Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Tea Party's Pick: Michele Bachmann or Ron Paul?

By Doug Wead
Tuesday June 28th 2011

No one can deny the nascent phenomenon of the liberty movement in America. It is riding a populist wave against government-insider deals that are making the rich richer and the poor poorer and sacrificing individual liberty in the process.

An interesting mix of Republicans and Democrats are involved in this uprising, blurring old labels like conservative and liberal, but the real showdown is happening in the race for the GOP nomination.

Michele Bachmann,Ron Paul,Sarah Palin,populist,liberty movement,social conservative,Christian,Lutheran,Timothy Geithner,Ronald Reagan
Michele Bachmann (Getty Images)
While all the candidates now pay homage to the movement, the real question is this: Who can best ride this wave? Michele Bachmann, a one-term congresswoman from Minnesota? Or Ron Paul, a 12-term congressman from Texas?

Here are the pertinent points. Bachmann is a new face and is polling well, at least for now. Her best chance — indeed, her only chance — is in Iowa. A win there and she can conceivably pick up delegates in the South as well.

Her critics describe her as a less cerebral version of Sarah Palin. Yep, your eyes are not deceiving you, and that means that with each success the media scrutiny or vetting will increase.

The real concern about Bachmann is her timing. Is she serious about running for president after only two years in Congress? Moreover, activists in the liberty movement decry her record. As a legislator in Minnesota she allegedly proposed $60 million in earmarks.

In Congress, in 2007, she appropriated $3.7 million in federal pork. She is a poor poster girl for freedom from big government. A report shows Bachmann’s counseling clinic got $30,000 in state and federal subsidies. A family farm received a $260,000 federal farm subsidy.

And here is the big one: In 2008 she voted for Nancy Pelosi's stimulus
Ron Paul (AP photo)

Ron Paul, by contrast, is not only the father of the modern liberty movement — the man who made it fashionable to believe in the constitution again — but he has been consistent over a lifetime and seemingly incorruptible.

By comparison, Bachmann looks almost opportunistic. As a tax attorney she allegedly went after a taxpayer earning less than $10,000 a year — and at a time when Timothy Geithner, Obama’s Treasury Secretary, wasn’t paying HIS taxes.

In contrast, Ron Paul has been the champion of the little guy, arguing for years, for example, against government taxing of waitresses' tips.

Bachmann has appeal to social conservatives. She is a Christian, a Lutheran, but then so is Ron Paul, who was Lutheran in upbringing and now attends a Baptist church.

Paul refuses to promote his faith for political purposes but told a reporter in 2007 that he “believed in Jesus Christ as his personal savior” and sought God’s guidance in many of his important life decisions. He has been married to his wife, Carol, for 51 years.

Consider the following. Ron Paul has money and a ground game. And he has both in spades. Having a ground game this early has not been seen since the Reagan campaign of 1980.

In fact, one could argue that those two things are all that matters at this stage in the process. Romney and Huntsman have money and with it they will be able to hire foot soldiers but they represent a return to George W. Bush’s version of a Republican ”conservative,” which means $500 billion annual deficits instead of $1.2 trillion.

Well, you say, but Bachmann is tied for first in this week’s Iowa poll. Keep in mind, Rudolph Giuliani was the front-runner at this same stage in the process last time. And his eventual, total delegate count at the Republican National Convention was zero.

Only a few months ago, Donald Trump was soaring in the polls. Which brings up the subject of vetting. Trump was not ready for the nation to learn all about how he built his casinos and all the details of his private life. With each success for Bachmann, the scrutiny will increase.

There is a reason why most candidates have to run for president numerous times. But Ron Paul is vetted.

Finally, there is the whole thing about making a decision and sticking to it. Let’s say you move to Bachmann because you are impressed with her polling numbers. And then the media exposes some story that hits her hard and the numbers drop. Or Ron Paul spends some television advertising and his numbers climb. Will you move back?

The problem with moving from candidate to candidate is that each time you move you lose.

Bachmann ’s showing in the polls has one explanation: media exposure. She has borrowed Ron Paul’s views and his tea party, and she is appealing to the masses with his arguments. The media have given it all some air time, something consistently denied to Ron Paul.

But don’t worry, don’t panic. The fact that the public has responded is a good thing, an encouraging sign. Remember, the media did its worst against Ronald Reagan in 1980, calling him a racist and a warmonger and he eventually prevailed. His cause was to save America from totalitarian communism. Our cause is to save it from ourselves.

Stay true. Be positive. It’s still early. Ron Paul’s message will get out.

Meanwhile, Paul is now poised to pull off an upset of historic proportions. I, for one, am not going to miss it.



Can Ron Paul Really Be Right About Everything?

Tom Mullen
Sunday June 26th 2011

I was in Jacksonville last Friday for an event called “Ron Paul on the River.” The Republican presidential candidate was supposed to speak there, but had to cancel at the last minute due to a Libya vote in the House scheduled on short notice. While it was disappointing that the congressman would not appear, the keynote speaker that appeared in his place was well worth the trip.

Doug Wead is a self-confessed former member of the Establishment. In addition to being a best-selling author and world-renowned speaker, Wead has worked as a special advisor to President George H.W. Bush and on the campaign of George W. Bush. According to Wikipedia, Time magazine called Wead “an insider in the Bush family orbit.”

A good portion of Wead’s speech in Jacksonville focused on issues on which he had formerly disagreed with Paul. At one point, he made the startling statement, “but now I agree with him on everything.” He encouraged Paul supporters to persevere through the difficulties of supporting an anti-Establishment candidate and to remember that “logic and the truth are on your side.”

It is not fashionable to admit that you agree with someone “on everything.” To say that you do is to invite the accusation of belonging to a personality cult whose members blindly follow their leader no matter what position he takes. Indeed, this criticism is leveled at Paul’s grassroots supporters, who are called “Paulites” by detractors, implying that they have a pseudo-religious devotion to Paul rather than informed positions on the issues.

In modern American political thought, where only the results of political action are considered rather than the rights of the parties involved, it is not considered reasonable to agree with anyone 100% of the time. For someone like Wead, whose living depends upon his credibility as an expert on those things he writes and speaks about, there is a certain amount of risk in making this statement. Yet he did it in Jacksonville without hesitation, emphasizing the words “on everything” to ensure that no one missed the point.

This immediately struck me, because it was the second time in as many weeks that I had heard a statement like this from someone who had something to lose by saying it. Appearing on The O’Reilly Factor, John Stossel answered O’Reilly’s assertion that Ron Paul hadn’t won the New Hampshire debate by saying, “But he’s right about everything and you’re wrong.” O’Reilly retorted, “Everything?” Stossel repeated, “Everything.” When O’Reilly pressed yet again with the same question, Stossel finally backed up to “Just about everything.”

Stossel is a television journalist, so credibility is arguably even more important to his living than it is to Wead’s. That is not all the two have in common. Stossel also admits that he regrets much of the first 20 years of his career when he attacked the free enterprise system and championed increased government regulation over business. Like Wead, Stossel was a member of the Establishment, albeit from the other side of its aisle. Now, despite the risk to his credibility, he says that Ron Paul is right about everything.

So is this some sort of quasi-religious devotion? Are Paul’s followers simply caught up in a mass hysteria over someone who is likeable and has demonstrated his integrity for so long that they abandon their reason to avoid critical examination of his positions? Isn’t it impossible for an intelligent person to agree with someone on everything?

The answer to all three of these questions is “no.” In fact, contrary to what conventional wisdom tells us, it is actually illogical to agree with Paul on some things and not others.[1] As I’ve said before, Paul is simply applying the central libertarian axiom to each issue. As long as he applies the axiom properly and does not make an error of logic, he is going to come out with a position that is consistent with libertarianism 100% of the time.

For those in the grip of this “conventional wisdom” that has led us to the brink of societal collapse, Paul’s answers are anything but consistent. On economic policy, he seems like a hardcore conservative, surpassing all other Republicans in his zeal to eliminate regulation and taxes. On foreign policy and social issues, he seems to be some sort of lefty hippie, arguing to legalize all drugs, allow homosexuals to marry if they wish to (he wants government out of marriage even at the state level), and to immediately order home every soldier stationed on a foreign base.

Those just learning about libertarianism might conclude that it is some sort of “compromise” between conservatism and progressivism/liberalism. This is untrue. Libertarianism evaluates political issues from a completely different perspective than either mainstream political philosophy. Sometimes, conservatives happen to agree with libertarians, but for different reasons. Sometimes, the same is true for progressives/liberals. Libertarians care not for who agrees/disagrees. They follow one simple principle and let the chips fall where they may.

Walter Block sums this up best in terms of understanding how libertarians like Paul formulate  their positions.

“This is because libertarianism is solely a political philosophy. It asks one and only one question: Under what conditions is the use of violence justified? And it gives one and only one answer: violence can be used only in response, or reaction to, a prior violation of private property rights.”

In order to understand Ron Paul’s platform, there are two conclusions one must reach. The first is that libertarians are correct that violence is only justified in response or reaction to a prior violation of private property rights. Block does not limit the definition of “private property” to land ownership or even physical property in general. Instead, property includes all of one’s life, liberty, and justly acquired possessions. So, any murder, assault, theft, fraud, or coercion would be violation of a private property right. Based upon that understanding, ask anyone if they agree that violence should never be initiated, but instead only used in defense, and you will almost always get agreement. So far, so good.

The second thing that one must conclude in order to understand Ron Paul is that all government action is violent action. This is where it gets difficult for conservatives and liberals alike. While it is easy to see the government’s use of its military as an act of violence, it is harder for people to see that other government activities represent violence. How could providing healthcare, ensuring workplace safety, or licensing barbers be violent acts?

This is the great truth that hides in plain site under every human being’s nose. In order to recognize it, one must disengage the deep, emotional attachments that almost everyone has developed to some or all government activity. Once you get someone to that point and they are truly ready to reason, they will come to the libertarian conclusion every time. To the genuinely interested and rational person, only one question is necessary:

“What if you do not cooperate?”

I cannot count how many times I have asked this question and received in response a stare – not a blank stare, but a thoughtful one. You can see the wheels turning. Sometimes they will begin to speak, then stop themselves while they think some more. They are looking for a hole in the theory. They are unable to find one. They are genuinely interested in either proving or disproving your argument. By that time, you have won.

For those who do not immediately “see the light,” you can pick any government action and walk them through that reasoning process:

You: Suppose that I do not wish to participate in Medicare and withhold only that percentage of my payroll taxes that would otherwise go to fund it. In return, I agree not to make use of any of the Medicare benefits. What will happen to me?

Him/Her: You will be charged with income tax evasion.

You: What if I don’t answer the charge?

Him/Her: You will be arrested.

You: What if I do not agree to submit to the arrest?

Him/Her: You will be physically forced to submit.

You: And if I resist further?

Him/Her: (reluctantly) You will be killed.

You: So, you now agree that we are forced to participate in Medicare under the threat of violence, correct?

Him/Her: (Even more reluctantly) Yes.

You: Is there any government tax, law, or regulation that we are not similarly forced to participate in under the threat of violence? Are not all of these answers the same in relation to even the least significant government regulation, like a parking ticket?

Recall the final scenes in the 1999 movie, The Matrix. After Neo’s “resurrection,” he stands up to once again face the agents that had apparently killed him a moment before. However, when we see the matrix through Neo’s eyes, as he sees it now, the whole world is made up of lines of green code. Neo had been told early in the movie that the matrix is a computer-generated illusion. He heard it, but did not know it. He is now seeing that world as it really is for the first time. His mind has reasoned through and understood all of the implications of what Morpheus has told him. Once he truly understands, he is invincible.

This is a wonderful metaphor for the libertarian “conversion.” Once one has had the epiphany that all government action is violent action, there are only three choices. 1) You come to the same conclusions that Ron Paul does on every issue, 2) You disagree with Walter Block and conclude that it is morally justifiable to initiate violence against other people, or 3) You abandon logic and stop acknowledging reality. This is why Paul told the Today Show’s Matt Lauer that “economic liberty and personal liberty are one and the same and foreign policy that defends America and not police the world [sic] – that’s part of the package as well.”

Doug Wead, John Stossel, and millions of Paul’s supporters have had this revelation. This is why they agree with Paul without exception. They refuse to accept the other two choices available to them: to support the initiation of violence or to abandon logic and refuse to acknowledge reality. This is not fanaticism. It is the inevitable conclusion that one must come to if one employs logic and faces reality. That is why Doug Wead said, “logic and the truth are on your side.”

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Ron Paul lost the Washington state primaries by a considerable margin. However, he won big in Spokane. Why? Because that was the one part of Washington in which Paul’s campaign was able to schedule an appearance. During that campaign, Howard Stern remarked about his exposure to Paul’s message just as Wead, Stossel and millions of Paul supporters have: “I think I agreed with everything that dude just said.” Stern went on to say that he had never heard of Paul before and that it was a shame that the Republican Party was not taking him seriously.

Once a reasonable person hears the libertarian message, it is inevitable that they will not only agree, but agree completely and without exception. This is the antithesis of fanaticism. It is reason. It is recognizing the real world for what it truly is and applying logic to those observations. It is the consistent application to separate political issues of one undeniable principle, which can only lead to libertarian conclusions. It is actually illogical and fanatical to come to any others.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, the Establishment media had a strategy to combat this very troublesome dynamic: Don’t let the message be heard. That is no longer a viable strategy. Paul’s grassroots supporters have forced his platform into the mainstream. The media is simply unable to ignore Paul’s campaign this time around. The libertarian message will be heard. Whether or not Paul wins the presidency is secondary. Every day, more Americans are hearing the truth for the first time and its power is irresistible. The revolution is underway. Whether it takes a year, a decade, or longer, liberty is going to prevail.



Monday, June 27, 2011

Paul: Campaign 'alive and well and growing'

Sioux City Journal.com
By James Q. Lynch
Monday June 27th 2011

DES MOINES - The revolution is "is alive and well and growing," especially in Iowa, where U.S. Rep. Ron Paul hopes to send a message.

The Iowa GOP Straw Poll in Ames Aug. 13 will be that platform for that message, the Texas congressman told about 150 people in Des Moines June 27.

"We're in Iowa for a very precise reason," said Paul, who joked he visited so often just to meet everyone. "Iowa is a bellwether. It can send signals. That's what we're really looking for - a signal."

And the Ames straw poll will send a "very, very important message," he predicted. Paul's campaign just spent $31,000 to claim the top spot outside the Hilton Coliseum at Iowa State University where the straw poll will be held. Paul outbid rivals for the prime real estate.

Despite the enthusiasm of his supporters, Paul has his work cut out for him. He received the support of just 7 percent of likely Iowa caucus-goers in a new Iowa Poll.

The enthusiasm is growing, said Lexy Nuzum of Winterset, who heard about Paul four years ago, but didn't become involved in his 2008 presidential bid. Now she's co-chairwoman of Paul's Madison County committee.

Like several others, Nuzum's chief concern is the United States' involvement overseas.

"It seems like we've been at war as a long as I can remember," she said, and I'm 25."

Luke Shelton of Des Moines also is concerned about monetary policy - chiefly the devaluation of money because the Federal Reserve System keeps printing money, he said.

In addition to bringing home troops from Afghanistan and elsewhere, returning to the gold standard and expanding personal liberty, Paul called for addressing border security.

Paul, who has made more than a dozen trips to Iowa this election cycle, promised to be back in Iowa often...



Saturday, June 25, 2011

Is There Really Gold in Ft. Knox?

The Atlantic
By Joshua Green
Friday June 24th 2011

Ron Paul has doubts about whether the U.S. reserve exists, and he's aiming to find out the truth.

I'm quite fond of Ron Paul. I enjoyed spending time with him for this Atlantic profile. I liked learning about Austrian economics. I like the fact that he thinks differently than other Republicans and has the courage of his convictions. Washington is a more interesting place because of him. And he makes good copy. That's especially true now that he has become, at long last, chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve.
But I have to admit that even I did not foresee, and in fact never could have imagined, Paul's latest crusade: He's skeptical that the United States really has the gold it claims to have in Ft. Knox. And he wants some answers!
As most people know, Paul is a huge gold bug. (That's a big tenet of his Austrian economics.) At various points in his career he has pushed to return the U.S. to the gold standard, and it's largely thanks to Paul's efforts that the U.S. Treasury resumed minting gold and silver coins. That's partly because Paul is suspicious of the dollar, which, he will tell you, is paper money that is being systematically debased by the Federal Reserve. But Paul's fears seem to extend further than I think most people realize. According to this fascinating Businessweek article he's now expressed those fears in the form of legislation that would require an independent accounting of the more than 5,000 tons of gold bullion that the U.S. government says it possesses in Ft. Knox and various other locations:
Paul, who has said he thinks it's possible there is no gold at Fort Knox, told Bloomberg Businessweek the government is asking the American people to trust that all the gold is there, while not allowing site visits and not publishing all the data.
To allay Paul's suspicions, the Treasury's inspector general recently visited the Bullion Depository at Ft. Knox to ensure that the gold is actually there (it is). But Paul wasn't satisfied. He introduced a bill in April that would require tests of the 700,000 gold bars that make up the U.S. gold reserve. That process wouldn't be cheap:
According to Treasury estimates, testing all that gold would take 400 people working full time for six months to complete and cost at least $15 million. Paul now says he would be satisfied with a representative sampling of the bullion.
Now, like most legislation that Paul champions, this probably isn't going anywhere. But you still have to marvel at it. And who knows? Democrats are desperate enough for another stimulus that those 400 jobs might look pretty attractive. Maybe they could swallow hard and pitch it as a "jobs program"...



The Real Ron Paul on Foreign Policy

New American
By Jack Kerwick, PhD.
Saturday June 25th 2011

Ron Paul’s fellow Republicans haven’t simply castigated him for his foreign policy positions; they have routinely and resoundingly mocked him. What has the Texas Congressman said that is so rationally and morally indefensible? When we move beyond the universe of sound bites that is our contemporary politics and look at Paul’s actual arguments for the views he holds, the answer to this question hits us like a ton of bricks: nothing.

In his most recently published book, Liberty Defined, Paul elaborates at some length on his controversial views. Contra the Republican neoconservative establishment, he thinks the current course of waging an interminable War on Terror for the sake of establishing “democratic” governments throughout the Middle East (and beyond?) is most unwise. America’s crusade to transform the world into its image — what else could it be, given that we have “troops in 135 countries” and “900 [military] bases” around the world? — has had the effect of transforming America from a Republic into an empire. But empire and liberty are incompatible. Paul is swift and decisive: “The American Empire is the enemy of American freedom. It is every bit as much the enemy of American citizens as it is of its victims around the world.”

This isn’t hyperbole. As Paul correctly states, an empire “is incompatible with a free society,” for the former “requires perpetual war and preparation for war.” As many observers — students of the classical conservative tradition in particular — have long noted, a “free society” is at no time more unrecognizable to itself than during times of war. And when this “war” is undeclared, as is our current War on Terror — that is, when the Constitution’s demand for a declaration of war by Congress is ignored — American-style liberty is dealt a blow of incalculable proportions.

War is the quintessential crisis, and as Rahm Emanuel once succinctly put it, it is imprudent for government to ever “let a good crisis go to waste.” The point is that during a crisis, especially a crisis such as war when the governed are threatened by an enemy resolved to destroy them, a free people, in order to satiate its desire for safety and victory, will be more disposed to relinquish its liberties than it otherwise would be. At the same time that citizens become less free, the government becomes less constrained. Paul writes: “War feeds the growth of the state. The state is nourished on the liberties of the people.”

A second reason that Paul supplies for his opposition to “our foreign policy of interventionism” pertains to the extent to which it debases its supporters. President George W. Bush himself provided a vintage example of this back in 2004 at the Annual Radio and Television Correspondents’ Dinner. Some may recall that at this event the President presented a slide show of himself searching the White House for the weapons of mass destruction that were never found in Iraq. “To treat with such levity such a serious blunder (some would call it a lie) that has caused so much death and destruction,” Paul asserts, “is beyond the pale.” Worse, “those present at the dinner all had a good laugh over it.”

Another illustration of this “callous disregard for decency relating to foreign policy” transpired during Democratic Senator Max Cleland’s reelection race in 2002. Cleland lost both of his legs and an arm while serving in the Vietnam war, yet because he opposed the impending invasion of Iraq, his Republican rivals ran ads depicting Cleland as weak on issues of national defense. Paul explains: “The ad had Senator Cleland’s face morphed into Saddam Hussein’s while it implied that Cleland didn’t care about the security of the American people because he didn’t always vote with President Bush.” Moreover, there were Republicans who “even insisted that Max Cleland not be referred to as a war hero though he had been awarded a Silver Star for gallantry in action.”

Paul concludes that all of this “was about as low as one can get in politics.”

The third reason Paul resists with every fiber of his being “our foreign policy of interventionism” is its exorbitant monetary costs. “When empires are rich … the people grow dependent, work and produce less, and enjoy the ‘bread and circuses’ or their ‘guns and butter’ while drowning in consumer excesses, encouraged by moral decay and financed by debt.” But this only “hastens the day of reckoning when the bills come due and the empire collapses.”

As Paul points out, “Tea Party activists” who “often claim to oppose the system of tax and spend, bailouts and socialism,” fail to realize that “to the extent that they uncritically defend U.S. foreign policy, they are supporting all the policies they claim to be against.”

The fourth and final reason Paul gives for his position is, quite simply, that it doesn’t work. Our invasions and occupations of Islamic lands, far from rendering us more secure, have made an already dangerous world that much more dangerous, for our aggression only emboldens those against whom our policies are aimed. No amount of “lying, or denying the … blowback” from our actions in “other nations, especially Arab and Muslim countries,” can nullify it. And all such lying or denying actually “presents the greatest danger to our security, freedom, and prosperity.”

In summary, Ron Paul favors a more “humble” foreign policy. He opposes the “foreign adventurism,” as he characterizes it, of his neoconservative Republican detractors for essentially four reasons. This militaristic enterprise undermines our liberties, corrupts the characters of those who endorse it, depletes our resources, and makes us less secure.

The reader is now left with a thought or two to ponder: Is there anything in Congressman Paul’s case against the Republican establishment’s foreign policy vision that warrants the treatment to which it has subjected him? In fact is Paul’s position not eminently sensible?



Thursday, June 23, 2011

Ron Paul bids high at Ames Straw Poll auction

By Alexander Burns
Thursday June 23rd 2011

The bidding is over at the Iowa GOP's Ames real estate auction and Ron Paul has emerged a winner.

A source tells Maggie that Paul placed the highest bid for a straw poll location, coming away with the spot Mitt Romney had in 2008. The low bidder of sorts was Newt Gingrich, who was represented by a young volunteer and ultimately did not place a bid at all.

-Ron Paul was the highest bidder for a lot for $31,000.00
-McCotter bought a lot for $18,000.00, he was the second highest bidder
-Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain where the next highest bidders, with each getting a lot for $17,000.00.
-Rick Santorum spent $16,000.00 for his lot.
-Pawlenty ended up spending $15,000.00 for a less desirable lot.
-Newt Gingrich was represented at the meeting but did not bid.
- Overall the Iowa GOP $114,000
McCotter's $18,000 bid is the clearest sign yet that he's really going to run for president. A source says he was represented by Iowa lobbyist Kellie Paschke, who triggered a brief walkout by refusing to identify the candidate

Craig Robinson has more:



PAUL: Time to end Federal Reserve secrecy

The Washington Times
By Rep. Ron Paul
Wednesday June 22nd 2011

Central bankers don’t want us to know what happened during 2008 bailouts

Among the facts that the Federal Reserve would rather you didn’t know is that at the height of the financial turmoil in 2008, when average Americans were just beginning to suffer, the institution was passing out sweetheart deals to protect the powerful and well-connected. Among the beneficiaries were foreign banks, Wall Street giants and even the company that then owned MSNBC.

Recently, my House subcommittee on domestic monetary policy held a hearing to examine information disclosed by the Federal Reserve about its bailout lending during the 2008 financial crisis - disclosure that was required by the Dodd-Frank Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

These Federal Reserve records, made available to the public on Dec. 1, 2010, and on March 31 provided a look at thousands of transactions and trillions of dollars in lending by the Federal Reserve.
The importance of this hearing cannot be overstated.

The conduct of the Fed and the operations of its lending facilities, especially during the most critical periods of the financial crisis, require intensive oversight and the utmost transparency.

Had it not been for the actions of grass-roots activists intent on holding the Fed accountable, none of this information would have seen the light of day. The Fed not only protested these transparency efforts every step of the way, but also predicted financial disaster if details on the recipients of those funds were released.

Several months after the disclosures, the only disaster is the continuing refusal of the White House and Congress to rein in an out-of-control Fed and exercise effective oversight of its monetary policy.

In fact, as I pointed out during the hearing, much of the data we received in these disclosures were heavily edited by the Fed.

Like the majority of Americans who support my push for full transparency for the Fed’s monetary policy, I want to know the whole story about the Fed’s actions leading up to the crisis and beyond - not just the parts it chooses to disclose. Countless lives have been ruined by the havoc created by the Fed’s loose monetary policy, and Congress owes it to those Americans to prevent another financial crisis from happening.

Not holding the Federal Reserve accountable for its actions is the epitome of negligence. Unlike the story sold to the American people in 2008 - that the economy would grind to a halt without trillions of dollars in bailouts - the truth has turned out to be very different.

And let me tell you - Americans will be outraged when they see what the Fed has done.

For example, money was lent to major firms such as Goldman Sachs at rates as low as 0.01 percent, essentially a free loan to the politically well-connected. Non-banks such as General Electric and Verizon Communications got Fed loans. Banks partly owned by the Chinese government received billions in loans.

We now know that at the peak of the crisis, the Fed was providing nearly 90 percent of its discount window loans to foreign banks and even lent billions of dollars to a bank partially owned by the Bank of Libya.

Those actions warrant further investigation into how the Fed operates.

It is little wonder the Fed so ardently opposed the grass-roots audit movement as it was duping the American people into bailing out its Wall Street cronies and sending billions of dollars overseas.

While everyday Americans suffered through the Great Recession, Wall Street and politically connected insiders benefited from their ties to receive a reprieve from the consequences of their bad decisions - and Congress stood by and did nothing.

Given what we know now, we cannot afford to waste any more time and must take action right away to permanently lift the Fed’s veil of secrecy.

I have reintroduced my Audit the Fed legislation, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, to require full transparency and accountability from the Federal Reserve, and my subcommittee will continue to hold hearings on the Fed’s policies. It is long past overdue that Americans learned the truth about what happens inside the central bank that holds absolute power over the value of their money, the health of the economy and the strength of the nation.

Rep. Ron Paul is a Texas Republican.



Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Ron Paul has won

The Hill
By Brent Budowsky
Wednesday June 22nd 2011

Now Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty are parroting Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) in criticizing the Federal Reserve Board while Mitt Romney and a growing number of congressional Republicans are beginning to sound like traces of Ron Paul regarding Afghanistan.

There is bobbing and weaving among the Republicans about these matters, and there is hemming and hawing compared to Dr. Paul's clarity about these matters. However, make no mistake about the fact that Ron Paul is now exerting a huge degree of influence on the positions of Republican candidates for president and Republicans in Congress on both economic and foreign policy.

I suspect in the end this might not be good for Republicans in 2012, but my point is not to agree, or disagree, with the content of Paul's positions on issues. I am merely pointing out that his influence on the national debate is significant and growing, and in this sense, he is already a winner in the 2012 campaign.

It's ironic. I know many small donors to the Obama campaign in 2008 who wish they had gotten as much bang for their small donations in the policies from Obama, as small donors to Paul must realize they are receiving from their small donations to him.

Whether I agree with Dr. Paul or not, and whether his supporters agree with my columns or not, I do my best to call them as I see them. When the final books are written about the history of the 2012 campaign, I believe that the gentleman from Texas will be placed somewhere on the list of winners, for reasons stated here.



Monday, June 20, 2011

Ron Paul releases his financial and budget plans for Presidency

National Examiner.com
By Kenneth Schortgen Jr.
Monday June 20th 2011

Congressman Ron Paul is making strong waves in the early Republican primary season, and on June 20th, he released his four point campagin platform for financial and budgetary plans should he win the Presidency in 2012.

The primary points of the platform include demands for a balanced budget, vetoing any bill regarding funding for Planned Parenthood, entirely stop implementation of Obamacare, and lastly, repeal through Executive Order any and all regulations that are unsound, and lead to restrictions on good business practices.

“But, there are several things that I will do right away to strengthen the fight for Constitutional government.

“First, I will veto any spending bills that contribute to an unbalanced budget.

“Second, I will veto any spending bill that contains funding for Planned Parenthood, facilities that perform abortion and all government family planning schemes.

“Third, I will direct my administration to cease any further implementation of ObamaCare.

“And fourth, I will on day one of my administration begin to repeal by Executive Order unconstitutional and burdensome regulations on American business. I will be the first President to shrink the size of the Federal Register. We must create a favorable regulatory environment for U.S. business. This cannot be stressed enough.” - Zerohedge

Unlike most politicians, Congressman Paul has outlined specific items and methods he intends to implement once in office. There are few generic promises (no specific regulations to repeal), and mostly concrete gaurantees on how he would use the office of the Presidency to accomplish what Congress has failed to do for decades.

For voters wondering about these promises, all one needs to do is look at his Congressional voting record, and proposed legislation while in office. He has quite often been the lone advocate for fiscal responsibility by Congress, and a staunch defender for the American people against the Fed, and banking oligarchies.

For the current, and future Republican candidates, this platform will be difficult to follow when it comes to fiscal promises made to the American people. Nearly every candidate has a history in some fashion of big government legislation, or indecisiveness in following through with their own previous campagin promises.

With Ron Paul releasing his four point financial and budgetary platform to the American people, and methods on exactly how he would implement it, the 2012 campaign just got ratcheted up for both the Republican candidates vying for office, and President Obama who seeks a second term.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Ron Paul: Obama could preemptively nuke any country without permission

Spokane Conservative Examiner
By Joe Newby
Friday June 17th 2011

In an op-ed at the Daily Caller, GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) explains why he and nine other members of Congress filed a lawsuit against President Obama over his actions in Libya.

Referencing a report issued by the White House, he writes that using the logic put forward by the Administration, Obama could preemptively nuke any country in the world without permission:

The Obama administration recently issued a 38-page paper stating that Obama is not in violation of the War Powers Act because “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.” Under this argument, President Obama could preemptively launch nuclear weapons against any country in the world without Congressional approval. Obviously, this is not what the Founders intended!

Paul may have a point.

The Constitution says that only Congress has the authority to declare war.  Presidents have always had the authority to temporarily deploy forces when necessary to protect vital national interests.  Thomas Jefferson did it when he sent the Navy and Marines after the Barbary Pirates in the early 19th Century, and subsequent Presidents have deployed the military as well.

But the situation in Libya is far different, as Paul explains.

Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the authority to declare war. This was meant to be an important check on presidential power. The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control executive branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a Congressional debate.
Unfortunately, that’s exactly the situation we have today in Libya.

He also notes the hypocrisy of then-Senator Obama who had issues with President George Bush:

Of course, in 2007, then-Senator Obama spoke passionately about the need to go after the Bush administration for violating the War Powers Act — the very same thing he’s doing now. In fact, while speaking at DePaul University in October of 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama said the following:
“After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the president. No law can make senators read the intelligence that showed the president was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.”

Paul writes that members of Congress "are now taking Barack Obama’s past advice and standing up to the executive branch."

According to the Texas Republican, Obama has refused to follow the War Powers Act, and says the President's "time is up."

Paul also mentions the economics of the conflict, saying that Americans are being taxed to bomb a nation propped up by taxpayer dollars:

But even aside from violating the Constitution, it makes no economic sense for us to be engaged in yet another war overseas — especially during such tough economic times. For years now, we’ve been sending foreign aid to the very same Libyan government we’re now spending $10 million a day to fight. And it has been recently discovered that the Federal Reserve’s bank bailouts even benefited the Libyan National Bank. Now, we’re taxing the American people to bomb the very nation that we taxed them to prop up.

He concludes by writing:

The Founding Fathers did not intend for the president to have the power to take our nation to war unilaterally without the approval of Congress.
It’s time for the president to obey the Constitution and put the American people’s national interest first.

The White House maintains it has followed the law, and House Speaker John Boehner warned the President that he has until Sunday to seek approval from Congress to avoid being in violation of the War Powers Resolution.



Paul, Bachmann rock day two at Republican Leadership Conference

The Daily Caller
By James Plummer
Friday June 17th 2011

Day two of the 2011 Republican Leadership Conference marked the arrival of fresh blood in the form of younger (and older) supporters of Texas Rep. Ron Paul, in town to support their candidate by voting in the conference’s presidential straw poll.

Their presence was evident during the speech by former Godfather’s Pizza CEO and presidential candidate Herman Cain, who immediately preceded Paul. Cain opened by needling media bigwigs such as Bill O’Reilly, and Karl Rove by telling them, “I didn’t get the memo that I’m not supposed to run! I’m running!”

Cain was generally well-received. But when he moved on to foreign policy and told the audience that, “When you mess with Israel you are messing with the United States of America!,” Paul’s dovish supporters made their presence known by breaking up the applause with just as many boos.

Cain still elicited unanimous cheers form the crowd by hitting on reliable topics such as slashing taxes across the board. When he turned to energy, Cain asked the audience if America could meet its own energy needs and led a call-and-response chorus with the answer being, “Yes we Cain!”

Next was the congressman from Texas. Even with rows of extra chairs brought in, the Paul crowd filled the room to standing-room only.

Paul took credit for moving the debate on several issues since his 2008 campaign. He first cited the growing backlash against the Transportation Security Administration’s aggressive warrantless searches at the airports. (Paul’s home state of Texas is considering a measure to prosecute TSA agents who grope without a warrant.)

Paul then pointed out the growing Republican opposition to the current wars abroad – and indeed, frontrunner Gov Mitt Romney made waves earlier this week by suggesting it was almost time to withdraw from Afghanistan. (RON PAUL: Why I’m suing the Obama administration over Libya)

Paul cited Ronald Reagan’s withdrawal of troops from Lebanon as an antecedent of his own foreign policy.

“When he found out how irrational politics was in that region, he decided it was necessary to get out,” he said.

When Paul cited greater support for oversight of the Federal Reserve –- Newt Gingrich’s biggest applause line Thursday night -– the ballroom broke out in a raucous chant of, “End the Fed! End the Fed!”

Paul predicted that the Fed’s “quantitative easing” policy would continue to lead to inflation and “stagflation” which “will be much worse next year and will be a big issue in next year’s campaign.”

Paul then went back to foreign policy and mentioned the bipartisan lawsuit filed by ten members of Congress, including himself, seeking to have the courts declare the White House’s bombing of Libya unconstitutional. When he spoke of his bill to take the United States out of the United Nations, the cheers were so loud the rest of his thoughts on the matter were drowned out.

The congressman hit upon some more esoteric issues before winding up his speech, such as legalizing raw milk, marijuana and industrial hemp. Upon his conclusion, loud cheers of “Ron Paul! Ron Paul!” arose from the audience as many of his supporters poured out from the ballroom, uninterested anyone else.

The next speaker, Sen. Jim DeMint, professed five minutes later as the exodus continued that, “I used to think you were crazy Ron, but I’m beginning to feel a bit crazy myself.”

DeMint was followed by another Presidential candidate, Rep. Michelle Bachmann. Bachmann worked the hometown crowd, opening with, “I love New Orleans! You survived Katrina! You survived President Obama’s oil moratorium! There is nothing you can’t survive! You have such a great spirit, you inspire America!”

While the crowd wasn’t quite as loud for Bachmann as for the previous candidates, she earned great applause on a number of lines, such as “I will not rest until we repeal Obamacare!,” “President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want!,” and (now in the absence of many of Paul’s antiwar supporters), “I stand with Israel!”

Bachmann brought the convention to a standstill for nearly half an hour after her speech when she went into the crowd to sign autographs and take pictures; leaving the final presidential candidate’s speech from Sen. Rick Santorum as something of an afterthought.

Later, Bachmann dodged a question from The Daily Caller about why she didn’t join Paul in the lawsuit against the White House despite her professed opposition to the bombing of Libya.

When pressed by TheDC on whether or not Obama should be impeached if he continues the Libyan campaign without Congressional approval after the three-month deadline set forward in the War Powers Act, she said only, “We’ll see about that.”

Meanwhile, the audience in the ballroom was dwindling for the address by Santorum, who evinced a concern that “America will slip away.” Santorum then left the hotel almost unnoticed while hundreds of Paul supporters gathered a block away for a meet-and-greet to network and snap a picture with the candidate.

Voting in the straw poll will continue Saturday, and the winner will be announced mid-afternoon.



Friday, June 17, 2011

Paul packs them in at major GOP conference

Friday June 17th 2011

New Orleans (CNN) – Rep. Ron Paul sure knows how to draw a crowd.

Extra chairs were brought into the already packed hotel ballroom where the Republican Leadership Conference is being held to accommodate a swarm of loud and energetic supporters of the longtime congressman from Texas, who is making his third bid for the White House.

And those supporters loudly applauded Paul throughout his address, as he preached against American involvement in overseas wars and alliances by saying, "Americans are sick and tired of no-win wars around the world."

Paul also argued against the government's monetary policy, against the Federal Reserve, and against too much government regulation, saying "the fact that we have too many laws is what the problems are."

And he used his speech to tout civil liberties and family values, declaring that "rights and liberties come from your God, not your government. Besides, government is not very good at teaching morality."

Paul polls in the low double digits or high single digits in most of the recent national surveys in the battle for the GOP presidential nomination, but some pundits handicap his chances of wining the nomination because they criticize him as being out of the mainstream GOP because of his philosophy.

But Paul started and closed his speech by saying that most Republicans are beginning to see things his way, saying that they are "starting to use our language."



Ron Paul's VP Propsect?

The Street
By Alix Steel
Friday June 17th 2011

NEW YORK (TheStreet ) -- If Ron Paul were to win the GOP presidential nomination, there's a chance he wouldn't have to worry about geographical balance on his ticket.

Paul, a Texas congressman and critic of the Federal Reserve, mentioned a former New Jersey judge and current Fox News talk show host -- Andrew Napolitano -- as a potential running mate, in an interview with TheStreet's Alix Steel in Washington this week.
Paul, though, did say he hadn't "thought it through."

Judge Napolitano is not only the author of books titled Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When The Government Breaks Its Own Laws, The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land, and Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception In American History, but he also has served as a New Jersey judge from 1987-95 and is currently a senior judicial analyst for Fox News and host of a libertarian-themed show on Fox Business News, Freedom Watch.

He taught constitutional law as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall Law School, and Paul has been a frequent guest on Freedom Watch, along with other free market thinkers like Peter Schiff.

Paul wrote the foreword for Lies the Government Told You, in which he said: "I am pleased to recommend this book to anyone who cares about the direction of this country and wants to understand how we got where we are, and what we need to do to regain our liberties."

Congressman Paul has railed against the Federal Reserve ever since he entered political life in 1976 and has repeatedly called it unconstitutional for the Fed to print money. Paul has called for interpreting the Constitution in a way that would support gold and silver as legal tender.

"What we participate here in Washington with the Fed is counterfeiting the money to subsidize wars and our welfare, and we're considered good politicians," argues Paul.

In the 2008 primary race, a potential Paul/Napolitano ticket was a hot item among libertarians.

Lew Rockewll, chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Alabama, promoted this partnership in the last election. The institute is a research and education center for libertarianism and the Austrian School of Economics. Popular themes are free trade, free market, balanced budgets and a gold standard.
Napolitano could not be reached for comment, but he has said in recent speeches and interviews that "there are so far few Ron Pauls in the government" and that it is "time to tame the federal beast."

Paul's office declined to comment further on the likelihood of this potential Republican ticket.



Why I’m suing the Obama administration over Libya

The Daily Caller
By Ron Paul
Friday June 17th 2011

There is no issue more serious than war. Wars result in the loss of life and property. Wars are also expensive and an enormous economic burden.

Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the authority to declare war. This was meant to be an important check on presidential power. The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control executive branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a Congressional debate.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly the situation we have today in Libya.

That’s why I’ve joined several other members of Congress in a lawsuit against President Obama for engaging in military action in Libya without seeking the approval of Congress.

Of course, in 2007, then-Senator Obama spoke passionately about the need to go after the Bush administration for violating the War Powers Act — the very same thing he’s doing now. In fact, while speaking at DePaul University in October of 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama said the following:

“After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the president. No law can make senators read the intelligence that showed the president was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.”

We are now taking Barack Obama’s past advice and standing up to the executive branch.

Of course, the War Powers Act is hardly an improvement on the U.S. Constitution because it does allow the president to war without the approval of Congress. But President Obama refuses to follow this law.

If a president does go to war unilaterally, the War Powers Act requires him to seek Congressional approval within 60 days. The president can get an extension of up to 90 days if he asks for more time — but President Obama did not do this.

His time is up.

The Obama administration recently issued a 38-page paper stating that Obama is not in violation of the War Powers Act because “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.” Under this argument, President Obama could preemptively launch nuclear weapons against any country in the world without Congressional approval. Obviously, this is not what the Founders intended!

But even aside from violating the Constitution, it makes no economic sense for us to be engaged in yet another war overseas — especially during such tough economic times. For years now, we’ve been sending foreign aid to the very same Libyan government we’re now spending $10 million a day to fight. And it has been recently discovered that the Federal Reserve’s bank bailouts even benefited the Libyan National Bank. Now, we’re taxing the American people to bomb the very nation that we taxed them to prop up.

This makes no sense at all.

The Founding Fathers did not intend for the president to have the power to take our nation to war unilaterally without the approval of Congress.

It’s time for the president to obey the Constitution and put the American people’s national interest first.

Rep. Ron Paul represents Texas’s 14th Congressional District and is a Republican candidate for president.



Wednesday, June 15, 2011

U.S. says goodbye to cable news

Run Ron Paul.com
By maddy4ronpaul
Wednesday June 15th 2011

The CNN Debacle Monday night garnered anger from all sides.  Republican establishment members were angry because their sweethearts, Herman Cain and Mitt Romney, didn’t receive their total focus as they had in the Fox News Debate.  Libertarians were angry because made-up polls showed Dr. Paul with zero (yes, zero) percent.  Not to mention the complete absence of Gary Johnson from the debate while including non-contenders, Newt Gingrich and Michelle Bachman.

The biggest complaint came from the moderating done by John King.  The goal of Mr. King was to get as many questions in as possible regardless of how impossible it was to answer in the time allotted.   He proved to be yet another cable news host who loves to hear the sound of his own voice.  The questions ranged from iPhone or Blackberry to more serious issues like thin-crust or deep-dish.

The blatant agenda of the cable news networks to blackout Dr. Paul from the public’s eye has, so far, been ineffective.  Perhaps this is best explained by the slow, painful death of the mainstream media, including cable and network news.

Among cable news, the highest rated show is Bill O’Reilly’s opinion-based drama, The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News.  It has an average viewership of around 2.5 million people.  That’s out of the 99 million households that it is available in.  CNN has an even lower viewership.  Anderson Cooper’s nightly comedy, Anderson Cooper 360, doesn’t even break  the million viewer mark.  The biggest problem with that is, his show is available in 100.88 million households.

MSNBC is the biggest loser of the major players.  With ratings that are similar to cable access channels and infomercials.  The Ed Show garners an audience of half-a-million people.  Less than half of them are between the ages of 25-54.  That number is out of a possible 95.4 million households!

To give you a reference of how bad this is, WWE Wrestling has a Monday night audience of over 5 million people.  Spongebob beats O’Reilly in the ratings 2 to 1.

This should concern the sponsors.  People are flocking away from television news in favor of websites offering honest, no nonsense journalism.  The new media, which is finding its foothold on the internet, is now in danger of being regulated by the federal government in an effort to block the ability of free-thinkers and the non-zombie public to stay informed.  But the networking of honest journalism has already grown to levels beyond what regulators could halt.

People who still rely on Sean Hannity or Chris Matthews to tell them what to think tend to form their opinions from talking points from the host.  The number of people who follow their jargon, though, is getting smaller, older, and less engaged.  The power today is found outside the box.



10 Congressmen And A Law Professor Just Sued To Stop The War In Libya

Business Insider
By Robert Johnson
Wednesday June 15th 2011

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley and a handful of students filed a legal challenge today on behalf of 10 members of Congress protesting America's involvement in Libya.

According to a press release today, Turley filed the litigation  on behalf of:

  • John Conyers, Jr (D., Mich)
  • Dan Burton (R., Ind.)
  • Mike Capuano (D., Mass.)
  • Howard Coble, (R., N.C.)
  • John Conyers, (D. Mich.)
  • John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.)
  • Tim Johnson (R., Ill.)
  • Walter Jones (R., N.C.)
  • Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio)
  • Ron Paul (R. Tex.)

The bi-partisan group are basing their argument on the War Powers Act of 1973 which states the president may not send troops into combat for more than 90 days total, without the express consent of Congress.

Hurley has handled many high-profile cases including the representation of five former Attorneys General.

The full press release is below:


WASHINGTON, DC-- Today at the U.S. Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, Professor Jonathan Turley and a George Washington student litigation team will file a historic challenge to the Libyan War on behalf of ten members of Congress.  These members include Democrats and Republicans from across the political spectrum.  They share a belief that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution expressly requires the authorization of Congress before a president can commit the nation to war.  This challenge goes beyond Libya and challenges the claim by the Administration that the President has the inherent authority to order combat operations without the approval or declaration of Congress.

The Plaintiffs in this action include the second-longest standing member of Congress, John Conyers, Jr. (D., Mich), as well as leaders from both parties.  The members are Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx).

“We are deeply honored to represent these courageous members of Congress in their defense of important constitutional limitations on executive power,” said Professor Turley.  While there are many uncertain questions under the Constitution, this is not one of them. The Framers spoke repeatedly and forcibly of their desire to bar presidents from committing the nation to war without congressional authorization and inserted an express limitation into Article I.  The last few years have vividly demonstrated the dangers that the Framers sought to avoid in dividing the war powers between the Executive and Legislative branches.  Despite their sharp ideological differences, these members are bond by deep faith in the Constitution and a sense of responsibility in defending its provisions.  We shall their concerns and are eager to advance their claims in the Judicial Branch in this lawsuit.”

This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief.  In addition to challenging the circumvention of express constitutional language, it will also challenge arguments that no one (including members of Congress) has “standing” to submit this question to judicial review.  These members will ask the federal district court for review of the constitutional question and for recognition that the Constitution must allow for judicial review of claims of undeclared wars under Article I.

Professor Turley has handled a variety of high-profile cases, including, but not limited to, his representation of five former Attorneys General during the Clinton Impeachment, his successful challenge of the Elizabeth Morgan Act (the first law struck down as a bill of attainder in decades), and his recent representation of Judge Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial before the United States Senate this year.  He is a frequent witness before Congress.  His biography can be found at http://jonathanturley.org/about/

Professor Turley is being assisted in this case by a team including Jodie Cheng, David Fox, Kyle Noonan, Eric Sidler, and Geoff Turley (no relation to Professor Turley).

Professor Turley can be reached through his assistant Ashley Klearman at 202-994-0537 or on his direct line at 202-994-7001 or by email at jturley@law.gwu.edu.  For more information, please contact Claire Duggan at (202) 431-9135; cduggan@law.gwu.edu