Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

The Paul Campaign’s Strategic Mistake

January 24, 2012 by  

The Paul Campaign’s Strategic Mistake

If Ron Paul’s libertarian handlers and support base could escape their ideology, Paul could be much better positioned to win the Republican nomination.

Here are some suggestions.

Paul should be making the point that Social Security and Medicare are threatened by multitrillion-dollar wars that are funded by debt, bailouts of a deregulated banking system and money creation to keep the banks afloat. Libertarians support deregulation, but their position has always been that deregulated industries must not be bailed out with public subsidies, much less subsidies that are so extensive that they threaten government solvency and the value of the currency.

Instead of hitting hard on the serious threat to Social Security and Medicare posed by Obama and Republican candidates for the nomination — all of whom serve Wall Street, the military/security complex and the Israel lobby — Paul has been positioned both by his supporters and his opponents as the danger to Social Security and Medicare. This is an amazing strategic mistake by the Paul campaign.

The mistake is somewhat understandable. Paul’s supporters are mainly among the young. The importance to them of Social Security and Medicare will not register for many years, but for the vast majority of the population, Social Security and Medicare are essential for survival. A candidate who is positioned as the destroyer of what scant economic protection the American elderly have is not positioned to win an election for President.

Many libertarians regard Social Security and Medicare as welfare handouts and as Ponzi schemes, when in fact these programs are a form of private property. People pay for these programs all their working lives, just as they pay premiums for private medical policies and make their deposits into private pension plans. Libertarians are great defenders of private property, so why don’t they defend the elderly’s private property rights in Social Security and Medicare benefits? Social Security and Medicare are contracts that the government made with citizens. These contracts are as valid and enforceable as any other contracts. If Social Security and Medicare are in dire trouble, why is the government wasting trillions of dollars on behalf of private armaments industries, a neocon ideology and Israel’s territorial ambitions? Why isn’t this question the most important issue in the campaign?

Instead, in a decade that has seen two massive stock market crashes and an amazing amount of financial fraud, libertarians prattle on about privatizing Social Security and about how much larger the retirement pensions would be. They speak about delaying the Social Security retirement age to 70 without any thought to what a person does who is retired by his employer at 65. People who suggest making Social Security and Medicare off-limits until people reach 70 need to have a look at the cost of private medical plans for older people. A group plan with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida for a 64-year old woman has an $18,000 premium, large deductibles per medical issue and a 20 percent co-pay. Even a person with private insurance faces potentially ruinous healthcare expenses.

Libertarians will not wait to think before they inform me that private savings are funded, but Social Security and Medicare are not. They are incorrect on both accounts.

Social Security and Medicare are funded with a payroll tax. It is true that the government has stolen the funds, spent them and left non-marketable IOUs in their place. But in our deregulated casino financial system with street registration of “securities,” the same thing happens to private holdings. Where is the money that individuals had in MF Global? What happened to people’s savings invested with Bernard Madoff? What happened to Enron’s investors? Can AIG make good on its promises to pay the benefits that people have purchased? Can banks whose balance sheets are loaded with subprime derivatives make good on their depositors’ accounts? U.S. government debt is a component of many private pension plans. How secure are the values of Treasury bonds?

The notion that free, unregulated markets are totally trustworthy is the enormous mistake that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan made, for which American and European peoples continue to pay. Libertarians endorse this fantastic mistake to the hilt.

This is not meant to be an attack on libertarians. Rather, it is an explanation of some of their mistakes. There is much to admire about libertarians. They believe in civil liberty, that is, in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. They understand that government cannot substitute for the market. I know a lot about libertarians. I was associated with them for years, serving for several years as Distinguished Scholar at the Cato Institute until I was run off for independent thinking.

Libertarians are sectarian, and their tolerance does not extend beyond their ideology.

The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. Libertarians have never figured out that people are the same whether in the government or in the private sector. They will abuse their power regardless of where they perch. That is why government needs to be tied down by the Constitution and the private sector by regulation. Yes, regulation can go too far. Certainly, deregulation has gone too far.

The ongoing financial crisis from deregulation and ongoing jobs crisis from offshoring constitute empirical evidence that the belief is false that an unfettered private sector is the source of all good.

Some readers of Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy misunderstood the point of my column, “America’s Last Chance.” I am endorsing the U.S. Constitution and making the point that Paul is the only candidate for President in either party who is committed to resurrecting the Constitution. Without the Constitution we cease to be American citizens and become subjects of a tyrannical police state. My complaint is that the only candidate who could bring back the Constitution cannot be elected because of the inflexibility and sectarianism of his base. Possibly there are more worthy third-party candidates, but they have no prospect of visibility. Paul is visible, and the opportunity is going to waste.

I hope readers will spare me their comments about how important their various single issues are. There are many important things. The question is: What is the over-riding important thing?

Civil liberty, essentially the accountability of government to law that serves to protect the innocent, is the historic achievement of the English over many centuries from its beginnings with the foundation for common law established by Alfred the Great in the 9th century through the Magna Carta in the 13th century to the Glorious Revolution in the 17th century. If this human achievement is lost, it is unlikely to be resurrected. If the Constitution that George W. Bush and Barack Obama have murdered stays in its grave one more Presidential term, no one will be able to re-establish the Constitution’s authority.

And please, no prattle from libertarians about “natural rights.” The only rights we have are rights achieved by centuries of human struggle that we have the wits and strength to retain.

And no prattle from left-wingers who denounce the Constitution for not protecting slaves and native Indians. The Constitution did not establish universal justice. The Constitution protected the people covered by it. Over time, rights were extended. During the past decade, the Constitution lost its power. Today, rights depend on the subjective opinion of the executive branch. This is tyranny. We should be unified in our opposition to tyranny.

–Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts

was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of The Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His Internet columns have attracted a worldwide following, and can be accessed here.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “The Paul Campaign’s Strategic Mistake”

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

  • Vicki

    The OP writes:
    “If Ron Paul’s libertarian handlers and support base could escape their ideology, Paul could be much better positioned to win the Republican nomination.”

    If they were to escape their ideology than they would not be libertarian and why would we vote for them? We don’t need just another RINO. We got plenty of those now.

    • c.w.s.

      Wow, the first poster is one with an active brain cell this time. (so often the first person to respond is sooo very clueless). Great post (as are your others below). The author basically is saying, to me at least, that if Ron Paul becomes another corporate shill, he’ll have a better chance of being elected. BS. I at least support Dr. Paul because I believe he is honest, not just another blah, blah, blah, vote for me politician…

      • DaveH

        Don’t know about that, c.w.s., but what I’m getting is that Ron should abandon his Principles and accept Social Security for something it isn’t — security. Social Security is simply theft by the Government. First they forcibly take our money, then they replace the funds with Government I.O.U.s.
        The best they could have done would have been to invest the funds in Gold. But even if they had left the funds untouched in secure investments, it would still be theft because they still don’t have the owners’ permission to take their money.
        Paul Craig Roberts apparently wants Libertarians to behave like Liberals (Democrat or Republican) and cede power to the Government to take care of us whether we like it or not. It is not the role of Government to protect us from ourselves. The Government should exist solely to protect us from the Force and Fraudulent behavior of others. And I don’t mean Preemptive Protection for either.
        If we got Government out of our personal choices, and most other things they don’t belong in, we could easily cut the bill for Government down to less than half of what they spend now. That would be about $8 Trillion less each year than they spend now, about $25,800 average per person in the US, or $80,000 per average family in the US. Our economy would boom. Only those people who absolutely refused to work would be in trouble. Those who suffered misfortune through no fault of their own would receive help from private charities funded by a prosperous and generous citizenry.

        • cawmun cents

          “Article Dude,needs a security blanket man.”
          That should have been the title of the article.

        • DaveH

          Ron Paul’s stand on Social Security:

          From the article:
          “In fact, Paul’s opt-out for Social Security in his budget plan is age 25—not exactly imminent doom for the program or those on it”.
          But the fools under 25 who think they can trust the Government with their retirement plans can still be part of the Social Security system in they choose.

          • Jack

            You are right. Paul will not throw us seniors under the buss. However he will stop robing social security to support illegal voters like his opponent.

          • Lynne

            This comment makes sense, as does the article commented upon. I’ve always assumed that those people already ‘grandfathered in’ will continue to receive their benefits. ‘Opting out’ at an early age is an excellent alternative. My mother receives SS (converted from SSDI) and is 73 years old … I’m 53 years old and receive a VA disability pension as well as SSDI (plus the ‘balance due’ from my deceased second husband’s SSDI). I wouldn’t be pleased to see either one of us denied these pensions, but would’ve prepared for such an eventuality to the best of my ability. I will vote for Ron Paul either way just to see the Constitution re-instituted into its proper place … first and foremost within the Representative Republic this country was initially created as.

        • c.w.s.


        • Realist

          “Those who suffered misfortune through no fault of their own would receive help from private charities funded by a prosperous and generous citizenry.”

          Yeah right! Generous who? Do they still exist? You are going to hedge survival of the unfortunate by the generosity of the Rich? Look how generous congress got with our trust fund! Aren’t you being overly trusting? Today, generosity comes with mandates or it will not materialize.

          • crystal

            They’ve been pushed out by poor morals plaguing our nation and government. Those two entities together are the reason they no longer exist the way they use to.

          • Take on you

            I’m assuming Realist will NOT be making charitable contributions, but would rather the government take it from me & you at the point of a gun to pay for the poor & sick?

          • Sol of Texas

            I see acts of kindness and generosity every day. I also see acts of meanness and selfishness everyday.

            Frankly, there is no possibility of utopia in an imperfect world filled with imperfect creatures.

            I especially do not believe a representative government has any business playing God.

          • DaveH

            Of course they still exist, Realist. For example, just look at all you Liberals who claim to be generous. Of course your generosity is with other peoples’ money, but imagine if your take home pay doubled. Then you could be generous with your own money.

          • Karolyn

            Actually, Realist, there are a great many generous people, primarily from the middle class. When I was in nonprofit arts, I learned that the majority of contributions come not from the wealthy but from the middle class. There are organizations online, like Modest Needs, comprised of regular people donating small amounts of money to help others. That organization started as a grassroots endeavor a few years ago and has grown tremendously. Churches also help people, although that depends on the church and where you live. Some curches only help their own. As we see all the time when disaster strikes, when it is needed, the assistance is always there.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            For all that energy you are expanding in being a pessimist, contrary to your moniker, you should be acquiring skills so you would not be depended on others in good times or bad.

          • bob

            Almost all real charity comes from the middle class in this country, not the rich. The rich give to tax exempt groups which perpetuate the liberal and marxist ideology.

          • kathleen

            Not true at all, we are a generous people. In fact the largest portion of people that give are closer to the poverty level than the rest. They dont give as much, but I bet they give more often.

          • Vicki

            Realist writes:
            “Today, generosity comes with mandates or it will not materialize.”

            So taking my money at gunpoint to give to YOUR favorite charity is ok as long as it is done by your pet government. Nice guy. Realist. Not.

            Btw it looks like in spite of all the money taken at gunpoint for the governments pet projects Americans voluntarily give up even more for charity.

          • Realist

            Cheepers! I never knew so many folks are so charitable and for that, I apologize. I’m just steaming about all the charities that emphasize feeding poor immigrants while there are so many homeless citizens. Anyway, good to see there are lots of kind hearted folks among the ranks of the conscious patriots and citizens.

          • John Broussard

            People with money to give would be more charitable. Taxes replace funds available to give to charity. Paul argues that taxes take money away from people who would otherwise give it to charity. You can’t care for the friend (or charity) that you know and care about if you are forced to give money to the government who turns around and gives it to someone you don’t know.

            I know plenty of people who would rather give their money to charity than pay taxes.

          • Ramón

            OK, Realist.
            …foot in mouth again on the January 24, 2012 at 2:34 pm post. That’s OK, though. Media hype and attitudes have given us all distorted perceptions.

            When I came to the US in 1966(*), I came to the Land of Opportunity and not to the Land of Entitlement. I studied, lived and worked here for many years before I became a citizen in 1995. In the course of 40+ years I have supported my family and contributed time, talent and treasure to American society, its charities, churches and non-profits. I have seen much American generosity. In fact, I thrive in it.

            I became a citizen to help correct conditions that are not beneficial to our society. Our elected representatives would not listen to me as a taxpayer, although I have paid taxes about three times as many years as I have been a citizen. Now, as a citizen, I remind them that I campaigned for them and could campaign for their opponents (beyond mere casting of my ballot).
            (*) I highlighted 1966. I also have been a foreign student like someone else we know.

          • Ann Wilson Kingsley

            When I was a child, I watched my grandparents deliver $50 in cash in a crisp white anonymous envelope into the mailbox of a widow and her retarded sister.I asked my mother about my grandparent’s charitable activities, and she said they frequently helped people in the community. That is how it works. Those who have help those who do not. When my parents were older, they extended charity to others, but for different types of things because times changed, and the government took over. Doctors still do free operations or perform other services on occasion for those not covered by medical insurance. I know this because we had a physician in the family.

        • Thor

          Hey DaveH, I agree with you, bud–with this caveat: against my will, I started paying social security tax in 1963, when the program was billed as ‘insurance for the care of widows and orphans.’ That contract is now 48 years old and I expect the government to honor the terms of that contract and I don’t care whether it is considered an entitlement or an annuity. ‘Course, I’d be satisfied if they would simply buy me out…48 years of investment, plus interest. And, any time you want to get together a shore party and dig up Lyndon Baines Johnson and hang his bones from the voodoo tree, I am all in.

          • Old Henry


            Now yer talkin’! And all other politicians who voter for, or signed, any spending bill that spent OUR money to give to the parasitic military-industrial complex.

            We could sure have us a party! When we’re done hangin’ them we could then toss their rotten carcuses onto a huge bon fire of old tires.

          • Sol of Texas

            Thor –

            At the risk of enraging my fellow Texan (especially the progressive “yellow dogs”) I say LBJ rates it.

          • DaveH

            if you think I advocate Government stiffing those who have already been forced to pay in, you need to read all my comments.

          • Chris

            Old Henry,

            You would have to dig up just about every one of them.

        • Wyatt

          Regardless of what you or Ron Paul choose to think of Social Security , itn is not an entitlement . And regardless of of if you think the government steal’s our money as we pay into it , for many older people it is their only source of income in their golden years . Not everyone is as fortunate as as Ron Paul in that they managed to make a fortune in the business world . We the taxpayers of the United States PAY into this plan so that we will have some form of income in our older years. It may not be ideal but, it is our money that was paid out , taken , stolen whatever you wish to call it . As an old FUD Ron Paul should realize this and protect these programs until a better alternative can be suggested formulated and instituted .
          Yes Ron Paul has many good and excellent ideas, however those ideas are outweighed by his total lack of sense in international affairs and dealings . Isolationism is no longer a viable option . The world has become to small and there are treaties in place that must be honored. America no longer makes products that are now an everyday fixture in our lives . Even the very computer you are working at now is made in some Asian country with cheap labor, as is the syereo you listen to , the TV you watch and the car may Americans drive . And lets not forget the cellphone you text , call and now surf the net with .
          Ron Paul is exactly the name you label others with , a Rhino . He couldn’t sell his ideas under the Libertarian flag so now he becomes a Republican. But he is one in name only and as for his support of the Constitution , he needs to support it fully and not cherry pick or be selective about what parts he chooses to protect .

          • Emoke

            The misleading thing with SSI is that it is both an entitlement for some people and not an entitlement for others. Many people are on SSI who have never paid into it.

          • vic

            You need to check yours facts, jack. Ron Paul ran a practice, not a business. He did many free medical procedures for the financially less fortunate. He also invested in gold just like hes been preaching for decades. You have no idea what isolationism is either. Heres a hint: its not non-interventionism. Wyatt, you claim hes a Rhino but fail to name a SINGLE reason why. Please wake up and do yr research. Its just lazy, not to.

          • DaveH

            You need to read my comments more carefully. The same goes for Ron Paul’s comments. Neither of us advocates stiffing those who have already been forced to pay in to SS.
            And Ron Paul is not an “isolationist”. He is a non-interventionist. He believes, as I do, that we should trade peacefully with other nations. He doesn’t believe in gunpoint diplomacy. He doesn’t believe in propping up Dictators just because they trade with our Crony Capitalists. He doesn’t believe in the US dictating other countries’ politics through military force.

          • http://wordpress usfrog

            @ vic
            You are 100% right. People need to do their homework on RP.
            I’m not sure I would invest in gold like RP, but if you invested the money you paid into SS, you probably would be better off in the end. The problem is that people don’t invest it but spend it thus having nothing in the end. But that’s freedom.
            There is nothing wrong with his foreign policy either. If you look at Switzerland, it’s a small country but they mind their own business, have a fantastic army and are one of the richest countries with no oil and few natural ressources. Nobody is invading them. We need to stop supporting the military/industrial complex which is financing these wars to keep us bankrupt.

          • Bill

            wyatt-utter trash

        • Mark in LA

          Funny all these people commenting on “theft”. Social Security was created in the aftermatch of the theft of the free market when the stock market crashed and banks closed their doors by the thousands and companies looted their pension plans to save themselves. Yeah, the free market is always the answer – only to people who lack any sense of history.

          Roosevelt was never 100% for any of the programs we have such as deposit insurance. He knew all about the dangers of allowing private interests to get their hands on government backed money. He also knew something had to be done to get things going again.

          • DaveH

            Why don’t you read this Free online book and be the first Liberal on your block to know what he’s talking about:

            Yeah, I know you won’t read it, but I can HOPE and DREAM, can’t I?

          • The Witness

            What caused the banks to close ?People still wanted to work,wanted to buy things,raw materials were available to manufacture products,companies wanted to produce products,but there was NO MONEY.The flow of money was cut off until WWII and then there was plenty of money.Where did all the money come from,just in time to pay for WWII ?Was it just misplaced and found when the war broke out,or did the Federal Reserve finally let the flow of money start again ??Who,in our U.S.Government,has control of the Fed.?

          • only a vapor

            “Social Security was created in the aftermatch of the theft of the free market when the stock market crashed and banks closed their doors by the thousands and companies looted their pension plans to save themselves”

            People may argue those who tried to save themselves were the culprits, BUT
            The FED ultimately is to blame for the crash-
            And one should consider what “legal theft” really is. Most of the unseen theft is based on the Federal Reserve’s manipulative control of currency’s “value” This is what makes most other governmental thievery possible. What aspects of Marxism should we deem as acceptable? Are not ALL 10 planks of the CM antithetical to the Constitution?
            peace to you.

          • Vicki

            Mark in LA says:
            “Funny all these people commenting on “theft”. Social Security was created in the aftermatch of the theft of the free market when the stock market crashed and banks closed their doors by the thousands and companies looted their pension plans to save themselves. Yeah, the free market is always the answer – only to people who lack any sense of history.”

            Evidence please. Starting with the proper use of the word theft and how you can possibly justify applying it to what people do with THEIR OWN money.

            Here let me get you started
            “1a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
            b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property ”

            Please explain how the free market could be stolen by a crash of the stock market, the closing of banks, or the LEGAL (does anyone actually read the pension plan agreements?) use of pension funds?

          • Vicki
          • ohoh

            So the free market was responsible? Wow, don’t even know where to start in responding to such nonsense. Such bent “thinking” must come with a counter-productive, idealogical agenda, so it’s probably useless trying.

          • Mark in LA

            Vicki thinks the stock market isn’t theft. If there ever was a legal ponzi scheme it is the stock market. The best post I ever saw during the dot com bubble on the yahoo stock boards was this:

            What are the 3 greates scams in the history of the world

            1. Religion
            2. Government
            3. Stock Market

            If any of you had any real knowledge of the history of the stock market you would know what a scam it is and how wealthy people used their control of the media to run prices up and dump their stock or run prices down and buy all the stock up for pennies on the dollar. We just saw what these people did do with the laws we have now. Imagine if there were no laws.

          • Jeff S

            The gold standard is NOT the answer. I love Paul but that idea is flawed. That’s because the same people can dictate the value of gold. There’s a myth that says if we print more money then the economy will collapse. The economy won’t collapse, the privately owned Federal Reserve will collapse! The answer by the gov’t should be to print more money and shut down the Federal Reserve. It’s not how much money you print that determines the worth of the dollar but who controls it’s quantity. If we reprint more money and back it by the gov’t instead of the corrupt, agenda based war machine that is the Federal Reserve, then we could be out of debt in 5 years!! Let me repeat….It’s not who prints the money but who controls it’s quantity. Lincoln and his “greenbacks” had it right.

          • TIME

            LMAO, its really very sad how little we as Americans know of the TRUTH of whats gone on over the last 150 years.
            But the flip side is man O man can spin doctor’s spin some really great story lines.
            Kind of makes one think of that old line, {{ if you tell a BIG enough lie and repete it over and over soon its FACT.}}

            Hey – How about that Fed and who’s behind it again?
            Who are the Rothschilds & Rockafellow’s for $1000 ALEX.

            How the fed works – it prints money then the American people PAY the FED Interest on said money thats sold back to the American people.
            Just how odd that all the money the FED prints is based on thin air. Yet the Interest paid by the American people is the REAL deal.

            If anyone starts looking into SS what they will find is all funds flow through the IMF, and why is that again?
            Just who is the IMF involved with, well glory be none other than the UN, damm what a twisted web we live within.

          • MacLoklan

            Fdr certainly did know how to get things going again. He went to war. Before then things were going from bad to worse.

          • Vicki

            Mark in LA says:
            “Vicki thinks the stock market isn’t theft.”

            I do not just think it is not theft I KNOW it is not. I even provided a cite for the definition.

            Oh and the vote is now 3 to 1 that you are to turn over all of your assets to us. We are still waiting for your address. Be quick about it.

          • Vicki

            Jeff S says:
            “There’s a myth that says if we print more money then the economy will collapse. ”

            It’s not exactly a myth. There is LOTS of sound historical evidence should you care to partake.


        • OldFart

          I know your GD charities!! Their a bunch of misers saying a family of four can live on $100.00 month with church charities for beans & powdered milk for those with teenage eaters while they get paid big time because they managed to cater to thousands on a dime.. Yes, I know ALL about them.. In my youth I discovered the generosity of these so-called charities. We don’t have to have the g’ment over-see social security.. The money is already set up, all it takes is for each worker to continue paying in for their future, privatize social security like you want to privatize investment retirement and all will go well (at least there will be less fingers dipping into the till). I like Ron Paul, I think he would make a difference but not enough to see him and his munchkins deprive senior citizens and the disabled and make them fend for themselves or die. BS!!! And if that’s NOT what the libs are saying then be explicit.. To the point about their idea of Social Security and Medicare and what it means to the helpless.. And as for the frauds, a good watcher with power to put them where they belong when caught will eliminate most of ‘em. Remember, not all s.s./disability/medicare fraud comes from the individual but from the officers that oversee them and the medical crooks who treat them. I’m right back to square one.. I was set on voting for Ron Paul, now I’m not so sure. CONVINCE ME!!

        • Debi

          The truth about social security and medicare is that hard working Americans have paid into these funds for when they reach retirement age (65) because many employers do not have retirement pentions set up for their employees, no benefits at all. Government should not have put these funds into the general funds account. By doing so, has allowed dirty politicians to dip their sticky fat fingers into our benefits (MONEY) and put it into their own pockets. This money that was in the Social Security Funds and Medicare Funds came from our hard working money. For some of us have paid into these funds since we became employed which, has been 50-70 years of our lives. Now these funds are being depleted to the point we can not survive on what it costs us to pay back into Medicade for our medical expenses, that is why x amount of dollars had been taken out of our pay checks each pay period we had work and for some of us that has been since the 1960′s and even earlier the 30′s===40′s. Just like Government has dipped their nasty fingers into the Postal Service Money leaving employees with no benifits and causing Post Office closures Nation Wide. We need a man like Ron Paul to stand up for our Constitutional Rights. Illegal Aliens have all rights to our Social Security, Medicare, and even A Program Called Welfare, and Welfare is not a PART of Social Security or Medicare. Welfare is Government Subsidies which, comes out of the American People’s Taxes!

          We need to get these corupt Politicians out of office…Did you know that Romney in the 90′s worked with a corp, or I should say was a part of the Bain Group…Do you know what Bain means Look it up. romney will still us blind again…

        • john j

          Exactly Dave ! Nice post , my hats off !! Sounds like you think like Ron ! He’s the ONLY one that is trying to put us on the right track !!! I wish the STINKING MEDIA would let his candidacy run it’s course without their intervention !!!!!!!

          • Deerinwater

            Well~ he needs the media John if he plans to reach enough people to make a difference. There is many favors of media John. But like Jesus , you got to carry your message to the “sinners”. This notion that you only need to preach to the choir would not have worked for Jesus and it’s won’t work for Ron Paul.

      • Bogusbob

        If he is so honest, then why didn’t he stay libertarian? He had to switch to repube to get elected.

        • Stan

          I have been paying into social security for 49 years. My employer has been paying on my behalf for the same 49 years. If that money was invested all this time at a low but safe rate of say 3%, I would have approximately $750,000 in savings. I will (hopefully) draw about 250,000 if I live to age 80. The gov’t is definately ripping me off to the tune of about $500,000.
          They call this a “trust” fund and it is handled differently than any other debt in a chapter 11 bankruptcy. It can not be discharged. If this is a trust fund handled separately from all other funds and employers and employees contribute so significantly how is this an “entitlement” program. I am owed that money. Just pay me back the principle forget the interest over a period of ten years and I will be happy to never collect any money from the gov’t, but until they do that, and repay the DEBT owed me, I don’t want to here the term “entitlement” as if it was a charity. It is not, it is a debt owed me by the government.

          • DaveH

            Yep, if a private pension fund manager did the same as Government, they would be put in jail.

          • Mark in LA

            Stan this is a commonly held belief but the math simply isn’t there. The current maximum for the year is around 107,000 subject to SS taxes. The rate since Reagan jacked them up to pay for his tax cuts for the rich has been 6.2% for both you and the employer. That comes out to 13268. They were increased under Carter in a plan to save Social Security but at a very slow increase until Reagan needed a way to hide the failure of his programs and he didn’t want to raise the property tax. So you have had 25 years of these very high rates. Until 1970 the rate was less than 8% including the employer contribution and the maximum cutoff was low. I starget working as an engineer in 1978 and in a few years I hit the maximim evey year I worked.

            Here is a chart of the rates and the maximums:


            48 (1964) years ago the most you could have paid was 348 dollars based on 7.25% of 4800. To calculate what a return of 3% for 48 years is you take 348 X (1.03**48) = 1438 dollars contributed to your total.
            The Medicare tax is a separate tax and should not be used for this purpose although its late arrival and small amount won’t change things much. Your contribution from 1965 would actually be lower since the tax rate and maximum limit are the same 348 X (1.03**47) = 1396 dollars to your total.

            Wall Street has pushed this nonsense for so long and the companies who want 401Ks as a way to get rid of pension plans, it has become gospel. The problem with private plans is that at various times in history there are no good investments. Without good investments money only grows by the illusion of inflation. We now are “growing” by doing destructive things like importing millions of people who suck more out of the system than they produce and other nonsense like building buildings nobody needs or moving factories offshore.

          • Mark in LA

            Reagan didn’t want to raise the income tax – not property tax.

          • Angie

            The House of Representatives has not called for impeachment of any president or member of Congress for violating their oath of office. Talking heads on Fox ASK if our constitution still means anything. Quite frankly I’m fed up with mamsie pamsie positions that allow for our leaders to play by their own set of rules.

            How about our up and coming lawyers working as interns rally together and start class action law suites against the Congress for voting to steal our social security funds and other blatent violations of their constitution duties. If you want to see those folks on the hill step back and take notice, just slap them with a class action and hold each and everyone of them personally responsible for every vote they’ve cast.

            Money talks. Follow the money, it begins and ends every argument!

          • Lonnie

            Once the Govt. takes your money in the form of a tax you have NO rights to it. If they allow you to a refund be thankful but you have no right to it. You need to look at the Supreme Court decisions relating to Social Security and you will see that there is no right to SS benefits as it is not a form of insurance. They also said it is NOT a contract! Congress has the power built into the SS act that they can deny benefits to anyone and everyone and there is nothing we can do about it if they do. The Supreme Court also said that there was never a trust fund. Don’t listen to the rhetoric from Congressmen but instead read what the courts have said. The 3 major decisions about Social Security were all decided before 1940 and to my knowledge have never been overturned.

          • John

            Mark your calculations are wrong, interest is NOT calculated on the final sum but on the either monthly or yearly contributions. That means you will earn interest on the interest. There are calculators on the web that you can use and if you so you will find your numbers are way, way low.

          • John

            Mark, I just calculated the compound return of a monthly savings of $348@ 3% for 48 years. On a monthly return calculations and given that you automatically reinvest your interest earned (3%) the sum you would have received after 48 years is $449850…. At a yearly return calculation it would be a bid less but still not the paltry sum you have calculated.

          • Mark in LA

            John you need a course in basic math. The way you calculate interest componded is very simple. My guess is you used the wrong figures for interest. To calculate what 348 is after one year you multiply 348 * 1.03 = 358.44. The next year you multiply that by 1.03 again = 369.19. Now you do this 46 more times. Since multiplication is associative we can just multiply 1.03 X 1.03 …. X 1.03 and then multiply by 348. Our calculator lets us do X**Y where X is 1.03 and Y is 48. 1.03**48 = 4.132 then multiply by 348.

            Maybe you remember that old saying that something compounded at 7% takes 10 years to double and something coumpounded at 10% takes 7 years to double. That being the case how long would it take for something compounded at 3% to double? We can actually calculate it with logarithms and we get 23.44 years.

          • Mark in LA

            John you are not even in the discussion. Nobody 48 years ago was having 348 dollars deducted from their pay for Social Security. Go to the chart I referenced. 348 is the maximum contribution for the entire year of 1964. If you want a more correct number, sure you can break it down by each paycheck but the difference is so low it is easier to just use yearly totals to debunk the lies about how much better off people would be if they never had contributed to Social Security. Since the tax deducted at the beginning of the year earns more but the ones in December compound less just use what is easiest.

        • vic

          How many Libertarian debates have you seen non TV? Exactly. Hes playing by their slanted rules:that basically there should be only two “different”(yeah, right) parties. Also, the values he espouses are TRUE conservative values, thats why you don’t recognize them. The Republican party has strayed from their core values long ago. Neo-cons run the party now, that why the GOP is all a bunch of BIG govt, fiscally irresponsible, war mongerers.

          • DaveH

            Actually the roots of the Republican Party were those of Mercantilism, the very thing that pissed off the colonists enough to drive them to risk their lives and property to throw off the rule of the British Empire.

        • Nadzieja Batki

          We have become a two party system as any school age kid can tell you.
          Two philosophies are running parallel to each other and if you break down these philosophies into people groups you will get a bell curve and these people groups can be measured.

          • Vicki

            The two philosopies is a tool used to distract us from the actual paradigm of 0% to 100% government. That way both parties can drive us toward 100% government while distracting us by pointing fingers at the others.

            Good cop, bad cop scenario

            Let us focus on the correct spectrium. 100% to 0% government.

        • DaveH

          Did he ever lie about that, BogusBob? Your comment is indeed bogus.

        • WickedPickle

          “If he is so honest, then why didn’t he stay libertarian? He had to switch to repube to get elected”..

          Has nothing to do with dishonesty bobbo.. I understand his philosophy completely.. Have you noticed how little funds he’s using to insult his opponents? Not much considering how much he’s receiving.. Have you not noticed that he rarely get’s into the dog fight his opponents are into? (doesn’t want to play their game).. Have you noted that (in a calm tone) he’s putting his ideals out to a public who’s only alternative is to listen to a bunch of puppets whine about what their opponents got away with? (you can almost smell the political envy under their breath).. On the surface, this makes Ron Paul look weak (according to a biased media) but the underlying factor is, it’s putting his position out into the open on a grand scale with the least amount of cost THEN when one of the rodeo clowns takes the nomination, Ron Paul will return to the Lib party with all his exposure intact and his ideals more acceptable for All the middle roaders, the disenchanted Dems and the Reps who do not want another GW Bush.. No, it doesn’t have a thing to do with disloyalty, it has to do with getting his point across the entire nation (something the lib’s haven’t accomplished as a party because their not considered legitimate by these two illegitimate parties) By what Ron Paul is doing right here, right now.. The reality of a libertarian President is more than a possibility.. It’s a threat to both (now useless) parties.. Think about that, then.. VOTE RON PAUL 2012!! I’m a (casual) dem but as I can’t fathom just what Obama is trying to accomplish, I have grown disenchanted with his promises.. There are many more like me.. We as Dems are not idiots, any more than the Pubs who elected GW Bush.. TWICE!! So, quit calling us stupid and say, “The Dems were fooled just like we were”.. Saying these few words (with meaning) can unite each of us once again and we CAN rid our Nation of this tyranny..

        • WickedPickle

          “He had to switch to repube to get elected”.. (Bogusbob)…

          When the Dems and the Pubs corner the market, what are you to do to get you’re voice heard? When was the last time you heard of a three way election (rep., dem., ind.) that was evenly challenging? Fact is, for many, many decades both the Dems and the Pubs have monopolized the political process. I don’t see Ron Paul as a Pub, I see him as a candidate using this monopoly party to put his point(s) across (in lieu of the dems who had no other challenger slated) and when the Pubs eventually bump him, he will take up his stand, already being a known contender and, unlike his Ind. predecessors who always had to accept third string behind the politico monopolizers, he will become a formidable opponent to both parties. To them a particularly burning thorn on their ass.. To the actual election, well.. Harry Truman comes to mind. Voters of Ron Paul, don’t despair the ‘sleeping’ voices.. Ron Paul is unique in what he’s trying to accomplish and how he’s going about it, and as such should not be underestimated or waved off.. You have been warned.

      • Rayma Dorsa

        I once read that a company let thier employees opt out of Social Security,to join another private plan,when they retired they retired with MORE money and was able to LEAVE the remainder to thier families,maybe Social Security is just a part of a ponzi scheme and needs to be revamped.It should NEVER have been put into the general fund. It should have been allowed to grow,it would have, had they done it as it should have been,and also not aborted the future payers…

        • ChristyK

          You are talking about Galveston, TX. I think it was just government employees.

        • Nadzieja Batki

          Haven’t you figured it out yet that Social Security was never meant to produce more money for the ones paying into it.

          • mickey

            I think this is PayGo (what comes in is spent instead of prior year surplus). I’m not sure but I think this was around year 2000.

      • Swampboy

        I think C.W.S. Has the right thought on the subject,DR.Paul I think also is a truthful person also but, I’m afraid we are going to be stuck with the same old, same old. to many keep looking at this like chess we are pon’s and we are expendable.It’s just a game to most at the top!!!!!!!If we still went by the CONSTITUTION as our framer was intended we would’nt be in this mess today.

      • Elaine

        He could have covered more ground and a great deal more attention in a positive and supportive way if it hadn’t been for the vicious Ron Paul people.

        People were really listening to him — they ruined it for Ron Paul.

      • deba brown

        the hell with who every this person is the dam rep have mess up the U.S and the rich is still stealing from the poor

    • Old Henry


      I was sort of wondering the same thing as I read it, but “figered” I was simply mis-understanding what Paul was trying to communicate.

    • Willy

      “This is tyranny. We should be unified in our opposition to tyranny.”
      So, we should vote for one of the other tyrants to be. I don’t think SO. Go Ron Paul!!

    • Nadzieja Batki

      So to win the nomination Mr. Paul should give up his ideology and all the people who believe like he does. But ideology is what forms the character of a man. What kind of a man will Ron Paul be then?
      If only Ron Paul would be as devious and treacherous and a betrayer as the RINOs are and all will be well.
      Stand strong Ron Paul.

      • danN

        agreed!…look what happened to John McCain

      • mickey

        I don’t think that is true. No one has to give up anything–except maybe a label. People believe in the Constitution, freedom, and the US. However, once labeled “only libertarians need apply”, we have a problem.

        It’s a catch 22, either broaden the defintion enough to allow others to join on a common basis or that horrible word remain “isolationist”.

    • Sol of Texas

      I really don’t know too many self-proclaimed libertarians who are so closed minded that they will not at least listen and try to reason with dissenters. Most libertarians I know recognize human nature is flawed and that government has a role to play adjudicating conflict. Is it not Thoreau who said “the best government is that which governs least”?

      Regardless of the communicative “positioning” gambits employed by political campaigns, if most of our citizenry is bamboozled, then we will all be at the mercy of those achieving the bamboozling.

      I love Machiavelli for recognizing the dangers omnipresent to good republics:
      … on the law makers of corrupt republics …
      “But when the citizens had become perverse, this institution became a nuisance; because only the powerful proposed laws, and this for the sake not of their common liberties, but to augment their own power. And against such projects no one durst speak for fear of such folk; with the result that people were induced, either by deceit or by force, to adopt measures which spell their own ruin.”

      Machiavelli clearly understood this 500 years ago. He was commenting on events that had occurred repeatedly for the 1600 years prior. If we are so smart, why don’t we get it?

      • Wilson

        Ron Paul is in a position popularity-wise to be a third-party candidate, and I don’t mean Libertarian. He has his own beliefs for helping the country, many at odds with pure Libertarian ideology. So, I would support a Paulist party.

    • Deerinwater

      These is one of the most timely, spot on, thought provoking theses I’ve had the pleasure to read in a very long time. Paul Craig Roberts has captured my quandary and Vicky in quick time points and frames it so well with protest to compromise. Such a compromise would fly in the face of honored principals and require a “label” change.

      We do want we must so we can do what we want and compromise is a coping skills, a part of life every successful person learns to contend with, both private and public.

      Excellent write up and excellent response.

      It’s lonely at the top, I think Ron Paul is use to it by now but are you?

    • Mark in LA

      No Vicki they would not be RINOs. They would be people smart enough to recognize there are programs so universally popular that they are going to stay regardless of who is President. If Ron Paul wants to remove immigrants from Social Security who never paid into the system, I am for that. If he wants to rejigger the payouts so it does not favor immigrants in the calculation as it does now, I am for that. But this nonsense that private accounts are the answer or that they would all be millionaires in a private system is just Wall Street propaganda.

      • DaveH

        So, if we get together in majority, Mark, steal your property and imprison you, you’d be okay with that?

        • Vicki

          Hey DaveH. Count me in. The vote is now 2 to 1. Mark in LA we will be right down to collect. Be prepared with all your papers so that we may see where your assets are.

        • Tanya

          Make it 3 to 1. lqtm :)

    • les

      Vicki, you are spot on. We do not need another shill for the Republican Part.

    • Marla

      I do not think he should ever compromise his principles. That is what makes him so great.

    • Jerome Bigge

      Ron Paul is perhaps the first Libertarian in a long time who actually has a chance to influence a major political party. Libertarianism is a “big tent” and holds many flavors of libertarians. I do think that Ron Paul has some good ideas that should be serious considered. (I am a member of the Libertarian Party)

  • Vicki

    The OP writes:
    “And please, no prattle from libertarians about “natural rights.” The only rights we have are rights achieved by centuries of human struggle that we have the wits and strength to retain.”

    Hmmmm….. You have no rights from human struggle. The founders pointed this out in the Declaration of Independence. If your creator did not bestow upon you certain rights then just anyone can come along and do with you as they please.

    Oh and stop with the argument to ridicule already. This was not the first time you used it in your post. (“prattle”)

    • Realist

      He did say please. It didn’t sound like a mandate to me.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        I take that “please” as a derision.

    • RM

      I believe there to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what Dr. Roberts is saying in his piece. The over arching theme is NOT that civil liberties or free markets aren’t vital, they are. It is that one cannot be defined as a destroyer of something they’ve invested in their entire lives in.
      He is quite correct, social security and medicare are funded by payroll deductions ergo, it IS a private property issue, a contract like any other…It is YOUR money. It is likewise OUR responsibility to bring the government into check. This takes some doing and a fair amount of time getting it done. But to miss the points Dr. Roberts is making relative to Dr. Paul’s campaign is to miss the forest for the trees.
      If we are to resurrect the rule of law as guaranteed by the Constitution and return the chains to bind down the politicians then a broader, longer view of what I dare say many subscribers to this newsletter – and indeed Ron Paul supporters – will need to see a little more broadly the road ahead. Peace. RM

    • Chaslie

      The Creator may have bestowed upon us certain inalienable rights but that doesn’t mean they can’t be taken away. It is up to people to keep them.

      • Jerome Bigge

        That’s what the Second Amendment is for. The Founding Fathers did not “trust” a regular standing army that much. They much preferred a militia drawn from the citizens. The term “well regulated” in the 18th Century meant “well trained”. So what the Second really says is that a well trained milita is necessary for the security of a free state. And because the militia is a necessary part of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. So the Second Amendment makes sense just as it is written. The problem is the change in meaning of words from the 18th Century to now, the 21st Century. You do need to understand some history of the era to understand why things were written as they were.

        • Jerome Bigge

          Additionally Thomas Jefferson recommended practice with firearms as a means of recreation instead of more “physically demanding” activities. So the people who made up the milita were expected to keep up their skills so that they would be effective if called to duty.

    • Vigilant

      Vicki, you are 100% correct.

      Roberts’ fatal flaw is a fundamental misunderstanding about the place of Natural Rights in the founding of our nation. And the manner in which he arrogantly dispenses with the concept would seem to make him a secular humanist.

      The Enlightenment idea of Natural Rights was not some frilly addition to the Declaration of Independence, it was the very foundation of the document. For in the absence of a set of authoritative and immutable rights of humankind, the Constitution which followed means little to nothing.

      This concept was familiar to Lincoln, who rightly viewed the Declaration as the “apple” and the Constitution as the frame around it.

      When a tyrant, a committee, or a government believes that they have the right to decide which freedoms you have, and turns its back on Providentially-given Natural Rights, you have a formula for disaster, and government by and for the people has died.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Your struggle would be as a predatory animal.
      The Natural Laws are what you came into the world with and they are given by GOD.

    • Richard Pawley

      Good point. The reason we are going down hill almost as fast as the Titanic (although for some reason a large segment of the population is totally oblivious to this fact) is that we have abandoned our belief in the God of our founding fathers. There has always been corruption in government and greed and avarice, but God has always guided those who sought Him, and He is no respecter of persons. All who seek Him with all their heart will find Him. The article above had some good points but when I read the phrase “Israel’s territorial ambitions?” I realized that some of the rest might not be quite right either.

      Israel has no more territorial ambitions than the United States! They don’t stick their nose in everybody’s business like we tend to do, and they have foolishly given up land for peace, undoubtedly because many of their citizens are former liberals from the USA. Anyone who cannot see that Israel is constantly beset by those who want to destroy her does not see reality as it is. Those Palestinians who have long lived in Israel are grateful for the fact, but our lame stream media is so anti-Israel that you would never know that.

      There is so much I could say, but only those who are daily praying for our government and it’s leaders, and those who would be our leaders, would be able to understand all that is going on. Until we return to the God of our Founding Fathers, things will not get better in this country, but will continue to deteriorate. This is why the number of citizens leaving this country seems to have doubled in the last few years, and why I am convinced the tripling of prices that will eventually befall us all, will also have world wide ramifications.

      Only if Ron Paul clearly states that he will support Israel if they are attacked will he have a chance to win the nomination. That may not be Libertarian but I believe it is true. The biased media is not his friend but he needs to clarify the distortions that are made in his name. God fulfilled the ancient prophecy of Isaiah who wrote, long before Jesus was born, “Whoever heard of such a thing, a nation born in a day”. No one ever had, and it was not until May 15, 1948, when God arranged that even Russia voted to support the resolution to establish Israel (and never supported them after that).

      Israel is no better than the United States but anyone who opposes them because they are Jewish or opposes Jews because they are Jews, is opposing God Himself. Sadly, the Bible says that before WWIIII or Armageddon comes about, that all the nations of the world will turn against Israel.

      We need to get back to the principles of the Constitution which were based on the principles espoused in the Bible or as Ronald Reagan once said, “We will be a nation gone under” By the way, one of the reasons that the Muslims hate Israel is because a reading of the ancient Bible indicates that the land God gave them long ago, they have not yet possessed and is currently occupied by Muslims, so Israel actually has Biblical justification if they did indeed have territorial ambitions. It’s undoubtedly politically incorrect to say it (but I will never run for office so I can say what I believe) and that is that just as we took Texas when we were attacked so any nation who attacks Israel should be rewarded by having their land confiscated. End of story!

      I like Ron Paul and agree with him on many things but Ron Paul needs to be much clearer on his foreign policy or he will not be president, although I would hope whoever is elected is smart enough to offer all the candidates jobs suitable for their talents. We need them all.

      • Vigilant

        Mr. Pawley, those are words of wisdom and I salute you!

      • ohoh

        Tragically, Richard, you don’t know who Israel is — a fundamental flaw in your analysis. Without knowing the players and real history, we can’t assign just rights and entitlements without putting our foot into it…something we’ve done in the case of our Israel policies for decades. Even though this has cost us dearly, such ignorance keeps us proudly and emotionally begging for more, as we turn a blind eye to all of the blowback we’ve received as a result. Sadly, this is part of the reason why leaders like George Washington and Ron Paul are so misunderstood.

      • Karolyn

        Please, what is “the God of our founding fathers?” I think that God is the same as ever was and ever shall be, whatever the concept. There were those who believed the right to own slaves was God-given, that women had no rights, that Indians were nothing but heathen scum because they did not ascribe to a Christian God. You would like to go back to that?

        • Vigilant

          Get off it, Karolyn, you know damned well what he means by “the God of our founding fathers.” It’s a manner of figurative speaking, and of course it refers to the Ultimate Reality, whatever you choose to call it, then and now.

          The “Creator” and “Nature’s God” were particularly Deist terms of reference and that left out as often as not the connection with Christianity. Jefferson and Washington, as well as Adams and Franklin in particular, did not believe that ownership of slaves was a God-given right, etc.

          It was the Creator-endowed Natural Rights that guided the Founders and helped them forge a Declaration and Constitution that remain unparalleled in human history. The crafting of the Constitution was such that eradicating the ills and evils of which you speak were facilitated by the document itself.

          And who the Hell said they want to back to an age when slavery and abridgement of rights was extant? No one wants it, and I’m tired of hearing the left imply what they know is a falsehood. It’s intellectual dishonesty of the worst sort.

  • Vicki

    The OP writes:
    “The biggest mistake that libertarians make is the way they view government and private sectors. Government is the root of all evil, and the private sector is the source of all good. ”

    This is not a mistake, nor is it the view of libertarians. Government is force. Like fire and must be kept strictly controlled lest it becomes a fearful master.

    Private sectors are not evil nor good. Governments ONLY role is to insure that the parties involved deal with each other honestly (no fraud for instance) Beyond that the interaction between the private sector and government will quickly devolve into Crony Capitalism or similar.

    • Joe Brooks

      Vicki, the US government used to “regulate” enough so that this does not happen, the worst case scenario of government and private sector deregulation and collusion:

      Immelt, Jobs [dead, I know] and other such “American leaders” all maximize their profits here. Illegal until Clinton gave Red China MFN. What a great “deregulation” and a total repudiation of America being the leader of the free world.

      • ChristyK

        The author keeps talking about the evils of deregulation. Companies are leaving the US because of Overregulation. Companies have to hire a large number of employees just to keep up with regulations and taxes.

        The FDA regulates food and drugs, yet people still die of food poisoning, they approve of GMO foods with pesticides in them, untested/limited-tested vaccines are pushed on the public, drugs with worse side-effects than the thing being treated are approved while natural (unpatentable) products are banned or limited.

        The EPA regulates businesses out of profitability and is even trying to ban CO2. I hope nobody wants to exhale.

        Most regulations make it harder for a new small business to enter the market because they don’t have the people and capital to comply. Only the massive corporations can comply with the onerous regulations. Regulations (beyond basic honest dealings and protection of property) stifle businesses and innovation and protect large established businesses which limits our choices, raises our prices, and drives businesses off-shore.

        • Joe Brooks

          Christy, I have a friend who runs a small manufacturing firm and he tells me about the regulatory mess he has to navigate, here. I am not talking about that kind of regulation, which we all know is too onerous in the US. I am talking about the policies of the US and what we supposedly stand for.

          “Unregulated” free trade with criminals and looters like Red China, OPEC, India, Communist Brazil, Criminal Mexico, Communist Viet Nam, the list goes on, leads to bad policy and enrichment of evil regimes.

          Some common sense has to prevail.

      • DaveH

        Do you really think we’ve been deregulated? Perhaps you could explain why the Federal Registry is currently the largest in our country’s history?
        Some reality:

        • DaveH

          The number of pages in the Federal Register from 1936 to 2004:

          In 2010 the number of pages were 81,405.

          • Joe Brooks

            DaveH, I am not referring to that kind of business regulation, which we all agree is out of control. Makes you wonder if foreign lobbyists have anything to do with it, to drive more US business overseas.

            I am talking about national policy. The right of the American people to expect our politicians to set policies that promote American ideals, within the US and without. No, I am not promoting imperialism and war, but a return to competing in the real world of International Trade, the world of tariffs, border duies and manipulation.

            The Chinese manipulate currency and have 25% tariff on US made goods, not to mention they are slavers and mass murderers. The US has a 2.5% tariff on Communist China made products. Pretty much explains why we are being colonized by them and others.

            BTW, Social Security to someone like me is in no way an “entitlement”. I started paying in at the age of 15, currently I have paid premiums to the tune of $60K, adding in my employers payments, that comes to $120K. My employer was always quick to point out that they were paying money I would have been paid, except, that my future was being taken care of.

            Would you flush that cash down the toilet, because of a bunch of criminal mismanagement by the government?

          • DaveH

            Protectionism was one of the main factors contributing to the Great Depression, Joe. Think about this, one of the first things a country executes in wartime is an embargo. Why is that? Because it’s an effective way to grind the target country’s economy to a halt. Now why would we want to do that to ourselves voluntarily?
            Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because we were strangling their foreign trade.
            Read this book, Joe. It is free and an excellent treatise of why Real Capitalism (not Crony Capitalism) works and works well:

    • El Gringo

      Vicki you are absolutely right!


    If Ron Paul would talk like a leader ,, like “”I am going to do ____ if i am president & it will be this way we will do it, it’s always ,,””if we had this & or if we can defeat the status quo,, he needs to be more tough & more direct & get into these people’s minds that he is the only candidate that is for the people , he must do this if he has any chance, he has to get tough , like he was in the 80′s so to speak, Cmon Ron, we need you to tell it like it is & tell us exactly “”in words”” that you will do all these things or to your best ability when u win!!

    John in NJ

    • Realist

      Johnny, he may come across as weak but a libertarian in the white house has limited authority when it comes to a two party congress and senate.
      The would all fight with him politically and if he made such promises as you urge him to do, he would in effect be lying.

      • Old Henry


        What you say is true to a point, but he would have the all important VETO pen and the bully pulpit.

        That was, in my opinion, one of Reagan’s bigest weaknesses, he did not use the VETO pen enough. Congress needs to be beat over the head with it.

        • DaveH

          Good points, Henry. Reagan did use the Veto 78 times, but the rabidly spending Congress overrode 9 of them. He came in like a ball of fire, but his own party members wore him down, notably Bob Dole.
          Reagan’s inaugural speech:

        • JeffH

          OH…not only would he have the power of the veto, but he could honestly deliver his speeches, town halls and address the House with complete honesty, look them in the eye…something that is totally lacking in politics today.

          • DaveH

            For sure.

    • Vicki

      Johnny A writes
      “If Ron Paul would talk like a leader ,, like “”I am going to do ____ if i am president & it will be this way we will do it, it’s always ,,”

      Those are the words of a King or Dictator, not those of a leader. Perhaps more context would make a difference. Example. If I am President I will work tirelessly to restore Constitutional Government. I will veto ANY legislation that has any thing in it that I believe is unconstitutional. I will veto any legislation that contains amendments not directly related to the subject of the legislation. I will lobby Congress to vote to repeal ……… I will nominate ONLY judges who have consistently shown their support of our Constitution.

      And so on.

    • WickedPickle

      The fact of the matter is, ALL presidential candidates have said and or promised that if elected chief exec. “THEY WILL DO THIS AND THEY WILL DO THAT” and look what it amounted to once they held the golden chalice. Ron Paul is correct in saying, “With all my power I will TRY to return this Nation to a more sane Country”.. Once he’s in, there will be a lot of dissension and opposition especially if one or both parties refuse to acknowledge his station (just like the did to Obama) this, “We will not support ANYTHING this president presents” philosophy is totally going against the American citizen.. The emphasis on the hill is ‘compromise’ you can’t compromise when the house and senate says, “Never mind”.. I feel this will be RP’s fate as well so he’s correct in saying that he will try to put his plans in action.. Once he becomes president it will be a whole new ball game and he will have to use the constitution (that hopefully all citizens will back) to get these vermin out of the political arena or else seek and agree to compromise.. We don’t want a Constitutional dictator and with cooperation from the house and senate (via compromised agreement) this will never come to fruition.

  • http://n/a Gita

    Surprised to see an article on this site full of such misrepresentations. “Paul should be making the point that Social Security and Medicare are threatened by multitrillion-dollar wars that are funded by debt, bailouts of a deregulated banking system and money creation to keep the banks afloat.” Paul has made this statement umpteen times! Perhaps the author has not been listening. The ideas expoused about libertarians are inacurate generalizations. What drivel.

  • http://n/a Gita

    “Social Security and Medicare are contracts that the government made with citizens. These contracts are as valid and enforceable as any other contracts.” Ron Paul has made this statement numerous times!! This is his reason for not elimination these programs off the bat but offering an opt-out for younger people. The author here has cited Ron Paul’s ideas numerous times here and implied that he has come up with some original thought or criticism! wow.

  • Bill Lee

    Social security and Medicare essential for survival? I’m 56, and have never asked for or expect ANYTHING from these two entitlements. However the writer is correct in regard to Ron Paulers needing to modify their idology, here’s why: 1/ I will never vote for a man who wants to strike “In God we Trust” as our national motto. 2/ who thinks states should do whatever they want when it comes to all social issues including legalizing drugs, prostitution and gay marriage. 3/ who thinks it’s fine and dandy for terrorist nations to make as many nukes as they want and hold the western world hostage. Those stances by RP are what make conservative Christians freak out. Just google each point and you’ll find RP’s quotes plain as day. He so far right he’s left on these issues.

    • c.w.s.


      I’m sad to hear that you do not believe in our Constitution. The ninth and tenth amendments explicitly give social issues to the states, which is RP’s position. Socialists, communists and fascists all believe that the people belong to the government, while true ‘republicans’ (in it’s original meaning), believe that the government belongs to the people.

      It is not the federal governments job to dole out charity. The states may, under our “legal” form of government do so with the consent of it’s voters, but not the feds.

      As for foreign nations developing what ever they wish, it is none of our business what they do. Which nation is the only nation to use a nuclear device on another? Which nation spends vast amounts of it’s resources overthrowing ELECTED leaders in order to set up puppet dictators to do it’s bidding? Which nation has denied it’s own people the freedoms guaranteed to them in their own Constitution but tries to dictate to others what freedom is?

      We were once a great nation and still can be with some soul searching and fundamental reforms to take us back onto the correct path. You ‘imply’ that you are “Christian” so can one presume you intend to PUT WOMEN BACK IN THEIR PLACE as subscribed in Timothy and James II?

      I do agree with you about keeping the national motto, but that is a personal belief and not a deal breaker. Selling the nation to the highest foreign banking interest is however. I guess you’d rather be enslaved to Chinese debt collectors… but, thanks for letting us know how you believe. I will ALWAYS support your right to do so…

      • DaveH

        Very Good, c.w.s.

      • Tanya

        I liked your comment, c.w.s., but I did want to clear up one thing. I’m a Christian woman, and I don’t believe the Bible teaches anyone to “put women in their place”. If you’re referring to wives being instructed to submit to husbands, I just want to point out that submission by definition is a voluntary act. If it were coerced, it would be something else entirely. I submit to my husband’s capable leadership and I’ve never felt put in any place by anyone.

        • Karolyn

          There are men who use the teachings of the Bible to subjugate and abuse their wives. I personally know one woman whose husband is very “Christian,” studies the Bible, and verbally and mentally abuses her in the guise of “a wife must submit to her husband.”

          • libertytrain

            Yepper, I’ve seen that as well, both here and up North. Ridiculous.

          • Tanya

            I see that sometimes too, but that’s a twisted interpretation. The instruction to submit is written to wives, not husbands. The part that’s written to husbands has to do with loving their wives and treating them with great care, not demanding submission. When both spouses follow their own instructions it can work pretty well.

            And by the way, none of this has anything to do with whether one is more intelligent or capable of leading than the other. I personally believe it has to do with meeting each others’ greatest need. Maybe I’ll be accused of being politically incorrect, but I believe men have a great need to be respected and women have the greater need to be loved, not that we don’t all like a little of both. :)

        • c.w.s.

          Actually Tanya I was referring to the passages that says to suffer no woman to have control over a man, thus women could not be elected officials, hold high office, be police or even teachers under some strict interpretations. This is found in both Timothy and in James II and elsewhere in the Bible in other forms. We in America have a different understanding of the Bible and Christianity than Christians in other parts of the world, especially some of the orthodox sects of the middle east. Even here in the U.S. there is some very strict ‘fundamentalist’ Christian movements which threaten gender equality. I did not mean to imply or infer that ALL Christians were so inclined. sorry for any confusion.

          • Tanya

            Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I’d be considered a fundamentalist by many, but because I believe the Bible supports liberty, I believe it’s each person’s choice in the way they choose to follow God or not. Unfortunately, believers often do a pretty bad job of respecting others’ liberty, but just because Christians do something doesn’t mean that’s what the Bible really says.

    • Brian

      If Ron Paul’s foreign policy is so dangerous as you imply then explain why it is the exact opposite foreign Policy that has placed us in peril?

    • DaveH

      Where do you get that Ron Paul wants to “strike “In God we Trust” as our national motto”?
      References please.
      I haven’t seen any such statement from Ron Paul.

      • http://wordpress usfrog

        You are right, he never said he wanted to strike “In God We Trust” as our national motto. He said that voting on such a resolution was superfluous. He was absent on the day of the vote.

        “I would have voted ‘no’ not because I don’t like the motto and don’t think we can use it, but ‘no’ because we were telling the states what to do,” Paul said.

        So, please get the facts straight before starting to criticize what he actually did not say.

      • JeffH

        Dave, that is what I would expect from the current administration to do.

    • Chaslie

      I agree. Libertarian ideaology is so far right that it meets up with leftist ideaology.

      • Old Henry


        You too do not believe in our Constitution? You think our Founders were crazy?

      • Bill

        Ah!!!! do you round is square?

    • Average Joe

      “1/ I will never vote for a man who wants to strike “In God we Trust” as our national motto. 2/ who thinks states should do whatever they want when it comes to all social issues including legalizing drugs, prostitution and gay marriage. 3/ who thinks it’s fine and dandy for terrorist nations to make as many nukes as they want and hold the western world hostage. Those stances by RP are what make conservative Christians freak out.”

      1. Where did you come up with that one (removing In God We Trust)? If true, please show us a video or audio clip of Ron Paul saying this….or is this just something that “so and so” told you?…put up or retract the staement.
      2. Are you trying to tell us that your elecected state representatives aren’t smart enough to pass laws that benift the people of your state and need the Feds to hold their hands? If so, maybe you need to elect smater reprsentatives….or become a more informed electorate…don’t forget, you helped elect them to their offices….more due dilligence on your part will be required.
      3. This statement is patently untrue. As with the first statement…video or audio of Ron Paul making either of those statements to back up your claims…..otherwise, you are being disingenuous and spreading false statements concerning Dr. Paul.

      As for telling us to “google”,tThose of us that support Dr. Paul….have already done our research….which is why we support him in the first place….
      As for the rest of the candidates……none of the others are talking about the issues affecting America. They are all to busy pointing out the “OBVIOUS” about each other…that they are all greedy, lying, cheating, flip-flopping candidates that will change their political and moral ideology at the drop of a hat to the highest bidder or biggest voter base, while Ron Paul actually talks about the issues that are truly affecting the lives of every person in the nation…and yet he is called “loony”….I truly have to wonder about the average persons thought processes………The choice is yours….Ron Paul or more of the same….

      Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over…while expecting a different outcome. I am tired of the insanity…the question is..are you?

      Ron Paul/Andrew Napolitano 2012!

      • DaveH

        Very Good, Joe.

      • Bill

        Hey Average (or not so average)


        • Average Joe

          He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher… or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.
          Douglas Adams

      • c.w.s.

        good answer…I had not considered Napolitano as VP…interesting choice, good choice probably, but I haven’t really researched him much I like his orations…I was thinking more on the lines of Gary Johnson…

      • Jeff S


      • Jay

        Nice work, AJ! Excellent rebuttal, BRAVO!!!

    • cawmun cents

      In deference to the Fed,it should say,”In God we trust,all others will pay cash.”-CC.

    • Old Henry

      Bill Lee:

      I thought you might be interested in learning some history. It only takes a few minutes.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Maybe those Christians you talk about should relearn the nature of evil.How about letting the government,in their capacity of keeping the country safe and moral,start tatooing us with our predominant sins and failures? We would then know who to avoid associating with.

      • cawmun cents

        Yep….and instead of keeping up with the Jones’,we can keep up with the Singhs’,or the Garcias’,mainly because we will earn exactly the same wages under the worlder scale.We gotta have less so that they can have more.Excellent!Now I know what the plan is……leveling the playing field.Award everyone with poverty.Raise their standard from dirt merchants to wlefare recipients,and lower mine from working stiff to welfare recipient…..hmmmmmm.That way if I want to light up my blunt,I still have to ring a bureaucrat and ask him for fire.
        I get it now…..suddenly I feel so free!I am living in a democracy!
        One that is taking the world by storm,or spring,or that warming feeling you get when you hear Al Gore speaking.
        Ah the green economy…I’ll just grow weed,and sell it to me mates!
        The Lords wont be the wiser……Meanwhile I’ve got these ripper chinese toys to play with,brought to me by those who own the company store.
        Nevermind the fact that there are many living and dying from sixteen hour days,on a bowl of rice and some crocodile urine to keep my technologies updated.I wants it… precious…..
        You are restructuring and no longer require my employment?
        Oh man!
        Just when I got my fix from credit card mania!
        So there is no work and the jobs are being outsourced to overseas?
        You mean I cant keep up with the Jones’ anymore?
        Now I gotta compete with the Singhs,and the Garcias for a piece of bread?
        I just wont take it anymore.Somebody save me!
        There isnt enough entitlements to go around?
        Guess I will have to learn what being poor is…..but Obama never told me about that part!
        Run him out of office!That’ll teach him…..
        Back to work again….still trying to catch up with the Jones’
        Ah the life of Reilly!
        (He who dies with the most toys wins)

    • mickey

      Umm CWS is right

      But I will have to add that the social network was handled by the states until the fed took it over and used SSA money to do it. We had few people on welfare because the state could not afford it. Besides, few would take a handout without offering work.

      It is now recognized that EVERYONE must have this or that. Not true, if one cannot afford cable, then the fed should not provide.

      I guess it is a paradigm as to what poor really is. Right now it is the poor welfare, who don’t want to work or are barred by the system to work, that is huge. Things I never dreamed of as a child is given away every day.

      Wow, such a long posting. I can’t get back to what else you said.

      • c.w.s.

        thanks Mickey…one thing that really “frosts me” is that the federal law MANDATES that prisoner have access to cable TV, something that even I don’t have working full time (30 yrs. same job). Internet is far superior though, so I guess I should not be too cynical…

    • Bill

      Bill, I haven’t seen one as yet but I am told that the new one dollar coin does not have “in god we trust” engraved on it. If that is so, it was not a libertarian who took it off.

      • c.w.s.

        Yes, the “IN GOD WE TRUST” IS on the coin, but it is embossed along the rim and will wear out quickly if the coins are in circulation for long. The intent for all the ‘commemorative’ coins by the way is to try to get them OUT of circulation. That keeps the money still in circulation with some value. Our fiat monetary system really is a house of cards and will be shown as such soon, as the Indians have promised to buy Iranian oil with Gold. This will have the effect of propping up the price of gold and oil crude while devaluing the dollar.

        • Jeff S

          Like I’ve been saying, PRINT MORE MONEY. The myth that the economy would crash is exactly what they want you to beleive. The only thing that would crash is the agenda based, privately owned, war machine that is the Federal Reserve. It’s not who prints the money but who controls it’s quantity is what backs the dollar. If the gov’t reprinted money and took that power away from the reserve we’d be out of debt in no time! Lincoln and his “greenbacks” had it right. The gold standard is flawed because it’s price can still be dictated by those other that the gov’t.

          • c.w.s.

            I’m not convinced the gold standard is ‘flawed’ per se, but there isn’t enough gold. The use of gold in nanotechnology and other industrial and medical uses is reducing the supply. Metals have value because they have some usefulness in our lives…. paper? I still remember the silver certificates redeemable for “real money” upon demand.

            Yes, Lincoln was on the right track, but “they” wouldn’t allow it to last long. Since the war was already won, I’ve heard it speculated that the monetary system and his hatred for corporations was the true reason for his assassination. The “love” of money is indeed the root of evil, irrespective of who gets to print or control it. The Constitution STILL says that states shall allow no other currency other gold or silver coin. There ain’t no way around saying that we are in violation of the written Constitution and we…”all go marching down into the ground, to get out of the rain….”

  • Robert

    You are mistaken to say that medicare and Social Security are private property. If they were private property then how is it that the government decides when and how much if any a person receives. It was private property,stolen by force and lied about as to why and what government was doing with the cash. There was never a “Trust fund”that was part of the ponzi scheme lie. I am over 50 and beleive I know better than the government how to handle my financial affairs. As for the less fortunate 1st if government had not stole the money from them they would have been better off and 2nd it is not and should never be Federal governments place to take care of people. that is a state and local matter.

    • Vagabond

      Robert I dont care how old you are you are dead wrong. there was a social security fund. and it was so overflowing with money the damned democrats under lyndon bains johnson just had to raid the social security fund to finance the vietnam fiasco the damned democrats with civilians making the rules of war for us LOST because we were not allowed to win it, the social security fund has been in the general fund ever since so they can blow it on their pet projects. I haven’t voted for a damned democrat since and I am 76 years old and dont foresee EVER voting for another one,

      • DaveH

        I think Robert was just being a little hyperbolic with the “never” part, but the gist of his comment was right on.

      • Mickey

        Vagabond 8:03 am, youre wrong, Social Security funds were spent to finance LBJ’s “Great Society,” that has cost us trillions, with no results whatsoever. As for Vietnam, that liberal, communist, socialist, marxist, Walter Cronkite, betrayed us in that one. We were kicking NVA/VC ass, when comrad cronkite lied about the Tet Offensive, and the parents of the OWC scum took to the streets, and we were forced to abandon South Vietnam. When will we take to the streets and destroy liberals and socialist’s forever? Soon I hope. God help us.

        Semper Fi.


        • mickey

          Umm I think that was Kissinger and Nixon. Kissinger advised Nixon not to withdraw from the war because even though we couldn’t win it, we couldn’t lose face.

          LBJ expanded welfare. Under LBJ, the funds got raided.

          SSA was to have insurance for the loss of the wage earner so widows (and there were many) wouldn’t be thrown out on the street. It was mandated at the federal level to keep the banks out of the raiding business. Instead, the government stole the funds.

          The ponzi scheme came in when PayGo took place, the last paying in for the first payouts. Once the last paying in decreased, the scheme fell apart–where we are today.

      • Buddy

        Vagabond, so you’re still voting?

        I stopped voting about 45 years ago because I decided that voting for the ‘lesser evil” was still supporting evil. I realize that at 78 years of age, you have been exposed to the sorry state of political activities for awhile without regret for providing support, but here’s still time to make amends.

        Buddy (a buddy from WWII).

        • c.w.s.

          Buddy, that is a very sorry statement. I DO understand what you believed, but had you voted and just chosen a ‘third’ party, it would have had the effect of showing the establishment that people are active but disappointed.

          One of the tenets of politics is “SILENCE DENOTES CONSENT”. By remaining silent and not voting you send the message that you approved of the way things were going. Too many people don’t recognize the value of voting third party because the media has brain washed people into believing that voting is like placing a two dollar bet at the track…if you don’t pick the winner, your vote didn’t count.

          Anyway, the right to vote is also the right not to vote, I’m just sorry that you felt that it was always an either/other choice.

      • Don

        Amen Vagabond, you got me by a year, and you are 100% right !!

      • WickedPickle

        Wait a minute! Nixon promised.. PROMISED to end that war within two years after his taking over the white house.. It lasted six years later with more promises that he would end the war if re-elected.. I never guessed he was a Democrat.

    • Realist

      As with most government functions, Social Security has been privatized as was the Federal Reserve Bank. Most folks just ain’t up to seeing that yet.

  • AmericMatters

    How could anyone be so foolish as to say private savings are unfunded and SS and Medicare are funded? I expected more from this website then the filthy lies spread by the mass media. Can we no longer trust Bob Livingston and the other authors to not publish trash that is full of unfounded and false accusations? Don’t let this guy wite more of this garbage Bob!!!!!!!!

    • Average Joe


      While it is commendable that you read the article…comprehending what you’ve read goes a long way towards sorting things out in reality.

      “Many libertarians regard Social Security and Medicare as welfare handouts and as Ponzi schemes, when in fact these programs are a form of private property. People pay for these programs all their working lives, just as they pay premiums for private medical policies and make their deposits into private pension plans. Libertarians are great defenders of private property, so why don’t they defend the elderly’s private property rights in Social Security and Medicare benefits? Social Security and Medicare are contracts that the government made with citizens. These contracts are as valid and enforceable as any other contracts. If Social Security and Medicare are in dire trouble, why is the government wasting trillions of dollars on behalf of private armaments industries, a neocon ideology and Israel’s territorial ambitions? Why isn’t this question the most important issue in the campaign?”

      In other words, the exact opposite of what you claimed it said…..AmericMatters …but comprehension matters more.

      • Sol of Texas

        How can it be “private” property when many people who receive benefits never contributed or contributed a great deal less than they extracted?

        • Average Joe

          I never said that the private property wasn’t being looted. When Social Security came into being, it was supposed to be voluntary…not mandatory. Therefore, the money that you contributed, belonged to you…and not someone else….making it…private property. BTW, SS is still voluntary…but they trick us (or force us) to contract with them…by telling us that we can’t work without a Social Security number ( a lie) as well as issuing SSI cards at birth…and once we have gotten said number…the contract has been made and we are trapped. Don’t believe me?…do the research yourselves.

      • Buddy

        Many years ago, the then supreme court decreed that SS payments were taxes – - not insurance premiums in any way.

      • Vicki

        Social Security is NOT private property. It is a TAX. The money collected at gunpoint is even called a TAX. The Supreme Court even decided that it was NOT private property.
        “[197}Ruling: Flemming v. Nestor. U.S. Supreme Court, June 20, 1960. Case 363 U.S. 603. Decided 5-4″

        TO find a lot more painful facts about SS and look above and below the above link start point.

    • John

      Why not? Are you so insecure that you only want to read articles of authors preaching to the quire and what you want to hear. Articles like this that are true also from the WRITERS point of view are what will start healthy discussions. Who knows, you may learn something new reading responses by people that did research the issues and points the man is making. Only having articles by people that say the same ole over and over and that don’t offer different view points will be boring after a while as it is same ole same ole and the same people will post the same responses. Now you call them lies and that’s is exactly what this author is concerned about, the narrow mindedness of people that reject a viewpoint straight away without even to research and to articulate why they are oppose them. Instead to just right out say , junk, lies, and you don’t want to see stuff like this, why did you not make a reply saying WHY you think those are lies? Bring facts you have researched so all can see you have done your homework.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Because of this article you actually were made to do some reasoning and solidify your values and beliefs instead of just a knee jerk reaction and anger.

  • peter

    It does’nt matter who wins the Republican nomination. The Republicans are history, they cannot possibly hope to have one of theirs in the White House. Obama is the undisputed king of the USA! and the American people are his subjects. Does’nt anyone understand that yet? Think he’s planning to be king of the world? Could just happen.

    • John

      Paranoid much? You think countries such as Russia and China would want Obama as their king? How about India one of the most populous countries? How about the Europeans who are fed up with the US? How about Indonesia? This world is a lot larger then most people realize and the majorities of countries do not accept the US role of world dominance. Do you know that there is a strong party within India that rejects the American attempt of dominance and rejects the Idea that the US tries to be the world leader? Do you understand that those people have openly declared they would attack the US first with nukes if there ever would be a conflict? And yet, our media and the government are hitting the war drums with Iran… Have a look how close India is to our conflicts and ask your self how secure they will feel? Obama would have no chance in hell to ever take over a united Russia and China or any of them and India or Europe. Those are only a few countries, but every single one of them is a nuclear country and will hold on to those nukes as long as the US is trying to take over the world. People talk about the NWO without seeing the obvious, there are many countries out there that do NOT want the NWO especially if it would be under US domination… and those countries are racing to modernize their weapons and expanding their nuclear arsenal. Just because we have treaties does not mean that the Russians and Chinese do not expand their nukes… the treaties do NOT include all type of nuclear weapons that are being manufactured. So although Obama may become a dictator in the US, he will be nothing more but a Hugo Chavez on steroids should it happen. And If he would try to expand the US influence or the NWO into any of those countries using violence there wwould be a strong possibility of WW-III, but this time the US would be in the position Hitler and the Germans where in, the rest of the world united against the US… a war could can not win.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        So it would be all fine with you if America was brought down low?

        • John

          Who said it would be fine with me? Just because I state what I think are some inconvenient facts? Lets face it, stating them does not made them magically appear and it will not make them magically disappear if we don’t talk about it. It is my believe that realization of what is going on in this world is an absolute must if we want to get this country back on tract. And in order to realize what is really going on we need to get rid of our blinders.

          • Jeff S

            I agree with you John. The only reason Iran and other countries want nukes is to protect themselves. It’s called self preservation. They don’t want to insight war or any conflicts for that matter as they know they would be turned into an ashtray. I soooo tired of people beleiving that Iran and other countries are a “threat” and would cause “instability in the region” if they had nukes. They’re just scared because all they see is country after country in their region being invaded and occupied by foriegn countries and just want to preserve their soverinty. Just as the United States claims to want.

      • WickedPickle

        Wow! and here we are fretting over ONE Iranian nuke.. Priceless!

    • Sol of Texas

      Peter –

      Based on his behavior, I think Obama thinks Obama is the Muslim Mahdi (but with a Marxist twist).

    • Nadzieja Batki

      From your glee of what you posted you actually want to be a subject of a king. You won’t have to think, or strive, or work, or succeed, or fail,etc..

    • c.w.s.

      Peter, Peter, Peter…. “Emperors” are not “kings”…. Kings are ordained by the All Mighty, Emperors place the crown upon their own heads… but alas, I suspect you come to bury Caesar, not to praise him…

  • John Acord

    Ron Paul has never said that he was to abolish Social Security or even Medicare. what he needs to tel the American people that Social Security is solvent is the government would repay the trust funds the vast sums it has stolen. Mr. Roberts has made a great point and one that should be immediately adopted by the Paul campaign! Kudos once again for the great economist Paul Craig Roberts!

    • ktr

      medicare and social security are ponzi schemes; they are insolvent and they are welfare programs; this is indisputable; I say this as the amount of money that people take out is far more than the amount than people put into it; the difference is subsidized by the taxpayer; I have no problem with someone spending the money that they put in to the program; but why don’t you be honest; do you really think and believe that with the cost of living that people are not taking out more than they put into it???? seriously, the program is subsidized by the youth who will NEVER see that money! I call that theft. What do you call it? The senior citizens can try to justify this to themselves and not all of them believe that this is morally correct. But, Mr Roberts needs to call social security and medicare what they really are! They are not private property. That is a joke and so was that assumption. If they really are private property and belong to me; can I go get my money out right now and take it to my own personal account??? The IRS would laugh at me and you know it. So, Mr Roberts pretty much lost his chance with me as a well thought and well spoken writer.

      • DaveH

        You are correct, ktr, that Social Security is theft.
        However, your comment assumes no compounded interest on our confiscated funds, and does not take into account that the money when taken was worth much more than it is now. If we had instead just invested that money back then in gold, for instance, it would be worth more than two times today’s nominal dollars.
        As an example, the Government has taken $160000 from me over my adult life. If I had just put that same money in Certificates of Deposit, I would have easily earned 4% average on my money over those 40 years. Compounded, the account would now be worth over $350,000. And using 4% as my figure is really on the low side. If I had instead put the money in Gold each year, the actual value in Gold at this time would have been even greater than $350,000.
        As I’m very good at investing, personally I could have made much more on that same money.

        • Stan

          You are so full of crap your eyes are brown. Just give me back what I paid in and what my employers paid in and I will be happy. Approximately, $500,000 and I will collect about 220,000 if I collect for 20 years. DO THE MATH, THE MONEY IS A DEBT not welfare.

          • DaveH

            Put on your reading glasses, Stan. Nothing I said is incorrect.

          • Stan

            My remarks were to what ktr said not you. By the way, I have 20 20 vision work out 6 days a week, weigh the same as I did in high school,don’t smoke drink or do drugs including prescription and I can run circle around most people half my age BUCKOO

          • JeffH

            Stan, then you should address your reply to the individual or post your reply under the posters “reply” button. FYI…oh, whoopie ding for you…

          • Jay

            Hey Jeff, good to see you posting again!

  • Stephan F.

    Dr. Roberts, you, like most modern contemporary conservatives, are one confused puppy. I shall waste none of my time trying to unravel your twisted mindset. Good day.

    • ktr

      I agree!!!!! Calling medicare and social security private property is a huge error. It is subsidized with tax payer money against the will of most of those who pay those taxes. Many of the senior citizens who collect that money put in far less money than they put in over the years. I call that a ponzi scheme. Mr Roberts has very little insight in to what SS and medicare really are. He may have some valid points but this article could not recover from the SS and medicare comments. He is also wrong in that the trillions of dollars of waste is not so much from war but more so from entitlement programs. Go look it up. He should have before he wrote this. Again, this article has very little credibility.

      • Vagabond

        ktr I lost many friends and comrads who paid into the fund but never lived to collect one dime of it. and once more THE FUND WAS BURSTING AT THE SEAMS WIT MONE TILL THE DAMNED DEMOCRATS UNDER LYNDON BAINS JONSON STOLE IT TO FINANCE THE VIETNAM WAR,IN 1964. I was in the U.S.Air Force at the time,

        • Stan

          Vagabond you are correct. I also remember when the fund was a huge surplus over anticipated payout until the LBJ years who basically stole the money from the people for Vietnam. I would be willing to bet that the “welfare” comments are from 20 to 30 year old’s that have no clue what they are talking about. I and my employers paid in more money in principle (forget interest) than I could ever withdraw and it is true that many people die before they ever collect a dime from the “fund”, however, there are many programs that are being funded under the social security act where these people never contributed to the fund, such as disability claims and dependent children etc. I don’t know what the fund would look like if it was still a “trust” fund and intact with all the Non-retirement benefits that have been attributed to the fund. Those programs should have been funded out of the ‘welfare” system not Social Security Retirement Fund. The discussion is mute, in that it will never change so we should concentrate on trying to get legislation passed that would once again make the fund untouchable by constitutional amendment so that the LBJ’s of the future can’t steal from it again in the future. Assuming there is a future for this country if Obama is re-elected, which I believe he will be and I have serious doubts that the country can withstand another four years of the Eco terrorist know as Obama

  • Dave Carr

    I’m a firm RP supporter and I believe youe article made some valid points. Often times it would seem, the message could be framed better. While we who have followed him for years have a clear understanding, it needs to reach a much wider audience if he’s going to have a chance to win the nomination and the election. In addition, there are times, sorry Ron, we’re you inexplicably shoot yourself in the foot. The Osama Bin Laden answer just floored me. You can think that, but why come out with that answer? He needed to be taken alive for trial? Instead you could have highlighted the waste of trillions of dollars in occupying countries, where Bin Laden wasn’t to be found, only to be brought to justice by a small special ops force in Pakistan. As a self admitted attacker, he’s an enemy combatant and certainly not worthy of having the right to an American trial. You have to know an answer like that would be so vastly unpopular as to marginalize your campaign and turn off the electorate in mass. I’m still perplexed to this day. Love ya Ron, but please think about the audience, the voters you’re trying to reach!

    • kkflash

      I agree. I love what Ron Paul stands for, but often times he’s just too honest, which is costing him his chance for real government reform. In our media-controlled world, what you don’t say is often more important than what you say. Ron would have a better chance if he’d learn to keep some of his less popular ideas close to the vest. Even though he has the clarity of vision that can put this country back on track, there are too many foolish voters who’ll toss all his great ideas out if they hear one thing from him they don’t like, and his opponents won’t miss an opportunity to focus the light on any misstep.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        So Ron Paul should just compromise at every turn to get along.

      • Buddy

        Too honest? I have observed many (many) politicians who are too crooked, but have yet to run across one who is “too honest”.

  • Bruce D.

    Ron Paul missed an opportunity to make a real difference if he could have articulated a better foreign policy message. After all he is not a blogger on some libertarian site. He sounds more like Cindy Sheehan than a presidential canidate. Most people do not want a world armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and Paul’s solution is to say – can’t everybody just be friends. His message should have been reduction in overseas forces and not spout the same kind of mindless anti-American sentiment that you hear on this site.

    • Vicki

      Bruce D. writes:
      “Most people do not want a world armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons”

      According to the Mass Media most people do not want their next door neighbor armed to the teeth with “assault weapons” either. Does that mean they have the right to tell their neighbor (or you) that they can’t own any guns?

      and Paul’s solution is to say – can’t everybody just be friends.

      • Vicki

        oops. didn’t delete the part about R. Pauls “message”

  • JohnnyB

    I read every word of this article. I don’t think that it is a matter of “escaping” the libertarian ideology, it is a matter that the rest of the American Citizens don’t know or don’t care that the Nation is insolvent, RIGHT NOW! The unwritten contract between the social security tax payer (SSTP)and the government is that once the SSTP reaches the age to start recieving distributions, that the government is going to make good on this promise (even though there was never a written contract). I find this intractability disheartening to say the least. While the taxpayers were working, they voted in people who looted and pillaged thier retirement. I for one, REFUSE to pay into something that is all ready insolvent now and won’t be around when it is my time to retire. What is mine is mine, and no person has the right to stick their hands into my wallet, just becuase they can vote. The citizens who are now coming into retirement had the responsibility to make sure that their elected representatives did the right thing – and they failed to hold these same representatives accountable. THE REVOLUTION WAS FOUGHT OVER TAXATION!

    • ktr

      you are right; if those people retiring now have no money and actually believed FDR and LBJ and the other progressives that these programs will be there to take care of them; sorry, that was there mistake, not mine; I do not want to subsidize their bad decisions made in the past; there is no written part of the constitution that says I have to subsidize someone else’s retirement; the elderly who cannot retire should be angry at their parents for not teaching them self-reliance and moral value to expect someone to give them a handout

    • Buddy

      What contract?! There never was a contract.

      Many years ago, the supreme court decreed that SS payments were taxes – – not insurance premiums in any way.

  • Marc de Piolenc

    Sheer silliness. For Ron Paul and Co. to pretend to be defenders of Medicare and SS would be purest hypocrisy. Both of those programs are part of what is wrong with the country – fraud masquerading as a retirement fund and medical insurance, respectively, when in fact both are pyramid schemes that have ALREADY failed. The kindest thing one can do for those who expect to benefit from them it to tell them it won’t happen, and encourage them to seek other solutions. In a rejuvenated, liberated, deregulated, de-tyrannized America with Constitutional government, there’s a pretty good chance that many of them could. Pretending to save SS and Medicare simply guarantees greater misery.

    • RM

      I respectfully ask then if such is your position, then anytime a party to a contract steals from said contract (and the other party to it) and the promises made therein then the contract should be abolished and all investment to date made by the unwitting harmed parties should just blame themselves for it and go on about lamenting their parent’s failure in teaching self-reliance?
      It appears to me, and I could be incorrect, but, it seems the point being advanced in Dr. Robert’s piece is being missed. He isn’t suggesting Paul barter away principle; rather, he is suggesting a very wise strategic move….NOT to be defined by others who CANNOT successfully argue against Dr. Paul’s well reasoned arguments, whether on economics, or foreign policy.
      To allow ourselves to be as narrow as those who many readers of this newsletter would like to unseat, is a fatal mistake. -RM

  • Amy Aremia

    Paul Craig Roberts article is on the mark…America’s last chance can be at the 2012 Ballot Box…In each Congresional District, those supporting Ron Paul must unite and make a concerted effort to camapign for him with personal fliers for the news media will not give him coverage unless it can be twisted in a negative manner. Dr. Paul is the only candidate who has pledged his allegiance to the Constitution while most of the others made their pledges to a foreign nation.
    Only in each Congressional District can the people spot the infiltrators trying to run our elections and expose them for what their intentions are…out to destroy the Constitution and the freedoms it upholds.
    Concerned American Patriots must take action. By not voting gives the victory to the enemy. Don’t fall for the same old tactic that a vote for so-an-so (ROn Paul this election) is a wasted vote..if all those who want to vote for Dr. Paul and do vote for him, there is a good chance he will win…..
    As for Social Security and Medicare…they are NOT WELFARE, but paid for by each worker and his employer like anyother insurance plan…By using it for their means, the government is actually stealing from the people,their rights to the pension and medical care.
    The budget can be balanced with a few strokes of a pen…Strike out ALL Foreign Aid money going out in the Billions to countries around the world while the govenment borrows Billions to run the nation. By Congress taking its responsibility for the Federal Reserve, and out of the hands of international foreign bankers, can stop the Bilions paid to them in Interestfor printing our money.
    Bringing home our military scattered around the world in more than a 100 countries will save more Billions and we can have our soldiers protect our own borders….

  • Linda

    I prefer Newt over Ron – because like the ex-smoker or drinker, no one is more likely to be vehemently against something than an ex-whatever. Even Reagan was an ex-democrat. My ‘used-to-be-rabid-liberal’ brother had his own epiphany this past year and you should hear him go off on BO and the DNC!!I think NG has had an epiphany and he’s not afraid to say “I was wrong”, unlike RP – who has never conceded to being wrong or changing his point of view or that maybe he needed to rethink his position. A real leader should be unafraid of admitting their mistakes/misgivings – and we all make them. I think the biggest difference between conservatives like myself (neo, GOP, indies et al) and libertarians is that we have no pure dogma ecept for knowing that we don’t want a socialist police state and to get the govt back into the control of the people and under Constitutional Law. And that is why I think Newt will carry the day in FL.

    to point out a nit…the revolution was in the 18th century (1700′s), unless you mean the british civil war of the 1600′s (which I doubt :) ).

    • Mark Dabney

      Newt does NOT admit when he is wrong – he deflects and dismisses – just as when Marianne addressed his flawed view of marriage – Newt is a slimy lizard – the Machiavellian that the founders warned us against

      Newt claims that 84 of the 85 charges were dropped against him – as though it was not a plea bargain to address real moral failures on his part. Newt is a CFR operative – he is for the New World Order and his MT rhetoric is dangerous when people believe his lies

    • Sol of Texas

      Linda –

      While reading the article I had concluded the author was referring to the English Civil War (“Cavaliers” vs “Roundheads”) from 1625 to 1649.

      Also, I understand that “once an addict, always an addict”.

    • David P

      So what you’re saying is that former addicts never give into compulsion and fall off the wagon?

    • Rozwaldo

      Gingrich directs people away from his ethics violations rather than apologizing. He consistently defends the dishonesty embedded in his record. Ron Paul shouldn’t have to apologize for correctly predicting the path American society has taken over the past 20 years and shouldn’t have to apologize for defending your rights under the Constitution his entire career. Newt may vote a little more predictably than Romney, but you can bet that he will continue the overspending and squeeze you and the rest of the middle-class extra tight with his strategic targeting of the upper-class with tax cuts. A Ron Paul presidency will benefit the greatest number of people economically, save military lives, and reduce the national debt.

  • http://personallibertydigest Alan Mercier

    Ron Paul is the best cantadite for the presidency and all you have to do is look back at the last 30 yrs of his life to see why.He has more morals than all the others put together. Is smarter than all the rest and has more experience than any of them. Plus he’s more in touch with the people, Young and old and especially with the active duty military.

  • Mark Dabney

    It is clear that you PCR wish to see this honorable man get the nod – and do not wish to contend with unwarranted criticism – granted.

    Deregulation should never have been taken as a license to commit fraud as it was

  • GILLYSROOMS in Australia

    Congratulations Paul Craig Roberts for telling it the way it is. I could not have said it better myself…as i did not have the time or the indepth knowledge of how your funny system works to write such a piece of writing. I enjoyed reading your worthwhile STRATEGIC advice. I want Dr Ron Paul to win but i can see it slipping away from where I sit in Australia. You are right when you say “Paul should be making the point that Social Security and Medicare are threatened by multitrillion-dollar wars that are funded by debt, bailouts of a deregulated banking system and money creation to keep the banks afloat.” You are right … In my opinion the pure Libertarian would rather lose by scaring the elderly over Social Security and Medicare than realising it is here to stay.

    I was heavily involved in the Libertarian movement in the 1970′s in Australia when it was unfashionable and it took some while to convince one of our major parties called the Liberal Party [our conservative group] to privatise many government businesses in Utilities, Banks, Airlines, Railways and more and they did raise $billions to pay out ALL the government debt, Except they scared the voters into voting for our soft socialist Labour Party who have now borrowed and printed $billions again to save us from the GFC.

    My point is and I read into what Paul Craig Roberts is saying is that the pure Liberterian are scaring voters in the nomination process into supporting the moderates which talk the soft talk but have no real intention of having the courage to cut the budget in other areas where it should if they should win the Presidency. Paul Craig Roberts IS TALKING ABOUT STRATEGY TO WIN THE NOMINATIONS..not ridiculing anyone, BUT in my view it needed to be said and he has said it, so hopefully the Ron Pauls minders will take note of his and my opinion. Even my mother who is in her 80′s in Australia wants Ron Paul to win the nominations.

    One of the current problems is that voters are thinking like the Hollywood scene following beauty instead of experience and a principled man in R. Voters should vote for the best man and his team not for the best looking couple in the Whitehouse.

    In my opinion one of the main failings you have in your system of Justice if Im understanding it better now, is your system which perpetuates corruption relates to the voting in of judges and District Attorneys. In Australia they have their job for till retirement age, so they dont need to impress their voting lobby supporters in their duties to carry out their legal judiciary services but if they had a secure job they could form untainted opinions in determining justice without fear or favour.

    Hope you have an expert to debate me wrong?

    • Vigilant

      “Paul Craig Roberts IS TALKING ABOUT STRATEGY TO WIN THE NOMINATIONS..not ridiculing anyone…”

      Not quite. His palaver about the “Israel lobby” and “Israel’s territorial ambitions” is absolute hogwash. Roberts’ gratuitous swipes at Israel are unfounded and divulge an agenda on his part.

    • Sol of Texas

      Gilly, cobber –

      If you accept the fact that humans are flawed, then generalizing about the motivation for good behavior being the security and permanency of their position does not necessarily follow. Over time, inductive reasoning and empirical data demonstrates that individuals and institutions become corrupted.

      Our Republic was based on upon the ancient Roman Republic. The only permanent position of the Republic I can recall was the “public office” of vestal virgin. :-)


      Cheers, mate.

      BTW — I never liked the idea of fining people who failed to vote in elections as was once (is still?) the law in Aus’.

      • GILLYSROOMS in Australia

        It still is law to fine people for not voting in Australia…but excuses such as illness or infirmaty seem to be acceptable, but as one of my friends wrote in a lenghty letter when he received a fine for not voting..”Why should I vote for my persecutors” …and the fine was never acted upon. Many criminals and bankrupts do not vote as they do not register on the electrol Rolls because they do not wish to be located by the judicial system or people who they owe money to.

    • http://google rose

      Social Security can either be phased out or just plain run out one day. It is irresponsible for our government to make people believe that the check will always be there. At least if they would be truthful people, could prepare. People are just going to have to take care of their family members when the money runs out and not put the responsibllity on the government or other people.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Once agencies and institutions are started it is near impossible to abolish them as they are self propagating and self preserving.

      • John

        It seems to me you probably would find nothing wrong with selling suicide kits to those that run out of money, are to old or sick to work, and no other options available eh?

  • rb

    Well thought out and to the point. Perhaps not entirely accurate but well written. We truly need a constitutional candidate and Ron Paul is the singular candidate to fill that need. He needs to sound more like a leader though. Until he does people will only listen to those who blow smoke.

  • s

    Bill I am your age and have never asked for or expected to get any gov. help either. But there are many who now depend on it now so the writers point is well taken. As to your point #3 I think that is hog wash. I don’t believe Dr. Paul’s stance is “fine and dandy for terrorist nations to make as many nukes as they want and hold the western world hostage.” The point he makes is that presently Iran is no threat to us. They have wide up toys for a navy and no air power. And most likely Israel will take care of any nukes they may develop on her own.

  • Bett

    He never said he will terminate the system and has agreed it must be fixed and a different plan for future

    Get us off this sinking ship, 2002 warnings to congress came true:
    Israel & CIA agree on foreign policy candidate, guess who?


    I have watched every debate & 80% of what Ron Paul says is radical & can harm our America & our military !

    • ktr

      people in florida want handouts; RP will not harm the military or this country; he will balance the budget; floridians sit around worrying about whether or not their entitlement program check will be there over the next few years; here is an idea; get a job!

    • Jason Mench

      Really? Then why does RP have more votes from active military and veterans? RP is strong on National Defense, not on Nation Building and oppression of other countries.

    • kkflash

      If following the Constitution is radical, then call me a revolutionary! Flordia (sic), you and those like you are the reason our country is in the mess that it’s in. You listen but you don’t hear.

    • Sol of Texas

      Florida –

      I have two responses …
      (1) If true, then why do so many in the military support Ron Paul?
      (2) Booooooo … stop listening to the pundits and think through this on your own. Radical? Hell, yeah! Radical is not necessarily bad. The world is improved by “unreasonable” men and “radical” thinkers (reflect on Payne, Washington, Jefferson, Henry, Adams, Franklin, …). Without radicals, our minds would still model a flat-earth. Don’t be afraid, just think about it.

      • Buddy

        Do you really know that the earth is not flat? I mean, do you personally know or is that belief a faith?

        • Deerinwater

          We know the world is not flat by many methods above and beyond just pictures. For example, at sea the range of vision is limited to 14 miles,due to the curvature of the earth. This limitation is the results of something that has always been in place, even before math could explain it.

          So your point, is null and void.

      • John

        How do you know that he has received that many contributions from the military? Because he said so? Because his campaign said so? Or because he has posted all the names and addresses on the web so people can verify them? Politicians say a lot of things all day long…. Don’t get me wrong, I like the man, but I will not believe any unverifiable claims from ANYONE period. Unless I can verify them myself I will just file them away as he said, she claimed but not as fact. I know quite a few military .. living not very far from a large base… and most I know would rather go out and get plastered then to sent RP even one penny… out of all the military I know, only one or two have openly supported RP…. and that makes me think twice about those claims…..

        • Jeff S

          You know that John because if it weren’t true then the other candidates would be quick to claim that prize or at least point to it’s falsehood. This is an election in case you missed it and something like that would not get over looked. Especially by the super-funded campaigner’s that are NeWOt and Romnuts.

        • c.w.s.

          John….go to the link I’ve provided to Open Secrets dot Org. They are dedicated to tracking money in politics and have been cited as an excellent site for several years by multiple parties left, right, and in between…:

        • c.w.s.

          you can even type in your zip code and find out who in your neighborhood is donating money and to whom. There are breakdowns as to which industries and which corporations donate, or you can select an individual and find who has given to them…

        • GILLYSROOMS in Australia

          John, I understand where your coming from in regard to proof, but remember that many people will not disclose to anyone who they intend to vote for, for fear of ridicule, but i’m sure many in the military and their children would rather receive a salary while waiting in the comfort of their barracks like firemen do in their stations rather than risk their lives for every minute of their days and nights in a foreign land. I’m not talking about cowardice…i’m talking about common sense. And Dr Ron Paul has bucket loads of commonsense if anyone cares to listern to what he is saying. It might sound radical because ALL the other candidates are talking in inison with Obama and all the others before him. ALL the other candidates are folloers..whereas Ron Paul is a leader and very much still not recognised for his wisdom.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      And you know this how? So if this country continues, as it is, it will eventually become Utopia.

    • Jeff S

      Please quit reading and beleiving what the MSmedia wants you to beleive. Tell me Einstein, how could taking our military out of war zones and the other 120 plus countries that they occupy, be “hamful to the military?”

      • GILLYSROOMS in Australia

        It might be because they might be expecting to all lose their jobs if they were no longer needed perhaps? but the reality is that these personell could be used in many other areas of national security but always in readiness in case of sudden need. This is what is not being understood by voters. Everyone wants to cut costs in governments but not if it affects their own pockets.

  • Jason Mench

    Hasn’t RP said that he would use the money saved from ending the wars and bringing our troops home and closing bases around the world to save SS and Medicare and help the states save Medicaid? He understands that their are to many people dependent on the system to cancel them. He just wants to give the young people, those that are young enough to save for themselves, the chance to opt out and those of us that are at that age that right in the middle that would have a hard time saving for retirement if we had to start fresh now the chance to choose what we wanted to do also.

    I think that RP has been painted by the Elite and the media they own as the destroyer of these plans, but just like they do with everything else, it is propaganda and subterfuge.

  • Capitalist at Birth

    Ahh, the Paulistas will be out in full force today. I think I will get out before the onslaught happens. Good Day!

    • s

      Yea gotta be at the bank by 9

      • Sol of Texas

        That’s funny. :-)

  • Joey

    I think Mr. Roberts point is this. If you spend time in the Southern Florida for the winter you will notice that 70-80% of the people walking around Southwest Florida and living the good life are people collecting pension checks. The checks are SS, and public pensions (invested in the evil corporations) plus people working for the governments in various capacities. I think if you went into a local Panera’s or Mac’s in the morning anywhere in the U.S you will see largely the same thing. These people vote, people vote in their own self interest FIRST then the nation. It is the first of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

    Ron Paul’s main issues are the Fed and the Constitution. I believe the entire economic system has been a ponzi scheme since the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. The United States of America has three branches of government and rules to work by; the U.S. Constitution.

    I think Ron Paul could go a long way in getting this county back on track by addressing these two issues. He needs the voters mentioned above and he can’t get them by attacking their self interest needs. Remember there are no absolutes accept death and taxes and he wants to eliminate taxes.

    • Sol of Texas

      Joey –

      I am glad you brought Maslow into this. I guess we are a long way from collective self-actualization.

      • c.w.s.

        or transcendence…

    • Bill

      and the second thing that he wants to eliminate is death, especially by governments.

  • EconLurker

    If Ron Paul is so radical in his view of non-intervention (*not* isolationism), which could harm America and our military, then why do active military provide significantly more funding to the man’s Presidential campaign than all the other candidates *and* President Obama combined?

    In any case, the author misrepresents Paul’s stance on Social Security and Medicare. Paul has said multiple times that he wants to phase it out; allow younger people the option to opt out, protect and return funds to it, and ensure that those who are dependent upon it continue to be cared for.

    At the very least, ask the man for an interview to discuss this very issue and let him speak without attempting to paint him into an anti-Social Security corner.

    As to the system itself? Funded you say?

    Let’s take the first recipient, Ida May Fuller. She paid in a total of $24.75 in contribution. Her first monthly check was $22.54. She collected a total of $22,888 in Social Security benefits.

    It was funded, all right. It was funded by OPM (Other People’s Money).

    Or, go to the Social Security Administration and do some journalistic research. Perhaps you’d find the following:

    1960 retired couple, average Social Security and Medicare taxes were $18K (in 2011 dollars). Benefits received $248K.

    1980 retired couple, average Social Security and Medicare taxes were $104K (in 2011 dollars). Benefits received $512K.

    Social Security and Medicare have always been about current workers supporting retired workers.

    • kkflash

      So true, and a system like that cannot last. It is a very definition of a Ponzi scheme, doomed to collapse when the payors are outnumbered by the beneficiaries. I’m 54 and have paid into SS for 38 years, yet I never expect to collect a dime because I recognize SS for what it is- just another tax. It’s not insurance (as they so inaptly named it), because it purports to pay EVERYONE. (Insurance only pays the those who suffer misfortune.) It’s not a retirement fund because it has no investments. It’s just a way the government can take control of more of the public’s money, using it as a political tool to buy votes for their re-election.

  • DaveH

    Paul Craig Roberts says “Libertarians are great defenders of private property, so why don’t they defend the elderly’s private property rights in Social Security and Medicare benefits”.
    We do defend what the Government has already taken away from the elderly. We don’t defend the Government Forcibly stealing the money in the first place. Private Property, Mr. Roberts, is not held against your will by other people, whether they call themselves Government or not.
    And Mr. Roberts has the nerve to say “And please, no prattle from libertarians about “natural rights””. So right off the bat, he insults a large portion of Bob Livingston’s readership. I call for the infiltrator Paul Craig Roberts removal from authorship on this site. I don’t believe he represents Personal Liberty.

    • GILLYSROOMS in Australia

      Davey H, Your now acting like the comminists who run North Korea who send people to work camps for daring to speak to a different tune. FREEDOM OF SPEECH…means how it is written, and you should agree to disagree with the Author and not even suggest he be banished from ever writing again. Just think about what you have just stated. DaveH. You must not believe in FREEDOM OF SPEECH?

      • FreedomFighter

        Gilly without natural rights the state is god and gives or takes all rights. This pretense of no natural rights is the exact opposite of the American Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States and will usher in the totalitarian state.

        Dave didnt say he could not write, only he felt his opinion may be contrary to this sites goals.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • DaveH

        This is a privately owned site. I don’t need to say that Bob Livingston can make his own decisions. My Freedom of Speech, only as allowed by Bob, is still intact here. So please don’t tell me what to say. That is Bob’s role.
        If you came onto my property, however, your Freedom of Speech ends where my property begins. I realize Liberals don’t understand that concept.
        And, Gilly, it is your kind who create North Koreas, or Cubas, or Zimbabwes.

        • GILLYSROOMS in Australia

          DaveyH..please define my kind?

      • Sol of Texas

        Fellers –

        I like to think like to think we can tolerate and overcome dissent. I also have no doubt that continued discussion and debate will achieve much. I think the lines are fairly clearly drawn and it is only a matter of time before the political issues are resolved (it’s not going to end with the 2012 federal election).

        • cawmun cents

          I believe the wise woman once said.”We’ve only just begun….”
          Who would have known in the Burt Bacarach days(not sure of the spelling but you all know about whom I speak)that AN would bring her down?

          Similarly,who would have known what the cost of living increase,coupled with sticky political hands,would have done to that system during those times that they were paying into SS?
          Its not like they could have seen that which killed the sacred cows.
          It was like they were born with mad cow disease.

          Well never say never.Never ask who,or how,unless you have done what it takes to formulate such a system….mainly imagining a worse case scenario.It simply wasnt architected by those with that particular ability.So the conditions arose which no one person or group could have forseen.Those conditions were allowed to happen under the guise of wisdom in leadership,roughly translated….bilking for billions.
          You have let the shysters run the company store for 100 years now.
          Time to take the family business back and send them out of town on a rail.If a con man knocks at your door,do you let him into your home?
          Not if you have the sense God gave you.But here you are trying to make sense of three card monte.Slight of hand…its magic,(expletive deleted)you!They are foolin’ you and you dont like it.
          No worries mate.
          Elect one just like the last,and keep on smiling like the change is coming!Perhaps it will someday.
          Dont count your securities on it though.

    • kkflash

      It’s clear Paul Craig Roberts doesn’t represent the views of most of this site’s readership, but I for one, am glad Personal Liberty decided to publish his article. It gives us a chance to see another point of view and to soldify our own beliefs with intelligent discourse. PCR is wrong about a lot of things in his article, but without its publication, we wouldn’t have the chance to help him see the light.

      • c.w.s.

        Agreed. In the few short months I’ve been coming to this site, Mr. Livingston has never been shy about allowing opposing views to be expressed. This article also appears a few other sites I visit, but there is far greater activity here with different opinions. Most people stay respectful which I enjoy…

      • GILLYSROOMS in Australia

        kkflash..well said.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Reading the article of this nature actually solidifies what you believe,DaveH, since you can make choices of what points are valid or foolish.

  • Alex Frazier

    Dear Mr. Roberts, I respectfully disagree with your article. Ron Paul has no intention of doing anything to Social Security for those currently on it. He said as much in plain words at one of the recent debates.

    His failings in this race are two:

    1) He talks over people’s heads. As is often the case with intelligent people, they neglect to keep in mind that their listening audience doesn’t understand what they do themselves. The result is that they talk to people about things that are complete Greek to those listening. Paul is guilty of this error.

    2) He is not decisive enough about war policies. Anyone who has paid attention will know that he has no problem going to war in a justified scenario, provided we have been provoked or attacked, Congress declares the war, and we go in and do our business with a clear objective and then come home. But the way he presents his position comes across as though he would let the world run amuck where American interests are concerned. That’s simply not the case. What he wants to do is stop the unnecessary wars and the global occupation and nation building, which is costing us the future of our grandchildren and great grandchildren, who will grow up in a bankrupt and impoverished nation due to the policies of our current age.

    Those are his two problems. Social Security and Medicare have nothing to do with it. Believe me, the other candidates are looking for a way to drag Paul down so he is no longer nipping at their heels. If they could label him a threat to Social Security or Medicare, they would do so. Rick Santorum doesn’t waste an opportunity to make it look like Ron Paul’s foreign policy would see our country turned to ash by the hundreds of nuclear strikes that would surely occur across our nation the moment we stop bombing the Muslims. If he could be discredited in some other way, he would be.

    • DaveH

      I have always had the conviction that if I talk baby-talk to babies, their English skills will be greatly retarded. So I don’t.
      The same goes for Ron Paul. I applaud that he talks straight to the people. If their Propagandized minds aren’t up to understanding, then it’s time for them to do some homework.

      • Alex Frazier

        I don’t disagree with you in terms of educating people. But when it comes to an election campaign where you can’t even get people to consider facts over emotions, you have to take any advantage you can. I realize that you’re an atheist, but a good lesson can be learned from Jesus in this. He spoke to the people in parables, or metaphors. He broke everything down into baby-speak, as you say. And he did it because he wanted the people to understand him. His following was so huge that it still exists today.

        There is a time for everything. Again, I agree that being straight with people and forcing them to educate themselves is meritorious in and of itself, but the objective here is to gain a following. To do that, it is imperative that he help the people understand what the heck he’s talking about. If the general public, for just one moment, could grasp the economic dangers we’re facing and how our current policies are making it worse, the following would be huge.

        • DaveH

          Ron is only one man, and he only has a short time left on this earth. I would much rather he talked straight to the people. By dumbing down his message, he would only hurt his cause.
          As I said there are lots of resources on the web for those who want to understand Ron, particularly

          • Alex Frazier

            “there are lots of resources on the web for those who want to understand Ron …”

            That’s precisely my point. People generally don’t want to. It is therefore the responsibility of the candidate to bring understanding to the people, not riddles and economic jargon for them to solve or decipher on their own if they “want to.”

            It’s cool, though. I’m not at odds with you. I hear your point and acknowledge it, but respectfully disagree with it.

          • DaveH

            You Vill do things my way, Alex. lol.

        • Karolyn

          I agree, Alex. As much as we are all connected via the internet, there is still a vast audience that is not, and they only get their info from TV and talking to others. If RP was more vociferous, it would go a long way. the majority of people make their decisions on the soundbites. Nobody really has to research Gingrich or Romney to know what they stand for because they are very vocal about it. Of course, the more vetting, the better; however, for the public-at-large, it ain’t gonna happen. “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.”

          • John


            One of the points I try to make with my friends is that unfortunately many conservatives are NOT on the web at all, heck, many I know have thrown out the TV years ago…. I threw out network TV, all I watch these days are shows using my ROKU box where I can watch a lot of political dedicated channels and shows and listen to blogs plus dedicated science shows and series without having to wait for 1 show a week over a year or two.

          • DaveH

            It’s hard to be real vocal when they give him 89 seconds to speak:

          • Jay

            The only two factors that are negatively impacting Ron Paul’s campaign; 1. Inadequate media coverage(no surprise). 2. Contributions! There is no need to change, or reword his message.

        • Tanya

          I cracked up when I finally watched the last debate last night. When asked what he would have done differently in the campaign, Ron Paul said he would’ve talked slower. Yeah, so the rest of us can catch up! He’s an intelligent man and he’s very good at explaining liberty in an understandable way, but substance doesn’t lend itself very well to slogans and soundbytes.

  • FreedomFighter

    Better for Paul anyways, now they wont kill him in his 3rd year as president.

    IMHO the Prestitute media, hammered Ron Paul without regard to the actual truth. Not really unusual these days, but they did it for “Mitt the Rhino” and “Newt the Nasty”.

    Replace Cog Obama with Cog Mitt/Newt.

    Nothern Canada is looking better now.

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • Realist

      Neither RINO will win this time. Obama has it in a nutshell and while the bickering goes on so too will the constitution be abolished. The new world order continues it’s trek across your new flat screen and is welcomed by your kids and grandparents. Besides, why hire a RINO to do the job that a Democrat is professional at doing.

      • FreedomFighter

        Good thing I dont like to watch TV, its borish, brutal and insanely stupifying.

        When I have watched to form the above opinion my reaction was:

        Why are all the gays telling everyone what to eat, wear, how to decorate and what is “cool”? I cant change the channel fast enough.

        Where did all the NEWS men goto, we just have skirts, liars, and news consists of BS

        Sitcoms – ignore them waste of lifes time alloted

        98% of TV, with the exception of a good movie is wasted life.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

        • Deerinwater

          Hmm? You are watching too much Television FreedomFighter.

          Cut it off! unplug it! Drop your service if you can’t control your intake.

          That what I had to do! Buy you a 150 dollar violin and pull up “How to play the violin” on You Tube.

          Amazed you friends and company with your own rendition of “Twinkle twinkle Little Star”. I’m now working on “faded love”

          but really my friend, ~ budget your time and get away from the one eyed monster, it’s poison.

          • FreedomFighter

            Have a Marine Corps harmonica, my 150 pound german sheps, rotwielers love it when I play it.

            Nobody else does.

            Laus Deo

          • Deerinwater

            That will work too! I bought my first harp from a pretty little baby son on the side off of the road some 30 miles South East of Saigon. She was so pretty in her straw hat and silk dress standing in the mud.

            A Butter Fly, fine double noted Harp. ( I still got it and it still plays well)I like to drove my buddies crazy learning to play it. Well ~ Either I learn to play it or they went deaf, I suspect a little of both.

            but still, check “you tube” out for technic and learn even more songs I know your dawg will just love to hear.

    • DaveH

      The Reality is that Government is just one big self-serving Gang. And why not? We all look out for ourselves. But they aren’t doing the job we elected them for. That is to obey the law, and to protect us from Force or Fraud. That is all.
      The Government Gang, like any business, will always seek growth in their Power and their Perks. It’s up to we the people to recognize us and reign them in.
      “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first” — Thomas Jefferson.

      • Sol of Texas


  • TML

    Not all of his supporters are young, and its rather a weak argument to suggest youth as the source of what is, in your opinion, a mistake.

    For one, Ron Paul only endorses the ability to opt out of these programs. It is tyrannical to force, through involuntary wage garnishment, participation in SS and Medicare, and even less moral to enslave future generations to the same with no choice of their own.

    Why are these programs essential for survival, when one could route his/her income to possibly better investments of his/her choice to provide for ones own essential survival, as opposed to being forced to furnish funds for a service he/she doesn’t want?

    What you are advocating is socialist tyranny, while speaking against tyranny.

    His campaign isn’t making the mistake here. The mistake is yours.

  • Justwhistlingdixie

    Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, pure and simple, and that is the only label that can be trusted. All other labels, including “Libertarian” can be and are used inapproriately when trying to diseact the true ideology of those who either wear it voluntarily or have it assigned to them by others. If one is a true constitutionalist as is, Ron Paul, one cannot be either 100% conservative or 100% libertarian, but a blend of both, and that philosophy is called “Fusionist”, and that is exactly what most of the Founders were and that is what Ron Paul is.

    • TOCB

      The problem with being a “stict” anything is not allowing for change. We don’t live in the same period or conditions as did the founders. To try and force the constitution’s “original intent” to apply in every situiation to today’s environment is not wise. The only constant in the constitution should be to limit government interference, not government involvement.

      • DaveH

        Technology changes, but men remain the same in behavior. The Original Constitution is a timeless document whose usefulness doesn’t change with technology.

        • Ted Crawford

          The inclusion of Artical 5 in the orginal document, along with the 27 Amendments added since, seems to point out a slight flaw in your logic Dave!

          • DaveH

            That’s why I said “The Original Constitution”, Ted. Many of the amendments passed since have been passed fraudulently by self-serving politicians.
            So, no, my logic is not flawed.
            And I do believe the Original Constitution was flawed, but those flaws have not been addressed properly. To err is human.

        • Nadzieja Batki

          Most people,if they want power and control over other people, would rather have the Constitution as a “living” document so they could twist it as dough.

      • Sol of Texas

        In describing moral relativism, some people use a metaphor along the lines of “I see in gray shades and you only see black and whit”. I see gray, but I also recognize situations when black IS black and white IS white (and not “gray”).

        Change is permitted to the constitution. However, I can name at least three bad changes (all thanks to Wilson): Amendment 16 (Federal Income Tax), Amendment 17 (Federal dictate to a state on how to elect its senators), and Amendment 18 (Prohibition). Thankfully, Amendment 18 was later rectified by Amendment 21 (Repeal).

        If only the 28th Amendment limiting terms for federal legislators were ratified, that should offset a bunch of other problems.

        • Nadzieja Batki

          “Limiting terms” are elections. Don’t be willing to allow more rules that can be twisted.

      • Alex Frazier

        I have to disagree with you TOCB. The Constitution, if it had directives on the distribution of men’s stockings, might be subject to update. But it sets the boundaries according to a very educated view of human behavior. The founders were at the end of the cycle, while we are somewhere in the middle. They were faced with tyranny, and everything that comes with it. We will be facing it in the future if we can’t enforce our Constitution. What they were doing was protecting us from our government, plain and simple. Because government is the greatest enemy of the individual that has ever been conceived. And yet, it is necessary in many respects for the general welfare of a community of people in terms of defense, industry, etc.

        But the cycle repeats itself. Governments inevitably seek power. They disarm the people so they can control them. They tax them for their projects. They make war for profit and the expansion of territory. And the louder the people complain, the more oppressive the government becomes.

        I don’t know if you’ve read the Constitution any time recently, but you should take a little time to do so. It’s not very long. It’s one of the most intelligently written documents of government in the world. If adhered to, it protects us from the inevitable intrusion and tyranny of government. When we find ways to skirt it, the result will end up being the same result that has repeated itself in every country and every kingdom in written history.

      • Bob Marshall

        “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.Those which are to remain in the States governments are numerous and indefinite. …The operation of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.” James Madison. The founders made allowance for changes with a provision for adding amendments when needed.

      • Ron Caravaggio

        Name one idea in the Constitution that doesn’t work in today’s world.

  • RM

    I respectfully ask if such is the position of many who are critical of Dr. Robert’s piece, then anytime a party to a contract steals from said contract (specifically the other party to it) and the promises AND guarantees made therein, then the contract should be abolished and all investment to date made by the unwitting harmed parties should just blame themselves for it and go on about lamenting their parent’s failure in teaching self-reliance?
    It appears to me, and I could be incorrect, but, it seems the point being advanced in Dr. Robert’s piece is being missed. He isn’t suggesting Paul barter away principle; rather, he is suggesting a very wise strategic adjustment and move….NOT to be defined by others who CANNOT successfully argue against Dr. Paul’s well reasoned arguments, whether on economics, or foreign policy.
    To allow ourselves to be as narrow as those who many readers of this newsletter would like to unseat, is a fatal mistake. -RM

  • Brogan

    MITT ROMNEY 2012 Ron pauls not going to win

    • DaveH

      These polls say different:,_2012

      And we’re just getting started. Even the author of this article doesn’t know Ron Paul’s program, and there are many more citizens who don’t even come close to Paul Craig Robert’s level of understanding. But time and exposure will change that. Ron Paul, for instance, got 3 times the vote this primary in South Carolina as he got in 2008′s primary in South Carolina. The media has been very effective in silencing and misrepresenting Ron’s message, but as the year goes on that will change. People will learn not to trust the words of those who perform such distortions, and Ron’s message will grow in resonance.

      • kkflash

        The media is the problem here, much more than Ron’s ideology. They either ignore him or distort his meaning with their biased portrayal of his policies. We that support Ron’s campaign should be doing what we can to force the media into giving him the coverage he deserves. Send them messages using every means at your disposal. Tell them we recognize their inaccurate and unfair reporting. Threaten to turn off the tube unless they start covering Ron Paul fairly and equally. Threaten to cancel your newspaper subscription unless they give him accurate and complete coverage. Honestly, if I hear one more TV pundit say Ron Paul can’t win, I’m going to lose my temper and do something I’ll regret.

      • Brogan

        Yeah to measure how accurate those are didn’t Michelle bachman win the iowa straw poll.

        • DaveH

          They certainly don’t parallel the general voting populace. I know that. But they do reflect what those people think who are actually getting to hear what Ron Paul has to say. Imagine if everybody was given that opportunity?

    • Bill

      Where are you getting your information from that Paul is not going to get the “win”
      Paul and you and everyone will “win” in this process. It may not be the nomination or the presidency but we will win with the education that people are getting on what is going on and how to rectify what is going on. People are free to vote to put me into servitude for themselves but that does not mean that what they are doing is moral, and that does not mean that I will accept their vote. But it does mean that I have the life force within me to defend myself against any who would be so foolish.

  • TOCB

    This article is surprising coming from a conservative of any kind these days. Most conservatives say social security and medicare are socialism. To take the position that they are valid contracts between workers and the government that workers have paid for is what liberals have argued. Social security for sure, is only an entitlement in the sense that workers who contributed to it are entilted to have the debt honored by the government. We actually don’t contribute enough to medicare to be entitled to very much. If we want the government to pay for health care for the elderly we need to have everyone pay premiums to the government before they become elderly. But these positions are not normally taken by conservatives.

    • DaveH

      Ron Paul is a True Conservative. Paul Craig Roberts is not.

      • Deerinwater

        True perhaps, but of the two, Paul Craig Roberts is the practical realist, realizing that you can’t push the river and any path to achieving a goal has not “never been” a straight line.

        Actually Paul Craig Roberts is only playing the devil advocate and stirring things up that needs to be stirred up as Ron Paul’s campaigns bid for office approaches the crossroads and we look at our position and the current political landscape.

        The GOP field is as weak now as it was in 98, in spite of 3 years of “spin” and ongoing events. Ron Paul has a small window of opportunity and then it will be gone.

        Framing the debate is the single most important thing anyone can do at this point. But it must ring clear and true and grab people.

        • GILLYSROOMS in Australia

          Yes this post needs to be stirred up by people such as Roberts to play devils advocate, because if your Republican nomination system does not lead to selecting Dr Ron Paul to lead the Republicans, then you got NO CHANCE in hell of winning at all, and I will go as far to say that I will be supporting Obama instead of any of your other republican liers who are pretending to be what they are not. They are no different to what Obama is offering, whereas Obama is not trying to hide what he stands for.

  • steve in AZ

    For me this says it all:

    “And please, no prattle from libertarians about “natural rights. The only rights we have are rights achieved by centuries of human struggle that we have the wits and strength to retain.”

    Especially the part about the wits and strength to retain. Understanding and accepting only those ideas that result in instant gratification and entitlement, our countrymen have spoken through silence all during my lifetime for more government control. Now we’re reaping the harvest we sowed with our failure to get angry for so many decades, and only a few of us are willing to stand up and fight.

    God help us, but failing that,

    DONATE NOW so we can VOTE RON PAUL 2012!!!

  • Aniko

    Why can’t you understand that as much as RP SEEMS to be “fighting for liberty and the Constitution” he is a VERY poor communicator!
    The people will go along with their leader IF they understand how he is going to TRY to turn things around! FIRST they must SEE something realistic! Ron Paul MAY have good ideas but he surely cannot make them understandable, because under the present conditions they sound unrealistic.
    We CAN turn things around, but slowly and carefully. If nothing else Newt Gingrich is a GREAT communicator, as Ronald Reagan was and he DOES know how the government works, what AND how we can start turning it around. Actually he gives credit to Ron Paul for his good ideas, but not the band ones!

    • DaveH

      If you want to understand Ron Paul’s ideas, Aniko, don’t listen to the author, don’t listen to the bought and paid MSM, and don’t expect to understand what Ron Paul is saying unless you put in the study time to learn the wisdom of Libertarian Principles.
      Instead, go here:

      and also study at

      • Deerinwater

        What? Don’t listen?

        You are sounding like a fire and brimstone preacher David.

        Drink the Koolaid and only then might you understand?

        While,~ I understand what you are attempting to convey, You might want to work on a better delivery. That one really sucks.

        Consider it just constructive criticism and don’t take offense.

        • DaveH

          You are simply retaliating, Deer. Don’t pretend otherwise.
          Yes, I say “don’t listen” to those who misrepresent what Ron Paul says.
          You have a problem with that?

          • Deerinwater

            “If you want to understand Ron Paul’s ideas, Aniko, don’t listen to the author, don’t listen to the bought and paid MSM, and don’t expect to understand what Ron Paul is saying unless you put in the study time to learn the wisdom of Libertarian Principles.”

            is what you said David, and yes I have a problem with you being ineffective with you condescending tenor when you could have said;

            It’s is indeed misfortunate that we as a nation have swayed so very far from our constitutional principals that such a man as Ron Paul, a principled constitutionalist is misunderstood when he applies and speaks of these very principals today.

            Before we judge Ron Paul, I would ask anyone to study the man and his history as he offers us a better understanding and intent of the founding fathers as they set about drafted the constitution and not what we have grown into today in regard to the roles of the Federal government and the entanglements reflected in our money systems and social order that restricts individual growth compromises personal liberties.

          • DaveH

            Apparently, Deer, you are misunderstanding ME.
            I am simply saying that rather than listen to the Misinformation spewing from the MSM and others about RON PAUL, people should go to his website or youtube, or whatever source they can find to actually hear what Ron Paul has to say First Hand.
            Get it now?

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Why would you consider RP a poor communicator? Is it because he does not needlessly prattle just to be heard or hide his intent among multitude of words?

    • Bill

      Look at the good communicator we have in the white house. He communicated so well to the people that voted for him that his message was absolutely clear to them. That they heard they believed. What did they hear? All lies and deception but they certainly heard it. One must be a skeptic and scrutinize every word that comes from someone’s mouth. What was the meaning of O’s “change”, I heard it but such a simple word and all who voted for that “change” did not know what they were voting for. It is only the skeptic who questions every thing that comes out of the mouth of anyone else that they listen to who will know and understand what they are hearing. Be a skeptic and question everything.

  • s c

    Mr. Roberts, you should have had this reviewed before you put it on the website. Social Security is NOT a form of property, and it is NOT any kind of contract. The Supreme Court has already been down that road. Flemming v. Nestor will explain it to you. Mr. Roberts, do your research.

  • Alex Khan

    Mr. Roberts,

    Ron Paul has made it quite clear that he doesnt want to immediatelly cut Social Security and Medicare programs. While he believes that they are unconstitutional, he is also a realist, he understands that many people have bought in to the programs and depend on them. He wants to keep the promise to those people by funding the system using the money from cut overseas spending (which is, to him, a higher priority, not entitlements), and eventually phase Social Security out over time by allowing young people to opt out. Dr. Paul has treated many patients for free, without accepting government assistance, when he was a doctor, which proves that he does not want to kick anyone out on the curb.

  • Henry Ledbetter

    I agree with much of the article but our rights as outlined in our bill of rights come from OUR CREATOR. Without Him there is no future or past.

    • DaveH

      Or for those of us who don’t believe there is a God, those rights come from our Humanity. We have a right to protect ourselves from the immoral Force of others, whether those others call themselves Government or not.

      • Deerinwater

        A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

        The “labelers” strikes once again.

        There is a tribe of Africans that speak their words with “clicks” of the tongue as apposed to vowels and consonants. I’ve always wondered if they too have this same “labeling” problem, to be willing to kill each other over a misplaced “click or clack”

        • DaveH

          Maybe I would have understood better what it is you’re trying to say if you clicked.

        • Jay

          Too Funny!!! LMAOF

  • Jake Gibbons

    Wow, what an unbelievably flawed understanding of reality this author has. Firstly, we’ve had enough of politicians abandoning any sense of values and ideologies just to get elected. We want leaders who we can trust. Secondly, the blatantly obvious difference between government and the private sector that the author seems to either disregard or be unaware of somehow is that the private sector involves choice. Choice is critical to understanding the beauty of the private sector, because it brings out the best. The worst doesn’t succeed because people can choose not to let it succeed. I don’t recall being allowed to choose whether or not I could pay for social security and medicare. I would much rather take responsibility for these things myself, and save for them myself. The idea that the government can force you to pay for social security, medicare, and health insurance through taxation is nothing other than robbing you of choice and the money you earn.

  • Tanya

    I think you make a good point about Social Security being a contract, but the trouble is it’s a contract signed at the point of a gun and paid for with someone else’s money. If you did it, would it be enforceable?

    I’m 41, and my older friends tell me they paid in so they’re entitled to their money. I would agree, but my S.S. statements have a note at the bottom telling me that the amount I’m supposed to get won’t be there when it’s time for me to claim it. It seems that the older generation believes they’re entitled to theirs back, but I am not. I really don’t get that. I guess they made an investment, but I’m just making a “donation”.

    If someone breaks into your house and steals your property, it’s too bad, but it doesn’t entitle you to break into your neighbors’ house.

    Ron Paul’s message is unpopular because he tells the truth. In our system, the truth will never get you elected. People seem to prefer to be lied to. We’ll all have to deal with the truth eventually, but for now the lies are comforting, like the lie that “anyone but Obama” will solve all our problems. I think everyone just wants to elect any Republican they can get so they can go back to sleep. I wonder if we’re better off keeping Obama. At least he keeps conservatives on their toes.

    • DaveH

      I understand your concerns, Tanya. They are valid concerns. But I maintain that the Government could do both. If they were cut in size to their 1990s spending levels, and sold some of their assets, they would have plenty to pay us all back and let those, who want to, opt out.

      • Tanya

        I would love to see that happen. I agree that there’s a lot that could be done, but I don’t think it will get done, unfortunately. I agree with Ron Paul that to stop fighting undeclared wars overseas might bring a bit of cash back home!

        I just get so frustrated when I talk to older Americans about it. I agree that they should get their money back, but it’s as if what’s going to happen to future generations just doesn’t matter as long as they get theirs. The truth is, we’ve all been ripped off. It really is a ponzi scheme. I hope we fix it, but I’m not optimistic.

        • Alex Frazier

          If you were to look at their SS statement as to what they actually paid in over their lifetime, you might be surprised to learn that the cumulative total is barely enough to cover two years, if that, because they draw between five and ten times more per week on average than they paid in. For a typical worker today, a $500 weekly paycheck pays in about $30-$50 to SS/Medicare. A typical retiree collects $1000-$1300 a month, which is $250-$325 per week. And the numbers were smaller as you go back through the decades since the program started.

          So in reality, there’s not much that the senior citizens are entitled to. My grandmother retired in 1984. She died in 2001. That’s 17 years she received benefits. Her check was $1300 per month. That’s over $265,000 worth of benefits. If you take the benefit amount she received and divide it by an average weekly SS tax of $50, it would take 5,300 weeks, or a 101.9 years worth of paying in at that rate in order to cover the amount paid out. If she paid in less, then it would have taken even longer. But in fact, she only worked about 50 years, and she was a waitress before she retired. A lot of her earnings were tips that she didn’t pay taxes on. Wages were also lower going back to the 30s and 40s. In her first two decades of work, I doubt she paid in more than a dollar or two at most on a weekly basis.

          So old people aren’t owed a darn thing. This isn’t a freedom issues, or a libertarian one, or even a constitutional argument. The fact is, they think they are entitled to a benefit because they believe they have paid for it. But in actuality, they haven’t.

    • Mark in LA

      When you say at the point of a gun, what do you mean. There are many things that are at the point of a gun that we accept. If there is a lawfully declared war and you are drafted you have to go. You have a responsibility as a citizen of the US to do what the country asks of you. The legally constituted government las levied taxes on the citizens people can’t just decide to opt out when they feel like it because those same people will also want the benefits of citizenship.

      • Tanya

        Mark, I don’t agree with most of what our government currently does at the point of a gun. I definitely don’t agree with the draft. No one should be forced to fight a war against their will. I believe in liberty, not government coercion. If we’re going to have government, I want it to do nothing but protect my liberty and property. I’d be okay with some taxes if I thought that’s all they would do, but when you give people guns to force other people to comply, tyranny just seems to be all too tempting.

      • DaveH

        We have a responsibility, Mark? To who. I would like to know who is more important than me or you?
        Drafting people and sending them to foreign wars is the Worst kind of Slavery, one in which you not only give your time and labor but also likely your life.
        I thought Liberals were against Slavery?

  • Ted Crawford

    Very good post Mr. Roberts! I’ve followed the Libertatian Party since the days of Lyndon LaRouche, so many very sound and pratical ideas, many that, if properly applied, would make enormous positive improvements,rendered mute by rigid, unrealistic, unsustainable, ideaology!
    One of the biggest flaws with their rigid policies, is the same flaw that bedevils the Progressive well intentioned policies. They, like the Progressives, demand a “One size fits all” answer to many problems. Even the Founders, who were clearly very passionate and armed as they were with empirical knowledge, understood this flaw and included Artical 5 into the Constitution that it should never be rendered irrelavant!

    • DaveH

      You say you understand Libertarian philosophy, Ted, but then you belie that statement by saying Libertarians want a “one size fits all” solution.
      Libertarians believe that we have a right to control our own bodies and legally obtained property. In other words, nobody has a right to force you to do anything you don’t want as long as you haven’t trespassed on the bodies and properties of others — a Voluntary society. How could you call that “one size fits all”, when people can live their own lives the way they see fit?
      Read this book, Ted, if you want to know what Libertarians really believe:

    • http://forgotten ld

      Capitalism, “properly applied”, is a good form of government–problem is that like all the forms of government, it, too, is corruptable–and has been corrupted.

      • Ted Crawford

        Saddly, Id, what you say is often the case. However I still agree with Churchills analysis. “The inherent vice of Capitalism is the uneven division of blessings, while the inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal division of misery”
        With Capitalism one might change their fortunes for the better. While it is never easy, it is at least doable. With Socialism we have absolutly no chance, short of armed conflict, to affect our lot!

  • Deerinwater

    This will be a great thread and much will be exposed and come of it. Thank you Paul Craig Roberts for lighting this back fire.

    The question is; Does Ron Paul truly want the job bad enough and willing to do what he must do so that he can do what he wants to do?

    That job is to be, Commander and Chief and President of these United States and ALL of her peoples, to preserve, protect and defend.

    This will be Ron Paul’s last shot as he grows full of days but even so, the ideas he has fostered will live on regardless of any outcome and the fight will continue.

    I’m looking forward to checking back in late tonight and see how it went.

    • DaveH

      Deer says “The question is; Does Ron Paul truly want the job bad enough and willing to do what he must do so that he can do what he wants to do?”.
      Ron Paul has said himself that his main goal is to get the message of Freedom out to the Mainstream. If you want a typical Politician who will tell the people whatever they want to hear, you’ll need to elect one of the Unprincipled fellows.

      • Deerinwater

        “Ron Paul has said himself that his main goal is to get the message of Freedom out to the Mainstream.”

        then that is all he might achieve and the banner passed to a younger generation, perhaps his son.

        But to be most candid, I wouldn’t wish such a job on anyone. Few have been better for it as it drains the life from a person.

        (what “I might want” has little to do with this discussion David, as we talk of things much bigger then “self”)

        • DaveH

          I said “I might want”?
          And what, Deer, is bigger than Self? Somebody Else’s Self? I don’t think so.
          But Ron Paul is definitely a hero. I sure wouldn’t give my old age up to save the country. I’d just let the masses have what they seem to wish for.
          And as I’m sure you know — “Watch out what you wish for, because it might come true”.

          • Deerinwater

            E PLURIBUS UNUM David, that is what is bigger then self and what men and women fight and die and willing to suffer for. The collective, united as one.

            I am not important, I can do little on my own. My needs are easily met, My wants are small for me, I want for US and future Americans.
            I hope that is not unique or an original concept. I don’t believe that it is.

            When Sir Francis Henry, stood up and asked the question; “Is life so dear and peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains of slavery? I know not what others may say, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death”.

            It might sounded like he was willing to fight the British single handed but in truth we know that he was asking for people to search their souls and join him in a united cause in the pursuit of personal liberty and freedom from the Crown that wanted servitude and her payment in gold.

            Sir Henry was lobbying for unity and freedom and not for self. Sir Henry was a rather “well to do” individual for the times and had much to lose beside his life for speaking treason.

            Unselfish, Fearless, Bold talk only begins to describe Sir Henry’s words that day.

  • David P

    Very thought provoking article. You definitely made some good points about pensions vs. social security and the frenzy of his young supporters not considering the old.
    However, I would take issue with two things you wrote.
    a) You use “deregulated markets” quite frequently, but it’s an intentionally misleading phrase. Markets are either regulated to some degree or unregulated, they are only deregulated in regards to their level of regulation. Your use here seems to imply that the markets are not regulated without explicitly stating it, yet financial markets remained highly regulated even post-Gramm–Leach–Bliley.

    b) “Libertarians are sectarian, and their tolerance does not extend beyond their ideology.” This argument could just as easily be made for liberals, conservatives, socialists, etc. Have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh or watched how OWS protesters treat others of different political stripes? I can’t say it’s any better than how most Libertarians behave, but it’s completely unfair to characterize this as being an issue with one group only because it’s a human behavior. However, I would agree with the sentiment expressed that we need more respect for other points of view, but I would argue that that is an issue of humanity, not of any specific ideology.

    • DaveH

      I missed the part about respecting other peoples’ points of view, but I didn’t miss this:
      “I hope readers will spare me their comments about how important their various single issues are. There are many important things. The question is: What is the over-riding important thing?”.
      Or this:
      “And please, no prattle from libertarians about “natural rights.” The only rights we have are rights achieved by centuries of human struggle that we have the wits and strength to retain”.
      If that’s respect, I wouldn’t want to see disrespect.

      • David P

        Point taken, that maybe he isn’t the most respectful towards others points of view, but I value respecting others whom I disagree with.

  • Tom W.

    Excellent article Paul! Good job, very good job. My main sticking point with Ron was his stance on Islam. You can’t make peace with someone who wants to kill you! And I take Ahminedinejad at his word that he wants to wipe both us and Israel off the map. The only way to see Ron’s stance is as very Chamberlainian. Bebe Netanyahu said it best when he said that if the PLO would lay down their arms, there would be peace in the Middle East. But if Israel was to lay down her’s, there would be no more Israel!!!

    • David P

      This seems like an incredibly ineffective strategy to me. I certainly do not want Jews in Israel to be mass murdered, but it would be much easier to withdraw financial support for Israel while offering asylum than spend to billions trying to defend an area halfway across the globe. As for foreign terrorism, is it more cost effective to worry about the 95% of the population not within the US borders, or the 5% within?

      • Tom W.

        Israel is perfectly capable of defending herself! All we have to do is get put of the way and let her do it. But you miss the point that Iran wouldn’t be satisfied with destroying Israel, always remember that we’re considered the BIG satan! It’s our God given freedom that they can’t stand Dave.
        When I look at a Masonic map of DC, I see that Mahmoud isn’t far off, but I guess that he thinks that he’s Mother Teresa!!! Sorry rag-heads!

        • David P

          No, I see your point. But I think that invading other countries is a particularly ineffective method of preventing terrorist attacks on US soil. Plus, if we’re at war with countries in the Middle East because some of them killed our civilians, then isn’t it hypocritical to engage in activities that endanger their civilians?

          • Tom W.

            I believe in taking the fight to them! On their turf and preventing any of our innocent civilians from being victims of a bunch of cowardly ideological fascists!!! I believe that we should stand up for any people who wish to be democratically free from the reign of any tyrannical government!

          • John

            So Tom, what you are saying is that you believe the people of Iraq and Afghanistan wanted to be invaded by our military? They wanted their cities destroyed,Their infra structure destroyed, their friends,next of kin, their parents, wife’s, children,brothers and sisters maimed and killed by our bombs and by our military? And they wanted us to force our political doctrine onto their people? Is that why they fight us? Is that why Iraq reverts back, is that why the Taliban have a safe heaven in more then 75% of the ordinary citizens homes in Afghanistan…. because they wanted us to come and promote democracy through violence?

          • Jay

            Not particularly difficult to brainwash you, hey Tom? Yeah, let’s get in there and bomb the sh*t out of the place. Who cares if we slaughter millions of their, so-called oppressed civilians, in the process. After all, we are there to set them free from tyranny, right? Call it, oh, i don’t know, collateral damage? Anyways, God loves ya, and so do i, by golly!

          • Tom W.

            No what I’m saying is this, we are the greatest country that has ever existed. What made us the greatest was FREEDOM!!! We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created EQUAL, endowed by their CREATOR with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
            I personally didn’t agree that we should’ve gone into Iraq, although I think that it’s pretty cut and dry that Sadam was a madman! We should have focused exclusively on the Taliban in Afghanistan being as careful as possible to inflict as little collateral damage as possible! But when you’re fighting cowardly bastards who use women, children, and civilians as human shields, some innocent folks are going to get killed. I’m sorry and I agree that it’s not right, but what are you going to do?!! You can’t just let them get away with it, it will only get worse!
            Any time an oppressed people want to democraticly rid themselves of a tyrannical dictator, we as a people should do EVERYTHING in our power to see that it comes to pass! We should be sharing what We The People possess, not hoarding it! That’s why the world hates us, instead of trying to empower The People, we go and give support to some tyrant as long as they serve our greed driven self-serving purposes!!! And this should not be! Unbridled capitalism is the “love of money”. We are no longer a rightious people, we’re Godless murdering pagans! Look at the “Killing Team” story in last April’s “Rolling Stone” magazine! Look at the Marines urinating on the corpses of dead enemy combatants in Afghanistan here recently, I don’t care if they are our enemy, that kind of behavior is without excuse!!! What have we become?!!

            2 Timothy 3:1-5(KJV)
            “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”

            This is the best description of humankind today you’ll find anywhere!!!

            “I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord’s side.” – Abraham Lincoln

            Is your lamp trimmed and BURNING?!! (Matt. 25:1-13) Becayse if you’re not LOOKING up, (Luke 21:28) you SURELY to GOD must be blind!!! (II Cor. 4:3&4) DON”T GET COUNTED AMONGST THE GOATS!!! (Matt, 25:31-46)
            Keep your eyes on the skies, Jesus is coming! He loves y’all and so do I!!!

            The Ten Reasons We Should be Looking for Christ’s Return
            1. Increased knowledge. – Dan. 12:4
            2. Invention of nuclear warfare. – Ezek. 39:6-16, Joel 2:20, Zec. 14:12, Rev. 6:12-14, 8:7
            3. Rebirth of the nation of Israel. – Deut. 30:1-3, Isaiah 4:2, 11:10-12, 66:8, Ezek. 37:21, Joel 3:2, Amos 9:14&15
            4. Scoffers. – II Peter 3:3-7
            5. Jerusalem in Jewish control. – Zec. 12:2, Luke 21:24
            6. Russian Jew’s “Aliyah” or return to the Holy Land. – Jer. 23:7&8
            7. 24/7 realtime worldwide televised news. – Rev. 11:9&10
            8. Deception. – Matt. 24:4&5
            9. Famines, pestilences, earthquakes. – Matt. 24:7
            10. Horrific violence. – Matt. 24:37-39, Gen. 6:11

          • Tom W.

            I do want to say that I know that there are far more righteous young men and women who are serving, I want them to know that they enjoy my full support and prayers! They are truly America’s finest!!! Let none of the people who enjoy the freedom we exhibit on this site never forget that this freedom wasn’t free!!! The only reason that it exists is due to brave men and women, who some of have given all, who have been brave enough to go and risk all to defend these precious rights we enjoy! I salute you all!!!

            John 15:13 (KJV)
            “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

      • Tom W.

        Now my biggest hang-up about Ron Paul is that every time I begin to lean towards him a little, I’ll hear someone from the left singing his praises and that just KILLS it!!!

        • Ted Crawford

          Good point Tom. Karolyn and Eddie47 are two of his strongest supporters, if that doesn’t burn through the fog of idealosim nothing will!

          • Tom W.

            There is no way I could have said it any better Ted!

          • John

            It does really not mater if his supporters are right or left, in the big picture all it counts are that they are supporters…and if some of his supporters are left leaning, who cares about their reasons? As long as they support him and vote for him who gives a rats arse about their motives and expectations?

          • Tom W.

            As of right now, and I hate to break this to ya folks, bot Ron Paul’s chance of winning the GOP nomination is “0″, zip, zeltch, nada, none! He is toast!! Stick a fork in him! Please don’t get me wrong, I am not gloating. I like Ron, I think that he has some wonderful ideas for domestic reform especially when it comes to the FED! Think about this, I believe that most of the people who patronize this site either know or at least believe that the FED is as bad as Alex Jones portrays it to be. I personally believe the worst, that it is a world central bank run by the world bankers who are working their greedy little fingers to the bone to bring down the USA and to establish the NWO! I believe that the evidence that I have seen is as damning as it gets, and if untrue the people responsible for putting it forth should be shot for treason. How come Ron Paul is the only candidate bringing up the issue, and even he is watering it down from my point of view. If Ron had a little tougher stand on foreign policy and Islam, it would be a whole different ball game. I agree that we should concentrate more on home and let the rest of the world iron out it’s own problems except in the case of a people oppressed by a brutal tyrannical government and then go as far as it might take to help those people gain their freedom! I truely believe that we are the thorn in the side of the NWO proponents and in theory might be at least part of what Paul was talking about in II Thess. 2:7.

            Keep your eyes on the skies!!!

        • Nadzieja Batki

          It is the purpose of Leftist ideologues to divert any one who is weak in their values to their side. Praising the opponent is one of the ways. If you buy the phony praise you are very weak and easily swayed.

          • Karolyn

            And as I’ve said before, Nadzieja, you don’t know what you’re talking about…at least when it comes to me. It’s so sad for someone to have such a limited view of others and to be so jaded.

          • Deerinwater

            So reverse psychology doesn’t work on Nadzieja Batki ? Rats!

            Okay, ~ I’ll get out a memo!

            Donuts? cigars? Silk shirts? women? booze? power? position? lobster? Gummy bears?

            What a hard a$$.

          • Tom W.

            Karolyn, Talk about someone calling the kettle black! I have yet to hear you put forth anything but vile, misinformed, ignorant, and just plain idiotic leftist propaganda! If we were still living in the “50′s” darlin’ Joe McCarthy would want to have a little talk with you girlfriend!!!

  • LibRep

    What the author wrote concerning private investment firms losing their clients’ money is where contract law comes in to play. I understand investments will go up and down in value. That’s part of the risk, but for a firm to outright defraud its clients then that must be settled by the courts as was done to Madoff, having to sell his assets to return at least some money to his former clients. With the government, we can’t sue. They’ll just steal it one way or another through taxes or inflation.

    I do support Ron Paul because his views make sense. I wish he would be more assertive when he gets glossed over and ask some common sense questions like what would we do when our foreign debt holders stop loaning us money? How will we pay for more wars much less our own social programs when our credit card gets cut up and we can’t print our way out? He does say he won’t end most programs over night and there would be a transistion period. He does that to stump the other candidates, making them babble like Newt did Romney on the tax return issue, and poeple will stop and think.

    • Tom W.

      That’s another thing that concerns me about Ron, his age! When he really needs to come off as tough on certain issues, it’s kinda like getting scolded by your kindly old grandpa. But just wait till Rand is ready! I like him a whole lot! Did you see his latest run in with the TSA?!! Give ‘em hell Rand!!!

  • Mrs. C

    Great post! I am a Paul supporter. I think he needs to clearly communicate his position on this topic. I’ve read where he stands and understand his position, but the vast majority remain ignorant because they are soak up the daily drivel by FOX and the talking heads.

    • DaveH

      He has clearly stated his positions. I understand everything he says. Those who read enough Bob Livingston articles and those on,, or will understand also.
      Most important is to go to Ron Paul’s website and see what he really says. Don’t just take the words of media pundits:

      For any website which doesn’t have a search feature, the user can simply type “site:websiteName searchTerms” in the search field of the browser.
      To search for ‘Social Security’ on Ron’s site for instance, you could enter “ social security” into your browser’s search field.

      • Bob in Boston

        That’s great info for those of us who already know how to use the internet to find policy information, but I think Ron’s problem right now is reaching the people who get all of their information from the mainstream media. And I would imagine that a great percentage of people who care most about social security are not web savvy. With the amount of bias RP gets from the MSM, he really needs to knock it out of the park when he gets his chance to speak uninterrupted on national TV, and it pains me to see him not doing this. AFter reading a few of his books and watching a few thousand videos I feel like I understand what he’s saying to the point where I can complete his sentences for him, but in a debate he needs to come across really clearly for those people who have NO idea what he’s talking about when he says “sound money”. Once people hear the truth about him and understand the details, you can’t possibly help but support him because he’s so obviously the only one who really knows what he’s talking about. But for those people (our parents and grandparents basically) who haven’t read his books and haven’t researched him on the web, he talks at too detailed a level for quick comprehension. I know it’s impossible to explain something like monetary policy in a 1 minute debate slot, but if that’s the case then he should drive people to his website or something. And maybe he could even joke about it and say “there’s no way I can possibly explain a sound dollar in 30 seconds so go to my website to get the details, BUT…” Way more people would vote for him if there wasn’t such a high price of entry into understanding him.

  • Jay

    “Your Money Is Not Safe”: Gerald Celente on the Moral of MF Global’s Collapse

  • Jonathan

    At the start, let me say that I have supported Dr. Paul with many monetary contributions, beginning in 2007, and I will continue to do so. I do not agree with the severity of his libertarian positions, however. I believe in the wisdom of having a Social Security insurance program, whose premiums are paid for by workers and employers. I believe in a universal Medicare insurance program paid for by those who wish to participate in that program, along side of private insurance. I also believe that Dr. Paul can reduce the size of the federal government and has a sound plan to make our country solvent again. I believe that his plan for dealing with the world will make our country safer.

  • Sunny Jim

    Social security is welfare (Helvering v. Davis). Welfare is not a government function. Social security is also not secure, nor has it ever been. There is no “Trust Fund” except on paper. Social Security is a government-inflicted Ponzi scheme just waiting for some more suckers to come along and join the bottom ranks, and it is stealing our children’s inheritance. It needs to go, period. Phasing it out over a short period of time, or simply stopping it and allowing those already in it to be grandfathered out, as it were, would be the righteous thing to do. Righteousness exalts a nation. This nation is unexalted.

  • isBubba

    Excellent article: What I’ve been saying and thinking for quite a while. RP’s biggest problem with electability is his followers who can only see things through a narrow paradigm (as demonstrated by many predictable responses here, and as you predicted).

    You were right on both accounts: Paul’s “Constitutional” strength (and the necessity of that stance as a foundation), and his weakness in seeing that people who aspire to power will obtain it in offices of government, or in offices of private business…whichever is their more convenient opportunity.

    Oversight by the Sovereign People needs to be exerted on both fronts. Governance is about controlling those who are power-hungry within the populace, whether they take up residence within or without the governing structure. That is the beauty and responsibility of our Constitutional Democratic Federal Republic: it does so better than any prior form of human governance, provided its constituency is engaged and moral (based on the Christian principles behind the whole concept of God-given, Sovereign freedom.

    As an aside: the “God-given” part is what justifies our Rights. Coming from a higher power than man and his contrivances such as government, our Rights are inalienable; They cannot be removed from our nature by anything lower than God. It is why Communism/Socialism/Progressivism and their ilk cannot co-exist with religion, and particularly with a religion (Christianity) whose God gives us power as Sovereign Persons. If they can suppose that man is the highest known power, then they can raise man’s invention of a collective “Government” above us all, and rule in the elitist’s best interests. That governing body could just as easily be a world “government” or world-wide corporation or collective. The differences are negligible to those in power and those they control.

    • The Witness

      Excellent response my friend.

  • Wilson

    Let me start out by saying that I am not a rabid supporter of Dr. Paul. I think that he’s spot on with domestic policy and a bit off on foreign policy. In my opinion, world trade has created a situation where any country can have siege laid to it by cutting off the shipping of vital raw materials, as the current fiasco in the Straight of Hormuz illustrates.

    On to the article, with which I have a number of problems:

    1) “…all of whom serve Wall Street, the military/security complex and the Israel lobby…”

    I don’t even know what to say about this. First, it’s properly known as the military-industrial-congressional complex. Congress has the power of the purse, so stop blaming industries that they send money to just for existing. I’m not even going to touch the whole “Wall Street” thing other than to say that it’s amazing to me that people actually believe that a small group of men in a smokey backroom actually pull the strings of the world. People who believe that watch to many movies and have a very simplistic view of the world. “The Israel lobby”? First, I detect some antisemitism here, and secondly the amount of money we spend on Israel is so small as to not be worth talking about.

    2)”Paul’s supporters are mainly among the young. The importance to them of Social Security and Medicare will not register for many years…”

    Actually, they just don’t like getting robbed. If Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not seriously reformed in the next few years everyone currently under the age of 45 will have paid into the system and will get $0.00 back because the systems will collapse.

    3)”Many libertarians regard Social Security and Medicare as welfare handouts and as Ponzi schemes, when in fact these programs are a form of private property.”

    No. They’re not private property. They would be private property IF you got back what you paid in with a reasonable rate of interest. The problem is that this isn’t how the system works. The system was designed when life expectancy was much lower that it is today. What percentage you get back of what you paid in depends on your lifetime income, but the vast majority of people now live long enough that they well EXCEED the amount they paid in. For example, a person making $50,000 per year from age 25 to 65 will pay $3000 into Social Security annually, or $120,000 in their working lifetime. That person will then draw, as of today’s average, about $1400 per month after retirement, or $16,800 per year. Which means that the amount of money they paid in to SS only lasts 7.142 years, or until they are 72 years and 1.68 months old. However life expectancy is now in the upper 70′s and early 80′s meaning that these people continue to draw $16,800 per year (adjusted for inflation) for 5 to 10 years AFTER they’ve expended what they paid in.

    And don’t give me this garbage that the government invests this money. They don’t. They spend it. That’s one of the reasons why they now have to siphon money out of the general fund to prop up a system that is collapsing under it’s own weight.

    4) “And please, no prattle from libertarians about “natural rights.” The only rights we have are rights achieved by centuries of human struggle that we have the wits and strength to retain.”

    This is a load, a massive load. First, the author clearly doesn’t know, or care to acknowledge the position of The Founders on this issue, nor does he bother to mention they got the idea from people like Locke and Hobbes.

    But further than that. This statement basically means that there are no “rights” but only “privileges” granted by government. Or are we really going to go down the road some of the more crack-pot liberals want to travel and start granting “high-speed internet ‘rights’” and the like?

    A cat that is attacked by a dog has every right to defend itself, just as a person who is attacked by another has every right to defend themselves, regardless of the position the government takes on the issue. Why is this? Because, the Founders were smart enough to understand that there are certain things which a court can never compensate you for. If someone causes you to lose your leg, arm, eye or God-forbid, your life; there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING the police and courts can do to give you back your body parts or life, nothing. He didn’t steal your money, he took your leg and you can never get it back. Therefore you have the right to prevent him from taking from you that which can never be returned. If that doesn’t make sense, then you’re not smart enough to continue conversing with.

    In short, Mr. Roberts, I call shenanigans on basically your whole article. Not because I support Ron Paul, but because you don’t seem to understand any of the underlying concepts you are discussing.

    • Wilson

      Oh, and on the “it’s a contract” portion of the article. No, it’s not.

      A contract is agreed to by both parties via a signature. Not one person is America was asked to read and sign this supposed “contract” in which they give the government money in the hope the government will return it one day.

      • John

        Its called delegation of power, the citizens of the US delegate their power to sign contracts in their name or spend the taxes they pay in their name to the elected representatives… that’s how it works and everyone who is saying I did not vote for them because I don’t agree and thus I don’t have to abide by this or that does not understand the principles of government… they always have the choice to pack up and find a country where he/she is treated better…They can either stay or leave and that’s what freedom is all about, nobody is forcing anyone to live here if it is so unbearable.

    • John

      Criticizing the state of Israel is not and never ever will be antisemitism, criticizing the state of Israels lobby is neither.Criticizing a citizen of the state of Israel because of his religious views is not antisemitism, denigrating the citizen because of his religious views IS antisemitism. So you can cry antisemitism as long as you want, just because you say so doesn’t make it so.

  • Stanley

    SS is not a property right.
    SS is not a contract.
    SS is a “welfare scheme.”
    SS is an Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 excise tax.
    Read the entire majority opinions (winning positions on the law),
    and the entire dissenting opinions (losing positions on the law) of:
    Steward Machine Co. v. Davis,
    Helvering v. Davis, and
    Fleming v. Nestor, which are US Supreme Court decisions,
    to see if the first above four statements beginning with “SS”
    legally describe what Social Security taxes and payments legally are.
    Hint: The words “Insurance” and “Contribution(s?)” in the abbreviation FICA are !@#$%^&*()_+ LIES.
    I am saddened that your and my ancestors all the way back to the early 1900s did not observe that they were being lied to by those that they elected and subsequently did not teach their offspring and neighbors to survive those horrendous lies which attacked the moral bonds of family members to each other.
    Although SS has partial roots in a Kaisers plan, it is a type of Russian (athiestic communist) error in that it sets up civil government as a false god.
    See for a (the) solution to the cause of the SS and other serious problems.
    Thank you.

  • Amiabelle

    Ron Paul is the only Constitutionalist running. He doesn’t need to change his positions, he simply needs to be more effective at selling them to mainstream thinkers (or non-thinkers).

    He probably needs some new advisers to help him formulate a new message that doesn’t scare oldsters about what he might do to social security, and instead, how he is probably the only one who can save it.

    He needs to reassure people that he is not against having a strong defense, that he is not going to allow unrestricted drug use, and that he is not suddenly going to turn the economy upside down.

    He also needs to convince people that he really wants to be president and is not just running to get more publicity for his positions.



  • Geoman

    Overall the argument makes sense BUT where does Israel have territorial ambitions??? It is the arabs who want to occupy Israel and elliminate it from the face of the earth .

  • Amiabelle

    Elect the best man, period.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate who is a Christian, believes strongly in the Constitution, and has the personal integrity and guts to do what needs to be done to get this country turned around.

    If we don’t do it this time around, we may not get another chance to save this country.

  • Tom W.

    I’d rather vote for Barack who at least claims to be a REAL Christian than to vote for a man who follows a CULT whose founder claims to have found the lost Urim and Thummim of biblical antiquity while digging post holes on the family farm in upstate New York!!!

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Define term of REAL Christian so we all can understand it, otherwise stop babbling nonsense.

      • Tom W.

        You know that it is perfectly alright for a Muslim to lie for the advancement of Islam. That’s what that babbling means Nadzieja, so why don’t you take your a$$ back over wherever it is you come from so nobody has to interpret perfect English for you sweetheart!!!

      • Jay

        You’re asking the wrong the person, Nadzieja. Most days, old Tom can’t find his a$$, with both hands, and his a$$!

        • Tom W.

          Jay, your mom said it’s time for you to go to bed sonny, sleep tight, don’t let the bed bugs bite. Uncle Ernie said he’ll be in to tuck you in soon!

          • Jay

            Careful there Tom, you’re half-slip is showing!

          • Tom W.

            In case you don’t know Uncle Ernie Jay:

          • Jay

            Yikes, that uncle Ernie is one depraved, sick, deranged, and crazy individual. Couldn’t help but notice though, Tom, how you bear a striking, physiological resemblance, to uncle Ernie!

          • Tom W.

            Did you notice, he was from the rock opera, “Tommy”?!

  • LowlyWise

    Social Security has been a government-sponsored and government-mandated program of retirement and disability benefits. We pay into it involuntarily, with no choices. Similarly with Medicare: we have no choice but to pay those premiums — and it will just get worse under Obamacare.

    The idea was that nobody should be without funds at retirement or in case of disability, and that funding for health care would be there when the individual would be least able to pay himself. After the Great Depression of the ’20s and ’30s, this program was to prevent a repetition and a worsening of the social ills that came about because so many people lost everything and had no means to recoup.

    The funds in SS and Medicare should be regarded, then, as involuntary investments and paid out accordingly. They should not be slush funds to bail out the government, as happened under Newt Gingrich’s watch in the ’90s. It should be the government’s duty to pay the benefits promised, and like any decent investment, return the invested funds with decent interest. Anything else is outright theft. The governors of Social Security should be charged with all the responsibilities that governors of private pensions are. They should be answerable and accountable to the public.

    If the billions and trillions paid annually into SS were invested into the infrastructure, into housing, the USA could be a clean, spiffy, comfortable place once again. SS should have a publicly prominent governing board, made up not only of bankers and bureaucrats but including a few people who rely or will rely on its benefits. If any “privatizing” is to be done, it should be this board of governors investing the SS funds into the private sector and paying out the benefits to those whose funds are held in trust. NOT people putting their SS money directly into financial vehicles. Most people can’t or won’t be bothered, and even if they did there is more money to be made by huge sums going into things little individuals can’t qualify for.

    The point is, SS is not welfare but an investment that should be treated as such. If Ron Paul, or anyone else, will publicly recognize this and act on it, he has my vote.

    • Tom W.

      We as The People should demand that the IOU’s begin to be paid off and a bill passed that would prevent the robbery of such funds from ever happening again!!!

    • http://forgotten ld

      SS & Medicare mandate paymentsinto a government plan which, supposedly, since we, the people, via our elected reps control is NOT the same as

      Obamacare which is a requirement that everyone that breathes buy insurance from a private, for mega-profit industry. When that industry was able to lure enough folk out of Medicare and into private alternatives to become profitable enough and familiar enough to keep them from being put out of business, they began to decrease benefits and increase prices. This is what will happen w/Obamacare, too. Unlike drivers license, etc., you cannot opt out of an activity by choice and avoid the requirement to buy Obamacare insurance–IF YOU BREATHE, you must have it unless you commit suicide or die to avoid it and, unlike Medicare and SS, because it provides private profit and is not payable to the government but to a a private business, it cannot be labeled a “tax”–which is constitutional. That is what makes Obamacare unconstitutional. It is also stupid.

  • libertarian58

    Social Security was not a “contract”,it was forced on all of us by government then we were all forced to comply. Then after they had our money in “trust” they betrayed that trust and spent it out from under us. How can you now expect a Libertarian (or anyone else)to defend a ripoff that never should have been in the first place? The whole idea was to get all of us over a barrel with no choice but to “DEPEND” on the crooked government.

    • Tom W.

      lay it down libby!!!

    • Deerinwater

      True perhaps, but a commitment of government that has been honored to date and served rather well all things considered.

      We tend to discuss the merits and short comings of social security in leaner times and budget short falls, as it’s a big ticket item and competes with military budgets as we continue to spend 10 to 1 compared to other nations.

      Not only does it become a Hawk & Dove issue but strains our philosophical differences and notions of the very function of government today.

      We tend to look at today’s problems today and make light of or ignore yesterdays problems with benefit of hind sight and void the pain felt in the “present perfect”. This lofty view can make any village idiot appear bright.

      What might replace it? Survival of the fittest? Permit “happenstance” to rule supreme? Simply refuse to exploit the benefits and power of the collective? Thinking,~ that social matters best left for the private sector and churches? ~ that markets and capitalism might have a moral face and best to address the needs of aging citizens?

      Citizen of a nation 325 million strong where the average education might be 8th grade. A nation where many of the aging just get old and in the way, losing their health,their self respect, and the ability to control their lives on the long road from womb to tomb.

      “Getting old ain’t for sissy’s”
      Betty Davis

      Betty offered us those words and she was flush with loot.

      • Tom W.

        Hey Deer, hold on for a minute, let me put my sunglasses on, you’re blinding me dude! It’s not the entitlements that are killing us, it’s the corruption that accompanies said entitlements that’s driving us to the brink! When doctors and lawyers are handed a blank check, the best you can hope for is that their pen is outta ink. My mom, God rest her soul, passed away in 1996 after a six year long battle with leukemia. Because of medicare, her bills were pretty much covered. But boy did the doctors and hospitals milk that cow! They used my poor mom for a pin cushion dude. They run every test you can imagine three and four times everytime they could. She showed me a paper bill, it was all paid for but they still sent her a cory of the bills, one time for 500K for a six month period there towards the end. No it’s not the entitlements, it’s the corruption that goes along with it that’s driving us down the road to ruin!
        Thanks, I always wondered where my brother got that saying. I knew he didn’t make that up!
        Keep your eyes on the skies!!! It’s going to be bad enough being me when I stand before Jesus, I damn sure wouldn’t want to be a doctor or lawyer! He loves y’all and so do I!!!

        • Deerinwater

          Sorry about you mom Tom, Leukemia is ruthless and very unkind. I know it was a hard think to watch and be helpless to stop it.

          Even a Living Well does not stop the prodding and probing, the side effects of treatment sometimes much worse then the infection.

          I find no argument with your posting,and leave you with, fear you not, walk by faith and not by sight. The eyes and ears deceive so open your heart and stand witness to the power and glory of the Divine. Permit yourself to be a focal lens to this power that put in play~ all things, shine your lens and keep it clean and pure.

          Know that, your mother no longer suffers and still serves in your behalf and for all that is good and pure is spirit.

          • Tom W.

            I thank you very much for your kind thoughts Deer, as much as we enjoy our trivial little verbal squabbles I believe that we see eye to eye on how much our parents meant to us. My mom was a very austere woman, one who wasn’t affraid to voice her opinion about anything. She didn’t care what you thought or felt about an opinion, my mom would “go There”! As much hell as she used to give me, I would give anything to be able to pick up that phone again he hear her just let me have it one more time with both barrels! I held her hand as she died Deer and she put up the greatest fight against an undefeatable foe that I had ever wittnessed before in my life! And when she finally circumed and exhaled her last breath, she folded her hands on her breast and got the most peaceful look on her face that I had ever seen. As I said, she was a very austere woman. That really puzzled me until about six months later when my little sister told me that mom had accepted Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior right before she died, due to my witness. She was the first person I ever witnessed to about six months before she passed. I had no idea, because the first thing she said to me when I tried to tell her about Jesus was, “Don’t you have any faith in yourself any more?” she might as well hit me with a baseball bat right between my eyes!!! But when my sister informed me about her decission, talk about goose bumps!!! Glory Alelujah!!! I thank you for your kind thoughts Deer.
            Keep your eyes on the skies!!!

    • James

      Libertarian58, If the Social Security Act taxes had been set aside for S.S. benefits, the Act would have been declared unconstitutional when it was first challenged. The national government was not delegated the power to tax one group for the benefit of another. FDR’s promise of a Trust Fund was malarkey, and congressmen who speak of this Trust Fund today are lying through their teeth. S.S. Act taxes flow into the Treasury like all other federal taxes. To keep the illusion alive, that the Trust Fund exists, Congress now lists it as part of the national debt (about 17% of it).

  • Jeff S

    I think the idea is to get the less informed voters to undestand that they should not fear Paul but embrace him, a strategy that has so far eluded the Paul camp. I overwhelming support Paul but this is politics. I’m not saying sellout to Big Brother but at least let’s repackage a couple of thoughts so we can garner votes from the “afraid and uninformed” voters that is the majority of the voting pool. Nothing wrong with that plan.

  • Eric

    I think deeming SS a contract like any other contract is disingenious at best. I do not know of any other contract that I’m forced to enter into it seems a contract is obligatory by both parties. Second who would enter into a contract that has a moving target with no guarantee of any outcome without there being a possible extreme upside i.e. Ventur Captialisim great risk possible great reward. I’m young but my father who is 71 paid into SS for his entir careen to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. This year along with his cola increase he will be getting a whopping $27 a month but wait it gets better he will now however have to pay into Medicare to the tune of $82 a month. All of this because he planned for his retirement on his own and the gov’t determined that he makes too much money, which is still less that he did annually when he worked. What kind of rip off BS is this as my dad says “Who signed me up for this?” As a young person >40 I’m pissed I have already paid into this scam for the better part of two decades and know I will not be receiving a damn thing by the time I make it out the back end. Why can I not invest my own money my own way since I will be left to my own devices any how. I’m throughly insulted and offended that anyone would pander to the fact that SS and Medicare is anything but a ponzi scheme and entitlement to those who do not plan to take care of themselves. Ron Paul is the only one making any sense in this whole sham now we are told he is unelectable and here pick from two terrible progressive neo-cons or decepticons you pick the name. I’m planning on staying home in November to watch the end of the Whig party in out time.

    • http://forgotten ld

      “makes too much money” is the key. When your dad retires and stops making other money his SS check will not be reduced.

      also, he has had disability income insurance–as do you–all the while and is fortunate he never needed it.

      If he is not working but has income from investments and does not NEED the SS income, he is fortunate indeed–and greedy if he wants the rules to change just for him so he can have more when he has enough already; however, I wonder if it is just YOU–not your dad– that is doing the most complaining if he actually is that fortunate.

    • http://forgotten ld

      Anyone that enters into a contract w/ a lender risks a contract w/o fixed provisions. In fact, because the definition of a contract is a meeting of the minds, I cannot see how many bank contracts–especially credit card contracts–can possibly fit the criteria.

      Also, SS is at least income disability “insurance” ‘along the way’–during your working years– as well as a “policy” that will pay any minor children you leave behind if you die.

      • James

        Id, When you apply for a credit card, you have to read and agree with the rules, before a credit card willl be issued. That’s a contract.

  • Lawrence Ekdahl

    The remark about Israel land grabbing is way off base. According to my bible, all the land from the Euphrates river down to the river of Egypt was given by God to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Their descendant’s.

    • Jeff S

      Which bible? The King James version that’s edited with an agenda to keep the power’s that be in power. If you’re going to use the bible as a platform for who should get land then I suggest you read an unedited version. It’s the agenda based King James version that would let you think that “God” would want one group of people to have certain land’s and not others. The God I love would not want any lands seperated by idealogy or enen religion as He know’s this would bring war. Your brain has been washed.

      • Tom W.

        Can’t say that about your brain Jeff, you can’t wash something you ain’t got! So where and what is this unedited bible that you’re talking about?! I went to a Gospel book store one time to purchase a KJV study Bible when the girl helping me kind of saricasticly asked, “I suppose no other version will do?” To which I replied, “I wish I could read Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Then I wouldn’t even want this one.” The 1611 KJV Bible was the very first English translation of the Holy Scriptures and the only one I trust! All of the newer versions including the NKJV all leave out or change very important passages especially ones concerning the deity of Chirst!!! Yours and people like you’s problem is that you don’t believe so you decide to attack God’s Word by claiming that it’s truly written by fallable men. God’s Word says that you’re a lier and that you’re without excuse!!!

        2 Peter 1:21 (KJV)
        “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

        Romans 1:18-21(KJV)
        “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”

        1 Cor. 1:18-25 (KJV)
        “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”


        • Malinda

          Right on, Tom.

        • http://forgotten ld

          Even modern biblical scholars have conceeded that the KJV is an INACCURATE translation of numerous parts of the original text and that the texts were written based on heresay “evidence” centuries after the events described.

          Your “faith” is strong–as strong as your indoctrination. However, if religion had been created by a perfect God there would only be one and it would have been perfect.

          The old testament, which remains a part of your KJV Bible, says that if a woman is raped by a man in a field she must marry him. Bulls…!
          Like the judge that could not define porn, I know right from wrong when I see it and that is just very wrong.

          Also, churches teach that the book of JOB is a lesson in patience; it is not. It is a story about a gullible man being tortured by a sadistic being.

          Christians once fought “cursades” and burned witches in the name of their faith. One of the Popes (likely gay pedophile?) changed Catholic dogma forever by forbidding priests to marry–though they had before.

          Regardless of whether or not there is a God, all that literature you just quoted is that and nothing more. Religion is a man-made political power tool fueled by fear and need and greed.

          • Tom W.

            Id, before you go spouting off about what the Old Testament says, you should at least make sure your facts are correct! There is no such verse in the Old Testament that says a woman raped by a man must marry him! Your sorely mistaken!!! Secondly Jesus nailed all of that to the cross anyhow, and if you don’t understand what that means, may I suggest you go find a pastor who will explain it to you! And you better HURRY UP!!! And finally as far as witches are concerned, just where is Cotton Mather when ya need him?!!

          • Tom W.

            Id, your screw is loose! When they found the Dead Sea Scrolls, one of the treasures discoverer was a full scroll of the book of Isaiah. When translated did you know that except for a couple of lines it was practically word for word what is in the book of Isaiah in the KJV?! I didn’t think so! Do you know why the Bible makes no sense to you Id? Because you are spirtually blind! (II Cor. 4:3&4 Pray that He would open your eyes to His Word the next time you open it and see if it doen’t suddenly GRAB you!!! Go ahead, give it a try!

            Hebrews 11:6 (KJV)
            “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”

        • James

          Tom, the KJV Bible of 1611 is certainly the most popular, and plentiful, but the first English bible was by William Tyndale, in 1534 AD.

    • John

      By what God? Religion and superstitious beliefs by people who saw something they could not explain and thus called it “”gods”” have always been used by ruthless men as a motivation for wars, to conquer, pillage and murder. There is NO doubt in my mind, that ancient people saw something. Look at ancient texts that speak of aliens from other stars and describe what we today would call gene manipulation and artificial insemination (but then we know those terms)…. Ancient bronze aged men in their very limited understanding called what they saw “gods” and Angles. Today we probably would call the chariots of fire a rocket or UFO and gods would be any aliens or race that would have technology that is far advanced from ours…today we know of technology and machines, then they did not.
      Whatever it was, I do not believe any “god” would worry about artificial drawn borders on a bronze age planet. The Bible was written by ancient Jews, of course they would set them self up as gods chosen people, of course they would say god gave us the known world to settle…. to do other wise is totally against human nature.

      • Jeff S

        so true! What’s sad is that the ancient Jews were also set up to beleive in a “God” by the desedants of Zeus and his followers to keep people beleiving that there is a power that is stronger than there own and should be fought and even die for. As long as people are looking outside themselves for a greater power then the world will stay at war. Worship of “Gods” is the biggest scam in the history of man. It’s no coincidence that war and idol worship started at the same time in history.

        • http://forgotten ld

          Religion is a man-made political power tool fueled by fear and need and greed–including the ultimate greed (eternal life).

          I suspect that conflict predates religion; however, I also suspect that religion has been used as an excuse to turn what should reasonably have been minor conflicts into larger, longer wars.

        • Tom W.

          You’re absolutely correct Jeff, they did start at the same point in history. The very same day that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit! If you don’t believe in God, you’d better PRAY that you’re right!!! “NO SWIMMING ALLOWED!” in the Lake of Fire! You won’t be strokin’, you’ll be SMOKIN’!!!
          Signs of the Times
          “But as the days of No’e were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” – Matt. 24:37

          “They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were givien in marriage, until the day that No’e entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day, he that shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot’s wife.” – Luke 17:27-32

          “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.” – Gen. 6:11

          “Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth. Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter. Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you. Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain. Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.” – James 5:1-8

          “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” – II Tim. 3:1-5

          “And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” – Luke 21:28

          The Ten Reasons We Should be Looking for Christ’s Return
          1. Increased knowledge. – Dan. 12:4
          2. Invention of nuclear warfare. – Ezek. 39:6-16, Joel 2:20, Zec. 14:12, Rev. 6:12-14, 8:7
          3. Rebirth of the nation of Israel. – Deut. 30:1-3, Isaiah 4:2, 11:10-12, 66:8, Ezek. 37:21, Joel 3:2, Amos 9:14&15
          4. Scoffers. – II Peter 3:3-7
          5. Jerusalem in Jewish control. – Zec. 12:2, Luke 21:24
          6. Russian Jew’s “Aliyah” or return to the Holy Land. – Jer. 23:7&8 7. 24/7 realtime worldwide televised news. – Rev. 11:9&10
          8. Deception. – Matt. 24:4&5
          9. Famines, pestilences, earthquakes. – Matt. 24:7
          10. Horrific violence. – Matt. 24:37-39, Gen. 6:11

      • Tom W.

        John, you missed your chance to get on board with all those Heaven’s Gate nuts back in “97″!!! Don’t go ridin’ on that long black train!!I just love you idiots who think that you’re smarter than God!

        1 Corinthians 1:27(KJV)
        “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;”

    • James

      Lawrence, 2 Samuel 7:10 reads: “Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, tht they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more…:” God stated this when all twelve tribes of Israel were in Palestine, under King David.
      It says this new place will be somewhere other than Palestine, and the Israelites would never move from there. There is no scripture that places the chosen people in the Middle East, at the endtime.

      • Tom W.

        Y’all really shouldn’t try to debunk the Bible because most of you don’t know what you’re talking about!!! Try these James: Deut. 30:1-3, Isaiah 4:2, 11:10-12, 66:8, Ezek. 37:21, Joel 3:2, Amos 9:14&15, and there are many more!

        • James

          Tom, I fail to see how quoting the Bible is debunking it. Ezekiel 37:21′s “I…will …bring them into their own land,” means the land in 2 Sam. 7:10, from which they will move no more. Apparently, you believe the deniers of Christ are His chosen people.

    • James

      Lawrence, That’s true, but that land wasn’t to be Israel’s homeland forever. The Lord told Nathan, the prophet, to tell King David this (2 Sam 7:10): “Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more…” The promise was made when all twelve tribes of Israel was in Palestine under King David. Thus, this new “place of their own” can’t possibly be in Palestine. And if they will “move no more” from this new place, then they certainly won’t return to the Holy Land. Stated otherwise, whoever is there now cannot possibly be the Israelites of the Bible.

  • John

    None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature’s God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists. We’ll never know; but by reading their own writings, it’s clear that most of them were opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.

    Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson’s words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is here in blue italics: “All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable.” Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: “All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.” But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence– it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.

    If the Christian Right Extremists wish to return this country to its beginnings, so be it… because it was a climate of Freethought. The Founders were students of the European Enlightenment. Half a century after the establishment of the United States, clergymen complained that no president up to that date had been a Christian. In a sermon that was reported in newspapers, Episcopal minister Bird Wilson of Albany, New York, protested in October 1831: “Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.” The attitude of the age was one of enlightened reason, tolerance, and free thought. The Founding Fathers would turn in their graves if the Christian Extremists had their way with this country.

    Consider this: IF indeed the members of the First Continental Congress were all bible-believing Christians, would there ever have been a revolution at all?

    “For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft.” 1Samuel 15:23

    • Jeff S

      Finally! Someone that knows what the founding fathers stood for instead of just quoting from the agenda based King James version of the bible. Thankfully we have (so far) an unsensored internet that let’s us find out the true stories of the bible that were left out for the purpose of oppressing women and keeping up with the status quo. Please bible worshipers, read the whole version as it was intended and know that it was meant to be a moral guideline for all people’s reguardless of any idealogical separations.

      • http://forgotten ld

        Many of those founding fathers were actually more Deists than Christian.

        Whether or not there is a God or what the nature of any God might be, Religion is a man-made political power tool fueled by fear and need and greed.

        The Dems used it to organize for the civil rights movement.

        The GOP learned well and used it throughout the cold war to build up the military-industrial-congressional complex (about which Ike tried to warn us all) and now

        Since there are simply not enough votes in the so-called 1% to get polititions elected that will focus on making the wealthy investor/employer class agenda a priority, the GOP now uses “values voters” to get the puppets of the monied interest elected. That is why in SEVEN years of GOP control of all three branches of gov’t the right-wing “values voters” agenda was not accomplished–it’s too useful to getting the votes needed for the hidden agenda.

        Suggested reading: November 24 Rolling Stone article–How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich. There is ‘class warfare’ being waged–as it has been since the world was tribes rather than nations–and the wealthy, powerful few –despite some few victories via democracy–are still winning.

        Our freedoms are being limited in the name of “security”–our democracy is being stolen because it was the best chance at the many winning the “class warfare” being waged by the wealthy few.

    • Karolyn

      Thank you John!

  • Viet Nam Vet 67-68

    If all of you with these great idea’s would call and leave this information at Ron Pauls headquarters for him to digest and include in his Debates maybe he would get stronger and win more votes. I sent him some info and a lot of you have great idea’s send them to Paul and his staff. Go Ron Paul the only true Conservative Honest Constitutional Candidate.

  • Earl, QUEENS, NY

    I’ve long enjoyed viewing your website and agree with many of your articles. But I’ve been disappointed lately as I get the impression that many of you really want Ron Paul for POTUS. WHY?? He’s a nincompoop and a George McGovern – type crackpot on foreign policy. In fact, this fool Paul may be even worse than Obama on foreign policy. Anybody who’s worse than BHO on an important issue must be defeated, and should abandon the race for POTUS!! Can you imagine this fool debating BHO on foreign policy?? I bet BHO could beat him without a teleprompter!! As for being pro-Constitution, there are many conservatives who ARE pro-Constitution. We certainly don’t need a crack-pot (who BTW wants to legalize both of these brain damaging substances!!) to protect the Constitution. Some of you people need to get your heads out of the sand!! Being anti-Paul is NOT being against our Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it say we should legalize crack or pot?? That makes as much sense as the liberal democraps who cite the welfare cause to justify Obamacare, redistribution of wealth, etc.

    Although their party tends to be IMHO too laisse-faire, I do agree with Libertarians on some issues. E.g., I did vote for Harry Browne in 1996 – not only because I saw Bob Dole as an unelectable weak moderate, but seeing his wife Elizabeth by his side turned me off – all the ridiculus regulations (safety belt laws, air bags, etc.) enacted during her tenure in the Reagan Administration. However, as for Ron ‘Wrong’ Paul, he isn’t even worthy to be re-elected to Congress, much less the White House. Texas voters really should try to defeat ‘Wrong’ Paul and dispatch him to retirement in the next congressional primary. If you really are pro-Constitution, then you should focus on the political party which we know constantly thumbs its nose at our Constitution – that is – DEFEAT THE LEFTWING DEMOCRAP PARTY!!

    • Justwhistlingdixie

      Where in the constitution does it say that drugs or anything else is illegal or where exactly did you find in the constitution any language that grants the right of the federal government to make any product or goods, illegal.

    • Jeff S

      Which dangerous substances are you speaking of Early? Vaccines, flouride? Does taking our troops out of over 120 countries in which we occupy sound like a scary foreign policy to you?? Do us a favor uncle Earl and read some independant news sources and become informed instead or just regurgitating all the crap you hear your buddies talking about down at the lodge after a couple of Bud Light drafts. It’s quite boring.

    • Jay

      Ron Paul on decriminalizing drugs/cannabis. Maybe this time you will read, Earl!

      Ron Paul: I would, at the federal level. I don’t have control over the states. And that’s why the Constitution’s there. On the issue of drugs, we have spent nearly five hundred billion dollars on the War on Drugs, since the 1970s. Total failure. Some day, we have to admit it.

      Today, we have the federal government going into states that have legal medical marijuana, arresting people–undermining state laws–arresting people who use marijuana when they’re dying with cancer and AIDS, and it’s done with, as a compassionate conservative. And it doesn’t work.

      What it does, it removes the ability to states to do their things, and also introduces the idea that it’s the federal government that will get to decide whether we get to take vitamins, and alternative medical care, or whatever. Most of our history, believe it or not, had no drug laws. Prohibition has been an absolute failure for alcohol. Drug addiction is a medical problem. It’s not a problem of the law.-Ron Paul

      • http://forgotten ld

        Legally speaking, marijuana should be treated the same as alcohol. For the rest, it should at least be decriminalized UNLESS people are DUI or otherwise endangering their own children –actively or by neglect–or are damaging or putting at risk other people w/their behavior while using.

    • Jay

      Ron Paul on foreign policy: I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.

      Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

      Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”

      Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

      Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?

      It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today’s more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.

      It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image. -Ron Paul

      • revnowwhilewecan

        I’m with you but that’s better said than done when the military and executive powers engauge in these unlawful “conflicts” without senate approval and in the case of Iran even provoked.

      • http://forgotten ld

        Every move our polititions make to push the US more toward a Christian Theocracy further destroys our standing in efforts to convince other nations that their people deserve democracy.

      • http://forgotten ld

        With the so-called Patriot Act and end to habeas corpus–indefinite detention–and ruling that corporations–including foreign owned corporation have rights to influence and determine our political system we are already well on our way to throwing away what’s left of our freedom.

    • http://forgotten ld

      As an independent w/libertarian leanings I believe wealth is already being redistributed–away from the employee class to BOTH the investor/employer class and the “huddled masses” to the subtantial detriment of the mostly preoccupied and/or apathetic “silent majority” in the middle. It is only when that middle begins to really hurt that they get involved enough to have the potential to make signifigant and meaningful change–the problem is holding their attention span long enough to do that. Polititions have a way of fixin’ just enough problems just enough to avoid that–until the next time they slide back into the path their puppeteers on either extreme of the political spectrum set for them.

  • Ann

    It appears that Paul Craig Roberts is missing the point here. Ron Paul is the right man for President because he is right about what he is saying. I am a senior citizen and I have been outraged by how Congress has stolen money from the trust that was supposed to be there for us when we retire. They constantly abuse us and want us to approve of their lies and theft. They mock the Constitution, continually add more laws to the already unbearable weight they have put upon our backs. They sit in the lap of luxury and refuse to hear our pleas when we write them or call them. The fact that Ron Paul is consistent and he has never taken a stand that would in any way threaten our people of America is the very reason I will vote for him. I will not support any other candidate for President. If he were to bend to the “controllers” who have already shown their true colors, he would lose all support from those of us who admire and respect him for his ideals and intent.

  • Bob in Boston

    What I take from this article is just that Dr. Paul needs to make it a point to clarify his positions in the debate on Thursday. Because he’s got the right plan, and it’s documented on the internet, but how many people who are actually collecting social security know how to look up the details of his plans on the internet? Since he gets zero coverage by the media, he needs to take full advantage of the chances he DOES get to clarify his positions in a way that older voters can understand. if he does that, he ‘ll get a surprise bump in Florida!

    • revnowwhilewecan

      As they say in the House of Commons, “Here here.”

    • http://forgotten ld

      Ron Paul’s voice is not so pleasant to the ear but neither is much of what the media airs. The absence of media coverage may well be linked to the ad dollars for war coverage–what else explains it?


    dosent matter what republican who wins they will win by a landslide over obama. obama has lied from the start.i know many democrats is going to vote for a republican,just to get obama out of office.obama is very unamerican and it just showed last week when obama turn down the keystone pipeline down. that was going to be paid for canada and hire many americans out of work to work on this project and jobs will more available because of this.but oh no obama just want a foodstamp america.the worst betrayel is obama turning against our friends isreal.obama is taking our lord and savior jesus christ out of our country.yes obama we will hold on to our guns and bibles and vote santorum for president.

    • http://forgotten ld

      Sounds like you live in a fantasy world.

  • PaulRunsAgainstCorruptCongress

    It’s Real Simple!
    Vote for Lair’s, or Vote for Truth!There is Only One Man on stage that consistently tells the Truth Ron Paul!

    I just watch this debate in florida Jan 23rd live and it makes me sick that i was going to first vote for mitt,
    then after SC i leaned toward Newt. I cant believe how both danced to the politician side step song! scary dirty!Just what we need.

    Each time they got caught in their little lie’s they changed the subject
    in to something what the older guy Paul has always been saying and then they look good and solid again.

    I will NOT VOTE for either of these guys! Every one has been bashing the old guy Paul. well tonight I listen to him
    and he is the only ONE that did not and will Not pander, Ron Paul is a Matter of Fact! No Bull Sh!t He may not be in your face dirty…but he won’t talk crooked.
    You get what you see the first time and every time!
    I cant believe this crap. I am on board for Paul!

    I hope you Voters are Smart and see right through the DC crap dance!
    true comedy.

    • Deerinwater

      Strong posting.

  • Hal224

    I’m always amazed by the fact that liberals, left or right, do not even bother to study Free Market Economics. Instead, they perpetuate false and distorted accusations which blame the free market system for everything from exploiting workers to the Great Depression and the current financial meltdown. During the first one hundred and twenty years of this county’s existence, with little government interference, the United States progressed from a small undeveloped country of 4.5 million people to the number 1 economy in the world with 76 million people. Life expectancy doubled. People immigrated to the US by the millions from all over the world. Why? To be exploited? Not likely. So called progressive politics is based on the fact that we don’t live in a perfect world and that favorable developments are always taken for granted and make any residual problems more visible. Liberals take these new found problems and use them as an excuse to create government bureaucracies to fix them. The trouble is the only way that government can do anything is by taking from one person and giving to another – and keeping a percentage for the bureaucracy. Like all people bureaucrats have a vested interest in perpetuating their own livelihood, so any final solution to the problem is unlikely, and regulations are written without end. We’re currently up to 160,000 regulations and counting. If given time real problems will be addressed by a free market without resorting to force. For example, child labor was a fact of life for centuries when people lived on farms so when factories replaced farming it was not considered unusual for children to work in factories. The progress made through the implementation of free markets made it possible for children to get out of the factories – not government regulations. The basis for government action is always force, while in a free market no transaction takes place unless both parties agree to the exchange. I find it hard to understand with all the examples of failed government directed economic systems how anyone feels a system based on force is superior to a system based on voluntary cooperation. The steady increase in government involvement over the last one hundred years has led to our current problems – government/big corporation interaction through regulation, Community Reinvestment Act/Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (housing crash), too big to fail banks (financial meltdown), corporate bailouts, The Federal Reserve (inflation), government entitlement programs and ten plus year wars (government debt exceeding GDP), etc. Didn’t have any of these problems during the first one hundred and twenty years of our countries existence.

  • steve

    Well folks here is some good news. Question is why don’t we do it in other states.

    By Pat Shannan
    When Georgia’s State Administrative Court opened its doors on Jan. 3, Judge Michael Malihi’s first order of the year was to deny defendant Barack Obama’s motion to dismiss the case against him that demands the sitting president’s name be removed from the November ballot unless he can prove himself constitutionally eligible. Trial is set for Jan. 26, 2012.
    Eight plaintiffs, including five persons being represented by California’s tenacious attorney Orly Taitz, have now joined the suit, filed last year after Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) was shown to be fraudulent. However, by that time it had been made evident that even if Obama could produce real proof that he was born in Hawaii, it would not be enough under the law, because an additional “natural born” requirement making one eligible to be president of the United States is that both parents also be U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. Barack Obama Sr. was never a U.S. citizen.
    Further evidence has since been uncovered showing Obama has used various Social Security numbers never assigned to him and that he applied for aid as a foreign college student.
    Without arguing the above facts, as was also the case in the many preceding cases around the country, Obama’s legal team attempted to have the action quashed with a motion to dismiss, claiming that the code section did not apply to any candidate in a “presidential preference primary.”
    The Georgia court disagreed in its four-page order denying the motion, saying, “[T]his court finds that defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
    One of the plaintiffs, Carl Swensson of Atlanta, has been a part of this movement since retired naval officer Walt Fitzpatrick brought it to the headlines three years ago and has been in active support of both Fitzpatrick and Darren Huff by testifying at their various hearings. Both men are currently in jail—Fitzpatrick for contempt of court and Huff awaiting sentencing.
    Swensson told AFP that this case, now docketed in state court in Atlanta for Jan. 26, will be the first to be heard by any court. In the past Mrs. Taitz, attorney Leo Denofrio of New Jersey and former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip J. Berg, as well as others, have been frustrated by the courts at various levels by their refusal to hear the matter.
    Two years ago, Mrs. Taitz had her case accepted by the federal court before District Judge David Carter reversed himself, claiming the Constitution did not provide the power to the federal courts to remove a sitting president.
    “But this time, we’ve got ‘em on the run,” said Swensson, pointing out that the latest suit is not directed at removing Obama from office but rather removing him from the November ballot in Georgia. Should that happen, the plaintiffs believe that many states will follow suit.
    “The Georgia state court does have the power and jurisdiction to do that, and I don’t believe Judge Malihi is going to bow to federal pressure,” said Swensson.

    • Deerinwater

      As I have said time and again, South Carolina behaves like a spoiled unruly child and needing of a spanking.

      Let us see how the 26th works for them.

      I am considering they get their heart right or start opposing future federal spending and not renewing federal contracts to the state of South Carolina. We can send this work and money to States in greater need and more willing to be a team player to “change” you can believe in instead of entrenched power on the Hill.

      South Carolina can go back to raising hogs and chickens and playing good blue grass music.

      • Tom W.

        I know there are some South Carolinians who would just love to personally debate you about some of your Yankee attitudes!!! In a southern gentlemanly fashion of course Deerindeeppeepee! How did you ever get out of Dixie alive boy?!!

        • http://forgotten ld

          Especially the gun-toten ones.

      • http://forgotten ld

        SC behaves like a bunch of people who know what the want and believe they know what is best for everyone else–they are, after all, in the Bible Belt where directions are as often given by which church to turn at rather than which street.

        Also, I live in a neighboring state. Many parts of SC are actually not living in the dark ages. The military is a big part of the lives of these folks, after only to guns and religion and maybe tied w/family.

    • http://forgotten ld

      It is likely that those oft-repeated “facts” you cite are untrue; if the GOP had proof,the matter would have been brought before the Roberts’ US Supreme Court long before now.

      You’re probably gettin’ your panties in a wad over a lost cause.

    • James

      Steve, Thank you. I just reread Shannan’s article an hour ago. It’ll be interesting to see how the Georgia state court rules.

  • ranger hall

    RICHARD PAWLEY;;; Man you must be a Jew.
    QUOTE They dont stick their noses in everybodys business like we do.. HELL no we do it for them,,,

    Only if he clearly states that he will support ISRAEL that he can win the Nomination. NOW this is real facts. ??? Wonder WHY.

    We can give, NOT GOD them their own Country, BUT why cant we give the PALESTINIANS their own Country.???

    Have you noticed in past times all The front runners go to ISRAEL before the Election, Just ask OBAMA.

    NOW what was that Quote. GOD gave them the lands from here to there.
    In all my life and history i have never seen GOD give land. I have only seen People TAKE it away and give to others.

    TEXAS was not attacked it was defended by its rightful govt..WE invaded Texas, The Fed govt wanted it…ITS called MANIFEST DESTINY.

    MANIFEST DESTINY: Lets see we came in to America We Killed and Destroyed the Indians. IT was not enought. We Killed and destroyed
    the French. We killed and Destroyed the BRITISH. Now it was time to move WEST. WE killed and destroyed more INDIANS. Then we moved South into Texas, WE killed and moved the MEXICANS Out. Then we kept moving west, WE took New Mexico and Arizona And texas from MEXICO, And we kept killing and Destroying the Indians. Then we Wanted Alaska, tHE RUSSIANS TO KEEP FROM HAVING A WAR DECIDED TO sale ALASKA TO US. well our MANIFEST DESTINY is paying off. WHY DID WE FIGHT IN CUBA, WHY DID WE HAVE ANOUTHER FIGHT IN MEXICO. Then during these years we and the CHURCH have become a Country to FEAR. Japan was an example. WE wanted Control, And we got it Based on threats of blowing the Country to pcs. if they did not aggree to our demands. Then WE moved on the rest of the world awaits. You should know the rest of this History by now.

    • http://forgotten ld

      Russia sold Alaska because they did not realize its full potential value–economically or stratigically–and did not expect to be able to defend it w/war equipment then available and it in so close proximity to potential enemies. It was not to “avoid” any attack from US or Canada. It was more–ain’t worth the bother.

  • dick motta

    This country was founded upon the principles of a Constitutional Republic, whereby, the individual is sovereign and the government is limited. We are rapidly evolving into a fascist form of government with a communitarian rule of law, whereby, the individual must subordinate his individuality to the interest of the community. For the elections, the mistake we make is to label candidates and then succumb to the demeaning distractions and haranguing of the media. No candidate is going to be perfect. I want the candidates to define the problems and propose solutions. Ron Paul is the only candidate that has even addressed the issues of Constitutional rights, military intervention and limited government spending. Vote Ron Paul

  • ranger hall

    People depend to much on God to solve their Problems. Have you seen what has been going on in the World since the world was started, NOTHING but DEATH and DESTUCTION, And i do not see much that God has done to help prevent these ongoing problems in the world. Well they say God is the POWERFUL ONE, Well all i can see is the DEVIL at work, I sure would like to see some Godly deads to help stop all this KILLING and DESTRUCTION,CHILDREN STARVING,LIVING IN SHACKS, BAD FOOD IF ANY,BAD WATER, NO MEDICAL OR VERY LITTLE. And i could go on and on.
    PEOPLE WE are the PROBLEM.

    • http://forgotten ld

      For God to be God, God must be the one and only all powerful, ever present, all knowing, perfect, infallible creator of all that exists–including evil; as in God is a sadist.

      In US most of us would deem a father that lets his children rape and kill each other a criminal–applies to the Heavenly Father, too: God is a sadist.

  • Michael Schwabe

    Right behind our Founding Fathers, came to this country a group of troublemakers. They were, like our founders, Freemasons. Unlike our Founders, they were agents of the English Crown who’s dark task it was to undermine our newly founded Constitutional Republic. Their expertise was to drive a wedge between the people and their Constitution. They called themselves “The Columbia Faction” and the assignment was to infiltrate the state governments of the now ‘more perfect union’ with political opportunities that would tend to raise a consensus in the population toward achieving legislation through mob rule, also known as Democracy. In other words, get the people to vote around their Constitution in order to punch little holes in it allowing the laws of the Vatican via the English Crown to leak into our government. This is where our troubles begin. This is why we have the crowning glory of this effort known as the District of Columbia and the United States Corporation, which has nothing to do with the United States Of America and its Constitution. Our country is held hostage by a corporation of the British Crown for the holdings of the Vatican. The citizenry of this country have been taken for a bunch of stupid fools in a slow motion retaliation for our forefather’s having dared to challenge the European Banking Cartels and their MAFIA operations. So to answer the question: NO. Ron Paul shouldn’t BUDGE from the Constitution even slightly.

  • ranger hall

    OUR MILITARY???.Well lets see WHY do we have a MILITARY, SAME as WE Have POLICEMEN. BECAUSE WE are working People, WE hire Policemen to Protect our Lives and our Property, WE have a military to Protect OUR COUNTRY. This way we do not have to pack our Weapons to work ea day. Well the Military Protects OTHERS than ourselves, Our Policemen spend most of their time Getting revenue for the Politicians, and protecting the POLITICIANS. And Good Honest Persons do not need all this Protection.

    Just look at what it costs the Taxpayers for the President to travel to a State or City, Or a Country. WHY. These people are just People No better then most. Heck today you cant hardly find any Politician that we dont pay for security, Are these people so BAD that they need Security. This makes us like a third world country Protecting the Dictators. IS THERE ANY PRIDE OR HONOR ANY MORE, Do we have any MEN anymore. These People have Armed Guards because they are afraid of the People.Granted a reasonable amount of security is warranted, BUT most is not required. If these people think they need security< Let them pay for it themselves, Most can afford it. BUT WE CANT.

  • DaveH
  • Cassie Eleson

    Ron Paul lacks public charisma. It’s sad that his campaign managers have not insisted that he develop some for his campaign appearances. I agree with you about his lack of demonstrated support of Social Security and Medicare and the aging voting public. His campaigners seem to forget that people vote primarily their personal interests, not necssarily what’s good for the nation. His campaign seems more focused on their agenda than on how to get him elected, more amateurish than seasoned political campaigners.

    • DaveH

      Charisma? Isn’t that what Obama has?
      I’m looking for somebody with Substance. I’m looking for Ron Paul.

    • Jay

      Charisma? That bitc* is more trouble then she’s worth!

    • http://forgotten ld

      In sum, he seems refreshingly but frightenly truthful about saying what he actually seems to believe.

  • ranger hall

    TO have an HONEST American in the Office Of President, WILL TAKE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to elect and see that he STAYS there, If he does not have the American People and the Country as priority #1 Then he Must be REMOVED. And i dont mean in 4 YEARS. Same goes for all these other People we have in Office.
    BUT ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, These people have nothing to fear from us.Have they.
    The system they have in place does not require an Honest AMERICAN. Any honest person that goes into office either CONFORMS OR IS OUT. One way or anouther.

  • James

    I have stated this before, but it bears repeating. When the Social Security Act (1934) was first enacted, it was challenged in court as being an unconstititional taking of money from one person and giving it to another. The then Attorney General argued that the S.S. Act taxes were not set aside to be used exclusively for S.S. Act benefits, and the Supreme Court upheld the Act’s constitutionality. If S.S. Act taxes were set aside for benefits, as many individuals and groups are fighting for now, that would render the Act unconstitutional. My letter to these leaders fall on deaf ears.
    Think about it, if we say Congress has the power to tax one person for the benefit of another, we are saying Congress has the power to tax the poor for the benefit of the rich. And the Supreme Court has ruled that where Congress has the power to tax, it has the power to tax at 100%.

  • ranger hall

    OBAMA-EVERY American should demand that ea Person running for Office show proof that he has the RIGHT. BEFORE HE IS ELECTED OR Sworn into Office. When this is not done People we can only blame ourselves. This should be done before the Nomination Process.Congress and the Supreme Court have the Power to Remove the President, With the Peoples Demands. BUT this is Not going to Happen.

  • Michelle

    I think Ron Paul’s domestic and fiscal policies are the best. His real problem is foreign policy. He is a Strict Constitutionalist, but fails to realize the the role of POTUS is first and foremost to defend the nation. We live in a crazy world full of despots that would like nothing more than to destroy the US. Ron Paul wants to pretend that it is none of our business and we should even befriend Castro, and leave Israel alone.

    Cuba has despots lined up to take advantage of the fact the the gulag nation is 60 miles offshore to the US, and most people realize that Israel would not survice without US protection.

    • DaveH

      We live in a world full of enemies because our Nosy Government must get involved constantly in Everybody Else’s business. Imagine if the Islamics were over here messing in our politics. We’d be just a little pissed, wouldn’t we?
      Contrary to the Propaganda, War Does Not bring Peace.
      Ron Paul, like many of our Founders who disdained foreign entanglements, wants to change that.

      • http://deleted Claire

        DaveH–The MSM will do everything in their power to omit Ron Paul from accomplishing anything. All of them are concentraing on Romney, Gingrich, Obama. The talk show idiots are doing the same.

      • Jeep

        DaveH, my brother, it occurs to me that the Islamo Fascists did, in fact, “mess” around in our politics…and, 3,000 good American’s died. You know I agree with you that America has meddled, which may have led to some of the anti-American sentiment running through the world’s undercurrent. But, having spent many years in close proximity to our enemies, the reasons why they hate us becomes less important as the fact they hate us takes a front seat. I’m sorry, but no strategy of apologizing, bowing or “just leave them alone” is going to end their reign of terror over night.

        You’re right that “War does not bring peace”, but only in it’s most simple terms. Just ask the geeky kid on the playground. He wished for peace, but that didn’t stop the bully from taking his lunch money. Now, if that geeky kid had listened to Charles Atlas, then there would not be a problem. Peace through strength, works every time. We have to accept the fact that there are bad people out there who want to harm us. We can stop them here on our soil, or over there in their backyard. The alternative is to bury our heads and hope they go after someone else.

        So, call me a propagandist, but I think we need a smarter less hands on approach to foreign policy, but keep the big stick handy. In the mean time, turn the military loose to end this long drawn out fight with myriad of terrorist organizations we are toying with. It’s not just Al Qaeda my friend, we are holding back a number of groups from places near and far. But, okay, let’s cut the military, stop chasing bad guys, and let the chips fall where they may. Good luck with that…

        • http://forgotten ld

          I can see keeping the “big stick” “handy”, but maybe home but handy instead of overseas and handy. How long would it take all those troops to get back home if another nation had the bouncingballs to attack us here?

          Ron Paul could have explained what, if any, his plan was to keep our treaty commitments–or plan to end them?–and or how to keep our troops trained to work w/our allies–if that was his intent. maybe rotation ?or training rather than stationed elsewhere.

  • Ron Caravaggio

    I agree that there is no difference between the evil people in government and the evil people in the private sector. The only difference is that the evil ones in the private sector must answer to a higher authority, while government answers to no one. That fact alone makes government far more dangerous that any private entity. The problem we have now is that the politicians in Washington are not holding the private sector accountable for their actions. They even bail them out when they screw up, and politicians will continue to do so as long as we keep electing cadidates who receive millions of dollars in campaign money from big business. The answer, obviously, is to elect a cadidate who doesn’t take a dime in campaign money from the big corporations. Does anyone know of such a cadidate? I can only think of one.

    • Karolyn

      EVERYONE, including government, answers to something in the end. “What goes around comes around.”

      • Ron Caravaggio

        I agree, but if we don’t start reigning in government now, we will see that “end” a lot sooner than we’d like.

  • David Burla


    American people question and wonder,
    Why America lost it’s “Financial Thunder”,
    Why jobless lines are reaching the sky,
    Why Corporations legally cheat and lie.

    People are suffering and people are dying,
    The medical system cares not of your crying,
    With the cost of living and taxes so high,
    It makes you think and it makes you sigh.

    Those behind the corruption and the crap,
    Need to be arrested and given the strap!,
    Problems need correction sooner than later,
    Or be doomed to serve a “Fascist Dictator”.

    Blame Banksters, Politicians and Corporations,
    For planning a “New World Order” Domination,
    They plan to make the stock markets crash,
    For they are “EVIL DOERS” with “MEGA CASH”.

    They will break your “Will” to make you ill,
    And care not for Liberty or “Free Will”,
    They create tyranny by signing new laws,
    Like beastly animals with “Killer Claws”.

    They want to control you and own your land,
    They plan to put a “Implant” in your hand,
    You won’t be able to buy, sell or trade,
    Without the “Mark of the Beast” to prove you paid.

    They treat your water with Industrial Waste Fluoride,
    To make you have cancer, disease and be a schizoid,
    Monsanto genetically modified Nature’s perfect seeds,
    To “Depopulate” the world with “Slow Kill” food and feeds.

    People can’t afford Quality American Products,
    Do to high taxes imposed by it’s fascist government,
    So Corporations pay offshore to build them to “spec”,
    Which closes our factories and creates unemployment.

    Those Demons are trashing America’s Constitution,
    Forcing tyrannical laws and hurting “Our Great Nation”,
    Like “Indefinite Detainment” signed on New Years Eve,
    Verified broken Oaths and “Sheeple” are naive.

    Ron Paul for President would be the “First Choice”,
    To restore the Constitution and lower your voice,
    And to make the economy work smooth and sensibly,
    Would provide peace, happiness and no more tyranny.

    Government must turn their “EVIL SHIP” around and do a 180,
    Otherwise they’re heading for a hot place known as HADES,
    You too can make a change by getting off your chair,
    And Voting for Ron Paul to show you really care!

    Poem 3, Ver 3
    Jan 23, 2012

    • Karolyn


      • David Burla

        Thank-you Karolyn!

  • David Burla


    Blame the Banksters and Senate Institution,
    For Fragmenting American Constitution,
    The Sheeple glued to TV’s and Entertainment,
    Allowed NDAA signing “Indefinite Detainment”.

    Dr. Ron Paul would restore the Constitution,
    He believes Liberty and Justice is the Solution,
    And by removing the Senate House Prostitution,
    Would stop today’s Tyranical Pollution.

    Please Vote Ron Paul to WIN the race,
    So Government Demons have a red face,
    This can happen if you get off your chair,
    And going to the polls to show you care!

    Poem 1, Version 7

  • David Burla

    “The Eleventh Day Of September” (Ver. 4)

    Americans will always remember,
    The eleventh day of September,
    When devils ordered airliners,
    To fly into the twin towers.

    Gold and Silver was the reason,
    The Banksters did the treason,
    They cared not who they killed,
    As long as Satan’s deed was fulfilled.

    God says vengeance is mine my son,
    Day of judgment will surely come,
    Especially those killing innocent ones,
    On September eleven, two thousand and one.

    Poem 4, Version 4

    • Jay

      Are these original David? I like them!

      • David Burla

        Hi Jay! YES! The Poems are my creations, and thanks for your kind
        words! First, I’m a “home grown” Canadian. I often listen to a local
        Radio Station (1 of over 500 affiliates across North America) called
        “Coast to Coast AM”. Their website is . Check
        there for a A.M. radio station near you. Their daily shows are 4
        hours long, and replay before the next new shows. They have a myriad
        of guests that are very knowledgable about specific topics/subjects.
        Some shows played short segments of a independent TV & Radio Journalist
        named ALEX JONES. He and his 34? staff located in Austin, Texas, do
        research on a shadow government and the banking system that was planned
        long ago to take over America and the world. (New World Order). I
        listen for free on the internet at . Once there, click
        on “Listen Now”, etc. He also goes out with his film crew to a myriad
        of places to provide excellent news coverage. He has a online “store”
        where you can purchase his DVD’s, etc. He has a real “special” on a
        pack now.

        After listening to his broadcasts for over a year, I was fascinated
        about what is happening to the U.S.A. economy, debt, banking system
        corruption, the shadow gov’t ownership and CONTROL of the Military
        Industrial Complex, etc.! I started reading the comments sections of
        his forums and listening to his weekday 3-4 Hour long programs. I
        learned stuff you will never hear or read in the Main Stream Media.
        I thought one day, if I could write to the audiences in a way that is
        enjoyable to read like POEMS are, I could convey my thoughts more
        effectively. It’s not like reading run-on sentences and large

        My first poem was created around the 10th anniversary of the World
        Trade Center 9/11 fiasco. I received much praise for it. I thought
        about an old phrase I once heard “I’m a poet, and didn’t know it!”.
        I thought “Who ME”? So I created a bunch more, posted them on and AJ’s other site . It’s nice
        to be appreciated and it shows by positve comments. Maybe it’s a
        “calling”? Spread the news about AJ’s sites. People must prepare
        NOW with Emergency Food, Water purifiers, etc. Lot’s of links on
        his site too. Anyway, like Paul Harvey used to say, “And now you
        know the rest of the story”. Thanks! db

  • Paul

    Charity begins at home…unless the government takes it first.

    When my parents were collecting SS, my brother and I were both self-employed – which means we paid twice as much into SS & medicare than an employee would. Between the two of us, we paid more than our parents received. It would have been nice if we could have just given the money to them.

  • Historian

    We are spending almost twice as much money as we collect in taxes.

    There is no “trust fund” held in reserve for Social Security, only Treasury bonds, promises by the US Government to pay these commitments eventually.

    The Federal Reserve ‘banks’ are currently purchasing much of the US debt using ‘currency’ created out of nothing.

    Fact: The total Federal debt now exceeds the total GNP, which includes Federal, State and local government expenditures. When you include only private expenditures, the Federal debt is about TWICE the real GNP.

    Fact: The funded debt is only a small portion of the total obligation of the Federal government, totaling somewhere between $90 trillion dollars and over $200 trillion dollars.

    Fact: The only reason that this Ponzi scheme has not collapsed yet is because virtually every other economy is in worse shape, and most people around the world are fleeing to dollars instead of euros or some other fiat currency.

    Fact: We will either make the needed changes to keep government expenditures and the resultant hidden taxation of inflation under control, making the painful adjustments required to keep our spending well below our expenditures, or we will continue to tax and destroy the lower and middle classes by deficit spending and creation of fiat currency by a private banking cartel. If we choose continued deficit spending, eventually the destruction of the economic fabric of this nation will be so severe that it will collapse, destroying most of what remains. A or B. Those are the ONLY choices that matter.

    It is all very well to prate about promises made, but the facts are that we cannot afford to honor all of those promises. All the wishing in the world cannot change those facts. Moreover, a Constitution that permits the sort of vicious corporatist looting that has been going on in the last few decades is no protection for the people of this country; the veil of the myth of the rule of law will not conceal the savagery of the reality we are currently suffering for much longer, nor the worse things that are coming.

    We must return to real economic growth, created by free market trading, with minimal government which truly protects individual rights. If we don’t, we are doomed.

    Whatever else we as a nation decide to do, we MUST come to grips with the unappetizing economic reality we face. If we do not, we will not long survive as a civilized nation.

  • http://n/a Hal F square

    How often have we heard that this circulating so called “money” is “created of thin air”! TRUE, so what’s problem? On the other hand it can be looked at as an illustration with the numbers, i.e. 0 + 0 = 0. So where does everyone get the idea that we owe such amounts of money expressed in the trillions? Seriously, just think all is just a mere illusion, which some one expresses it with some numbers as a mere book-entry; but every one seems to believe that nothing-(0) plus “thin-air” equals something of value which is then conveniently converted and expressed by some numbers as an alleged debt. Currently they are running the printing presses day and night to make up the difference of the recorded numbers they claim we owe with all that printed paper notes by trying to catch up with those trillions in the books. But what is really mind blowing is that we print the money-notes, they pay us 3-4 cents for each printed note, then we give it to those banksters, and when we need to borrow some, which is in fact from our own collateralized amounts stored in our Treasury SS# XXX-XX-XXXX Account, in that they have the gull to charge us interest for using our own money? Now you know why the alleged trillion level and you can see why Ron P. wants so desperately to get rid of the Fed’s; JFK tried to do it, but see where he ended up.
    Happy counting,

  • Bob

    The point that was being made is that the handlers are not doing their best for him. To that I tend to agree. There is no way for strategist that is not directly connected to the campaign to help out with logical solutions. Case in point, we want to get rid of the Fed but even Dr. Paul says that we couldn’t do that immediately. But what about jobs. A market approach would be for Amtrak to be cut free from the government with the rights to use highway properties to create a mono rail system. This is to be funded by a lone from the central bank (Fed) at a supper low interest rate, maybe even zero. The loan must be paid back by Amtrak. This mono rail system would need a lot of American Steel and American Cement and American labor. Profits from the system would go to repay the loan. After that paying off the national debt. The benefits of a nation wide monorail is so numerous that I can’t even begin to include them in this comment. But how could such a discussion begin? The handlers are in the way of real progress.

  • baldmurph

    We have to go with what we got. If we don’t make a change this year, we will have four more of what we have now. I am not a Libertarian, nor a steadfast supporter of all issues of either major party; I am a pragmatic cynic at the ballot. Neither the Pope nor Mohammed direct this country – WE are supposed to do that through our chosen representatives. If we elect and forget, what we get is our fault as well. Ron Paul looks to me like our best choice now, warts and all. I don’t expect him to part the Sea of —- we are in now and lead us across to the Promised Land, but if we keep pushing we might be able to at least get to higher ground so we can plan a better direction.

  • http://forgotten ld

    Some of the strongest negative reaction to Ron Paul has been when he starts talking about not having military bases and/or ground troops all over the world. He would have helped himself a great deal if he had expanded his response to say how he would keep our commitments to treaties and keep troops trained to work with other military allies — such as rotating the troops for maneuvers rather than having them “stationed” in Europe, Korea, etc.—if, of course, that was his meaning.

  • joe a

    Responding to Jeff S`s theory on bankrupting the Federal reserve bank. He contends that by printing an unlimited supply of federal reserve notes the fed. would collapse and go bankrupt. Not true! Former president GHW Bush and congress passed legislation that simply said ” the federal reserve notes are legal tender for all debts public and private and are no longer redeemable in gold or silver and are backed by the credit and good faith of the american people” The american people would still be on the hook.

  • GILLYSROOMS in Australia

    DaveH ..I like the Ron Paul budget plan, but you need to realise that this plan needs to be printed in every newspaper in American or sent in the form of a letter to every literate householder so that the news and entertainment media cannot distort the facts. You must also know by now that not everyone in America has access to or has the knowledge, interest or skill to access the internet as we are so easily able to do.

    On my first reading of Federal Assets…Im guestimating that the value of assets suitable for sale would be at least 50 times more in value than estimated in his budget… can any one shed light on my assertion?

    I’d also like to point out that our Federal and State Liberal Party when they were in office in AUSTRALIA some ten years ago or more sold off many government assets in the form of Gas & Electricity Utility companies, QANTAS our mational airline, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and Telstra our national telephone company to name a few and were able to payoff ALL government Debts of several $billions, however they were so good at annoying and scaring the voters by trying to change work and emplyment contracts that the voters voted in the soft socialist Labor Party we now have who have happily been able to borrow and print $billions to ‘save’ us from the global financial crisis by coming up with all manner of spending schemes such as ‘free insulation for home owners, free computers for every school child, free grants to the retired and unemployed because they knew they would spend it fast…in the hope of stimulating the economy. In my view they stimulated the Asian economies from where all these imported goods came from. Now can you imagine who most of these recipients might vote for again next time?
    ..if more have not lost their jobs and when the new Carbon Tax hits their utility bills …. ? And where will the Labor Party get their next round of stimulous money from with our current borrowings?

    What I’m saying is that your Feds can sell all those assets if your economy is sound enough for the corporates and others to want to buy those assets…rembering that the new owners will most likely use borrowed funds from somewhere to finance the purchases of all those assets…and now might be a good time to sell when your interest rates are sooo low. I did not see anywhere in Ron Pauls budget showing how many $US.Billions which will be saved and reduce your budget by all that interest and maintenance costs you will be saving on the government debt you will no longer have. And imagine how much extra tax revenue you will earn by taxing those new owners in your various states and income taxes. The Federal Govt CANNOT lose ..only WIN, WIN, WIN, by selling land and buildings, stocks and bonds etc GOOD LUCK.

    Incidently, in the UK they appear to have announced the retrenchment of 40% of armed personell but not the office workers…this will be a worry for voters if they dont read RON PAULS PLAN not to touch your Defence Dept.

  • GILLYSROOMS in Australia

    Maybe what your country needs now is a Constitutional Party because in effect Dr Ron Paul’s main policy is to uphold the original intent of the your Constitution. It seems to me that many of your republicans who are not supporting Dr Paul are in fact rejecting to support the original Constitution. Am I wrong?

  • GILLYSROOMS in Australia

    Some interesting facts from BUPA HEALTH PLUS REPORT 2011

    Australia (population 22.6 million, total healthcare spending 9.1% of GDP ). All Australian citizens are eligible for free or low cost healthcare under the Medicare healthcare system, in which contributions are funded through 1.5-2.5% levies based on taxable income. About half the population is covered by private health insurance.
    US (population 312 million, total healthcare spending 17.4% of GDP ).
    The US spends proportionally more money on healthcare than any other
    country but government healthcare, even if recent proposed reforms are
    effected, is not universal. The private sector accounts for more than threequarters of healthcare spending.
    Mexico (population 112 million, total healthcare spending 6.5% of GDP ).Healthcare is provided under a federal government system via public institutions, private entities or private physicians. All who can afford it may purchase private provision, however, only 4.5% of Mexicans are covered by private health insurance.

    China (population 1.4 billion, total healthcare spending 5.8% of GDP ). The vast majority of patients in both cities and rural areas pay for medical costs in full as required. For about 200 million people with no health insurance,the only option is to self-fund or to rely on family. Planned healthcare reforms propose universal access to healthcare funded through national health
    insurance by 2020.
    UK (population 62 million, total healthcare spending 9.8% of GDP ). The National Health Service (NHS ) funds healthcare for all permanent residents from general taxation. It is largely free at the point of use but some routine services attract charges. Private healthcare and insurance organisations run alongside the state system.
    Hong Kong (population 7 million, total healthcare spending 5% of GDP ).Healthcare is funded by tax through public and private provision. Thirty-eight hospitals are government-operated; 13 are private. All citizens have access to essential healthcare irrespective of their financial means and healthcare standards are widely regarded as being among the world’s best.
    Saudi Arabia (population 27.1 million, total healthcare spending 4.5% of GDP ).Around 75% of all healthcare spending is financed by the public sector, chiefly by the Ministry of Health. The government also funds healthcare through subsidies to private sector institutions. Nationals receive free public healthcare; expatriates (one-quarter of the population) require private insurance.

    Spain (population 46 million, total healthcare spending 9.5% of GDP )
    provides public funding for near-universal, free health services at the point of use, with some services co-financed by users. H owever, because demand for medical attention outstrips public sector supply, private health insurance continues to thrive and has approximately 8 million subscribers. The state itself is an important client of the private healthcare sector, which has 454 private hospitals with 51,000 beds.

    Thailand (population 68 million, total healthcare spending 3.3% of GDP ).Nearly half the population is covered by a universal health programme, 20% have private healthcare, 20% have civil service benefits and 13% belong to social security schemes. Over the past three decades, Thailand’s healthcare system.

    India (population 1.2 billion, total healthcare spending 5% of GDP ).
    Approximately 80% of healthcare spending is self-pay. Only one-tenth of the population has health insurance, and spending on healthcare is a major cause of indebtedness. Several social insurance systems exist but these cover a tiny proportion of the population and account for only about 5% of government expenditure on health. The private sector accounts for three-quarters of total health spending.

    Brazil (population 190.7 million, total healthcare spending 8.4% of GDP ).Most (56%) healthcare spending is funded privately through insurance or is paid for using income or savings. Just under half of the population (44%) depend on the government’s Sistema Único de Saúde system. Municipalities and states administer healthcare; the federal government provides financial and technological support.

    New Zealand (population 4.4 million, total healthcare spending 10.3% of GDP ). About three-quarters of health spending is funded by general taxation. Treatment for both immediate and major medical problems is free but there is a fee-for-service for primary healthcare. About 40% of patients have private medical insurance.

  • GILLYSROOMS in Australia


    Internationally, almost two-thirds (62%) of those surveyed consider
    themselves and their husband, wife or partner (65%) to be ‘healthy.’
    Far fewer internationally consider themselves (13%) or their husband,
    wife or partner (also 13%) to be ‘unhealthy’.
    How healthy people feel
    • Respondents in Saudi Arabia (84%) and Brazil (81%) lead the field in
    saying that they consider themselves healthy (‘very’ or ‘fairly’ healthy).
    They also top the table in considering their husband, wife or partner
    to be ‘healthy’ (Saudi Arabia, 83%, Brazil, 82%).
    • In Brazil, nearly half of respondents (47%) say they are ‘very healthy’,
    proportionally four times more than the UK (12%), well over twice as
    many as the US (20%) and nearly five times as many as in China (10%).
    • Two-thirds (66%) of the over-65s across the world say that they feel
    ‘healthy’ – considerably more than those who are under 65. This is
    particularly so in Australia, where three-quarters (75%) of the over-65s
    think they are ‘healthy’.
    • In the UK, more respondents (22%) say they are ‘unhealthy’ than in any other country. The US follows, with 17% saying they are ‘unhealthy’.
    Also in the UK, over 45’s are significantly more likely to consider
    themselves to be unhealthy.
    Internationally, 62% of peopleconsider themselves to be ‘healthy’,yet 38% of people report having along term health condition

  • GILLYSROOMS in Australia

    MORE STATS from BUPA will help to explain why OBAMA CARE will win votes over the Republicans obstractional HEALTHCARE policies. VOTERS will vote for whoever offers the best Health Care deal and wont care if the rich will have to pay in higher taxes.

    More than a third of people (38%) in the 12 countries surveyed state that they are suffering from a long term health condition.
    Prevalence and fears about long term health conditions
    • In all countries except India (26%), Brazil (28%), Thailand (30%) and Spain(32%) more than a third of respondents claim they suffer from a long term health condition. In Hong Kong, almost a half (49%) say they have a long term health condition (Figure 1).
    • People are more worried about getting cancer than any other health
    condition (32% overall). In Spain and Mexico, more than half (53%) of
    respondents say it is their most worrying fear. Despite this, of the major conditions which respondents suffer from, only 1% of respondents
    reported suffering from cancer (Figure 2).
    • Worldwide, obesity is the most prevalent long term health condition
    (BMI over 30) with nearly one in five respondents (19%) reporting that
    they suffer from it.
    • Depression is the second most common long term health condition,
    with 13% of people worldwide stating that they suffer from it. Depression incidences are highest in Australia with a fifth of people (19%) stating they have it, and lowest in Thailand (7%).
    • Worldwide, 4% of people say that they suffer from heart disease, this ranges from 6% in the US and China, to 2% in Brazil. For 11% of people, heart disease is the illness that they are most worried about getting.

    There are wide gaps between people’s perception and the reality about
    obesity and excess weight. We asked people for their height and weight
    and calculated their BMI. Separately, we asked respondents whether they considered themselves to be overweight (Figure 3).
    obesity and excess weight – perceptions and reality
    • Worldwide, almost half of all people surveyed (49%) are overweight (BMI
    > 25 or more). Yet only a third of people (36%) think they are overweight.
    • In all countries other than Thailand, Hong Kong and China, more people
    are overweight than think they are. Only 40% of Americans and 43% of
    Saudi Arabians believe they’re overweight. However nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) and Saudi Arabians (64%) are overweight. Of those who are overweight, most are obese (BMI > 30), this is the case for 48% of Americans and 34% of Saudi Arabians.
    • The predominately English speaking countries Australia (60%), the UK
    (59%) and New Zealand (59%) have the highest proportion of people
    who are overweight after the US and Saudi Arabia. Yet only 33%, 40%,
    41% respectively believe they are overweight.
    • In contrast, relatively few Chinese (21%) weigh too much although
    a quarter (25%) think that they do.
    • Although only 5% of respondents overall regard becoming obese
    as the health problem they worry most about, more than ten times
    as many (52%) say that they want to lose weight.
    • People from New Zealand (62%) and Saudi Arabia (59%) are most
    keen to become slimmer and almost as many say they want to lose
    weight in Mexico (56%), Thailand (53%), Brazil (52%), the UK (52%)
    and Australia (51%).
    • Lowest BMIs are reported in Asia with only (21%) of Chinese people
    being overweight, followed by Thailand (28%), Hong Kong (28%)
    and India (32%).

  • GILLYSROOMS in Australia

    US Bupa provides healthcare analytics and decision support services to around 19 million people in the US , through its Health Dialog team, based in Boston.
    Health Dialog also helps people stay well by identifying high risk groups and offering proactive, targeted health advice.

    Apart from having a relative working in medical management, I have no affiliation with BUPA whatsoever and this series if information is provided purely to compare your HealthCare system with other counries in the world.

  • WTH

    “Paul should be making the point that Social Security and Medicare are threatened by multitrillion-dollar wars that are funded by debt, bailouts of a deregulated banking system and money creation to keep the banks afloat.”

    He should also make the point that Social Security and Medicare are NOT entitlement programs. If you have a job and a Social Security Number, you are funding these programs… see your paycheck stub. More proof is that when you receive your yearly statement from the Social Security Administration, each person’s payments when they retire will be different. Why is that? Because each person that works pays a percentage of their paycheck. If it was an entitlement program, wouldn’t everyone receive the same amount?

  • Lawrence Ekdahl

    Ron Paul Only needs to win enough prmary votes to deny the leaders the nomination. The convention will then be brokered and Paul can control the outcome.

  • coldmeatloaf

    “Escape their ideology” I believe is the wrong phrase. The points enumerated are clear, concise and well within the message of Dr. Ron Paul, libertarians and constitutionalists.

    Rather then use “escape their ideology” the use of proposing viable “changes in tactics” to more effectively get the Ron Paul message out is a valid and useful assessment.

    Thus instead of saying the glass is half empty the proposed policy positioning would be saying the glass is half full. The social security observation is a case in point. Obama and the other republican candidates are not resolving the insolvency issue. By merely reemphasizing Dr.Paul’s position that profligate federal spending continues to weaken the system and thoughtfully prudent and substantial spending reductions that Dr. Paul has proposed, time and again, will help to assure the financial health of social security.

    This would serve to pit his ideas against the other contenders and Obama and hopefully force the media to cover his positions with the thoughtful respect his ideas deserve rather than the current disparaging of his comments as rants from the fringe.


  • GILLYSROOMS in Australia

    In my view, if the Republicans do not select Dr Ron Paul to lead them, then they really not interested in everything they been offering. I will continue to support Ron Paul for President and then it will be up to the voters who they choose, HOWEVER, if the Republican choose any of the other whitewashed candidates, then I’m going to support OBAMA. So thats my blackmail offer to you…. Choose Ron Paul or forget it with your other pretty boys and BS artists. At least I’ll know what OBAMA is offering and the rest of America will know it too.

  • LEL

    I find Paul’s rants on “it’s America’s fault” extremely disturbing. I find his rejection of allies, and pro-open borders coupled with effective isolationism disgusting. Also, Paul’s denial of his own new letter and its content is disgraceful. But then I’m not a member of the Libertarian Party.

  • Palin16

    I just got a phone call from Ron Paul headquarters in Vegas to remind me of this week’s upcoming Nevada caucus. The guy who called also asked me if I’d be interested in being a delegate. Heck yeah, I would!

  • Angel Wannabe

    Hey Bob Livingston, Just saw this on another blog, Fox News actually gave Ron Paul, some good press, somethings in the wind me thinks! :)

    • Bob Livingston

      Dear Angel Wannabe,

      Thanks for the link. The race is far from over, despite what the MSM wants you to think. Dr. Paul has a strategy to win delegates, which is what it’s all about. So don’t be discouraged by his showing in Florida, where he is not even campaigning. The longer the process takes, the better it is for Dr. Paul.

      Best wishes,

  • 3d tv

    I was recommended this website by way of my cousin. I am now not sure whether this put up is written through him as nobody else realize such targeted about my difficulty. You’re wonderful! Thanks!

  • Emmett Smith

    The US government is bankrupting every single citizen in the united States including at least a generation of the unborn. If you don’t want to0 fight for your self, fight for your unborn babies who can’t fight. The Constitution is not a cult or political platform. It is the law. It is your law and Ron Paul comes the closest to obeying it.


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.