JANET YELLEN IS RIGHT: SHE CAN'T PREDICT THE FUTURE by RON PAUL

This week I found myself in rare agreement with Janet Yellen when she admitted that her economic predictions are likely to be wrong. Sadly, Yellen did not follow up her admission by handing in her resignation and joining efforts to end the Fed. An honest examination of the Federal Reserve’s record over the past seven years clearly shows that the American people would be better off without it. Following the bursting of the Federal Reserve-created housing bubble, the Fed embarked on an unprecedented program of bailouts and money creation via quantitative easing (QE) 1, 2, 3, etc. Not only has QE failed to revive the economy, it has further damaged the average American’s standard of living while benefiting the financial elites. None other than Donald Trump has called QE “a great deal for guys like me.” The failure of quantitative easing to improve the economy has left the Fed reluctant to raise interest rates. Yet the Fed does not want to appear oblivious to the dangers posed by keeping rates artificially low. This is why the Fed regularly announces that the economy will soon be strong enough to handle a rate increase. There are signs that investors are beginning to realize that the Fed’s constant talk of raising rates is just talk, so they are looking for investments that will protect them from a Fed-caused collapse in the dollar’s value. For example, the price of gold recently increased following reports of stagnant retail sales. An increased gold price in response to economic sluggishness may appear counter intuitive, but it is a sign that investors are realizing quantitative easing is not ending anytime soon. The increase in the gold price is not the only sign that investors are interested in hard assets to protect themselves from inflation. Recently a Picasso painting sold for a record 180 million dollars. This record may not last long, as an additional two billion dollars worth of art is expected to go on the market in the next few weeks. Another sign of the increasing concerns about the dollar's stability is the growing interest in alternative currencies. Investing and using alternative currencies can help average Americans, who do not have millions to spend on Picasso paintings, protect themselves from a currency crisis. Congress should ensure that all Americans can protect themselves from a dollar crisis by repealing the legal tender laws. Congress should also take the first step toward monetary reform by passing the Audit the Fed bill. Unfortunately, Audit the Fed is not a part of the Federal Reserve “reform” bill that was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. Instead, the bill makes some minor changes in the Fed’s governance structure. These “reforms” are the equivalent of rearranging deck chairs as the Titanic crashes into the iceberg. Hopefully, the Senate will vote on, and pass, Audit the Fed this year. The skyrocketing federal debt is also a major factor in the coming economic collapse. The Federal Reserve facilitates deficit spending by monetizing debt. Congress should make real cuts, not just reductions in the “rate of growth,” in all areas. But it should prioritize cutting the billions spent on the military-industrial complex. Some say that eliminating the welfare-warfare state and the fiat currency system that props it up will cause the people pain. The truth is the only people who will feel any long-term pain from returning to limited, constitutional government are the special interests that profit from the current system. A return to a true free-market economy will greatly improve the lives of the vast majority of Americans.

RON PAUL TALKS WITH LEW ROCKWELL

PLEASE COPY AND PASTE: https://www.lewrockwell.com/assets/2015/05/427_Paul.mp3

FROM SPUTNIK NEWS

Seymour Hersh’s report on the killing of Osama bin Laden makes Americans wonder whether their government is lying to them about other events, Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams stressed. Some influential US policy-makers have rushed to dismiss the report of American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh who published new relevations on the death of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, due to the fact that Hersh is challenging the government explanation of what happened, emphasized Ron Paul, a former Republican congressman and two-time US presidential candidate. “I think the goal is mostly to discredit him [Seymour Hersh] and he is not an easy person to discredit because he is challenging this status quo,” Dr. Ron Paul remarked. Indeed, it was Pulitzer Prize winning Seymour Hersh who exposed the US military’s mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2004, and revealed that Syrian rebels, and particularly the Al-Nusra Front Jihadist group, were behind the Ghouta chemical attack on August 21, 2013. Obama’s “mission accomplished” statement regarding the death of the US’ longstanding enemy Osama bin Laden resembled a similar controversial speech made by George W. Bush on May 1, 2003 at the USS Abraham Lincoln, Dr. Paul emphasized. Daniel McAdams, Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, emphasized that the alleged machinations behind the government narrative of the killing of Osama bin Laden was like something out of Wag the Dog, a 1997 black comedy film. The whole story looks incredibly sinister and could have been completely fabricated. Although some criticism of Hersh’s version could be justified, too many questions regarding the US military operation aimed at eliminating “terrorist number one” remained open, Dr. Paul noted. “And now it turns out that one of the major things with this report is the lack of necessity to march in and kill bin Laden immediately because right now they are saying that there was no fight, nobody was defending him, he had no guards, he was a sick old man,” Dr. Ron Paul stressed. “My thoughts were: this is a valuable asset, why didn’t we at least talk to this guy?” the former congressman asked rhetorically. Meanwhile, billions of taxpayer dollars had been spent on intelligence in order to find out where the notorious al-Qaeda leader was hiding. And Washington has found itself in an awkward position after Hersh disclosed that the US intelligence service had been aware of bin Laden’s location since 2006. Unfortunately, everyone who tries to call the official version into question is immediately labeled as unpatriotic or defending bin Laden, McAdams noted. “It does make you wonder about other things the government tells you. For example, we are constantly being told that Russia is invading Ukraine and is ready to take the Baltics. So are they lying or not?” Daniel McAdams emphasized. It is good for people not to blindly follow politicians, Dr. Ron Paul stressed. “I think it is healthy to try to figure out what is true and what is not true,” the former Republican congressman and two-time US presidential candidate underscored.

NEW MILITARY SPENDING BILL EXPANDS EMPIRE BUT FORBIDS DEBATE ON WAR by RON PAUL

On Friday the House passed a massive National Defense Authorization for 2016 that will guarantee US involvement in more wars and overseas interventions for years to come. The Republican majority resorted to trickery to evade the meager spending limitations imposed by the 2011 budget control act – limitations that did not, as often reported, cut military spending but only slowed its growth. But not even slower growth is enough when you have an empire to maintain worldwide, so the House majority slipped into the military spending bill an extra $89 billion for an emergency war fund. Such “emergency” spending is not addressed in the growth caps placed on the military under the 2011 budget control act. It is a loophole filled by Congress with Fed-printed money. Ironically, a good deal of this “emergency” money will go to President Obama’s war on ISIS even though neither the House nor the Senate has debated – let alone authorized – that war! Although House leadership allowed 135 amendments to the defense bill – with many on minor issues like regulations on fire hoses – an effort by a small group of Representatives to introduce an amendment to debate the current US war in Iraq and Syria was rejected. While squashing debate on ongoing but unauthorized wars, the bill also pushed the administration toward new conflicts. Despite the president’s unwise decision to send hundreds of US military trainers to Ukraine, a move that threatens the current shaky ceasefire, Congress wants even more US involvement in Ukraine’s internal affairs. The military spending bill included $300 million to directly arm the Ukrainian government even as Ukrainian leaders threaten to again attack the breakaway regions in the east. Does Congress really think US-supplied weapons killing ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine is a good idea? The defense authorization bill also seeks to send yet more weapons into Iraq. This time the House wants to send weapons directly to the Kurds in northern Iraq without the approval of the Iraqi government. Although these weapons are supposed to be used to fight ISIS, we know from too many prior examples that they often find their way into the hands of the very people we are fighting. Also, arming an ethnic group seeking to break away from Baghdad and form a new state is an unwise infringement of the sovereignty of Iraq. It is one thing to endorse the idea of secession as a way to reduce the possibility of violence, but it is quite something else to arm one side and implicitly back its demands. While the neocons keep pushing the lie that the military budget is shrinking under the Obama Administration, the opposite is true. As the CATO Institute pointed out recently, President George W. Bush’s average defense budget was $601 billion, while during the Obama administration the average has been $687 billion. This bill is just another example of this unhealthy trend. Next year’s military spending plan keeps the US on track toward destruction of its economy at home while provoking new resentment over US interventionism overseas. It is a recipe for disaster. Let’s hope for either a presidential veto, or that on final passage Congress rejects this bad bill.

TERRORISM

NSA SPYING RULED ILLEGAL, BUT WILL CONGRESS SAVE THE PROGRAM ANYWAY? by RON PAUL

This week the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the NSA’s metadata collection program was not authorized in US law. The PATRIOT Act, under which the program began, was too vague, the court found. But the truth is the Act was intended to be vague so that the government could interpret it in the broadest possible way. But this is really more of a technicality, because illegality and unconstitutionality are really two very different things. Even if Congress had explicitly authorized the government to collect our phone records, that law would still be unconstitutional because the Constitution does not grant government the power to access our personal information without a valid search warrant. Even though the court found the NSA program illegal, it did not demand that the government stop collecting our information in this manner. Instead, the court kicked the ball back in Congress’ court, as these provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire at the end of the month and the Appeals Court decided to let Congress decide how to re-authorize this spying program. Unfortunately, this is where there is not much to cheer. If past practice is any lesson, Congress will wait until the spying program is about to expire and then in a panic try to frighten Americans into accepting more intrusions on their privacy. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already put forth a new bill as a stop-gap measure to allow time for a fuller debate on the issue. His stop-gap? A five year re-authorization with no changes to the current program! The main reform bill being floated, the FREEDOM Act, is little better. Pretending to be a step in the right direction, the FREEDOM Act may actually be worse for our privacy and liberties than the PATRIOT Act! One silver lining in the court decision is that it should exonerate Ed Snowden, who risked it all to expose what the courts have now found was illegal US government activity. That is the definition of a whistleblower. Shouldn’t he be welcomed back home as a hero instead of being threatened with treason charges? We shouldn’t hold our breath! This week Snowden addressed a conference in Melbourne, Australia, informing citizens that the Australian government watches all its citizens “all the time.” Australia’s program allows the government to “collect everyone's communications in advance of criminal suspicion," he told the conference. That means the government is no longer in the business of prosecuting crimes, but instead is collecting information in case crimes someday occur. How is it that the Australian government can collect and track “pre-crime” information on its citizens? Last month Australia passed a law requiring telecommunications companies to retain metadata information on their customers for two years. Why do Australia’s oppressive laws matter to us? Because the NSA “reform” legislation before Congress, the FREEDOM Act, does exactly what the Australian law does: it mandates that US telecommunications companies retain their customers’ metadata information so that the NSA can access the information as it wishes. Some argue that this metadata information is harmless and that civil libertarians are over-reacting. But, as Ed Snowden told the Melbourne conference, "under these mandatory metadata laws you can immediately see who journalists are contacting, from which you can derive who their sources are." This one example of what happens when the government forces corporations to assist it in spying on the people should be a red flag. How can an independent media exist in the US if the government knows exactly whom journalists contact for information? It would be the end of any future whistleblowers. The only reform of the PATRIOT Act is a total repeal. Accept nothing less.

ARE WE A NATION OF WIMPS?

USA FREEDOM ACT: JUST ANOTHER WORD FOR LOST LIBERTY by RON PAUL

Apologists for the National Security Agency (NSA) point to the arrest of David Coleman Headley as an example of how warrantless mass surveillance is necessary to catch terrorists. Headley played a major role in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack that killed 166 people. While few would argue that bringing someone like Headley to justice is not a good thing, Headley’s case in no way justifies mass surveillance. For one thing, there is no “terrorist” exception in the Fourth Amendment. Saying a good end (capturing terrorists) justifies a bad means (mass surveillance) gives the government a blank check to violate our liberties. Even if the Headley case somehow justified overturning the Fourth Amendment, it still would not justify mass surveillance and bulk data collection. This is because, according to an investigation by ProPublica, NSA surveillance played an insignificant role in catching Headley. One former counter-terrorism official said when he heard that NSA surveillance was responsible for Headley's capture he “was trying to figure out how NSA played a role.” The Headley case is not the only evidence that the PATRIOT Act and other post-9/11 sacrifices of our liberty have not increased our security. For example, the NSA’s claim that its surveillance programs thwarted 54 terrorist attacks has been widely discredited. Even the president’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies found that mass surveillance and bulk data collection was “not essential to preventing attacks.” According to the congressional Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 and the 9/11 Commission, the powers granted the NSA by the PATRIOT Act would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks. Many intelligence experts have pointed out that, by increasing the size of the haystack government agencies must look through, mass surveillance makes it harder to find the needle of legitimate threats. Even though mass surveillance threatens our liberty, violates the Constitution, and does nothing to protect us from terrorism, many in Congress still cling to the fiction that the only way to ensure security is to give the government virtually unlimited spying powers. These supporters of the surveillance state are desperate to extend the provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are set to expire at the end of the month. They are particularly eager to preserve Section 215, which authorizes many of the most egregious violations of our liberties, including the NSA’s “metadata” program. However, Edward Snowden's revelations have galvanized opposition to the NSA’s ongoing violations of our liberties. This is why Congress will soon vote on the USA FREEDOM Act. This bill extends the expiring surveillance laws. It also contains some “reforms” that supposedly address all the legitimate concerns regarding mass surveillance. However, a look at the USA FREEDOM Act’s details, as opposed to the press releases of its supporters, shows that the act leaves the government’s mass surveillance powers virtually untouched. The USA FREEDOM Act has about as much to do with freedom as the PATRIOT Act had to do with patriotism. If Congress truly wanted to protect our liberties it would pass the Surveillance State Repeal Act, which repeals the PATRIOT Act. Congress should also reverse the interventionist foreign policy that increases the risk of terrorism by fostering resentment and hatred of Americans. Fourteen years after the PATRIOT Act was rushed into law, it is clear that sacrificing liberty does little or nothing to preserve security. Instead of trying to fool the American people with phony reforms, Congress should repeal all laws that violate the Fourth Amendment, starting with the PATRIOT Act.

JADE HELM 15