Some of the videos and information on this page are from the 2008 presidential campaign. It is just as relevant today as it was then for the simple reason, Ron Paul is steadfast and unwavering in his principles, and his positions on the issues. 



The Federal Reserve Monopoly over Money

April 9, 2007

Recently I had the opportunity to question Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke when he appeared before the congressional Joint Economic committee.

The topic that morning was the state of the American economy, and many of my colleagues raised questions about how the Fed might better "regulate" things to ease fears of an economic downturn. The tenor of my colleagues' questions suggested that Mr. Bernanke's job is nothing less than to run the U.S. economy, like some kind of Soviet central planner.

Certainly it?s true that Mr. Bernanke can drastically affect the economy at the drop of a hat, simply by making decisions about the money supply and interest rates. But why do members of Congress assume this is good?

Why do we accept without objection that a small group of people on the Federal Reserve Board wields so much power over our economic well-being?

Is centralized, monopoly control over our money even compatible with a supposedly free-market economy?

Few Americans give much thought to the Federal Reserve System or monetary policy in general.

But even as they strive to earn a living, and hopefully save or invest for the future, Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank are working insidiously against them.

Day by day, every dollar you have is being devalued.

The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration.

The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation.

It is this one-two punch-- Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference-- that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.

The Fed?s inflationary policies hurt older people the most. Older people generally rely on fixed incomes from pensions and Social Security, along with their savings.

Inflation destroys the buying power of their fixed incomes, while low interest rates reduce any income from savings.

So while Fed policies encourage younger people to over borrow because interest rates are so low, they also punish thrifty older people who saved for retirement.

The financial press sometimes criticizes Federal Reserve policy, but the validity of the fiat system itself is never challenged.

Both political parties want the Fed to print more money, either to support social spending or military adventurism.

Politicians want the printing presses to run faster and create more credit, so that the economy will be healed like magic- or so they believe.

Fiat dollars allow us to live beyond our means, but only for so long. History shows that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, nearly everyone suffers and the economic and political structure becomes unstable.

 Spendthrift politicians may love a system that generates more and more money for their special interest projects, but the rest of us have good reason to be concerned about our monetary system and the future value of our dollars.


Introducing the Health Freedom Protection Act

May 2, 2007

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims.

The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers? efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents? comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumers? access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers? First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.

FDA bureaucrats have even refused to abide by the DSHEA section allowing the public to have access to scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against diseases by claiming that every article concerning this topic is evidence of intent to sell a drug.

Because of the FDA?s censorship of truthful health claims, millions of Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects for four years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neutral tube defects!

The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack; and that calcium may reduce the risk of bone fractures.

The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court?s suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease.

This legislation also addresses the FTC?s violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, the federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC has reversed the standard in the case of dietary supplements by requiring supplement manufactures to satisfy an unobtainable standard of proof that their statement is true. The FTC?s standards are blocking innovation in the marketplace.

The Health Freedom Protection Act requires the government bear the burden of proving that speech could be censored. This is how it should be in a free, dynamic society. The bill also requires that the FTC warn parties that their advertising is false and give them a chance to correct their mistakes.

Madam Speaker, if we are serious about putting people in charge of their health care, then shouldn?t we stop federal bureaucrats from preventing Americans from learning about simple ways to improve their health. I therefore call on my colleagues to stand up for good health care and the First Amendment by cosponsoring the Health Freedom Protection Act.


The Maestro Changes his Tune

Dr. Ron Paul, MD, Member of Congress
February 21, 2005

Nearly 40 years ago, Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan wrote persuasively in favor of a gold monetary standard in an essay entitled ?Gold and Economic Freedom.?

In that essay he neatly summarized the fundamental problem with fiat currency in a few short sentences:

?The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit...

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value...

Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the ?hidden? confiscation of wealth.

Gold stands in the way of this insidious process.

It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists? antagonism toward the gold standard.?

Today, however, Mr. Greenspan has become one of those central planners he once denounced, and his views on fiat currency have changed accordingly.

As the ultimate insider, he cannot or will not challenge the status quo, no matter what the consequences to the American economy.

To renounce the fiat system now would mean renouncing the Fed itself, and his entire public career with it. The only question is whether history will properly reflect the destructive nature of Mr. Greenspan?s tenure.

I had an opportunity to ask him about his change of heart when he appeared before the House Financial Services committee last week.

Although Mr. Greenspan is a master of evasion, he was surprisingly forthright in his responses to me.

In short, he claimed he was wrong about his predictions of calamity for the fiat U.S. dollar, that the Federal Reserve does a good job of essentially mimicking a gold standard, and that inflation is well under control.

He even made the preposterous assertion that the Fed does not facilitate government expansion and deficit spending. In other words, he utterly repudiated the arguments he made 40 years ago.

Yet this begs the question: If he was so wrong in the past, why should we listen to him now?

First, the Federal Reserve does not mimic a gold standard by any measure. The clearest example of this lies in our current account deficit, which our fiat currency encourages. Under a gold standard we would not have exchange rate distortions between the Chinese renminbi and the U.S. dollar, for example.

True currency stability is impossible when fiat dollars can be produced at will and foreign lenders bankroll our deficits.

Second, inflation is a much greater problem than the federal government admits. Health care, housing, and energy are three areas where costs have risen dramatically. The producer price index is rising at the fastest rate in seven years. Bond prices are rising.

To suggest that rapid expansion of the money supply and artificially low interest rates do not ultimately cause price inflation is absurd.

Third, Fed policies do indeed have adverse political ramifications. Fiat currency and big government go hand-in-hand.

Without a gold standard, Congress is free to spend recklessly and fall back on monetary expansion to pay the bills.

 Politically, it?s easier to print new dollars than raise taxes or borrow overseas. The Fed in essence creates paper reserves that enable Congress to undertake spending measures that far exceed tax revenues.

The ill effects of this process are not felt by the politicians, who can always find popular support for new spending.

Average Americans suffer, however, when their dollars are ?confiscated through inflation,? as Mr. Greenspan termed it.

It?s not enough to question the wisdom of Mr. Greenspan. Americans should question why we have a central bank at all, and whose interests it serves.

The laws of supply and demand work better than any central banker to determine both the correct supply of money in the economy and the interest rate at which capital is available- without the political favoritism and secrecy that characterize central banks.

Americans should not tolerate the manipulation of our economy and the inflation of our currency by an unaccountable institution.
















November 16, 2005

Congress Erodes Privacy

The privacy issue has been around for a long time. The brutal abuse of privacy and property of early Americans played a big role in our revolt against the King.

The 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments represented attempts to protect private property and privacy from an overzealous federal government. Today those attempts appear to have failed.

There have been serious legal debates in recent decades about whether ?privacy? is protected by the Constitution. Some argue that since the word does not appear in the text of that document, it is not protected.

Others argue that privacy protection grants the federal government power to dictate to all states limits or leniency in enforcing certain laws. But the essence of liberty is privacy.

In recent years?especially since 9-11?Congress has been totally negligent in its duty to protect U.S. citizens from federal government encroachment on the rights of privacy.

Even prior to 9-11, the Echelon worldwide surveillance system was well entrenched, monitoring telephones, faxes, and emails.

From the 1970s forward, national security letters were used sparingly in circumventing the legal process and search warrant requirements. Since 9-11 and the subsequent passage of the Patriot Act, however, use of these instruments has skyrocketed, from 300 annually to over 30,000.

There is essentially no oversight nor understanding by the U.S. Congress of the significance of this pervasive government surveillance. It?s all shrugged off as necessary to make us safe from terrorism. Sacrificing personal liberty and privacy, the majority feels, is not a big deal.

We soon will vote on the conference report reauthorizing the Patriot Act. Though one could argue there?s been a large grass-roots effort to discredit the Patriot Act,

Congress has ignored the message. Amazingly, over 391 communities and 7 states have passed resolutions highly critical of the Patriot Act.

The debate in Congress "if that's what one wants to call it" boils down to whether the most egregious parts of the Act will be sunsetted after 4 years or 7. The conference report will adjust the numbers, and members will vote willingly for the "compromise" and feel good about their effort to protect individual privacy.

But if we?re honest with ourselves we would admit that the 4th amendment is essentially a dead letter. There has been no effort to curb the abuse of national security letters nor to comprehend the significance of Echelon. Hard-fought liberties are rapidly slipping away from us.

Congress is not much better when it comes to protecting against the erosion of the centuries-old habeas corpus doctrine.

By declaring anyone an ?enemy combatant??a totally arbitrary designation by the President? the government can deny an individual his right to petition a judge or even speak with an attorney.

Though there has been a good debate on the insanity of our policy of torturing prisoners, holding foreigners and Americans without charges seems acceptable to many.

Did it never occur to those who condemn torture that unlimited detention of individuals without a writ of habeas corpus is itself torture?especially for those who are totally innocent?

Add this to the controversial worldwide network of secret CIA prisons now known of for 2 years, and we should be asking ourselves what we have become as a people.

Recent evidence that we?re using white phosphorus chemical weapons in Iraq does nothing to improve our image.

Our prestige in the world is slipping. The war is going badly. Our financial system is grossly overburdened. And we spend hundreds of hours behind the scenes crafting a mere $5 billion spending cut while pretending no one knows we can spend tens of billions in off-budget supplemental bills- sometimes under unanimous consent!

It?s time we reconsider the real purpose of government in a society that professes to be free?protection of liberty, peaceful commerce, and keeping itself out of our lives, our economy, our pocketbooks, and certainly out of the affairs of foreign nations.


There's a lot of obligation in freedom

? that's sometimes why it's rejected ~ Ron Paul, 07/14/07







Part 3



Part 4






  Don't tread on me






    Stop Dreaming











    Ron Paul Courageously Speaks the Truth






    Ron Paul Makes Sense






   When in the course of human events...






Visitors Since July 2010