September 12, 2011 by Bob Livingston
Education: B.S. from Gettysburg College, M.D. from Duke University.
Military: Flight surgeon in the USAF 1963-1968.
Professional: Obstetrician/Gynecologist. Author of 10 books.
Family: Married with five children.
Political: U.S. House of Representatives, 1976-1977, 1979-1985, 1997-present. Ran for President as Libertarian in 1988 and as a Republican in 2008.
State of residence: Texas
Campaign website: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
Either Paul is the smartest man in the room that is the GOP field or heâ€™s a prophet. It has to be one or the other, because only Paul was warning in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s and three years ago that were we headed right smack dab into the middle of where we now find ourselves.
And certainly, the Johnny-come-latelys to the battle for a sound money policy and an end to the Federal Reserve â€” Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich â€” canâ€™t say theyâ€™ve advocated against the Federal Reserve for longer than a month or two. For them, itâ€™s a matter of expediency and a political ploy. For Paul, itâ€™s a matter of conviction.
A look back over his record shows a man who is today the same man he was yesterday, last year, last decade, 50 years ago â€” ever since he became a disciple of Ludwig von Mises and believer in Austrian economics while pursuing his medical career.
His entry into politics was sparked by President Richard Nixonâ€™s price controls and the decision to remove the United States from the gold standard.
“I remember the day very clearly,” Paul says of Aug. 15, 1971. “Nixon closed the gold window, which meant admitting that we could no longer meet our commitments and that there would be no more backing of the dollar. After that day, all money would be political money rather than money of real value. I was astounded.”
The Republican establishment calls Paul Dr. No, because in all votes Paul defaults to the Constitution. If Congress is pushing a bill that exceeds its authority, Paul will vote no, no matter who in the Republican hierarchy is pushing him to vote yes. He always votes against tax increases and bills that increase spending in unConstitutional ways.
Itâ€™s a position that hasnâ€™t endeared him to the establishment, and thatâ€™s one of the reasons so many in the establishment are working so hard behind the scenes to defeat him. Theyâ€™re doing this by attempting to marginalize him and misrepresenting his positions on the issues in an effort to portray him as a kook.
But if you examine what he says about the major issues as opposed to what his opponents or the mainstream media say, you have to conclude that he is the only true conservative in the race. He opposes abortion, he believes in secure borders and opposes amnesty, he wants to get out of international organizations like NATO and the U.N., he wants to repeal the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, he wants to end the â€śdishonest, immoral and unconstitutional Federal Reserve System,â€ť he wants to remove restrictions on drilling for oil, eliminate the EPA, repeal the Federal gasoline tax, and repeal the 16th Amendment.
He also wants to bring home American troops stationed abroad and fighting wars for foreign nations. This stance has caused many to mischaracterize him as isolationist. Thatâ€™s not true in any sense. He wants to engage other nations through trade. He just believes the proper use for the military is national defense. He rejects the idea that the United States should be deciding who rules which country and spending money blowing up people and buildings and then paying to rebuild whatâ€™s been destroyed.
Paulâ€™s stance on the issues, his strong moral character and his understanding about keeping our nation a Republic as the Founders intended is drawing the interest of people from all sides of the political spectrum, as evidenced by this article that ran on The Huffington Post.
In a nutshell, Paul believes in liberty, sound money, secure national borders and a strong defense. He is a statesman in a nation sorely in need of one. He is a person who puts country ahead of self-interest. What could possibly be wrong with that?