For nearly a century the Federal Reserve has operated in the shadows, away from the prying eyes of Congress, journalists and the American people. Created in 1913, the Fed was given enormous responsibility to protect the value of our currency. Yet in the last 96 years the U.S. dollar has lost more than 95% of its purchasing power. The Fed’s unprecedented actions over the past year in attempting to stabilize the financial system have now forced it into the spotlight, and caused millions of people around the country to question the opacity of the Fed’s financial transactions.
While the Fed is more transparent now than it was 20 or 30 years ago, there is still a long way to go. If the Fed were fully transparent, organizations such as Bloomberg and Fox News wouldn’t have to sue its board of governors to receive materials that should be available through Freedom of Information Act requests. These include information on which banks and companies received loans and for what amounts after the 2008 financial meltdown.
One puzzling assertion made by the Fed and its supporters is that the Federal Reserve has some sort of independence from the government and independence in undertaking monetary policy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Federal Reserve is a government-created banking monopoly, and its top decision makers are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. If they do not perform satisfactorily in the eyes of politicians, they will not be renominated.
The Fed has also, for the past three decades, been required to engage in monetary policy with the goal of maintaining stable prices and full employment. Since the natural trend over time is for prices to decrease, a mandate to maintain stable prices is a mandate to pursue an expansionary monetary policy and inflate the money supply to counteract the lower prices we would expect from increased productivity.
Steve Kagen: I believe there is a better way of doing things in America, and I am convinced that by working together, we’re going to be able to find it and to do that in very bipartisan way and I yield to my friend, my colleague, a physician and congressman, Ron Paul.
Ron Paul: I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to express my appreciation for you getting this special order on this very important subject. Of course, a lot of people in this country are asking, “What should we do about Afghanistan?” It is a pretty important question. It might one of the most important questions that we’re asking right now, and yet nobody seems to have an answer.
But, you know, I think the difficulty in finding an answer comes sometimes from not having fully understood why we got there. I just can’t imagine this debate that’s going on within our government today, executive branch and the legislative branch and with the people. Can you imagine this going on during the World War II. You know, how many troops should we have? What is our exit strategy? Who is our enemy? How are we going to impose democracy?
It is far removed from what a traditional responsibility is of our government to provide national security. Now, they’ve practically ran out of excuses for why we’re over in Afghanistan. The only one that is left that they seem to cling to, “Oh, we’re there for national security. We want to fight the bad guys over there because we don’t want to fight them over here.” I’ll talk a little bit about that later, but quite frankly, I think that’s a fallacious argument and it actually makes things a lot worse.
But you know, it just bewilders me about how we get trapped into this situation, and I believe that it is because we got ourselves involved too carelessly, too easily, and we don’t follow the Constitution because under the Constitution, you’re supposed to declare the war and know who your enemy is and know when you can declare victory and bring the troops home, and we did that up until through World War II. Since then, that hasn’t been the case.
But I recall a book I read in the 1980s written by Barbara Tuchman, and she wrote a book called “The March of Folly“, and she went back as far as Troy, all the way up through Vietnam and took very special incidents of countries where they were almost obsessed or possessed with the policy even though it was not in their interest and the foolishness and the inability to change course. She died in 1989, but I keep thinking that if she had lived, she would probably write a history of our recent years, “Another March of Folly”.
Just think of what has happened since the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet system collapsed. I mean, it didn’t take us long. Did we have any peace dividends? No. There were arguments for more military spending. We had more responsibilities. We had to go and police the world. So it wasn’t long after that, what we were doing? We’re involved in the Persian Gulf War and then following that, we have decades of bombing in Iraq, which didn’t please the Arabs and the Muslims of the world and certainly the Iraqis, but it had nothing to do with national security. And then, of course, we continued and accelerated our support of the puppet governments in the Middle East, the various governments. In doing so, we actually went to the part of knowing and supporting the governments that we started putting troops on their land and when we had an air base in Saudi Arabia, that was rather offensive.
The people, if you understand the people over there, this is a violation of deeply held religious view. It’s considered their holy land and foreigners, especially military foreigners are seen as infidels. So if you’re looking for a fight or a problem, just put troops on their land. But also, the policy that we’ve had in the Middle East, we have been perceived as being anti-Palestinian. This does not sit well, either.
And since that time, of course, we haven’t backed off one bit. We had the Persian Gulf War and then we had 9/11 and we know that “9/11 changed everything”. We had fifteen individuals from Saudi Arabia, a few from Yemen, and a few from Egypt, but aha, this is excuse that we have to go and get the bad guys. So where are the bad guys? Well, Iraq, of course. First, they figured, “Well, we can’t quite do that. Let’s go into Afghanistan.” Of course, not one single Afghani did anything to it. They said, “Oh, no. Well, the al-Qaeda visited there.
But you know, I just can’t quite accept the fact that the individuals that were flying those airplanes got their training by going to these training camps in Afghanistan doing pushups and being tough and strong. What do they do? Where is planning? The planning was done in Spain and they were accepted there in legal basis. They were done in Germany. They were accepted as… as a matter of fact, they even came into this country with legal visas and I mean, they were accepted by the countries and no, no, we said it’s the Taliban. It’s the people of Afghanistan, never questioning the fact that a few years back, back in 1989, when the Soviets were wrecking the place, we were allied with the people who were friends of Osama bin Laden and we were over there trying to support him, so he then was a freedom fighter. And the hypocrisy of all these and the schizophrenia of it all, they were on again and off again. No wonder we get ourselves into these difficulties and it doesn’t seem to ever leave up.
But you know, the one assessment that was made after Vietnam and I think can apply here is how do we get in and why did we get bog down? And two individuals that were talking about this East and West, Vietnam and United States, they sort of came to the conclusion that we, the Americans, overestimated the ominous power of our military. We could conquer anybody and everybody and we underestimated the tenacity of people who are defending their homeland. It’s sort of like we were defending our homeland in the Revolutionary War and the invaders and the occupiers were the Red Coats. There is a big difference and you can overcome all kinds of obstacles, but we have never learned that and unless we do, I don’t think we can solve our problems.
But indeed, we have to realize that we are not the policeman of the world. We cannot nation build, and presidential candidates on both sides generally tell the people that is what they want and the people say, “Keep the fingers crossed. Hope it’s true.” But then once again, our policies continue down the road and we never seem to have the energy to back off of this, and I emphasize once again that I think we could keep our eye on the target, emphasize what we should be doing if we went to war a lot more cautiously, that if we have an enemy that we have to fight in our national defense, then there is a declaration of war.
Steve Kagen: Will the gentleman yield for a moment?
Ron Paul: I will yield.
Representative Steven Kagen: You know, at the beginning, in the formation of the United States, we had an outside observer come over here, Alexis de Tocqueville, and de Tocqueville observed that with our republic, it would be very difficult to get this country, this nation, to go to war. But once involved in a war, very difficult to stop it, and I think that MO, that picture, that frame is in part what’s happening here. Now, that we are involved in a ground game in other areas of the world, it’s very difficult for our republic to pull back.
Ron Paul: I thank you for yielding. I wanted to just make a couple of points in closing. The statement at the beginning of this war was made that it’s different this time. Even though the history is well known about Afghanistan, it’s ancient history, but it’s different this time because we’re different and it’s not going to have the same result. But so far, you know, they haven’t caught Osama bin Laden and we don’t have a national government really. We don’t have really honest elections. We haven’t won the hearts and minds of the people. There is a lot of dissension and it’s a miserable place, so it’s really a total failure. We really learn the costs, the cost of life and limb and money. I mean, it is just a total failure. The thought that we would pursue this and expand it and send more troops just blows my mind and I want to just mention a couple of things I think are bad arguments. One is that we’re involved there. We’ve invested too much and therefore we have to save face because it would look terrible if we had to leave.
But you know, it’s like in medicine. What if we in medicine, we’re doing the wrong things and make the wrong diagnosis. But we keep doing it to prove that we’re right? Or are we going to listen to the patient and to the results.
Steve Kagen: You’d lose your license.
Ron Paul: Yeah, that’s right. But it seems like politicians don’t lose their license and maybe they should and maybe there will be more this year or something. But the other argument they make is if you take a less militant viewpoint, as we all do, that we’re not supportive of the troops. The troops don’t believe that. The troops I talked to, the one Walter talks to, I mean, they know we care about them and they shouldn’t be put in harm’s way unless it’s absolutely necessary. This other argument is, but we got to go over there to kill them because they want to kill us.
Well, like I mentioned before, it wasn’t the Afghans that came over here. By going into their country and killing them, we’re going to create more terrorists and the more people we send, the more terrorists and the more we have to kill. And now, it’s spreading. This is the one I’m worried about in this war. You know, there was one individual, I don’t know his name, but they believed he was in Pakistan. So he was part of the terrorist group, the people who were opposing the occupation. So they sent fifteen cruise missiles, drones, over, looking for him. It took the fifteenth when they killed him, but fourteen landed and there was an estimate made that about 1,000 civilians was killed in this manner. How many more terrorists have we developed under those circumstances?
I do want to have one minute here to read a quote and I’ll yield back. But this quote comes from a Russian general talking to Gorbachev, and Gorbachev went into office in 1985 and this was a year later, and the general was talking to Gorbachev and he says… and this is after…. just think, Gorbachev was in office one year. He had a problem. He was trying to get out. He didn’t get until 1989. But the general says, “Military actions in Afghanistan will soon be seven years old and so Mr. Gorbachev, at a November 1986 Politburo session, “There is no single piece of land in this country which has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier. Nonetheless, the majority of the territory remains in the hands of the rebels.” It reminds of the conversation between Colonel Tou and some nurses after Vietnam and some of our colonels says, “You know, we defeated you in every battle in Vietnam,” and Tou looked at me and says, “Yes, I agree, but it was also irrelevant.” I yield back.
Chairman: Thank you very much and…
(A little time later)
Steve Kagen: Mr. Paul.
Ron Paul: Yes, I would like to just make one more comment as we close this special order. You know, I opened my remarks about talking about Barbara Tuchman’s “The March of Folly” and we are on the same course and I would say it’s time to march home. I’m not for sending any more troops. It’s very clear in my mind. If the job isn’t getting done and we don’t know what we are there for, I would say, it’s time to come home because I fear and it’s been brought up. Congressman McGovern has brought it up and everybody has talked about the finances of this because it is known that all great nations, when they spread themselves to thinly around the world, they go bankrupt and that’s essentially what happened to the Soviet system and they fell apart for economic reasons. So there are trillions of dollars spent in this operation and we’re flat out broke. Two trillion dollar increase in the national debt last year and it just won’t continue. So we may not get our debate on the floor. We may not be persuasive enough, you know, to change this course, but I tell you what, the course will be changed. But let’s hope they accept some of our suggestion because when a nation crumbles for financial reasons, that’s much more dangerous than us taking the tough stand and saying, “It’s time to come home.”
We asked the question that’s on everyone’s mind: “Should Ron Paul should run for President in 2012?”
Our readers submitted 9,312 votes and 376 comments while the poll was open from Oct. 27 to Nov. 16.
Should Ron Paul run for President in 2012?
Yes. (94%, 8,727 Votes)
It depends. (3%, 267 Votes)
No. (3%, 259 Votes)
I don’t know. (0%, 59 Votes)
Total Voters: 9,312
These results are virtually unchanged from our February poll and June poll: 94% (up from 93%) of our readers want Ron Paul to run for President in 2012. 3% (no change) don’t want him to run. And 3% (down from 4%) are undecided or said “it depends”.
In light of these highly encouraging results it is important to emphasize that Ron Paul recently said that he hasn’t made a decision yet – it would be much too early to do so.
POLL #2: Chuck Baldwin, Andrew Napolitano and Peter Schiff Top VP Choices
From Nov. 5 to Nov. 16, we ran another poll asking our readers to select up to 5 candidates to join the Ron Paul ticket as running mate in 2012.
Chuck Baldwin raced to the top in a late finish, with 29% of our voters expressing their desire for him to be Ron Paul’s VP in 2012 (up from 9% in our June poll). Judge Andrew Napolitano, who wasn’t included in the last poll, had been an early favorite and finished a strong second with 27% of voters giving him the nod.
Peter Schiff, the undisputed winner of our June poll, came in third with 21% of the vote (down from 29%). Jesse Ventura was fourth with 15% (down from 21%). Rand Paul was chosen by 12% of our voters (same as last time), virtually tying with Lew Rockwell (12%), who hadn’t been included in our previous poll, and Sarah Palin, who also got 12% (up from 11%) with a slightly lower vote count.
Michele Bachmann made a strong debut at 8%, while Pat Buchanan remained stable at 7% (same as last time), slightly surpassing newcomer Glenn Beck (also 7%). Gary Johnson increased his percentage from 4% to 5%.
Other candidates experienced a significant drop, including Dennis Kucinich (18% to 9%), Mike Huckabee (12% to 6%), Mitt Romney (11% to 4%), Jim DeMint (7% to 4%), and Wayne Allyn Root (6% to 2%).
The poll attracted 9,425 voters and 256 comments. Each voter could select up to 5 candidates. The detailed results are as follows:
If Ron Paul runs for President in 2012, who should be his running mate?
Last Saturday many concerned Americans watched in horror as the House passed the healthcare reform bill. If this bill makes it through the Senate, it would massively overhaul the way healthcare is delivered in this country. Today, obviously, we don’t have a perfect system, but this legislation takes all the mistakes we are making with healthcare and makes them worse. Most of what is wrong with healthcare stems from decades of government intervention and the resulting unintended consequences.
But the government’s prescription for the ills caused by intervention is always more intervention. We see this not only in healthcare policy, but also in foreign policy, in economic policy, and in monetary policy – basically, in all areas of public policy. It was even claimed that the House bill would increase competition in healthcare, and thereby improve the private sector’s business model for insurance.
It is fascinating that politicians would use the language of the free market in this way to justify more corporatism. This demonstrates a couple of things. One, that politicians truly do not understand the very basic tenets of a free market. By definition, a free market is free from government intervention. But once a little intervention is accepted as legitimate, politicians will blame the problems created by their intervention on the free market and present themselves as saviors that must intervene even more.
It also demonstrates that politicians know that Americans still believe the free market is a good thing. People know and understand that competition among businesses is better for the consumer than a monopoly. However, competition between a private business and a government or government-favored entity is not real competition.
In real competition, your competitor can go bankrupt if they do a bad job. Everyone knows a government program is forever, no matter how poorly it performs. In real competition, efficiency is necessary for survival. In government programs, waste is rewarded as budgets are often determined by how much money a department is able to consume in a year. In real competition, one business does not have regulatory or taxation authority over its competitors. In real competition, businesses get sued and punished for breaking contracts and defrauding people, and are kept accountable in this way. But just try to sue the government when you are unjustly harmed by it!
The reason real competition is a good thing is because good businesses get bad ones out of the consumer’s way. Can the government put someone out of business? Most certainly! But it will have the opposite effect: an otherwise good business will be replaced by a poorly performing government agency, or a government-favored monolithic business that behaves almost like a government agency.
If Washington really wanted to give consumers more choices they would remove legislative and regulatory barriers to competition across state lines for health insurers. They would remove barriers for new and innovative models of healthcare and tort reform. They wouldn’t have run so many church and charitable hospitals out of business. Washington is keenly interested in healthcare reform, but it is certainly not going to increase competition or to expand your options for healthcare.
Joe Kernen: But Chris Dodd has a bill taking aim at the Fed. The overhaul bill that he proposes would reduce the role of the Federal Reserve. However, Congressman Ron Paul has been on that crusade for some time now, calling for more transparency at the central bank. He joins us this morning.
Congressman, great to see you. Hello.
Ron Paul: Thank you, nice to be with you this morning.
Joe Kernen: Let me start with… you remember Treasury Secretary Geithner and what he wanted to do. He wanted to vastly embolden the Fed in a lot of these areas and give them more power. What was your initial reaction to what he wanted to do?
Ron Paul: Well, it was terrible because I start with the idea that regulations won’t solve our problems. In Washington the only choice is whose going to be the big regulator. So it’s not much of a choice for me. I certainly don’t want to give the Federal Reserve more power, so I don’t like it when Geithner says, “Give the Fed more power”. So I’d much rather have somebody else do it even though I think that’s not going to solve the problem.
Joe Kernen: Really? So the Dodd Bill sets up a lot more different regulators, although there might be a single on, you don’t like that one much more?
Ron Paul: Oh no. See, the problem is that we have a flawed system. We have artificially low interest rates, we have the lender of last resort, we have this horrendous moral hazard in our system. Instead of correcting the problems and changing policy, what we do is we say “We can tinker with the symptoms with regulations” and that even further interferes with the market forces. We need the market to work and we have not allowed the market to work for many, many decades. Interest rates are always artificial, “too big to fail” was always there. There was always the lender of last resort. As long as you have that, regulations will not solve the problem. Take, for instance, after ENRON went down we immediately passed Sarbanes-Oxley saying “we didn’t have enough regulations.” It had nothing to do with it. Where did some of the companies go then? There were too many regulations so they had to leave this country.
So I would say that we’ve embarked on the wrong course and whether you put the regulations in the Fed or outside the Fed, it’s not a whole lot different. But we certainly don’t want to give the Fed more power. It’s much easier for the Congress to assume the responsibility of oversight if it’s outside the Fed. For some reason up until recently the Fed was sacred. You weren’t even allowed to ask questions, let alone get the answers. And now, of course, the momentum is in the direction of “even the Fed ought to be transparent” and I think that, of course, is very important. Continue reading “End The Fed & Consider Outlawing Fractional Reserve Banking”
Ron Paul: I’d like to talk about monetary policy a bit. The dollar has been in the news, gold has been in the news, and a significant event has just recently transpired. It happened on November 2nd and to me it was a very significant event. That was the day the Indian central bank announced that it had purchased 200 tons of gold from the IMF. And that was more or less the tipping point on this recent surge in the gold price.
The reason I think this is a significant date is in some ways it is almost the opposite of what happened back on August 15th, 1971, That was a very special day in monetary history and I talk about that a whole lot. That is when the world announced that gold was officially demonetized, no currency would be linked to gold, the dollar would still be the reserve standard and everything would be okay. Instead what we got was the biggest bubble in the history of mankind, which is now being deflated.
So, to me the fact that the central bank of India has now purchased this gold at the same time the IMF is getting rid of the gold and the west is getting rid of the gold, means that there is a major shift in economic power; and that is from the west to the east. And this is no surprise. Jobs have gone to the east, productivity has gone to the east, savings have gone to the east. The west has become more indebted and it’s not just the United States, it’s Europe as well.
And I think this signals the time when gold will be re-monetized. I don’t think it’s ever been demonetized in the sense. I think gold has always been money, but they pretended it wasn’t money. In the 1960s they wanted to demonetize gold and by 1971 they claimed they officially did it. And even throughout these several decades they pretend that gold is not money. At the same time, economic laws still prevail. But this announcement I think will prove to be a very significant announcement.
On this very date Geithner, Security of the Treasury, is over in Singapore meeting in an economic conference, and he’s talking about the dollar. He says, “It is the official policy of the United States government to have a strong dollar policy,” which always fascinates me. The Federal Reserve is what is in charge of the dollar, and they can double the money supply. But then we have the Secretary of the Treasury… and this is not just this time, this has been this way over the years. The Secretary of the Treasury goes before the public and says, “It is the official policy of the United States to have a strong dollar”. At the same time, they’re chiding the Chinese for having a currency that’s too strong. Which means, we want a weaker dollar against the Chinese Yuan. So on and on it goes.
And I frequently get a question, which I think is an old fashioned question, but we still get it. They ask: “Do you think the United States is going to devalue?” Well, they’re constantly devaluing. We devalue our money on a constant basis. There was a time when devaluations were official and pronounced in the sense that on August 15 there was a devaluation. They took the price of gold from $35/ounce up to $38/ounce. It was an 8% devaluation, it was a big deal. But we constantly do it. Shortly thereafter, two years later they devalued another 10% and then they tipped the price of gold up to $42/ounce. But since that time, since they claimed the dollar and gold are not connected, we’ve had constant devaluation. If you look at gold at $1,100/ounce, you’re looking at about a 97% or 98% devaluation. So it’s a constant devaluation.
So here we have a government’s official announced policy is we have a strong dollar, at the same time the real policy is constantly devaluating the dollar. And, of course, for an economy to grow you ought to have relatively stable currency. People shouldn’t have something wildly fluctuating, and certainly you shouldn’t have a currency that can be created out of thin air.
And that’s where we are today. But my concern for many, many years has been the eventual consequence of what this will have on the dollar. We’ve seen a financial crisis build, we’ve seen a lot of liquidation of debt, we’ve seen a lot of purchasing of bad debt by our government and by the Federal Reserve. At the same time, it’s all done by the creation of new money out of thin air. We can do that just so long. You can defy economic laws for a while. But just like you can keep gold at $35/ounce and you can manipulate markets, eventually the economic laws will rule.
And I think this is what will happen – is we will continue to do this. Congress has no concern; they’re willing to pass a medical care program which is going to cost trillions of dollars and pretend it won’t cost anything. They’ll always be a cost and the pressure is going to be put on the dollar. The financial obligation we have to maintain our empire and our welfare state is just overwhelming. And they’re illiquid. I mean, if we look at Medicare and Medicaid, these programs are literally bankrupt. So everything is dependent on the willingness of the world and the people to put trust in the dollar, at the same time, regardless of what our Secretary of the Treasury says, we are embarking and continue to just print the money in an unlimited fashion and that means devaluation regardless of what they tell us.
To me that is very, very dangerous. If we want to preserve our freedoms in this country we will have to address the important subject of liberty and understanding that, and what rights are all about. But we also have to understand the issue of monetary policy. We need to know more about the Federal Reserve and that is why the success we’ve had with the transparency act and auditing the Fed is so beneficial. But it looks like right now if push comes to shove, the major journals now are working very hard to downplay our efforts and to belittle what we’re doing. But the momentum is on our side and we need this information out because eventually to preserve our freedoms in this country we will also have to understand money and have monetary policy reform.
Question: Dr. Paul, what is the significance of the IMF selling?
Ron Paul: That’s a very important question because it has a great deal of significance. If the IMF is giving up the gold, this means that they are weakened. They will have less clout in saying what the next reserve currency will be. If they wanted to have an international reserve currency they would at least have to pay a little bit respect for gold. But it also means that great strength is going from west to east. Those countries that are buying gold, like China and India and these other countries, are more likely going to be in the driver’s seats for setting up the next reserve standard. In the west, western central banks and the IMF, the gold is leaving. And this means that the economic power is shifting to the east and if history is of any value to us it means that the military power may shift as well.
RonPaul.com is maintained by independent grassroots supporters of Ron Paul. Neither this website nor the articles, posts, videos or photos appearing on it are paid for, approved, endorsed or reviewed by Ron Paul or his staff. For Ron Paul's temporary official website go to The-FREE-Foundation.org
Ron Paul is America's leading voice for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, sound money, and a pro-American foreign policy. Read more...
Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul
Ronald Reagan: "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
Ron Paul in the Air Force
Ron Paul is a proud Air Force veteran. He served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and then in the U.S. Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968. During his military service Ron Paul spent time on the ground in Iran, Pakistan, South Korea, Turkey, Ethiopia and other countries.
Ron Paul has been married to his wife Carol Wells since 1957. They have five children: Ronald, Lori, Rand, Robert, and Joy. Paul's son Rand is the junior senator from the state of Kentucky.
Processing your request, Please wait....
Recent Comments
1:35 am: "I wish he is as he appears to care. Never-the-less he’s a politician. They say all the good..." - L Thomas
11:07 pm: "Now that’s how a President speaks!" - John C
8:14 pm: "I’m sorry for you guys, this is a man that don’t dialogue with the lies, with the..." - Marco Delgado
7:18 pm: "What it takes to generate 9 million Megawatt-Hours of electricity per year: 1 1154 Megawatt Nuclar Power Plant..." - d
3:41 pm: "You have no clue what you are talking about. You think the fissile material in spent nuclear fuel will..." - cj3bm2hb
7:14 pm: "i know right, I feel so patriotic, like singing, whateh eh ehhhvveer happenned…. to truuuuee!!..." - bo op
6:37 pm: "Ya, except you have nothing to back up your claims." - FecalmatterScented
6:07 pm: "Her laughing just shows how dumb she really is" - stash744
3:31 pm: "your a fucking idiot, if the Illuminati had any effect AT ALL on the economy then they would most..." - xFlRSTx
6:39 pm: "If he accepted the site as a gift, he would take responsibility for, and endorse everything on the site,..." - Dan
6:26 pm: "More than likely his legal team did this on his behalf without his knowledge. Lawyers are after whatever..." - David
5:47 pm: "This seems odd. Which means all the information is not completely known. To me, for someone like RP to..." - Mike D
5:39 pm: "What happened here? This does not sound like something he could have done. Blows my mind. I hope more..." - Jesse
4:56 pm: "I remember when he filed with WIPO, it was the first time I completely disagreed with something he..." - Marcia Lynn
6:16 pm: "Maybe you guys should quit looking for the man to give you a medal and just give him the..." - Joshua Paul Hawkins
4:57 pm: "Actually, Saul, he *DID* own RonPaul.ORG, but let it expire in 2012." - Jbottero
3:33 pm: "As much as I love Ron Paul I do believe he was in the wrong, and I’m kinda disappointed in him. This..." - Carol
4:24 pm: "So so good" - 4HourWorkWeeks
4:07 pm: "Brings back memories" - 4HourWorkWeeks
2:51 pm: "she is a pro " - scottyray12