Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll

Article by Raven Clabough

Attendees of the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) engaged in a voluntary presidential straw poll that often serves to indicate the ebb and flow of the conservative movement. Last year’s results revealed a surprising change in trend as Texas Congressman Ron Paul won the vote, defeating (among others) former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who was CPAC’s reigning victor for three consecutive years.

If you were an attendee or guest at this year’s conference, and thus were able to observe firsthand the enthusiastic support for Ron Paul among the attendees, it would come as no surprise to learn that Congressman Ron Paul once again won the CPAC straw vote.

Ballots for the CPAC straw poll were collected from Thursday morning through Friday afternoon. While only registrants could vote, all 50 states as well as the District of Columbia were represented in the vote.

Of this year’s poll, Tony Fabrizio of McClaughlin & Associates said, “This year shattered every single CPAC poll in history.

There were on average four straw polls completed every single minute, with a total of 3,742 people of the nearly 11,000 participating.

That is more than twice the amount of people who participated in 2007 and a 54 percent increase from last year.”

The list of potential 2012 presidential candidates appearing on the poll included Michele Bachman, Herman Cain, Mitch Daniels, Mike Huckabee, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, John Thune, Haley Barbour, Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Santorum.

Voters were also permitted to indicate that they were undecided.

Attendees waited impatiently while the results of the straw poll were introduced.

Audience members shouted at the introducers to “hurry up,” and others clapped to hurry the announcers along.

When the final results were announced, the crowd broke out in pandemonium.

Ron Paul, who had run for President in 2008 as the “champion of the Constitution,” won this year’s CPAC straw poll with 30 percent of the vote, followed by Mitt Romney with 23 percent.

The next closest choice was Gary Johnson at 6 percent.

However, when voters were asked to make a first and second choice, Paul won with a combined 37 percent of the vote, trailed by Romney, who held a combined 31 percent of the vote.

Johnson came in third with a combined 21 percent of the vote.

The presidential straw poll also asked voters if they were generally satisfied with the list of potential candidates.

Fifty-six percent reported that they were, while 43 percent asserted that they would like to see better candidates in 2012.

Voters were asked about their core beliefs and ideologies and had the following choices:

1. My most important goal is to promote individual freedom by reducing the size and scope of government and its intrusion into the lives of its citizens.
2. My most important goal is to promote traditional values by protecting traditional marriage and protecting the life of the unborn.
3. My most important goal is to secure and guarantee American safety at home and abroad regardless of the cost or size of government.

Eighty-four percent of voters provided the first answer, with 9 percent choosing the second and 6 percent opting for choice C.

Likewise, voters were asked to indicate the issues that mattered most to them, from the following list:

Illegal immigration, the war on terrorism, lowering taxes, improving education, reducing the size of the federal government, doing away with abortion, stimulating the economy to create jobs, protecting gun owner’s rights, the war in Iraq, reforming social security, reducing government spending, reforming healthcare, restoring honesty to government, protecting traditional marriage, and promoting traditional values.

Fifty-three percent of voters selected reducing the size of federal government, 38 percent answered reducing government spending, and 16 percent chose lowering taxes.

As far as reducing the federal debt, voters were asked to choose among raising taxes, cutting spending, or both.

Not surprisingly, the winner was cutting spending, with a vote of 82 percent, with just 1 percent of voters choosing “raising taxes.”

Twelve percent of voters answered “both.”

Finally, voters were asked if they had faith that congressional Republicans would maintain their commitment to repeal ObamaCare, rein in federal spending, cut federal taxes, reduce government regulations, and pay down the debt.

Less than half of those voting in this year’s poll believed that any of the promises made would be kept.

ACU Chairman David Keene also announced that the Washington Times will be sponsoring future CPAC straw polls.

Of the winner of this year’s presidential poll, Jeff Frazee of Young Americans for Liberty asserts, “The conservative establishment better recognize where the energy is or our movement will quickly become politically irrelevant.

The next generation of political activists want honest, principled leadership.

No more RINOs.”

Whether Ron Paul will be seeking a presidential bid for 2012, however, is undetermined, though he has stated that CPAC’s success could tip the scales.

“I haven’t decided yet, but if I were to come in fourth or fifth at CPAC, that might indicate that the young people have lost their enthusiasm.”

With results like these, Paul should feel encouraged to pursue another chance at the presidency.

Tratto da http://thenewamerican.com

Ron Paul, opponent of the Fed and fan of the gold standard, a lone wolf no more

Article by Annie Lowrey

Rep. Ron Paul’s feelings about America’s central bank are a matter of public record.

An extensive public record: In dozens of congressional hearings over the past four decades, he has ribbed, cajoled, harassed or annoyed any representative or defender of the Federal Reserve brave or unlucky enough to appear before him.

Normally, his interrogations concern America’s profligate money printing, Congress’s unnecessary spending, the Fed’s secrecy and, especially, gold, which he believes should underpin the currency to render it sound.

But his distrust runs wide and deep.

Consider this comment from a 2007 hearing: “This whole notion that a central bank somehow has the wisdom to know what interest rates should be is, to me, rather bizarre.

And also the source of so much mischief.”

That first sentence is a neat encapsulation of his economic worldview.

And the second could well apply to Paul himself.

His career in and out of public office has been devoted to two propositions:

1) The Fed is bad.

2) The gold standard is good.

His consistency has been impressive-which is not to say he has been influential. He rarely gets satisfactory answers in hearings, and he’ll probably never get satisfaction in his long crusade to radically alter America’s monetary policy.

But if you tilt at windmills long enough, sometimes you hit. And Wednesday, Paul did: He held his first hearing as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee’s subcommittee on monetary policy, inviting two Austrian-school economists and one lonely representative from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute to debate how Fed policy affects the unemployment rate.

This may be Ron Paul’s moment.

The question now is what he does with it.

The reason he ran

Paul had his monetary-policy epiphany on Aug. 15, 1971 – the day the Federal Reserve shut its “gold window,” meaning foreign governments could no longer trade gold for dollars at the fixed rate of $35 an ounce.

The Bretton Woods system officially ended and the dollar became fully “fiat currency,” backed by nothing but the promise of the federal government.

It shocked Paul, then a successful Texas obstetrician.

“That’s why I ran for Congress,” Paul said.

He was elected to the House in 1976, running as a Republican on a limited-government platform.

Paul has since bounced in and out of Washington.

He has supported cutting defense spending, ending the Education Department, stopping welfare and slashing taxes.

But he’s best known for his unrelenting skepticism of the Fed. Paul believes it stokes inflation and will harm the U.S. economy as long as it persists.

Gold, he thinks, is the answer.

His monetary-policy quest has been quixotic.

The closest Paul came to getting the gold standard reconsidered – let alone reinstated – came in 1981.

At the beginning of the Reagan administration, Paul sat on a commission appointed to debate whether the United States might benefit from returning to commodity-backed money.

Reagan had a “slight bias toward gold and its disciplines,” Treasury Secretary Donald Regan told reporters at the time.

But in a final report, the panel rejected the idea.

Even so, the next day’s papers described Paul as jubilant.

“For the first time in 50 years they seriously considered it,” he said.

“I do think that in due time, possibly even in this decade, there will be another serious discussion of gold as a monetary standard.

I still do believe that gold is the money.”

That discussion never really happened, though not for Paul’s lack of trying.

For the most part, he and his ideas became something of a sideshow – he came to be seen as a crank, a radical, so far outside the mainstream he could be safely ignored.

That changed in 2008, when he ran for president again.

This time, the run brought him cult-icon status.

The phrase “End the Fed” – the title of his most recent book – comes from his campaign. In it, he describes visiting a University of Michigan campus after an October 2007 Republican primary debate.

To his surprise, when he “mentioned monetary policy, the kids started cheering.

Then a small group chanted, ‘End the Fed! End the Fed!’ The whole crowd took up the call.

Many held up burning dollar bills, as if to say to the central bank,

“You have done enough damage to the American people”

He remains an iconoclast even within his own party, and his legislative proposals tend to go nowhere.

But last year Paul and other members of Congress successfully placed a provision to perform an audit of the Federal Reserve into the Dodd-Frank law, against the opposition of both the Fed and the Obama administration.

The bill also forced the bank to release the details of 21,000 loans granted to financial firms during the credit crunch.

Now Paul is in charge of the House subcommittee that oversees the Fed. That might cause some awkward moments.

The title of his book is not misleading.

The central bank “is immoral, unconstitutional, impractical, promotes bad economics, and undermines liberty,” he writes.

Frustrations with Fed

The financial crisis and recession brought about a wave of anti-Fed sentiment.

“In the minds of the public, the Fed was the great enabler of this huge catastrophe that we’ve had since the panic of 2008,” said Steve Hanke, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

Such criticism is hardly unusual.

“There is always Fed-bashing that ebbs and flows, coming from the strange bedfellows, from the far left and the far right,” said Sarah Binder, a Brookings Institution fellow.

Still, there is a case to be made that this time is different.

The severity of the recession prompted the Fed to take extraordinary measures to stabilize the banking sector during the credit crunch.

It accepted more than $1 trillion in junk-rated assets as collateral, something it never had never done before the crisis.

And it was not just Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers availing themselves of the Fed’s largesse – it was Caterpillar and the Korean Development Bank.

Binder acknowledged that the Fed might have overstepped far enough to generate some real headaches.

“The independence of the Fed has really been compromised by what happened during the financial crisis,” she said.

“There is aggressive and ambitious criticism coming from a lot of fronts.”

The Fed has taken steps to respond. Chairman Ben S. Bernanke has appeared on 60 Minutes, going so far as to give a tour of his childhood home in Dillon, S.C. He has visited campuses, explaining the crisis in clear if professorial terms.

He has courted members of Congress and journalists.

Then there is the St. Louis Federal Reserve, which is hosting a $1,000 contest for the best YouTube video stressing the value of an independent central bank.

“What makes independence for a nation’s central bank important?” the promo asks.

“Let us know through your video creation!“

The Austrian school

But Paul’s adversary is not only the Federal Reserve.

It is also mainstream monetary economics itself.

As a devotee of the Austrian school, whose luminaries include Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, Paul stands firmly outside policymaking and academic circles, a point he enthusiastically admits.

(The Austrian economists also often quibble with other libertarians, such as those at Cato.)

His beef is not with how central bankers do their jobs; it’s with central banking itself.

“The Fed, rightly so, criticizes Congress for spending too much – but they make the money available to us!” he said.

“It buys debt, keeps interest rates low, and sticks it to the people who want to save and make money.

It is so unfair.

And I think it is the first time in the history of the Fed that people realize it is not their friend.

It just gives us booms and busts.”

Many economists disagree, with varying degrees of vehemence.

One of the gentler responses comes from Vincent Reinhart, a former Fed official and current American Enterprise Institute scholar: “There is tremendous complexity in the monetary and banking systems now, and Ron Paul is basically saying: ‘Let’s make everything simple again.

If we could make market discipline effective, we wouldn’t need such complicated regulation.

If we had the gold standard, we wouldn’t need complex monetary policy.’

But the issue is: How do we get from here to there? There might not be a way.

And at some point, it is just nostalgia for a time that never really existed.”

Many economists point to evidence that banking crises and recessions were much more severe leading up to the Great Depression and the advent of modern monetary policymaking.

They also note that the Fed’s monetary policy in 2008 and 2009 stabilized the banking sector, boosted GDP and kept up employment.

But Paul is not always happy to entertain such counterfactuals or criticisms.

For instance, who does he consider his most trenchant critic? He paused.

“I did like talking to Paul Volcker.”

Have any economists or economic theories changed his views since the 1970s? “I mostly go back to the Austrian economists,” he said, matter-of-factly.

Paul maintains that the Fed has set us up for a currency crisis down the road.

“It won’t be as bad as Zimbabwe,” he said, “but perhaps something like 1979 or 1980.”

He noted that geopolitical events often kick off economic ones.

“The revolutions in the Middle East, that could end up being the precipitating event,” he said.

“Tunisia, Egypt – they may well tumble.”

Chairman Paul

At Wednesday’s hearing, Paul’s panel invited three economists to debate the question “Can Monetary Policy Really Create Jobs?”: Thomas DiLorenzo of Loyola University Maryland, Richard Vedder of Ohio University and Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute.

The answers were no, no and yes.

The conversation lurched from the Fed’s dual mandate to quantitative easing to the Dodd-Frank law to China to price stability to the money supply to money volatility to universal default laws – resting only briefly on the subject of monetary policy and unemployment.

The economists were so ideologically at odds – DiLorenzo and Vedder both from the tiny, heterodox Austrian school and Bivens representing nonpartisan but progressive EPI – that they agreed on virtually nothing except the faults of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Then, the ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. William Lacy Clay (Mo.), really set off fireworks.

He began by criticizing the Austrian school, saying it was marked by its “lack of scientific rigor and rejection of empirical data.” (Paul sat next to him poker-faced.)

Then he attacked DiLorenzo, noting he is perhaps best known for a “revisionist” history of Abraham Lincoln – and, more to the point, holds an affiliation with the League of the South, a “neo-Confederate” “hate group” that seeks to build a society dominated by those of European backgrounds.

“After reviewing your work and the so-called message you employ, I still do not understand you being invited to testify today on the unemployment situation,” Clay said.

“But I do know that I have no questions for you.”

But Paul seemed upbeat.

The subcommittee accomplished his goal of bringing outside perspectives into Congress and letting criticism of the Fed fly.

“Everybody knows that I believe in free markets and sound money and I’m a critic of Federal Reserve policy,” he said.

“That was the point I wanted to get across.”

Tratto da http://www.washingtonpost.com

CPAC 2011 Straw Poll Results

View this document on Scribd

Il “vecchio” Paul infiamma gli animi

Articolo di Stefano Magni

Il deputato Ron Paul ha vinto lo Straw Poll (sondaggio di paglia, o informale, se vogliamo tradurlo in italiano) della conferenza conservatrice, la Cpac 2011.

E’ lui il più amato, votato e seguito nell’ambiente conservatore da almeno due anni.

E si può capire il perché.
Il Tea Party spopola.

Ha fatto vincere i Repubblicani alle elezioni di Medio Termine del 2010.

E Ron Paul era sul pezzo prima ancora che le masse si mobilitassero.

Si è opposto al bailout e allo stimolo economico, ha sfidato Bush e Obama nel nome di un unico principio coerente: ridurre il potere dello Stato.
Parlando alla platea ha lanciato la sua sfida: quella isolazionista.
Paul si è scagliato contro gli aiuti ai Paesi in via di sviluppo, con cui “si tassano i poveri dei Paesi ricchi per aiutare i ricchi dei Paesi poveri”.

Ha sparato a zero contro la politica di ingerenza nel Medio Oriente, approfittando del fatto che un dittatore a cui gli Usa avevano regalato 60 miliardi di dollari in aiuti militari, era appena stato detronizzato: poche ore prima, in piena Cpac, era giunta la notizia della caduta di Hosni Mubarak in Egitto.
Ron Paul vuole tornare al principio di Thomas Jefferson e George Washington che, due secoli e mezzo fa, teorizzavano: “buoni rapporti con tutti, alleanze vincolanti con nessuno”.

Se in questo inizio 2011, nel dibattito politico americano, emerge anche l’isolazionismo, l’ultimo argomento, quello più nascosto e controverso, della battaglia anti-statalista, vuol dire che tutti gli altri suoi aspetti (taglio delle tasse e della spesa, privatizzazioni, de-regulation) sono ormai sdoganati e accettati dalla base dell“elefantino.
Sembrano lontani anni luce i tempi di Bush jr. e del ”conservatorismo compassionevole“, che ammetteva l’assistenza pubblica purché veicolata attraverso le comunità tradizionali.

Tutti i relatori della Cpac devono togliersi il berretto, inchinarsi di fronte ad una platea infiammata dal Tea Party e promettere meno Stato.
”Limited government“, come suona, in modo più sobrio, in inglese, è la parola d’ordine comune a tutti.

Anche John Bolton, un diplomatico, quanto di più estraneo si immagini alla causa anti-Stato, deve uniformarsi alla nuova moda.

La cultura conservatrice è ancora presente.
Attivisti cristiani, in agguato in tutti i corridoi, riempiono i passanti con volantini contro l’aborto, contro i matrimoni gay, contro i gay nell’esercito.

Questo accanimento anti-omosessuale si spiega con la presenza dell’associazione Gopride (i gay del Grand Old Party), che, con il solo annuncio della sua presenza fra gli sponsor, ha scatenato un putiferio: fior di think tank e associazioni quali Heritage Foundation, Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel, Concerned Women for America, American Family Association e Media Research Center hanno boicottato la Cpac 2011, contribuendo a consegnarla ancor di più in mani libertarie.
Qualcuno dei presenti l’ha presa male: un’associazione anti-abortista protestava fuori dal Marriott Hotel, sede della conferenza, accusando gli organizzatori di aver tradito i valori fondamentali.

Il ”Liberty Caucus (quello dei libertari, ndr) ha un’agenda abortista nascosta“ recita il loro volantino.
Se alcuni attivisti cristiani si sentono emarginati, i neoconservatori sembrano addirittura estinti.

A parte gli applausi che hanno accolto il discorso di John Bolton (partiti da una platea di circa 3000 persone), i loro punti di riferimento, a partire dalla rivista Weekly Standard, sono assenti.

Le tre maggiori conferenze sui temi cari ai neocon, 11 settembre e pericolo islamico negli Usa hanno ottimi relatori (come David Horowitz, Robert Spencer e Ayaan Hirsi Alì), ma si tengono in aule secondario, con un pubblico più ridotto.
Nel corso dell’unico grande dibattito sull’Afghanistan, il relatore libertario favorevole al disimpegno, Christopher Preble (Cato Institute) raccoglie molti più applausi del suo avversario Bing West, ex assistente alla Difesa ai tempi di Reagan.

La cultura è appaltata quasi interamente al mondo libertario.
Nelle conferenze a latere, con un pubblico di appassionati e/o studiosi, si parla di tasse, di spesa pubblica, di teoria economica austriaca, quella di Mises e Hayek.

E dell’anarco-capitalista Rothbard, i cui libri sono in vendita in gran numero.

In una piccola aula, la Atlas Society e il think tank Freedom Works ci propongono qualche scena in anteprima di Atlas Shrugged, il film tratto dal romanzo di Ayn Rand, vera bibbia della lotta anti-collettivista.
Freedom Works (mente pensante del Tea party) ci propone anche un videoclip: Keynes contro Hayek si sfidano, con le loro teorie rivali, a colpi… di rap.

Tutti i metodi sono validi per diffondere, soprattutto fra gli utenti di Internet, le idee del libero mercato.

A questo scopo è nato ed è stato presentato proprio alla Cpac un nuovo social network, dedicato agli attivisti della libertà: FreedomConnect.
Ovunque è presente Grover Norquist, carismatico leader dell’Americans for Tax Reform, il potente gruppo di pressione che fa giurare ai propri candidati di non alzare le tasse.

Presenta le conferenze economiche, introduce i politici.

E’ come il prezzemolo.

E la sua stessa presenza significa, per gli altri relatori: ”devi passare sul mio cadavere prima di dire qualcosa di statalista“.
C’è solo una conservatrice dei tempi di Bush che riesce a strappare l’applauso a tutti: Ann Coulter. Grande improvvisatrice, con una raffica di battute riesce a sdoganare i gay (in un pubblico di destra) e difendere Mubarak (di fronte ai libertari) facendo ridere di gusto anche i militanti più seriosi.
Ma alla fine Ann Coulter non costruisce, non si candida, non fa politica: si limita a sconcertare e, nello sconcerto, far riflettere.

Fra i politici è Ron Paul che vince, in una conferenza conservatrice ormai trasformata (dal Tea Party) in una convention libertaria.

Tratto da http://www.opinione.it/

Ron Paul’s Speech at CPAC 2011: The Brushfires of Freedom Are Burning!

Ron Paul fired up the crowd at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) with his trademark message of downsizing the federal government, bringing our troops home, balancing the budget and ending the Federal Reserve.

While the congressman did not address rampant speculations about a potential 2012 run for the presidency, he emphatically stated that the liberty movement will not need an electoral majority in order to achieve important changes for the better.

The welfare state, the police state and the runaway fiat money system will be defeated if each of us assumes personal responsibility for promoting the ideals of liberty and defending the Constitution.

Ron Paul’s transcription speech:

“Thank you very much, thank you.

Great to see you everybody, great to see you, I’m glad to see the revolution is continuing.

Well, we have first seen some of the results of the revolution of a few years ago and that was last year’s election, and understand we had a few new members sent to Congress, and we have you to thank you for.

But I do want to take a moment to take a little special privilege and say, we also had a new Senator from Kentucky, and we like that too.

So there’s a lot of exciting things going on, there is truly a revolution going on in this country, and we’ve been dealing with this and encouraging it, because I do believe that we live in a time where we do need a change in attitude, a change in ideas.

We don’t need to just change the political parties, we need to change our philosophy about what this country is all about.

This past week, we had a pretty good victory for the Freedom Movement, we had a vote come up all of a sudden under suspension and it had to do with the PATRIOT Act, and the PATRIOT Act we know has nothing to do with patriotism, they always name it opposite of what it is.

The PATRIOT Act is literally the destruction of the 4th Amendment, that’s what it’s all about.

Now, the one thing in Washington they haven’t quite understood is what’s happening in grassroots America, because they assume that everybody loves the PATRIOT Act, we’ll bring it up under suspension and pass it automatically.

Well, we didn’t get a majority vote but they didn’t pass it automatically with a two thirds vote, sending a message that this country is waking up, and we want to protect our civil liberties as well as our economic liberties.

This week I was scheduled to be on a financial program, I’ve been on a few of those lately, talking about things like the Federal Reserve and a few other things.

But I never got around to talking about this program this week about the Federal Reserve, because all of a sudden there was a speech to be given by Mubarak about his potential resignation, of course he resigned today.

So that was the subject, but a lot of people now say, “What should our position be? What should our position be about finding the next dictator of Egypt?” And I would say “We need to do a lot less, a lot sooner, not only in Egypt but around the world.”“

Some people want to argue about that and say we have a moral responsibility to spread our goodness around the world and it’s our obligation to do this.

But let me tell you, fiscal conservatives should look at this carefully, how much did we invest in that dictator over the past 30 years? $70 billion we invested in Egypt. And guess what? The government is crumbling and the people are upset, not only with their government by they’re upset with us for propping up that puppet dictator for all those years.

Now to add insult to injury, where do you think the money went? To a Swiss bank account! That family, the Mubarak family had 40, 50, 60 billion dollars – nobody knows – stashed away in other countries, of your money, that is true.

Then you know, it used to be the conservatives were against foreign aid. I’m still against foreign aid – for everybody.

Now I was saying that I used to describe foreign aid: “Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country.”

And there can’t be a better example of that than what we did with Egypt.

We took money from you, made people poor, it contributed to our debt, billions and billions of dollars, and all we get is chaos from it and instability.

There’s nothing wrong with what the founders talked about.

They talked about having friendships and trade and getting along with people and staying out of entangling alliances and the internal affairs of foreign nations when it’s none of our business.

Now we’ve been doing it for a long time and you get periods of relative stability. There was relative stability when we were propping up the Shah, but it ended up with bad results, we ended up with the Ayatollah and now we have a problem on our hands.

But all the Middle East is unstable because of this, now it’s Tunisia, next it’s Egypt and it’s going to keep going because all the problems are there because the people don’t like us propping up their dictators no more than we would like it if a foreign country came in here and propped up a dictator in our country.

But the real danger is that this will most likely spread and when it gets to Saudi Arabia and there’s disruption there, then you are going to see some real problems and it will be a partial consequence of our flawed foreign policy.

Temporary stability does not guarantee stability that we need around the world. And besides, we just flat out don’t have the money, and we shouldn’t be doing it.

Just remember, the Soviet system did not collapse because we had to fight them, they collapsed for economic reasons.

Guess where their final plunge was on their empire – Afghanistan.

So it makes no sense for us to think that we can keep troops in 135 countries, 900 bases and think we can do it forever.

So no matter how badly you want us to do that, it’s time to reassess that foreign policy. It’s time for us to bring troops home.

We’ve had troops in Japan since World War II and in Germany, why are we paying for their defense?

There’s been a lot of talk about the budget deficit and that’s something that I was concerned about just a few years back, like 1976, and that’s why I haven’t voted for any appropriation bills during that period of time either.

But people are starting to recognize it’s bad, we have to do something about it, we have to have a balanced budget amendment and all these things.

But, unfortunately even in spite of the improvement in the Congress right now, we don’t have the votes, which is tragic.

It’s going to continue, and we’re going to continue to bail out, we’re going to continue to spend the money, nobody wants to cut.

I am sure that half the people in this room won’t cut one penny on the military, and the military is not equated to defense.

Defense spending is one thing, military spending is what Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex” and we have to go after that.

But let’s say government, as you all, I am sure would agree, is out of control, and it’s very hard for us to get a handle on it.

So let’s say we even theoretically, and a miracle happens and we balance the budget where we are today, it would be still a disaster because we’re spending too much money.

But it wouldn’t change a whole lot.

When a crisis comes, guess what happens? Guess who does the bailing out? The Federal Reserve used $4 trillion to pass out without congressional approval and most people say “Oh, well that’s the Federal Reserve’s job to do that.”

No, it is our job to check up and find what the Federal Reserve has done, audit them, and find out who their buddies are that they’re taking care of.

The Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air, they can loan to banks, central banks of the world, to other governments and international financial institutions and we’re not even allowed to know.

They resent the fact that when I ask these questions, that they don’t have to give us information.

That’s why the bill to audit the Fed is the first step to ending the Federal Reserve. But the Federal Reserve will end itself because they will destroy the dollar.

Since the Fed came into existence since 1913, they’ve eliminated 98% of the value of the 1913 dollar, and it’s continuing erosion, they pumped at first when the crisis hit $1.2 trillion and another $600 billion and believe me, there is an economic law that says you just can’t continue to do this.

So Congress has responsibility, they should cut back, but Congress has a responsibility to protect the value of the currency and that means that we have the moral and the legal authority to put checks on the Federal Reserve system.

There’s been a lot of talk about bipartisanship after election, we need bipartisanship, and in some ways that might be true, but I’ll tell you what I think about it.

I think and I believe that we have had way too much bipartisanship for about 60 years.

We have bipartisanship on medical care.

You say, “Yeah, the current administration is giving us bad medical care.”

But what is done on the other administration? We’ve been involved for a long time. It’s the bipartisanship of the welfare system, the warfare system, the monetary system, the challenge to our civil liberties, it all goes through with support from both parties.

So there’s way too much bipartisanship.

This should be a challenge of the issue of philosophy – good philosophy versus bad philosophy.

And when you can agree on something you should make coalitions with whomever will agree with you and come together.

But I’d like to see some bipartisanship though.

What I would like to see is take those big government conservatives who love to spend money and never cut their efforts and their spending and get the big government liberals where they want to spend and never want to cut and let them get together and say “It’s time, this deficit isn’t good, let’s have a little bit of bipartisanship and cut both.”

There’s been talk lately about American exceptionalism.

Man we like to talk about that, I think we certainly live in an exceptional country, we have been blessed, it’s been the greatest country, most freedom, most prosperity.

My concern is I’m afraid we’re losing it! I’m afraid we’ve given up on our devotion to liberty, that’s where our problem is.

But where I think we go astray on this exceptionalism is there are some people and sometimes they’re referred as neoconservatives and they’re sort of neo-Jacobins where they believe that we have this moral responsibility to use force to go around the world and say, “You will do it our way or else.”

Well force doesn’t work, it never works.

The best way to get people to act more like us if we’re doing a good job, is for us to have a sound economy, a sound dollar, treat people decently, have a foreign policy that makes common sense, treat people like we want to be treated, and then maybe they would want to emulate us and say, “Freedom does work and we ought to try it.”

But we can’t force it on other people.

There’s one general rule about what we should expect from government.

The First Amendment is a great amendment, freedom of expression is protected. The government shall write no laws in reference to our freedom of expression.

It doesn’t say that we’re to have an expression of only the noncontroversial ideas – it’s freedom of expression! Now, most people are pretty good on the First Amendment, but where they slip up is; they say “The government should write no laws about the freedom of activity,” so the liberals want to talk about how to regulate your economic activity, how you spend your money, and others want to regulate your personal lifestyle, but government should not be regulating us and we should adapt one other principle for that to work.

We should all swear off the use of violence against our neighbors, our friends, against other countries.

The purpose of all political activity from my view point is to promote liberty. Liberty is the most important element, liberty comes from our creator, it doesn’t come from our government.

If we have a free society, we can go about our business and do our very best work toward virtuous things and work toward excellence.

When government takes over the role of making us virtuous and making us excellent and redistributing the wealth, they only do it at the expense of liberty, and that’s why we’re in such terrible shape today, it’s because we’ve allowed the government to be so much involved.

Government should never be able to do anything you can’t do.

If you can’t steal from your neighbor, you can’t send the government to your neighbor to steal for you.

There should be no redistribution of wealth.

The exciting things that are happening today and gets me energized is coming to events like this and meeting with the young people and going to the campuses and finding out what Young Americans for Liberty have done, and believe, me the ideas and the principles of liberty are alive and well in the next generation and there’s every reason in the world for us to be optimistic about what’s coming.

I would like to make one suggestion before I close; just to think about because it’s not a perfect solution, but especially the young people.

What if could, if I had the authority to do, what if I could offer you and say “Look, we’re not doing such a good job in government these days, we make promises and we don’t know about the future.

But would you consider opting out of the whole system under one condition, you pay 10% of your income, but you take care of yourself, don’t ask the government for anything.”

Tragically you’re probably going to have the opportunity because government is in the process of failing and they can’t deliver on the goods, just as the Soviets couldn’t deliver the goods and maintain their empire, we will have those same problems domestically and we face serious economic problems as this dollar crisis evolves.

But let me close with comments from Sam Adams, he says “Don’t worry about it if we’re not a majority, all we need is a minority keen on spreading the brushfires of liberty in the minds of man.”

That is what we need to do and believe me, the brushfires are burning, they will not be able to squelch the brushfires, they’re burning and they’re spreading and people are getting excited, because they’re starting to separate it out, what true liberty is all about, what market liberty, personal liberty is and what it means in foreign policy, what it means in our traditions, the American tradition, what it means because the Constitution confirms and confers with what I’m saying.

There is no authority in the constitution to have a Federal Reserve system, no authority for the welfare state and no authority for the police state, it’s not there.

So we should all assume personal responsibility for promoting the ideals of liberty, and one thing that Samuel Adams always advised when they were in the dire consequences of the problems of the revolution, he said “We cannot present long faces to the people ” – at [...] at that time – “because it will make them realize how tough things are.”

So we should not have long faces, we do not know exactly what tomorrow will bring, but I do know that the effort is worthwhile and I do know that you can have a lot of fun defending liberty, and believe me, if you understand liberty and realize it’s the only humanitarian system that existed ever on mankind, I’ll tell you what, if you learn about it study and know free market economics and fight for this, I can guarantee you, you will sleep better at night, you will enjoy your life and you will feel like you’re doing something worthwhile.

Defend liberty!”.

Tratto da http://www.ronpaul.com/

Ron Paul trionfa al CPAC 2011!

Ron Paul il congressista right libertarian del Texas ha trionfato per il secondo anno consecutivo alla CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) di Washington D.C. vincendo il sondaggio di gradimento presso una platea di oltre 4000 delegati a rappresentanza di molte delle sigle conservatrici e libertarie aderenti o vicine al Partito Repubblicano.
Il CPAC è una conferenza annuale, un meeting che vede la partecipazione delle varie correnti:  paleocon, costituzionale, libertarian, neocon, social-conservatrice, conservatrice fiscale, religiosa; pur con un peso differente di adesione e rappresentanza, ognuna con il suo beniamino politico di riferimento ed è di fatto un importante momento di confronto e di discussione tra politici ed elettori teso specie nei periodi antecedenti all’inizio delle primarie per fare il punto della situazione dando un orientamento e una indicazione non vincolante dal basso verso la politica e i politici del GOP su quale direzione seguire nel corso dell’anno e su chi secondo loro è riuscito meglio a rappresentare lo spirito della base conservatrice attraverso le proprie idee ed operato.
Ron Paul ottenendo il 30% dei consensi con un +7% di gradimento rispetto al secondo classificato, l’ex governatore del Massachussetts Mitt Romney (arrivato al 23%) è al momento il principale favorito nel partito dell’elefante per le prossime primarie interne al partito in vista della sfida nel 2012 con Barack Obama.
Questo ovviamente non implica automaticamente che Ron Paul abbia già assicurata la nomination repubblicana o la vittoria sicura nelle primarie, tutt’altro, semmai certifica stabilmente come la base elettorale delle associazioni conservatrici sia ormai fortemente propensa a dar fiducia alle idee libertarie di libero mercato, isolazionismo, meno tasse, meno Stato, nel pieno rispetto dei dettami costituzionali dei Padri Fondatori e moneta sonante che da sempre sono proposte dal Dottore rispetto a quelle dello scorso decennio neoconservatore.
Come lo stesso Mitt Romney dimostra (vincitore del CPAC nel 2007, 2008, 2009), il giudizio uscente dalla conferenza non è risolutivo al fine di ottenere un sicuro successo nelle primarie e per la nomination finale del partito, anche se bisogna comunque registrare dal 2008 ad oggi il profondo e costante cambiamento degli equilibri interni al GOP entro le sue componenti di base in termini di giudizi politici rispetto ai propri candidati e politici di partito.
Ron Paul è un candidato da sempre fuori dagli stereotipati schemi dei massmedia quando si parla di Repubblicani e di politiche di centrodestra americane.
Egli non è uno statalista, è da sempre contrario al Patrioct Act, al carcere di Guantanamo e alle torture dei suoi prigionieri, alla guerra in Iraq, chiede il ritiro delle truppe dall’Afghanistan, ha difeso recentemente WikiLeaks, ed è contro il complesso militar-industriale del Pentagono, è tra i pochi che si sono rifiutati di approvare i salvataggi economico-finanziari sia di Bush jr che di Obama.
Pur essendo personalmente contrario all’aborto è però contrario all’emanazione di legislazioni vincolanti (siano esse pro-life o pro-choice) da parte della Corte Suprema o dal Governo centrale, preferendo che i singoli Stati e i singoli individui decidano localmente in loro coscienza, è favorevole a molte libertà individuali tra cui la liberalizzazione-depenalizzazione delle droghe e dell’alcool e della prostituzione.
E’ insomma un candidato che pur mantenendosi nel filone moderato della Old Right americana libertaria- paleoconservatrice, riesce ad ottenere un ampio riscontro presso i giovani, gli indipendenti.
Il fatto che il CPAC negli ultimi due anni abbia designato Ron Paul e tali idee da lui sempre professate pubblicamente, dimostra come tali idee non siano più né marginali né “destabilizzanti” presso i conservatori, anzi al contrario tali politiche da sempre sono il background dei veri conservatori a fronte della deriva neocon che di fatto ha a lungo impropriamente egemonizzato il GOP rendendolo impopolare e molto simile alla tradizione del Partito Democratico.
Non a caso anche in questo CPAC si sono avuti momenti di tensione tra le due principali anime del partito, l’alleanza paleoconservatrice-libertaria e i neoconservatori.
Il momento più alto e significativo che ben ha dimostrato la durezza dello scontro interno tra queste fazioni è avvenuto nei giorni antecedenti con le proteste veementi in platea dei sostenitori libertari e paleocon vicini alle associazioni e siti web quali Antiwar.com e Campaign for Liberty, nel giorno dedicato ai neocon, nei confronti dell’ex segretario alla difesa Donald Rumsfeld e sopratutto per l’ex vicepresidente americano uscente Dick Cheney, additandoli come “criminali di guerra” per l’invasione militare incostituzionale e priva di motivazioni dell’Iraq.

Non è forse un caso che come rappresaglia l’associazione dei giovani neocon, la YAF (Young American Freedom da cui negli anni ’70 nacque la prima frattura tra neocon e libertari circa l’appoggio della Guerra del Vietnam) abbia in questi giorni epurato Ron Paul dal suo direttivo, dichiarandolo persona non gradita e non in linea con “la difesa patriottica della Nazione” (leggasi sostegno alle tesi militariste e di spesa militare).
Anche il risultato finale del CPAC 2011 ha dimostrato non solo la storica frattura insanabile tra paleocon-libertari e neocon ma anche una debolezza interna tra le frazioni che si oppongono da sempre alle tesi paleocon-libertarie del Dottore che certo fa ben sperare in vista del 2012.
Sebbene sia Ron Paul che Mitt Romney rispetto ai risultati del precedente CPAC 2010 si siano mantenuti su livelli costanti (rispettivamente 31% contro il 21%), il primo ha dimostrato di poter contare su una maggior coesa e convinta base di supporto nella base conservatrice rispetto a Mitt Romney.
Romney è senza dubbio la massima rappresentazione dell’establishment di partito, neocon con legami nella tradizione social-conservatrice del partito, pur essendo mormone (e quindi inviso a gran parte della Destra religiosa evangelica) non disdegna di strizzare l’occhio a un certo paternalismo religioso.
Romney durante il suo mandato di Governatore nel liberal Massachussetts ha approvato una riforma sanitaria statale che di fatto, come anche il Cato Institute ha dimostrato nei mesi scorsi, è servita come modello per quella di Obama invisa da molti americani votanti il GOP.
Appare evidente che con tale pedigree Romney non sia riuscito a catalizzare e avvicinare a sé i voti di molte associazioni e gruppi di interessi legati anche alla destra religiosa e social-conservatrice le quali anche quest’anno ha preferito votare per candidati poco rappresentativi di parte, disperdendo i voti e favorendo così la vittoria di Ron Paul.
Non è quindi fantasioso immaginare che in assenza di un leader uscente favorito, tale situazione possa ripresentarsi anche quando le primarie del GOP avranno inizio prossimamente.
I molti esponenti politici neocon e social-conservatori che ambiscono alla nomination del partito, potrebbero danneggiarsi tra loro (data la loro similarità ideologica e di contenuti) a lungo specie se non avverrà una selezione dopo le prime primarie e prima del tradizionale SuperMartedì; e questo teoricamente potrebbe andare tutto a favore di Ron Paul.
Bisogna però ricordare ad onor di cronaca che sebbene il CPAC sia la principale piattaforma di confronto del mondo conservatore americano, non è l’unica.
Nei prossimi mesi a livello nazionale e locale vi saranno altri eventi e manifestazioni di analogo tipo dove senza dubbio le altre fazioni e correnti di partito potranno riemergere e determinare un risultato e un andamento a sfavore del Dottor Paul.
La strada è ancora lunga e la sfida dei caucus e delle primarie deve ancora iniziare e non è scontata come happy ending, così come non è ancora scontata (sebbene in molti dubitino un differente esito) la partecipazione di Ron Paul per le presidenziali del 2012.
Nelle settimane scorse sono circolate alcune voci (forse di disturbo o per tastare il polso tra i sostenitori) che ipotizzavano nel 2012 anche una possibile corsa per il senato americano di Ron Paul al fine di dar man forte al figlio Rand Paul (senatore per il Kentucky) fresco vincitore della nomina durante l’ultimo midterm e tra i più applauditi anche al CPAC 2011 durante la giornata dedicata all’ala movimentista dei Tea Party durante il suo intervento.

In molti dubitano che Ron Paul possa mirare veramente al Senato, tanto più dopo una simile perentoria affermazione al CPAC 2011 con enormi ricadute su base nazionale.
Quel che è al momento certo è la sua prossima pubblicazione nell’aprile di quest’anno in America del suo un nuovo libro: Liberty Defined: The 50 Urgent Issues That Affect Our Freedom quale libro vademecum di proposte libertarie da porre in atto sul piano pratico in relazione alle principali problematiche da affrontare in politica ma non solo.
Tale libro senz’altro potrebbe riprodurre e incrementare il già forte effetto di mobilitazione e di sostegno delle idee libertarie presso la popolazione americana, diventando di fatto la cartina tornasole per un nuovo clamoroso successo paragonabile a quello del 2008 di The Revolution A manifesto (tradotto in italiano come La terza America. Un manifesto dall’editore Liberilibri) che certo contribuì in parte a determinare il boom di donazioni e di consensi presso i giovani e la rete attorno al suo movimento Campaign for Liberty, per il ritorno in auge delle idee di Libertà seguendo l’esempio dei Padri Fondatori americani; di End the Fed (Abolire la banca centrale edito in italiano sempre da Liberilibri) nel 2009, facendo comprendere a molti la questione monetaria in assenza di un gold standard, dei danni arrecati dalla fiat money e le gravi responsabilità della Federal Reserve nella crisi economica internazionale ancora in corso anche negli Usa.
Il libro ha permesso di avvicinare molta gente alle idee economiche austriache e alla richiesta petizioni di Audit the Fed, le quali hanno permesso a Ron Paul di giungere a presiedere il Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy del Congresso, atto a monitorare e limitare l’attività nefasta della FED.
Sebbene Ron Paul debba ancora confermare sia la sua partecipazione per il 2012 (anche se tutti la danno per scontata specie dopo tale prestigioso risultato recente), sia la sua corsa all’interno del Partito Repubblicano anziché presso un terzo partito o una piattaforma indipendente (qualora accadessero ancora le strane manovre interne al partito tese a boicottarlo mediaticamente come avvenne nel 2008 al fine di pilotare l’esito dei consensi entro le primarie), senza dubbio bisogna porre un’analisi più generale dell’ottima salute politica che godono le idee libertarie registrando presso il recente CPAC conclusosi anche l’affermazione di Gary Johnson al terzo posto tra i gradimenti della platea (con un buon 6%).
Gary Johnson è l’ex governatore del New Mexico (dal 1995 al 2003) ed è stato il primo e unico rappresentante libertario del RLC (Republican Liberty Caucus, l’organizzazione politica libertaria di rappresentanza degli esponenti del GOP, alla quale però Ron Paul non aderisce direttamente) ad ottenere un significativo consenso presso la platea.
Gary Johnson viene da molti considerato l’erede politico di Ron Paul (e sicuramente la prima scelta da sostenere qualora il Dottore non dovesse correre alle elezioni presidenziali), egli è da sempre favorevole ad una legislazione che depenalizzi l’uso della marijuana, per una riduzione della presenza dello Stato nella vita dei cittadini, e per una politica estera non interventista.

Il fatto che anch’egli abbia avuto un ottimo piazzamento, subito alle spalle di Ron Paul e di Mitt Romney dimostra come dal CPAC tali tesi favorevoli alla riduzione dello statalismo nel partito come nella società americana abbiano ottenuto un ampio riscontro (del 36% complessivo) e come di fatto Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Pawlenty, Huckabee e altri candidati molto spesso strumentalmente e impropriamente strombazzati dai massmedia sia d’Oltreoceano che nostrani a vario titolo in realtà contino molto poco entro le dinamiche del consenso politico nella società conservatrice (per la cronaca Sarah Palin ha chiuso al 9° posto con un insignificante 3% con un -4% di consensi rispetto al consenso del 2010, il che dice tutto sul suo appeal politico in caduta libera presso i conservatori e i delegati tea partier)!.

Tant’è che il risultato del CPAC ha nettamente capovolto quanto in precedenza i sondaggi di Gallup, Rasmussen o NYT attestavano:  Ron Paul a un 7-9% mentre gente come Palin al 25 e addirittura Huckabee al 17%  dietro a un “”mostro sacro”" come Romney in un solitario 35%…

La realtà del CPAC e dei suoi delegati hanno dimostrato direttamente una realtà ben diversa da quella dei sondaggi telefonici o delle manovre atte a manipolare e creare il consenso fittizio tra gli americani…
Certo è pur vero che l’ambiente CPAC fosse favorevole a Ron Paul dato che la mobilitazione dei paleocon-libertari è stata massiccia e ben organizzata per tempo, e come di fatto molte sigle più reazionarie, militariste, stataliste o bigotte abbiano preventivamente disertato l’evento; d’altronde nell’arco dell’anno si terranno anche altri eventi simili da parte delle altre fazioni della galassia GOP che ovviamente daranno risultati differenti a seconda dei loro beniamini e della loro composizione ideologica.
Bisogna però sottolineare come tale risultato avrà però senza dubbio un forte e inevitabile peso mediatico a livello di comunicazione in particolare presso i migliaia di Tea party sparsi negli Usa e presso i conservatori veri, gli indipendenti e i giovani fondamentali per vincere le sfide che contano (come dimostrano le ultime elezioni).
Ron Paul è un candidato che per le sue idee libertarie trova possibili sponde di ricezione in varie tematiche a destra (nell’economia) che in una certa sinistra pacifista (specie negli esteri)
Il fatto che dopo l’era Bush jr, Ron Paul abbia continuato a opporsi coerentemente ai provvedimenti interni ed esteri approvati anche da Obama (rivalutandosi presso gran parte del pubblico americano conservatore, il quale cooptato dai neocon avevano creduto ad un possibile gioco di sponda tra il Dottore e i Democratici atto a far perdere il GOP!) dimostra la coerenza del personaggio in relazione ai principi anzichè alle opportunità elettorali.
Inoltre rispetto all’anno scorso e al 2008 anche i media tradizionalmente liberal hanno più cautamente colto e valutato significativamente con grande enfasi la recente vittoria di Ron Paul al CPAC 2011.
Certo è possibile che i media liberal vogliano creare tensioni interne ai Repubblicani (come se già non c’è ne fossero!) esaltando Ron Paul al fine di colpire i neocon e creare divisioni interne al fine di favorire una rielezione di Obama nel 2012, però è anche possibile che i media dopo la batosta Democrats del midterm stiano finalmente cercando di comprendere con maggior obbiettività cosa stia accadendo nelle file dell’opposizione in termini di issues proposte ed emergenti non necessariamente per ricalibrare il fuoco di sbarramento “senza se e senza ma”.
Se nel 2008 l’intellighenzia di sinistra liberal-pacifista sostenevano Obama come un “Messiah” al fine di porre utopicamente termine alle guerre in Iraq e in Afghanistan, ora nel 2011 si stanno accorgendo come Obama sia pari a Bush jr e segua la sua stessa agenda estera mentre sul piano interno l’attuale inquilino si stia rivelando ancor più nefasto del suo predecessore nella promozione di politiche tese al controllo del web e a limitare le libertà civili costituzionali.
Loro stessi non sanno più cosa pensare (ben sapendo che c’è lo spauracchio Hillary alle porte del loro partito come “”alternativa””) e di fatto non sanno più se fidarsi dei loro stessi esponenti politici.
Può darsi che l’ala pacifista della sinistra possa votare Ron Paul come voto di protesta entro una resa dei conti dentro ai Democratici.
Se poi Obama virasse al centro e facesse qualche flip flop retorico di troppo al fine di garantirsi una possibile riconferma elettorale neppure lui avrebbe vita facile con una possibile astensione di gran parte del suo elettorato più ideologico.
Il fatto che Ron Paul si ponga in contrasto con i neocon sugli esteri e sull’economia con parte del suo partito può portare ad una insperata convergenza elettorale sinistra-destra.
Sta quindi lentamente crollando presso i massmedia il mito del “buon Democratico” contro “i cattivi Repubblicani”, e questo deriva anche dall’enorme movimento di controinformazione e di protesta venutosi spontaneamente a generare nel web americano come canale di comunicazione e di aggregazione attorno alle idee libertarie contro il Governo Obama ma anche contro le idee dell’establishment GOP.
I Tea party di Rand Paul e la Campaign for Liberty di Ron Paul sono fenomeni politici spontanei nati non a caso prima sul web dall’attivismo di migliaia di internauti amanti del Governo minimo e della Libertà e in seguito fisicamente anche in tutti gli Usa.
Anche i massmedia più ideologizzati e vicini all’establishment GOP o Democrats non possono più negare l’esistenza di tali realtà fuori e dentro la rete se non vogliono essere totalmente bypassati come ascolto, specie a fronte delle dubbie capacità di Obama da loro professate sul piano pratico.
Insomma i segnali lanciati dal fenomeno dei Tea party, dal crollo di popolarità di Obama e dei Democratici nella società americana, e ora dalla bocciatura clamorosa dell’establishment GOP al CPAC, dimostra il progressivo logoramento delle vecchie logiche politicanti di partito e apparato anche negli Usa.
Sta emergendo dal basso e presso la base conservatrice una necessità di vera speranza che tenda ad una maggior libertà dell’individuo rispetto allo Stato, con una maggior libertà economica del contribuente e di chi produce a fronte della inutilità e inefficienza di enti federali burocratici parassitari.
E’ pensiero condiviso e necessario che i politici debbano attuare meno logiche politicanti e di apparato e più politiche di riduzione della spesa pubblica e della pressione fiscale al fine di evitare il default passando anche attraverso una modifica sensibile della politica estera e monetaria americana ponendo rispettivamente i diritti naturali costituzionali sanciti dai Padri Fondatori americani, il libero mercato e una sana moneta come precetti di pacifica relazione con gli altri Paesi del mondo.
Il nostro sito al pari della platea CPAC 2011 a fronte di una situazione economica che al momento non riserva molto ottimismo e fiducia di ripresa, spera che Ron Paul nel 2012 possa concretamente realizzare e attuare quella r3VOLution da sempre da lui promossa quale rivolta d’Atlante di chi vuole vivere in un’America che sia effettivamente la terra dei giusti e di coloro i quali amano la vera Libertà.