Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Ron Paul: Bold Economic Leadership

July 8, 2011 by  

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Ron Paul: Bold Economic Leadership”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • patriot1776

    I don’t know how anyone who claims to believe in liberty and the principles set forth in the Declaration could possibly, with good concience, vote for anyone but Ron Paul?

    • Jon Lewis

      Here! Here! Ron Paul 2012!!!

      • Collapse

        Ron Paul, what a joke :) He has not done anything during his long career as a politician. He is a problem, not a solution for the Republican party. He takes votes away from other Republican candidates who could win the election.

        • patriot1776

          This is why NOTHING CHANGES!! The ridiculous idea that if we vote for someone besides the norm then we will lose! Balderdash! We ALWAYS lose because we vote for the same old s@*t and expect different results! Whats the definition of crazy?

    • Howard

      Um, perhaps there are other more qualified freedom loving, budget balancing patriots running for the Republican nomination than Ron Paul.: Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Gov. Rick Perry?, Sarah Palin?, Tim Pawlenty, and who else that may decide to run. Even Newt Gingrich would be more qualified than Ron Paul if Newt could make a public vow to keep his pants zipper in the up position. The fascination with Ron Paul over obviously more qualified people is peculiar. Ron baby condemned the taking out of Bin Laden because it violated Pakistani sovereignty and by extension the US Constitution the day that Ron baby announced for high office. What a moral moron!! The world’s most prolific mass murderer of Americans can’t be brought down because Ron baby as President would have been more worried about Pakistani sovereignty than bringing a sweet end to the scumbag’s life. I believe that Ron baby also condemned Israel for defending itself during last year’s flotilla against hate-filled Islamicists who were on a Jihad. It seems that Ron baby has a problem making basic moral distinctions between good and evil. Ron Paul is the least qualified Republican Presidential candidate for a very long time. Yes, we are on the verge of a currency collapse, but we also need moral leadership, someone who can represent America’s values as a moral nation along with someone who can balance the budget. How about Michelle Bachman or Herman Cain??

      • patriot1776

        Freedom loving/ budget balancing? Michelle Bachman and Herman Cain? Again Learn about Ron Paul. Read a book. Turn OFF the news! They are lying to you! EVEN FOX! The other candidates are more of the same… big government while saying they are against it. I for one am tired if the lies from the supposed “conservatives” who are going to balance the budget, and shrink the size of the government. When was the last time a republican that fit the “acceptable moral conservative” mold actually did those things? Government has done nothing but GROW under republicans and democrats for the last 150 years. Time for a liberty minded, constitutionally savvy, CONSISTENT, President. You know like Thomas Jefferson, or James Madison was, NOT Bush/Obama lite, like the rest of the republican field is. Although I do like Bachman she has some deep misunderstandings about liberty and the constitution. She would be my seciond pick but will still be more of the same.

  • Pedro A Delgado

    Everything that Ron Paul said in this video (2007-2008) is true and still I cannot bring myself to vote for because the 10% that I do not like is too much for me to put up with.

    I will be campaigning for Michele Bachmann instead although I know very well that the Republican Party will try to destroy her as they did to Huckabee in 2008 and to Sara Palin in the brief two months that she was the VP candidate.

    But, they will fail this time as the people are very upset because they realize or sense that the Country is just about to go “belly up” and the status quo will assure that it will take place.

    Incidentally, Perry is probably part of that status quo which the people have to wise up and say NO

    • patriot1776

      Michelle Bachman is not a good choice. although better than the last two she will continue more of the same……mark my words. When we wake up and relize there is NO difference between the two parties except on the surface then we will fix this great Union.

      • patriot1776

        Ed Kilgore’s recent article at The New Republic entitled “The Hidden Meaning Behind Michele Bachmann’s ‘Constitutional Conservatism” explores what the author rightly if disparagingly recognizes as a rather radical proposition—returning the federal government to the confines of the U.S. Constitution. Of course, Kilgore considers any such program inherently sinister, writing of Bachmann: “her strong ‘constitutional conservative’ stance indicates, but only to those who are trained to listen, a decidedly radical agenda that is at least as congenial to rabid social conservatives as it is to property-rights absolutists or anti-tax zealots.”

        That Bachmann takes conservative positions that petrify liberals is without question. That she uses the Constitution as her ultimate guide is highly questionable. Bachmann gave her definition of constitutional conservatism during her presidential campaign announcement speech last month:

        “As a constitutional conservative, I believe in the founding fathers’ vision of a limited government that trusts in and perceives the unlimited potential of you, the American people. I don’t believe that the solutions of our problems are Washington-centric. I believe they are with every-American-centric.”

        There’s nothing wrong with Bachmann’s statement per se, it’s just that there is nothing Constitution-specific about it. It was simply a rhetorical collage, similar to the patriotic displays Americans might enjoy on the 4th of July. That a politician would speak this way is nothing new, but Bachmann’s definition of what makes her a “constitutional conservative” is vague enough that virtually any politician could employ the same rhetoric for their own political ends. No doubt, President Obama fancies himself a constitutionalist, whose own “Washington-centric” solution to healthcare reflects an “American-centric” spirit of charity and compassion.

        The American Spectator’s Joseph Lawler makes the distinction between symbolic rhetoric and genuine constitutional conservatism:

        “With all due respect to Rep. Bachmann, it’s pretty clear that she is not the standard bearer for constitutional conservatism… No, that would be Rand Paul, who also describes himself as a constitutional conservative. What the label means, in Paul’s case, is that he has taken his father’s libertarian politics and packaged them for a wider conservative audience. That means an emphasis on observing the Constitution and the rule of law while pursuing traditional conservative values.”

        Lawler then describes the practical application of Sen. Paul’s constitutional conservatism: “In practical terms, Rand Paul tends to be among the most fiscally conservative and least interventionist of the Republican caucus. But a look at his voting record doesn’t reveal radicalism or a plan to restore some lost utopian vision of the U.S… Insofar as Michele Bachmann supports ideas and policies that would radicalize the Republican Party, she’s less of a constitutional conservative than the Pauls and other likeminded members of Congress.”

        When Congressman Ron Paul says that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional government programs, he is absolutely correct. But his solution? To wean citizens from their dependence on such programs over a practical period of time. Bachmann generally agrees with Rep. Paul on this issue, as do most conservatives. When Sen. Rand Paul declares the Patriot Act unconstitutional, he cites the obvious violation of the 4th amendment. Bachmann disagrees with Sen. Paul on this issue, as do many conservatives. Many conservatives have simply decided they support the Patriot Act as a “national security” issue, and don’t really care what the Constitution has to say about it. This is similar to the attitude of “constitutional scholar” Obama, who has the same high regard for “crucial” and “necessary” national healthcare legislation.

        Herein lies the difference between being a mere “conservative” and a “constitutional conservative.” It also reminds us that even those who strongly desire a return to the letter-of-the-law Constitution, like the Pauls, also understand that our federal government has strayed so far from the Founders’ vision that it won’t be stuffed back in its constitutional box overnight.

        That anyone would even want to return the federal government back to its constitutionally proper limits is what the Left will continue to consider “extreme.” That much of what the Right promotes is equally outside constitutional boundaries will always inhibit its ability to be comprehensively conservative in a true constitutionalist sense. Republicans like Bachmann will no doubt be constitutional conservatives on occasion—but by default, not design. And for either Left or Right to concede in any manner that our nation’s founding charter simply doesn’t matter, is not only a permanent recipe for unlimited government—but negates the entire purpose of even having a Constitution in the first place.

    • Andrea B

      Just out of curiousity, do you agree with Michelle Bachmann on MORE than 90% of the issues?

      Don’t get me wrong, I like Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, but Ron Paul is the ONLY ONE who CONSISTENTLY votes PRO liberty and PRO Constitution.

      We’ve got over 20 years of voting history for Ron Paul as Texas Congressman. How many years of voting records do you have for Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin?

      We’ve got Ron Paul writing books like ‘End the Fed,’ ‘The Revolution: A Manifesto,’ and ‘A Foreign Policy of Freedom’ so that people will know EXACTLY where he stands, and why he stands there.

      Ron Paul has enough faith in individuals to live their lives how THEY see fit without total dependence on govt to tell them how to live. It’s too bad we don’t have that kind of faith in ourselves. We have so little, in fact, that we find it necessary to agree with the president on 100% of the issues, because 90% just isn’t good enough…that 10% thats left over may be something that we have to decide for ourselves, and we wouldn’t want that happen right?

      • Ed Currier

        Here here!! Wake up people. Turn off espn or “reality tv” for a while, pick up a book and try to learn about who Ron Paul is and what he stands for. He is the REAL DEAL and exactly what this country needs to get back on track. Read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our Declaration of Independence, Learn what our constitutional republic is all about and how far we’ve strayed from it’s path. The time has come to stand up and be counted. There is a solution to this major mess we find ourselves in and the first step is to re-educate ourselves and others. Need a little help ? Check out your local Tea Party. And may Heaven help us all in this struggle.

  • Jeff in OH

    He’s good on some things and terrible on others. He would gut the armed forces (which is what the main reason for central government is for) and leave us defenseless. We would also have a bunch of brainless crack heads like Obummer around because of legalizing drugs, which is why allot of people are for him. We need the strongest army and law enforcement to keep the greatest country safe. He also thinks the US is responsible for the 911 attack. I like some of his ideas but I would never vote for him as president. His son YES, but not Ron

    • patriot1776

      He does not beleive that we are responsible for 9-11! He merely states the fact that our foreign policy is a main point of contention among the arab world and if we would use our own natural recources and stop depending on arab oil we wouldn’t be over there meddling where we don’t belong. Most likely the terrorists wouldn’t try to attack us if we were leaving them alone. Common sense. If Saudi Arabia had bases here, was buying our politicians for our natural resources, and had a military presence in our country would you be ok with that? Or would you be pissed off? Don’t get me wrong the fault in the end lies with those who decided to commit such a dasardly atrocity, and there is NEVER an excuse for that. They should ALL pay with their lives. But, you cannot be honest in saying that our foreign policy has not helped to churn the coals.

    • patriot1776

      Ron Paul’s stance on drugs:

      Q: In your 1988 campaign you said, “All drugs should be decriminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other adults. There should be no controls on production, supply or purchase for adults.” Is that still your position?

      Ron Paul: Yeah. It’s sort of like alcohol. Alcohol’s a deadly drug, kills more people than anything else. And today the absurdity on this war on drugs has just been horrible. Now the federal government takes over and overrules states where state laws permit medicinal marijuana for people dying of cancer. The federal government goes in and arrests these people, put them in prison with mandatory sentences. This war on drugs is totally out of control. If you want to regulate cigarettes and alcohol and drugs, it should be at the state level. That’s where I stand on it. The federal government has no prerogatives on this.

      Q: But you would decriminalize it?

      Ron Paul: I would, at the federal level. I don’t have control over the states. And that’s why the Constitution’s there.

      He CLEARLY supports the fouders view of STATES deciding for themselves and retaining the power to do so! He talks about FEDERAL laws NOT ALL laws regarding drugs. This is consistent with the concept of liberty-let people decide for themselves locally. If you don’t like it don’t live there!

  • patriot1776

    Wow, you guys misunderstand his stance on the military and drugs. Keep believing the tyrants who want people like Ron Paul OUT of power because he actually believes in a STRONG DEFENSE not OFFENSE, and believes that States should be allowed to decide the issue of drugs NOT the Federal government. Ask yourselves this question regarding drugs. Why did the Federal Geovernment in 1919 understand that to prohibit alcohol they needed to pass an amendment (18th) in order to assume power over the issue, but now it is not questioned where the federal government gets its power to prohibit any drug it sees fit? This is another power grab by the government where they have none. The States should decide these things for themselves as the constitution intended. As for leaving us defensless…….get real look up his position and stop getting your info on soundbytes.

    • Dan az

      Thanks you saved me of allot of typing that I hate!To think that we need 800 bases around the world to disrupt the regimes in those countries and at the cost of 1 trillion dollars a year is going to lessen our defense is got to be msm watchers.Smaller gubmnt, stop spending money that you don’t have, and bringing our troops home, and stop meddling in other countries affairs is some how wrong.Tell me how could you come up with that?Have we been attack besides the false flag at the twin towers and where might I add is our troops stationed?Not here!Look the fact that he thinks drugs should be controlled by state law is what the constitution is all about.Name one thing that this gubmnt has taken control of that hasn’t cost more or has destroyed.If you don’t want a choice that is for liberty then move.The states have the rights and the gubmnt is suppose to protect those rights but it is the other way around now.They think they gave us those rights WRONG!God gave you those rights thats why we have a bill of rights that the states signed and to limit gubmnt to hold true those rights not to subvert them.This man has been saying this for the past thirty years and know one is listening to him.BTW if all you have is a 10% problem with what he stands for then show me one person that has not bent over as soon as they got in and changed over night.Tits don’t make a politician and good looks don’t either and we all know what a good reader can get you so look into his history like you should be doing with all who you vote for not at their tits.

  • jfreedom

    Right on patriot. People need to do more research on Ron Paul and they will see that he is the real solution.

    • Dan az

      The ONLY solution!

  • LarrWayne

    It seems I had to outwit the devil to get the Ron Paul video to play. Too much truth is a punishing wound to the enemies of America. If gas prices are too high in 2012, I’ll walk to the voting booth to vote for Ron Paul 2012.

  • Christin

    Great video on Ron Paul!

    Ron’s been saying the same financial truths for years.

    If you all want your country back HE’S your man!

  • art

    Some people keep repeating Islam did 911,
    where did that come from? The controlled
    Media? Just type into the Internet,
    “The military KNOWS Israel did 911″.
    The same Zionist that Bachmann and Palin
    will defend.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.