Ron Paul’s Full Speech at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference

Below is a video of Ron Paul’s speech at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference (SRLC) in New Orleans.

Event: Southern Republican Leadership Conference
Location: New Orleans
Date: 4/10/2010


Ron Paul: It sounds like a freedom rally! Thank you very much!

Well, it’s great to see so much enthusiasm for the freedom movement and limited government. I want to thank the hosts of this convention for inviting me. I’m delighted to be here and I’m delighted to be among friends. My wife is here with me today and I’m pleased very much with that too.

This last week, there was a report that came out on Friday, just yesterday. It came from the Treasury and it even shocked me, having been concerned about deficits for like about 35 years. But yesterday it was reported by the Treasury that this past week, our national debt went up $106 billion in one day and I would say it’s time to end that kind of spending and get rid of the deficits.

Getting rid of the deficits is easily said. I guess everybody wants to get rid of the deficits. And there is an effort in Washington today on our side of the aisle which is well intended, might do some good, but I think it comes up way too short and that is the dwelling on earmarks.

Now let me tell you about earmarks. Earmarks, if you vote against an earmark, you don’t save a penny. What you do is you take the responsibility away from the Congress and you give the money to the Executive branch and believe me, they’ll waste it even more than the Congress will waste it.

But my argument is that earmarks, that is the responsibility of the Congress. We’re supposed to designate every single penny that we spend. We’re not supposed to let the President do this. I don’t like a strong Executive branch, I want a strong Congress that exerts its prerogatives.

What we need is not to tinker with earmarks but to vote against the entire package, vote against the appropriation bills until we get this budget under control.

Also, the definition of an earmark is very important. They claim that an earmark is when the government takes your highway funds, send it to Washington and your Congressman says, “Well, why don’t we get some of our highway funds back and spend it in our district?”, that’s what they want to stop. But when it comes to an earmark for building a embassy, which we are now doing in London, which is a fortress, it’s going to cost a billion dollars. Why are we doing that? Makes no sense whatsoever.

At the same time we’re tinkering around with some spending bills here and trying to build a highway. We have spent a billion dollars on an embassy in Baghdad, we’re spending another billion dollars on an embassy in Kabul. That doesn’t make any sense unless you think we have unlimited funds and we don’t. This is the message that is coming today.

The reason why the American people have awoken and they are so upset and annoyed and they’re acting outside the party system is because the country is broke and the people in Washington won’t admit it. We need to admit it. Which means, you have two choices if you think we should have a balanced budget. One, you raise taxes. I haven’t met a Republican in a long time who wants to raise taxes, thank goodness. But, the other side of the coin is, you cut spending. Now, if we were so good at cutting spending, where were we when we had the chance?

What we, as Republicans over the last several decades have created is a credibility gap. We talk a good game, but when we get the chance to do something, we haven’t done the job that we should have. I’ll tell you what though, we’re doing a better job now in opposition. The credibility is, is when we get the chance again, which I believe we will, how credible are we going to be? How well are we going to stick to our guns. How significant are we going to be when we take seriously our oath of office?

Just think, if we didn’t do anything else than elect individuals who you could trust that would always obey the Constitution, we’d get out of this mess in no time.

The question has been raised whether or not our President is a socialist. And I’m sure there are some people here believe it and I know this conference has talked about that already and I think that very important, he deserves a lot of criticism. But you know, in the technical sense, in the economic definition of a socialist, no, he’s not a socialist. What he is is a corporatist and unfortunately, we have corporatists in the Republican party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country. We see that in the financial institution, we see it in the military-industrial complex, and now we see it in the medical-industrial complex who runs medicine.

Just think of how the corporations got between the doctor and the patient, and believe me, I went through the experience of entering medicine when there were no Medicare and no Medicaid and the doctor and the patient made the decisions. Today it’s the drug companies, it’s the insurance companies, it’s the HMO and now with this passage of bill, if we don’t eradicate it and get rid of it, now we’re going to have thousands of government bureaucrats between the doctor and patient.

We have an obligation to do some changing here and hopefully after November we will. But I have a piece of legislation I’ll be introducing next week. Two thousand pages, of course the simple answer would have been to reject it and the next thing is throw it all out, that’s not going to happen. But there’s going to be one piece of legislation I’m going to introduce. It’ll probably be only one page long. And it will be to remove the mandate that you have to participate if you don’t want to.

I have a belief that if we always retain the option to get out, no matter how bad the government bears down on us, we can survive. For instance, education. Have you noticed it’s a mess ever since the federal government got involved in it?

Do you remember the old days of the Republican party when our platform says get rid of the Department of Education? But fortunately, we have had the private option protected. And that is, you still have the right and many of you are, I bet, exerting that right. You have the right to opt out, educate your own kids or send them to private school.

In medicine we need that same option. You need to be able to opt out of the system. You know, endlessly they talked about the public option, the public option, everybody knew that was the term for total socialized medicine. They didn’t win that fight but the corporations won the fight and they benefited. But if we allowed the people to get out of the system, this means that you could have a medical savings account and deduct it from your taxes, this would be so much better. Isn’t it amazing they talked about the public option all the time, how many times did you ever hear them say, “Oh, why don’t we consider protecting the private option?”.

If we’re going to get back to a balance, of course the Constitution would get us there. But we where we’re going to cut. Why don’t we cut anything? When have we cut anything over the last 30 or 40 years? It is because we as a people have accepted the notion that government should be doing all these things. Government really does reflect the prevailing attitude of the people.

And if you come and and if a politician comes and he wants to run for Congress and says, “Well, I’m going to vote against the spending, I’m going to all the spending that is coming to this district.” Traditionally, that guy lost. Something is stirring now because in this election, this year, that doesn’t hurt your chances of being reelected or elected.

But we only have two problems in Washington with spending. We have conservatives and liberals. They both like to spend. Conservatives spend money on different things, they like embassies and they like occupation, they like the empire, they like to be in 135 countries and 700 bases. Did you hear the news just this weekend? Kyrgyzstan, there was a revolution over there. Why was it important? Because we have an airbase there. Why did we have to have airbases in the Soviet Satellites?

Besides, we’re running out of money. No matter how badly you would like to have them, all empires end, not because they’re defeated militarily. All empires end for financial reasons and that is what the markets are telling us today.

Besides, if you want a strong national defense, it should be designed for defense, not to support preventative wars and not to support wars that are undeclared. Don’t you think it’s rather conservative to say, “Oh, it’s good to follow the Constitution except for war! Let the Presidents go to war anytime they want!”. I would say that if you want go to war, only Congress can declare the war. Declare the war, know who the enemy is and go fight and win it and get out of there!

And also, politically, it’s much easier and it makes a lot more sense to cut the militarism and the bases overseas than it is to cut child welfare here at home. There’s just so much room for that and I don’t hesitate for a minute because I know we would be stronger for it. When we went into Korea, I was in high school, that’s 60 years ago, believe it or not. But we’re still there. It costs us a lot of money. Why do we have to have troops there? We don’t have troops in Vietnam? We came back from Vietnam, people were embarrassed by that. But Vietnam in our defeat, are better friends now and more capitalistic than all of Korea.

North Korea’s not our friends. Twenty years, the French and the Americans trying to tell the Vietnamese how to be westernized totally failed at a fantastic, horrible cost to us and now we have won more in peace than we have ever won in war because they’re trading partners, we travel over there, their president comes over here, we can do better with peace than with war.

But once again, if there is a need to go to war, it should be done properly and then the rules would be quite different. But you know, personal liberty, if you’re an advocate of it as we all are in the Republican party, we’re advocates for limited government, small government. But small government is one thing, it’s easy to say yes we want less taxes and less regulations and that’s good, fine and dandy. But do we want to make sure that every individual has a right to life and liberty? I would say yes, everybody has a right to life and liberty.

And when we talk about protection of all life, I mean the protection of all life, not just life designated by liberals. I believe premature, preborn life is just as valuable and should be protected.

But it also means that if you’re going to protect liberty, you’re going to protect personal choices. We have no trouble protecting personal choices when it comes to our churches and intellectual interests? People are allowed to read and study and do what they want. But as soon as it comes to something that we want to put in our bodies, all of a sudden the government has to tell us what to do. And I would say that we don’t need the government to tell us whether or not you’re allowed drink raw milk or not. I would say that should be your own decision.

And of course, all smoking and drinking which are very dangerous, very harmful to your health, there’s good reasons. But those decisions are made by the individuals in a free society and not by the nanny state.

It’s gotten to the point now where they designate your diet, how much fat you’re allowed to have and whether or not you’re allowed to have salt, whatever. Yes, those are problems. But why have we lost our confidence in ourselves that we can deal with this. Dangerous things for our children should be handled by the parents, just as education is.

But we have a long way to go and we’re in a very very difficult situation. And to me the reason why we face the crisis we’re in is because we are bankrupt and nobody can come up with a solution.

The fact that so many people considering themselves conservatives and considering themselves champions of limited government aren’t acting within the party system because they’re frustrated and they want to see the credibility regained and it will involved cutting spending, but you can’t just pick and choose. You need to cut spending every place and get back to a balanced budget.

Now more specifically, why are we in the financial crisis, is this something that just popped up and there’s nobody to blame? Well, we have this commission up in Washington studying it. They have this whole commission, a bunch of guys on there and then there’s a bunch of witnesses coming in. Not once single person that is a member of the commission and not one single witness endorses free-market Austrian economics and that’s where you’ll find the economic answers.

The free market economists understand the business cycle, predicted the breakdown of Bretton Woods in 1971, predicted all the events since 1971, the destruction of the dollar. We’ve lost 97% of our dollar’s value to gold since 1971 and we’re rapidly moving into an inflationary stage. We’re not over the financial bubble, and the financial problem we have has just started. What I believe will happen, I hope I’m absolutely wrong on this, but as time goes on, we are going to work our way into a situation that is going to combine the vicious downturn of the 1930s with the vicious upturn of prices and inflation of the 1970s. That will be very devastating and that will indeed be a threat to all our liberties and institutions.

Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt. You can’t save Medicare and Medicaid by creating another trillion dollar medical program.

In the 1930s they had a Pecora commission similar to the commission, that came up with the conclusion, oh “the problem was they followed the gold standard”, which they did not. And they also didn’t have enough regulations which we already then had too many. So what did they do in the 1930s? They got rid of the gold standard and piled on. That’s when they introduced the SEC and all the other programs and prolonged the Depression.

That’s exactly what we’re doing. The conclusion of all this looks like it’s going to be a lot more regulations. I’m for regulations, but the number one regulation is to regulate the Federal Reserve System, that’s what we need to regulate.

The beginning of the Tea Party movement came not too long ago, a year or two ago when it was during the financial crisis and they knew about the TARP funds. The TARP funds were appropriated by the Republicans and Democrats, the money was wasted, bailed our friends and hurt our enemies, the whole works and nobody knew where the money was going and this upset a lot of people and rightfully so. But then, when they found out that the Federal Reserve created $2 trillion out of thin air and passed it out to their friends, it got the attention of a lot of Americans.

The Federal Reserve is more powerful than our President. It’s a world currency. It can loan money to other central banks, other governments, international financial institutions, creating money out of thin air and making deals like that. It can be involved in foreign policy and who knows what. But I’ll tell you what they can’t control. They can tide things over and think they’re improving things and get some GDP numbers to come up but they cannot protect the value of the dollar.

That is what you need to watch and that will be a consequence of excessive government. That is what destroys nations, that’s what destroys republics and it is indeed up to us as the party right now of limited government and preaches limited government. But you can’t be for limited government halfway and reject on the other way. The whole way has to be limited government.

That’s the only way we can regain our credibility and that is what’s necessary. What we do as a party will not suffice and what we do as a party now and between November will make the difference. They have to believe that we believe in what we’re saying. Yes, we can say it, but are we going to do it? That is why we have people drifting outside the party and if you want the people back in and if you want the young people of this country, you better look at these viewpoints.

About a hundred years ago or so, freedom was divided into two pieces. Economic liberty and personal liberty. For no good reasons. The founders didn’t believe that. Personal civil liberties was the same as economic liberties. If you believe in civil liberties for personal choices, you ought to believe in economic choices as well. We need to put that back together, it makes sense. It makes sense to the young people that I talked to. Let me tell you, there’s a revolution on the college campuses right now and they’re not looking for handouts. They’re looking for their freedom so they can get a job and take care of themselves.

The ultimate goal of all our political action should be to strive for liberty, that is what I’m dedicated to. I’ve been for a lot of years. And there’s a lot more interest right now, mainly because the country is in trouble. But our goal should be for seeking liberty. Now, why do we seek liberty? Well the purpose of a free society is for we as individuals be responsible for ourselves, to take care of ourselves, financially and take care of our families. But it’s also there to seek excellence and virtue. That should be the ultimate goal of what we are as individuals. And if you have an authoritarian government, for whatever reason, if you only pick off a little bit of it and somebody else picks off a little bit, pretty soon it’s a total authoritarian government and that is what we’re approaching. We don’t have our privacy, we have intrusion by the government in everything that we do. And if we allow the government to take over this role, we should be personal. If we allow the government to promote economic equality, which the liberal do-gooders want. “Oh yes, injustices, we got to take care of it and it will be better and it will be fair and equal to everybody.” We know, everybody in this audience knows, socialism fails. It might make everybody equal, but they’re all going to be equally poor.

But the same argument can be made for this who will say you’re a better person for writing a whole lot of rules and the only person you’ve endangered by making mistakes is yourself. Governments can’t do that. Governments can’t protect you from yourself. That’s what we’re trying to do and I would say give up on it. Why don’t look to the rules and regulations that we have been given. They’ve been written down. It was the best document ever written, it’s just too bad that we don’t ever follow it.

I have a lot of young people come to my office and I’m delighted to see them because quite frequently, the young people is not just the college students, it’s high school students coming in, and they’ve gotten wind of the freedom philosophy. But you know what I love? It’s they come in and the parents readily admit it so I’ll ask them who discovered the freedom philosophy first and it’s usually the 16 or the 17-year old and and they’ve made the parents listen to it so that really pleases me.

But also, when the young people come, I have a bit of a habit of passing out constitutions. You know the Constitution is pretty thin, there’s not a whole lot of words in there and everybody in this room can read it. But I couldn’t understand what was in a 2,000-page medical document. It only took one page for me to discover I didn’t like it.

But the Constitution is understandable. It’s so great. It is the tragedy that we don’t follow it. But I hand the copy to the youngsters and I say “I know you’ll read this and I hope you do because you’re going to get a chance, a crisis is coming and you’re going to make a decision, your generation’s going to make a decision, what the role of government ought to be. Should the government be there to protect your liberty our should the role of government be there to run the economy, run your life and police the world?” And I say “the reason I give it to you is I haven’t been able to get anybody around this place to read it.”

I know a lot of people in here do a lot of thinking for themselves but H.L. Mencken said the most dangerous man to government and we are complaining about our government is the man who thinks things out for himself or herself. And that is what really counts and that is why for a free society it’s so important that you have this privilege and the access to the material. In the 1950s when I got interested in studying the freedom philosophy, I couldn’t find the literature. It wasn’t in my schools, it wasn’t on the TV, it wasn’t on the radio, it wasn’t with the politicians.

But if you could find some books, you could find Hayek and Mises and Rothbard and Austrian economics and Foundation for Economic Education. But the miracle for the freedom movement – is the Internet! The Internet, the information is spread, they’ll never put this back in the drawer. You can’t do it, it’s out, the people know about it. The movement is demanding liberty and limited government is growing by leaps and bounds and let’s hope and pray it changes this country because right now we’re in deep need of change.

I thank you very much for this opportunity to visit with you today.

  • Dana Watson

    Spaghetti Monster has the best comment so far.

  • Justin

    Our lives
    Our Fortunes and
    Our sacred honor

    Ron Paul is Dead On and don’t let ANYBODY even Beck tell you different!


  • Tim

    PLEASE: Put microphones on the audience.

  • I would like to say that while I think it’s perfectly ok to “boo” someone making comments you don’t agree with, show some class, and listen to everybody’s point of view, even the ones you completely disagree with. After all, shouldn’t you know why you disagree with them? Yes, I’m very disappointed in what has been done to my liberty. And I will choose to voice that disappointment until the people that are supposed to protect my liberty begin to do so.
    However, I will always be willing to listen to them, and to give them my views as well in a respectful manner. After all, I want to educate them, and help them wake up. I won’t be able to do that if I treat them with rudeness, or am crass to them.
    I am a proud Republican, I am a proud Constitutional Conservative. I capitalize those terms because they mean something great to me. I want to see my beloved party take up the torch of freedom once again, and begin to undo the years of abuse the Federal Government has heaped upon us. And I will be standing there with you, for I am an Oathkeeper. Should anyone stand tall and defend our liberties, they will see me standing shoulder to shoulder with them, no matter what. Dr. Paul, the American people need you, we need your son. We need men and women that will serve in our Federal system to stand up and defend the Constitution, as they have sworn to do. I will be taking my vote this year, and casting it towards candidates that stand for Dr. Paul’s brand of Constitutional Conservatism.
    2 days till Tax Day. This will be my first Tea Party event, and my fiance and I are very excited to be going.
    Thanks for such a great video, Dr. Paul never ceases to inspire me.

  • Large government and large corporations are destroying America. Busting up monopolies and creating competition includes the private and public sectors. Breaking apart political monopolies means unseating ruling class families in both parties. Smaller more effective groups create more competition. More or less is a mathmatical problem. Our economy can answer mathmatical problems. Monopolies are political problems. Tea parties can solve political problems. Right sized government by honest citizens solve it best.

    • Fred the Protectionist

      Well you’re in the wrong place then cause Libertarians refuse to break up monopolies, “too much government powah” they say.

      • Citizen

        Big Government Progressives really hate breaking up those monopolies too.!
        Especially those BIG LABOR Union Monopolies!!
        The very same unions that have run many of our Industries Off Shore,
        into the arms of those “slave labor” countries
        un-employed our skilled workers.

        Your right Fred… bust up those Monopolies, ALL of them!

  • Daniel J. Ryals

    Listen and listen good. I was at the Republican leadership Conference this weekend and the Ron Paul supporters there were embarrassing. I am leaning more and more towards supporting Ron Paul, but I am an open minded guy. The way the Ron Paul supporters booed Mike Pence and basically challenged the entire room was classless. Ron Paul has a message and it is good, but the Republican base will not accept his message if they are insulted. I believe if his supporters would just be quiet when they don’t agree, that the party would be able to listen to him explain in a tactful way his views and accept it. Please stop if you are one of these people and if you are around these people, teach them how to act.

    • Ryan

      I’ve listened good. It’s my turn now.
      Mind you, I’m not defending poor behavior, but didn’t you hear the boos that Ron Paul got at CPAC? In short, it’s not just Ron Paul supporters.
      The differences between the neocons and Liberty movement are significant. And the people that support either are passionate. I suggest you don’t place unrealistic demands on the people. Let them vent. Let them show their support. And loud and clear if they please. I wouldn’t consider a “Boo!” poor behavior, but rather passionate disagreement, just like clapping is showing support.
      I can relate to requests for not throwing tomatoes. But let’s be real, shall we?
      … every heard of freedom of speech?

      • Daniel Ryals

        Ryan. The thing is they were booing things that Ron Paul agrees with. Mike Pence said our nation was founded on Christian values and people were snickering. Might want to read what Ron Paul says about that. We could not even pay attention to the conference because these people were sitting right behind us. They booed almost every speaker and then got up and left as soon as Ron Paul was finished. If you guys want him to win the 2012 election, and I think it would be great for the country, you have to make friends in the Republican party, not enemies. Ron joined the party for a reason and I talked to one of his campaign managers this weekend that said he would be extremely upset with that behaivior from his supporters, so keep acting like immature children if they want to, but you are hurting the country and the message of a great patriot.

        • Ryan

          Well, as I said, I do not defend bad behavior. But keep in mind that most of the people that bother to show up for political events are fiery and passionate people to begin with. You can’t reasonably expect them to be quiet when someone says something they disagree with.

          On the other point you make, there are a handful of voters in that crowd, so I doubt seriously if the verbal conduct that happens there will have any effect on the average voters come November, 2012.
          If it was out of the norm, we’d be hearing about it on the news. But based on the video that I saw of the event, to me it sounded like any political event that has ever taken place; loud and biased.

          Besides, Ron Paul is not responsible for the conduct of others. The well-behaved people won’t hold him responsible on election day for the “boos” of his supporters towards other candidates… at least no more than the neocon candidates will be held accountable for the “boos” of their supporters towards other candidates.

          This is routine. Business as usual.

          • Daniel

            I just think we should police up the bad behavior the best we can. It almost got me to shut off my mind and it got my friends and some of the people around me to shut off theirs. I had to get past them to listen to him and he won me over. However, I’m not an old foggie. It would be better if the outbursts were after he talked, not before.

          • SS

            The rude behavior was a planned excercise in division.
            There will be much more of this at ‘conservative’ functions, including Tea Party marches.

        • Libertarian777

          well Daniel you are correct to some extent.

          This is exactly what i’ve been saying, is that the populism against the current encumbants runs the risk of replacing fervant Democrat / Republican supporters with fervant anti-Democrat anti-Republican supporters and missing the actual need to have intellectual discourse. It shouldn’t be about supporting one specific party / person blindly.

          As you’ll see if you peruse this sight often enough, there are a number of both fervant Paul supporters and fervant anti-Paul persons who add a lot of noise to the public debate / discourse that is being attempted by the rational open-minded educated persons that Ron Paul at first struck a bell with. Unfortunately our discourse gets lost at times as a result.

          It reminds me of some of the placards seen at some Tea Party gatherings, where people will carry a placard (without realising the irony) that states something to the effect of “Respect ARE country. Speak English.” [sic]

          • Ryan

            Some of those pictures were pretty funny. lol

            Well, there’s no argument in support of poor grammar and spelling from me.
            That said, I’d say, “If the illiterate are smart enough to see the criminality of the neoconservatives and liberals, then they are welcome voices in the movement; grammar and spelling not withstanding.”.

            I agree that there is no defense for bad behavior. I guess it’s just a matter of what the definition of bad behavior is. And when and where it should be seen as bad or acceptable.
            I wasn’t there in person, but I saw the video. It seemed like a normal political event to me. Booing is expected just as cheering is expected. When the tomatoes fly, when spitting occurs, when violence breaks out, I agree completely; that is bad behavior. But, on the other hand, I see “booing” at a political event as the public Filibuster… and I do believe in the Filibuster.

            I am not arguing that it is the best form of discourse, but rather that a Filibuster has never been about discourse. It’s about obstructing the opposition. And a public political event is not exactly about discourse either: it’s like a WWF wrestling match with candidates in place of the wrestlers. People will cheer for their favorite candidate and will boo the candidate they oppose. Of course it would be nice to actually hear what they have to say. But the news, or a chat room like this, is where we can reasonably expect to hear intellectual discourse, well reason arguments, and see videos without disturbance. In short, if you attend a public political event you better be ready for ‘loud noise’, not intellectual discourse… that is, unless it is a “question and answer” sort of a format. Only then is it reasonable to expect cheering or booing after the speech. Otherwise Filibusters will take place when candidates are strongly opposed.


    Dr. Paul,

    Please restore the authority of the constitution to the government. I can’t wait for you to run in 2012, you have a longer and stronger resume than anybody out there. Please, the world needs you!

    I would love to help in any way and please, never give up!

    “Many of life’s failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.”
    -Thomas Edison


    Dave B

  • jason a gearhart

    hi my name is jason gearhart & i ask if we go back to sound money how will we do this & will the government let we the people have it& by the way we need you to run for president to get back our freedom. ps plezzzzzzzz help the people

  • Bob Gravlee

    I think the main point I’m trying to make is that for Dr. Paul to persuade those who aren’t already his fans and/or adherents to his constitutionalist approach to government he must refine his communication skills. I know where’s he’s going with most of the points he’s making and I approve of them wholeheartedly because I’ve read his books, articles and blogs, watched him on C-Span and You-Tube, et al.

    The challenge is to appeal to those who don’t know him as well and how to make his case more effectively with them. This televised conference was an opportunity to do just that.

    When I was in college I had both mediocre teachers and proverbial hacks. And then there were a few professors who could present their material and have the whole class held in rapt attention – even the loafers. These professors knew their subject well, but just as importantly they knew how to command or arouse greater interest and respect for the subject matter by their presentation and speaking skills. I’m NOT talking about using tele-prompters for goodness sake. Yeecch! Obama’s a corporatist fraud and a finger puppet for the left. I’m talking about the communicative statesmanship of Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King Jr. or perhaps better yet, Barry Goldwater.

  • Dr. Paul has what it means to be a true leader and takes a back seat to no one. Ron Paul for Prez in 2012

  • Keith

    Keep up the good work! America needs someone with backbone to say and Do what is right in the site of God (Jesus) and God fearing people. America needs real leaders who are not scared to go against what is politically correc in a world where very few will take a stand for anything, much less what is right.
    May our Lord and Savour Jesus Christ bless you to do what is right!

  • Bob Gravlee

    I’m a huge fan of Dr. Paul and consider myself a die-hard “Ron Paul Republican.” He’s got my vote and support, period. However, Dr. Paul does an unintentional disservice to the points he is making when he doesn’t deliver them well. I’m not talking about being more telegenic, having a nice suit or an expensive haircut (those are the particulars that Palin and Romney are judged on). I’m talking about how at several moments in the speech Dr.Paul appeared to be out of breath and seemingly couldn’t complete some of his sentences or thoughts.

    If he can borrow a little bit of “Churchill-like” polish in the presentation of his arguments, if you take my meaning, he will be so much more evincing to those less familiar with him and who have mistakenly bought into the stereotype that he’s a marginal character not to be taken seriously, etc. He doesn’t need to persuade his fans that his perspectives and his solutions are credible. I trust the man 100% to do the right thing for America. But he doesn’t do his convictions justice when he comes across as winded and almost shrill in his tone.

    I’m less than a nobody in this whole Web site but I hope and pray someone helps Dr. Paul with this. We desperately need his influence in our day.

  • Citizen

    Please note that Dr. Paul writes and delivers his on messages using simple hand notes. The signature of a real statesman! He knows his stuff from heart and first hand experience.

    Unlike our esteemed President who has several handlers, writers and teleprompters, without which he falls flat and rambles on for 17 minutes so as not give a simple yes or no response.

    Again, Dr. Paul is an experienced and a constitutionally principled statesman, a rare individual in these days of polished veneers!

    • Lindsey

      Citizen: Dr. Paul and Sarah Palin do have some things in common, don’t they! They are both “Old School” when it comes to delivering speeches! I bet that these 2 have a lot more in common than many people think. Also, you can’t accuse her of buying votes in straw polls. That is a plus for her that she led in the non-bought voting.

  • John Oines

    Ron Paul spells out what it means to be a Libertarian, he gets some boos from the Republicans.

  • Great speech as usual! Ron Paul is the greatest speaker alive. A true man of the people!

  • D. Allen


    I have a very simple thought/idea, that could easily make the “December 21, 2012” event a non-issue for all concerned. At a minimum, it most certainly will reduce the danger, or potential danger, or perceived danger. At the same time, it will work to unite all of us, and certainly will reduce, if not, eliminate all of the problems facing our nation and our world today, both individually and collectively. It just requires a little bit of profound thought by a few key people. Once they understand, it may require a little bit of minimal action by these people. As a result, this action will create a “chain-reaction” which is necessary to bring balance back to our universe…This is the key. This is what is necessary to solve this problem and all other problems. If further explanation is necessary, please do not hesitate to contact me. I’ll be happy to help in any way possible. Trust in Yourself.

    • Spaghetti Monster

      You are obviously talking about Ending the Fed by refusing to use their money. Great idea and I’m all for it! Let’s get started.

      • Citizen

        Not using Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) is a great idea.
        First you will have to trade in those FRN’s for a Treasury case (500 oz) of Silver Eagles…
        500 ounces will cost you about 10,500 FRN at today’s exchange rate.

        Now the trick is … will your mortgage company and other vendors accept payment in silver? Keep in mind that they may be getting the better deal, since silver is moving inversely to the FRN. Lets say your mortgage payment is say 1,200 FNR you could pay them 60 ounces “Silver Dollars’ instead and they might just accept that. Now what happens when silver moves to say 30 FNR will your mortgage bank now accept 40 oz Silver Dollars, or will they insist on the original 60 oz?

        Ron Paul sponsored legislation to permit competing currencies to the FNR but its not likely to pass, Congress likes it strangle hold on the currency via the FED, that way the can Pint more Cyber-Cash.