"Order Ron Paul's Latest Book, End The Fed, Now!"

Current Amazon.com Rank:
Help Ron Paul reach #1 by Sept. 16!
Order your copy and send a powerful message to the unelected financial elite
that we will no longer tolerate their secretive dealings and shenanigans!

Ron Paul: We Need To Know More About What The Federal Reserve Is Doing


Date: 8/31/2009
Channel: FoxBusiness.com


Male News Anchor: [Congressman Ron Paul] is pushing for the Fed to be fully audited by the end of 2010.

Female News Anchor: Right now the GAO’s access is limited to areas outside of monetary policy. Congressman Ron Paul is joining us now on the phone to talk about this. Welcome congressman and tell us why you’re pushing for this. What’s at the heart of what you think is most important?

Ron Paul: I think it’s the whole issue of transparency that’s become a very popular word in this country. Especially since the bailouts started with the TARP funds and the people waking up and realizing that the Congress had appropriated $700 billion and nobody knew where the money went.

But then I took that as an opportunity to talk once again about auditing the Fed, which I’ve been talking about for quite a few years. And all of a sudden it struck a chord with everybody and they said “Yeah, if they’re dealing in trillions of dollars and they loan money to companies and central banks and other governments, we need to know more about it.” And all of a sudden, you know, we had an avalanche of co-sponsors. We got all the Republicans on it, over a hundred Democrats are on it. So it’s very, very popular for us to find out what they’re doing. It’s the responsibility of Congress to know what a secret bank can do. They’re a government unto themselves. They create the money and they spend the money. And under the Constitution, obviously, the Congress is supposed to appropriate money and allocate money; not somebody who can print the money and pass it out. (more…)

RonPaul.com Store Audit the Federal Reserve Bumper Sticker I Support Ron Paul Bumper Sticker Ron Paul for President 2012 Bumper Sticker Ron Paul for President 2012 Bumper Sticker Ron Paul Revolution Bumper Sticker Ron Paul Mug Ron Paul Revolution Mousepad Audit the Fed Hat Ron Paul 2012 T-Shirt Audit the Fed T-Shirt Ron Paul Batman T-Shirt

Ron Paul: It Is Time The Federal Reserve Answered For Its Actions


In his latest column Ron Paul predicts that one way or another, the days of Fed autonomy are coming to an end, as they should. The Federal Reserve has demonstrated over and over again that it is a highly antiquated, unabashedly monopolistic and openly politicized creature. Its chairman, Ben Bernanke, is the politician’s best friend as he continues to enable government spending to soar to ridiculous levels that will further endanger the value of the dollar. — tmartin

Download the column as an MP3 file here (3:55 minutes).

The Fed’s Interesting Week

by Ron Paul

It has been an interesting week indeed for the Federal Reserve. Early this week, it was announced that President Obama intends to reappoint Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to a second term in January, signaling a vote of confidence in him. Bernanke seems to be popular with the administration and with Wall Street, and with good reason. His lending policies have left big banks flush with newly created cash that covers up old mistakes and allows for new ones. By buying up mountains of Treasury debt he has also enabled spending to soar to ridiculous levels that should startle any responsible economist, and scare any American concerned about the value of the dollar.

However, these highly sensitive decisions about our money are not made by economists, they are made by politicians. Bernanke, like most of his predecessors, is the politician’s best friend. However, there is no reason to believe any other central planner would behave any differently, considering the immense political pressure on the Fed.

Fed policies have been as bad for the economy as they are good for politicians and bankers, as the recently released numbers on the debt and deficit demonstrate. For the first time since World War II the annual budget deficit is projected to be over 11 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. It is also projected that by 2019 the national debt will be 68% of GDP. Our path, if unchanged, is completely untenable.

The administration claims that it inherited a dire situation from the last administration, which is absolutely true. However, that hasn’t stopped them from accepting all the policies and premises that got us here, and accelerating those policies to rapidly make a bad situation much worse. The bailouts started with the last administration. They have gotten bigger with this one. The last administration gave us expanded government involvement in healthcare with a new prescription drug benefit. This administration gave us a renewal and expansion of SCHIP, and now the current healthcare takeover attempts. In reality, we can afford none of this, but shady monetary policy allows Washington to continue along its merry way, aggravating all our economic problems.

Not everyone in government finds it acceptable that the Fed wields so much power and privilege in secrecy. Last week, a federal judge ruled against Fed secrecy, compelling them to release under the Freedom of Information Act information regarding which banks received emergency loans, and under what terms. The Fed will, of course do everything in its power to fight this ruling and it is certainly not the last word on the issue. Still, it is encouraging to see that the interests of the taxpayers were defended victoriously in court, while the Fed only sees the plight of its big banker friends.

Meanwhile HR 1207 and S604, legislation to open up the Fed’s books to a complete audit, continue to gain momentum in Congress as the people continue to insist on real transparency of the Federal Reserve. One way or another, the days of Fed autonomy are coming to an end, as well they should. No one should have the power to debauch the currency and gut the economy as they do. It is time they answered for their actions, so the people can understand that we truly are better off with freedom instead of Fed tyranny.

Now Shipping: End the Fed – by Ron Paul


Order Ron Paul’s Latest Book, End The Fed, Now!

In the post-meltdown world, it is irresponsible, ineffective, and ultimately useless to have a serious economic debate without considering and challenging the role of the Federal Reserve.

Most people think of the Fed as an indispensable institution without which the country’s economy could not properly function. But in END THE FED, Ron Paul draws on American history, economics, and fascinating stories from his own long political life to argue that the Fed is both corrupt and unconstitutional. It is inflating currency today at nearly a Weimar or Zimbabwe level, a practice that threatens to put us into an inflationary depression where $100 bills are worthless.

What most people don’t realize is that the Fed — created by the Morgans and Rockefellers at a private club off the coast of Georgia — is actually working against their own personal interests. Congressman Paul’s urgent appeal to all citizens and officials tells us where we went wrong and what we need to do fix America’s economic policy for future generations.

Order End The Fed Now!

“Rarely has a single book not only challenged, but decisively changed my mind.” — Arlo Guthrie

“Everyone must read this book — Congressmen and college students, Democrats and Republicans — all Americans. The Federal Reserve, which serves private banks, has compromised our economy and is undermining our freedom. It can and must be stopped now. Ron Paul shows us how and why we must end the Fed. Read this book!” — Vince Vaughn

What Barney Frank Really Said About HR 1207


Here’s an updated transcript of what Barney Frank really said about Ron Paul’s HR 1207 (also see Misinformation Alert: Barney Frank Never Said That HR 1207 Will Pass In October).

Audience: Okay, hi, Mr. Frank, thank you for coming. I was just going to mention of something that I’ve noticed people and blogs talking about on the Internet, that these banks all across the country are overvaluing their assets, their mortgages that they hold on their books, and I’ve actually been to a few foreclosure auctions and I noticed banks are buying back houses for themselves in order to prevent themselves from having to mark down the value of these assets.

And they’re basically lying to us about their solvency. And this is only possible by the Federal Reserve lending money to these institutions. And I just want to ask you, when will you put HR 1207, the bill to audit the Fed, up for a vote in the Committee. Thank you very much.

Barney Frank: [...] while I really disagree that the Fed is the cause of this but yes, I have been pushing for more openness on the Fed, back when the Democrats were in power, and Henry Gonzalez, and we did get some of it. [...]

I want to restrict powers of the Federal Reserve in a number of ways. First of all, they will be the major losers of power if we are successful, as I believe we will be, in setting up that financial product protection commission. The Federal Reserve is now charged with protecting consumers. They were supposed to do subprime mortgage restricted. Congress in 1994 gave the Federal Reserve the power to adopt rules to ban bad subprime mortgages. Alan Greenspan refused to do it. He said that was too much market intervention.

They had the power to ban credit card abuses. They had the power to [...] overdrafts. They under Greenspan did nothing. Under Bernanke they started do things but only after Congress started. When I became Chairman of the Committee they began to act on these things. Subprime mortgages, credit cards, overdraft, and in every case after we started the [...], so that’s one of the reasons why in the new consumer protection agency, we will take away from the Federal Reserve the power to do consumer protection.

Secondly, they have had since 1932 a right, under Herbert Hoover and the Democratic Congress combined, the right, that they had to use it until recently, to intervene in the economy almost whenever they thought.

Last September, the Federal Reserve came to us and said that they were going to advance $82 billion to AIG. I was kind of surprised and said, “You have 82 billion dollars, Mr. Bernanke?” He said, “I have 800 billion dollars.” Under section 13.3 of the Federal Reserve Act they can lend money to anybody they want. We are going to curtail that lending power. We are going to put some restraints on it.

Finally we will subject them to a complete audit. I have been working with Ron Paul, who is the main sponsor of that bill. He agrees that we don’t want to have the audit appear as if it is influencing monetary policy because that would be inflationary. Ron and I agree on that.

We also [...], one of the things the audit will show you is what the Federal Reserve buys itself. And that will be made public, but not instantly, because if that was made instantly you would have a lot of people trading off of that and it would have too much impact on the market. [...] agrees with that, so we’ll probably have that data released after a time period of several months, enough time so it wouldn’t be market sensitive. That will be part of the overall federal regulation that we are redacting.

Audience: By the end of the year?

Barney Frank: The House will pass it probably in October.

Ron Paul on Ted Kennedy and Healthcare


Date: 8/26/2009
Channel: FOX 26 – KRIV


FeMale News Anchor: Well, Congressman Ron Paul is with us this morning. Thank you so much for coming.

Ron Paul: Good morning, good morning.

FeMale News Anchor: Thank you. I know that you were here to talk about healthcare reform and we are definitely going to talk a little bit about that. But because of this news this morning – this surprising news – I want to know what your reaction is.

Ron Paul: Well, the reaction it is always sad to see or hear about anybody’s death, and the Kennedy’s certainly have suffered in that regard. I never met any of the Kennedys, so I never knew any of them personally. But, you know, the healthcare issue is very important right now and Ted Kennedy was very much involved. In some ways this might be a real boost for getting Obama’s package passed. All of a sudden people might say “Well in honor of Ted Kennedy we have to pass this.”

That’s more or less what President Johnson did after President Kennedy died. All of a sudden he used the death of President Kennedy to promote the agenda that at that time President Kennedy wasn’t able to get through. So it may be that this is going to give a shot in the arm for those who want to nationalize more so our healthcare system and for those of us who aren’t exactly anxious for that, that might be a benefit to our opposition. (more…)

Misinformation Alert: Barney Frank Never Said That HR 1207 Will Pass In October


Missing Sentence in Transcript Causes Premature HR 1207 Victory Celebration

Several blogs and forums reported during the past 24 hours that Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, said that Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve, HR 1207, will pass in October.

Incorrect Reports about Barney Frank’s Statement on HR 1207

  • Washington Times: Barney Frank says Ron Paul bill will pass
  • Politico: Barney: Fed audit bill will pass in October
  • Business Insider: Barney Frank: Yes, We Will Pass Ron Paul’s “Audit The Fed” Bill
  • United Liberty: Frank: Vote on HR 1207 in October
  • Daily Paul: Video: Barney Frank Says House Will Pass HR1207 in October
  • ZeroHedge: Barney Frank Says The House Will Pass HR 1207 In October
  • Mish: Barney Frank Says Ron Paul’s Audit The Fed Bill Will Pass In October – (Update posted)
  • Washington Independent: Ron Paul’s ‘Audit the Fed’ Bill to Get October Vote?
  • The source of the rumor seems to be the following video.

    A sloppy and incomplete transcript, which appears to have originated at the Washington Times which was originally prepared by Mish and then copied by the Washington Times, is making the rounds. The transcript is missing an essential sentence, which is marked in bold:

    Barney Frank: “I have been pushing for more openness from the Fed. I want to restrict the powers of the Federal Reserve. First of all, the Fed will be the major losers of power if we are successful, as I believe we will be, setting up a financial product protection commission. The Federal Reserve is now charged with protecting consumers. They were supposed to do subprime mortgage restrictions.

    Congress in 1994 gave the Fed powers to ban subprime mortgages. Alan Greenspan refused to do it. They had the power to ban credit card abuses. Under Greenspan they did nothing. Under Bernanke they started but only after Congress acted.That’s one of the reasons why in the new consumer protection agency, we will take away from the Federal reserve the power to go consumer protection.

    Secondly, they have has since 1932 a right under Herbert Hoover to intervene in the economy whenever they could. Last September, the Federal Reserve they were going to advance $82 billion to AIG. I was kind of surprised and said, ‘Mr Bernanke do you have $82 billion?’ Mr. Bernanke replied, ‘I have $800 billion and under section 13.3 of the Federal Reserve Act they can lend anything they want.’

    We are going to curtail that lending power. We are going to put some restrictions on it.

    Finally we will subject them to a complete audit. I have been working with Ron Paul, who is the main sponsor of that bill. He agrees that we don’t want to have the audit appear as if it influences monetary policy as that would be inflationary.

    One of the things the audit will show you is what the Federal Reserve buys itself. And that will be made public, but not instantly because if it was made instantly people would be trading off it, so the data would be released after a time period of several months, enough time so it will not be market sensitive. That will be part of the overall federal regulation that we are redacting. This will probably pass in October.”

    (Accurate transcript here.)

    With “This will probably pass in October”, Frank is referring not to HR 1207, but to his own financial regulation bill, which might or might not include some aspects of Ron Paul’s HR 1207. The preceding sentence, “That will be part of the overall federal regulation that we are redacting,” is for some reason missing from the widely distributed transcript, and has therefore been completely ignored by bloggers and commentators.

    In recent weeks Ron Paul repeatedly warned against just this sort of thing happening: that HR 1207 might become part of a more comprehensive financial regulation bill and be watered down so that it appeases the angry masses without instituting any real changes. It would be an irony of history if that happened — if HR 1207 were watered down and integrated into an unconstitutional bill that Ron Paul would have to vote against.

    What did Ron Paul really say?

    It has become fashionable for the political elite to try to distort Ron Paul’s statements for political gain or even put entirely new words into his mouth. Just the other day, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said, “Even [Ron Paul] recognizes how important it is to us to have the Fed independent of politics.”

    Now Barney Frank claims that “[Ron Paul] agrees that we don’t want to have the audit appear as if it influences monetary policy as that would be inflationary.”

    Ron Paul never said that an audit of the Federal Reserve would be inflationary. In fact, he has credibly demonstrated the exact opposite: that the secretive Federal Reserve itself is responsible for inflation, with the dollar having lost 96% of its value since the Fed’s creation in 1913.

    Here is what Ron Paul actually said about HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve, and why only a real audit will protect the public’s interest.

    Ron Paul: “Mr. Speaker, the big guns have lined up against HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve. What is it that they are so concerned about? What information are they hiding from the American people? The screed is: transparency is okay except for those things they don’t want to be transparent.

    Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, argues that HR 1207, the legislation to audit the Federal Reserve, would politicize monetary policy. He claims that monetary policy must remain independent, that is; secret. He ignores history because chairmen of the Federal Reserve in the past, especially when up for reappointment, do their best to accommodate the president with politically driven low interest rates and a bubble economy.

    Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Arthur Burns, when asked about all the inflation he brought about in 1971 before Nixon’s reelection, said that the Fed has to do what the president wants it to do, or it would lose its independence. That about tells you everything.

    Not by accident Chairman Burns strongly supported Nixon’s program of wage and price controls the same year, but I guess that’s not political. Is not making secret deals with the likes of Goldman Sachs, international financial institutions, foreign governments and foreign central banks politicizing monetary policy?

    Bernanke argues that the knowledge that their discussions and decisions will one day be scrutinized will compromise the freedom of the Open Market Committee to pursue sound policy. If it is sound and honest and serves no special interest, what’s the problem?

    He claims that HR 1207 would give power to Congress to affect monetary policy. He dreamt this up to instill fear, an old statist trick to justify government power. HR 1207 does nothing of the sort. He suggested that the day after an FOMC meeting, Congress could send in the GAO to demand an audit of everything said and done. This is hardly the case. The FOMC function under HR 1207 would not change.

    The detailed transcripts of the FOMC meetings are released every 5 years, so why would this be so different and what is it that they don’t want the American people to know? Is there something about the transcripts that need to be kept secret, or are the transcripts actually not verbatim?

    Fed sycophants argue that an audit would destroy the financial markets’ faith in the Fed. They say this in the midst of the greatest financial crisis in history brought on by none other than the Federal Reserve. In fact, Chairman Bernanke stated on November 14th 2007, “A considerable amount of evidence indicates that Central Bank transparency increases the effectiveness of monetary policy and enhances economic and financial performance”.

    They also argue that an audit would hurt the value of the U.S. dollar. In fact, the Fed, in less than a 100 years of its existence, has reduced the value of the 1914 dollar by 96%.

    They claim HR 1207 would raise interest rates. How could it? The Fed sets interest rates and the bill doesn’t interfere with monetary policy. Congress would have no say in the matter and besides, Congress likes low interest rates.

    It is argued that the Fed wouldn’t be free to raise interest rates if they thought it necessary. But Bernanke has already assured the Congress that rates are going to stay low for the foreseeable future. And again, this bill does nothing to allow Congress to interfere with interest rate setting.

    Fed supporters claim that they want to protect the public’s interest with their secrecy. But the banks and Wall Streets are the opponents of HR 1207, and the people are for it. Just who best represents the public’s interest?

    The real question is: why are Wall Street and the Fed so hysterically opposed to HR 1207? Just what information are they so anxious to keep secret? Only an audit of the Federal Reserve will answer these questions.”

    75% Want A Real Audit

    We need to keep up the pressure to make sure that HR 1207 itself is put up for vote. 75% of the American people want a real audit of the Federal Reserve, not a pretend investigation that goes to great pains not to ruffle any feathers, claiming that too close a look at what the Wizard is doing behind the curtain would be “inflationary” (Frank) and “problematic for the country” (Geithner).

Tim Geithner: Even Ron Paul Understands That We Don’t Want An Audit


In this interview with Wall Street Journal Deputy Managing Editor Alan Murray, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner answered questions submitted by users of Digg.com. One of the most popular topics was Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve.

Tim Geithner: “There are certain things about what the Fed does that you need to make sure that you preserve as independent of political influence. And that line is a line we don’t want to cross. And I think even [Ron Paul] recognizes how important it is to us to have the Fed independent of politics”.

Full Transcript

Alan Murray: I’m Alan Murray with the Wall Street and I’m here at the US Treasury Building with the man of the house, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, conducting a Digg dialogue. Secretary Geithner, thanks very much for being here.

Tim Geithner: Nice to see you Al.

Alan Murray: I think you know how this works. I’m merely a prop in this exercise. My job is to ask the questions that have been offered up by the Digg online community. There were thousands of questions proposed and then members of the community voted on those questions. I’m going to ask you the top ten. The first one came from Borez. These people don’t always use their real names, but that’s his Digg name, 1,134 diggs, why has the Federal Reserve Bank never been audited?

Tim Geithner: You know, the Fed actually is subject to very comprehensive oversight by the Congress, by a series of external auditors, and it does play this very important role in the system and that requires that Congress have the ability to do a very careful review of how it conducts its operations, but very important is, I’m sure the people understand, that you’d want to keep politics out of monetary policy, and there are good reasons for that.

We went through centuries of financial crises in the United States, at least two, before the Fed was established. Those crises were produced in part by the fact that we didn’t have a central bank with independent ability to deal with these kinds of things and you will keep those kinds of things away from political influence that can compromise the effect in this policy.

Alan Murray: But as this shows there clearly is a group of people out there that feels very passionately about this. The third question on the list was 712 Diggs was from Motobike_man who said, “What is your position on Ron Paul’s House Resolution 1207?” which, as I understand it, calls for a comprehensive audit of the Fed. Why does this persists if as you say the Fed is already fully audited?

Tim Geithner: Well, the Fed is dramatically more transparent than it was, is subject to a very comprehensive oversight and audits, but there are certain things about what the Fed does, that again you need to make sure that you preserve as independent from political influence and that line is in the line that we don’t want to cross, and I think even the sponsor of that bill recognizes how important it is to us to have the Fed independent of politics and I’m sure many of the people concerned about the Federal Reserve System and will understand that it would be problematic for the country if you let politicians come in and shape conduct of monetary policy in the country. (more…)

Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell discuss Obamacare, Swine Flu and Big Government


Last week Ron Paul sat down with his old friend Lew Rockwell to discuss Obamacare, liberty, the swine flu, and the dangers of big government.

Date: 8/18/2009


Lew Rockwell: Around these days it seems like the hot issue is Obama’s socialized medical bill or do we call it a fascist medical bill or interventionist medical bill? I don’t know, but it involves vastly increasing. There are already horrible amount of government intervention in the medical system. But it looks like there is so much opposition. Is he going to get it through?

Ron Paul: One thing we can agree on it’s not a free market approach to medical care. I don’t think he’ll get the whole thing through. You know, looking back at what has happened with my bit of an experience in Washington is that they never get everything, but they always get a bunch and I imagine he’s going to keep moving this.

But they’ve been doing this for maybe 50 years. Incrementalism, the American people accept incrementalism. But you know, if in the 1940s or 1950s, they would have said, “We want social healthcare,” The American people would have rebelled, and even today they resent being in socialized medicine and they’re rebelling, but they’re going to take a little bit more and they’ll keep moving. So I think they’re going to move in that direction and you know, Republicans are doing a pretty good job in opposing it, but the Democrats have more votes.

But the real tragedy is whether you have the Republicans in charge or the Democrats in charge, you know what happens, it still marches on. I mean, look at what happened under Bush. We had that prescription drug program and it sailed right through and here we go, we’re even looking for a much greater influence from government, so unfortunately, I don’t think this is going to be much benefit to our patients.

Lew Rockwell: And of course, you’re right about both parties having increased government intervention in medicine. As you’ve pointed out that with Hill Burton and starting with the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s, whereas Truman, even at the height of his popularity could not get a socialized medicine bill through.

Ron Paul: Right.

Lew Rockwell: Yet, Eisenhower did it. Of course, LBJ with Medicare and Medicaid. Nixon with the HMOs and Healthcare Financing Administration and Reagan increased intervention in medical care and Clinton and so I guess Obama is going to just continue on that same path.

Ron Paul: So you can understand and empathize with those people who are getting angry, especially that they’ve been introduced to free markets and believe in liberty and believe in the Constitution, let them be angry and I think it’s very justified that people are upset and angry, and hopefully this is a healthy sign that people are starting to realize that the federal government can’t deliver and ultimately, I think that’s what our country is facing; a government that can’t deliver, but that should be a very positive thing for us if we come of it without violence, I think this could be very helpful to us.

Lew Rockwell: I think it’s thrilling. Of course, the government uses only violence, right? I mean, that’s how they get their medical bill through. If you don’t obey, if you don’t pay their taxes, they use violence against you. But the opposition, they’re just arguing against these things.

Ron Paul: Yeah, they have a lot of guns that they use. You know, I argued that we should have gun control on all the federal bureaucrats. I think we have 100,000 federal bureaucrats who carry guns now. When you think of all of the agencies of government, they’re permitted to carry guns and of course, sometimes that one individual American have guns, the left goes nuts, you know, “What, somebody has a gun?”

Lew Rockwell: Because these guys will bring them on planes. They can carry them anywhere. State law doesn’t apply to them. They sail above it.

Ron Paul: That’s right and that’s what should really scare us. What scares me is the use of the gun to take away our liberties. You know, even though they’re not shooting at us, the gun is always behind everything that they do and just the idea of paying for this medical program, where are they going to get the money? It’s all the use of force and guns. They go to the IRS and then, of course, they borrow money and they pay interest on this money, then they use force, a sinister tack like inflation, the Fed prints the money, and then they haven’t talked that much about paying for this bill.

Obama talks about all these good things that are going to come from it, but I don’t even think the conservatives have done a real good job in talking about the real cost of this thing. You know, where does this come from? And what amazes me is we have… we’re living in a period of time now where the national debt has gone up to $2 trillion this year and it doesn’t hardly even faze him to talk about another program they claim is going to be a trillion, but you know that have you ever seen a government program proposed to cost a billion or 2 billion or 10 billion and not being 2 or 3 times more.

So this is not going to cost a trillion dollars because they can’t know. Because costs are always going to go up. You know, so what they’re projecting… I mean, their programs, their computers are telling, “Well, everything is going to cost this much.” Oh, yes, but we’re going to get rid of the waste and fraud and that’s how they’re going to pay for it.

Lew Rockwell: I also like the fact that they claim that they’re going to cut costs. I mean, government loves spending money, they sort of exist to spend money. So when in human history has any government ever cut the cost of anything?

Ron Paul: When you think about how much the bureaucracy costs in lost time and inefficiency with the little cost of paying these people and who thinks for a minute they’ll be less federal bureaucrats involved in this program. You know, the one thing that bothers me is it’s going to involve some bureaucrats and that is this electronic surveillance of all the medical records. You know, the procedures are already in place. They’ve gotten the authority to set up the medical documentation of electronic records.

In this bill, if it pass, has $50 billion in there. So if anybody cares about medical privacy, it’s essentially gone. This HIPAA thing that came up a few years ago, it was designed… it has made everything accessible to the government and to the big insurance companies.

Lew Rockwell: In the name of privacy.

Ron Paul: Yeah, in the name of privacy and now, they’re talking about making it… but what they want to do is monitor every single transaction; everything the patient does, everything the nurse does, everything the doctor does, and how many pills have been prescribed and monitor this and review everything to find out if everybody is doing the right thing and they think they’re going to bring down the costs. It bewilders me to think that anybody could believe this stuff.

Lew Rockwell: And who can doubt that your medical records would be part of your dossier to be accessible to the Department of Homeland Security, maybe every cop on the beat. They’re going to have all that information on you; your financial information, legal information, medical information.

Ron Paul: Yeah, and you know, that under the HIPAA law, they explicitly say that you’re protected, unless the government needs these records for health matters and think about all the hype on this flu… this swine flu and they’re getting ready for that and are we going to have mandatory inoculations and all this and then you’re going to be in a computer, “Oh, Joe Blow, he didn’t get his shot, you know, round him up.” So it’s scary stuff. You know, it looks like it’ll make 1984 look attractive one of these days.

Lew Rockwell: It sure was interesting how disappointed, openly disappointed they were when the swine flu business didn’t bloom into the full-fledged epidemic they were hoping for.

Ron Paul: No, and they’re still sort of hoping for it. You know, they’re trying to do this and all that… and I guess, you do remember a little bit about 1976, when we were worried about [...]. You remember Larry McDonald and I voting against that thing.

Lew Rockwell: Yes.

Ron Paul: And more people died from the inoculation than did from the flu. But you know, this isn’t… I never want to belittle the principle of inoculations. I think people get way, way to many and we break down our immune system, but the whole idea, if it’s a shot that’s good or bad, why is it that it has to be massive and why is it that it have to be with everybody? Why is it that it has to be the government? Why can’t the parents make these decisions? Why can’t the doctors make these decisions on whether somebody has to get a flu shot? And you can argue the pros and cons of that, but this idea that there’s going to be a government decision, you know, the Federal government is going to make the decision and of course, drug companies tend to be involved as well. Oh, boy, I guess that is going to be a big customer if I can do a flu shot for everybody in the country.

Lew Rockwell: And of course, this always leaks into foreign policy, it seems too, given the empire. So I remember when the Ford administration used the swine flu virus to attempt to infect all the farm animals in Cuba in an active germ warfare, right? We call it an act of terrorism today if somebody else were doing it into the US.

Ron Paul: No, no, that’s verging on conspiracy.

Lew Rockwell: Yeah.

Ron Paul: Now, you’re telling the truth, telling the truth about what our CIA has done over the years. You know, you might find out that not too… in recent years or decades, when they did this survey and find out that we’ve attempted over 50 assassination of government leaders. So whether it’s the health matters or oil or whatever, I think we’re way too much involved, so…

Lew Rockwell: That’s for sure. Ron, thank you so much.

Ron Paul: Okay, good. It’s good to talk to you, Lew.

Lew Rockwell: And also to you.

Ron Paul: If HR 1207 Doesn’t Pass, The People Will Be Outraged


Last Friday, Ron Paul talked about the prospects and challenges of getting HR 1207 passed, and what we can do to make it happen.

Event: John Birch Society Luncheon
Location: Houston, TX
Date: August 21, 2009


Part 1: Even Welfare State Supporters Realize That The System Isn’t Viable

Ron Paul: Mr. Ron Paul: Thank you. Hi, I appreciate that very much. I’m delighted to be here. We were hectic in getting here. We were up in Dallas yesterday evening. There was a little fundraiser for our middle son and his name is Rand Paul and it looks like he has a crack at winning the Senate seat up in Kentucky.

I tried to explain to him that he was risking a very good medical practice and why would he want to get into politics and he told me I had no credibility in that part. I cautioned him, so there’s always a mixed blessing on what we do in life, and you give up something and you go on to do something else, but I actually feel very, very fortunate that I’ve been able to work both; be a medical doctor and deliver a lot of babies, at the same time participate in an active way in political change, so I feel fortunate that I can do that.

Now, Carol is sitting over here. She was with me yesterday and we came in this morning. [...]

But I would like to sort of update you today on where, I think, the freedom movement is because that, of course, is what we all work in and been working for for a long time and most of the time it’s been rather quiescent. Especially in most of my lifetime, it’s been very difficult to even recognize in a public way what the freedom movement was all about, but I think things are definitely changing. I think we live in a different era right now.

But I got interested in the subject back in the 1950s and early 1960s actually as a medical student, as a medical resident when I started reading and studying Austrian economics. But it was very difficult to find the information back then and the group that provided most of the information for me was the group called the Foundation for Economic Education on Irvington on Hudson with Leonard Read.

No Internet and no professors in our colleges, nobody in the media talking about it, nobody in the government talking about it, but there was that remnant out there that did talk about it. Because no matter how bad things get, there’s always somebody available to try to hold things together and hold the true beliefs and our true values regardless of what the government is doing and this is historic. This is the way it’s always been and yet today I’ve come to the conclusion that that group of people was much, much larger than I ever dreamed because as I campaigned for the presidency the last couple of years, I discovered so many more people than I ever thought there would be.

So there were a lot of people like you. I know members and associates, people associated with the Birch Society are well informed and know about it and that wasn’t the great discovery because you’ve been working at this for a long time, but there were a lot more, a lot more people who had just been turned off with the system, had dropped out of the system. They weren’t voting, some never voted and they were just disgusted with it and they knew there was no difference between the Republican and the Democratic Party and that number was much, much larger.

But the other magnificent thing that I discovered in these past two years has been the reception of a new generation of young people who listen to this and are coming our way and accept this wholeheartedly and enthusiastically. So often now when young people come to my office in Washington, teenagers, maybe a 14-year old, 16-year old, college kids are coming in and I always ask them, you know, “How did you get interested? How long have you been interested? And what was it?”

Many, many times, almost inevitably, they will say, “Well, you talk about the Constitution and following the Constitution.” So they’re fascinated with that and young people tend to have an inclination toward principle more so than those individuals who are in the business community, who have lived with the system and they sort of figured, well, you have to go along to get along and they accept it.

But young people are more idealistic. They tell me that, but they also, very frequently, bring up the subject of the Federal Reserve, which is so fascinating today because, “Oh, I like what you talk about on money and the importance of this.” They’ve never heard of the Federal Reserve and they’re reading and studying now about the Federal Reserve System and how significant the monetary issue is.

As a matter of fact, it was the monetary issue that probably got me interested in politics early on because I was very much aware what was happening prior to August 15th, 1971. The Austrian economists, even as early as 1945, when the Bretton Woods system was set up, which was a pseudo-gold standard and Henry Hazlitt, who was a financial writer, a libertarian writer, he said it will fail and he was absolutely right and it failed in 1971.

When that happened, it just sort of hit me inside, they’re absolutely correct on their analysis of what’s wrong and what’s going to happen and predicting the future, even through Austrian economics, you cannot predict precisely. I can’t tell you tomorrow what the stock market is going to do, but I can tell you that in time the dollar is going to continue to weaken and eventually probably self-destruct, and that was predicted by Mises as early as 1912 and sure enough in 1913, we allowed our government to give us the Federal Reserve system.

Now, we have a 4-cent dollar compared to the dollar we had in 1913 and what are we doing now? That system of government, the system of government that runs the post office and they run Amtrak and they were in charge of $700 billion of TARP funds, all wasteful, corrupt spending. Now, the ones who believe that they represent the people who need help and the people who need taking care of and they grab the moral high ground and say, “That’s what we want to do: turn over the control of medical care to the people that have destroyed our country.”

Washington is still a mess. They haven’t gotten the message about this new generation has endorsed and what another group of people have been encouraged to get more engaged in, and yet we’re in the middle of big changes. All you have to do is watch the television and there’s a great deal of significance about the anger expressed at these townhall meetings.

Some of it might be orchestrated. The other day, last night, as a matter of fact, I was on Cooper, Anderson Cooper Show, and he asked me, “Oh, is this all a plan? Was the Republican Party able to set this up and conspire to do this?” I said, “You’re giving them too much credit. They’re probably not capable of doing that.”

But I think what’s happening is that the welfare state is alive and well. There is still a lot of people out there, but even those who are on the receiving end realize this is coming to an end. They know what we know, that it’s not a viable system, and they’re getting concerned. Who is going to get it? Will the big guys get all of it like they’ve been getting right now? People getting bailed out, the huge salaries, retirement benefits, banks being bailed out and Goldman Sachs being benefited by and they see that, so when they think about food stamps and housing programs and free education and free medical care, they get worried and concerned and yet the people who are still working for other things who understand it that this can’t continue. It has to end. Those two are in conflict and they’re fighting with each other and that is what’s going to change things because it is not sustainable.

This is not sustainable and that’s why the freedom movement is so important to explain this economically, morally, constitutionally in a practical sense. We have all those arguments on our side and yet we seem to continue to lose this fight. We’ve lost it for the last 70-80 years, especially since the Depression.

But the seeds were planted before that. 1913 was a horrible year. The income tax, the Federal Reserve and then also the change in the way they were electing senators and then at that period of time, significant change in our foreign policy where we became the policeman of the world, “make the world safe for democracy.” In here, what we were doing was nothing more than developing a foreign policy designed as a police force and a protectorate for some of the corporate interests around the world and then all those seeds were planted but the Depression really brought it on. There has been continued growth of that at the expense of liberty.

Part 2: The Elite Wants A Global Paper Currency run by the UN and IMF

But now we’re at the crisis point because we are out of money and not only that, we’re out of wealth too. We’re not producing the wealth. The jobs have gone overseas and the debt is still with us.

We will this year raise the national debt at over $2 trillion. In the last 12 months, the national debt went up $2.2 trillion and that will probably expand because the one thing they can’t do is really project those numbers accurately because they don’t know how many people are going to be employed next year. I mean, unemployment might be 11 percent for all they know and therefore the revenues go down. So part of the reason that the deficit is exploding is that there are less revenues. (more…)

Ron Paul: Congress Should Read Bills Before Voting on Them


Is Congress just a decadent caricature of its former self, timidly executing the secret orders of the hidden elite? Sometimes it appears that way, especially when congressmen and women obediently vote on a bill without reading it and without having had the opportunity to do so, as it was made available just hours before. Ron Paul attacks these practices in his latest column. His bill HR 216 would prohibit any piece of legislation from being brought before the House of Representatives unless it has been available to read for at least 10 days. — tmartin

We Need Sunlight to Disinfect the Legislative Process!

by Ron Paul

During August recess, many legislators have heard an unexpected amount of discontent from their constituents about what is happening on Capitol Hill, particularly regarding healthcare. Some people are justifiably terrified at what the government could do to healthcare, should it get its claws even further into it. Others demand a public option for health insurance and are adamant that healthcare be treated as yet other absolute entitlement. One thing everyone agrees on is that the final bill needs to be read and understood by all legislators before a vote is taken. To any American, this is common sense. In Washington, that is unlikely to happen.

There is much confusion and debate over what is and is not in the reform plan being considered. Are there or are there not so-called death panels? What are the end-of-life consultations really for? How will private insurance be affected? Can you keep your current plan or will you eventually be forced into a government plan? Will it pay for elective abortions or not? What are the implications for medical privacy? The truth is no one knows what will be in the final bill until it is on the House floor, and provisions could be added in and taken out in the wee hours of the morning before.

In February, the House was forced to vote on an over 1,000 page “stimulus” bill that had first been posted on the internet just after midnight the morning of the vote. It passed. Then in June, House leaders rushed a vote on the cap-and-trade bill, even though an over 300 page “manager’s amendment” making substantive changes to the bill, was introduced shortly after 3:00 a.m. the morning of the vote.

Washington thrives on crisis. If enough people can be convinced that we are in an emergency, they will more likely tolerate rushing legislation to the floor like this. Last minute changes will be slipped in, benefitting who knows what special interests and at what expense to the taxpayer. But the mantra is repeated over and over: We are in a crisis. We must act immediately.

It should be unconscionable for legislators to vote in favor of legislation they have not had the opportunity to read. This is why I have re-introduced the Sunlight Rule, H.Res 216. The Sunlight Rule prohibits any piece of legislation from being brought before the House of Representatives unless it has been available to read for at least 10 days.

The Sunlight Rule allows citizens to move for censure of any House Member who votes for a bill in violation of this act. Because the Sunlight Rule could never be waived, any Member could raise a point of order requiring any bill in violation to be immediately pulled from the House calendar until it can be brought to the floor in a manner consistent with this rule. This rule does not require that Members read the bills. It merely guarantees the opportunity to do so. It has 4 cosponsors.

Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” The Sunlight Rule would do much towards negating the cycle of pseudo-crises and cleaning up the legislative process here in Washington. I sincerely hope this is the year Congress remembers its deliberative duties and passes it.