Ron Paul .com

Ron Paul Answers Questions

tmartin — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:47:26 +0000

Ron Paul was recently interviewed by the New York Times’ Freakonomics Blog. The interview was published in two separate posts, Part 1 and Part 2.

Highlights:

Why Ron Paul didn’t run as a Libertarian or Independent

Q: Even before the primaries, you said you would not run in the general election. Why specifically did you not run?

A: I was running for the Republican nomination, and I would have run in the general if I had won. I had little interest in running third party due to the inherent biases against such efforts. I also signed legally binding agreements not run third party in 2008 if I failed to win the G.O.P. primary. That was the cost for ballot access in several states, 11 total I believe. So even I had wanted to, it would not have been possible to run in the general after I lost the primary.

Steps Ron Paul Would Immediately Take to Heal the Economy

Q: What would your plans for economic stimulation look like during this slumping economy?

A: [...] During the presidential campaign, I released the following four-point plan, and would stick by it while at the same time listening to experts for advice on how to improve it:

The Four-Point Plan

1) Tax Reform: Reduce the tax burden and eliminate taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes.

2) Spending Reform: Eliminate wasteful spending. Reduce overseas commitments. Freeze all non-defense, non-entitlement spending at current levels.

3) Monetary Policy Reform: Expand openness at the Federal Reserve and require the Fed to televise its meetings. Return value to our money.

4) Regulatory Reform: Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley regulations that push companies to seek capital outside of U.S. markets. Stop restricting community banks from fostering local economic growth.

Additional Changes To Avoid Collapse And Institute Reforms

Q: Do you believe that it is possible to make positive incremental changes to our monetary policy, entitlements, taxes, etc. within the system, or is it just a matter of waiting for failure and then coming in with a solution?

A: Yes, I do believe we can make successful changes. And I want to start making those changes now so that we can avoid a devastating collapse. But we need to start quickly before it’s too late. If we can cut spending and balance budgets, beginning with our overseas expenditures, we can do a lot to fix this mess. We also need monetary reform. I would begin with the incremental step of repealing legal-tender laws and legalizing the use of gold and silver to act as a currency alongside the dollar. That would help stabilize the dollar and strengthen our monetary system.

Monetary Reform and Auditing the Fed

Q: What is the first thing the country should do about its monetary policy?

A: We should immediately audit the Federal Reserve. I am the ranking member of the Monetary Policy subcommittee in the U.S. Congress, yet I can get more information about the internal workings of the C.I.A. than I can about our central bank. This secrecy is fundamentally wrong, and I believe that people from all over the ideological political spectrum can agree on that.

Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy

Q: What role should the United States play on the world scene?

A: I believe we should treat everyone the same. We should be friends with all willing parties, talk and trade with everyone we can, have diplomacy, and travel. At the same time, we should not subsidize foreign governments with money or weapons; this comes back to hurt us more times than not. We should not have separate and different policies for Europeans or Latin America, Israelis or Palestinians. We should set a good example here at home and stay out of the internal affairs of other countries.

Ron Paul, The Reluctant Politician

Q: Will you run for a leadership position in the House Republican caucus?

A: I have no plans to do so. I don’t cut deals and trade votes, which is exactly what a role like that requires.

Ron Paul on Abolishing the Income Tax

Q: What are your thoughts on abolishing America’s income tax and switching over to a consumption tax such as the fair tax?

A: I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990’s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.

Ron Paul on Global Warming: Greenland was once green

Q: Do you deny global warming? Is Obama right to invest money in green technology? If you don’t deny it, and don’t think Obama is right, what is your solution?

A:[...] Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.

It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.

Ron Paul on the 2008 Presidential Campaign

Q: What do you think were your biggest mistakes in the primary race, and what would you now do differently?

A: I was always pessimistic and never thought we would get to where we did. My regret is that we couldn’t see how quickly things would grow and were not adequately prepared for the explosion in money and support when they came. There are dozens, hundreds of things we could have done better, but we all worked hard and did our best. And I know we built something that will only get stronger in the years to come.

(Emphasis added)

If you have any additional questions for Ron Paul, feel free to post them below and we will try to get an answer.

Ron Paul questions Ben Bernanke about World Currency

tmartin — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:23:13 +0000

Ron Paul questions Ben Bernanke about his secret meetings with other central bankers. What have they been talking about? Is the dollar finished and is there a new world currency on the agenda? What role is gold going to play, if any? Bernanke, while remaining evasive about the details of his meetings, denies the rumors and asserts that the dollar is not dead.

Ron Paul: The Austrian free market economists had predicted all these problems would come, and they were certainly correct in everything that they said. Of course they’re not very satisfied including myself with the so-called solutions, because it looks like we’re spending a lot of energy and a lot of money trying to patch a system together that is unworkable.

So we have Congress spending a lot of money, we have Treasury very much involved in trying to pick and choose which worthless asset that we’re going to buy, and of course the Federal Reserve is involved in injecting trillions of dollars that nobody seems to be keeping track of.

But what we’re failing to do I think is to recognize that the system no longer works, but I can understand why we do this because if Congress couldn’t do this and if the Fed couldn’t do this and Treasury couldn’t do this, it would make us all irrelevant. And instead of looking at the causes of this, and then finding the solutions aren’t going to be found here, we have to make ourselves feel pretty important.

But I think there’s another reason we think we’re pretty important, it’s because in a way our interference in the market corrections that tried to come about since 1971 seem to work. I mean, the failure was established in 1971 with a system that had no way of automatically correcting the balance of payment and the current account deficits.

And that’s where the problems have been, and economists - whether they were left or right or middle - over the last several decades have always said, this current account deficit is a big problem. And now it’s totally out of hand. So here we are struggling with all these rules and shifting back and forth and really getting nowhere.

My question is directed toward, when we come to the full realization that the system is unworkable, what are we going to do, what have you thought about doing, and already we see talk in the newspapers. We see articles about a new international world reserve currency, and to me that’s pretty important, because the fiat dollar reserve system is not going to work anymore, and that’s the information that we have to accept and decide what we’re going to do in the future.

Also, this is not new in history. Currencies have failed, financial systems have failed, and generally, to restore the confidence that everybody is talking about, they usually have to go back to a currency with integrity to it, rather than just fiat money.

And, you know, the stages is there. It’s not impossible, already the central banks of the world still own 15% of all the gold that was ever mined in all of history. So they hold on to this gold for some reason, and therefore something has to give, or are we going to keep trying to waste more money and time patching this system together.

Just last week there was a report that Iran purchased 75 billion dollars worth of gold, took their reserves out of Europe, bought gold and put it in Asia. So is that a sign of the times, is that moving on?

My question is, in your meetings, and you had a meeting just recently with other central bankers, does this thought come up about a new international world reserve currency, and if so, does the subject of gold ever come up?

How do you restore the confidence? Have you recently had conversations with any central banker, and is there a move on to replace the dollar system, because the dollar system is essentially declared dead, because it’s not working, but this indeed was predictable because of these tremendous imbalances that were never allowed to be corrected, and they were always patched up. We always came in. We’d spend, we’d inflate, we would run up deficits, and since ‘71 we’ve been able to correct these problems.

Could you tell me what kind of conversations you’ve had regarding a new reserve currency?

Ben Bernanke: Yes, Congressman. I don’t think the dollar system is dead. I think the dollar remains the premier international currency. We’ve seen a good deal of appreciation in the dollar recently during the crisis precicely because there’s been a lot of interest in the safe haven and the liquidity of dollar markets.

And the Federal Reserve has been engaged in swap agreements to make sure there’s enough dollar liquidity in other countries because the need for dollars is so strong. So I think the dollar system remains quite strong.

I do agree with you very much on one point, which is about the current accounts. The current account imbalances have proved to a very serious problem. It was in fact the large capital inflows in those current accounts which created a lot of the financial imbalances we saw and have led to some of the problems we are seeing, and one of the silver linings in this huge grey cloud is that we’re seeing some improvement and greater balance in our current account deficits.

Ron Paul: But does the subject of a new regime ever come up?

Ben Bernanke: No, it doesn’t.

Ron Paul: And does the subject of gold ever come up in any of your conversations?

Ben Bernanke: Only in terms of the sales that the central banks are planning.

Ron Paul later released the following comments:

Abortion and the Centralization of Power

tmartin — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:04:58 +0000

In his latest column Ron Paul describes how the “pro-choice” agenda not only kills unborn life, but also distorts the market and puts private health care providers at risk. He also points out how the centralization of power under one administration plays into the hands of future administrations which will be able to abuse that increased authority to commit further mischief.

Restricting Freedoms and Choices

by Ron Paul

As the financial sector continues its tailspin despite efforts to bail out Wall Street, among the few gainers in recent stock trading have been those companies looking for a new “shot in the arm” with government funding from the next administration.

With its strident rhetoric toward reestablishing the so called “pro-choice” agenda, the incoming administration has threatened a whole host of policies that would not only reduce restrictions on abortion, but would actually force people who wish to avoid participating in the procedure to support it.

As a physician who has delivered over 4,000 babies I am very disturbed by the continued efforts of those on the left to establish absolute rights to abortion. However, even more distressing is the notion that taxpayers should be forced to subsidize life-ending procedures such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

In addition to the news that those who will benefit from federally-funded stem cell research have seen an uptick in their financial position as a result of the election, comes news from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that many health care facilities under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church may be shut down as a result of the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” for refusal to perform abortions.

Not only does this Act seem to have growing support in Congress, the President-elect and his Administration have indicated support for this legislation. Since many people cast their votes in a way that they believed would help to improve and increase availability of health care, this is an ironic twist.

Of course, the government takeover of health care began a long time ago, but we should be wary of how far that takeover will go if more private providers are forced out of the marketplace. If enacted, The Freedom of Choice Act and the potential for increased federal funding of embryonic stem cell research will go to show that the incoming Congress and Administration are far more dedicated to a government takeover than they are to affordable and available health care. Moreover, these approaches show no real concern at all for the free choices of taxpayers and health care providers who wish to be free from giving assistance to immoral activities.

These facts should also serve to remind social conservatives that they are better to leave the legislative remedies for important social issues at the level where they constitutionally belong, namely at the discretion of state and local officials. The centralization of power that seemed so attractive to many conservatives just a few years ago no longer seems pleasant at all in light of a more liberal-minded majority in both Houses of Congress and the White House.

This should be a good lesson for future conservative majorities, namely that the centralization of power never results in anything more than the most temporary of “gains” for those who are committed to traditional moral principles, and the power one administration consolidates for itself must inevitably be handed over to the next administration, which will use that increased power for its own agenda.

If You Were President…

tmartin — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:58:19 +0000

If you were President, would you ask Ron Paul to become your Treasury Secretary?

In a recent online poll the New York Times asked readers to choose Barack Obama’s cabinet.

Ron Paul ranked third for the position of Treasury Secretary. He was surpassed only by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul A. Volcker and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers.

Ron Paul also reached the Top 10 for Defense Secretary (#5), Attorney General (#6), Secretary of Homeland Security (#6), and Secretary of State (#7).

Considering that Ron Paul appears on none of the drop-down selection menus offered by the New York Times, these impressive results document Ron Paul’s continuing popularity. All votes Ron Paul received were submitted by New York Times readers typing in his name.

Check out the New York Times poll here.

(The poll is now closed.)

Ron Paul: Real Change or Big Government

tmartin — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:08:56 +0000

CNN.com published Ron Paul’s latest article, “GOP should ask why U.S. is on the wrong track“, on its front page.

In his commentary, Ron Paul asserts that America wants change and that is why Barack Obama won the election. But:

“It mattered not that the change offered was no change at all, only a change in the engineer of a runaway train.”

To regain credibility and implement real change, GOP leaders should take a long hard look at the problems of the entire country, instead of restricting themselves to musing about the future of the Republican Party:

“Once it’s figured out what is fundamentally wrong with our political and economic system, solutions can be offered. If the Republican Party can grasp hold of the policy changes needed, then the party can be rebuilt.”

In 2000, when the opportunity came to finally do something about the cancerous growth of government, most elected Republicans concentrated only on political tricks in order to maintain power and neglected the limited-government principles on which they were elected:

“The Republican Congress never once stood up against the Bush/Rove machine that demanded support for unconstitutional wars, attacks on civil liberties here at home, and an economic policy based on more spending, more debt, and more inflation — while constantly preaching the flawed doctrine that deficits don’t matter as long as taxes aren’t raised.”

Ron Paul remains hopeful that real change is indeed possible:

“The problems are easily understood and the answers are not that difficult. Abusing the rule of law and ignoring the Constitution can be reversed. If the Republican Party can grasp hold of the needed reforms, it can lead the way and regain its credibility. If power is sought for power’s sake alone, the Party will never be able to wrench away the power of the opposition.”

But he ends the article on a somber note and reminds us that the future of our country is up to all of us:

“To ignore the political struggle and only “hope for the best” is pure folly. The march toward a dictatorial powerful state is now in double time.

All those who care — and especially those who understand the stakes involved — have an ominous responsibility to energetically get involved in the battle of survival for a free and prosperous America.”

Read the entire article here.

Corporate Greed vs. Political Greed

Mike Cuneo — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:39:44 +0000

I honestly am worried about our country as are many others on this site and nationwide. The difference is that the masses are leading us towards more of the same if not worse, while the smart sensible opinions rooted in logic and sound theories that can be applied to real life situations are being ignored, just like all the fundamentals were ignored during the dotcom bubble.

The results of the current crisis will be much worse. The bad news is easy to find, just turn on your TV or read your newspaper’s letters section to see the bad logic flowing from Democrats, Republicans, old, young, black, white, poor, and rich. So many are worried about bankrupting Social Security due to Wall Street “greed,” high gas prices due to corporate “greed,” and on and on. Why don’t we ever mention the real American killer: political greed?

Otherwise smart and logical people get caught in the same trap every day. They are fed the same headlines and spin anywhere they turn. Exxon Mobile reports record profit! No one goes into the details of the situation, such as what was the price of oil? How much demand was there for the product? What was their profit margin? And you could ask hundreds of other questions, but no one even bothers to ask the easiest few. If one does somehow get asked, “greed” is blamed.

However, the fundamentals of economics cannot be altered. Only supply and demand can control prices, not some far-fetched notion of “greed.” So we are not only by and large ignoring the situation’s core lesson but also misunderstanding it whenever we do delve into it a little deeper.

What about politicians’ greed? They run up huge expense accounts, build up their pensions, furnish lavish offices, wear expensive suits and ties (sort of like Palin, right?!), and some (probably more than we suspect) outright steal money to hand it to friends and family in the form of cushy jobs protected by the government run monopoly.

Who pays for this? The taxpayers, of course, else they will be rounded up by the IRS and jailed, so that other taxpayers can then fund their existence.

What is a better example of greed: A company selling its product for a market price, or a politician taking money that he has no real claim to other than “pay up or else” and doling it out as he sees fit?

One option rewards hard work, good ideas, and smart planning, while the other rewards knowing someone higher up, criminal activity, or even sexual favors in some cases. There is a glaring double standard going on right under our noses. Yet we continuously blame the corporations instead of the real culprit, which in turn emboldens the real culprit to ever larger and more glaring offenses.

The key thing to realize is that private individuals or groups, corporations, and small businesses are risking their own capital to serve others. This is the only way a company or individual can make money under a real free market system with no government intervention. You must bring to market something that serves your fellow man, something he finds worthy of allocating some of his scarce capital to so that you might be able to sustain yourself.

If these private individuals fail, which many of them do, they must find other work and might suffer. But they are taking the risk because the payoff can be so great, not only for them individually but for society as a whole.

Government, meanwhile, is risking our capital, without our consent (I never consented to any bailout), even if we oppose what they are doing with it.

Notice there are two things at play here.

They are risking our capital as they see fit, which is immoral, wrong, and outright stealing.
Two, they are doing it even as there is vocal opposition to their plans.

Note that the plans don’t really matter, stealing the money in the first place is wrong, but that just makes it all the worse. You wouldn’t steal a $20 bill from a man if he only had $20 to eat, so why would we steal $20 from someone as a “reward” for being a millionaire?

Stealing is wrong, period. No matter what you are using the money for, and no matter how much wealth the individual or corporation has accumulated.

The government could start small and get our budget balanced, or even run a slight surplus. That would at least stop the bleeding for a bit while we straighten things out. One way to do that would be to bring in more money while holding spending steady. Instead of keeping gambling and marijuana illegal, we could quite easily pass a bill to legalize and tax both, bringing in billions.

Please note that we can also end the warfare state (or at least greatly reduce it) and/or cut spending by slashing the IRS, dept of education, etc. But a small step would be to bring the budget into balance using some of those means.

Again, we see the stark contrast between corporations and politicians. Any corporation with huge debt loads and questionable ability to pay either has to slash costs or increase revenue to stay viable.

A good example is SiriusXM radio. Their stock is in the 25-50 cent range and yet they are in more and more cars and homes every day. The reason is they might not survive long term, and they are drowning in debt.

On the other hand, the government brings in $100b and wants to spend $300b or more, so we will never get out of the hole as long as this is allowed to continue. The reason being that government can simply print up more money to use for their purposes while devaluing our hard earned funds, or they can simply borrow more (at least for now).

Has the federal government become “too big to fail?” It seems like it has, at least to most people. But just like AIG was not in truth too big to fail, there really is no such limit on the size of an entity that determines its success or failure.

Sadly, we are about to find out what happens when a federal government really isn’t too big to fail, only too big to wipe out some or all of the gains of the past 250 years in human history.

I think if even 25% of America could pick up on some of these points, act on them, and then pass along the message, we would go a long long way to cleaning up Washington for real and getting our nation back on track.

Ron Paul’s Hopes for the Future

tmartin — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:27:58 +0000

We might not see any changes for the better during the next administration, but at least we have hope. In his latest column, Ron Paul congratulates Barack Obama for winning the Presidency and relates the following dreams:

that we can become a more just and colorblind society where respect for the individual overcomes group mentality [this would presumably include the elimination of racist programs like "Affirmative Action"]

that new government programs and efforts that effectively prolong the financial crisis do not interfere with American productivity

that Obama will change our foreign policy and avert violence and war through diplomacy

But at the same time, Ron Paul realizes that talk and election promises don’t always translate into specific actions and policies. He remains deeply concerned about our future. –tmartin

Hopes for the Future

by Ron Paul

With the election behind us, our country turns hopeful eyes to the future. I have a few hopes of my own.

I congratulate our first African-American president-elect. Martin Luther King, Jr. certainly would be proud to see this day. We are stronger for embracing diversity, and I am hopeful that we can continue working through the tensions and wrongs of the past and become a more just and colorblind society. I hope this new administration will help bring us together, and not further divide us. I have always found that freedom is the best way to break down barriers. A free society emphasizes the importance of individuals, and not because they are part of a certain group. That’s the only way equal justice can be achieved.

We will face more tough economic problems during this new administration. In fact, the worst is yet to come. A vast amount of problematic mortgages have not begun to reset their variable interest rates and go into default. We already have unprecedented deficits, spending is out of control, and more big industries are coming to government with their hands out. My hope is that this administration will handle this economic crisis better than the interventionists and big government spenders of the 1930’s, the bureaucrats that prolonged the Depression. I hope that new government programs and spiderwebs of red tape do not pop up to interfere with American productivity, and that we can quickly get our financial footing again. We have to understand that an economic correction needs to take place and the only way out of the coming recession is to go through it. Efforts to avoid it can only prolong it. I hope we can somehow find our way back to sound money and reject corporate cronyism.

We cannot address our budget problems at home without changing our disastrous foreign policy abroad. I am hopeful that the new administration can take on the mantle of peace and diplomacy in foreign policy that many Americans feel they were promised. Many other nations also have this hope, which exudes from their congratulatory sentiments offered after the election. They hope that national sovereignty will be respected. They hope that through diplomacy violence and war can be averted. I hope so too. One thing is unquestionable: our aggressive foreign policy of the past has been costly, in blood and in treasure. Our treasure is running out, and fewer volunteers are stepping up to enable that foreign policy. So for these reasons, if we are to continue to have an all-volunteer military, and see prosperity again in the future, I have every reason to hope our foreign policy will change. In order for it to remain the same, mandatory military service would have to return, as well as accelerated theft through debt and inflation to pay for it. I have a hard time imagining popular support for these policies, simply for the sake of war and conquest, when we clearly want peace.

I have many hopes for the future in this time of transition. But I have seen this country face many forks in the road, and sadly take the wrong one too many times. We have heard a lot of talk, and it remains to be seen what actions and specific policies that talk will translate into. So while I may be hopeful, I remain deeply concerned about our future.

Ron Paul: Why More Regulation Makes Things Worse

tmartin — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:38:22 +0000

Ron Paul explains why those who blame the free market for the financial crisis are wrong, and how excessive regulation encourages moral corruption as well as blind, irrational trust in government oversight.

The Moral Hazard of Regulation

by Ron Paul

Since the bailout bill passed, I have been frequently disturbed to hear “experts” wrongly blaming the free market for our recent economic problems and calling for more regulation. In fact, further regulation can only make things worse.

It is important to understand that regulators are not omniscient. It is not feasible for them to anticipate every possible thing that could go wrong with whatever industry or activity they are regulating. They are making their best guesses when formulating rules. It is often difficult for those being regulated to understand the many complex rules they are expected to follow. Very wealthy corporations hire attorneys who may discover a myriad of loopholes to exploit and render the spirit of the regulations null and void. For this reason, heavy regulation favors big business against those small businesses who cannot afford high-priced attorneys.

The other problem is the trust that people blindly put in regulations, and the moral hazard this creates. Too many people trust government regulators so completely that they abdicate their own common sense to these government bureaucrats. They trust that if something violates no law, it must be safe. How many scams have “It’s perfectly legal” as a hypnotic selling point, luring in the gullible?

Many people did not understand the financial house of cards that are derivatives, but since they were legal and promised a great return, people invested. It is much the same in any area rife with government involvement. Many feel that just because their children are getting good grades at a government school, they are getting a good education. After all, they are passing the government-mandated litmus test. But, this does not guarantee educational excellence. Neither is it always the case that a child who does NOT achieve good marks in school is going to be unsuccessful in life.

Is your drinking water safe, just because the government says it is? Is the internet going to magically become safer for your children if the government approves regulations on it? I would caution any parent against believing this would be the case. Nothing should take the place of your own common sense and due diligence.

These principles explain why the free market works so much better than a centrally planned economy. With central planning, everything shifts from one’s own judgment about safety, wisdom and relative benefits of a behavior, to the discretion of government bureaucrats. The question then becomes “what can I get away with,” and there will always be advantages for those who can afford lawyers to find the loopholes. The result then is that bad behavior, that would quickly fail under the free market, is propped up, protected and perpetuated, and sometimes good behavior is actually discouraged.

Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy. This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in. Rather, it will only exacerbate it.

Why I Support Ron Paul

Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:23:39 +0000

FROM HOPELESS TO HOPEFUL

I write this in my support of Ron Paul. To begin, I have to go back to my college years where my passion for history taught me the importance of political awareness. I was growing tired of the confined, two party political system and started looking for other options which led me to a round of Ralph Nader rallies. Enthusiastic, robust supporters filled these rallies and speakers such as Michael Moore would preach their opinion on how the two-party system has failed this country time and time again. At the time, I found myself cheering loudly with the crowd on how there needs to be a political figure who actually listens to the people.

Little did I realize that my understanding of government and free markets was off base. Unwittingly I was about to vote for someone who believes that the free markets have failed us and that the solution to the problem is more government intervention. Many times I would say to others, “Look at the disparity between the rich and the poor. This can not be the way this country was designed. We need the government to come in and fix this situation.”

Near the end of my college education I started up my own business, which is a dangerous thing when one doesn’t believe that free markets work. Over the course of my business life I realized that the consumer is king and government just interferes with the consumer getting the choices they deserve on both pricing and quality. I was intrigued by my growing sense of discontent.

Through some associates in the business world I started reading about the Founding Fathers and the history of this great country. Throughout this reading I realized that the way America is now is not the way America was designed to be. I started reading more and more books regarding the Republican point of view and ended up changing my allegiances to the Republican philosophy.

There was only one minor problem with this. I would listen to Republicans speak and it was as if they didn’t know their own party platform. They were talking about how we need to decrease taxes but they wouldn’t cut any programs that would take away from the budget. I was confused and alas turned into what I would call a hopeless Republican.

What is a hopeless Republican you ask? A hopeless Republican is someone who loves the ideal of being a true Republican but doesn’t hear any of the ideals coming out of today’s Republicans’ speeches. Someone who is tired of voting for a politician who is motivated and influenced by his own special interests. A hopeless Republican wants government off their backs but has no choice but to vote for the “lesser of two evils” who both want more government in every way, just in slightly different ways.

Through reading more, I fell across Robert Kiyosaki (whether you agree with his books or philosophy is not the question) who wrote about the Federal Reserve and why gold and silver is the only real money. I realized at this point that the Federal Reserve is the core issue of all problems. After that I started looking up some videos on Youtube and stumbled upon Ron Paul. To get a deeper understanding of Ron Paul I decided to embark on seeing how deep the rabbit hole went and bought his book The Revolution: A Manifesto. The lady at the book store was more than anxious to sell me the book saying; she had already read it and loved it.

When I opened the pages of the book and started reading, it felt like water to a camel in the middle of a desert. Other than Dr. Paul’s stances on monetary issues, I started realizing that there was very little disagreement between the doctor and I. Dr. Paul’s understanding of free enterprise was inspiring. He had broken down free markets to simple terms that anyone can understand, instead of spending 4 months taking an economics class at a university and still walking out confused.

There are too many points to go into that I agree with but after reading The Revolution I realized that Dr. Paul was the only candidate who offered real change, not spare change. I understand that the election is over and that Barack Obama has already won, so my goal in this post is to make you aware that the Revolution has begun.

There is something you must do, and that is to first become an informed citizen and then prepare yourself for the next elections. It is your right, it is your duty to chose and alter the government you desire. Republics only work with informed citizens and sadly more people voted for American Idol than for the next leader of our country. I believe this is due to the hopelessness that they feel, that neither candidate would have made the situation any better. The burden rests on the shoulders of the revolutionaries who want a better America for their children and their children’s children.

The only message I have is if you have felt like I have felt, understand that there are no hopeless situations, just people who have grown hopeless about them. People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Long live the Revolution,
Yours Truly,
V

Ron Paul: Let The Revolution Begin

tmartin — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:21:27 +0000

A message from Ron Paul:

Dear Friends,

Our journey together has been truly historic. As the final votes are tabulated and the curtain closes on this election, we must take time to reflect on our successes even as we turn our attention to the task before us.

Our campaign has stirred the sleeping giant by showing millions that freedom, peace, and prosperity are achievable. We know that these things can come about only through sound money, limited government and a respect for the inherent rights of every individual. We have awakened the political class to the popularity and viability of Liberty. And, most of all, we have awoken within ourselves a spirit of freedom and independence that cannot be suppressed by any ruler, army, or philosophy of subservience and fear.

Yet we must not reflect long. We must press our efforts and lay the groundwork for the future of our movement and our country. The 2010 election cycle is just around the corner. We must redouble our efforts to educate our fellow citizens, recruit and support liberty candidates, and marshal our resources for the battle ahead.

Ours is the most solemn charge of all: to defend Liberty in this bleak hour lest the very notion that man might best govern himself be scoured from this land and from the conscience of mankind.

In our campaign for liberty, we’re just getting started. Let the Revolution begin.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul’s Election Results

admin — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:49:18 +0000

Ron Paul obtained 2.2% of the vote in Montana, which is the best result of any third party candidate in any state. He also obtained 0.5% in Louisiana, putting him ahead of any other third party candidate in that state.

Ron Paul’s write-in results in California are not yet available. Write-in votes in other states are not being counted.

Ron Paul was reelected as Congressman for the 14th District of Texas. He did not have an opponent.

Montana

John McCain: 50.1% (236,513 votes)
Barack Obama: 46.7% (220,301 votes)
Ron Paul: 2.2% (10,230 votes)
Ralph Nader: 0.8% (3,570 votes)
Bob Barr: 0.3% (1,300 votes)

Louisiana

John McCain: 58.6% (1,147,603 votes)
Barack Obama: 39.9% (780,981 votes)
Ron Paul: 0.5% (9,353 votes)
Cynthia McKinney: 0.5% (9,184 votes)
Ralph Nader: 0.4% (6,991 votes)
Chuck Baldwin: 0.1%

Why was Ron Paul on the presidential ballot in these states?

In Montana, the Constitution Party of Montana used to be an affiliate of the national Constitution Party until July 2006. Since then, it has been an independent party. This year, they selected Ron Paul and Michael Peroutka as their presidential candidates.

In Louisiana, a group of Ron Paul supporters founded the Louisiana Taxpayers Party and selected Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater Jr. as their presidential candidates.

In California, Ron Paul was nominated as a write-in candidate by Gail Lightfoot, a former Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate. Write-in votes for Ron Paul are being counted and results are not available yet.

Ron Paul: No Change on the Horizon

tmartin — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:20:27 +0000

Ron Paul was interviewed on CNN’s American Morning today. He asserted that neither Obama nor McCain will introduce any significant changes for the better, and that a Democrat monopoly over the Senate, the House and the Presidency would be “very bad for our country”.

CNN: Whoever wins the presidency today, he will face a lot of challenges. With a look at some of the obstacles facing the next President I’m joined by former Republican presidential candidate, Congressman Ron Paul. He joins me from Clute, Texas this morning. Glad you’re up with us, great to see you this morning

Ron Paul: Thank you, thank you very much.

CNN: As we take a look at how things are shaping up today, what are you thinking of, what are some of the things that stick out in your mind today?

Ron Paul: Well, I think the obvious is, what’s it going to be like with the new president, because we are going to get a new president. But the old problems are still going to be there. We’re still going to have to deal with the Middle East. We have the policy now where we’re going into Syria, we’re going into Pakistan, we’re threatening Iran, we’re having bad conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq, so, those problems are getting bigger by the day.

And also the financial situation is, you know, both candidates have supported the same old policy of pumping in 5 trillion dollars worth of new money, trying to prop up all the mistakes made over the last 20 or 30 years.

So, the American people have a lot to think about, and we do have a lot of concerns. Let’s hope things improve, but right now I don’t see any significant change in policy on the horizon.

CNN: Do you think that there’s a lot of promises that have to be made during an election cycle that one side, either gentleman, finally gets to the Oval Office, perhaps a lot of the things that have been promised aren’t necessarily going to be realistic to happen in this current environment?

Ron Paul: Well, I think that happens just about all the time. You noticed that neither candidate has talked about balancing the budget, but they sure have promised a lot of spending. No, nothing to be cut, spending is going to continue. And if deficits do matter, which I happen to believe, I mean, how can we expect any changes? Government is going to get bigger, more intrusive into our private lives, the foreign policy is going to remain the same, we’re gonna be the policeman of the world… So, really there’s no offer of solutions.

Obama talks about change, but what is he going to change? He and McCain agreed with the total bailout package, they don’t disagree on foreign policy, really, so the American people are going to be frustrated. They’re enthusiastic now and they’re hopeful and we all should be. But what’s going to happen after a month or two if each of these problems I’m talking about are much worse?

CNN: One of the things Congressman, as you talk a little about what we could see coming down the road, and whether things will change, there’s probably more of a chance of legislation at least being passed under an Obama administration if we do see the House and the Senate both go to a majority of Democrats, perhaps even a veto-proof majority.

And this is what former Senator Bob Kerrey wrote about this impact. He said,

“The primary threat to the success of a President Obama will come from some Democrats who, emboldened by the size of their Congressional majority, may try to kill trade agreements, raise taxes in ways that will destroy jobs, repeal the PATRIOT Act and spend and regulate to high heaven.”

Could single party rule actually be more detrimental to the country?

Ron Paul: Oh, I don’t think there’s any doubt about it. I think that’s one of the strongest arguments for voting for McCain. What this country needs is a little bit of gridlock on new legislation. You know, I think the only laws that we should be passing now, are laws that repeal legislation, repeal previous legislation, that’s what we need. So, no, I think it’s going to be sad if we don’t have any gridlock or any debate, I mean, if everything gets rubber-stamped, of course I wouldn’t mind a little bit of movement to get rid of the PATRIOT Act, that wouldn’t be too bad.

If they were doing the right things it wouldn’t be a problem, but right now there’s no evidence that we’re all of a sudden going to see a shift, that we’re going to see new policies, that we’re going to have a deep concern about the Constitution, that we’re going to talk about a non-interventionist foreign policy, that we’re going to talk about the Federal Reserve, the culprit in this whole financial mess. Nobody is talking about that, so, yes, I think if we rubber-stamp and see no gridlock and one party power I think it’s very bad for our country.

CNN: Alright, Congressman Ron Paul, it’s great to talk to you this morning, thanks for your take today.

Poll: Who are you voting for?

admin — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:17:21 +0000

Tell us who you’ll be voting for in Tuesday’s presidential elections!

Vote Ron Paul In These Three States!

tmartin — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:06:49 +0000

As a quick reminder for tomorrow’s election: Ron Paul is on the ballot in Louisiana and Montana. He is also an official write-in candidate in California (PDF).

Write-in votes for Ron Paul in other states will not be counted.

Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin on September 23.

Third Party Presidential Debate

tmartin — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:59:53 +0000

Watch the second Third Party Presidential Debate between Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr and Ralph Nader which took place last Thursday (October 30):

Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin on September 23.

The Revolution: A Manifesto - in 10 minutes

admin — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:38:31 +0000

If you’ve always wanted to read Ron Paul’s bestselling book The Revolution: A Manifesto but didn’t have the time to do so, check out this amazing 10 minute video summary of the book, provided by Chance Litton:

Ron Paul: How America fell into Osama bin Laden’s terrible trap

tmartin — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:20:44 +0000

On October 29, 2008, Ron Paul was interviewed by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. He criticized Obama and McCain, explained why he stayed in the Republican party, and described how America fell into Osama bin Laden’s terrible trap.

RM: And what about 2008’s grassroots sensation of the right wing, Republican Congressman Dr. Ron Paul. Dr. Paul stole the show at the Republican primary debates, largely by setting himself apart from the perceived pillars of the GOP. And last month at a third party press conference in in Washington, Dr. Paul announced he would not support John McCain. So what is the future of the Republican party, and who’s gonna be heading it up? Joining us now, former Libertarian presidential candidate, current Republican Congressman Ron Paul. Congressman Paul, thank you so much for joining us tonight.

RP: Thank you. Nice to be with you.

RM: I should speak more precisely and say that you were the Libertarian party’s nominee for President in 1998. You were a Republican Presidential candidate this year. Why did you decide to stick with the Republican party right through the primaries, and not try to be the nominee of the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party this year?

RP: Mainly because the laws are very biased against people doing that. Some states won’t even allow you to do it. But the system is not very democratic for third parties and alternate choices. All the rules and all the laws are written by Republicans and Democrats, so it’s very hard to get in the debates. If I hadn’t been in the Republican primary I wouldn’t get into the debates. It’s very hard to get on ballots. Although they’ve done relatively well, it takes a lot of money. They’ll spend half their money just getting on ballots. So the system is very biased against competition, and that’s the reason so many of us, and I think a large number of the American people, in spite of this horse race going on, a large number of the American people, if maybe not the majority, think that really they don’t have a good choice and that the system is very biased and that the status quo is going to be maintained.

RM: By virtue of the fact that you did get into the debates and you worked hard at the Republican primaries, right through them, and you made a lot of money and you got a lot of attention, you attracted a lot of support, particularly from people who had seen themselves as outside the traditional market for politicos. You brought a lot of people into the political system who didn’t think there was a place for them in it before you. And for that I’ve always had a lot of admiration for how you ran this campaign this year. I wonder how you see those folks who you mobilized moving forward in the electorate. Do you think they are still alienated from he two party system, or could you imagine them lending their support to somebody?

RP: Well, a lot of them are running for office right now. You’d be surprised, there’s some states there’s 20 and 30 individuals up running, and they did it spontaneously due to the enthusiasm built in the campaign. New Hampshire and Minnesota, and different places, there’s a lot of candidates, we can’t even keep up with them, just as we couldn’t keep up with how we were raising the money in the primary.

There’s a lot of spontaneous energy because the message is so great. The message of individual liberty really attracted the young people. It’s interesting that a lot of young people that Obama has, go back and forth, they support him but they like me, and yet our message is significantly different, but our message is very attractive to young people. They like the idea of self-reliance and individual liberty. They like to get out of these wars. They love the idea of talking about monetary policy, which neither McCain nor Obama will dare talk about. Why do we have a Federal Reserve, and now that we have this financial crisis going on, the young people are really excited. Well, this is what we’ve been talking about not only for the past two years, but many more years. So it’s very appropriate to talk about this financial calamity, how it’s related to this trillion dollar a year expenditure that we spend on our foreign policy, and how it’s bringing us to our knees, and how we’ve more or less capitulated to Osama bin Laden’s idea of getting us over there, bogging us down overseas in a war like they did to the Soviets, bankrupting this country.

So we have fallen into a terrible trap, and right now we’re expanding it, and unfortunately, the two major candidates aren’t even talking about Syria and Pakistan, and the things that are important, because they essentially both agree with that viewpoint. They both say, send more troops to Afghanistan, and quite frankly, I am not expecting the troops, and regardless of whether Obama wins, that they’ll be home in 16 months. That is just pure political talk.

Both candidates support the same foreign policy, same monetary policy, neither one talks about balancing the budget, so the young people want to hear something different. They love the message of individual liberty. They love the idea of defending the Constitution, you know, that old fashioned idea, and that’s what has energized our campaign, actually it’s given me a lot of energy as well.

RM: Former presidential candidate, current Republican Congressman and political phenom, Dr. Ron Paul. Thank you so much for joining us tonight, Sir

Are we stimulating ourselves into oblivion?

tmartin — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 01:53:34 +0000

A wise person once defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. Now that Congress is considering yet another stimulus package in a desperate effort to keep our fraudulent monetary system afloat, one cannot help but wonder what their real intentions are. Don’t they realize that the more they attempt to paper over the cracks in the façade with money created out of thin air, the bigger the eventual collapse is going to be? As always, Ron Paul is a lone voice of reason and tries to reign in an insane, treacherous, or maybe just bewildered Congress that is driving us straight into the abyss of global socialism and dictatorship. — tmartin

Spending the Economy into Oblivion

by Ron Paul

With news this week that Congress is poised to consider a new stimulus package, I am forced to again ask a question that seems silly in Washington: How will we pay for this?

While a few Members of Congress have raised the issue, it certainly was not the primary concern of the House Budget Committee when they interviewed Ben Bernanke on Monday. And, when they did direct this question to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, his answer was the standard rhetoric about how Congress needed to make tough choices. Needless to say, not many specifics were discussed.

One of the most liberal members of the House, Barney Frank, has at least volunteered something of a suggestion: “We can let Iraq take care of itself.” This, of course, goes in the right direction, but hardly far enough.

We need to declare the facts and their obvious consequences. The deficit of the United States is now spiraling out of control, and the recent bailout package has only made it worse. Our crushing federal debt is one key reason behind our current economic turbulence.

As Congress begins to consider the third “stimulus package” of the year, we need to realize it is time to start setting priorities. Priority number one should be cutting spending in foreign countries. This does not simply mean Iraq, but everywhere.

The next stimulus package is likely to include money for infrastructure. While these investments are, constitutionally speaking, supposed to be made by state and local governments, it is not likely that Congress will suddenly begin to pay heed to the document we are all sworn to uphold. Still, we need to acknowledge the fact that the current Congress and Administration are rushing the nation toward bankruptcy.

This being the case, we could hope they would at least come to their senses regarding our debt and foreign spending sprees. Our nation’s foreign-held debt is at record highs and moving ever higher. Continuing to borrow money from Red China and others in order to pay “dues” to the United Nations and run “Plan Colombia” makes no sense at all.

Our whole carrot-and-stick approach to foreign policy makes no sense. The US government simultaneously gives money to Israel, and to Egypt. We send AIDS money to Africa while AIDS clinics in America shut down. “Millennium challenge” funding goes to countries which enact “market based reforms” as we push our own country further and further into a centrally planned economy.

Economic recovery will only come through financial prudence, savings and getting back to producing things of value again. But it seems to be a foregone conclusion that we are about to enact another government initiative to “stimulate the economy.” Instead, there should be some serious talk about cutting all of these foreign giveaway programs. But, alas and again, we should not hold our breath. Congress is still not close to being serious about ending its addiction to debt and spending, and is again faced with the deadly temptation to attempt to spend us out of a recession. We should not forget that in the 1930s those types of efforts gave us the Great Depression.

William “BJ” Lawson - The Next Ron Paul?

tmartin — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 04:21:07 +0000

William “BJ” Lawson is running for Congress in North Carolina’s 4th district. The race is very close and to help with a final media push, BJ Lawson’s supporters have organized a money bomb for today, Tuesday Oct. 28th.

Here are the top reasons to support Lawson and to participate in today’s money bomb:

BJ Lawson is endorsed by Ron Paul.

“A lot of folks have begun calling B.J. Lawson the next Ron Paul. The comparison is very flattering… for me.

For those who are not yet familiar, B.J. Lawson is a wonderful young candidate running for Congress in North Carolina’s Fourth Congressional District. B.J. is a medical doctor, family man, Constitutionalist and a fierce defender of individual freedom. We need B.J. Lawson in Congress to stand beside me in the fight for liberty, and against the corporate socialism that has overtaken our economy!

B.J. is running against an entrenched big government liberal who voted for the $700 billion taxpayer bailout of Wall Street and has a long history of voting for huge spending, raiding your social security trust fund for pet projects, and even voted for the Patriot Act.

A recent poll shows B.J. Lawson within striking distance in this election, but he needs your help!” [...]

– Ron Paul
BJ Lawson showed his viability by beating the establishment candidate Augustus Cho in the primary election (May 6th) with 71% of the vote. Augustus Cho tried to make fun of BJ Lawson by calling him “Ron Paul Jr.”, which obviously backfired.
BJ Lawson’s opponent David Price, a Big Government Democrat who voted for the PATRIOT Act, the HR 1955 “Thought Crimes Bill”, and the disastrous Bailout Bill, has grown quite uneasy. He is now running desperate attack ads and resorted to smearing BJ Lawson and Ron Paul as dangerous George Bush followers.
Funds raised during today’s money bomb will be used to purchase and hand out pocket constitutions, which are the number one tool for introducing otherwise partisan folks to the idea of liberty, and to make a final media push to combat Price’s negative attacks with Lawson’s positive message of liberty.

For more information about BJ Lawson, visit his website, his blog, and watch his Oct. 14 debate with David Price:

Click here to participate in today’s money bomb!

Third Party Presidential Debate

tmartin — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:33:25 +0000

Watch the Third Party Presidential Debate between Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader which took place last Thursday (October 23):

Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin on September 23.

Ron Paul Responds to Greenspan Testimony

admin — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:05:31 +0000

Ron Paul was interviewed on CNN’s American Morning today. He responded to Alan Greenspan’s Testimony to Congress, criticized the former Federal Reserve Chairman’s contribution to the financial crisis, and talked about the upcoming election.