Ron Paul takes on Repubs from Lincoln to Bush

Ron Paul did very well in this interview. Russert asked tough questions as always, but Paul was always quick to respond with a rationale and honest answer. He is different in this respect because he does not have an arsenal of rehearsed, pre-packaged answers to recite. He comes across as an authentic, genuine person who believes strongly in his positions. This is what attracts people to him. People have waited a long time for someone with this kind of integrity.

Thank you for a clear analysis of his appearance. Most I've read so far have relied on quotes without offering any explanation.

I find his earmarks rationalization, well, reasonable. I mean, if you don't earmark the money at all, the money will still be spent. The problem is, who should be able to allocate the money? The Department of X, Y, and Z or the Congressmen? He believes bureaucrats are inefficient, so he chooses to listen to his constituents and allow them to request back the money. Seems reasonable to me.

And I like that he didn't vote for Bush, just like he didn't vote for the War and the Patriot Act. He seems to know whats wrong right when he sees it, rather than voting for something and saying "sorry, I didn't know this was going to happen!"

And, Reagan was, in some aspect, a failure. The Reagan pre-presidency was not the same Reagan that was in office.

And that Civil War comment, he just won the South with that! And, it's not like it's anything crazy. He just references what happen to other countries that ended slavery and stated we should have done the same.

Overall, it was pretty decent showing - considering it /is/ "the" grilling interview. And, he actually got Russert on a few things, "I's amending the Constitution not, constitutional?" haha.

Ron Paul said "War is the Health of the State" not 'a helpless state'. You might want to fix that misquote.

JASON GEORGE RESPONDED:
Thanks Rahul and others. Fixed.

Bourne said "War is the health of the state." Ron quoted it correctly but MSNBC transcribed incorrectly. Ron has my vote and I think the interview was just fine. Tim's problem was he didn't have the standard political hack he is used to interviewing.

"Randolph Bourne says war is a helpless state."

HEALTH of the state.

Dr Paul was great in this interview. He stopped every bomb by Russert. Clear, concise, consistent. Dr Paul was also very congenial. His ideas are different and refreshing. The American Civil War cost 600,000 lives. Dr Paul said the war was unnecessary - we could have bought the slaves out of slavery like the British did and stopped slavery just like every other country did - without civil war. That war caused resentment in the South and lack of progress in civil rights. Dr Paul has always been against taxes. But if the people are going to be taxed, let the people he is representing - his district - get their money back - that is his philosophy. He is the only one to have a plan to set the economy aright - by stopping the spending of $1 trillion per year for foreign militarism and spreading goodness about the world through the barrel of a gun.

Oh yes, I forgot; Lincoln started the Civil War. And that darn pesky TR, dragging us into the 20th century like he did.

So little Pauly is going to rewrite the legacy of the two greatest Republican presidents?

Jason, thank you for an excellent summary of the Tim Russert interview. I think Ron Paul did great!

Regarding Earmarks...

When someone steals from your constituents then you have a moral obligation to try to return it any way possible. The federal government stole the people’s money in the form of federal taxes. Ron Paul is returning the stolen money to the people it was taken from.

By the way, the whole point of the American Revolution and the Constitution was to eliminate corrupt and distant taxes similar to the federal income tax.

I think Tim Russert was confused about Earmarks (confusing them with Pork). Pork is different from Earmarks. Pork is adding more spending 'stealing'. Earmarks is just dividing up what has already been agreed to spend, what was already stolen.

Put another way, Earmarks are spending money that was already budgeted in. Earmarks don't affect spending levels. Earmarking is more transparent, effective, accountable, and representative of his constituents' interests than letting Washington bureaucrats decide where to send his constituents' tax dollars.

The reason he votes against every bill that he places earmarks on is to make a clear statement that he thinks the system is messed up.

CNN called the offices of members of the House to ask whether they would make their lists of earmarks public. Only 50 members' offices provided a list (including Ron Paul); of the others, 68 declined, and 311 did not respond.

According to Citizens Against Government Waste, Ron Paul is rated at 95% for the year 2006 and earning grades of A by the National Taxpayers Union. By comparison, Hillary Clinton comes in at 14% for the 109th Congress while earning a 10% lifetime score.

John McCain has said that Ron Paul is the most honest man in Congress and Pat Buchanan recently stated that Ron Paul has the best voting record in Congress.

I would just suggest that he is a good man trying to do the best he can with a very bad system. And he makes very clear to anyone who will listen that it is a very bad system.

Something else to keep in mind about Ron Paul’s 20 year is that he has never voted to raise taxes and never voted for an unbalanced budget.

Ron Paul has a plan to eliminate the IRS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

I am a french-canadian.
I look at Ron Paul since +- 2months.
All I can say is...What a MAN!.
He is your last hope.
Do not elect him and you will be in an horrific situation very soon.
There is limits to make war for years despite the fact that 70% of your people (you know...'we the people...) want to stop it!
For the rest of the planet (I talk obout men and women, not corporation...)it look completely crazy and nonsense.
Life is a place to learn LOVE and COMPASSION, it is not a warfield for a bunch of retarded teenagers who are thirsty for power and money.
I show you my point of view from Canada.
Imagine how a middle east ordinary man can perceive your acts...
Shame on your establishment.
History's judgement will be extremely hard to swallow for your honests citizens.
You will be the perfect example to show how far human cupidity can go.
It is so sad for america.

I'll be absolutely honest and come off as a person swayed by pure television . . . But this interview sold me. Read up on him! There's BRILLIANT logic behind the madness, I swear it. Don't go for Romney, the Huckster, or Mccain, they're all like Bush version 2.0.

Uh, really really.

One correction:

"Randolph Bourne says war is a helpless state"

war is the 'health of the state'. And Paul goes on to talk about other 'wars', like the WOD, WOpoverty, etc..

If the only criticism, and really, let's face it, Tim Russert had to dig really deep to try to catch Ron Paul on anything, was Paul trying to give some money back to his District, well, then ROn Paul should be the clear winner and the next PResident of the United States.

That whole thing just seemed silly and probably the reason why Paul laughed and told Tim he was confused and ironic that he was trying to turn something good into a "flip floper" thing. Just didn't succeed, except if you are already a big Government spender and want Paul to just stop talking because it hurts your cause.

"Randolph Bourne says war is a helpless state" is incorrect. The correct statement is "war is the health of the state".

You left out that he didn't think George W Bush was a conservative - which he isn't. Anybody that thinks the Bush's are bums has my vote - Bravo

The quote from Bourne (or whoever it was) should have been "war is the health of the state" not "war is a helpless state." It was clear that Russert was extremely hostile to Dr. Paul and often fired off two to four comments on different issues before letting him get in a response to even one of them. It is also well known to anyone who studies Lincoln in detail, and not just the sugar coated popular biographies on him, that he was very much in favor of increased federal power and decreased state power. He was also not a very intelligent man, despite, again, the popular attempts to make him out as a great intellect who read a lot and even walked miles in the snow to return borrowed books. What sap! Powerful governments always make heros of those leaders who have greatly increased their power, so in our government owned and controled schools we teach our children how wonderful Lincoln and FDR were...two men who did the most to destroy our federal system, states rights, the very concept of a "republic," and freedom. And in the Soviet Union they made heros of Lenin and Stalin. We had our first military draft during the civil war, and an income tax, later declared illegal (the tax). Lincoln was also known, from at least one letter he wrote near the end of the war, to have been planning on expelling the former slaves from the US. We were the only large country that went through a war to remove slavery. Numerous other countries managed to do so peacefully. Perhaps that subject should be taught in our schools.

"war is a helpless state"

You misunderstood. War is the HEALTH of the State. Not in a good way. Times of war or the spectre of war always include the expansion of the State's power over the people. Open any history book at random to see this view validated.

Right on, Jason!

What a great interview. Russert threw the kitchen sink with his questions and Paul answered every one with reason and intelligence.

Civil War?! Come on Tim.

The best part was Paul laughing at Russert for having it all wrong on earmarks.

I bet you don't see a single clip on the news because he did so well.

Although I support Paul, he is being unfair to Lincoln.

Lincoln admitted, "I don't control events, events control me." Remarkably similar to Paul's own statement that he doesn't control the internet message, the internet controls his message.

Lincoln was known for highly imaginative resolutions to the civil lawsuits he settled. His resolutions were intended to protect social harmony as well as deliver justice.

Unfortunately, South Carolina struck the first violent blow by shelling Fort Sumnter.
As the Chinese proverb goes, "One who strikes the first blow is he whose ideas have failed him." The idea of slavery failed the South, so they began the maelstrom that engulfed the US including its president.

The war wasn't Lincoln's initiative. He was just another victim of it. Given a chance, his negotiating skill exemplified in his case histories would have saved the social fabric of the Union without a shot being fired.

You misquoted Paul on Bourne. Bourne said that war is the health of the state, not a helpless state.

I'm glad you included at least some of Dr. Paul's reasoning. The personal income tax represents nowhere near half the federal revenue stream. Eliminating it would leave approximately the budget of ten years ago.

Tim Russert is a tough questioner, but Ron held his own. Again the whole argument boils down to what the proper role of government should be. As a Historian and Economist, Medical Doctor, and Constitutional Scholar, Paul is well-versed in philosphy, foreign policy, and monetary systems. He is definitely the man to lead this country, and to finally reject the idea that Government is more powerful than the people.

I generally like Ron Paul, but I feel bad for him that he is so historically challenged when it comes to the Civil War. The war was not fought to rid the country of slavery. It was fought to save the Union. The southern states seceded from the Union approximately one month after Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration. He did nothing to cause the split other than get elected and show up to take the oath of office. He even tried to appease the south in his First Inaugural Address, assuring southerners that he would take no action against the institution of slavery and cautioning them against taking precipitous action that would divide the country and make us all enemies.

It wasn’t until after the war had been fought in earnest for a couple years that the issue turned to slavery. Even then, it only arose as a military measure to take away the south’s means of conducting war. Read carefully the Emancipation Proclamation (effective January 1, 1863) and you will notice that it did not purport to free all the slaves. It only applied to those states and portions of states then in rebellion. That left several, neutral slave-holding states (Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland and West Virginia), and several parts of states (a number of parishes in Louisiana and counties in Virginia) with their rights to maintain slavery intact. Ultimately, it wasn’t until after the war with the ratification of the 13th Amendment that slavery was finally and officially abolished.

So, I don’t get where Congressman Paul got the idea that Lincoln was blameworthy for conducting the war as a measure to rid the country of slaves. Lincoln had to fight the war to suppress insurrection even if he never dealt with the issue of slavery.

I am so looking forward to casting my vote for this man of integrity. Ron Paul has my vote and support. He is the only one running willing to stand up against our corrupt government and the media.

The comment should be "War is the HEALTH of the state"; it's quite famous actually.

Ron Paul received contributions from over 100,000 different people this quarter. He received $18,000,000 from those 100,000 people. His support is wide and deep. Look around your town and notice you see RP signs everywhere. Grab a cup of coffee and go to http://freeme.tv

"Randolph Bourne says war is a helpless state."

The transcript misquoted Dr. Paul. He said "Randolph Bourne says war is the *health* of the state."

Randolph Bourne said that war is the HEALTH of the state. Meaning, that government tends to grow during wars and emergencies.

The quote was "War is the health of the State" not "war is a helpless state"

Tim Russert is really something. He investigates OTHER people back to what they said 20 years ago, but does Mr. Russert disclose his OWN conflicts of interest? No, instead he silently plans his character assisination attempt. Well, you kind of have to expect that type of hatchet job from someone who in bed with the status quo. I did my OWN little fact checking expedition and found the advertisers for Meet The Press.

GE lists 824 items regarding defense contracts on their website for 2007. http://www.ge.com/search/index.jsp

Boeing lists 72,200 items regarding defense.
http://tinyurl.com/2nm5y8

Fidelity Investments - tax and 401k services, need I say more?

Hummer - child company of AM General the company that makes all the HMMWV's for the Army

UBS - Another banking company, certainly they have nothing to fear from Dr. Paul, right?

Toyota - makes cars which are CURRENTLY cheaper to make in Japan (and then assemble here).

Aleve - you think Bayer Pharmaceuticals has a reason to fear Ron Paul - who wants to allow young adults to opt out of SS and Medicare and is vehemently opposed to socialized medicine?

ABE - (shill for coal companies) do they have nothing to fear from Ron Paul's desire to deregulate nuclear power so we have safe, clean unlimited power?

CVS - A Pharmacy whose bread and butter is insurance and Medicare. Dr. Paul wants to remove the incentives for hospitals to overbill us.

Xerox - another defense contractor. Here's a link to their defense contracts of 2006.
http://tinyurl.com/2wjzbb

MasterCard - Huge banking coop.

Why didn't Mr. Russert let us know that he had a HUGE conflict of interest BEFORE THIS SEGMENT AIRED? When half of your advertisers are in defense, the other half split between banking and Big Pharma doesn't that constitute NEWS? I mean, Mr. Russert dug back 20 years or more on Dr. Paul to try to find "dirt". Why not look in your own mirror? I find the FACT the Mr. Russert did NOT disclose this relationship highly disturbing.

Ron Paul is the only politician willing to "tell it like it is." Go to RonPaul2008.com and listen to the message. Ron's "common sense" approach to our troubles is the only one that will work. We can't keep living above our means and expect that the rest of the world will keep extending us credit forever. What happens when the Chinese won't lend us anymore money? What do you think is going to happen when the government goes bankrupt and government agencies shut down? We can't believe that we can have a global economy and North American Union and keep our national security and sovereignty! I say stand up for your civil liberties! Join the Ron Paul Revolution!

Can you even imagine another candidate shooting from the cuff like that, and being so right about something most of us never even bothered to consider?

Let the corrections begin--

On the civil war: Dr. Paul said the government could have paid for the slaves and freed them, making war unnecessary.

On the IRS: Dr. Paul said if the IRS were eliminated, the federal government would have the same amount of revenue it had 10 years ago.

On war: The quote is, "War is the HEALTH of the State".

Now for my opinion: Russert piled on charge after charge, apparently after having his staff spend weeks trying to dig up something to attack with. The tactic is to interrupt the answer with another charge, and pile them on so fast that a coherent response is difficult. I lost count of the number of time Russert interrupted Dr. Paul as he tried to explain his well-considered positions. Although Dr. Paul held up admirably well, the tactic gives the lazy press a menu of issues to gleefully spin.

But Russert and the press who seize on these issues are overplaying their hand; what is coming through is not that Dr. Paul is some kook, what is coming through is open contempt by the media for the constitution and our rights. It glares louder than the intended message, and fools fewer people every day.

Ron Paul is a great man.

Now this is a good article. Sharp, but accurate title and plenty of accurate citation of the good Dr. The list of "bum" "failure" and another "Dr. 'No' " vote on G.W. Bush has me slapping my knee :-) . Why can't anyone else be as refreshingly frank as Dr. Paul?

Randolph Bourne wrote "War is the Health of the State".

You got it wrong in the article. Here's a link if you'd like to read it.
http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/bourne.htm

The Randolph Bourne quote is actually "War is the health of the state" as opposed to "War is a helpless state."

TO MR. RUSSERT: I think your attempts at a 'gotchya' moment were not very becoming. It was almost as if you'd only show respect to him if he followed principles so closely that he didn't exist as a politician. See Tim, in order to fix a system you must first work within it. To casually suggest that Ron Paul voted against earmarks b/c he knew it would fail and then he could corruptly receive what he wanted was beyond reproach.

Paul handled your questions with grace and intelligence. It's a shame you didn't always give him a chance to answer.

But what was probably the most disgraceful moment was after paul left, and you proceeded to talk with your round table about candidates and completely acted as if Paul didnt' exist. Jeez Tim, he was still in the building for goodness sake.

I just wish you could get over yourself a little bit. You are a decent interviewer, but you are not fair, and that is something you should work on.

He's got my Vote!

Someone please explain to me why the USA gives a Damn about Israel. Seriously. What is in this relationship for the USA? We give them 3 Billion a year, because???

John Adams, one of the greatest founding fathers, was constantly attacked by a scornful media. Nothing has changed. Ron Paul is right on the issues, and has the love of the people on his side. He is winning this race.

Slight misquote:

Ron Paul said "War is the health of the state" quoting Randolph Bourne. It means means the more "wars" we have, the healthier the state is to encroach on our freedoms.

He actually said "War is the health of the state" not "War is a helpless state."

Incorrect quote: Randolph Bourne says 'war is a helpless state'

The actual quote is "war is the health of the state." In other words, the state (government) grows at a phenomenal rate during wartime.

Great article! It is so funny to me that Ron Pauls views are considered odd and yet the other cadidates are all for bombing and invading countries and killing thousands of people. The American dollar is falling every day. I hope Americans wake up and smell the coffee before our finacial situation become utter chaos.

I can't believe these smear attempts.
Even if the earmarks were considered and issue, I would have to say he's still a shining star compared to every other Candidate.

DR. PAUL CURED MY APATHY

On scrapping the IRS, Paul pointed out that the remaining revenue from sources other than the income tax would still be about what the federal government collected in total, ten years ago.

It's "War is the HEALTH of the state."

This is a truth proven time and time again throughout history...and the last few years is no exception.

The whole interview consisted of nothing other than Russert demanding that Paul defend positions that Russert thought were indefensible. Russert was wrong on every count. Whether or not slavery could have been banished in the US without 600,000 deaths is not exactly a hot topic in the presidential race. But the fact is, every other civilized country in the world banished slavery without a bloody war with repercussions that lasted at least 100 years.

Actually, I believe that you accidentally misquoted Paul. He quoted Randolph Bourne as saying "War is the health of the state." Not, as you mistakenly understood, "War is a helpless state." Actually, "War is the Health of the State" is the title of one of Randolph Bourne's essays.

You transcribed: "Randolph Bourne says war is a helpless state."

That is actually a misquote. The correct quote (RP says this often, not surprisingly) is "War is the HEALTH of the state".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_Bourne

-Jeff

Tim Russert never got into the issue of the suicidal monetary policy the Fed is following.

Just 40 years ago a coke or a cup of coffee costs 10 cents, a gallon of gas costs 30 cents, a new car costs $2,500 and a new house cost $25,000. Today a coke or cup of coffee is over $1.00, gas is $3.00, the new car cost is about $25,000 and the new single family house averages $250,000 or more. Over the last 40 years, prices for all these commodities have increased by a factor of about 10 times or more.

This means that in the last 40 years, the dollar has lost 90% of its purchasing power. Today you need $10.00 to pay for what you use to be able to buy for $1.00.

Why has the US $ lost 90% of its value? Because in the last 40 years the Federal Reserve has printed increasing amounts of paper money to fund excessive government spending for wars and welfare programs – and this paper money has no gold backing. The result has been constant inflation.

The US is on the brink of a financial catastrophe. The dollar is in freefall on foreign exchange markets and there are increasing signs that governments and investors around the world are looking for alternative currencies to use for investment vehicles. The US government is in debt to Foreign Governments a total of over 2.3 Trillion dollars and that borrowed money has been spent on wars and welfare (yes – that’s 2.3 TRILLION dollars). And these foreign governments are not all friends – almost $700 billion is owed to China and the Oil Exporting Countries in the Middle East.

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that is discussing this coming financial collapse and understands the incredible economic dangers we face.

I recall being shocked by Ron Paul's statement that the Civil War should not have been fought. It took about 5-minutes for it to dawn on me that he's right. It'd have been cheaper to buy and free the slaves than to sacrifice that many American lives.

Given my public school training on such matters, it occurred to me that getting rid of the Department of Education seems -- in retrospect -- a good idea.

The Civil War wasnt a mistake? 600,000 deaths were needed to free slaves? Or would a more common sense approach have worked?

Getting rid of the IRS isnt a good idea? It wasnt there until 1913 and got swindled into power. I do believe JFK was the last sitting president to go after the Fed.. thats not nearly as unAmerican as you might think.

Quit policing the world? Awesome idea!!! We see how well our policing has helped America. 3.5Trillion spent on Iraq alone.. 1 Trillion spent annually. Meanwhile our debt is at 9Trillion and we borrow 3B a day from China.

Israel.. with 300 nukes and the 4 or 5th largest military in the world can take care of herself.

What exactly are pundits scared of? Youd think these people have been living under a rock while the average American has been taking it in the..

Regardless. Ive done my research and I support the most honest candidate thats trying to save what little republic we have left. The constitution and rule of law matter. Economics matter. Its just to bad people in power dont understand it.

"Randolph Bourne says 'war is the HEALTH of the state'

The Randolph Bourne quote is "War is the health of the State"

Amazing how the Dr. can say something as inflammatory as 'Abraham Lincoln started a senseless civil war' and then immediately make sense of it. It's so brave.

I think Tim Russert asked very good and tough questions and Ron Paul responded with his usual sincerity. I think Ron Paul did a great job.
Go Ron Paul

Its about time there was a good interview with Dr Ron Paul. I can't wait to vote for him.

Umm, the correct Bourne quote:

"War is the health of the state."

Nice write up though, thanks for at least giving a run down of Paul's positions. You didn't take cheap shots by excluding portions of his reasoning.

Great insight. One comment, though, and I noticed this was incorrect in the original transcript.
The Bourne quote is: "War is the health of the state" not "war is a helpless state".

The more enemies that might be hiding in your closet, the healthier the state is. When all is calm, even the common man can see he does not need an overbearing government. If you press people, such as with an impending war, some people with good intentions will willingly get behind the effort without questioning it.

Thus "war IS the health of the state".

CORRECTION:

"Randolph Bourne says 'war is the health of the state'"

You quoted Dr. Paul as saying:

"Randolph Bourne says 'war is a helpless state'"

I believe your source for Dr. Paul's comment transcribed it wrong. The quote is "war is the health of the state" which is what Dr. Paul said during the interview.

You have misquoted Dr Paul. He said that Randolph Bourne said that "War is the health of the state."
http://www.bigeye.com/warstate.htm

Wars empower and enlarge the government. War is used as an excuse by those seeking power to enhance and abuse that power.

This is rich. Pauly wants to rewrite the legacy of Lincoln, (he started the Civil War!) and TR, (That bad man dragged us kicking into the twentieth century!)

The two best Republican presidents, dissed by Mr. Paul.

This is rich. Pauly wants to rewrite the legacy of Lincoln, (he started the Civil War!) and TR, (That bad man dragged us kicking into the twentieth century!)

The two best Republican presidents, dissed by Mr. Paul.

"CORRECTION:

"Randolph Bourne says 'war is the health of the state'"

It depends on what the definition of 'is', is.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. GE, the defense contractor, owns NBC and therefore Tim Russert's soul.

"I generally like Ron Paul, but I feel bad for him that he is so historically challenged when it comes to the Civil War. The war was not fought to rid the country of slavery. It was fought to save the Union. The southern states seceded from the Union approximately one month after Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration. He did nothing to cause the split other than get elected and show up to take the oath of office. He even tried to appease the south in his First Inaugural Address, assuring southerners that he would take no action against the institution of slavery and cautioning them against taking precipitous action that would divide the country and make us all enemies. "

Any why did the South want to secede? Because they wanted to keep slavery from being contained which Lincoln promised to do. Saying Ron Paul is historically challenged is ridiculous considering they had about 2 minutes to discuss the issue.

No, I'm not going to correct you on the Bourne quote! Once again, the Baltimore Sun has offered some of the more insightful commentary out there. Thanks for reporting this substantially and in context, as opposed to AP, MSNBC and CNN.

Merry Christmas, Republicans

-from your favorite Senator, Larry Craig:

http://mikk2.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/make-the-yuletide-gay/

C.Mo,

Yeah, it's always good policy to run against Lincoln and TR. We would.

I'm going to take a contrary position. Rather than a hatchet job, I think that Tim Russert says "It's my job to throw your words and positions back to you in the worst possible light. It's your job to defend your views and convince us by bringing them into the best possible light. You will be tested by fire. From this, we will choose our leader." On that basis, how on God's green earth can you avoid this conclusion: Ron Paul should lead us out of this mess we're in.

""Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach."

Every election has it's nut cases. In the past we have had Goldwater, Perot, (I liked him, my kinda nut case), George W. Bush, lyndon larouche, Reagan, and others.

This guy wins going away.

It seems almost unbelieveable that our budget has grown over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in the past ten years. Surely we can cut back to 1997 spending levels and not even notice a difference in the crappy "service" government gives us. Go Ron Paul! Get rid of the income tax!

Ok, after reading the comments that were finally posted I just had to laugh. Apparently dozens of foolish and ignorant Paul supporters (like myself) immediately caught the Randolph Bourne mis-quote, but all the great minds in the media had no idea what he was talking about, including whoever did the transcript. You guys do actually read sometimes, don't you? Or do you spend all your time doing your hair and cadging invites to cocktail partys? Sorry, sorry, I shouldn't mock you, that was unkind. *snort*

John W.
Here in South Carolina, the Civil War is referred to as the "Northen War of Aggression".
Concerning why the Civil War was fought. Dr. Paul stated that the reason was not for slavery. Please listen to the interview alittle closer. This same question was asked by Bill Maher, or however you pronounce his name, back in March of this year. Dr. Paul stated that Lincoln was not the strongest opponent of slavery.
At least he has an understanding of History. At least he reads books.
The Media went back 15 yrs to find something on Bush with the DWI thing, but here Russert has to go back to the Civil War to try and dig up something on Dr. Paul. This is fantastic!

It should not be incredible that a candidate speaks frankly against Lincoln's federal government invading and attacking its own people. Now, like in 1861, it is all about a federal government that props up banks with a miltary machine that owns the media. The democrats love it too so long as the socialist spenders continue to get theirs.
NBC is not for our Constitution.

"The Civil War wasnt a mistake? 600,000 deaths were needed to free slaves? Or would a more common sense approach have worked?"

Parke,

This is an incredible statement. Any war is a failure of the politicians, but not really Lincoln in this case. This failure had festered for decades. Surly you know this.

A 'common sense' approach?

Lincoln didn't try every possible approach before the South attacked Ft. Sumpter?

I would love to put Pauly in a time machine, send him back and see what the H he would have done.

Of course 'common sense' would have been better, but the slave states weren't interested in common sense. (Ending slavery, that is.)

But never forget, common sense can be over rated. According to common sense, at one time, the Earth was flat, and the center of the universe, red heads were witches, and people of African descent were inferior.

"Paul agreed with earlier statements he's made, calling George H.W. Bush "a bum," Ronald Reagan a "failure" and saying he was happy he never voted for current President George W. Bush. "

Well, I can agree with all that, ha ha!

Hey, where is this guys flag lapel pin!?

Any why did the South want to secede? Because they wanted to keep slavery from being contained which Lincoln promised to do. Saying Ron Paul is historically challenged is ridiculous considering they had about 2 minutes to discuss the issue.

Posted by: Timur Rozenfeld | December 23, 2007 8:12 PM

Regardless of the reasons for the south’s desire to secede, Lincoln didn’t start the war. And it wasn’t Lincoln’s fault – as RP makes it out to be – inasmuch as Lincoln tried to appease the south but failed. The south fired the first shots of the war to expel the federal garrisons at Charleston harbor before Lincoln could lift a finger to do anything. Since Lincoln didn’t start the war – as RP claimed – it wasn’t proper for RP to blame him for its causes or charge him with failing to pursue alternatives to peace. Those alternatives were non-existent. So I stand by my statement that RP is historically challenged on this count.

Furthermore, there were many reasons the south gave for secession. All secession declarations cited grievous injury and hostility from the northern states over a period of decades – from a time long before Lincoln took power. Any stated gripe against Lincoln was more for the fact that he symbolized unrelenting hostility of the northern states against their interests. Thus, other than the pretext of fighting against an unimplemented policy that Lincoln promised would not be implemented (Go read his 1st Inaugural Address), his presidency offered no ground to secede.

RP is right on a good many issues, but this isn't one of them. You should quit trying to defend him this time.

I'm from Australia, and think Ron Paul would be a welcome change for the whole world. Sure his ideas are a little different, but he sounds like he's willing to work with others for positive outcomes. Australia has the best voting system in the world. You guys should copy us. Everyone votes on the same day, 75% of results are in by the same night, it's all on paper. Fast, quick, efficient and fair. No discrepancies, no complaints. No need to register for a particular party, no need to show ID when voting. The American system seems crazy, unfair and downright corrupt with electronic voting.

I believe it was Russert, not Paul, who seemed to think that the Civil War was fought to end slavery. If the southern states had a right to join or not join the union in the first place, it's not clear to me why they didn't have a right to leave later on. Lincoln was the candidate who embodied the north's economic domination of the south. In any event, try to keep in mind 600,000 dead. Proportionally to the total population, that would be 6 million today.

"War is the health of the state" is the correct quote.

-Brad, active duty military, disgruntled Republican, voting for Ron Paul in 2008

I can't believe that Ron Paul has got you people discussing real issues... the establishment must be turning in their (future) graves.

I would love to see Paul win just to shut C.Morris up.

Notice how they left out the original question regarding Ron Pual's fascist statement regardingg Huck's ad from the original taped interview. Instead, Tim changes the nature of the original question, and then plays Ron Paul's taped answer, which was not his complete answer, thus, taking Ron Paul's statement out of context. Yet, Ron Paul was still able to effectively answer the question.

The Iran / Mars reference was priceless!!

They tried to make him appear anti-Isreal, but it back-fired. Ron Paul revealed that his policies would greatly help Israel. This should headline news, but the corporate media will not mention the fact that if we stopped giving our hard earned tax money to all the Middle East conuntires, then Isreal would have the best of it.

Ron Paul revealed the injustice and abuse of the Federal Government and how the Neo-Cons trample our rights, and state rights by arresting sick people who are legally using medical marijauna and putting them into jail. He clearly demonstrated the hypocrisy and abuse of the govt. on the war on drugs, torture, etc.

Ron Paul's facial expressions were priceless, looking at Tim as if he was in wonderland, not understanding that amendments to the Constitution IS Consitutional.

Ron Paul clearly demonstrated that he has what it takes to take on ANYONE and will be the next President of these United States of America.

As an Orthodox Jew opposed to Israel, I am thrilled that finally there is the possibility that the USA will no longer fund Israel's brutality against the Palestinians. I also found Ron Paul's views on the Civil War fascinating. Buy the slaves and free them! It would have saved 600,000 lives!! Amazing! But of course we know that inherent superiority of "the Union" is not part of the Constitution. Every state has the right to secede. This is enshrined in the Constitution.

He said "War is the HEALTH of the state" dumbass

I'm voting for Ron Paul! I have never met a statesman like Ron Paul. Are we lucky or what?

Didn't Russert bring up the point about the civil war?
I am no historian, but from what I understand slavery was only a secondary reason for the southern states secedeing. The primary reason was the southern states rejection of the centralization of the federal government and it's imposition of tariffs which were strangling the southern agrarian economy at the benefit of the industrial north.

re:RP Supporter
"Just 40 years ago a coke or a cup of coffee costs 10 cents, a gallon of gas costs 30 cents, a new car costs $2,500 and a new house cost $25,000. Today a coke or cup of coffee is over $1.00, gas is $3.00, the new car cost is about $25,000 and the new single family house averages $250,000 or more. Over the last 40 years, prices for all these commodities have increased by a factor of about 10 times or more.

This means that in the last 40 years, the dollar has lost 90% of its purchasing power."

Forty years ago a one ounce silver Dollar bought about 4 gallons of gas. Today, at about $14, one ounce of silver buys about 4 gallons of gas.

Gee, maybe we should have kept our currenct backed by silver and/or gold. Or maybe I'm a kook, or fringe, or Quixotic, or any of those other stupid names the press calls Ron Paul.

Could anyone imagine George W. Bush answering questions about the civil war?

Interviewer: What were the causes of the U.S. Civil War?
GWB: Ahhh,uhhhm, I, I, think many evil doers were involved. And if we're not careful a mushroom cloud will appear.

Ron Paul is too smart to be president.

I hope he runs third party. With the Constitution hanging by a thread, we need to do something. He will be a real third party deal only if he picks a real Veep running mate. I wish Tim would have asked him about high gasoline prices/ high credit card/ and home and car takebacks by the banks.

Geez.., yet another smear article against Dr. Paul. I've been reading all day about this mornings MTP and I'm happy to see that 99.9% of the replies have been pro Ron Paul. It just goes to show what a fight we're up against with the media clearly taking their marching orders from their bosses. Smear all you want, Dr. Paul will stand strong in the primaries.

Why, at the end of the interview, did Russert tell Paul to "stay safe" while on the campaign trail?

What is wrong with you. It's "War is the HEALTH of the state". No offense, but that quote has been around forever, how did you get it wrong? can you at least correct yourself?

And to clarify the earmark issue. Earmark funds are funds that are there for every (or most, but that's beside the point) congressional district to use. the money is stolen from the citizens and then put into a savings, basically. If the money is NOT used for earmarks it is then used by the EXECUTIVE branch, instead. So, either way the money is spent. All Paul is doing is returning the stolen money to the people, in the form of earmarks. Russert didn't understand what earmarks even are.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands the war issue. He's absolutely right about Vietnam. Even Americans can just walk across the border, buy a sandwich, and leave. Search for the USS Maddox to find that the initial cause, just as in the present war, was wholly false. There were no torpedoes. In fact, if anyone could be perceived to be provoking an incident, it was US.

You know, what really bothers me about the questions is that they demonstrate our inability to learn. It's as if there's nothing to learn; as if war, war, war should be just routine. Just imagine a North Vietnamese Navy steaming up and down the coast of California, and provoking no reaction whatsoever.

Just think about it; it's amazing we can buy a sandwich there. All we had to do was give history a little time. Even despite all the aggravation we caused -- millions of people killed for nothing -- North Vietnam is now a westernized country.

So I'm EXTREMELY impressed with the courage and "presidentiality" of this candidate. We have a great one on our hands.

LETS GET HIM ELECTED.

Ron is also the ONLY candidate to understand the economy. We're in big trouble; and the mess is only going to get deeper if we elect anyone else.

Thomas Jefferson said, "If the American People EVER allow the banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and [bank owned] corporations which WILL grow up around them WILL deprive the people of [ever more of] their property, until their children wake homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Only Paul understands this issue: It's mathematically impossible even to maintain a circulation without suffering inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt, because we must perpetually re-borrow whatever we pay against principal and interest as a new debt, increased so much as periodic interest.

Ultimately, every such system collapses under insoluble debt, because the unassented system generates such a sum of debt that the subject people can no longer afford even to service their debt.

We're right close, ladies and gentlemen; and if you dare face another 4 years with an incompetent in office, you best be warned you yourself are the greatest obstruction to true freedom and prosperity.

Just something to think about, as we plunge ever closer to insoluble debt.

Visit the link, if you want to understand the issue.

It's time for a better America and world; and it's a pity if you can't make yourself part of that.

Best wishes to all for the New Millenia.

Kash and John W: go watch Bill Maher's first interview with Paul from last summer. Paul actually explained it in more detail that A. Lincoln wasn't too crazy about the abolition in the first place (ambivalent at best) and that he was even willing to compromise with the South to preserve the Union.

I don't think his interview today at Meet the Press is the best interview so far. To be fair, it's Russert's job to ask difficult question and he did his part. If you research Paul's views, however, you would find that his views are well thought-out and backed up by historical precedents and facts.

Kash and John W: go watch Bill Maher's first interview with Paul from last summer. Paul actually explained it in more detail that A. Lincoln wasn't too crazy about the abolition in the first place (ambivalent at best) and that he was even willing to compromise with the South to preserve the Union.

I don't think his interview today at Meet the Press is the best interview so far. To be fair, it's Russert's job to ask difficult question and he did his part. If you research Paul's views, however, you would find that his views are well thought-out and backed up by historical precedents and facts.

Thank you Tim for a terrific interview! You really showed all astute viewers that even with a big and well financed shovel, when there is no dirt around, none can be flung!

Ron Paul has my vote!

GREAT NEWS FROM NH!

It's the night before Christmas Eve and I just got in- John Mexician had Manchester NH sign bomed!- I was so pissed... Then all of the sudden I turned the Corner and started seeing Ron Paul signs...... All of the sudden, in front of the Mall where about 30 Ron Paul supporters with lights and a snow man and pizza and flags! I jumped out of my truck grabbed my sign and jumped in!
Here's the GREAT NEWS- We gave out 150-200 yard signs and the beeps just kept comming for hours!- There is REAL support here! We need help up here come on everyone- Take a few days off and come to NH!

LETS WIN THIS DAM THING!

Paul Revere II

God Bless Dr. Ron Paul!!
He CAN WIN!!

I'm for Ron Paul, he did a great job against the Buffalo Bill man

Russert did a good job trying to shoot the messenger, about as good a job as a man with a shotgun who can't hit the side of a barn door. Ron Paul's positions may seem a little radical to some, but not half as radical or extreme as the status quo.

On Lincoln, despite the mainstream historical view, one can think creatively and wonder if there weren't other ways to handle the issue. There were--we just don't get reminded of them.

On the War on Drugs, either in the US or on foreign soil, it is almost an insane point of view to think that this wastage of money and fervor for prosecution provides the public with anything.

The "earmarks" issue was covered above, but it does seem that Russert did not want to get out of his notes to banter with Paul. Russert's loss.

On amending the Constitution, what planet is Russert on? He should know that there are Constitutional provisions for this. Apparently, his notes didn't offer such a solution.

On troops in South Korea, why do we need to have them there? The same phony refrain is being used today as it was 20 years ago. The status quo is absurd.

On relying on the bombastic smear of a former Paul employee (I won't mention the name), many on the Internet are aware of this individual. He's basically a groupee who flocks to every Paul article there is and posts nonsense. Why did Russert choose this guy?

I've used up my time, though there is much more. Paul's message, for those who want to hear it, is coming through loud and clear. For those who don't, it's their loss.

Kudos on the article. Russert did as expected and Ron Paul fielded each question admirably and even called Tim on a few misquotes.

Tim had his staff thoroughly research Paul's past and it was quite evident that they couldn't find anything so they just went after trivial things like calling Bush 41 a bum and Reagan a failure. OK, we can all agree with that.

Heck, Paul even had to correct him on the last gotcha when Tim said that Sinclair Lewis did not make the statement he quoted. It was hilarious to see Paul correcting him right at the end..... he got the last word!

It's onward to the presidency Dr. Paul!

I think I agree with EVERYONE here.... does EVERYONE SUPPORT DR. PAUL???

WoW!!!

Yes.. he made a TON of sense.. He is geniune..

And boy oh boy his JUDGEMENT IS STELLAR!!

That is the best thing about him... Honest with great Judgement and very strong sense of Integrity..

Ron Paul will get my vote... he is truely DIFFERENT!! and what our country needs at this point in history!!

The attack upon Fort Sumpter was in response to Lincoln's sending a large naval expedition to Charlston. If it had entered the harbor before the fort had been captured, the Federal government could have taken control of the harbor. The attack on Sumpter was in response to an obviously planned attack.

The best part of the interview is where he emphasized a "transition" in government. The people who criticize him as a total nut case seem to think that he would walk into the oval office and abolish the Federal Reserve Board, the IRS, CIA, FBI etc. Well he emphasized "transition". He's not walking around with a tinfoil hat on. He's been in congress for a long time. I would rather see a transition toward his way of thinking than anybody else's. My man.

Wow. I've seen TR skewer politicians before and was afraid on how RP was going to handle it. I should have known - RP is not a politician, he's a statesman.

Isn't funny how TR had to go back to 1988 to find any quotes that might be considered negative or controversial about Ron Paul - and yet they were all explained away!

No backpedaling on Huckaboo's commercial at all, no explaining an affair of what the definition of "saw" is.....

Old media is waking up, but alas, they had their time in the sun.

Screw Lincoln. The South had every bit as much right to secede and form their own country, as the original thirteen states had to secede from England! Six hundred thousand young lives was far too high a price to pay for "Saving the Union."

The inquiry into Dr. Paul's position on Lincoln was brought up by Russert. It is not a part of Dr. Paul's platform to re-institute slavery or to be President of the CSA. I hate to even go into this topic on this forum because there are so many important aspects of Dr. Paul's principles: natural rights - life, liberty and property - over the encroaching power of the state; common law with Blackstone as the touchstone versus positive law, the preferred "law" of the empire; sound currency with a sound fiscal policy to eliminate the three I's which steal our money: Income tax, Interest to be paid on the ever-growing national debt; and Inflation, the thief of our savings and wealth; an end to imperialism abroad saving thousands of lives and billions if not trillions of dollars.

However, a comment about the "Civil War." Dr. Paul is not the least historically challenged on this issue. He understands that when Lincoln launched the war, he did so unconstitutionally; he fought it with unconstitutional means; and he fought it primarily to collect the tariffs and to "save the Union," a notion of which Lincoln created out of whole cloth. The empire which has all but consumed the republic which our ancestors gave us had its genesis with Lincoln and his Republican Party.

I suggest that if you want to be informed on this issue you read two excellent books by Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo: The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked. It appears that Dr. Paul has read them.

Rick,

That's very un-neighborly of you to direct such harsh criticism to Mr. Morris, a gentleman after myself. You give all us hicks a bad name, young fella.

The earmarks criticism is nonsense and I'll explain why.

The spending bills determine what kind of program the money will be spent on, so if they're passed, and they're for an unconstitutional program (like farm subsidies), then nothing Ron Paul does will effect or exasperate that. Requesting earmarks is not ADDING anything unconstitutional to the bill, it is simply determining exactly how that unconstitutional spending bill will be spent.

Here you have 3800 dead Americans in Iraq, a million dead Iraqis, four million Iraqi refugees, Iraq's infrastructure completely destroyed, a generation of Iraqi children that will grow up malnourished and without education, and what are media elite doing? Trying to smear Ron Paul on earmarks, despite the fact that unlike EVERY OTHER MEMBER OF CONGRESS, he has always voted against the earmarks that his constituents request.

Good job Dr. Paul. I would like to see him interview ALL candidates this way, not just Ron. Great video and more press for our guy..

The world is dropping the dollar as we speak:
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54MUm2P1jOU
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdrNbhdl7uU

and yes, Israel is trying to get us to bomb Iran:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3482995,00.html
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iJZ9jtm0mjZovx5YirnDlYlkJKdQD8TI05L00

Wake up people.
Ron Paul is right all the way.

Well said, John W. R.P. is off on that one, but I do enjoy some of the RP Bulworth moments, and the guy is consistent, but...he scares me a little.

Bullworth: Yo, everybody gonna get sick someday / But nobody knows how they gonna pay / Health care, managed care, HMOs / Ain't gonna work, no sir, not those / 'Cause the thing that's the same in every one of these / Is these mother%$@#ers there, the insurance companies!

Cheryl and Tanya: Insurance! Insurance!

Bullworth: Yeah, yeah / You can call it single-payer or Canadian way / Only socialized medicine will ever save the day! Come on now, lemme hear that dirty word - SOCIALISM

This all just brings that famous quote to mind: FIRST they ignore you, THEN, they ridicule you, FINALLY they attack you.

Seems Ron Paul just rubs the wrong neo-con fascists the wrong way. What a shame the smear piece they tried on Mr. Paul backfired in his face...
Hey Dr. Paul, I love your parting comment where you threw back EVERYTHING in the face of this corporate facist sponsored media event... if you havent seen this interview - watch it and watch Tim Russert having to read every little question he asked, LOL... a list made up by ???

Hillery Clinton was a Goldwater Girl, I am waiting to see if she goes back to her roots and drops out of the race and backs Dr. Ron Paul. Actually since Dr. Paul is the only candidate in either party that supports and believes in the Constitution, he is the only one that can take the oath of office without lying. I have yet to see anybody say that.

ATTENTION!!!!! Ron Paul was right about Israel! Check out this link!!!!
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3482995,00.html

Hopefully the American public can see the intelligence in what Ron Paul was saying and not just a sound bite reply so they can shut it off if they didn't like what he was saying. So be it. The truth is not all fuzzy and huggy. The truth is there. Mainstream America, soccer moms, 9-5 dads, elder people, YOU are America, We are America! Under a Paul Presidency, If your state wants all these institutions paid for by the taxpayers, you vote, it gets done. That's how simple it is. Instead of being dictated to by the Federal Government, you finally have a voice. Its that simple.

My father who passed away left me w/ this nugget of wisdom: KISS, meaning, keep it simple stupid :D

-Brad, active duty military, disgruntled Republican, voting for Ron Paul in 2008
-
I don't mean to single you out, Brad, and thanks for your service, but so many of you Paulites really burn me up. I'm a disgruntled American, and the reason for that is the republican party, not just Bush/Cheney. The best way to fix our problems is to send the republican party a message that their type of policies are corrupt, not to elect another republican for president, which is what Paul is.
He's your typical republican hypocrite. He says the war is illegal, but does he call for Bush's impeachment? Nooooo.

Ron Paul is accurate on Lincoln.

Slavery disappeared everywhere without a civil war.

He's only mistaken in one detail. The Civil War was never even about slavery.

It was about the right of a state to separate.

Because this was not a theme that would endear America to other people - such as the working class of Britain. After all, Americans had loudly claimed the right of revolt against Britain just decades before.

Lincoln deliberately muddied the situation with talk about slavery to win public opinion abroad.

The fact is that Lincoln, the successful corporate lawyer - who became quite affluent with clients such as the Illinois Central RR - respected the concept of property strongly.

Lincoln said many times that he would preserve the union and keep slavery if he had to.

When he finally issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he viewed it as a desperate move to win British opinion.

In fact, the terms of the Proclamation did not free all slaves. Far from it.

It effectively only threatened the South with this extreme if it continued fighting and the North had to conquor all of it.

Being anti-slavery in those days was considered extreme, almost like being a terrorist, and Lincoln was never extreme.

As it turned out, slavery ended after the war only in name. The Jim Crow laws and system of land ownership kept it effectively going in many respects into the 1950s.

But most Americans have been raised on fairy stories regarding Lincoln (as with the Founding Fathers), and they do not understand their own true history.

Otherwise, no one would honestly call Lincoln, the Great Emancipator.

Any person who, by their words, causes us to stop and pause, look at our reflection in the mirror, and impugns us to wake from our national slumber, is a true leader.

This is just the beginning....

Posted by: Robert M. Peters | December 24, 2007 1:04 AM

Lincoln didn't launch the war. The south opened the aggression by firing on Sumter until its garrison capitulated. This occurred approximately one month after Lincoln's inauguration. As far as anyone can tell from the historical record, the only reason Sumter was fired upon was the fact that it was occupied by federal forces who refused to capitulate. Hence, the notion that Lincoln somehow “started” or “launched” the war in any manner is entirely unjustified by the facts.

In addition, about half the states to secede did so months before Lincoln took the oath of office. Their secession took place on Buchanan’s watch, and Buchanan did next to nothing about it. The articles of secession took no more than a glancing blow at Lincoln, claiming that it was his “party,” rather than Lincoln himself, that had caused injury to the south and its “interests.” Thus, if Lincoln actually started the war, rather than merely having been the occasion for it, the south certainly didn’t know it.

As for Dr. Lorenzo’s books, I believe I will decline to read them. First of all, I don’t have the time to do so. In the second place, I don’t think I would find a history book from a non-historian enlightening, especially when that non-historian is also a pseudo-scientist in the discipline of Economics. In the third place, I have read just about every book review of Lorenzo’s works that I could lay my hands on (since yesterday); and, if only one third of what has been said about his methods are true, then his books are a flagrant distortion of the truth. In the fourth place, for Dr. Lorenzo to hypothesize that Lincoln either started the war (which is demonstrably false), that he could have headed off the war (which is demonstrably incapable of proof given his short time in office before the war started), or that Lincoln pursued the war for the impure and base motive of keeping the south economically enslaved through the collection of imposts and tariffs (which had ceased to be a gripe in the South many years before), then, as a scholar, I would find myself confronted with more disputed questions than valuable insight into history. So, I’ll pass.

But, thank you for pointing out the possible source of Dr. Paul’s error. Having read enough history on the subject myself, I won’t follow him there.

Don’t get me wrong. I like RP, I think he has a lot of good ideas and, barring some untoward event, I will probably vote for him. But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything he says – especially if it’s something he got out of someone else’s book without reflection of fact-checking.

First off, thanks for getting Dr. Paul
press by publishing this article. Anytime, someone
talks about him - negative or positive, they are
becoming aware of Dr. Paul and he get's name
recognition. So, thanks for that. Washington is
run by Military industrial complex, medical industry
complex, financial and communications indutries. Theyspend millions of $$$ in Washington, lobbying and they run the show - that's the fascism he is talking about and that's the fascism, you and I, as citizens of this great country, should fight against. When will our
media and people in our media stop catering to the
sheeple mentality of the masses and report the facts
as it is?

Super job summarizing the interview. Given Russert's staccato interview style, I think Dr Paul did well getting his message across. But if Russert had truly wanted to discuss Dr Paul's views rather than play gotcha, the show could have been so much more. Vote for Ron Paul!

"Russert asked about the lost revenue"

What lost revenue? Oh, the money that is being stolen from me? If you reduce spending then you don't need to replace stolen revenue.

"Ronald Reagan a "failure" "

Dr. Paul said that was a mis-quote and if you actually researched out the article you'll find that the writer of the article said that.

Dr. Paul is being smeared again.

The Dr. No Naughty list doesn't sound naughty to me at all.

Oh come on people! The Civil War was fought over State's rights. It was fought over the right of the states to leave the table, which was their ultimate bargaining chip. Yes, the goal was to preserve the Union, but preserving the union was in direct defiance of the Declaration of Independence, where the founders declared that the people had a right to leave their form of government and establish NEW government. The South was acting in accordance with the Declaration, and Lincoln et all, didn't want to have to negotiate for the raw materials for their factories in the north! An independent south meant that those raw materials could go to any country with enough money to purchase them, and it meant a loss of revenue for exports. Yes the south shot first, but there had been plenty of time for the US to deal with the south's objections in Congress before that. Lincoln did not act all alone, and upon his entrance into office he was not oblivious to the troubles at hand, which was why he was trying to placate the south with words. Unfortunately the south did not believe his words by that point and had decided that they would not be prevented from exercising their right to govern themselves if they so chose. The damage that was done to this country in destroying states rights is clearly evident in our massive government which is seeking to control the states to a greater and greater degree all the time. To say that Lincoln was completely innocent is just as fallacious as saying it was all his fault.

It appears Ron Paul has a few followers......The establishment doesn't seem to like him.....not like him one bit.

I feel good that that disenfranchised general populous has found someone who reflects their helplessness

The civil war started because the north was using the power of government to control the South through Tariffs. The south reacted as most anyone of us would who were having our pockets picked. Slavery had been abolished in England and by making slavery an issue in the war Lincoln new it would be an unpoplar cause for the British to die for. Lincolns emancipation proclamation was a way of keeping England from providing troops for the south.

Ron did well- all very reasonable. If you want to decide what is best in your community - then give the power to the states - where it belongs....he is not for drugs, or against education - just decide it at the state level....that makes sense

I guess Russert thinks his audience is a bunch of non-thinking idiots, incapable of logic and historical context. That's my impression after watching this attempted hatchet job on Ron Paul.

I wonder if he (Tim) will be true to his word and next week ask Mike Huckabee if he doesn't win the election whether or not HE will run as a 3rd party candidate. Also, I would love to see Tim as Mike about his position on the Crusades (since Mike is seemingly "the" Christian candidate) and see if Huckabee would side with the Jews, Muslims or Christians on that one...lol.

C'mon, Timmy boy, be "fair and unbiased"...:-)

The FED is a HUGE mistake. Even the man who ushered it into power said that.

Lincoln was shot soon after issuing the greenback.

JFK took away the FED power. He was also shot. F' the FED and the rockefellers.

The FED is a corporation. Don't you wonder who the board members are? Who the executive officers are, and what their compensation is?

How much does this corporation make every year?

The FED is no more Federal then Federal express and it is full of disgusting men whose only interest is in robbing everyone slowly through inflation. EVERY SMART PEROSN IN THE HISTORY OF SERVING THE US HAS SAID IT IS DANGEROUS, VERY DANGEROUS TO ALLOW THE EXISTENCE OF A FEDERAL BANK.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE. VOTE RON PAUL!!

President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.

Enormous!! Enough to get him killed?

DOWN WITH THE FED. BOO BOO HISS HISS. CROOKS!!

Vote Ron Paul.

Come on. Who doesn't support Ron Paul? I bet all the naysayers will actually vote RP once they close the curtain.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/Endorsements

Ha Ha. Paul beats up on "Meet the Potato". Not a surprise. If you have more than 27 brain cells, you're smarter than Lil' Timmy the Potato.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/jan-june99/sudan.html
BUYING SLAVES TO FREE THEM...
REP TANCREDO: Madame Secretary, I want to tell you something I'm very proud of: over a thousand of those redeemed slaves have had their freedom purchased by some fourth grade students, believe it or not in a school in a school in my district - Highlight Community School.

So many want to nitpick Paul's ideals as if they have some vested interest in someone else's economic concept. How many of these people work for the military industrial complex? That's the only reason I can imagine they would sacrifice our constitution for anything. Must be personal gain.
And that's why Dr. Paul doesn't get half of the press he deserves.

>>Quote: And why did the South want to secede? Because they wanted to keep slavery from being contained which Lincoln promised to do.
Posted by: Timur Rozenfeld | December 23, 2007 8:12 PM
A very simplistic and untrue comment.

History 101: In 1861, only 5% of southerners owned slaves. The other 95% did not want to secede for the sake of that 5%, but for reasons much more related to their own idea of liberty. The roots of the Civil War actually can be seen clearly in 1798, in which John Taylor of Caroline County, VA, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson suggests that Virginia and North Carolina escape from under the saddle of Massachusetts and Connecticut by leaving the Union (due to the alien and sedition bill); Mayer's "Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson." The south had already begun to think that the federal government was getting too big for its britches. The tariff of 1828 further increased tensions leading up to the war, infuriating South Carolina and Georgia; South Carolina declaring it null and unconstitutional - note the same state that "fired the first shot" from a sea port (which was directly affected by said tariff, a tariff made to promote the north's sweatshops and to discourage the south from free trade).

I do agree the Civil War was not about slavery; however, it was cloaked in it by Lincoln and the Union in 1863 as the reason to keep it going (another war with changing reasons . . .), the same year the most deadly riots in U.S. history took place in New York in which men took to the streets to protest the Union draft.

Dr. Paul's point, thus, has real validity. No, it was not necessary for 600,000 people to die to end slavery. There were other ways. Additionally, the Civil War was truly a war that erupted out of the desire for domination and manipulation by federal government at any cost, including the lives of 600,000 people.

The only good thing that came out of that war was the end of slavery. It was not necessary for that many people to die to make it possible.

The whole "earmarks" line of questioning bothered me. I wish Dr. Paul had responded something along the lines of, "Spending tax money is what Congressmen do. They do that with earmarks. Interviewing people is what journalists do. They do that with questions. So Mr. Journalist guy. Are you doing something wrong by asking me questions?"

Yes, Lincoln did start the war. The north didn't remove there troops from Fort Sumter. The south said that it would take the fort if it were resupplied. Lincoln ordered the running of the blockade and so started the war.

The industrial revolution was on our door steps at this time. It wouldn't have been very much longer before slave labor would have been made obsolete.

600,000 dead. The south devastated for the next 100 years. The facts distorted. To think that was great leadership, when it's really just socialist propaganda taken as fact by the politically correct.

Ron Paul is a great man. It takes a lot of guts to tell the truth to the American people. It's sad that common sense and truth are labeled as crazy.

Lincoln is a sack of shit and always has been. Lincoln invented and made possible the BIG, CONSOLIDATED, BLOATED LEVIATHAN government that we now enjoy. Lincoln WANTED the income tax.
Whats wrong, did you learn your history at public school?

Hello, Thanks for a great and truthful read. Tim Potato is a shill for big buisness and did his best too make Dr. Ron Paul bad but the Truth win,s in end. Great Job

I am an Indian citizen working in USA. I love Ron Paul. His honesty and die hard attitude amazes me. Yet he is so humble and peaceful. I never thought i would suggest politics as a career to any kids, but Ron paul is someone they can look upon as a model. I truly wish he would be elected but either way he already won the hearts of many of us.
PS..I disagree with him on many issues but he is way more honest and intelligent than i am, so obviously that makes him a better judge.

Rick,

That's very un-neighborly of you to direct such harsh criticism to Mr. Morris, a gentleman after myself. You give all us hicks a bad name, young fella.

Posted by: Robert Snead | December 24, 2007 1:06 AM

Robert,
I thought you got shot dead on the courthouse steps sometime around 1760 for expressing views like Mr. Morris'. At least that's what my history book of Sneads Ferry tells me.

Ron faced some tough questions. I've been a republican my entire life. Its nice to have our party back. GO RON GO!

Ron Paul's comments on slaves and the Civil Rights Act bother me!

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-on-meet-press-all-you-ever.html#links

Two comments:
A national sales tax replacing income tax is appealing at first glance but all the same problems exist and more. We will still need a bureaucracy to manage it, the greater the wealth the less they spend as a percentage of their income favoring the wealthy and, most imortant, taxes do not cause spending!!! Our government must lower expenses. This is the responsibility of both parties and both parties are, at this point, are failing miserably.
No matter what reason you give for our civil war the 'bottom line' cause was slavery. To prove this to yourselves read South Carolina's (first state to succeed) letter of succession. The Lincoln Douglas debates (for Senate) were all about the spread of slavery throughout the Union. Our Country to be a Country had to deal with this problem and the constitution issue of a states ability to leave the Union because it does not like a Federal law. Most records quote the slave ownership of the Sout h as 25% to 33% of white southerners as holding slaves but the shckong point is that South Carolina and Mississippi both had larger slave population that free.
However, if it was only 5% it was wrong, if it was .01% it was wrong. It is to bad that it took us so long to realize it and so much longer (100 years) to outlaw the Jim Crow laws.

Two comments:
A national sales tax replacing income tax is appealing at first glance but all the same problems exist and more. We will still need a bureaucracy to manage it, the greater the wealth the less they spend as a percentage of their income favoring the wealthy and, most imortant, taxes do not cause spending!!! Our government must lower expenses. This is the responsibility of both parties and both parties are, at this point, are failing miserably.
No matter what reason you give for our civil war the 'bottom line' cause was slavery. To prove this to yourselves read South Carolina's (first state to succeed) letter of succession. The Lincoln Douglas debates (for Senate) were all about the spread of slavery throughout the Union. Our Country to be a Country had to deal with this problem and the constitution issue of a states ability to leave the Union because it does not like a Federal law. Most records quote the slave ownership of the Sout h as 25% to 33% of white southerners as holding slaves but the shckong point is that South Carolina and Mississippi both had larger slave population that free.
However, if it was only 5% it was wrong, if it was .01% it was wrong. It is to bad that it took us so long to realize it and so much longer (100 years) to outlaw the Jim Crow laws.

JTJurisDoctor wrote:
>>Ron Paul's comments on slaves and the Civil Rights Act bother me!

Mr. Paul may wish to re-examine his Civil War History, as Abraham Lincoln stated quite clearly "If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also so that"
Pray tell, Mr. Paul, if the fractured government of the 1860's managed to raise the monies (unlikely)to buy the slaves out of slavery, would the manufacturing interests of the North then have Congress reduce the tariffs that were strangling the agricultural industry of the south, which were causing planters not to be able to pay wages to freemen and whites in the first place, making slavery an attractive alternative?
Doubtful.
As William Henry Seward presaged in 1858, the Civil War was an "Irrepressible Conflict", not the creation of Abraham Lincoln.

For every complex problem there is a simple solution that is wrong. Ron Paul, the Simpleton in Chief, is a prime example.

My favorite part of MTP was when Tim tried to say Ron Paul was a hypocrite for defending the constitution, but also wanting to amend it. When Ron Paul looked at him like "What are you, an idiot?" kind've look I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Ron Paul made TR look like an idiot.

Hmm? Ron Paul wants to eliminate the IRS and the personal income tax.

Since the top 10% pay most of the taxes. Whom do you think would pay more taxes under Paul's plan? You, but hay, it would be more fair right...

Even if we were able to reduce spending to 1997 levels, YOU would still pay more. The new system would be a massive tax break for the rich.

If you truly want an honest person with a proven track record in the White House - Ron Paul is your ONLY choice!

Paul was exposed for being the nut job we all know him to be. He is a complete wacko and fortunately the vast majority of Americans know it.

Ron Paul would have no issue with Latin Americans working to have States withdraw and rejoin Mexico.

Nobody who thinks Lincoln should not have fought the Civil War should even have a *vote.* Much less run for President. The man is stupid and evil, at about a 3:2 ratio.

I think Abraham Lincoln and JFK both deserved to be assasinated. Abraham Lincoln was a despot who started the civil war and was responsible for more deaths than all Presidents combined. JFK deserved to be assasinated as he and LBJ stole the 1960 election. I did not mourn him or RFK at all. However, the worst Kennedy of all is still living and doing great damage to America.

Actually, Ron Paul was right on concerning the War Between the States. The history that is commonly taught is also commonly incorrect. Particularly in the case of war, every war has it revisionist history, the War Between the States was no different. It is when you actually do research into the events of such a war that you are shocked to find that what you thought you knew flies in the face of facts.

“Men do not willingly read unpalatable truths of themselves. The People, like those best who fool them most, by pandering to their vices and flattering their foibles”—Admiral Raphael Semmes.

Slavery was an evil institution in this country, both in the North and the South however, we fail to understand the real issues concerning the War Between the States. My suggestion is that you read: The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government by Jefferson Davis-1881, or War of the Rebellion: Official Government Records of the Union and Confederate Armies-1884, or the Slave Narratives (a true shocker) compiled from interviews of last living former slaves during the Great Depression. Another is: The Southern States of the American Union by J.L.M. Curry-1894. Read a booklet written by a Slave named Harrison Berry in 1861 called: Slavery and Abolitionism, as Viewed by a Georgia Slave, an amazing little book that completely contradicts and flies in the face of the accepted history of the South, the Union and Slavery. Read the 1864 report called: The Conduct of Federal Troops in Louisiana…it will make you sick.

Read the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, another amazing eye-opener. I could provide you will numerous others, which tell a very different story then the one most of us, have learned in school. Books, papers and newspaper editorials of that period which would shock most Americans, but we have been so well indoctrinated into a very specific view of the Union’s victory that all else is forgotten, ignored and all intelligent discourse ostracized. We fail ourselves when we avoid the truth of any issue, including the so-called “Civil War” and the real reasons for that War.

The Southern States actually voted to ban the slave trade as early as 1820 however, the Northern Slave traders continued to import and smuggle slaves into the South. The first State to pass the prohibition of the importation of slaves was Virginia. In addition, a vast majority of Southern States voted to extend the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific, but that too was voted down by a majority of Northern States. A strange fact is that no law was ever passed in the North that granted freedom to a person enslaved, that came in 1865, long after the falsely called Emancipation Proclamation which, by the way, only freed slaves within in the South, but did nothing to free those within any areas actually controlled by the Union. That should be considered one of those inconvenient truths that most histories avoid. The problem was that slave-ownership was never very profitable in the North except for those who engaged in the actual importation and trade of slaves, conducted exclusively by Northern shipping companies.

In the population of the South, only 3% were large Slave owners, which begs the question as to why so many people, non-slave owners volunteered to wage a war against the North if Slavery was the real issue. Another amazing and well documented fact is that while the North had about 200 thousand black conscripts in its army, the South had over 300 thousand blacks, the vast majority of them were volunteer slaves and free men of color. Another interesting fact is that the Union leaders were extremely shocked that the Slave uprising never materialized as they expected, instead they found just the opposite.

The black population of the South was essential to the War effort, but contrary to Unionist propaganda, the black population was not forcefully induced to support that effort, the vast majority of them volunteered their time and labor. Slaves were not intimidated by their white owners to remain and work the farms, or working in the Iron Works…they volunteered and if it had not been for the black volunteers then the South could have never maintained its effort for freedom and liberty as long as it did. Sure, there were some blacks that ran away, but the vast majority of them did not, they remained, they helped. Read about Bill Yopp, former Slave and Confederate Veteran that was offered a permanent residence at the Confederate Soldier’s Home. Even after the War, ex-Slaves chose to remain with their former masters and even helped sustain them during one of the most devastating impositions of Unionists misnomers called “reconstruction”.

A British observer, Captain Fremantle witnessed an unusual site in a captured Northern town, he states that he saw a Confederate soldier leading a captured Union soldier down the street all alone, but the strange part of it was that the Confederate soldier was black. He went on to say: “This little episode of a Southern slave leading a white Yankee soldier through a Northern village, alone and on his own accord, would not have been gratifying to an abolitionist, nor would the sympathizers both in England and in the North feel encouraged if they could hear the language of detestation and contempt with which the numerous Negroes with Southern armies speak of their [Northern] liberators.”

Another shocker is to read just how Unionist armies treated Slaves in conquered territories of the South…it was, to be restrained, despicable, to say the least. Not to mention the general atrocities committed by Union armies on the general population of the South.

Read the Census data of 1860, the North repelled the possibility of free black immigration. In that year the black population in the North was 1.7%, strange that there was so little migration allowed into the North if the North was so concerning with the plight of Slaves. Do some research and find out just how the freed Slave were treated in the North, then read the Slave Narratives and see how they were treated, for the most part, in the South.

Another amazing fact is that Robert E. Lee and others called for the immediate emancipation of all Slaves, while there were those like Jefferson Davis who believed that it was the responsibility of Slave owners to educate and prepare them for freedom. Everyone in the South knew that the economic reality of Slavery was rapidly diminishing long before Secession and the War and would have probably been completely economically unviable by 1870 due to progress in agricultural machinery. Jefferson Davis stated that no matter who won the War, that Slavery would eventually become a defunct institution. Several Confederate Generals were not Slave owners, here are a few: Robert E. Lee, Joseph Johnston, A. P. Hill, Fitzhugh Lee, J.E.B. Stuart.

In a Confederate soldier’s journal was found the following words: “I was a soldier in Virginia in the campaigns of Lee and Jackson, and I declare I never met a Southern soldier who had drawn his sword to perpetuate slavery. What he had chiefly at heart was the preservation of the supreme and sacred right of self-government. It was a very small minority of men who fought in the Southern armies who were financially interested in the institution of slavery”

The Northern States pasted exclusion laws that made it hard or impossible for freed Slaves to enter or settle in their jurisdictions. Massachusetts passed laws that allowed the flogging of blacks that remained in the State over 2 months, Indiana’s constitution stated, “no negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in the state. Most of the Northern States crafted similar laws and imposed harsh penalties on freed or runaway Slaves. John Sherman, William Tecumseh’s brother declared in 1862 that: “We do not like the negroes. We do not disguise our dislike. As my friend from Indiana said yesterday: The whole people of the Northwestern States are opposed to having many negroes among them and that principle or prejudice has been engraved in the legislation for nearly all the Northwestern States.” There were actually far more beatings and lynchings in the North during that period then in the South during the “Jim Crow” period.

Read about former Slave and Legislator Richard Harris, elected to the Mississippi House of Representatives in 1890. On February 23, 1890 he delivered a speech on the floor:

“Mr. Speaker! I have arisen here in my place to offer a few words on the bill [raising funds for a Confederate Monument]. I have come from a sick bed, perhaps it was not prudent for me to come, but Sir, I could not rest quietly in my room without contributing a few remarks of my own. I was sorry the hear the speech of the young gentleman from Marshall County. I am sorry that any son of a soldier should go on record as opposed to the erection of a monument in honor of the brave dead. And, Sir, I am convinced that had he seen what I saw at Seven Pines and in the Seven Days’ of fighting around Richmond, the battlefield covered with the mangled forms of those who fought for their country and for their country’s honor, he would not have made that speech.

When the news came that the South had been invaded, those men went forth to fight for what they believed, and they made no requests for monuments. But they died, and their virtues should be remembered. Sir, I went with them. I too, wore the Gray, the same color my master wore. We stayed four long years, and if that war had gone on till now I would have been there yet. I want to honor those brave men who died for their convictions. When my mother died I was a boy. Who, Sir, then acted the part of a mother to the orphaned slave boy, but my “old missus”? Were she living now, or could speak to me from those high realms where are gathered the sainted dead, she would tell me to vote for this bill. And, Sir, I shall vote for it. I want it known to all the world that my vote is given in favor of the bill to erect a monument in honor of the Confederate dead.”

On the day of the vote, not only did the former Slave John Harris vote for the bill, but also the other 6 black Representatives in that Legislature to pass the bill and fund the monument joined him in equally adamant zeal.

Now, a very interesting point concerning the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the expansion of federal control and national citizenship, is that initially the votes came in as 22 votes yes and 12 votes no and 3 not voting…there were 28 votes needed to ratify the Amendment. With the defeat of the Amendment the Northern Unionist Congress members changed rules to ensure passage by declaring the Southern States remained outside the Union, to deny majority rule in the Southern States by the disfranchisement of large voting blocks of voters. Then to put the icing on the cake, they required all the Southern States to ratify the Amendment in other to be allowed back into the Union. So, in 1861 the North refused to allow the South to leave the Union and in 1867.

This caused a tremendous amount of dissent within many of the States, including Northern ones. In a Joint Resolution from the State of New Jersey, it stated: “That it being necessary, by the Constitution, that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two Houses eighty representatives from eleven States of the Union; upon the pretense that there were no such States in the Union; but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in the palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state and thus denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

The resolution went on to conclude that the 14th Amendment needed to be denounced because: “It imposes new prohibitions upon the power of the State to pass laws, and interdicts the execution of such parts of the common law as the national judiciary may esteem inconsistent with the vague provisions of the said amendment, made vague for the purpose of facilitating encroachments upon the lives, liberty and property of the People. It [14th Amendment] enlarges the judicial power of the United States so as to bring every law passed by the State within the jurisdiction of the federal tribunals. It transfers Congress the whole control of the right of suffrage in the State, a power which they [the States] have never been willing to surrender to the general government and which was reserved to the States as a fundamental principle on which the Constitution itself was constructed: the principle of self-government.”

The Resolution by the State of New Jersey says it all, and it is still at the heart of what has happened to this country since the War of Southern Independence. Today, we still suffer from the legislative usurpations of Unionist ideology that promoted a completely centralized national government over the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America. Now that we are on the Constitution an interested read was written by William Rawle in 1825 called Views of the Constitution and another work by James Kent called Commentaries on American Law written in 1827, both are definitive works on what was considered until 1861 as the Right of the States to cede from the Union which was always considered a voluntary agreement between the States until Lincoln.

By the way, both books were used to teach Constitutional law at West Point until after the War; at that point the West Point Library was purged of any original Constitutional analysis that supported the foundation of a voluntary union between independent States. In Rawle’s book he stated: “It depends on the State itself to retain or abolish the principle of representatives, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle of which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed. This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, through not express, was mutually understood.

The secession of a State from the Union depends on the will of the People of such State. The People alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their Constitution. But in any manner by which secession is to take place nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. To withdraw from the Union is a solemn, serious act. Whenever it may appear expedient to the People of a State, it must be manifested in a direct and unequivocal manner.” Remember that was written in 1827. The States, all States were sovereign and independent and the Union was purely reflective of the Constitutional Authority that rest primarily within the States, reserved to the States and the People.

In my judgment, it is necessary to understand the real reasons behind the entire episode of the War, both in the decades preceding it and the decades proceeding. If we look at the subject, not from the view point of Unionist victory, but from a sober and realistic point, researching the actual history and documents of the time then an entirely different view arises from those we have been taught and are comfortable accepting.

Kenny B....Obviously, you have little understanding about the issue of taxation and the purpose behind such taxation. Read the Federal Reserves own publication about taxation and fiat currency.

Ron Paul knows what this country is about to face...a fiat currency reaching its point of inherent termination when the massive and irreversible debt begins to totally consume the economy. All fiat monetary systems fail, this one will be no different and it is following the exact same pattern as all other fiat systems.
It is a very useful tool in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, but its purpose is not that which is publicized or promoted.

You see, these taxes form a very powerful system of social compliance, but little else. It all starts with the monetary system that has been imposed upon this country: The Federal Reserve Bank and its Fiat Currency System.

In reality, what the banks do with mortgages and loans is very similar to what the government does. Banks lend you and me money that doesn’t exist until the moment you sign the mortgage or loan note.

In the Federal Reserve publication "I Bet You Thought" states: "Printed Federal Reserve Notes that sit in the Treasury's vault do not become money until they are released into circulation in exchange for checkbook money that was CREATED BY A BANK LOAN. As long as the bills are in the vault with no debt-based money to replace them, they technically are just paper, not money."

Debt and Circulation are equal...someone has to borrow every single Federal Reserve Note for it to enter circulation. As I said before, the bank doesn't have the money they lend you sitting in a vault somewhere waiting for a person to take out a loan, it comes into existence the moment that person signs the Mortgage.

In other words, in a very basic sense, the bank is loaning you money that they really don't have sitting in their vaults, or anywhere else for that matter. So, then they expect you to spend the next 30 years paying them back money, that never existed before you signed the mortgage note, and on top of that, they expect you to pay them interest on the money that they never really had to lend you in the first place. Your signature on that mortgage note actually creates the money, out of thin air, that you are "borrowing".

When you scour off all the pretense of banking...all they do is pretend to lend us money and charge us for the pretense. The government does basically the same thing when borrowing money from the Federal Reserve. The only difference is that the government is well aware of the scam while so many people taking out mortgages are not.

The Federal Reserve provides an unlimited supply of money to the government in the very same process, creating money out of thin air and then on top of it they charge the government interest. Unfortunately, the debt is never paid, can never be paid off due to the multiplication of debt in an endless cycle of Fiat Circulation.

In fact, think of a Trillion Dollars in this way: If you started borrowing 1 Million Dollars in the Year 1 A.D., and borrowed a Million Dollars each day, 365 days a year, every year, year after year, you would finally have borrowed just One Trillion Dollars in the year 2037. Now imagine what this government has borrowed.

My point is that the money the government borrowed will never and can never be paid back because the system simply doesn't allow it to be paid back. Only periodic interest and principle payments are made. Of course, the owners of the Central Banking System love that fact.

In such a system, the amount in circulation is exactly the same as the debt; one does not exist without the other. Every single dollar in circulation was borrowed, either by the government or by business or an individual.

Every time a portion of the periodic principle and interest of the debt is paid by the government, it must turn around and borrow that same amount from the Federal Reserve, usually more because the government is the government and since it is no longer limited by an Honest Weight and Measure of Constitutional Money (i.e. gold and silver), it grows uninhibited.

Now, what about those taxes? The whole purpose of taxation has nothing what so ever to do with the creation of revenue for government operations or programs. Its primary purpose is to force you and I to use Fiat Currency pumped out by the Federal Reserve Bank.

It was a strange coincidence, don’t you think, that the Federal Reserve Act and the introduction of the modern Income Tax were introduced around the same time, then you add the passage of the 17th Amendment to the mix and you have a witches brew of socio-economic tyranny. Speaking of the 17th Amendment, it was used to eliminate the potency of the States and to bring the Senators into the national political market, where they are easily bought and paid for, and taking them out of the hands of the State Legislatures. So, now instead of having a House of Representatives representing the People's Rights, and Senators representing the State's Rights in Congress, you have a system which can easily be manipulated by the federal political machine's money and corruption.

So, underneath all the pretenses used by the government, we were forced into a system, which would eventually use Fiat Currency and institute a Progressive Income Tax to support its acceptance.

In the Federal Reserve’s own publications you will find the following:

"In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but generally far less than their face amount. What then makes these instruments: checks, paper money, and coins acceptable at face value in payment of all debts and for other monetary uses? Mainly, it is the confidence people have that they will be able to exchange such money for other financial assets and services whenever they choose to do so. THIS IS PARTLY A MATTER OF LAW; CURRENCY HAS BEEN DESIGNATED "LEGAL TENDER" BY THE GOVERNMENT, THAT IS, IT MUST BE ACCEPTED."

"Modern monetary systems have a fiat base, LITERALLY MONEY BY DECREE with depository institutions, acting as fiduciaries, creating obligations against themselves with the fiat base acting in part as RESERVES. The DECREE appears on the currency notes: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." WHILE NO INDIVIDUAL COULD REFUSE TO ACCEPT SUCH MONEY FOR DEBT PAYMENT, EXCHANGE CONTRACTS COULD EASILY BE COMPOSED TO THWART ITS USE IN EVERYDAY COMMERCE. HOWEVER, A FORCEFUL EXPLANATION AS TO WHY MONEY IS ACCEPTED IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIRES IT AS PAYMENT FOR TAX LIABILITIES. Anticipation of the need to clear this debt creates a demand for the pure fiat dollar."

Now why does the government enforce the payment of Income Taxes, simple to maintain the system of Fiat Currency, but that is not the only reason? Another, more insidious reason is found in the writings of another Federal Reserve Chairman named Breadsley Ruml in 1946. He states, in no uncertain terms the reason behind the Progressive Income Tax:

“The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years, which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements. The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks. The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold.”

“Final freedom from the domestic money market exists for every sovereign national state where there exists an institution which functions in the manner of a modern central bank, and whose currency is not convertible into gold or into some other commodity.”

“The United States is a NATIONAL STATE, which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose, which is served, should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue.”

Concerning the use of Taxation for the Distribution of Wealth, Ruml was very clear:

“The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes, which are effective for this purpose, are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax. What these taxes should be depends on public policy with respect to the distribution of wealth and of income. It is important, here, to note that the estate and gift taxes have little or no significance, as tax measures, for stabilizing the value of the dollar. Their purpose is the social purpose of preventing what otherwise would be high concentration of wealth and income at a few points, as a result of investment and reinvestment of income not expended in meeting day-to-day consumption requirements. These taxes should be defended and attacked it terms of their effects on the character of American life, not as revenue measures.”

As you can see, the purposes of the Progressive Income Tax are little more than an instrument of Socio-Economic Construction by the State. The government does not need Tax Revenue in order to function. In the Fiat Currency system the government simply allows the Federal Reserve to “lend” it money, doesn’t matter how much, at least not to the government.

Now, the only problem with the whole system is that there is a nasty side affect by the unlimited printing of Fiat Currency and placing it into circulation: it’s called INFLATION. There comes a time when the pressure of Inflation eats up the wages of the People and the whole economic market begins to suffer, as we have all seen.

So, they take massive amounts of income away from the People in the form of Income Taxes in order to maintain some degree of control over the Inflation they create, which is just another form of taxation. Our tax rate, counting the percentage of Income Tax we pay, plus the massive amount of Inflationary Tax we pay, leaves us with precious little to live on and in fact, it makes the People of the United States one of the heaviest Taxed peoples in history.

Our money is debt; it is created and backed by nothing more than debt. Now since it is nothing but debt, and there is no value to it, why would the government want to decree its usage? Simple, it is a system that controls you and me; it makes each of us compliant to the various laws imposed outside of the framework of the Constitution.

So, what are you and I going to do about it? We have another swing in Congress; once again we have placed the Democrats in office in hopes that they might thwart the abuses of power found in the Bush Administration. We take this action every so many years, flipping the coin to see if the other side is any better then the one we just had in office. We let one Party take their respective turns at the helm of government only to find that neither Party appears to be able to do anything worth while. Both Political Parties have taken their turn at driving this Nation to the place we found ourselves today, do we think this time around will be any different?

We are a Flip-Floppy Nation and guess what; we have been conditioned to be Flip-Floppy, apathetic and compliant. In a very few years, to our horror, we will once again be anxious to flip the political coin over again to see if the other Party has any ideas to come to Our Beleaguered Nation's rescue. The Republican and Democratic Parties have proven their fecklessness and obsolescence.

Republicae,

Do we need to flip-flop again? How about just ousting every single Congressional incumbent up for re-election this time. And the next...and the next until we are at long last free of them.

Maybe a room full of freshman lawmakers who have not been steeped in Washington corruption for decades is the second prescription needed for Dr. Paul to "cure" this nation.

It's not hard. We began the process in 2006. We can continue it. We must turn out Congress, too.

Ron Paul doesn't understand how to "Win friends and Influence People", attacking politicians from Lincoln to Bush is not the way to get the attention of the Republicans, in a good way. Many Republicans and Democrats liked Pres. Lincoln and Reagan. Saying what we think is not always what is best in every situation. How many of us husbands would tell our wives the truth when asked, "Do you think I look fat" or "Do you like my new outfit." We would never venture an opinion on either of these and would probably tell a small lie if asked. Ron Paul carries a lot of baggage from his Libertarian days, has he changed his views on some of these issues, and flip-flopped, because if not he probably is in the wrong political party and that would make him a hypocrite. He would have to of softened his views to get elected as a Republican, even in Texas, which is not what he was about in the 80's and early 90's. Some of his views I like, I would feel better about him if he said, he has changed his mind on a few issues over the years instead of denying he ever supported them. The older American voters remember the words of Libertarians of the 80's, not that they were entirely bad, but that they were too far out of line to ever be realized.

In the loaning arena people having bad credit history are considered as potential risk factor and lenders are reluctant to lend money due to the absence of surety of repayment of loan. But if you are having property which you can pledge as a security against the loan to get the money to buy your own car then you won't find any problem to get a lender. To find auto loans, bad credit auto loans, online auto loans, cheap rate auto loans.for more information log on http://www.modernautoloans.com/

Once again, the doctor treats the symptoms but not the illness; he says that "the civil war was unnecessary."

The problem is that it WASN'T a civil war; the sovereign states were CONQUERED by Lincoln, and have been hostages of the federal government ever since.
When Hitler conquered Poland, was that a "civil war?"

If Hitler had won, history might claim so-- but that doesn't make it so.