Rep. Ron Paul


Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) discusses the hope for a new political realignment around the issues of peace, the Bill of Rights and ending corporate welfare, his support for the “War is Making You Poor” Act, how government insolvency can lessen restrictions on individual liberty and why the US only needs a small defensive military supplemented by volunteer militias.

MP3 here. (9:57)

Congressman Ron Paul represents Texas’s 14th district. He is the author of The Revolution: A Manifesto, A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship and Freedom Under Siege. His archived columns for appear at

54 thoughts on “Rep. Ron Paul”

  1. Unfortunately, the reality is very different. Referring to the books by Bob Aldridge everything he wrote on that page, the bloody fools in the Pentagon really do aim to achieve a disarming and unanswerable first-strike capability. Even if it´s only for blackmail as Mr David Guinness, former information officer of CND, London, suggested, it´s extremely dangerous because the only answer is a hair-trigger Launch On Warning. Bob Aldridge commented on the new missiles to be deployed on ships in the Black Sea in Bulgaria and on land in Poland and Romania : "Whether on ships or land, they are still a necessary component for an unanswerable first strike".

    1. Huh? So who isn't receiving money from corporate interests in America? George "I'm extremely rich but I don't want you to be like me" Soros funded Democracy Now and the anti-war left while Bush was in office–why do you think it was so well organized?

      And where are they now??? How come Cindy Sheehan is now off the radar??? Is it because Georgey got his corporate interest into office???

  2. I'll second that suggestion. Ritter has completely disappeared as near as I can tell, but he's the one who helped me keep my head on straight about WMDs in Iraq.

  3. First, there is no "left" in American politics, with a few exceptions. The duopoly is (1) the Right (Democrats) and (2) the Even More Right (Republicans). Both are Corporate, Fascist, and Imperialist.

    Second, Paul had his chance: he was suddenly very scarce when Kucinich moved to impeach first Cheney, then Bush. He said several times that he was not sure that either was guilty of impeachable offenses. On the other hand, Paul rushed into impeaching Clinton even while saying it was on the wrong charge.

    Does Paul have memory problems?

    Third, after splitting a large antiwar vote in the primaries (what the Neo-Conservatives were contributing to his campaign for), Paul later suspended his own campaign and described his goal as trying to save the Republican Party.

    Why would anyone "Left" support a classic British Liberal Social Darwinist–for anything, even dogcatcher?

    1. E.A. Costa: ya, RP should have supported Bush + Cheney's impeachment.
      But why don't you support Ron Paul's platform of a more limited government? Why do you want welfare programs?

    2. While Kucinich was screeching euphorically in praise of Obama/Biden at the Democratic convention, Paul was being denied access to the Republican convention for not endorsing McCain.

      Since then, Obama expanded the violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan while renagging on his promise to withdraw from Iraq. When can we expect to see impeachment proceedings against Obama & Co from Kucinich?

      Kucinich voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (HR4655), which is the precursor to the Iraq War. Paul voted against it arguing that it would lead to war.

  4. Ron Paul did support the impeachment of Bush, these liberals are just trying to discredit someone who is honestly for limited government. Also, it seems only Libertarians are being outspoken against these terrible wars. The anti-war left sure go quiet when Obama got into office.

    1. (1) Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. Neither is Barr.

      (2) Paul did not support Kucinich's motion to impeach either Cheney or Bush. In the case of Bush, he at first opposed it and then voted to deadend it in judiciary. He also said several times that he was not sure Bush had done anything impeachable. Paul's speech during the impeachment hearings against Clinton, on the other hand, makes quite different arguments. Paul and his Paulistas should read Paul's own stuff some time. If Paul had applied the criteria he used in regard to Clinton's impeachment, he would have had no choice but to move for impeachment, not only for lying the US into a war, but for abrogating the constitution again and again.

      (3) The only social welfare in the US is Corporatist, Capitalist, Fascist, and Imperialist.

  5. @E.A. Costa:
    The impeachment was a bureaucratic waste of time–Paul knew this and openly said so. Paul did more for the anti-war movement in the debates with Republicans then any bureaucratic administrative orgy would ever do. He was laughed at, ridiculed, and challenged by the pro-war media at every corner but he hung in there and in my opinion opened many people's minds.

    People like you make me laugh. Why you want to rely on a broken system to fight a broken system is beyond my comprehension. You stick to your "impeachment trials" and us Paultards will fight the good fight, win small battles, and in the end slowly change the heart and minds of a severely broken Republic.

    1. You contradict yourself and jump to many conclusions, Monsieur Brian.

      Kucinich's impeachment motion was a waste of time but Paul's inconsistent blather opens people's minds?

      As for the broken system, dear boy, it is unfixable at the moment and there is no going back Your hypocritical Hyper-Capitalist Classic British Liberal Social Darwinism was absurrd on its face long ago.

      Say, dear fellow, since Paul has graced you with the enlightenment that you own yourself, can the one who does the owning sell the one who does the being owned to someone else?

      Wow–the metaphysics of internal contracts and exchanges never ceases to amuse.

      Almost as hilarious as Ayn Rand.

      1. "inconsistence blather?" This proves you don't know a single thing about Dr. Paul.

        Opinion are like @$$holes and the difference between yours and mine is mine is built on facts!

        "Your hypocritical Hyper-Capitalist Classic British Liberal Social Darwinism was absurrd on its face long ago." LOL! And Communism and/or Fascism is not absurd? Liberty is the only true neutral and balanced vehicle and I have the Internet to prove what I'm saying is absolutely correct!!! Funny how people like you can take the Internet for granted, just so you can use it daily to beat people in the head with your opinions and beliefs–have you shaved your head lately and bought new white laces for your Doc Martins today, Sir?

        "Can the one who does the owning sell the one who does the being owned to someone else?" What does this inconsistent blather have to do with Paleolibertarianism?

        Ayn Rand despised Paleolibertarianism.

        1. "Liberty is the only true neutral and balanced vehicle and I have the Internet to prove what I'm saying is absolutely correct!!!"

          Quite droll, Monsieur, merci.

          It is difficult to invent such fantasies out of whole cloth. "Free market", "individual", "liberty", "Invisible hand", and now "the neutral and balanced vehicle of the Internet", which, merely by the way, was military in origin.

          One leaves you to your own strange and curious fantasies. Thanks much for the entertainment. You should really charge. You'd be filling the tents in the cornfields a hundred years ago.

          It is a matter of no consequence whatever what Ayn Rand at this or that moment felt she despised. Or Ron Paul either.

          1. Absolutely zero substance here. Complete drivel!!!

            By the way, you're the one who brought up Ayn Rand!!! LOL!!!

            Take much Prozac, do you???

  6. Dr. Ron Paul, the obstetrician–a tale in itself–but also thus a member of a state certified guild that ensures its livelihood by monopoly.

    That's a Paulist "Libertarian" for you.

    Note also how many midwives–historically and clinically much superior to obstetricians–the medicos put out of business by law.

    And of course Paul is against any sort of universal Health Insurance right–and he is completely unbiased in the matter.

    One does not have the time for more or one would go into great detail about Paul's affairs with the Austrians, which is close to science fiction on both sides.

    1. Dr. Paul is 74. When he started as an obstetrician there were thousands of midwives across America and the "medical industrial complex" wasn't even a complex back then. He also treated people for free back then–something you'd be locked up for now. Dr. Paul has opposed the medical industrial complex every step of the way but he isn't about to throw in the towel, just because he's losing, and move to the mountains and live off the land–it appears neither are you my keyboard revolutionary friend!

      Dr. Paul is the only doctor/congressman that has publicly and professionally opposed the Codex Alimentarius Commission, something your European comrades were too blinded to do!!!

      Of course Dr.Paul is against the corporate takeover of another industry. Why would he agree with the system that Obama and his corporate fascists have introduced??? Is Obama-care like Japan's, Swedan's, or even Canada's haealth care system???? NO! It's an absolute monopoly and and a tyranny granted to the very people who ruined the system from the start!!!

      Again, you know nothing of Dr.Paul, nor do you seem to know anything about the US health system or Corporate fascism.

      Stop pretending like you speak French and show some intelligence and substance, this is getting boring!!!!!

      1. Good point about Austrian economics. Americans need to look to their OWN great economists, not a bunch of Hapbsburg Empire monarchists and British Empire thugs like David Ricardo and Mal-thus.

        I'd recommend Benjamin Franklin and Henry Carey, for starters.

  7. "Liberty is the only true neutral and balanced vehicle and I have the Internet to prove what I'm saying is absolutely correct!!!"

    Quite droll, Monsieur, merci.

    It is difficult to invent such fantasies out of whole cloth. "Free market", "individual", "liberty", and now "the neutral and balanced vehicle of the Internet", which, merely by the way, was military in origin.

    One leaves you to your own strange and curious fantasies. Thanks much for the entertainment. You should really charge. You'd be filling the tents in the cornfields a hundred years ago.

    It is a matter of no consequence whatever what Ayn Rand at this or that moment felt she despised.

    Try this FACT on for size, Monsieur, Dr. Ron Paul, the obstetrician, is a member of a state-certified guild that makes its livelihood on a monopoly enforced by law, and which, among other things, by that same legally sanctioned monopoly put most midwives, much superior to the medicos, out of business long ago.

    Typical "Paulist" Libertarian.

    Paul gathered $35 million in campaign contributions, and spent most of it, but kept a sizable amount.

    Perhaps his gifts to Antiwar are sizable and one has therefore tried to avoid pissing in the rice bowl.

    But if you want facts, facts are facts.

    1. Once again, zero substance, pure unfiltered drivel.

      Your "issue" seems to revolve around midwives, why not stop posting drivel about the good doctor and email him??? I'll bet you won't though because once he steps on all your fantasies, what then will happen to your ego???

      1. I support Ron Paul as a person. Thank you Ron Paul for all of your work and effort.

        I do NOT support Ron Paul as a politician. Ron Paul's (and Dennis Kucinich's) ONLY roles are to legitimate the U.S. government in the eyes of thinking citizens – to make the landless peasants HOPE that the system can somehow be made to work. IT CAN'T. The Government is illegitimate. Strip it of its legitimacy by organizing voting boycotts, or vote for a loyal Republican. Those are your options.

  8. Of the $35 million that "Dr." Ron Paul got in campaign contributions, which he doled out to relatives and other rank amateurs to run commercials in New Hampshire about Mexican illegals, he apparently was left with about ten percent.

    The investment income on that should be enough to fund antiwar for a year, and a lot more valuable that his warmed over and repetitive Social Darwinist drivel.

  9. McKinney has already been on an aid ship to Gaza, showing she has bigger balls and sounder perspective than all the rest of the political establishment put together.

    How about Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich on the same American ship bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza?

    For all they have accomplished with their Congressional seats why not put them to some constructive use?

    Hey, and maybe Holder will prosecute them under the statute the US Supreme Court just ruled constitutional today, that, is for bringing material aid to Hamas.

    That would make an interesting trial.

    Come on, Congressman Paul, don't you in effect call yourself a "revolutionary"–show everyone how it's done. It's time to put up or shut up.

  10. Incidentally, "Doctor" Ron Paul, the obstetrician, started his medical career in the US military during Vietnam.

    He retails one incident about how moved he was when he was treating US helicopter pilots who had been wounded. But he never had one word to say about the millions of Vietnamese civilians the US murdered, including in the free fire zones–a helicopter specialty.

    1. Your accusations are beyond unreasonable. If this is the type of stuff you choose as your "issues," then you should just stop following politics and the news, sell your PC and move to the mountains.

      I think Ted Kaczynski has an unoccupied cabin in Lincoln, Montana where you can dwell….

  11. The debating tactics are very amusing. Ignore every point–then attempt to isolate all dicta to an "issue" of one's own construction.

    Discounting the abuse and ad hominems, note carefully the skeleton, which is a naive variation on the Straw Man.

    Pay close attention, mes enfants, one can use this specimen as a case study.

  12. Come on, Paul and Kucinich–eminent antiwar "activists" and "Constitutionalists"–the new Supreme Court ruling is perversion of the Constitution.

    Let's see you put your little asses on the line–like McKinney did–and get on an aid ship to Gaza today, then fight any case that Holder dares to bring.

    Come on you blowhards.

    How about more than lip service.

    All those naive kids in the '60's did more getting out of bed in the morning that you supposed antiwar stiffs have done for forty goddamned years.

    Get off the schoolbus of your minds.

      1. That means that high profile Congressmen, like Paul, who could not even bring himself to vote for Kucinich's impreachment, or Kucinich himself, who could not bring himself to oppose Obama's health fraud, on an aid ship would do more than sitting on their blowhard asses in Congress.

        McKinney, who has real balls, and is no blowhard,already established that.

        Any other questions, mon enfant?

      2. The really hilarious aspect of your question, Monsieur bob35983, is that it implicitly suggests that Doctor Ron Paul, the obstetrician, as a male, is a blowhard when it comes to "delivering" babies as well.

        Just how many times has he been pregnant and given birth?

        My, how did the human race survive so long without his services?

  13. All that said, Dr. Paul's political platform is very intelligent – it SHOULD be a perfect model to rally around for all those opposed to the status quo. Yes, it can be legitimately criticized, but so what, this is politics and politics is never ideal. But rally how? Through our patently rigged, uneven, binary political process? Why would any sane person choose to work through elections which are not honest?

  14. American masses are ignorant and they are only nationalist. The common man in America has no interest but it will change as the internet information flow is weit and breit. In America real rulers are multi nationals and defence industry together with army after so called 9/11 CIA has become too powerful and have huge budget and they have to fool the americans with stories to get their money.

  15. 'Progressive' Democrats were never serious about impeaching Bush. As soon as Obama was elected, they forgot about it. It's worth noting that Kucinich justified his switching his vote on ObamaCare as being necessary to save Obama's presidency. Why call for the impeachment of Bush and defend Obama, when Obama is committing the same crimes? Party politics.

    1. As far as Paul's hypocrisy is concerned, it does not matter whether there were any others besides Kucinich seriously moving for impeachment.

      Kucinich made impeachment motions in regard to both Cheney and Bush (exactly the right order by the way)

      These were serious motions.

      Paul was bound by all he said in the past to support it and as his Constitutional duty.

      Read his speech when Clinton was impeached.

      Instead Paul stood around hemming and hawing with his finger up his ass, talking about procedure and "evidence", expressing doubts whether there were impeachable offenses.

  16. As a matter of fact McKinney, then Congressman, was also the first to submit a motion to impeach Bush, on December 8, 2006.

    1. Yes, Monsieur Lloyd, you are quite transparent, but that is irrelevant to the point.

      Anyway, this is all water under the bridge–more a chronicle of how the US duopoly, and its increasingly ignorant and incompetent populace, at all levels, has run itself off the cliff and continues in free fall.

      And Paul is an integral part of that duopoly.

      As is his son, who just reneged on his pledge not to take money from those who supported the financial bailouts.

      No doubt he learned a lot from his father.

  17. Here's a hilarious story from the AP today to get your teeth into, mes enfants:

    "NEW YORK – Stocks fell Wednesday after new home sales dropped by a third to a record low last month following the end of homebuyer tax credits.

    The Dow Jones industrial average fell about 6 points in afternoon trading while broader indexes had steeper drops. Treasury prices rose, pushing down interest rates. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note fell to its lowest level in more than a year….

    The government's report that new homes sales fell to a seasonally adjusted annual pace of 300,000 was far weaker than expected. Economists polled by Thomson Reuters had forecast sales would drop nearly 19 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 410,000.

    On Tuesday, an unexpected drop in sales of existing homes also hurt stocks….Traders were braced for more bad news Wednesday."

    The hilarity comes in the fact that there are some many "economists" and "financial experts" expressing surprise that the drop was so steep.

    This kind of stupidity and incompetence is far beyond any possible natural endowment–it has been the hard-earned product of half a century at least of determined effort.

  18. "If Karl Marx and V. I. Lenin were alive today, they would be leading contenders for the Nobel Prize in economics.

    Marx predicted the growing misery of working people, and Lenin foresaw the subordination of the production of goods to financial capital’s accumulation of profits based on the purchase and sale of paper instruments. Their predictions are far superior to the 'risk models' for which the Nobel Prize has been given and are closer to the money than the predictions of Federal Reserve chairmen, US Treasury secretaries, and Nobel economists, such as Paul Krugman, who believe that more credit and more debt are the solution to the economic crisis…."

    Paul Craig Roberts.

    Bingo. There is a serious economist in the house.

  19. "For example, in the interest of “doing something” the administration has enacted a unilateral ban on offshore drilling. This is counterproductive. I am proud to cosponsor legislation to lift that ban. Why punish other oil companies and their hard-working employees who had nothing to do with this disaster, and who have better safety records? " ~ Ron Paul

    I take it back. FUCK YOU RON PAUL.

    1. Not sure what that is about. Think about it Benjamin. We don't have an option for oil replacement yet. The super majority of foreign oil is being consumed by the PRC, India and Japan. So if we do not continue pumping oil out of good wells we are stuck. Why?

      How do you function? Do you spend time on the internet everyday? More than likely or you could not have posted on this site. If the US has limited access to fuel, infrastructure will be effected. The electric companies rely on oil for all of the trucks in their fleet, for back up generators, for repair trucks, you have to think of what could happen in the mean time. I assume you eat at least once a day. If the US has limited access to fuel who will transport your food from the farm to the processing plant to the store? Really how would anything get done without a good option for tractor trailers hauling goods. You can't shut something off, especially if you don't have the science to back that dicision up, with out a viable solution in place.

      1. The oil leak is screwed up and the Obama Administration's complete lack of response is unconscionable and will effect generations to come. Make sure you are attacking all the guilty parties involved. After all aren't we in two wars in the middle east over oil?

  20. E. A. Costa you are all over the map. What is it that you have against Austrian Economists? I challenge you to seriously read The Road to Serfdom by Hayek, then read The Theory of Money and Credit by Ludwig Von Mises. Hayek wrote his book as an anwer to Karl Marx's ideas.

    Contrary to popular belief we haven't been living in a truely laissez-faire society since the banks bought congress in 1913 through the inactment of the Federal Reserve Act. The Federal Reserve is made up of private banks. To further clarify this for you please to a search for this federal court case: John L. LEWIS vs The United States of America, No. 80-5905. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

    1. Dear child, Mises on "Money", HAHAHAHA.

      Don't have either the time or the inclination to instruct you. And certainly not for free. My fees are usually reasonable but in your case it is very doubtful you could afford it.

      The "market" does not even generate accurate intelligence about the "market".

      Have a nice day.

  21. If you look at the word Capitalist, one of the first people to use the word in a published work was Karl Marx. Capitalism is a newer screwed up version of what our nation was founded on. But the problem is most people are attacking the ideas of laissez-faire economics when they pooh pooh Capitalism. The two are completely different birds.

    I would say if you favor communism, the PRC is looking non stop for English teachers. I hear that's good work. It would bring you up close and personal to Marx's philosophy in real time. And it's only for one year, so you could come back revived to teach us all more about the beauties of communism. Why study it when you can live it?

    1. Wo shuode bu hao. Xiancai mei you lian xi. Wo shuo hun Beifangde fayin. Dong bu dong, Meigguo shaguade yanggui?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.