The US House of Representatives voted Friday to require the US government to respect states’ laws legalizing medical marijuana and hemp. The move is an endorsement of the significant drug war rollbacks that RPI Chairman and Founder Ron Paul had promoted for years in the House and his presidential campaigns.

In September of 2008, Paul spoke in Minneapolis, Minnesota to thousands of his presidential campaign supporters about the war on drugs, zeroing in on his advocacy for ending the US government’s war on medical marijuana and hemp:

Paul, while serving in the House as a representative from Texas, cosponsored amendments to Department of Justice appropriations bills nearly identical to the medical marijuana amendment that passed in the House on Friday. The earlier amendments differed from the amendment that passed in that the earlier amendments listed the fewer places where medical marijuana was previously to some extent legal under states’ laws.

Paul introduced the Industrial Hemp Farming Act in 2005 and each congress thereafter to prohibit the US government from interfering with people growing hemp in compliance with state laws. After Paul left the House, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) reintroduced the bill.

This week President Obama committed some 80 armed American troops to Chad to assist in the efforts to find a group of Nigerian girls reportedly kidnapped by the Boko Haram group. According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, an RPI Board Member, the president’s action was an illegal use of military force without Congressional approval:

Ron Paul appeared on RT’s Boom/Bust program to explain his foreign policy philosophy and his strong opposition to those who would involve the US government in overseas interventions. 

Whether it is the Middle East, Northern Africa or Ukraine, he said, his aim is “to promote trade and promote friendship, promote travel, at the same time not be involved in trying to determine what is best for the other people.” Read the interview here.

According to German press reports over the weekend, some 400 US employees of the US private security firm Academi (formerly Blackwater) are operating in Ukraine. Who in Ukraine would hire such forces and why? And what to expect after the referenda in eastern Ukraine over the weekend? RPI Director Daniel McAdams on RT explains:

US government hypocrisy in Ukraine RPI Director Daniel McAdams explains to RT:

Be among the first to watch this very special evening with Ron Paul in the San Francisco Bay area, speaking extensively on the principles of liberty and freedom. Federal Reserve, taxation, the ill-gotten wealth of those in the military-industrial complex, senseless wars, the nanny state, the drug war, and so much more.

This is a full course on liberty from one of the great masters, so sit back and enjoy!

A special thanks to Independent Institute‘s David Theroux for mentioning in his wonderful introduction that Dr. Paul is Chairman of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity!

US sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine crisis are an act of war, RPI Chairman Ron Paul told Channel 4 News in the UK. When you tell a country that they cannot trade, it may not be quite as bad as dropping bombs, but it is still an act of aggression, he said. What would the US do if someone from overseas came and said we cannot import oil, for example? 

The American people want no part of a conflict with Russia, just as they wanted no part in a war against Syria last summer, said Dr. Paul. But the US administration is playing games, threatening Russia and putting on sanctions, failing to recognize the large amount of trade between the US and Russia and the unnecessary economic harm that is done with sanctions. Watch the video:

Speaking on the House of Representatives floor on September 17, 1997, then-Rep. Ron Paul warned of the “massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators.” Paul, the chairman and founder of RPI, proceeded to comment in his speech that, with the number of armed federal employees approaching 60,000, the Secretary of the Interior was pushing for even the Bureau of Land Management to be armed.

With the continuing rise of SWAT over the following 16 years, the number of armed US government employees continued to grow. According to the bulletin Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 2008 of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, by September of 2008 “federal agencies employed approximately 120,000 full-time law enforcement officers who were authorized to make arrests and carry firearms in the United States,” with 255 of them working for BLM.

We saw the United States government’s armed agents in action recently at the Bundy ranch in Nevada. We also saw them back off, at least for now, when confronted by armed protestors. Paul’s concluding sentences of his 1997 speech seem apropos:

The gun in the hands of law-abiding citizens serves to hold in check arrogant and aggressive government. Guns in the hands of the bureaucrats do the opposite. The founders of this country fully understood this fact.

Read here, from the Congressional Record, Paul’s complete speech:

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, another Member severely criticized me on the House floor for declaring on C-SPAN that indeed many Americans justifiably feared their own government. This fear has come from the police state mentality that prompted Ruby Ridge, Waco and many other episodes of an errant Federal Government.

Under the constitution, there was never meant to be a Federal police force. Even an FBI limited only to investigations was not accepted until this century. Yet today, fueled by the Federal Government’s misdirected war on drugs, radical environmentalism, and the aggressive behavior of the nanny state, we have witnessed the massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators prowling the States where they have no legal authority. The sacrifice of individual responsibility and the concept of local government by the majority of American citizens has permitted the army of bureaucrats to thrive.

We have depended on government for so much for so long that we as people have become less vigilant of our liberties. As long as the government provides largesse for the majority, the special interest lobbyists will succeed in continuing the redistribution of welfare programs that occupies most of Congress’s legislative time.

Wealth is limited, yet demands are unlimited. A welfare system inevitably diminishes production and shrinks the economic pie. As this occurs, anger among the competing special interests grows. While Congress and the people concentrate on material welfare and its equal redistribution, the principals of liberty are ignored, and freedom is undermined.

More immediate, the enforcement of the interventionist state requires a growing army of bureaucrats. Since groups demanding special favors from the Federal Government must abuse the rights and property of those who produce wealth and cherish liberty, real resentment is directed at the agents who come to eat out our substance. The natural consequence is for the intruders to arm themselves to protect against angry victims of government intrusion.

Thanks to a recent article by Joseph Farah, director of the Western Journalism Center of Sacramento, CA, appearing in the Houston Chronicle, the surge in the number of armed Federal bureaucrats has been brought to our attention. Farah points out that in 1996 alone, at least 2,439 new Federal cops were authorized to carry firearms. That takes the total up to nearly 60,000. Farah points out that these cops were not only in agencies like the FBI, but include the EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Even Bruce Babbitt, according to Farah, wants to arm the Bureau of Land Management. Farah logically asks, “When will the NEA have its armed art cops?” This is a dangerous trend.

It is ironic that the proliferation of guns in the hands of the bureaucrats is pushed by the antigun fanatics who hate the second amendment and would disarm every law-abiding American citizen. Yes, we need gun control. We need to disarm our bureaucrats, then abolish the agencies. If government bureaucrats like guns that much, let them seek work with the NRA.

Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants. Intimidation with government guns, the threat of imprisonment, and the fear of harassment by government agents puts fear into the hearts of millions of Americans. Four days after Paula Jones refused a settlement in her celebrated suit, she received notice that she and her husband would be audited for 1995 taxes. Since 1994 is the current audit year for the IRS, the administration’s denial that the audit is related to the suit is suspect, to say the least.

Even if it is coincidental, do not try to convince the American people. Most Americans, justifiably cynical and untrusting toward the Federal Government, know the evidence exists that since the 1970’s both Republican and Democratic administrations have not hesitated to intimidate their political enemies with IRS audits and regulatory harassment.

Even though the average IRS agent does not carry a gun, the threat of incarceration and seizure of property is backed up by many guns. All government power is ultimately gun power and serves the interests of those who despise or do not comprehend the principles of liberty. The gun in the hands of law-abiding citizens serves to hold in check arrogant and aggressive government. Guns in the hands of the bureaucrats do the opposite. The founders of this country fully understood this fact.

RPI Chairman Ron Paul gives his take on the recent stand-off at the Bundy Ranch to Fox News’s Neil Cavuto. Dr. Paul is encouraged by people demonstrating against government unfairness. He says:

I’m hoping this is positive and a sign of things to come where the people stand up and object to the federal government’s intrusion into our lives. And when people do get together and stand up I think governments will be forced to back down. But the other thing is, governments don’t give up their power easily, and they may well come back with a lot more force like they did at Waco.

Dr. Paul is in favor of protests such as these, but warns about the use of force:

I really encourage the demonstrations against unfairness by our government, but I would like to see it all non-violent.

You can also read Ron Paul’s statement on the standoff here.

With the Thursday announcement that Stephen Colbert will succeed David Letterman as the host of the Late Show on CBS next year, it is a good time to look back at Colbert’s in-studio interviews of RPI Chairman and Founder Ron Paul. While humor-filled, the interviews gave Paul a great opportunity to introduce his views to the Colbert Report audience on Comedy Central.

Paul’s first interview on the Colbert Report, in 2007, starts with loud applause in reaction to Colbert announcing Paul’s “no” votes on the USA PATRIOT Act and Iraq war. Paul elaborates on his pro-liberties and pro-peace ideas:

If you obey the Constitution, though, you will be a freer person than if you disobey it. If you allow the president to run wild and, you know, investigate and spy on people and start wars that aren’t declared, you could lose your liberties.

Paul proceeds to expand on what he describes as his constitutionalist perspective:

That’s especially when you should criticize the government — when they go to war incorrectly. Randolph Bourne, a famous writer many years ago, said, “War is the health of the state.” If you believe in liberty, you want to reduce the size and the scope of the state. So, therefore, you want to stamp out all wars and prevent wars from starting, whether it’s a war on drugs, a war in Iraq, or a war against poverty. All these wars are just to scare the people in order to give up their liberties and give up their money to the government so that they can solve all our problems.

Watch the full interview here:

Paul followed up his 2007 interview with additional fun and informative in-studio Colbert Report interviews in 2008 and 2011.

Speaking with RT’s Sophie Shevardnadze, RPI Chairman and Founder Ron Paul presents a masterful, in-depth critique of the US government’s actions related to Ukraine. Among many matters discussed, Paul addresses the US government’s foolhardy imposition of sanctions as part of its Ukraine policy:

A sample from Ron Paul:

…why don’t we try to see it from the other perspective – how would we react if we couldn’t import something? What if China or Russia or somebody came in and said: ‘You cannot import certain things, or we’re going to prohibit you from trading?’ The American people wouldn’t like that very much, and yet we too causally do that with others.

But, in principle, it’s not quite like a shooting war, but it is a war. I mean it is something that’s used in an active war, and the ultimate of is a blockade – but sanctions is a form of a blockade. Sanctions, ‘you can’t do this, you can’t do that,’ and I think it only leads to escalation, and the countries that had sanctions…The sanctions against Iran have been on there for a long time, and on Cuba – but the leaders never suffer. The people suffer, in both countries, so this is the reason I think that sanctions in principle are wrong.

Read a transcript here.

NATO’s bureaucrats — and the military-industrial complex that supplies them — are thrilled with the new lease on life given them by the Ukraine crisis. That is why NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen keeps telling anyone who will listen, that NATO is needed more than ever and it must be given even more new missions. Old cold warriors are coming out of the woodwork to wave NATO flags and talk about the glories of “collective security.”

In the below edition of RT’s Crosstalk, watch RPI academic advisor John Laughland and fellow NATO skeptic Eric Kraus debate a neoconservative hawk from the Heritage Foundation on the subject of whether NATO has any real value or purpose more than 20 years after the Warsaw Pact shut its doors. The inability of the hawk to provide any reasonable defense of NATO is very telling. Watch the video below: