States each day, and sometimes ten persons can be killed in one city on any given weekend? These cities are not locked-down by paramilitary police riding in tanks and pointing automatic weapons at innocent citizens.
This is unprecedented and is very dangerous. We must educate ourselves and others about our precious civil liberties to ensure that we never accept demands that we give up our Constitution so that the government can pretend to protect us.
By Ron Paul
January 7, 2013
This and other photos in this post by Gage Skidmore
On Thursday, January 3, the newly-elected members of Congress were sworn in. Of course, that also means that the terms of the incumbent members of Congress came to an end. And that includes my favorite Congressman, Ron Paul (R-TX), who is now officially retired. To mark the occasion, I thought I would do a recap of his long and illustrious career. Here is my tribute to Ron Paul.
November 15, 2012
On Wednesday, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) gave his final speech on the House floor before his retirement. Hear his inspiring words about liberty above or on YouTube.
September 17, 2012
The Freedom Bulletin is proud to endorse Governor Gary Johnson for president and Judge Jim Gray for vice-president.
Running as the Libertarian Party presidential nominee after an unsuccessful try in the Republican Primary, Gov. Johnson, along with his running mate, Judge Gray, is the most principled candidate and the one who is the most supportive of liberty.
According to their official website, Johnson and Gray support balancing the federal budget, auditing the Federal Reserve, cutting government spending and taxes, repealing the Patriot Act and the Affordable Care Act, implementing risk-based and more privacy-friendly approaches to airport security, and legalizing marijuana and online gambling. They are also pro-choice and support the right to bear arms as an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution.
In addition to his pro-liberty platform, Gov. Johnson also has a compelling and admirable personal story. He started his own construction company, built his own house, and has climbed Mt. Everest. As Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, he vetoed 750 bills, cut taxes 14 times, and never raised them.
Judge Gray served on the Orange County Superior Court in California from 1989 to 2010, advocating for reform of America’s drug laws.
Neither of the two major party candidates, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, have been at all convincing that they will stand up for freedom or individual rights. Both have supported requiring all people to purchase health insurance, which is an unacceptable violation of individual liberty whether on the national or the state level. Neither has taken a stand against drug laws, which throw people in jail for actions that hurt no one, or against security practices so invasive that they are tantamount to sexual assault. Perhaps just as importantly, neither appears to be a genuine person. Both have flip-flopped on important policy positions, and both give the impression that they are saying what they think voters want to hear, and not what they truly believe.
Numerous libertarian-leaning folks have brought up the idea of voting for Ron Paul as a write-in candidate. I love Ron Paul as much as I do Gary Johnson, and if these two were running against each other, as they were in the Republican primary, I would have an extremely difficult task choosing which I preferred. However, in the general election, sadly, Paul is not the nominee of any political party and is not running a write-in campaign of any sort. In other words, Ron Paul is simply not a candidate, while Gary Johnson is.
For these reasons, I encourage all pro-liberty people to vote for Johnson-Gray 2012!
August 31, 2012
Since he signed the law requiring all Massachusetts residents to buy health insurance, I have never been a big fan of Mitt Romney. As a result, initially I was not very excited about the Republican National Convention. But I decided to watch, and the speeches of both Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, were more exciting than I had expected. One thing that I appreciated was that they tried to reach out to young people who cannot find jobs, as opposed to ridiculing them. My favorite line of Ryan’s speech was when he said, “If you’re feeling left out or passed by, you have not failed, your leaders have failed you.” Too many people that I know, most of whom consider themselves conservative, criticize people who live with their parents, calling them lazy and entitled and speaking as if it is their choice to be unemployed. As a person who lived with her parents for two years to save up enough money to buy a house, I find this personally insulting, and there is no reason why this attitude should be considered part of being conservative or Republican. Good for Romney and Ryan for not going down this path.
Although Romney’s and Ryan’s speeches were pretty good, there are articles and videos of them everywhere, so I won’t link to them in this post. Instead, below are three of my personal highlights from the convention:
Ron Paul tribute video
Condoleezza Rice – she has always been one of my favorite political figures, and gave an intelligent, charismatic speech.
Rand Paul – although he did endorse Romney, he gave a great, pro-liberty speech about free markets, the Constitution, and the limits of government.
September 3 update: After all of the hating on Clint Eastwood’s speech, I’ve got to add this as a highlight too. Everyone from movie critics to political pundits to people on Facebook to opinion polls have been really harsh on Clint. I am officially putting it on the record that I do not share this view. I appreciated his speech and found it refreshing. In a political climate filled with scripted, often boring and/or phony speeches, it is awesome to hear an unscripted, genuine, wacky, truly funny speech once in a while.
August 26, 2012
Photo by Gage Skidmore
The New York Times today reported new (to me, at least) details about why Ron Paul won’t be speaking at the Republican National Convention:
Mr. Paul, in an interview, said convention planners had offered him an opportunity to speak under two conditions: that he deliver remarks vetted by the Romney campaign, and that he give a full-fledged endorsement of Mr. Romney. He declined.
“It wouldn’t be my speech,” Mr. Paul said. “That would undo everything I’ve done in the last 30 years. I don’t fully endorse him for president.”
There will, however, be a video tribute to Dr. Paul’s illustrious years of service in the House of Representatives. But even this was too much to satisfy some Paul haters. The National Jewish Democratic Council actually said, “Paying tribute to this man who disparaged the U.S.-Israel relationship on Iranian television and empathized with Iran’s nuclear weapons program – on top of the history of his hate-filled newsletters – is a national disgrace. Romney and the RNC should cancel the tribute and end this dangerous strategic partnership once and for all.”
What an utterly ridiculous statement. Because Paul believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy, showing a video of him is a national disgrace? It’s fine to disagree with Paul’s foreign policy views, but you have to respect the fact that he has served 22 years in Congress and stuck to his principles the entire time. For me, as well as other liberty-loving Republicans, the video tribute will most likely be the highlight of the convention. It’s bad enough that Romney is the Republican nominee and that Paul won’t even get to speak. To call one of the convention’s few measly pro-liberty moments a “national disgrace” and demand that it be canceled is simply ridiculous.
On a happier note, although he won’t get to speak at the RNC, Congressman Paul gave a great speech today at his We Are The Future rally at the University of South Florida, which you can watch below or on YouTube.
I wish I could have gone to this rally; it looks like it was a great time and an inspiring send-off. I admire Paul for sticking to his principles no matter what and will miss him dearly in his retirement.