Ron Paul's Son Running For Senate In Kentucky - Congressman Ron Paul Blog

By Kristi Keck
CNN
(CNN) -- The phrase "like father, like son" is ringing true for Texas Rep. Ron Paul.

Rand Paul says his career as a political outsider should be a plus for voters.
His son, Rand Paul, announced this week he's set his sights on the Kentucky Senate seat being vacated by retiring Republican Sen. Jim Bunning.

"I'm very worried about our country; I'm worried about the debt. I'm worried about what the debt will lead to," Paul said in an interview on CNN's "American Morning" when asked why he's jumping into the political arena. "Both sides of the aisle -- Republican and Democrat -- have been unwilling and afraid to address the deficit, and someone's got to."

The Kentucky Senate race is particularly high-profile since a seat held by a Republican will now be up for grabs.

Paul is expected to compete in the GOP primary next year with Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson. The winner will face either state Attorney General Jack Conway or Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo, who are seeking the Democratic nomination. Watch more on Rand Paul's Senate aspirations »

While Grayson is considered the frontrunner in the Republican primary, "Paul will make things interesting for sure," said Al Cross, a veteran political writer in Kentucky and director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky.

"Trey Grayson is a very capable person, has a great deal of potential, but he has never really run a high-profile, hardball race, and I think that Paul is going to have the resources and the determination to hold his feet to the fire when it comes to issues," Cross said.

Some Republicans aren't quite sure about Grayson, Cross noted, because he started his political life as a Democrat.

"[Paul] will have an impact in this primary. He will have money to spend. He will have a message to deliver, some people will find him a more authentic Republican conservative candidate than Grayson," Cross said.

Paul, however, has no traditional political base in Kentucky, and Grayson is more of a mainstream conservative like the state's other senator, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Paul, like his father, is a strict constitutionalist who believes in traditional Republican principles like small government and a free-market approach to the economy. And another thing he has in common with his father: He's also a doctor. Paul has worked as an eye surgeon in Bowling Green, Kentucky, for the past 18 years. He says his being a political outsider should be a plus for voters.

"You need people outside of government. If your primary goal is to continue your career, you tend to do things that are good for you, but not necessarily good for the country," he said.

He's also been a vocal advocate for smaller government and is the chairman of Kentucky Taxpayers United. He says the government needs to stop borrowing money, because "we cannot borrow our way into prosperity."

"For example, with the stimulus project, my little town -- they brought $1 million to. Republicans and Democrats clapped their hands and said, 'We have $1 million!' But no one asked the hard question: Where did that million dollars come from?

"If we have to borrow it from China, Japan or foreign countries, is that good for our country to go further and further in debt to build a new ballpark or a new a parking garage? We have to understand where does the money come from. But debt leads to inflation," he said.

Instead, he said, people need to look at the country's economic problems in the same way they view their personal budget.

"I have a lot of older patients who have grandkids. They come in to me, and I say, 'Would you borrow money to buy a gift for your grandkids?' No, you pay for gifts out of your savings. But you don't borrow money to give people cash for clunkers.

"I don't know how you get rich as a country by borrowing money and giving it to people and saying, 'Go to the mall and spend it,' and somehow we're supposed to be richer as a country," he said, echoing the sentiment his father shared during his 2008 presidential bid.

Ron Paul said his son's political aspiration came as no surprise to him. "He's been interested in politics for a long time," he said on "American Morning." "I think the family sort of expected that he would be the first one to get to politics like this."

His advice for his son: "Don't go with conventional wisdom."

"If you go with conventional wisdom and the usual advisers, they're about 10 or 15 years behind the people. And I think that's what you're sensing with these town hall meetings," Rep. Paul said.

"People, though, in a politician, they want to trust you. They want to like you, and they want to trust you. But it's up to the politician who's running to stand for something, and that's what energizes your base, your supporters, and raising your money."

Ron Paul, who has served in Congress for 12 years, first sought the presidential nomination in 1988, running as a Libertarian. He ran as a Republican in the 2008 primaries, and while his campaign didn't pick up much mainstream steam, he did attract a large group of enthusiastic followers who had a reputation for voicing support for their candidate online. His presidential run was centered on a grass-roots effort that conducted Internet drives for funds.

Name recognition probably won't help Rand Paul much, Cross said. Ron Paul doesn't have a high profile in the state because Kentucky's Republican presidential primary took place after Sen. John McCain had already become the party's presumptive nominee.

But if Ron Paul, who has proved to be a successful fundraiser, tells his supporters that the election of his son would send a message to the GOP that it needs to get back to its core conservative principles, "that's a pretty strong message that I think would motivate a lot of contributors," Cross said.
Samsung LN46C630 HDTV Review - Save Hundreds

Tithes and Offerings - Free King James Bible

Sarah Palin for President

Samsung LN40C630 HDTV - Massive Savings

Salvation - How to be Born Again

Freelance Writer Websites

Natural Cancer Cure - Free Newsletter

LN40C630 - Save Hundreds

Free King James Bibles Request

Forex Ambush Scam Review - Almost Perfect Record

Copy and Profit

Acne Home Remedies - How to Get Rid of Acne Fast

Congressman Ron Paul on Washington's Dirtiest Secrets by Dr. Mercola

There are many reasons why I support Ron Paul, but a major one has to do with his devotion to your freedom of choice.
He is a shining example of how one solitary voice can inspire necessary change. Dr. Paul is nearly single-handedly leading the charge against the perverted relationship between multi-national corporations and the U.S. government.

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist who seeks to minimize abuse by government; therefore, he is not a very popular figure in many corporate circles. Nevertheless, there is an increasing groundswell of public support for him, which the completion of the 2008 presidential election did nothing to deter.

He is in the news every bit as much now as while he was campaigning—actually probably more so now, as a growing number of Americans are realizing the fatal flaws in our existing health care system.

With the recent focus on health care reform, I believe Dr. Paul’s ideas are spot-on in bringing about the changes this country really needs.
Government-Run Health Care—REALITY CHECK

Ron Paul is one of the few physicians serving in Congress, and one of even fewer Congressmen who are trying to decrease government involvement in your health care.

In terms of your health, Ron Paul:

•Wants to expand your ability to use alternative medicine and new treatments
•Opposes legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers
•Believes the government should never have the power to force you to get vaccinations
Sound familiar? These are things I’ve been passionate about for decades. Ron Paul could almost be my personal spokesman!

One of the courageous actions Dr. Paul has taken was introducing the Health Freedom Protection Act to Congress in 2005, a bill that would strongly and positively affect Mercola.com and many other natural health organizations, and the field of natural health in general. The bill would curb restrictions imposed by the FDA and FTC regarding health claims for dietary supplements.

Dr. Paul indeed favors health care reform, but NOT in its present form—meaning the “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” the bill that is the focus of debate right now in the Senate.

This bill could cost the U.S. nearly two trillion dollars.

And What Exactly Would Those Two Trillion Dollars Buy You?

a. The limiting of unnecessary, ineffective treatments and the elimination of fraud

b. The lowering of exorbitant health insurance premiums, along with incentives for physicians to provide charitable care to the poor

c. The provision for effective, inexpensive, holistic treatment alternatives and the establishment of new nutritional guidelines that actually make sense

d. Promotion of health instead of preoccupation with disease

e. None of the above

If you answered “e,” you get an A.
The fact is, Big Pharma has a choke hold over our government, which is most likely why you do not see any discussions about these very real, underlying problems.
The fact that our political entities are so subject to influence by special interests, combined with the monumental amounts of money big corporations spend to manipulate them, means that a government-run program cannot fix America’s broken health care system.

Because the government is PART OF America’s broken health care system.

In fact, the “solution” might even be worse than the problem. Already many of your personal freedoms are being threatened at the hands of the government, and there is language in this new reform that gives the federal government unprecedented power to meddle in your personal health care affairs.

What’s REALLY needed is a radical change in consciousness about what health and health care really is.

As long as your focus is on drugs and surgical interventions, you will never see the fundamental changes that are so desperately needed. It can only be accomplished by a radical change in how you, and how society as a whole, think about health.
Old Geezers Unite!

David Brooks, columnist for the New York Times, published a great article entitled “The Geezers’ Crusade”[i] which addresses the question of who and what is needed to propel social change.

Brooks predicts that the changes we need won’t be coming from Washington, and he makes the case that our eldest generation—not our youth—are in a unique position to be the catalyst for this change.

In order to make this argument, he cites the following research findings:

•Your brain is capable of creating new connections and even new neurons throughout your life, which refutes outdated views that old people are no longer educable due to declining brain function.
•People report being happier, more outgoing, more self-confident and warmer as they pass from middle age into old age, and advanced age affords them a better ability to grasp “the big picture.”
•The elderly tend to want to provide for future generations, and they are happier after doing so. Seniors who perform service for the young have more positive lives and better marriages than those who don’t.
If you’ve ever spent any time listening to a wise grandparent or other elder, you’ve probably already witnessed the wisdom that comes with age.

However, Brooks says that the odd thing is, in politics, the opposite behaviors are true.

Politicians by and large, are taking valuable resources from younger generations—in the form of money, freedom, and opportunity.

The federal government now spends seven times as much on the elderly as it does on children. In the private sphere, seniors provide wonderful gifts to their grandchildren. But in the public arena, they take them away.

Brooks writes:

“Spontaneous social movements can make the unthinkable thinkable, and they can do it quickly. It now seems clear that the only way the U.S. is going to avoid an economic crisis is if the oldsters take it upon themselves to arise and force change.

The young lack the political power. Only the old can lead a generativity revolution—millions of people demanding changes in health care spending and the retirement age to make life better for their grandchildren.

It may

seem unrealistic—to expect a generation to organize around the cause of non-selfishness. But in the private sphere, you see it every day. Old people now have the time, the energy and, with the Internet, the tools to organize.”

We often hear that children are our future. And the expanding enthusiasm Dr. Paul is generating among the youth in this country is truly remarkable.

Dr. Paul says:

“I think [my support] is rapidly growing, and I go to the college campuses frequently and always get large crowds out, and the young people are really very receptive to these views. I think that’s very important.

I don’t think true revolutions occur if you don’t have the next generation ready to accept those ideas. And it doesn’t mean that only young people do it, but if you get the support of the young people, it means they know there is something wrong with the system. They have to think about the change in the system and the reception there is very, very good.”

The younger generations are going to be making tough, critical decisions in the future, which affect the world. But perhaps the elderly are even more important in leading them where they need to go.

There is something that every one of you can do to move us onto the right path.

There are 1.5 million people who receive this newsletter. We CAN make a huge difference. If only a small fraction of you spread this message within your little community of family, friends, and coworkers, just imagine what we can accomplish together.
Samsung LN46C630 HDTV Review - Save Hundreds

Tithes and Offerings - Free King James Bible

Sarah Palin for President

Samsung LN40C630 HDTV - Massive Savings

Salvation - How to be Born Again

Freelance Writer Websites

Natural Cancer Cure - Free Newsletter

LN40C630 - Save Hundreds

Free King James Bibles Request

Forex Ambush Scam Review - Almost Perfect Record

Copy and Profit

Acne Home Remedies - How to Get Rid of Acne Fast

Ron Paul on Haiti: Condolences YES, Occupation NO

Ron Paul on Haiti: Condolences YES, Occupation NO

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement in Opposition to H Res 1021, Condolences to Haiti
January 21, 2010

I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution. Certainly I am moved by the horrific destruction in Haiti and would without hesitation express condolences to those who have suffered and continue to suffer. As a medical doctor, I have through my career worked to alleviate the pain and suffering of others.

Unfortunately, however, this resolution does not simply express our condolences, but rather it commits the US government “to begin the reconstruction of Haiti” and affirms that “the recovery and long-term needs of Haiti will require a sustained commitment by the United States….” I do not believe that a resolution expressing our deep regret and sorrow over this tragedy should be used to commit the United States to a “long-term” occupation of Haiti during which time the US government will provide for the reconstruction of that country.

I am concerned over the possibility of an open-ended US military occupation of Haiti and this legislation does nothing to alleviate my concerns. On the contrary, when this resolution refers to the need for a long term US plan for Haiti, I see a return to the failed attempts by the Clinton and Bush Administrations to establish Haiti as an American protectorate. Already we are seeing many argue that this kind of humanitarian mission is a perfect fit for the US military. I do not agree.

Certainly I would support and encourage the efforts of the American people to help the people of Haiti at this tragic time. I believe that the American people are very generous on their own and fear that a US government commitment to reconstruct Haiti may actually discourage private contributions. Mr. Speaker, already we see private US citizens and corporations raising millions of dollars for relief and reconstruction of Haiti. I do not believe the US government should get in the way of these laudable efforts. I do express my condolences but I unfortunately must urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution committing the United States government to rebuild Haiti.
Samsung LN46C630 HDTV Review - Save Hundreds

Tithes and Offerings - Free King James Bible

Sarah Palin for President

Samsung LN40C630 HDTV - Massive Savings

Salvation - How to be Born Again

Freelance Writer Websites

Natural Cancer Cure - Free Newsletter

LN40C630 - Save Hundreds

Free King James Bibles Request

Forex Ambush Scam Review - Almost Perfect Record

Copy and Profit

Acne Home Remedies - How to Get Rid of Acne Fast

Be Prepared for the Worst by Congressman Ron Paul

Any number of pundits claim that we have now passed the worst of the recession. Green shoots of recovery are supposedly popping up all around the country, and the economy is expected to resume growing soon at an annual rate of 3% to 4%. Many of these are the same people who insisted that the economy would continue growing last year, even while it was clear that we were already in the beginning stages of a recession.

A false recovery is under way. I am reminded of the outlook in 1930, when the experts were certain that the worst of the Depression was over and that recovery was just around the corner. The economy and stock market seemed to be recovering, and there was optimism that the recession, like many of those before it, would be over in a year or less. Instead, the interventionist policies of Hoover and Roosevelt caused the Depression to worsen, and the Dow Jones industrial average did not recover to 1929 levels until 1954. I fear that our stimulus and bailout programs have already done too much to prevent the economy from recovering in a natural manner and will result in yet another asset bubble.

Anytime the central bank intervenes to pump trillions of dollars into the financial system, a bubble is created that must eventually deflate. We have seen the results of Alan Greenspan's excessively low interest rates: the housing bubble, the explosion of subprime loans and the subsequent collapse of the bubble, which took down numerous financial institutions. Rather than allow the market to correct itself and clear away the worst excesses of the boom period, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury colluded to put taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars. Those banks and financial institutions that took on the largest risks and performed worst were rewarded with billions in taxpayer dollars, allowing them to survive and compete with their better-managed peers.

This is nothing less than the creation of another bubble. By attempting to cushion the economy from the worst shocks of the housing bubble's collapse, the Federal Reserve has ensured that the ultimate correction of its flawed economic policies will be more severe than it otherwise would have been. Even with the massive interventions, unemployment is near 10% and likely to increase, foreigners are cutting back on purchases of Treasury debt and the Federal Reserve's balance sheet remains bloated at an unprecedented $2 trillion. Can anyone realistically argue that a few small upticks in a handful of economic indicators are a sign that the recession is over?

What is more likely happening is a repeat of the Great Depression. We might have up to a year or so of an economy growing just slightly above stagnation, followed by a drop in growth worse than anything we have seen in the past two years. As the housing market fails to return to any sense of normalcy, commercial real estate begins to collapse and manufacturers produce goods that cannot be purchased by debt-strapped consumers, the economy will falter. That will go on until we come to our senses and end this wasteful government spending.

Government intervention cannot lead to economic growth. Where does the money come from for Tarp (Treasury's program to buy bad bank paper), the stimulus handouts and the cash for clunkers? It can come only from taxpayers, from sales of Treasury debt or through the printing of new money. Paying for these programs out of tax revenues is pure redistribution; it takes money out of one person's pocket and gives it to someone else without creating any new wealth. Besides, tax revenues have fallen drastically as unemployment has risen, yet government spending continues to increase. As for Treasury debt, the Chinese and other foreign investors are more and more reluctant to buy it, denominated as it is in depreciating dollars.