gineen
Replies: 1

reepotomac
Replies: 0

FireStone
Replies: 0

inthemoneystocks
Replies: 0

inthemoneystocks
Replies: 0

Summary:

The more we involve ourselves with the UN, the more we entangle ourselves in the affairs of other nations to our own detriment. America has nothing to show for our 60 years in the UN except for tens of thousands of dead or injured soldiers, and hundreds of billions of wasted tax dollars. The 20th century-- the UN century-- was the bloodiest in the world’s history. We must stop fooling ourselves that the UN is an instrument of world peace.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Ron Paul, Dr. June 20, 2005

Congress voted last week to give the United Nations unprecedented new authority to intervene in sovereign states, under the guise of UN “reform.” The reform bill theoretically provides for Congress to withhold 50% of US dues to the UN, but this will never happen. The bill allows the Secretary of State to make the ultimate decision about payment, and the State department strongly opposes withholding our dues in the first place. In fact, the State department is the UN’s closest ally in the entire federal government. This talk about withholding our dues is nothing but hot air designed to dupe real conservatives outside Washington into believing Congress is getting tough with the UN. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both the congressional leadership and the Bush administration are firmly committed to globalism, as evidenced not only by their commitment to the UN, by also by their position on trade agreements like CAFTA. Mark my words, in five years nobody will be talking about UN reform and our dues payments will be higher than ever.

The supposed reform bill will not change the bureaucratic nature of the UN, nor will it transform the nations of the world into wise, benevolent, selfless actors. It will, however, expand the UN’s role as world policeman and establish the precursor to a UN army. If you don’t think American armed forces should serve under a UN command, you should know that the reform bill establishes a “Peacekeeping Commission” charged with bolstering the UN’s ability to respond with military force to conflicts around the globe-- even in wholly internal conflicts that do not affect the US in the slightest.

Many conservatives have bought into the neoconservative dream of using the UN as a tool to advance an aggressive US foreign policy. But granting more power to the UN can only serve the interests of globalists, who see national sovereignty as an obstacle to their goals. The more we involve ourselves with the UN, the more we entangle ourselves in the affairs of other nations to our own detriment. America has nothing to show for our 60 years in the UN except for tens of thousands of dead or injured soldiers, and hundreds of billions of wasted tax dollars. The 20th century-- the UN century-- was the bloodiest in the world’s history. We must stop fooling ourselves that the UN is an instrument of world peace.

The problem is not that the UN is corrupt, or ineffective, or run by scoundrels. The real problem is that the UN is inherently illegitimate, because supra-national government is an inherently illegitimate concept. Legitimate governments operate only by the consent of those they govern. Yet it is ludicrous to suggest that billions of people across the globe have in any way consented to UN governance, or have even the slightest influence over their own governments. The UN is perhaps the least democratic institution imaginable, but both Democrats and Republicans insist on using it to “promote democracy.” We should stop worrying about the UN and simply walk away from it by withdrawing our membership and our money. We should demand a return to real national sovereignty, and respect other nations by rejecting our failed interventionist foreign policy. By doing so we would make the world a more peaceful place.

Summary:

An extraordinary event occurred this week in Washington during the final days of the 106th Congress, an event that did not receive comment in either the media or the halls of Congress, save for my office. This event had been termed "unthinkable" only a few months earlier. It occurred despite clear constitutional prohibitions and at the expense of our precious national sovereignty. For the first time in the history of our country, Congress voted to change our domestic laws because an international body told us to do so. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has begun to dictate American laws.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Ron Paul, Dr. October 30, 2000

An extraordinary event occurred this week in Washington during the final days of the 106th Congress, an event that did not receive comment in either the media or the halls of Congress, save for my office. This event had been termed "unthinkable" only a few months earlier. It occurred despite clear constitutional prohibitions and at the expense of our precious national sovereignty. For the first time in the history of our country, Congress voted to change our domestic laws because an international body told us to do so. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has begun to dictate American laws.

More specifically, Congress voted to change our tax laws relating to Foreign Sales Corporations (FSCs), solely because the WTO appellate panel deemed that our FSC tax rules constituted a "subsidy" - the EU contingent in the WTO had brought a complaint to the panel. Our FSC rules simply allow U.S. corporations to exempt a small portion of income earned abroad from taxes. No "subsidy" is involved; no tax dollars are given to FSCs. Moreover, most EU countries do not tax their corporations on any income earned abroad. Still, the appellate panel agreed with the EU and gave the U.S an October 1st deadline to change our tax laws.

I have opposed our membership in the WTO throughout my tenure in Congress. I strongly support true free trade, which occurs in the absence of government tariffs. The WTO, however, represents the worst form of government-managed trade.

More importantly, however, our involvement in the WTO threatens national sovereignty. The Constitution clearly vests the power to regulate trade solely with Congress, and Congress cannot cede with mandates in areas such as environmental protections, worker rights, and trade policy. Congress either blindly or willfully chose to ignore this very serious constitutional conflict when it voted in favor of WTO membership. However, a Congressional Research Service report was quite clear about the consequences of our membership: "As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multi-lateral body. It is legally obligated to insure that national laws do not conflict with WTO rules," (emphasis added).

Earlier this year I sought to address this terrible threat to our sovereignty by introducing a resolution withdrawing us from the WTO. I explained my concerns in a brief to the House Ways and Means trade subcommittee, pointing out the unconstitutionality of our involvement. I warned that the WTO could begin dictating our environmental, labor, and tax laws. These arguments were met with hostility and condescension. Subcommittee members stated that we need the WTO to avoid "trade wars," and that the U.S. Congress would never change our domestic laws to satisfy the WTO. "Unthinkable" was how one member put it. Judging by this week's vote, the "unthinkable" has become reality.

We should never change our national laws at the behest of any international organization. Congress simply has ceded its legislative authority to the WTO, and it is shameful that this action likely will go unnoticed by the American people. If we want to help American businesses, we should simply stop taxing their foreign income. The FSC measure will not appease the Europeans; the EU already has indicated that the changes are unsatisfactory to them. We stand on the brink of a retaliatory trade war with the EU, even though we were told that the WTO was needed to avoid such conflicts. So the WTO has given us the worst of all worlds.

Rest assured that the WTO assault on American sovereignty will not end here. What will happen when the Europeans object to another area of our tax laws? Will we change the way we tax individuals also? Perhaps the Europeans will object to our relatively liberal immigration laws, because they resent losing their talented citizens to America. Whatever the issue, the threat remains the same. Americans who care about sovereignty have every reason to be outraged.

Summary:

CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body. It is incompatible with our Constitution and national sovereignty, and we don’t need it to benefit from international trade.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Ron Paul, Dr. June 6, 2005

The Central America Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA, will be the source of intense political debate in Washington this summer. The House of Representatives will vote on CAFTA ratification in June, while the Senate likely will vote in July.

I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.

We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. We don’t need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.

It is absurd to believe that CAFTA and other trade agreements do not diminish American sovereignty. When we grant quasi-governmental international bodies the power to make decisions about American trade rules, we lose sovereignty plain and simple. I can assure you first hand that Congress has changed American tax laws for the sole reason that the World Trade Organization decided our rules unfairly impacted the European Union. Hundreds of tax bills languish in the House Ways and Means committee, while the one bill drafted strictly to satisfy the WTO was brought to the floor and passed with great urgency last year.

The tax bill in question is just the tip of the iceberg. The quasi-judicial regime created under CAFTA will have the same power to coerce our cowardly legislature into changing American laws in the future. Labor and environmental rules are inherently associated with trade laws, and we can be sure that CAFTA will provide yet another avenue for globalists to impose the Kyoto Accord and similar agreements on the American people. CAFTA also imposes the International Labor Organization’s manifesto, which could have been written by Karl Marx, on American business. I encourage every conservative and libertarian who supports CAFTA to read the ILO declaration and consider whether they still believe the treaty will make America more free.

CAFTA means more government! Like the UN, NAFTA, and the WTO, it represents another stone in the foundation of a global government system. Most Americans already understand they are governed by largely unaccountable forces in Washington, yet now they face having their domestic laws influenced by bureaucrats in Brussels, Zurich, or Mexico City.

CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body. It is incompatible with our Constitution and national sovereignty, and we don’t need it to benefit from international trade.

Summary:

This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. This will require coordinated federal and state eminent domain actions on an unprecedented scale, as literally millions of people and businesses could be displaced. The loss of whole communities is almost certain, as planners cannot wind the highway around every quaint town, historic building, or senior citizen apartment for thousands of miles. One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don’t be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically-connected interests.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Ron Paul, Dr. October 31, 2006

By now many Texans have heard about the proposed “NAFTA Superhighway,” which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor. What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention.

This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside.

This will require coordinated federal and state eminent domain actions on an unprecedented scale, as literally millions of people and businesses could be displaced. The loss of whole communities is almost certain, as planners cannot wind the highway around every quaint town, historic building, or senior citizen apartment for thousands of miles.

Governor Perry is a supporter of the superhighway project, and Congress has provided small amounts of money to study the proposal. Since this money was just one item in an enormous transportation appropriations bill, however, most members of Congress were not aware of it.

The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” or SPP.

The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco.

The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments. One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don’t be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically-connected interests.

The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution-- which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.

The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union--complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.

A new resolution, introduced by Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia, expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union. I wholeheartedly support this legislation, and predict that the superhighway will become a sleeper issue in the 2008 election.

Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live. The SPP agreement, including the plan for a major transnational superhighway through Texas, is moving forward without congressional oversight-- and that is an outrage. The administration needs a strong message from Congress that the American people will not tolerate backroom deals that threaten our sovereignty.

Summary:

Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Ron Paul, Dr. December 6, 2007

Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on H.R. 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the U.S. government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against "violent radicalization.''

I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called "suspension'' bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view H.R. 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as "non-controversial.''

There are many causes for concern in H.R. 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for "facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process'' in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward U.S. government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.

This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically-motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence and our court system. Even if there were a surge of "violent radicalization''--a claim for which there is no evidence--there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.

This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes "radicalization.'' Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.

In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to "contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.'' I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.

Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.

Summary:

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Ron Paul, Dr. January 5, 2008

As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

Summary:

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. This bill purports to make us safer from terrorists who may sneak into the United States, and from other illegal immigrants. While I agree that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very little to make us more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities. It will, however, make us much less free. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Ron Paul, Dr. February 9, 2005

Mr. Speaker:

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. This bill purports to make us safer from terrorists who may sneak into the United States, and from other illegal immigrants. While I agree that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very little to make us more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities. It will, however, make us much less free. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty.

What is wrong with this bill?

The REAL ID Act establishes a national ID card by mandating that states include certain minimum identification standards on driver’s licenses. It contains no limits on the government’s power to impose additional standards. Indeed, it gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to unilaterally add requirements as he sees fit.

Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary.

Republican Party talking points on this bill, which claim that this is not a national ID card, nevertheless endorse the idea that “the federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver’s licenses.” So they admit that they want a national ID, but at the same time pretend that this is not a national ID.

This bill establishes a massive, centrally-coordinated database of highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence, Social Security number, and physical and possibly other characteristics. What is even more disturbing is that, by mandating that states participate in the “Drivers License Agreement,” this bill creates a massive database of sensitive information on American citizens that will be shared with Canada and Mexico!

This bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. It re-defines "terrorism" in broad new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person’s exercise of First Amendment rights or about a person’s appearance on a registry of firearms owners.

This legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand required information on driver’s licenses, potentially including such biometric information as retina scans, finger prints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID would mean that the federal government, as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico, would know where Americans are at all time of the day and night.

There are no limits on what happens to the database of sensitive information on Americans once it leaves the United States for Canada and Mexico - or perhaps other countries. Who is to stop a corrupt foreign government official from selling or giving this information to human traffickers or even terrorists? Will this uncertainty make us feel safer?

What will all of this mean for us? When this new program is implemented, every time we are required to show our driver’s license we will, in fact, be showing a national identification card. We will be handing over a card that includes our personal and likely biometric information, information which is connected to a national and international database.

H.R. 418 does nothing to solve the growing threat to national security posed by people who are already in the U.S. illegally. Instead, H.R. 418 states what we already know: that certain people here illegally are "deportable." But it does nothing to mandate deportation.

Although Congress funded an additional 2,000 border guards last year, the administration has announced that it will only ask for an additional 210 guards. Why are we not pursuing these avenues as a way of safeguarding our country? Why are we punishing Americans by taking away their freedoms instead of making life more difficult for those who would enter our country illegally?

H.R. 418 does what legislation restricting firearm ownership does. It punishes law-abiding citizens. Criminals will ignore it. H.R. 418 offers us a false sense of greater security at the cost of taking a gigantic step toward making America a police state.

I urge my colleagues to vote “NO” on the REAL ID Act of 2005.

Summary:

The true crisis facing us is not a physical shortage of energy, but rather the looming threat that socialist economic planning will replace market mechanisms and cause unnecessary shortages.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Ron Paul, Dr. May 21, 2001

Political pressure is mounting in Washington as gas prices rise and the California electricity shortage worsens. The national media and politicians from both parties have irresponsibly characterized the situation as an energy "crisis,"thereby generating public support for further unconstitutional and unwise federal intervention in energy markets. Washington appears to have accepted full responsibility for the California problem; hence the one-sided debate centers around a supposed need for a national energy policy. The obvious implication is that the federal government must play nanny to California or any other state which finds itself facing shortages caused by its own bad policies. Never mind that California caused its own problems by restricting supply and freezing energy prices while the population skyrocketed. The real danger is that the federal government may repeat California's mistakes on a national level, subjecting the rest of the nation to similar shortages. The true crisis facing us is not a physical shortage of energy, but rather the looming threat that socialist economic planning will replace market mechanisms and cause unnecessary shortages.

The worst idea coming out of Washington (with support even from some supposedly free market politicians) is that the federal government should impose price controls on energy companies that sell to California. The politically favored term is "price caps," which sounds less authoritarian. The premise is that greedy energy companies charge California too much, so the federal government should set "reasonable" limits on wholesale prices. The accusation of price gouging is never questioned: no one considers the costs involved in producing excess capacity to sell to California. Why should electric companies sell their power at below-market rates? Is it their responsibility to correct the mistakes of California politicians? Why do we presume the federal government has any authority or credibility to determine prices and profits?

The answer is obvious to anyone with even the slightest knowledge of basic economics: price controls always cause shortages. When government sets a price too low, supply drops. The simplicity of this is apparent to anyone who examines a supply and demand chart, and history consistently proves the folly of centralized government price planning. Producers of energy (or any other good) make less when they are forced to sell at below-market prices. This is exactly what happened in California. Expect energy companies simply to stop selling to California if new federal price controls are imposed. It's discouraging that basic economic fallacies are still used to justify terribly harmful government practices.

By contrast, the market price mechanism works to insure that everyone has electricity. In a free market, increased demand naturally causes prices to rise. Two things then happen: people conserve, and supply increases. If California had not chosen to regulate the energy market, new plants would have been built to meet the needs of the growing population. Californians still would have seen price increases, but they would have had a strong economic incentive to conserve energy. Over time, new energy providers seeking to profit from the demand and price increases would have gradually increased supply and driven prices down. Instead, California capped prices and restricted supply. This summer's blackouts will be the direct result of this exceedingly misguided policy.

Free markets work. Government, not markets or deregulation, causes the economic woes we face today. Free markets insure that supply and demand are evenly matched, preventing shortages. Contrary to the claims of environmentalists, free markets always promote conservation by increasing the price of precious resources as they become scarcer. Advocates of socialist central planning in Washington may claim to have the solutions to energy shortages, but in truth market forces cannot be ignored any more than the laws of physics. Americans who want to continue to enjoy uninterrupted energy supplies should oppose any federal regulation of energy markets.

Summary:

Government Takeover of the Electricity Industry Threatened in California


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Ron Paul, Dr. January 15, 2001

In a scene more reminiscent of Soviet Russia or Maoist China than America, central government bureaucrats, economic planners, regulators, and regional government officials met behind closed doors last week in Washington. The purpose of their meeting? To discuss a wholesale government takeover of California's electricity industry.

As frightening as this development may be to Americans who believe in free markets, it was not unexpected. California has faced severe energy shortages for more than a year. Residents and businesses in the state have seen dramatic increases in their monthly electric bills, with some paying 200% more than a year ago. Shortages and blackouts are threatened. In response to this crisis, California Governor Gray Davis has become an increasingly vocal proponent of an outright socialist energy system for the nation's largest state. He decided (not surprisingly) to go to the Feds for help, resulting in the meeting with Energy secretary Bill Richardson and Treasury secretary Larry Summers, among others.

California's woes are due in part to its tremendous population growth over the past decade. The influx of residents and businesses, particularly energy-intensive tech businesses, has greatly increased demand for electricity. The problem is that the California government has not allowed the construction of new power plants, in large part because of "environmentalists," citizens groups, and regulators hostile to property rights. The blatantly obvious result of high demand coupled with artificially low supply must be: high prices. Had the free market been allowed to operate, profit-seeking utility companies would have built new power plants to meet the demand and the situation would be very different today.

Governor Davis, seemingly oblivious to the real problem (his own government), has accused California's electricity companies of "price gouging," and called for stricter price controls. He even threatened (chillingly) to seize the assets of utility companies if they do not lower prices. Ultimately, he wants a new state agency to control the entire industry and even build new power plants if necessary! (new plants apparently are OK if the government builds them). Davis exhibits the classic bureaucratic cycle: first the government creates the crisis, which is blamed on the free market, and then more government is justified to fix the crisis.

Price controls will never work, because the laws of economics cannot be fooled. Price controls always result in shortages, because no rational business wants to produce something to sell at below-market rates. The California utility companies, which already are forced to sell to consumers at state-mandated prices, cannot do so forever. Their costs have increased dramatically; if they cannot raise prices they will be bankrupt. Utility companies outside the state simply refuse to sell to California because they can sell their power for a higher price elsewhere. This is why Governor Davis sought the meeting with Energy secretary Richardson. He wants the Feds to force utility companies in other states to sell energy to California. Unfortunately for Davis and Richardson, there are no laws (yet) forcing companies to stay in business forever while the government destroys them.

To politicians like Davis, only the government can save us. Like most politicians, he apparently accepts the myth that some goods and services are too vital to be left to the free market. However, it is precisely because energy is so vital that the government should not interfere in the electricity market. The operation of the market does not create a utopia, but it clearly would have prevented the California crisis. When the price rises in a free market, consumers simply use less energy (which supposedly is the goal of the "environmentalists"). When growth creates greater demand in a free market, the supply of energy increases to meet that demand. These simple principles, which are obvious to anyone studying basic economics, should be clear to the likes of Davis and Richardson. The likely explanation is that their true goal is the expansion of government power, without regard to the well-being of the people of California.

Summary:

We must understand that high oil prices are not the result of an unregulated free market. On the contrary, the oil industry is among the most regulated and most subsidized of U.S. industries. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves whether too much government involvement in the oil markets, rather than too little regulation, has kept the supply of refined gasoline artificially low.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Ron Paul, Dr. October 31, 2005

Many Americans understandably are upset with the sharp spike in gas prices since Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast in August, and are concerned by reports of oil company profits. But we must understand that high oil prices are not the result of an unregulated free market. On the contrary, the oil industry is among the most regulated and most subsidized of U.S. industries. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves whether too much government involvement in the oil markets, rather than too little regulation, has kept the supply of refined gasoline artificially low.

Consider Marathon Oil, which operates a refinery in Texas City. Marathon recently announced the construction of new refinery that will bring several hundred thousand barrels of oil online every day- which is exactly what the nation needs. But building a new refinery is a daunting task that requires billions of dollars in capital investment. The process of obtaining federal permits alone can take several years. As a result, we won’t see a drop of refined gasoline from the new Marathon facility until 2009.

Federal subsidies and regulations are largely responsible for limiting the supply of refined gasoline in this country. The demand for gasoline has risen dramatically in America due to population growth in recent decades, but virtually no new refining capacity has been added. Basic economics tells us that rising demand and a fixed supply will lead to higher prices. No amount of congressional grandstanding about price gouging will change this economic reality. We must increase domestic exploration, drilling, and refining if we hope to maintain reasonable gas prices. We need more competition, which means we need less government.

Most Americans agree that the American economy should not be dependent upon Middle East oil. Economist George Reisman, however, explains that our own domestic regulations make us slaves to OPEC: “Today, it is possible once again to bring about a dramatic fall in the price of oil- indeed, one even larger than occurred in the 1980s. And it could begin right away. All that is necessary is to abolish the U.S. government’s restrictions on domestic energy production inspired by the environmentalist movement.”

Reisman also explains how abolishing restrictions on coal production, natural gas production, and nuclear power would further reduce the OPEC stranglehold. By increasing the supply of these other energy sources, demand for oil would decrease and prices would drop.

Note that much of the support for unrealistic environmental regulations comes from northeastern politicians and media, who weren’t nearly as interested in oil fortunes when the business hit rock bottom in the 1980s. Texas and the gulf coast have always been willing to supply the nation’s energy, and it’s a bit disingenuous to hear criticism from those who are happy to use oil but don’t want refineries in their backyards.

Oil is critical, but it is not a magic commodity that somehow is immune from the laws of economics. In fact, it is precisely because oil is so critical to our economy that we must allow the free market to deliver it. Absent government interference in the oil markets, gas prices would rise or fall according to concrete realities affecting supply and demand. High prices would encourage conservation better than any environmental regulations. Entrepreneurs would race to develop viable alternate fuels if gas prices rose too much.

Centralized government planning, on the other hand, cannot solve our energy dilemmas. The Nixon-era price controls on gasoline in the 1970s produced nothing but disastrous shortages. By contrast, the Reagan administration’s immediate deregulation of the oil industry resulted in an unprecedented boom in oil production and a dramatic reduction in prices. This is the lesson we must remember.

What can Congress do to provide Americans with some relief at the pump? First it can suspend federal gas taxes, which would save consumers nearly 20 cents per gallon. In the long term, Congress must pass legislation like HR 4004, which I introduced earlier this month. HR 4004 takes a comprehensive approach by allowing offshore drilling, eliminating regulations that restrict refining, and suspending harmful tax rules that discourage domestic oil production. If we hope to have a stable, affordable supply of gas, we must allow the free market to operate.

Summary:

Gasoline prices are soaring and the people are screaming. And they want something done about it—now!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Ron Paul, Dr. May 2, 2006

$100 rebate checks to American motorists won’t cut it, nor will mandatory mileage requirements for new vehicles. Taxing oil profits will only force prices higher. But there are some very important things we can do immediately to help.

First: We must reassess our foreign policy and announce some changes. One of the reasons we went into Iraq was to secure “our” oil. Before the Iraq war oil was less than $30 per barrel; today it is over $70. The sooner we get out of Iraq and allow the Iraqis to solve their own problems the better. Since 2002 oil production in Iraq has dropped 50%. Pipeline sabotage and fires are routine; we have been unable to prevent them. Soaring gasoline prices are a giant unintended consequence of our invasion, pure and simple.

Second: We must end our obsession for a military confrontation with Iran. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and according to our own CIA is not on the verge of obtaining one for years. Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and has a guaranteed right to enrich uranium for energy—in spite of the incessant government and media propaganda to the contrary. Iran has never been sanctioned by the UN Security Council. Yet the drumbeat grows louder for attacking certain sites in Iran, either by conventional or even nuclear means. Repeated resolutions by Congress stir up unnecessary animosity toward Iran, and create even more concern about future oil supplies from the Middle East. We must quickly announce we do not seek war with Iran, remove the economic sanctions against her, and accept her offer to negotiate a diplomatic solution to the impasse. An attack on Iran, coupled with our continued presence in Iraq, could hike gas prices to $5 or $6 per gallon here at home. By contrast, a sensible approach toward Iran could quickly lower oil prices by $20 per barrel.

Third: We must remember that prices of all things go up because of inflation. Inflation by definition is an increase in the money supply. The money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve Bank, and responds to the deficits Congress creates. When deficits are excessive, as they are today, the Fed creates new dollars out of thin air to buy Treasury bills and keep interest rates artificially low. But when new money is created out of nothing, the money already in circulation loses value. Once this is recognized, prices rise-- some more rapidly than others. That’s what we see today with the cost of energy.

Exploding deficits, due to runaway entitlement spending and the cost of dangerous militarism, create pressure for the Fed to inflate the money supply. This contributes greatly to the higher prices we all claim to oppose.

If we want to do something about gas prices, we should demand and vote for greatly reduced welfare and military spending, a balanced budget, and fewer regulations that interfere with the market development of alternative fuels. We also should demand a return to a sound commodity monetary system.

All subsidies and special benefits to energy companies should be ended. And in the meantime let’s eliminate federal gas taxes at the pump.

Oil prices are at a level where consumers reduce consumption voluntarily. The market will work if we let it. But as great as the market economy is, it cannot overcome a foreign policy that is destined to disrupt oil supplies and threaten the world with an expanded and dangerous conflict in the Middle East.

Summary:

The burning issue in Washington today is high gas prices, and it won’t go away anytime soon. Americans are not happy about paying $3 per gallon at the pump, and they want something done about it.

But price controls won’t work, and allegations of price gouging and “windfall profits” amount to nothing more than congressional grandstanding. No government official or politician is fit to define a “fair” price for gas or a “fair” profit for oil companies. This is not the Soviet Union. The last thing we need is centralized government planning when it comes to our precious energy supplies.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Ron Paul, Dr. May 8, 2006

The burning issue in Washington today is high gas prices, and it won’t go away anytime soon. Americans are not happy about paying $3 per gallon at the pump, and they want something done about it.

But price controls won’t work, and allegations of price gouging and “windfall profits” amount to nothing more than congressional grandstanding. No government official or politician is fit to define a “fair” price for gas or a “fair” profit for oil companies. This is not the Soviet Union. The last thing we need is centralized government planning when it comes to our precious energy supplies.

The price of oil, like everything else, depends on supply and demand. What we really need to focus on is how government keeps the supply of refined gasoline too low. This is not as easy as demanding price controls, and does not fit into 30-second sound bites. But as with so many issues, we must peel away decades of government interference to really understand the problem.

Most people understand that federal restrictions on exploring, drilling, and refining domestic oil have made us dependent on various questionable Middle East governments. We should expand this into a greater understanding of how American foreign policy increases gas prices here at home. Before the war in Iraq, oil was about $28 per barrel. Today it is over $70. Iraq was a significant source of worldwide oil, but its production has dropped 50% since 2002. Pipeline sabotage and fires are routine; we have been unable to prevent them. Furthermore, the general instability in the Middle East created by the war causes oil prices to rise everywhere.

The sooner we get out of Iraq and allow the Iraqis to solve their own problems the better. Soaring gasoline prices are one giant unintended consequence of the war, pure and simple.

Even so, many war hawks are seriously agitating for an attack on Iran—another major supplier of worldwide oil. They are not concerned one bit about the impact such an attack would have on the wallets of average Americans; their obsession with regime change in Iran trumps all common sense. But let me be clear: An attack on Iran, coupled with our continued presence in Iraq, could hike gas prices to $5 or $6 per gallon.

We also must understand the effect monetary policy has on gas prices. The price of gas, like the price of all things, goes up because of inflation. And inflation by definition is an increase in the money supply. The money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve Bank, and responds to the deficits Congress creates. When deficits are excessive, as they are today, the Fed creates new dollars out of thin air to buy Treasury bills and keep interest rates artificially low. But when new money is created out of nothing, the money already in circulation loses value. Once this is recognized, prices rise-- some more rapidly than others. That’s what we see today with the cost of energy.

If we want to do something about gas prices, we should demand greatly reduced welfare and military spending, a balanced budget, and fewer regulations that interfere with the market development of alternative fuels. All subsidies and special benefits to energy companies should be ended. We also should demand a return to a sound commodity monetary system.

And in the meantime, let’s eliminate federal gas taxes at the pump. That alone would save Americans 18.4 cents per gallon. By contrast, oil companies only make about 10 cents per gallon. So maybe it’s government that’s being greedy.

Oil prices are at a level where consumers reduce consumption voluntarily. The market will work if we let it. But as great as the market economy is, it cannot overcome a foreign policy that is destined to disrupt oil supplies and threaten the world with an expanded and dangerous conflict in the Middle East. And it cannot overcome a monetary policy destined to inflate our dollars into oblivion.

Summary:

NAIS means more government, more regulations, more fees, more federal spending, less privacy, and diminished property rights. It’s exactly the kind of federal program every conservative, civil libertarian, animal lover, businessman, farmer, and rancher should oppose.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Ron Paul, Dr. May 29, 2006

The House of Representatives recently passed funding for a new federal mandate that threatens to put thousands of small farmers and ranchers out of business. The National Animal Identification System, known as NAIS, is an expensive and unnecessary federal program that requires owners of livestock-- cattle, dairy, poultry, and even horses-- to tag animals with electronic tracking devices. The intrusive monitoring system amounts to nothing more than a tax on livestock owners, allowing the federal government access to detailed information about their private property.

In typical Washington-speak, NAIS is “voluntary”—provided USDA bureaucrats are satisfied with the level of cooperation. Trust me, NAIS will be mandatory within a few years. When was the last time a new federal program did not expand once implemented?

As usual, Congress is spending millions of dollars creating a complex non-solution to a very simple problem. NAIS will cost taxpayers at least $33 million for starters.

Agribusiness giants support NAIS, because they want the federal government to create a livestock database and provide free industry data. But small and independent livestock owners face a costly mandate if NAIS becomes law.

Larger livestock operations will be able to tag whole groups of animals with one ID device. Smaller ranchers and farmers, however, will be forced to tag each individual animal, at a cost of anywhere from $3 to $20 per head. And NAIS applies to anyone with a single horse, pig, chicken, or goat in the backyard—no exceptions. NAIS applies to children in 4-H or FFA. Once NAIS becomes mandatory, any failure to report and tag an animal subjects the owner to $1,000 per day fines.

NAIS also forces livestock owners to comply with new paperwork and monitoring regulations. These farmers and ranchers literally will be paying for an assault on their property and privacy rights, as NAIS empowers federal agents to enter and seize property without a warrant-- a blatant violation of the 4th amendment.

NAIS is not about preventing mad cow or other diseases. States already have animal identification systems in place, and virtually all stockyards issue health certificates. Since most contamination happens after animals have been sold, tracing them back to the farm or ranch that sold them won’t help find the sources of disease.


More than anything, NAIS places our family farmers and ranchers at an economic disadvantage against agribusiness and overseas competition. As dairy farmer and rancher Bob Parker stated, NAIS is “too intrusive, too costly, and will be devastating to small farmers and ranchers.”

NAIS means more government, more regulations, more fees, more federal spending, less privacy, and diminished property rights. It’s exactly the kind of federal program every conservative, civil libertarian, animal lover, businessman, farmer, and rancher should oppose. The House has already acted, but there’s still time to tell the Senate to dump NAIS. Please call your Senators and tell them you oppose spending even one dime on the NAIS program in the 2007 agriculture appropriations bill.

Video: Ron Paul Talks to Newsweek (12/7/07)
Dr. Paul speaks with Howard Fineman of Newsweek about the IRS, the Second Amendment and more.

Watch the video here.

Read the full article »
"A History Lesson With Dr. Paul" (12/6/07)
"One of the many quirks of Ron Paul's unexpectedly vigorous campaign for the Republican presidential nomination has been that he has been able to generate such a fervent following despite a campaign manner that verges on the grandfatherly. But in a brief interview in New Hampshire a few days ago, Paul showed that he is capable of delivering a barbed line or two, albeit wrapped in a kindly septuagenarian smile.

"Asked what he made of John McCain's comments at last week's GOP debate comparing Paul's opposition to the war in Iraq to the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s, Paul let loose, saying that McCain was "confused historically."

"'People in the 1930s who didn't want war didn't cause World War II. I think Hitler caused the war, not the Americans who argued for a pro-American foreign policy,' he said.

"'I don't think [McCain] understands the difference between isolationism and non-intervention. How can he condemn it if the Founders believed in it? George Washington, Jefferson, this was their strong advice.'"

Alec MacGillis, Washington Post, 12/06/07

Dr. Paul’s Writings › Reject the National I.D. Card

Summary:

Those who are willing to allow the government to establish a Soviet-style internal passport system because they think it will make us safer are terribly mistaken. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance and "screening points" will actually make us less safe, not in the least because it will divert resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists and deploy them against innocent Americans!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Ron Paul, Dr. September 16, 2004

Washington politicians are once again seriously considering imposing a national identification card - and it may well become law before the end of the 108th Congress. The much-hailed 9/11 Commission report released in July recommends a federal identification card and, worse, a "larger network of screening points" inside the United States. Does this mean we are to have "screening points" inside our country where American citizens will be required to "show their papers" to government officials? It certainly sounds that way!

As I have written recently, the 9/11 Commission is nothing more than ex-government officials and lobbyists advising current government officials that we need more government for America to be safe. Yet it was that same government that failed so miserably on September 11, 2001.

Congress has embraced the 9/11 Commission report uncritically since its release in July. Now Congress is rushing to write each 9/11 Commission recommendation into law before the November election. In the same way Congress rushed to pass the PATRIOT Act after the September 11 attacks to be seen "doing something," it looks like Congress is about to make the same mistake again of rushing to pass liberty-destroying legislation without stopping to consider the consequences. Because it is so controversial, we may see legislation mandating a national identification card with biometric identifiers hidden in bills implementing 9/11 Commission recommendations. We have seen this technique used in the past on controversial measures.

A national identification card, in whatever form it may take, will allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every American. History shows that governments inevitably use the power to monitor the actions of people in harmful ways. Claims that the government will protect the privacy of Americans when implementing a national identification card ring hollow. We would do well to remember what happened with the Social Security number. It was introduced with solemn restrictions on how it could be used, but it has become a de facto national identifier.

Those who are willing to allow the government to establish a Soviet-style internal passport system because they think it will make us safer are terribly mistaken. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance and "screening points" will actually make us less safe, not in the least because it will divert resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists and deploy them against innocent Americans!

The federal government has no constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before they engage in private transactions. Instead of forcing all Americans to prove to law enforcement that they are not terrorists, we should be focusing our resources on measures that really will make us safer. For starters, we should take a look at our dangerously porous and unguarded borders. We have seen already this summer how easy it is for individuals possibly seeking to do us harm to sneak across the border into our country. In July, Pakistani citizen Farida Goolam Mahomed Ahmed, who is on the federal watch list, reportedly crossed illegally into Texas from Mexico. She was later arrested when she tried to board a plane in New York, but she should have never been able to cross our border in the first place!

We must take effective measures to protect ourselves from a terrorist attack. That does not mean rushing to embrace legislation that in the long run will do little to stop terrorism, but will do a great deal to undermine the very way of life we should be protecting. Just as we must not allow terrorists to threaten our lives, we must not allow government to threaten our liberties. We should reject the notion of a national identification card.

December 3, 2007 10:58 am EST

Only Congressman Ron Paul has unblemished 30-year record of fiscal responsibility

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - "Americans can no longer afford the out of control spending coming from Washington. It is unconscionable that Congress continues to run up the national debt, knowing full well that our children and grandchildren will end up paying the bill for our wasteful spending."

Congressman Paul made the comments following an Associated Press report stating that the national debt is now "expanding by about $1.4 billion dollars every day – or nearly $1 million a minute” and there is now “almost $30,000 in debt for each man, woman, child and infant in the United States.” By the time the next president takes office in 2009, the national debt will likely top $10 trillion dollars.

"Only Dr. Paul has an unblemished 30-year voting record of opposing out-of-control spending. He is the only true fiscal conservative running for president," said Ron Paul national press secretary Jesse Benton.

Benton continued: "In the recent CNN Debate, John McCain said that 'We went to Washington to change Washington but Washington changed us.' That may apply to McCain, but not to Ron Paul."

Press Releases › Ron Paul: a GQ Man of the Year
[Email this] [Print this] November 20, 2007 2:57 pm EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA—Republican presidential candidate and 10-term Texas Congressman Ron Paul has been honored by GQ magazine as one of its men of the year. Distinguished as “Dark Horse of the Year” among a small and select group of 38 entertainers, athletes, politicians, and other icons, Congressman Paul is the sole 2008 presidential candidate to have been selected.

“Dr. Paul is humbled and honored to be chosen as a ‘man of the year,’” said Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. “According to GQ, Dr. Paul is the dark horse to win the presidency, and with support steadily rising each day, we are moving closer to winning the Republican Party nomination.”

GQ, or Gentlemen’s Quarterly magazine, is a leading men’s general interest magazine, published by Conde Nast Publications. The 12th annual “Men of the Year” issue will be available at newsstands on November 27, 2007.

Press Releases › Ron Paul Surges Ahead of Fred Thompson
[Email this] [Print this] November 29, 2007 5:32 pm EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul’s run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination reached another milestone on Thursday as it surpassed former GOP frontrunner Fred Thompson’s third quarter fundraising total.

With over one month still remaining in the fourth quarter, Congressman Paul has currently raised $9,757,382. By comparison, Fred Thompson took in only $9,750,821 during the three-month period from July to September of this year.

“This milestone is the latest indication that Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, peace, and prosperity is resonating strongly with voters across the United States,” said Paul campaign spokesman Joe Seehusen. “New money means new support.”

The most recent polls also show Congressman Paul ahead of Fred Thompson in the critical early primary state of New Hampshire.

The Paul campaign has publicly set a $12 million fourth quarter fundraising goal, to be raised by December 31. Congressman Paul is also the first presidential candidate in history to make fundraising numbers publicly available in real-time.

Recently, Paul received widespread recognition for his record $4.2 million one-day fundraising haul on November 5. Over 37,000 citizens contributed in one single day.

November 30, 2007 2:16 pm EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul’s run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination reached another milestone on Friday as it surpassed GOP opponent Mitt Romney’s third quarter fundraising total.



With over one month still remaining in the fourth quarter, Congressman Paul has currently raised $10,093,152. By comparison, Mitt Romney raised only $9,896,719 during the three-month period from July to September of this year.



“This milestone is the latest indication that Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, peace, and prosperity is resonating strongly with voters across the United States,” said Paul campaign spokesman Joe Seehusen. “New money means new support.”



The Paul campaign has publicly set a $12 million fourth quarter fundraising goal, to be raised by December 31. Congressman Paul is also the first presidential candidate in history to make fundraising numbers publicly available in real-time.



Recently, Paul received widespread recognition for his record $4.2 million one-day fundraising haul on November 5. Over 37,000 citizens contributed in one single day.

Press Releases › Ron Paul Rises Above Giuliani
November 30, 2007 7:38 pm EST



ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul’s run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination reached another milestone on Friday as it surpassed GOP opponent Rudy Giuliani’s third quarter fundraising total.



With over one month still remaining in the fourth quarter, Congressman Paul has currently raised $10,259,765. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani raised only $10,258,019 during the three-month period from July to September of this year.



“This milestone is the latest indication that Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, peace, and prosperity is resonating strongly with voters across the United States,” said Paul campaign spokesman Joe Seehusen. “New money means new support.”



Congressman Paul also recently placed first in the New York Young Republicans poll, in Giuliani’s home state.



The Paul campaign has publicly set a $12 million fourth quarter fundraising goal, to be raised by December 31. Congressman Paul is also the first presidential candidate in history to make fundraising numbers publicly available in real-time.



Recently, Paul received widespread recognition for his record $4.2 million one-day fundraising haul on November 5. Over 37,000 citizens contributed in one single day.