Ron Paul The Overlooked Republican Presidential Candidate

Ron Paul - Congressman from Texas

Among the numerous candidates currently running for president the most overlooked candidate is a Republican Congressman from Texas named Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is a medical doctor by training and served as a flight surgeon with the United States Air Force in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. He became active in Texas electoral politics in the 1970s and has served 17 years as a Representative from Texas in the U.S. Congress. In 1988 he bolted the Republican party and ran for President on the Libertarian ticket. As expected, he lost that race but he is now officially in the running for the Republican Presidential nomination and, while largely ignored by the mainstream media, he appears to be gaining traction on the Internet.

CNN / Lou Dobbs - Ron Paul Interview 2-26-2007

Ron Paul Discusses the Federal Reserve System

Like most fiscal conservatives and libertarians, Congressman Ron Paul is a foe of the Federal Reserve. He would prefer that the Federal Reserve System (which was created in 1914) be abolished and replaced by a 100% gold standard in which all U.S. currency would be fully convertible into gold. This, of course, would prevent the government from doing what is currently standard operating procedure, in that when it needs more money the Federal Government simply has the Federal Reserve create it. In the absence of a Federal Reserve System to create new money (or credit) the Federal Government would be forced to either not increase spending or go before the American people and raise taxes.

Ron Paul on Federal Reserve, Banking and the Economy

Ron Paul Officially Announces He is a Candidate for the Republican Nomination

Earlier this spring, Congressman Ron Paul moved from officially exploring a run for President to officially throwing his hat into the ring as a candidate seeking the Republican Presidential nomination.

In this next video Congressman Paul appears on C-Span on the day he officially announced his candidacy and, in this segment of the interview, fielded questions from callers about his views on the flat tax proposal (which calls for abolishing the income tax and IRS with a simple tax on x% of everyone's income), more on the Federal Reserve, his views on impeaching President Bush over the President's alleged lying about reasons for invading Iraq, and Social Security.

Ron Paul Officially Runs For President - C-SPAN Interview Part 4 of 4

For more on Ron Paul click here

Links

Congressman Ron Paul's Official Congressional Website

Official campaign Website for Candidate Ron Paul

Candidate Ron Paul's MySpace Profile

More by this Author


Comments 14 comments

MikeNV profile image

MikeNV 5 years ago from Henderson, NV

GDP 14.2 Trillion

Wages Earned (source 80+ Million Tax Returns IRS) 7.6 Trillion

Federal Government Spending: 3.6 Trillion (2 months to go)

3.6 Trillion in Spending / 7.6 In Total Wages Earned = .47, or 47% of wages earned.

Americans do not have 47% of their income to cover the Federal Spending. And this is 47% of EVERYONE, rich and poor alike.

The Debt can not be repaid and will continue to accumulate until the country collapses completely. This is basic mathematics.

So your views on Abortion, Gun Control, Gay Rights, or whatever will NOT matter when the country collapses. Thus the ONLY Choice right now is Ron Paul because the Debt issue supercedes all other issues.


Bergchri 5 years ago

Ron Paul is the only one who can bring this country back to what the founders always intended. We are no longer a country working like the founders created this system to do.

Who is Ron Paul? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0naXmQp83o


TravelinAsia profile image

TravelinAsia 6 years ago from Thailand/Southeast Asia

Ron Paul makes so much sense ... it is hard to believe he is a Republican!


shazz01109 profile image

shazz01109 6 years ago from Western Massachusetts

I wish I had seen this hub earlier. I supported Ron Paul. I hope that we will get serious politicians like him in the future.


DJ Funktual profile image

DJ Funktual 8 years ago from One Nation Under a Groove

Wow what a thread you guys. Very Stimulating.

I know this is a genral statement but I find it hard tobelieve that this guy is a REPUBLICAN. I thought thinking outside the box was against party policy. McCain is only there because of the same reason. Nobody trusts ANY of the GOP as it currently exists but at least these two guys have their own opinions.

GREAT HUB Chuck. Excellent.


Angela Harris profile image

Angela Harris 8 years ago from Around the USA

Wow, what a history/economics lesson in the comments section. If only public school history classes were so interesting...


Chuck profile image

Chuck 9 years ago from Tucson, Arizona Author

Thecounterpunch -

Thanks for your recent comment.

As to your comment on George Washington and the influence of the Illuminati, I followed your link and read both of Washington's letters that came up when I searched using the word "Illuminati" and all Washington does, and in the October 1798 letter only", is acknowledge that while some individuals within Freemasonry may have promoted these ideas, he knew of no Freemasonory Lodges that promoted these ideas. Further, he makes no mention of any member of the Constitutional Convention (which he presided over and which produced the current U.S. Constitution) or anyone else he worked with as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolution or as President of the U.S. who mentioned, let alone advocated, these ideas of Rousseau or were associated with the Jacobins and Illuminiti who were promoting Rousseau's ideas. Given that Rousseau was an established writer in Europe and that Jacobism and the Illuminiti established in Europe, it is not unusual that some people in the American colonies would be familiar with these ideas and that some of them would advocate and promote them. George Washington as much as admits this in his 1798 letter to George Washingon Snyder in which he writes:

"It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.

"The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned. (Source: Letter from George Washington to George Washington Snyder, October 24, 1798 - http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/mgwquery.html - use keyword "Illuminati" in search box to find letter)"

I will admit that my knowledge of Rousseau and his ideas is limited and that my knowledge of Jacobism and the ideas of the Illuminati even more limited. However, I think that I can safely state that from the beginnings of the United States to the present the dominent ideal has been individualism, not collectivism. Society is the creation of individuals, not the other way around. There are many benefits to organizing as a society, which is why individuals tend to choose to live and work within a social organization. But to start claiming that society is more important than the individuals who make up society or that the collective has some sort of a mind or will of its own just doesn't make sense.

As to the gold standard, I admit that this is not a cure all for economic problems and I am not aware of any reputable economist that claims that it will. What a gold standard will do is take away the government's ability to take property from people by manipulating and devaluing the money supply. Gold is not only universally accepted but also tends to retain its value over time.

A gold standard will not do away with the existance of banks or the practice of banks lending money at interest. As a former banker I see nothing wrong with banks or their being able to charge interest and make money. It will also not prevent the practice of fractional reserve banking whereby banks can increase the supply of money through multiple lending of the same deposit. However, under a gold standard, people will have the right to withdraw their gold from banks they feel are being reckless with their lending and can protect themselves from having to accept the checks or other bills issued by such banks by reserving the right to require that money owed to them be paid in gold, a requirement that is currently illegal in the U.S.

Thanks again for your comments and the links to your HubPages where you discussed your comments in greater length. I enjoyed reading them.

Chuck


thecounterpunch profile image

thecounterpunch 9 years ago

Hello Chuck,

I forgot to reply to you notably to

>while you are correct that Jean Jacques Rousseau and his social contract theory influenced the French Revolution, I have never seen anywhere where it had any influence on the Founding Fathers

So here it is from the hand of George Washington himself:

http://hubpages.com/politics/Georges_Washington_di...

"It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am."

I have many other things to reply but will rather make a hub pointing to your hub. For though I agree with Ron Paul (and he's far from being alone including Glabraith and Friedman http://hubpages.com/money/John_Kenneth_Galbraith_o... http://hubpages.com/money/Milton_Friedman_on_the_C... ) that the FED System is bad ( http://hubpages.com/business/Federal_Reserve_Act ) , I'm really not sure that a return to Gold Standard would change anything.


thecounterpunch profile image

thecounterpunch 9 years ago

I probably don't know dates of American Wars as well as you since I'm french but I'm learning your US History. I don't like to learn through historical books but through "primary sources" that's why I looked at Library of Congress and at medias at that time.

For example about the influence of French Revolution see George Washington's Letter here:http://hubpages.com/politics/Georges_Washington_di...

As for why Greenbacks didn't work see the last article I just posted an article here:http://hubpages.com/business/Money_is_about_Contro...


Chuck profile image

Chuck 9 years ago from Tucson, Arizona Author

I'm sorry counterpuch, but I believe that you are wrong. First of all the American Revolution preceeded the French Revolution and, if anything the French Revolution was influenced by the American Revolution, not the other way around. Secondly, the government of George Washington distanced itself from the government created by the French Revolution and did not apporve of the radicalism or bloodshed that accompanied the French Revolution. Finally, while you are correct that Jean Jacques Rousseau and his social contract theory influenced the French Revolution, I have never seen anywhere where it had any influence on the Founding Fathers including Jefferson who was among the more radical of them. The framers of the Constitution (which did not include Jefferson who was ambassador to France at the time and was lecturing Lafayette, one of the more moderate leaders of the early stages of the French Revolution, on the dangerous radicalization that was occuring within the French Revolutionary movement) who were more conservative than those who drafted and approved the Declaration of Indepencence, certainly did not favor the ideas of Rousseau or include them in the Constitution. Actually, if I recall correctly, it wasn't until the mid-19th century before the ideas of Rousseau and social compact theories began to influence American political thinking.

The idea of collective will was not a part of the culture that formed this country and, even today only a minority would endorse the idea. We have always been known for our ideas of "rugged" individualism. With the election of Nicolas Sarkozy this past weekend, even the French may be changing their views on government and the social contract theory of society.


thecounterpunch profile image

thecounterpunch 9 years ago

aren't we, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, a "government of the people, by the people and for the people"?

Well American Revolution is based on French Revolution whose father is Jean Jacques Rousseau (http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/rousseau.ht... with his Social Contract. For that purpose I just made an article on it here http://hubpages.com/politics/The_Social_Contract

It is clearly not based on individuals but on collective will.

Also after the French Revolution, not many people even french know that, I only read that in high school law history book in France, the debate about the French Constitution was about declaring the People as Sovereign or the Nation as Sovereign, finally it was the Nation. The Nation is represented by the Elites people elect. So indeed the People are not sovereign, the Elites are supposedgly for Public Good, supposedly not corruptable if they stick to the Social Contract Ideal ... :)


Chuck profile image

Chuck 9 years ago from Tucson, Arizona Author

Thanks for the comments Wajay and counterpunch. thecounterpunch, the best way to respond to your comment that creating money by governments is necessary in the modern world is to use the nineteenth century French economist, Claude Frederic Bastiat's method of reductum ad absurdum which translates to carrying an argument to its logical extreme to point out the fallacy of it. In this case if it is good for the government to be able to create money whenever it needs it, then shouldn't this also work just as well for individuals? After all, aren't we, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, a "government of the people, by the people and for the people"? So, if this is good for the government and the people are the government, then we should be able to create money when we need it as well. Of course, if everyone does this it is easy to see that money would soon be worthless as one of the main purposes of money is to ration the scarce goods and services in society. Once everyone can simply print whatever money they need then why bother - everyone can just go to the store and take whatever they need and we can dispense with clerks since, in this environment they would simply be collectors of worthless pieces of paper. Governments don't always exercise restraint and more than once in history nations have been destroyed when their governments printed too much money. In my childhood I met some people from Germany who lived through the horrible inflation that the government of the Weimer Republic unleashed following World War I. One fellow told me about visiting Berlin from Austria and having to carry his large denomination marks (I don't think there were any small denomination ones) in a bag because there were so many. He finally used his bag of money (whose face value was in the millions) to buy a map as that, at least, fit in his pocket and had some practical use. This inflation is often credited with being one of the major factors that brought Adolph Hitler to power.

When the government creates money it uses that money to purchase goods and services which has the effect of reducing the amount remaining for the rest of the people and prices have to adjust upward to ration the resulting smaller supply of goods and services. The only reason the government can get away with this is that if it exercises some restraint in its money creation so people will then only be hurt a little and there will still be goods and services available (at a higher price of course which means that each household can afford less than before the government went on its spending binge with phoney money). But is a thief who only takes half of his victim's money any less of a thief? The Constitution gives Congress, specifically the House of Representatives (where all money bills must originate) the power to levy taxes to pay for what the government needs. So if the government needs money under a gold standard it can always go to Congress and ask it to raise taxes. This can be unpopular and forces members of Congress to take responsibility for raising taxes. With House elections every two years, having to be accountable for their actions could (as the Framers of the Constitution intended) may cost many of them their jobs in the next election (again, in the Framer's time political office was considered a public service or duty which one took time away from their real job for a short while to help their fellow citizens - elective office was not viewed as a career as it is today). Thus, it is easier to simply secretly tax people by reducing the value of their money - not very honest but can work for a while.


thecounterpunch profile image

thecounterpunch 9 years ago

"gold standard in which all U.S. currency would be fully convertible into gold. This, of course, would prevent the government from doing what is currently standard operating procedure, in that when it needs more money the Federal Government simply has the Federal Reserve create it."

It isn't Gold Standard per se which preserves anything. Gold Standard is not suited for modern economy so it's good that we got rid off it. What is bad is that people do pay interests to the Banking Elite which have the Congress give her the right in 1913 to create money. If Interests would return to people it would not be so harmfull. That's what Kennedy tried to do with executive order 11110:http://hubpages.com/hub/Kennedy_Executive_Order_11... have even a photo of a 2$ Kennedy Bill which was actually in circulation.

But six months later you know ... and successor President Johnson did retire all the kennedy dollars.


wajay_47 9 years ago

Great hub, Chuck. Our politicians haven't done well at all with fiat money. The gold standard would be a tough conversion at first, but it would bring us back into the reality of our true worth. A flat rate tax is really the only way to be totally fair in our tax system. Of course, I can hear the dissenters now yelling "a tax cut for the rich!" Nice Hub and Ron Paul is a good candidate.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working