<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Campaign for Liberty » Resources</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.campaignforliberty.org/category/resources/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.campaignforliberty.org</link>
	<description>Reclaim the Republic. Restore the Constitution.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 13:28:45 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<item>

	<title><![CDATA[Hurricane Response Proves Volunteerism is Better Than Authoritarianism]]></title>
	<link>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/hurricane-response-proves-volunteerism-better-authoritarianism</link>
	<comments>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/hurricane-response-proves-volunteerism-better-authoritarianism#comments</comments>
	<pubDate>Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:16:41 -0400</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[rp_admin]]></dc:creator>
	<category><![CDATA[Current Events]]></category><category><![CDATA[National Blog]]></category><category><![CDATA[Ron Paul]]></category>	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.campaignforliberty.org/hurricane-response-proves-volunteerism-better-authoritarianism</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Following Hurricane Helene, many private helicopter pilots launched their own search and rescue missions. One would think government officials would welcome the help of these volunteers, but instead they harassed them and even threatened to [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Following Hurricane Helene, many private helicopter pilots launched their own search and rescue missions. One would think government officials would welcome the help of these volunteers, but instead they harassed them and even threatened to arrest them!

For example, one private helicopter pilot rescued an individual stranded by Helene. Unfortunately, he was threatened with arrest if he flew his helicopter back into the impacted area to save someone left behind on the earlier flight.

In a video shared by comedian and political commentator Jimmy Dore, Jonathan Howard, a member of the Florida State Guard and volunteer for the nonprofit group Aerial Recovery, discussed how the government took credit for the rescue of an 11-day-old baby even though the rescue was done totally by volunteers. Mr. Howard stated that when he goes on a search and rescue mission he sees around forty other private helicopters and just two military helicopters.

One reason the federal government is unable to provide adequate aid to those impacted by Helene (and now Milton) is the government is sending military aid worth billions of dollars to Ukraine and Israel. In fact, over 700 members of the Tennessee National Guard are deploying to the Middle East as people in the state deal with damage from Hurricane Helene!

When questioned on Fox News about Helene’s impact, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham made an impassioned plea …. for more aid to Israel. Senator Graham is far from the only member of Congress to put the needs of foreign countries and the military-industrial complex ahead of Americans.

Congress will likely consider a multi-billion-dollar disaster relief bill in the post-election “lame duck” session. Conservative Republicans will (properly) demand the spending be offset by cuts in other spending. The problem is most of these “fiscal conservatives” will vote to increase the national debt to fund the military-industrial-complex.

When I served in Congress, I voted against federal disaster aid even when the disaster impacted my district. Inevitably my office would receive complaints from outraged constituents. After a few months of jumping through the federal government’s bureaucratic hoops in seeking to recover from the disaster, many constituents would call my office to say that they now agree that they would be better off if the government would stop trying to “help” the victims of natural disasters.

One of the helicopter pilots who voluntarily flew into the areas impacted by Helene was Curves fitness chain founder Gary Heavin. Mr. Heavin, in addition to being a successful businessman, is a passionate advocate for liberty who serves on the advisory board of my Institute for Peace and Prosperity. It is not surprising that someone who believes in liberty would be willing to help those in need rather than rely on the government to provide assistance.

Contrary to the lies spread by authoritarians, libertarianism does not require selfishness. Libertarians welcome voluntary action to help those in need. Libertarians object to government assistance because it is based on force. Authoritarianism leads to poverty, war, chaos in the streets, and a lack of compassion for the less fortunate. Liberty leads to prosperity, peace, and a flourishing of private charities.
]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>

	<title><![CDATA[Fed’s Rate Cut Helps Candidate Harris but Will Hurt President Harris (or Trump)]]></title>
	<link>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/feds-rate-cut-helps-candidate-harris-will-hurt-president-harris-trump</link>
	<comments>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/feds-rate-cut-helps-candidate-harris-will-hurt-president-harris-trump#comments</comments>
	<pubDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2024 11:30:26 -0400</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[rp_admin]]></dc:creator>
	<category><![CDATA[Current Events]]></category><category><![CDATA[National Blog]]></category><category><![CDATA[Ron Paul]]></category>	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.campaignforliberty.org/feds-rate-cut-helps-candidate-harris-will-hurt-president-harris-trump</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Many investors, businesses, and consumers cheered the Federal Reserve’s first interest rate cut since March of 2020. The Fed’s 50 basis points interest rate reduction was larger than many Fed watchers anticipated and was followed by [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Many investors, businesses, and consumers cheered the Federal Reserve’s first interest rate cut since March of 2020. The Fed’s 50 basis points interest rate reduction was larger than many Fed watchers anticipated and was followed by suggestions that there are more rate cuts on the way.

A drop in borrowing costs following the Fed’s rate reduction can help make people more optimistic about the general economy and their own financial situation. The uptick in consumer sentiment could help Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris who has lagged behind Republican nominee former President Donald Trump on the matter of which candidate is seen as better on economic issues.

Even before the Fed’s rate cut, President Trump and pro-Trump commentators were suggesting that a rate cut would be a “September surprise” designed to boost Vice President Harris. This claim was dismissed by the “mainstream” media as a baseless “conspiracy theory.” However, anyone familiar with the Federal Reserve’s history of tailoring monetary policy to advance political goals would not have any trouble believing that the Fed would cut interest rates to help its preferred candidate.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has an incentive to prevent a Trump return to the Oval Office. While in the White House, President Trump regularly criticized Powell for not further lowering already historically low interest rates.

President Trump has also indicated that, if he wins, he will push Congress to give the president a direct role in monetary policy. Vice President Harris, in contrast, has promised to not interfere with the Fed’s conduct of monetary policy. It is easy to see why Powell and his Fed colleagues might want to help Harris.

Anyone who has been to a grocery store knows the Fed has not “defeated” price inflation. However, even official government data shows “softness” in the labor market. This Fed rate cut likely had more to do with concerns about increasing unemployment than the Fed’s claim that inflation will soon reach the Fed’s two percent target.

The Fed is between a rock and a hard place. If it does not lower rates, there is concern that unemployment will increase as the economy falls into a recession. On the other hand, keeping rates low runs the risk of hyperinflation and a collapse of the dollar’s value. The most likely scenario is a return of “stagflation” where rampant price inflation coexists with high unemployment.

Interest payments on the national debt will exceed one trillion dollars this year, putting more pressure on the Federal Reserve to monetize the debt, thus creating more inflation.

The Fed’s interest rate reduction may have increased Kamala Harris’s chances to win the presidency. However, the rate cut also increases the odds that the next president will face a major economic crisis. The crisis will either be caused by or result in a rejection of the dollar’s world reserve currency status.

The best thing politicians can do in the crisis is to avoid the temptation to “stimulate” the economy. Instead, they should let the recession run its course and begin dismantling the welfare-warfare state and the fiat money system.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>

	<title><![CDATA[Washington’s Ukraine Obsession is Going to Get Us All Killed!]]></title>
	<link>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/washingtons-ukraine-obsession-going-get-us-killed</link>
	<comments>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/washingtons-ukraine-obsession-going-get-us-killed#comments</comments>
	<pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2024 10:52:41 -0400</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[rp_admin]]></dc:creator>
	<category><![CDATA[Current Events]]></category><category><![CDATA[National Blog]]></category><category><![CDATA[Ron Paul]]></category>	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.campaignforliberty.org/washingtons-ukraine-obsession-going-get-us-killed</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Last week the world narrowly escaped likely nuclear destruction, as the Biden Administration considered Ukraine’s request to allow US missiles to strike deeply into Russian territory. Russian president Vladimir Putin warned, as the request was [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Last week the world narrowly escaped likely nuclear destruction, as the Biden Administration considered Ukraine’s request to allow US missiles to strike deeply into Russian territory. Russian president Vladimir Putin warned, as the request was being considered, that because these missiles could not be launched without the active participation of the US military and NATO, Russia would consider itself in a state of war with both NATO and the US should they be launched. It was a Cuban Missile Crisis on a massive scale.

Thankfully, permission was reportedly not granted by Washington to hit deep inside Russia, but as we have seen throughout this war, a weapons system is often first denied and then eventually granted to Washington’s proxies in Kiev. We should not rest easy even if nuclear war has been temporarily averted.

Would missile strikes deep inside Russia win the war for Ukraine? Not even the Pentagon thinks so. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin himself said earlier this month that granting Ukraine permission to launch missiles into Russia would not be a “game-changer” in the two and a half year war.

Risking nuclear destruction for no tangible purpose? Have these people gone insane?

Even the “game-changers” have changed little in this war. How many times has the pro-war mainstream media told us a weapons system would be a “game-changer” for Ukraine? Remember Javelin missiles? Leopard tanks? HIMARS? And as each one of them fails to turn the tide in Ukraine’s favor, the neocons and their friends in the media only demand more.

The fact is that Russia is winning the war despite hundreds of billions of dollars and the best weapons systems from the US and NATO countries. Each new shipment of increasingly sophisticated weapons does not produce battlefield victories for Ukraine. It only produces more dead Ukrainian soldiers and more profits for the weapons manufacturers.

Even the mainstream media – which has solidly supported the Ukraine war – has begun to report on Ukraine’s huge losses and hopeless situation. Yet as more and more start to wake up about the disastrous proxy war, Washington only knows one direction when it comes to war: forward. Just over a week ago the Pentagon announced another $250 million arms package for Ukraine. Nobody believes that is going to reverse the steady gains made by Russia on the battlefield, but it will generate more profits for the US arms manufacturers who are the real force behind our hyper-interventionist foreign policy.

The unlikely duo of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Donald Trump, Jr., said it best in a recent editorial in The Hill: “We cannot get any closer to the brink than this. And for what? To ‘weaken Russia’? To control Ukraine’s minerals? No vital American interest is at stake. To risk nuclear conflict for the sake of the neoconservative fantasy of global ‘full-spectrum dominance’ is madness.”

They are right, it is madness to risk the future of our country and our children and grandchildren for wars that have nothing to do with us and serve no national interest of the United States. This is certainly true for the Ukraine war, and it is also true for the wars the US is supporting in the Middle East. When will the madness end? When the people speak up and demand a change.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>

	<title><![CDATA[Tyranny in the UK – Can it Happen Here?]]></title>
	<link>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/tyranny-uk-can-happen</link>
	<comments>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/tyranny-uk-can-happen#comments</comments>
	<pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2024 15:08:39 -0400</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[rp_admin]]></dc:creator>
	<category><![CDATA[Current Events]]></category><category><![CDATA[National Blog]]></category><category><![CDATA[Ron Paul]]></category>	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.campaignforliberty.org/tyranny-uk-can-happen</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[As the UK descends into tyranny, where just re-Tweeting something the government doesn’t like can land a person a multi-year jail sentence, Americans are wondering, “can it happen here?” After all, we have the guarantees of the First [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[As the UK descends into tyranny, where just re-Tweeting something the government doesn’t like can land a person a multi-year jail sentence, Americans are wondering, “can it happen here?” After all, we have the guarantees of the First Amendment.

But while we shake our heads at UK authorities jailing people for their social media posts this past week, we should not kid ourselves. The answer is that silencing dissent can happen here and it is happening here.

Here are just three recent examples of how the “deep state” or the permanent government is conspiring to restrict political dialogue in the United States.

First is the revelation that former US Representative and former US presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has been placed under the bizarrely named “Quiet Skies” program. As reported by journalist Matt Taibbi based on revelations by TSA whistleblowers, this July Gabbard was flagged as a terror threat, and every time she travels her boarding pass is marked so that she is pulled aside for extensive screening. According to the whistleblowers, “Gabbard is unaware she has two Explosive Detection Canine Teams, one Transportation Security Specialist (explosives), one plainclothes TSA Supervisor, and three Federal Air Marshals on every flight she boards.”

As Gabbard herself revealed recently on the Laura Ingraham show, “A few weeks ago, I had the audacity to tell the truth: that Kamala Harris would essentially be a mouthpiece and puppet of the Military Industrial Complex and National Security State. The next day, July 23, they retaliated. Sadly this is what we can expect from the ‘Harris Administration.’”

Next we have the attempted assassination of former president Donald Trump. It seems every day brings a new revelation that calls into question whether the massive failure to protect the Republican presidential candidate was just an “honest mistake.” We know from 1963 what can happen to presidents who cross the “deep state” and we know from Trump’s four years in office how “former” deep state officials can conspire to undermine the presidency with lies like “Russiagate.”

Finally we have the case of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Up until the Trump assassination attempt, the Biden/Harris Administration refused to provide the independent presidential candidate with Secret Service protection. RFK, Jr. has consistently and effectively criticized not only the current administration but the “deep state” itself while out on the campaign trail. Even though there were credible threats against him on the campaign trail the Biden/Harris administration refused to budge for months. Why? Did they want to silence him?

The US government learned an important – and dangerous – lesson from Covid: all you have to do to crush political dissent is to use the weight of the government to force the “private” sector to do the censoring for you. It is only a half-step away from forbidding us from expressing our thoughts on a virus to sending us to prison for expressing other thoughts the government does not like. And maybe worse.

There will be a reaction in the UK to the brutality of the Starmer regime. We can only hope for their – and our – sake that the reaction will be a newfound determination by the people that no government should have the authority to shut them up or jail them for their political views. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, “free speech, if you can keep it.”]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>

	<title><![CDATA[America Reaches a Sad Milestone]]></title>
	<link>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/america-reaches-sad-milestone</link>
	<comments>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/america-reaches-sad-milestone#comments</comments>
	<pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2024 22:09:07 -0400</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[rp_admin]]></dc:creator>
	<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category><category><![CDATA[Current Events]]></category><category><![CDATA[National Blog]]></category><category><![CDATA[Ron Paul]]></category>	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.campaignforliberty.org/america-reaches-sad-milestone</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Last week the national debt reached 35 trillion dollars, a mere seven months after the debt reached 34 trillion dollars. To put this in perspective, the national debt first reached one trillion dollars in October of 1981, almost 200 years after [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Last week the national debt reached 35 trillion dollars, a mere seven months after the debt reached 34 trillion dollars. To put this in perspective, the national debt first reached one trillion dollars in October of 1981, almost 200 years after the Constitution’s ratification!

The fact that the government was adding one trillion dollars in debt in little over half a year was not deemed worthy of comment by President Biden, Vice President Harris, and most other US politicians. This is not surprising since the national debt has not been a central issue in DC since the days of the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party’s efforts to focus attention on the debt resulted in a bipartisan deal that made minuscule spending cuts. In fact, most of the cuts were not real cuts. They were just reductions in the “projected rate of spending increase,” meaning the spending still increased but just by not as much as originally planned.

This was not the first time that apparent spending limits consisted of smoke and mirrors. For example, the budget “surpluses” of the 1990s were due to the government’s practice of counting the social security trust fund as both a liability and an asset, not because of bipartisan budget deals.

The Donald Trump-inspired rise of “populist nationalist conservatism” that does not emphasize the national debt means Republicans have less incentive to even talk about the debt — aside from making justifiable, though hypocritical, attacks on President Biden and congressional Democrats’ excessive spending. Similarly, the rise of a Bernie Sanders-influenced “new left” has led even centrist Democrats to stop giving lip service to the cause of deficit reduction.

Many Democrats, including those who have embraced Modern Monetary Theory, agree with former Vice President Dick Cheney that “deficits don’t matter.” Modern Monetary Theory asserts that as long as the central bank can monetize federal debt and keep interest rates low the government can endlessly increase the amount of debt. This is not really modern, as the Federal Reserve has long been acting as the “great enabler” of the federal debt.

Those who pretend deficits don’t matter ignore the fact that interest on the national debt will soon be the largest item in the federal budget, consuming as much as 40 percent of federal revenue. This is unsustainable. The devaluation of the dollar resulting from the Federal Reserve’s efforts to stimulate the economy and monetize federal debt, combined with increasing resistance to US hyper-interventionist foreign policy, will lead to a rejection of the dollar’s world reserve currency status. When that occurs, there will be a major economic crisis unlike anything this country has seen since the Great Depression.

This crisis could lead to increased support for authoritarianism in both the left and the right. The result will be even greater restrictions on economic and civil liberties and even more belligerent foreign policy, scapegoating those who reject the dollar’s reserve currency status for the country’s economic problems.

However, the economic crisis also can be followed by a society with minimal government and more liberty. The liberty movement is still growing. Those who understand the philosophy of liberty and sound economics must continue to spread the truth about the dangers of fiat money and the growth of government power and government debt. They must also communicate the benefits of the free market, personal liberty, sound money, and peace.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>

	<title><![CDATA[Republican Platform Ignores Real Causes of Inflation]]></title>
	<link>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/republican-platform-ignores-real-causes-of-inflation</link>
	<comments>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/republican-platform-ignores-real-causes-of-inflation#comments</comments>
	<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2024 23:05:23 -0400</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[rp_admin]]></dc:creator>
	<category><![CDATA[Current Events]]></category><category><![CDATA[National Blog]]></category><category><![CDATA[Ron Paul]]></category>	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.campaignforliberty.org/republican-platform-ignores-real-causes-of-inflation</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[The 2024 Republican platform promises that, if Donald Trump returns to the White House and Republicans gain complete control of Congress, they will reduce inflation. The platform contains some proposals, such as reducing regulations and extending [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[The 2024 Republican platform promises that, if Donald Trump returns to the White House and Republicans gain complete control of Congress, they will reduce inflation. The platform contains some proposals, such as reducing regulations and extending the 2017 tax reductions, that may help lower prices in some sectors and spur economic growth. However, the GOP platform does not address how the Federal Reserve’s enabling of spendaholic politicians contributes to price inflation.

Other than an obligatory promise to cut “wasteful” spending, and a pledge to eliminate the Department of Education, the Republican platform is largely silent on proposals to reduce federal spending.

The GOP’s apparent desire to increase military spending is a disappointment to those of us who hoped the increased skepticism of foreign intervention among Republican voters would dampen Republican enthusiasm for the military-industrial complex. The platform also opposes any reduction in Social Security and Medicare. So, the “fiscally responsible” Republicans want to increase spending on one of the largest items in federal spending (“defense”) while opposing cuts in two others (Social Security and Medicare). Interest on the national debt, another of the top spending items, will continue growing under a Republican government. The only way Republicans may look like champions of small government is by comparison with the Democrats.

While it is disappointing that the Republican platform rejects fiscal responsibility, it is not surprising. President Trump increased the national debt by between seven and eight trillion dollars. While spending did explode with the covid lockdowns, the debt increased by trillions between Trump’s inauguration and the covid-inspired spending spree. Spending increased during Trump’s first two years in office, when Republicans controlled Congress. This is not the first time a Republican president has betrayed his promise to cut spending: Both President Bushes, as well as President Reagan, campaigned on pledges to cut spending then increased spending and debt while in office.

Politicians could not increase the national debt unless the Federal Reserve monetizes the debt by purchasing Treasury bonds and increasing the money supply to keep interest rates low. The need to monetize the debt is the main reason the central bank must keep interest rates from rising to anywhere near market levels. According to Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Brian Riedl, every one percent increase in interest rates increases federal interest payments by 35 trillion dollars spread out over three decades.

It is no coincidence that the rise of the debt-based economy with ever-growing levels of consumer, business, and (especially) government debt — along with the accelerated decline of the dollar’s purchasing power, which reduces Americans’ standards of living — all occurred after President Nixon severed the last link between the dollar and gold. Yet, the Republican platform does not call for Congress to pass the Audit the Fed legislation, much less create a free market in money by legalizing competing currencies. Of course, the platform does not endorse ending the Fed’s ability to monetize federal debt by forbidding the Fed to purchase federal debt instruments.

It remains up to those of us who know the truth to keep spreading the message that the real key to making America great again is to make money real again by auditing and ending the Fed.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>

	<title><![CDATA[Why We’ll Never Know What Really Happened in Butler, PA]]></title>
	<link>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/well-never-know-really-happened-butler-pa</link>
	<comments>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/well-never-know-really-happened-butler-pa#comments</comments>
	<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:26:28 -0400</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[rp_admin]]></dc:creator>
	<category><![CDATA[Current Events]]></category><category><![CDATA[National Blog]]></category><category><![CDATA[Ron Paul]]></category>	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.campaignforliberty.org/well-never-know-really-happened-butler-pa</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Just days after the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, theories are flying from all directions. Many who ridiculed the “conspiracy theories” of conservatives are now suggesting the whole event was a set-up to boost [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Just days after the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, theories are flying from all directions. Many who ridiculed the “conspiracy theories” of conservatives are now suggesting the whole event was a set-up to boost Trump in the polls ahead of the election. Others suggest it was the “deep state” or even foreign actors who organized it.

Former US Navy Seal and founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince, claims that “The fact that  allowed a rifle armed shooter within 150 yds to a preplanned event is either malice or massive incompetence.” He went on to observe that, “unaccountable bloated bureaucracies continue to fail us as Americans,” adding that “unserious and unworthy people in positions of authority got us to this near disaster. Merit and execution must be the only deciding factors in hiring and leadership, not the social engineering priority of the day.”

Video has emerged showing that for at least two minutes law enforcement knew someone with a gun was on a roof aiming at the former President and no one communicated the need to pull Trump from the stage. You can clearly hear the crowd warning law enforcement that someone was on the roof. Yet he was unhindered until the first shots rang out.

Considering this fact, Erik Prince has a point.

If this is like any previous governmental foul-ups, we can expect hearings, investigations, and commissions that will actually serve to hide the official errors or even malicious intent by some in the government. That’s what government does no matter who is in office: protect itself from actual scrutiny and resist being exposed as incompetent or worse.

But what if there was a genuine investigation that actually revealed the truth about what happened at the Trump rally over the weekend? Could we rely on the mainstream media to even report it? This is the same media that, after Trump was clearly shot on live television, reported “Trump escorted away after loud noises at PA rally.” (Washington Post). And “Secret Service rushes Trump offstage after he falls at rally.” (CNN).

This is the same mainstream media that has been comparing Donald Trump to Hitler for years, and now pretends to be shocked that their vile rhetoric ended up in violence. There is a good reason why the mainstream media is regarded by the American public with record levels of contempt.

The current Director of the Secret Service has been interviewed expressing her dedication to “diversity” in hiring agents. What if her dedication to DEI goals led to an agency that is more “diverse” but fails at its core mission? Can we rely on the media to inform us of this? Or will they, as usual, just blame it all on the Second Amendment?

What if the problem with the Secret Service is that it was moved into the bloated, incompetent, and menacing Department  of Homeland Security, the creation of which I strongly opposed when I was in Congress?

We shouldn’t count on hearing the truth about the attempted assassination from the mainstream media. No wonder the elites remain determined to censor social media sites like Twitter/X and TikTok. We live in an empire of lies, propped up by the mainstream media. And seeking the truth in this empire of lies is the greatest challenge for us in the moral bankruptcy in which we live.
]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>

	<title><![CDATA[The Debate Should Be a Wake-Up Call For Americans]]></title>
	<link>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/debate-wake-call-americans</link>
	<comments>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/debate-wake-call-americans#comments</comments>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jul 2024 17:43:12 -0400</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[rp_admin]]></dc:creator>
	<category><![CDATA[Current Events]]></category><category><![CDATA[National Blog]]></category><category><![CDATA[Ron Paul]]></category>	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.campaignforliberty.org/debate-wake-call-americans</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[There were plenty of surprises in last week’s presidential debate. For one, Americans who rely on the mainstream media for their news learned that they had been lied to for the past three years about President Biden’s capability to do the job [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[There were plenty of surprises in last week’s presidential debate. For one, Americans who rely on the mainstream media for their news learned that they had been lied to for the past three years about President Biden’s capability to do the job he was elected to do.

The realization that the media has been lying for years about Biden is a positive development, as, hopefully, thoughtful Americans might begin wondering what else the media has been lying about. For example, they will find out that the media has been lying to them for years about Russia and Ukraine and about the Middle East and elsewhere. They will find out that our hyper-interventionist foreign policy does not make us safer and more free, but the opposite.

Unfortunately for most Americans, foreign policy is something that happens “over there,” with few direct effects back home. Dumping nearly $200 billion into the lost cause called “Ukraine” may at most seem like an annoyance to many Americans, but it’s not like they are being snatched up by gangs of military recruiters and sent to the front line as is happening to Ukrainian men.

However, $200 billion is real money and the effect on our economy is also real. The bill will be paid by each American family indirectly through the inflation “tax.” Each dollar created out of thin air and spent on the Ukraine debacle devalues the rest of the dollars in circulation.

The danger posed by our foreign policy seemed to escape both candidates, who each tried to convince us they were “tougher” than the other. Despite Donald Trump’s sober and accurate warning that Joe Biden has taken us to the brink of World War III, his solution to the problem is doing more of the same. His stated foreign policy seems to be that were he in office the rest of the world would not dare do anything against his will.

He would have been so tough that Russian president Vladimir Putin would never have dared to invade Ukraine, he claimed. He would have been so tough that Hamas would never have dared attack Israel on October 7th. It’s only Joe Biden’s “weakness” that leads to these disastrous foreign policy outcomes.

But the world does not work that way. Decades of US sanctions placed on any country that fails to do what Washington demands have backfired and led to the emergence of a block of countries united in their resistance to American dictates. Being “tough” on less-powerful countries may work…until it doesn’t. That’s where we are today.

Neither candidate seems to realize that the world has changed.

I have always said that real strength in foreign policy comes from restraint. To prevent these bad outcomes everywhere, stop intervening everywhere. It is not “toughness” that would have prevented Russia from taking action against Ukraine. It is restraint. Not launching a coup in Ukraine in 2014 would have prevented the disastrous war in Ukraine. Just like not stirring up trouble in the South China Sea would prevent a war with China. Not continuing to occupy and intervene in the Middle East would prevent a major regional war which might include Iran and other big players in the region.

Restraint is the real toughness. Non-intervention is the only foreign policy that will keep us safe and free. We’ve tried it the other way and it does not work. Let’s try something different.
]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>

	<title><![CDATA[Stop Taxing Tips]]></title>
	<link>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/stop-taxing-tips</link>
	<comments>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/stop-taxing-tips#comments</comments>
	<pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2024 18:32:10 -0400</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[rp_admin]]></dc:creator>
	<category><![CDATA[Current Events]]></category><category><![CDATA[National Blog]]></category><category><![CDATA[Ron Paul]]></category>	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.campaignforliberty.org/stop-taxing-tips</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[Donald Trump recently promised that, if he wins the November election, he will support eliminating taxes on tips as part of his proposal to renew and expand the 2017 tax cuts. This tax law change would be a long overdue boost for millions of [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Donald Trump recently promised that, if he wins the November election, he will support eliminating taxes on tips as part of his proposal to renew and expand the 2017 tax cuts. This tax law change would be a long overdue boost for millions of Americans.

Tips often comprise a substantial portion of the earnings of waiters and waitresses, as well as of other service-sector employees. However, unlike regular wages, a service-sector employee usually has no guarantee of, or legal right to, a tip. Instead, the amount of a tip usually depends on how well an employee satisfies his customers. Since the amount of taxes one pays increases along with the size of tips, taxing tips punishes workers for doing a superior job!

Many service-sector employees are young people trying to make money to pay for their education, or single parents struggling to provide for their children. Making tips tax free gives these hard-working Americans an immediate pay raise. A person may use this pay raise to devote more resources to his children’s or his own education, to save for a home or retirement, or to start a business.

Eliminating taxes on tips will provide some (limited) relief from the Federal Reserve’s inflation tax. This tax results from the decline in the dollar’s purchasing power caused by the Federal Reserve’s monetization of federal debt. The inflation tax is the worst form of tax because it is hidden. Thus, most people will not blame the Fed for higher prices. The inflation tax is also regressive, as price inflation is more of a burden to those at the lower end of the income scale than to billionaires. The Fed-created price inflation has forced many Americans to work two jobs.

This is not to suggest that reducing taxes on tips will fully compensate working people for the income they lose to the inflation tax. The best way Congress can help relieve the people of the inflation tax is to cut federal spending that leads to the Federal Reserve monetizing debt. Congress should also pass a law forbidding the Fed from monetizing debt by purchasing federal debt instruments.

It is also long past time to stop talking about tax cuts “costing” the government money. Talking about tax cuts in terms of how much money they cost the government, as opposed to how much money they leave in the hands of the people, accepts the premise that the government has a greater moral claim to the money than those who actually earned it. In truth, saying cutting taxes cost the government money makes as much sense as saying stopping a mugger from taking everything in your wallet “cost” the mugger money. Instead of worrying about how much tax cuts cost the government, the politicians should worry about how much welfare and warfare spending cost taxpayers.

The idea that tax cuts should only be supported if they promote “efficiency” should also be rejected. All tax cuts promote efficiency because, as economist and Ludwig von Mises Institute President Thomas DiLorenzo put it, “private individuals always spend their own money more efficiently than government bureaucrats do.” Instead of worrying about whether the government can “afford” tax cuts or whether tax cuts promote economic efficiency, those concerned about the government deficit should focus their efforts on reducing government spending. If the government stopped trying to run our lives and run the world, there would be no need to punish hard-working Americans by taxing their tips.
]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>

	<title><![CDATA[The Trump Trial and our Injustice System]]></title>
	<link>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/trump-trial-injustice-system</link>
	<comments>http://www.campaignforliberty.org/trump-trial-injustice-system#comments</comments>
	<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2024 13:40:13 -0400</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[rp_admin]]></dc:creator>
	<category><![CDATA[Current Events]]></category><category><![CDATA[National Blog]]></category><category><![CDATA[Ron Paul]]></category>	<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.campaignforliberty.org/trump-trial-injustice-system</guid>
	<description><![CDATA[I’ve long criticized our current US justice system – on all levels – as becoming much more about political justice than blind justice. The bizarre trial and conviction of former President Donald Trump last week on 34 felonies only [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[I’ve long criticized our current US justice system – on all levels – as becoming much more about political justice than blind justice. The bizarre trial and conviction of former President Donald Trump last week on 34 felonies only reinforces my concerns.

The New York District Attorney, Soros-backed Alvin Bragg, has been notorious for downgrading felony charges against others to misdemeanor charges. According to a recent article in the Daily Mail, Bragg had downgraded 60 percent of felony cases to lesser charges, resulting in violent criminals being released on the streets and a crime wave across New York City.

But when it came to Donald Trump, Bragg lurched in the other direction, upgrading what normally would have been misdemeanor charges against anyone else to 34 felony charges against the former president. How can this sudden “about-face” be explained other than politics?

Jonathan Turley, who is no fan of Donald Trump, has been covering the trial closely and has found more than a little disturbing the exuberant celebrations of Trump’s conviction among the mainstream media and his political opponents. Recently, he wrote:

“The conviction of former President Donald Trump in Manhattan of 34 felonies produced citywide celebrations  extended to the media, where former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace that it was ‘majestic day’ and ‘a day to celebrate.’ When I left the courthouse after watching the verdict come in, I was floored by the celebrations outside by both the public and some of the media.”

Regardless of one’s view of Donald Trump, it is a disturbing development in our society when justice is treated more like a football game where you root for your “team” rather than a way of preserving our freedom and liberty in an equal way for all.

The real goal of the trial was political. None other than George Soros’ son Alex let the cat out of the bag recently when he advised fellow Trump-haters how to take advantage of the trial result. He posted on Twitter after the verdict, “Democrats should refer to Trump as a convicted felon at every opportunity. Repetition is the key to a successful message and we want people to wrestle with the notion of hiring a convicted felon for the most important job in the country!”

It was not about justice in any way. It was all about being able to call the likely Republican presidential nominee a “felon” so as to undermine his support among voters. In other words, election interference.

The market has a way of prevailing, however. The repeated attempts at using “lawfare” to remove Trump from the political scene have all backfired and actually have served to make the former president even more popular among voters. Immediately after Trump’s conviction on the 34 charges he began sending out fundraising appeals based on his “persecution” by the state of New York. As of this writing, he has, according to press reports, raised over $200 million for his campaign.

The politicization of justice is not limited to the Democratic Party. The wind sown by political opponents of Donald Trump may well become the whirlwind they reap when their own political opponents are in positions of power. When that is the case, we all lose.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
