Ron Paul’s Politics Haven’t Changed Since the Early Eighties.

“It is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.” Ron Paul.


1983 – “A gold standard is the only standard that can be used if you want a free market and …a sound, healthy economy. There is no power greater than the power over money, the power to create and contract the money supply, the power to control the purchasing power of your money. Throughout history, this has proven to be the most sought-after monopolistic power of man.”


1988 – Question by interviewer to Ron Paul speaking of sending foreign aid to another country. “What if the Soviets started sending money if we didn’t send the money?”


Answer: “Then the Soviet system would fall even more rapidly. They can’t even feed themselves. We’re financing the Soviet system too.”



Question – “You wouldn’t worry about that as president of the United States?”


Answer – “I would worry about it if they threatened my security or the security of the country, but I think it would be helpful to bankrupt the Soviet Union if they want to spend all their money because they couldn’t win in Afghanistan and they are broke and now they are getting more loans from the … United States.”


“There are 38 million people today who have no healthcare after the government has been in healthcare for forty five years. The price has gone up, the quality has gone down, the distribution has been eliminated. There are more people without healthcare now since the government has been in the business.”


1990 – Question to Ron Paul “Ron, why do we keep getting into these foreign predicaments?”


Answer – “I think there’s a basic flaw in our policy. We’ve gone astray. We do not follow the constitution, we do not follow our American traditions and especially in this century, our policy has changed. We have become an interventionist government. I believe we became interventionist in many areas, not only does our government intervene in our personal lives, our government intervenes in the economy and it intervenes in the internal affairs of other nations. No longer do we take the advice of our founders and what was traditionally the American non-interventionist foreign policy and I think it’s going to continue. This is not a tactical fight. This is not a discussion about when you should “go in”. The left and the right so often argue about, “Well, we should go in, he’s the enemy, we’ll attack him but we’ll let this person alone and then they switch and they flip-flop and we lead to a disaster. We don’t know why we go into these areas. It leads to disasters like Korea and Vietnam.”


2002 – “We allied ourselves in the 1980’s with Iraq in it’s war with Iran and assisted Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. As recent reports confirm, we did nothing to stop Hussein’s development of chemical and biological weapons and, at least indirectly, assisted in their development. Now as a consequence of that needless intervention, we’re planning a risky war to remove him from power. And, as usual, the probable result of such an effort will be something our government does not anticipate. Like a take-over by someone much worse. As bad as Hussein is, he’s an enemy of the al-Qaeda and someone new may well be a close ally of the Izu Islamic Radicals. Although our puppet dictatorship in Saudi Arabia has lasted for many decades, it’s becoming shakier every day. The Saudi people are not exactly friendly toward us and our military presence on their holy soil is greatly resented. This contributes to the radical fundamentalist hatred directed toward us. Another unfavorable consequence to America, such as regime change not to our liking, could soon occur in Saudi Arabia. It is not merely a coincidence that 15 of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudi’s. The Persian Gulf war, fought without a declaration of war, is, in realty, still going on. It looks like 9-11, may well have been a battle in that war perpetrated by fanatical gurillas. It indicates how seriously flawed our foreign policy is.”


“In the 1980’s we got involved in the Soviet-Afghanistan war and actually sided with the forces of Ossama Bin Ladin, helping him gain power. This obviously was an alliance of no benefit to the United States and it has come back to haunt us.  “


2007 – A question asked of Ron Paul in a debate: “Congressman Paul, you voted against the war. Why are all your fellow Republicans up here wrong?”


Ron Paul – “That’s a very good question and you might also want to ask the question, ‘Why are 70% of the American people now wanting us out of there?’ and ‘Why did the Republicans do so poorly last year?’ So I would suggest that we do look at foreign policy. I’m suggesting very strongly that we should have a foreign policy of non-intervention – the traditional American foreign policy and the republican foreign policy. Throughout the twentieth century, the republican party benefited from a non-interventionism foreign policy. Think of how Eisenhower came in to stop the Korean war. Think about how Nixon was elected to stop the mess in Vietnam. How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy, no nation-building, don’t police the world. That is a conservative, it’s a republican, it’s a pro-American, it follows the founding fathers and besides, it follows the constitution. I tried very hard to solve this problem before we went to war by saying, Declare war if you want to go to war! Go to war, fight it and win it, but don’t get into it for political reasons or to enforce UN resolutions or pretend that Iraqis were a national threat to us.”
Another question for congressman Paul: “If you were president, would you work to phase out the IRS?”


“Immediately! And you can only do that if you change our ideas about what the role of government ought to be. If you think the government has to take care of us from cradle to grave, and you think our government should police the world and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a foreign policy that we can not manage, then you can’t get rid of the IRS. But if you want to lower taxes, and if you want the government to quit printing the money to come up with shortfall and cause all of the inflation you have to change policy.”


“Dr Paul, how you reconcile this moral leadership kind of conservatism with the very libertarian strain of conservatism? The Barry Goldwater conservatism that you represent? How do you put together what he just said with what you believe in the unified national purpose?”


Answer – “Well you do it by understanding what the role of government ought to be. If the role of government is to be the policeman of the world, then you lose liberty. If the goal is to promote liberty, you can unify all segments. The freedom message brings us together, it doesn’t divide us. I believe that when we over-do our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. We stood up to the Soviets, they had forty thousand nuclear weapons, now we are fretting day in and day out about third world countries that have no army, navy or air force and we’re getting ready to go to war. But the principle, the moral principle, is that of defending liberty and minimizing the scope of government.”
Another question: “Please site an example of when you had to make a decision in crisis.”


“… I guess in medicine I made a lot of critical decisions. I mean you are called upon all the time to make critical life-saving decisions, but I can’t think of any one particular event when I made a critical decision that affected a lot of other people. but i think that all of our decisions that we make in politics are critical. My major political decision, which was a constitutional decision, was to urge for years that this country not go to war in Iraq.”


Questioner: “We have Mrs. Reagan here… she wants to expand embryonic stem-cell research… will that progress under your administration Dr Paul yes or no?


Dr. Paul, “Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution. The trouble with programs like this in Washington is that we either prohibit it or subsidize it. The markets should deal with it and the states should deal with it.”
Questioner: “i would like each candidate to mention a tax he would like to cut.”


“In my first week I would get rid of income tax. In my second week I would get rid of the inflation tax. It’s a tax that nobody talks about. We live way beyond our means with a foreign policy we can’t afford and an entitlement system that we have encouraged. We print money for it, the value of the money goes down and poor people pay higher prices. That is a tax. It is a transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to Wall Street. Wall Street is doing quite well but the inflation tax is eating away at the middle class of this country. We need to get rid of the inflation tax with sound money.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!