http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiGXzTHZqQA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-TIVLvaJe0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9KeDRGtSQI&feature=related

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Looks like Amazon is offering a nice discount on Ron Paul’s new book, due out next month. I don’t know if this is a price mistake or not but it seems hot to me.

Buy a few copies and pass them out to friends.

End The Fed @ Amazon

Product Description
In the post-meltdown world, it is irresponsible, ineffective, and ultimately useless to have a serious economic debate without considering and challenging the role of the Federal Reserve.

Most people think of the Fed as an indispensable institution without which the country’s economy could not properly function. But in END THE FED, Ron Paul draws on American history, economics, and fascinating stories from his own long political life to argue that the Fed is both corrupt and unconstitutional. It is inflating currency today at nearly a Weimar or Zimbabwe level, a practice that threatens to put us into an inflationary depression where $100 bills are worthless. What most people don’t realize is that the Fed — created by the Morgans and Rockefellers at a private club off the coast of Georgia — is actually working against their own personal interests. Congressman Paul’s urgent appeal to all citizens and officials tells us where we went wrong and what we need to do fix America’s economic policy for future generations.

Product Details

* Hardcover: 224 pages
* Publisher: Grand Central Publishing (September 16, 2009)

Related Posts:

• End “The Fed Scam” Now!
• Ron Paul: The Fed Works In Collusion With Goldman Sachs
• Lawmaker accuses Fed of “cover-up” in Bank of America deal
• America’s “Money Machine”
• Obama Administration Careening Towards Disaster (and Taking the Country With It)

The libertarian-minded Republican ultimately graded the president at a just-passing “D” when asked to rate Obama’s performance during an interview on CNN’s “American Morning,” though only because he decided to factor in extenuating circumstances.

“I’d probably give them a D. He deserves an F, but I give him a D to make one point is that he’s not responsible for this mess,” Paul said.

“The last administration has a lot to do with this. The Congress has a lot to do with it,” the former presidential candidate added. “So I would say he’s failing, but he doesn’t deserve all of the blame.”

Paul was appearing on CNN with his son, Rand, who recently announced that he is running for Kentucky’s Republican nomination for the United States Senate.

Asked the same question as his father, Rand was less understanding of what he too sees as a failed performance by the president.

“I would say an F,” he said flatly, citing the size of the national debt.

“You cannot borrow and borrow and borrow and print money to pay for this without repercussions, and the repercussions will be higher prices in the grocery store,” Rand Paul said.

Related Posts:

• Will Obama “Change” The Bush Police State Or Expand It?
• Ron Paul: No Change on the Horizon
• US to borrow 46 cents for every dollar spent
• Ron Paul: ‘Pretty sad’ that Limbaugh is GOP leader
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING

Congressman Ron Paul’s bill may never pass, but history suggests the US economy would be better off without the Federal Reserve.

from the August 3, 2009 edition CSM

Athens, Ga. – Since it was introduced in February, Representative Ron Paul’s “Audit the Fed” bill (H.R. 1207) has gained 282 congressional cosponsors. If adopted, the bill would allow the Government Accountability Office to review, not only the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet, but its recent monetary policy deliberations and transactions.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke opposes the plan, saying it would undermine the Fed’s hallowed independence.

But Mr. Paul, a noted libertarian who ran for president last year, also wants to keep the Fed out of Congress’s clutches – by scrapping it altogether. That’s the goal of his follow-up Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act (H.R. 833). Although that measure has yet to gain a single cosponsor, it has plenty of grass-roots support, and Paul hopes that members of Congress will jump on the bandwagon once their eyes are opened by a no-holds-barred audit.

Wacky stuff? Well, if not having a ghost of a chance is enough to make a bill bonkers, Paul’s measure probably qualifies. But that doesn’t mean you’ve got to be crazy to believe that the US economy would be better off without the Fed.

The Fed’s apologists suggest otherwise, of course. They note that the US spent nearly half the years between 1854 to 1913 in recession, as opposed to just 21 percent of the time since the Fed’s establishment in 1913. Who would want to go back to those bad old days?

But consider: the US economy has actually grown less rapidly since 1914 than it did before. And inflation has been much worse, despite both the Civil War, which featured the nation’s worst inflation, and the Great Depression, which featured its severest deflation!

What’s more, the frequent downturns before 1914 were due, not to the lack of a central bank, but to foolish government regulations. Topping the list were bans on branch banking, initiated by state governments and then incorporated into federal banking law. The bans propped up thousands of undercapitalized and under-diversified banks – banks unfit to survive major local shocks, let alone macroeconomics ones. They also caused bank notes – competitively supplied counterparts of today’s Federal Reserve notes – to trade at discounts whenever they traveled far from the solitary offices of banks that issued them.

During the Civil War, state bank notes were taxed out of existence to make way for those of new national banks. Because national banks had to accept one another’s notes at full value, their currency was uniform. But national bank notes had to be backed by government bonds.

That requirement, designed to bolster the Union’s finances while the war raged on, proved disastrous afterward, when government surpluses led to a halving of the federal debt, and to a corresponding shortage of bonds for securing bank notes. The resulting currency panics – in 1873, 1884, 1893, and 1907 – prompted the Fed’s establishment.

But they didn’t have to. Until 1907, prominent reformers favored simply abolishing Civil War-era restrictions on banks’ freedom to issue notes and allowing all banks to branch nationwide to ease the mopping-up of unwanted paper money.

They drew inspiration from Canada, where a similar “asset currency” arrangement had been working smoothly for decades. Between the panic of 1893 and that of 1907, Congress considered more than a dozen “asset currency” measures But none got anywhere, thanks to local bankers’ determination to block any proposal for branch banking that would threaten their cozy monopolies.

It was only once these deregulatory efforts failed that reformers fell back on the plan of establishing a “central reserve bank.” The resulting Federal Reserve Act was, in essence, merely a plan to allow 12 new banks to do what other banks were prevented from doing themselves, namely, establish branch networks and issue currency backed by commercial assets.

But the Federal Reserve plan proved to be a poor substitute for deregulation. By granting monopoly privileges to the Federal Reserve banks, it allowed them to inflate recklessly: By 1919, the US inflation rate, which had cleaved close to zero ever since the Civil War, was close to 20 percent! Yet the Fed was also capable of failing to supply enough money to avert crises. The first downturn over which it presided – that of 1921 – was among the sharpest in US history. Still it was nothing compared to the unprecedented monetary contraction of 1929-1933.

Would asset currency have been any better? Canada’s was: Between 1929 and 1933, for instance, 6,000 US banks failed, and a third of the US money stock was wiped out. In contrast, and despite a fixed Canadian-US dollar exchange rate, Canada’s money stock shrank by just 13 percent, and no Canadian bank failed.

Notwithstanding this superior outcome, the Canadian government itself abandoned asset currency in favor of central banking in 1935, to placate a growing Canadian movement for easy money.

So a call to end the Fed would have been anything but crazy in 1934. Three-quarters of a century and a dozen crises later, there are plenty of grounds for insisting that it hasn’t gotten any crazier.

George Selgin is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a professor of economics at the University of Georgia.

Related Posts:

• End “The Fed Scam” Now!
• We Have The Moral High Ground
• Cracks Emerging in NAFTA
• German Scientists Call for ‘World Climate Bank’
• Ron Paul – End the Fed (Hardcover) preorder – $13.19 @ Amazon (40% off)

Dr. Ron Paul, health freedom’s friend in Congress, introduced two important bills yesterday that, if passed, would rein in the excessive interference in advanced health products by the FDA and FTC.

Dr. Ron Paul Introduces Health Freedom Bills!

Dr. Ron Paul, health freedom’s friend in Congress, introduced two important bills yesterday that, if passed, would rein in the excessive interference in advanced health products by the FDA and FTC.

You can support these bills here:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27732

Here is the Life Extension Foundation’s description of the bills:

HR 3395: The Health Freedom Act. This bill removes FDA’s power of prior restraint over all nutrient-disease relationship claims. Under the bill, the FDA may not prohibit any statement concerning a nutrient affecting a disease (including treatment effects) from being made in the market and may only act against a statement once made if it possesses clear and convincing evidence that the statement is false. Presently the FDA blocks an enormous quantity of truthful information concerning the effects of nutrients and foods on disease from reaching consumers. That barrier is removed by the Health Freedom Act, but the Act preserves the power of the government to prosecute those who communicate falsehood. The essential purpose of the First Amendment is to disarm the federal government of the power to impose a prior restraint on speech. The FDA has imposed a prior restraint for decades to the health detriment of the public. Passage of the Health Freedom Act will restore constitutional governance by reasserting the supremacy of the First Amendment over the Food and Drug Administration.

HR 3394: The Health Information Protection Act. This bill prevents the Federal Trade Commission from taking action against any advertiser that communicates a health benefit for a product unless the FTC first establishes based on clear and convincing evidence that the statement made is false and that its communication causes harm to the public. Presently, the FTC reverses the Fifth Amendment burden of proof on the government when it charges advertisers with deceptive advertising and then demands that they prove their speech true based on contemporaneously held documentation or be deemed to have advertised deceptively. The Fifth Amendment requires that FTC bear the burden of proving advertising deceptive. It may not constitutionally shift the burden to the advertiser to prove its statements not deceptive. The First Amendment requires that FTC not act against speech unless the speech is probably false. It may not constitutionally accuse a party of false advertising yet lack proof that the advertising is false and condemn advertising based on an absence of documentation concerning the truth of the statement rather than the presence of evidence establishing the falsity of the statement.

These bills go to the heart of the issue of valid health claims for nutrient products: how do companies substantiate the claims they are making. Essentially the bills apply Constitutional principles to the making of claims, which are a type of speech, and are therefore protected from excessive bureaurcratic burden.

In this context it is useful to see what then Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the Supreme Court majority in the leading health claim free speech case, Thompson v. Western States Medical Center – 01-344, decided on April 29, 2002 – 535 U.S. 357 -

“If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last – not first – resort.”

“We have previously rejected the notion that the Government has an interest in preventing the dissemination of truthful commercial information in order to prevent members of the public from making bad decisions with the information.”

“Even if the Government did argue that it had an interest in preventing misleading advertisements, this interest could be satisfied by the far less restrictive alternative of requiring each …to be labeled with a warning that the [product] had not undergone FDA testing and that its risks were unknown.”

The basic rule, announced by the case, to determine constitutionally permitted government restrictions on Commercial Speech (speech that makes or is about an offer for a transaction) is a Two Prong Test: the first prong is to ask two questions: (1) is the speech in question about unlawful activity and (2) is the speech misleading. If “no” to both, the speech is entitled to protection unless the Government can carry its burden and prove (1) the governmental interest involved is “substantial”, (2) the regulation must “directly advance” the governmental interest and (3) the regulation of Commercial Speech cannot be “more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest” (quoting Central Hudson v Public Service, 447 US 557, at 566).

Dr. Paul’ s bills make it clear that the government has the burden of proof if it seeks to restrict what marketers say about their health related products. In this way, his bills preserve the Constitutional protections for Commercial Speech.

You can support these bills here:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27732

Source: Health Freedom USA

Related Posts:

• Unemployment Edges Up to Great Depression Level
• We Have The Moral High Ground
• To President Obama & All Our Government Leaders
• CASH FOR CLUNKERS: MORE STEALING, MORE DEBT
• End “The Fed Scam” Now!

Related Posts:

• The Swine Flu Pandemic – Another Excuse to Expand Government and Restrict Constitutional Rights ?
• Ron Paul – The American Power Elite (Full Interview)
• Ron Paul – End the Fed (Hardcover) preorder – $13.19 @ Amazon (40% off)
• Ron Paul: Obama ‘deserves an F’
• CASH FOR CLUNKERS: MORE STEALING, MORE DEBT

July 17, 2009 – 12:42 pm

Related Posts:

• ARM American Resistance Movement on G20 Summit Sept. 24-27
• Ron Paul: The Fed Works In Collusion With Goldman Sachs
• Ron Paul – End the Fed (Hardcover) preorder – $13.19 @ Amazon (40% off)
• End “The Fed Scam” Now!
• Child vaccinated at school AGAINST PARENTS WISHES

by Mary Ann Akers

Recently by Ron Paul: Fed Independence or Fed Secrecy?

For anyone who doubted it, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the libertarian phenom of the 2008 presidential campaign, is a lover, not a fighter.

And he’s spreading love far and wide across the Internet, albeit unwittingly.

Paul is the inspiration behind a new online dating site called Ron Paul Singles. “We put the LOVE in Revolution,” the Web site proclaims.

It works just like any other online dating service. Plug in “man seeking woman,” “woman seeking man,” “woman seeking woman,” “man seeking man” or even “couple seeking (fill in the blank)” and you’re instantly shown the potential opportunities out there in the land of Ron Paul Love.

We asked Rep. Paul a few questions about the site via e-mail, including whether he ever imagined that he’d spur an entire online dating community built around… well, himself.

“Well, I never thought I’d speak to crowds of 5,000 college kids chanting ‘End the Fed’ and burning Federal Reserve notes, so I guess nothing surprises me that much anymore,” Paul wrote back.

The neophyte yenta said he didn’t know who was responsible for creating the Web site but “I suppose it’s all about Freedom bringing people together – spiritually, politically, and now, romantically.” And he encouraged any of his single friends who “want to meet a great lover of liberty” to sign up for the Ron Paul Singles dating services and give him some feedback on their experiences.

Read the Rest of the Article

Related Posts:

• Ron Paul: Obama ‘deserves an F’
• Ron Paul: The Fed Works In Collusion With Goldman Sachs
• Ron Paul – End the Fed (Hardcover) preorder – $13.19 @ Amazon (40% off)
• Ron Paul – The American Power Elite (Full Interview)
• Fractures in the Truth Movement, Part II

Last week, General Motors finally declared bankruptcy.  Many in government thought $20 billion in taxpayer dollars would save the company, but as predicted, it only postponed the inevitable.  The government will dump another $30 billion into GM and take a 60 percent controlling interest for it.  Public officials are now involving themselves in tactical business decisions such as where GM’s headquarters should move and what kind of cars it will build.

The promise that this is temporary and will eventually be profitable is supposed to ease the American people into accepting this arrangement, but it is of little comfort to those who remember similar promises when the American taxpayers bought Amtrak.  After three years, government was supposed to be out of the passenger rail business.  40 years and billions of dollars later, the government is still operating Amtrak at a loss, despite the fact that they have created a monopoly by making it illegal to compete with Amtrak.  Imagine what they can now do to what is left of the great American auto industry!

In a truly free market, GM would get your money one way and one way only – by selling you a car you want, at a price you are willing to pay.  Instead, the government is giving public money to a private company in spite of the market signals it has been sending.  Throwing money at GM does not stop it from being an engine of wealth destruction; on the contrary, it simply gives it more wealth to destroy.

Had it been allowed to fail naturally, the profitable pieces of GM would have been bought up and put to good use by now.  The laid off employees would likely have found new jobs and all that capital would be in private hands, reinvested in companies that produce products demanded by consumers.  Instead, we are all poorer now.

Political pressure, rather than the rule of law, is deciding how to divide up the remains of GM.  The bondholders had billions in retirement savings invested in the company, and though they were entitled to nearly three times as much as the United Auto Workers, the bondholders were left with just a 10 percent stake compared to the union’s 17.5 percent stake.   For their 60 percent stake, taxpayers have a future of constant bailouts to look forward to.

Comingling public control of private business is known as fascism.  While today’s politicians may feel emboldened with all their new power, history will only repeat itself as all this collapses on itself.  It is the height of hubris for bureaucrats and politicians to attempt to control the market and the freewill of the American people.  In the end, the market always wins out.  Maybe one day future generations will wise up and allow free markets to function and thrive without the albatross of government around its neck.  For now, it looks like those in charge have not learned the lessons of the past, and have doomed us to repeat those mistakes once again.   source

Related Posts:

• Ron Paul – The American Power Elite (Full Interview)
• Ron Paul – End the Fed (Hardcover) preorder – $13.19 @ Amazon (40% off)
• Ron Paul: Obama ‘deserves an F’
• CASH FOR CLUNKERS: MORE STEALING, MORE DEBT
• Ron Paul: The Fed Works In Collusion With Goldman Sachs

(CSPAN) – No End To Secret Prisons!? Ignoring Habeas Corpus!? No Penalty For Torture!?

Related Posts:

• Ron Paul – The American Power Elite (Full Interview)
• Ron Paul – End the Fed (Hardcover) preorder – $13.19 @ Amazon (40% off)
• Ron Paul: Obama ‘deserves an F’
• CASH FOR CLUNKERS: MORE STEALING, MORE DEBT
• Ron Paul: The Fed Works In Collusion With Goldman Sachs

source

Related Posts:

• 9/11 Shock Opera… Act 4 – Building 7 and Flight 93: The Grand Finale that Wasn’t
• America’s “Money Machine”
• The Zionist Nexus Linking 9-11 and the Financial Crisis
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• An Open Letter to President Obama; Why Is Corporate America Destroying Our Economy?

It looks like the Federal Reserve may finally have something to worry about now that HR 1207 is finally gaining serious steam. If enacted, HR 1207 will amend title 31 of the United States Code and reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States. In other words, for the first time since 1950, the criminals at the Federal Reserve will be forced by law to open their books.

Rep. Ron Paul introduced H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, on February 26, 2009.

HR 1207 was sponsored and introduced by Rep. Ron Paul. On February 26, 2009, it was referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. It now has 179 co-sponsors (see the list of sponsors below).

If passed, the bill will force the Fed to give a public accounting of the trillions of taxpayer “loans” handed over to the banksters. It will force Congress to audit the Fed and this will force out into the light of day the Fed practice of inflating the currency for the gain of a small number of international bankers. It will reveal the bankster practice of engineering financial crises and depressions — or scientifically created, as Congressman Charles A. Lindberg Sr. said after the Federal Reserve Act was passed in the dead of night — in order to consolidate illicit gains and eliminate competition (as the bankers are monopoly men).

On March 25, 2009, H.R. 1207 had 44 co-sponsors. “We’re making great progress because a lot of you have helped encourage your member of Congress to co-sponsor the bill,” Ron Paul said. “And to me, this is very, very important that we do this. The atmosphere in the Congress has definitely changed. It’s changed with their attitude about the Federal Reserve System, but overall there’s a tremendous push by the American people for the Congress to wake up and have more transparency… I have argued, of course, that we don’t need the Federal Reserve. It’s not part of our constitution and we should get rid of it, but it doesn’t happen that way. But if we get the audit and get the books open, make them answer the questions, I am convinced that the American people will be so outraged that then we will have reform of the monetary system.”

Imagine Ben Bernanke, shorn of his arrogance, dragged before Congress and compelled to answer questions. In the not too distant past, this prospect was a remote dream, but now, thanks to Ron Paul and all the people who have insisted their representatives support this bill, it may become law.

Ron Paul gives an update on HR 1207 on April 27, 2009

Here is the list of co-sponsors as of May 22, 2009:

Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] – 2/26/2009
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] – 2/26/2009
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] – 2/26/2009
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] – 2/26/2009
Rep Rehberg, Denny [MT] – 2/26/2009
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-15] – 2/26/2009
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] – 2/26/2009
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] – 2/26/2009
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] – 2/26/2009
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] – 2/26/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] – 2/26/2009
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] – 3/5/2009
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] – 3/6/2009
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] – 3/6/2009
Rep Young, Don [AK] – 3/6/2009
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] – 3/6/2009
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] – 3/6/2009
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] – 3/6/2009
Rep Heller, Dean [NV-2] – 3/6/2009
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] – 3/6/2009
Rep Taylor, Gene [MS-4] – 3/6/2009
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] – 3/9/2009
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] – 3/10/2009
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] – 3/10/2009
Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] – 3/10/2009
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] – 3/10/2009
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] – 3/11/2009
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] – 3/11/2009
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] – 3/16/2009
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] – 3/16/2009
Rep Buchanan, Vern [FL-13] – 3/17/2009
Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] – 3/17/2009
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] – 3/18/2009
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] – 3/19/2009
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] – 3/19/2009
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] – 3/19/2009
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] – 3/19/2009
Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [WY] – 3/19/2009
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] – 3/19/2009
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] – 3/23/2009
Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-9] – 3/23/2009
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] – 3/23/2009
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] – 3/24/2009
Rep Blunt, Roy [MO-7] – 3/24/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] – 3/26/2009
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] – 3/26/2009
Rep Paulsen, Erik [MN-3] – 3/30/2009
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] – 3/30/2009
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] – 3/30/2009
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] – 3/31/2009
Rep Capito, Shelley Moore [WV-2] – 4/1/2009
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] – 4/1/2009
Rep Fallin, Mary [OK-5] – 4/2/2009
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] – 4/2/2009
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] – 4/2/2009
Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] – 4/21/2009
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] – 4/21/2009
Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. [MI-3] – 4/21/2009
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] – 4/21/2009
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] – 4/21/2009
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] – 4/21/2009
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] – 4/21/2009
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] – 4/21/2009
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] – 4/21/2009
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] – 4/21/2009
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] – 4/21/2009
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] – 4/21/2009
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] – 4/21/2009
Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4] – 4/21/2009
Rep Luetkemeyer, Blaine [MO-9] – 4/21/2009
Rep Doggett, Lloyd [TX-25] – 4/21/2009
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] – 4/22/2009
Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29] – 4/22/2009
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] – 4/22/2009
Rep Thompson, Glenn [PA-5] – 4/22/2009
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] – 4/22/2009
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] – 4/22/2009
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] – 4/22/2009
Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] – 4/22/2009
Rep Jenkins, Lynn [KS-2] – 4/23/2009
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] – 4/23/2009
Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] – 4/23/2009
Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] – 4/23/2009
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] – 4/23/2009
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. [SC-1] – 4/28/2009
Rep Biggert, Judy [IL-13] – 4/28/2009
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] – 4/28/2009
Rep Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] – 4/28/2009
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] – 4/28/2009
Rep Putnam, Adam H. [FL-12] – 4/28/2009
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] – 4/28/2009
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] – 4/28/2009
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] – 4/28/2009
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] – 4/28/2009
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] – 4/28/2009
Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] – 4/28/2009
Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] – 4/28/2009
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] – 4/28/2009
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] – 4/28/2009
Rep Smith, Adrian [NE-3] – 4/28/2009
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] – 4/29/2009
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] – 4/29/2009
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] – 4/29/2009
Rep Bono Mack, Mary [CA-45] – 4/29/2009
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] – 4/29/2009
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] – 4/29/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] – 4/29/2009
Rep Upton, Fred [MI-6] – 4/29/2009
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] – 4/29/2009
Rep Buyer, Steve [IN-4] – 4/30/2009
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] – 4/30/2009
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] – 4/30/2009
Rep McCarthy, Kevin [CA-22] – 5/4/2009
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] – 5/4/2009
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] – 5/4/2009
Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [WA-5] – 5/4/2009
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] – 5/4/2009
Rep Moran, Jerry [KS-1] – 5/4/2009
Rep Cassidy, Bill [LA-6] – 5/4/2009
Rep Walden, Greg [OR-2] – 5/4/2009
Rep Crenshaw, Ander [FL-4] – 5/4/2009
Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] – 5/4/2009
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] – 5/4/2009
Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] – 5/4/2009
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] – 5/6/2009
Rep Linder, John [GA-7] – 5/6/2009
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] – 5/6/2009
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] – 5/6/2009
Rep Dent, Charles W. [PA-15] – 5/6/2009
Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19] – 5/6/2009
Rep Schock, Aaron [IL-18] – 5/6/2009
Rep Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie [SD] – 5/6/2009
Rep Austria, Steve [OH-7] – 5/6/2009
Rep Adler, John H. [NJ-3] – 5/6/2009
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] – 5/7/2009
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] – 5/7/2009
Rep Walz, Timothy J. [MN-1] – 5/7/2009
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] – 5/7/2009
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] – 5/7/2009
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] – 5/7/2009
Rep Shadegg, John B. [AZ-3] – 5/7/2009
Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] – 5/7/2009
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] – 5/7/2009
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] – 5/11/2009
Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] – 5/11/2009
Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7] – 5/11/2009
Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] – 5/11/2009
Rep Harper, Gregg [MS-3] – 5/11/2009
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] – 5/11/2009
Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] – 5/12/2009
Rep Fortenberry, Jeff [NE-1] – 5/12/2009
Rep Mack, Connie [FL-14] – 5/12/2009
Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] – 5/12/2009
Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] – 5/12/2009
Rep Maffei, Daniel B. [NY-25] – 5/12/2009
Rep Inslee, Jay [WA-1] – 5/12/2009
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] – 5/13/2009
Rep Minnick, Walter [ID-1] – 5/13/2009
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-7] – 5/13/2009
Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] – 5/13/2009
Rep Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-52] – 5/13/2009
Rep Perriello, Thomas S.P. [VA-5] – 5/13/2009
Rep Ortiz, Solomon P. [TX-27] – 5/14/2009
Rep Ryan, Paul [WI-1] – 5/14/2009
Rep Whitfield, Ed [KY-1] – 5/14/2009
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] – 5/20/2009
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5] – 5/20/2009
Rep Altmire, Jason [PA-4] – 5/20/2009
Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5] – 5/20/2009
Rep Reichert, David G. [WA-8] – 5/20/2009
Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] – 5/20/2009
Rep Berry, Marion [AR-1] – 5/20/2009
Rep Schauer, Mark H. [MI-7] – 5/20/2009
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] – 5/20/2009
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] – 5/20/2009
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] – 5/21/2009
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] – 5/21/2009
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] – 5/21/2009
Rep Thornberry, Mac [TX-13] – 5/21/2009

By Kurt Nimmo

Source: http://www.infowars.com/bill-to-audit-fed-gains-serious-momentum/

Related Posts:

• America’s “Money Machine”
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• Obama and ACORN GPS Marking EVERY Front Door in America?
• Was Ron Paul ‘railroaded’ in drug war debate on CNN?
• $700 Billion Bill Legitimizes Multi-Trillion Dollar Extortion

Related Posts:

• A Nation Transformed by Fear!
• This Time, the World Is Not Buying It
• 9/11 Shock Opera… Act 4 – Building 7 and Flight 93: The Grand Finale that Wasn’t
• MSM: Revealed – The secret report that shows how the Nazis planned a Fourth Reich …in the EU
• The State of Israel: Providence, Miracle, or What Really Happened, Part 1

Here’s the full text of the speech given by Ron Paul in the House of Representatives, April 30, 2009:

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Parental Consent Act. This bill forbids Federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.

The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the federal and state governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as “ADD” or “hyperactive” and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents’ wishes.

Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children’s typical rambunctious behavior. According to Medco Health Solutions, more than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time. In fact, according to Medico Trends, in 2003, total spending on psychiatric drugs for children exceeded spending on antibiotics or asthma medication.

Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents’ wishes if a federally-funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation.

Universal or mandatory mental-health screening could also provide a justification for stigmatizing children from families that support traditional values. Even the authors of mental-health diagnosis manuals admit that mental-health diagnoses are subjective and based on social constructions. Therefore, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person’s disagreement with the psychiatrist’s political beliefs a mental disorder. For example, a federally-funded school violence prevention program lists “intolerance” as a mental problem that may lead to school violence. Because “intolerance” is often a code word for believing in traditional values, children who share their parents’ values could be labeled as having mental problems and a risk of causing violence. If the mandatory mental-health screening program applies to adults, everyone who believes in traditional values could have his or her beliefs stigmatized as a sign of a mental disorder. Taxpayer dollars should not support programs that may label those who adhere to traditional values as having a “mental disorder.”

Related Posts:

• America’s “Money Machine”
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days
• The Kingdom of Lies
• Propaganda is making the Truth Movement Totally Irrelevant
• Monsanto and Its Philanthropy