0 votes

TIME to submit your questions for Ron Paul!


The Texas Congressman has run for President twice: once as a Republican and once as a Libertarian. In his three decades in public office, he has campaigned tirelessly for the principles of limited government, low taxes and free markets. His latest book, End the Fed, which continues his quest to shut down the Federal Reserve and return to the gold standard, goes on sale Sept. 16. Submit your questions for Ron Paul below, then read the interview in an upcoming issue of TIME magazine.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I just submitted questions

I just submitted questions 213 through 216. Partly my own curiosity, partly a strategy to get something printed that will make sheeple go "hmmm" about Ron's answers as they read Time in their doctor's waiting room.

10-15 million more voters need to believe in non-interventionism (liberty) at home and abroad to change America. Minds changed on Syria. Minds changing on privacy. "Printing money" is part of the dialogue. Win minds through focus, strategy.

I want to know

If you are a Freemason or not Mr. Paul.

My Question


Dear Ron,

I am a great admirer of yours, particularly your efforts to end American Empire and restore a Constitutional Republic, I need to ask you, however, about your one major inconsistency in your support for the free market.

My question is: Why do you take a decidedly socialist, pro big government position on the subject of immigration policy?

A purely free market is marked by the free flow of goods, services and labor across international boundaries. Yet you would further legally restrict immigration to this country, perhaps even to the point of building a wall on our southern border.

I understand your concerns about the demands on the welfare state brought about by unrestricted immigration. But isn't the proper solution the abolition of the welfare state, and not socialist, big government legal restrictions on immigration?

Do not make illegal immigrants scapegoats

We do not have a free market in operation.

I don't believe you've studined RP on immigration.


Who Is Scapegoating Immigrants?

I am the one saying all peaceful immigrants should be allowed to come here and should be welcomed. This is the free market way of doing things. You said we do not have a free market. Well, isn't it about time we established one?

Nothing in the video you told me to watch changes my mind about Ron Paul's position. On this issue, he is a socialist. He believes that if I exercise my God-given right to hire or rent to anyone I please, his precious socialist federal government has the right to interfere if the person is of Latin American nationality. This is not capitalism. It is right out of both the Democratic and Republican party platforms.

You reap what you sow my friend. Hostility to people of Hispanic ethnicity breeds hostility toward yourself by people of Hispanic ethnicity. Immigrants are victims of the state. As liberty lovers, we should be going to bat for them as much as we would for any tax resister or draft resister (who are also technically "breaking the law"). Think of how much untapped support we could get from the immigrant community if we weren't hypocrites and extended our "all men..are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..." rhetoric to all people no matter what country they were born in.

The Ron Paul R3VOLUTION will succeed to the extent we consistently support liberty and peace. It will fail to the extent we are hypocrites.

Think about it.


You make it sound as if Ron

You make it sound as if Ron Paul wants to keep out only latin american illegal immigrants. How did you come to that conclusion? And I don't think its fair to call RP a socialist just because he doesn't believe in open borders like the libertarian party does. And Ron Paul is not hostile to hispanics, nor any other race of people.

I Didn't Mean To Say

that I thought Ron Paul was hostile to Hispanics. I don't think he has a racist bone in his body. And overall, I wouldn't call him a socialist. You seem to have not read my "I am a great admirer of yours..." line. However, his position on immigration is a socialist position, and I'm calling him on it.

Although I don't think Dr. Paul has any racist or xenophobic tendencies, I cannot say the same about many of his followers. I have seen in these pages open hostility to Hispanic immigrants and statements to the effect that "We have to stop this influx of people who oppose our values..." etc. Now how could anyone love America more than someone who has given up their whole life in another country, their job, friends, etc., to start out in America with absolutely nothing. It is counter to common sense to think that immigrants are "anti-American." Seriously, as a sheer strategic move, I think welcoming and supporting all peaceful immigrants is one of the most effective thing this movement could do to succeed beyond our wildest dreams in the future.

Well, personally I am glad

Well, personally I am glad Ron Paul stood firm and refused to go along with the libertarian party and support open borders. I'm glad he's opposed to anmesty too, since it entice more to come illegally. It is a shame that there are some racists that get attracted to politicians who advocate secure borders and who oppose illegal immigration, oppose amnesty for people here illegally and advocate enforcing laws on the books against illegal immigration. There is little if anything that can be done about that. I believe a large majority of Ron Paul's supporters are not racist and they agree with him on stoping illegal immigration and amnesty, but at the same time favoring legal immigration in reasonable numbers.
A recent poll showed that a majority of American citizens don't want open borders, they want legal and orderly immigration in numbers that are not too high. They don't want to end up with overpopulation and pollution problems like China has. And they want to see the laws against illegal imigration enforced.
So, if so many American citizens are opposed to open borders and amnesty, and opposed to non-enforcement of laws against illegal immigration, its not a good idea politically to advocate that unless you like losing elections. You might say, well what do you ay about Obama and other liber democrats who win elections when they more or less support open borders and amnesty? The reason is, they support very liberal policies like welfare and other things which attracts alot of democrats to them. The liberals also often like to use deceptive language(they are no the only politicians who use deceptive language by any means though), and claim they are not for open borders and amnesty when they actually are, and they fool a lot of voters that way. So, in my view, by advocating open borders and amnesty, but not advocating liberal policies which attracs the democrat vote, you probably won't be winning any major elections that way.

The "Illegality" of Some Immigration

is a red herring. Such statements as "I support legal immigration" completely push under the rug the question of what, if any, peaceful immigration should be illegal. I absolutely support only legal immigration, and, you know what? I think ALL peaceful immigration should be legal. If anything, it is the advocates of closed borders who support illegal immigration, because it is only under a system of legal restrictions on immigration that there even can be illegal immigration. In fact, a system of legal restrictions on immigration GUARANTEES that there will be illegal immigration as people in foreign countries will always want to make a better life for themselves in a freer country.

The issue of overpopulation is a non-starter. The most reliable studies show that because the American birth rate is so low, America's population will peak at about 350 million people, and then begin declining. And this is with current immigration rates, legal and illegal.

The ideas of liberty are extremely appealing to people, far more appealing than those of the welfare state. If Ron Paul became a consistent supporter of liberty and advocated open borders and a free market, there would be no stopping him. He would immediately win the votes of 90% of immigrants who are US citizens and their families. That is potentially tens of millions of votes. And that's just for starters. As new immigrants poured in, we would win more and more immigrant votes.

You do not own the entire country, and have no more or less right to live here as anyone else in the world. In a free market, I have the right to rent my house to, offer employment to, or allow to travel on a road I own, ANYONE I SO CHOOSE. Only the violent, heavy, socialist hand of government has the power to legally interfere. That's right, you are advocating VIOLENCE to stop such transactions.

Think about it.


I still think you are being

I still think you are being very optimisitc about the odds of a libertarian who supports open borders and amnesty and non-enforcement or repealing of all immigration related laws winning any major elections.
No, I don't own the entire country, but we the people do have a say in how the country is run, to protect the country and its borders from invasion, whether the invasion is armed or unarmed, organized or disorganized.
You seem to be saying that to enforce laws, you have to threaten violence to enforce them. That is true, but what is your plan then? Do you feel, that since it is unjust to threaten anyone with force to enforce laws, that we should just repeal all laws in his country and have anrachy?
I also am very doubtful that population will peak at 350 million if things continue the way they are. You are not accounting for amnesties and increases in illegal and legal immigration which would follow.
Liberty is appealing to most people, up to a certain point. When there is too much liberty that it starts harming the quality of life of a majority of citizens in this country, then citizens will want to tone down the liberty. That is just a fact. For example, if immigration rose very sharply for years, you'd say that was increased liberty and a good thing. But the majority of the citizens in this country don't want a huge increase in immigration according to polls, because it would harm their quality of life due to increased pollution and overpopulation. Sure, if you want every city in the U.S. to look like new york city, and bulldoze all the farms, all the woodlands and be polluted and overcrowded beyond belief, its your right to have those views, but I think your views are in the minority.
The citizens of this country are the ones who are supposed to elect people who represent their views in this republic. The majority of citizens don't want total and complete freedom because that is more or less anarchy and most people don't want that. I think Ron Paul knows that anrachy is undesirable, so you will not see him advocating for it. Liberty and freedom are good, but only up to a certain point. Absolute freedom is anarchy and is undesirable by most people including Ron Paul.

Here is a more recent video

Here is a more recent video of Ron Paul talking about illegal immigration.


My Question.....

Ron Paul....why are you so Bad-ass?



I second that question!

The FIX is in ... of course!

You do not really think for a moment that TIME will let you expose the evil by asking questions about the TRUTH!?! If you think this is possible with TIME and CNN then you are already in the dark!

This whole exercise is just to say that 'so many millions contributed', and 'here are the most asked questions'.... of course revealing that followers of Paul are crack heads, pot smokers, pro federal gay marriage laws, those loose and crazy libertarians you know, etc.... and not a word about the long term Republican he is. Remember that most vote party still, and it is height of folly to ignore that fact... never mind all other issues, the win for congress and the White House is paramount! After that... clean house, both of oath breakers impeached, and bad law excised!

Even the grammar used in the questions, is atrocious. They have been written by the same people, and this is demonstrable by the syntax and patterns in the grammar! Most of the questions do not even make grammatical sense!

To contribute, in my opinion is folly... rather it should be blasted by millions, as false and fraudulent... total set-up. Notice how every issue is discussed which also happened to have formed a basis during that last election, for attacking Paul... always trying to drag him down into an immoral abyss, distancing him from the fundamental issues of liberty and the rule of law, closer to the fringe which the religious masses usually do not understand.

It has begun my friends... they are preparing to launch their 'liberty' candidates, preparing the masses of both middle and right, preparing early and very very thoroughly. It behooves those who eschue the evil of globalism and unsound money and theft banks, to do likewise and fight fire with fire... using the internet, a powerful tool, with the acumen for which the grassroots of liberty minded freemen are well known!

"Suspicion is a Virtue, if in the interests of the good of the people." Patrick Henry

"We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of Nature has placed in our power... the battle, sir, is not to the strong alone - it is to the

Seems to me they are trying to marginalize him by putting

the word Libertarian in so many questions. why don't they refer to him as a republican? Then he may seem just a little more in the main stream and they do not want that.

Seems? I assure you, it is.

No political party should be mentioned because it's the message that's important, and while, as RP says, a party is a vehicle for a message", it limits the message when expanding the party to those who are ready to go Indy, or are Indy and have had enough betrayal from all parties.

A thought...?

Would Ron Paul be able to answer any questions about being a Sovereign American vs. United States Citizen?

With Freedom Comes Responsibility



lol i asked a question

You argue that government is the reason why school price and medical cost are skyrocketing.

I want to know specifically, how government intervention raise prices in education and health care?

Through "regulation" and participation

The government has several public programs, the Veterans Administration, Medicare, Public Employees have a public care provider. and what the government does with these programs is set a price. That price becomes the facilities "baseline" and they charge more for non medicare/VA covered services and products/drugs, to make up the cost.

In education, it's simular, where government will offer to "grant" tuition and it sets a price it will pay, so the cost of text books and expanding into "open" university classes, hiring second rate faculty, dropping classes and rigging the system to drop students ASAP to collect the money, but not have to do the job.

wolfe's picture

You provide more great examples...

And you provide some excellent points on more direct price fixing.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

wolfe's picture

That's an easy one... :)

The student loans that the government subsidizes, over inflates the actual money available to an individual for education. This allows the universities to increase their tuition cost to match the subsidies, therefore causing students to end up in extended debt, and the university to make more money. All of which, guaranteed by the government.

If this subsidized money was not available, universities would have to find a way to lower tuition cost to draw in enough students.

Tax breaks exist at both the corporate level and personal level for insurance. My accountant informed me that even though paying for my own healthcare expenses may make sense, I can't write it off unless it is in the form of insurance or greater than 7% of my total income.

Because corporations get the tax break on their side, they are willing to spend far more on health benefits for employees than they actually would otherwise. This creates, once again, a lack of competition and price hikes in correlation to the subsidies provided.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

Here's mine

Why did the congress not call the bluff of Henry Paulson when he threatened martial law after the Congress would not pass the first banker bailout bill?

As a medical doctor would you recommend people take the swine flu shot and why or why not?

Would you recommend young politicians follow Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" to gain political power or emulate Frederic Bastiat's ideals in "The Law"?

After the Federal Reserve act is eliminated ideally how would America issue its money and if its not from a Central Bank then what system would best maintain stability in our economy?

How do you maintain a balance of personal and professional life and an upbeat attitude when you are a doctor, statesmen, father, husband and have fought mostly alone for economic and personal freedom for decades?

With the known collusion of big government and big business creating crony capitalism that has caused most of our economic problems, even up to the Federal Reserve, would you be for eliminating lobbyists from influencing congress and make all election campaigns paid for by equal congressional stipends?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Start getting freedom today by dumping Federal Reserve Notes, Stocks, Banks and anything made outside the USA. Buy precious metals, real estate, businesses, food and guns and get your business community to use local or sound currenc

reedr3v's picture

Thanks for giving us a chance to weigh in

with our questions. There certainly are a lot of ignorant q's posted at the beginning, probably because Time is read mostly by the most ordinary type of ignorant Liberal.

"Dr. Paul, who is John Galt,

"Dr. Paul, who is John Galt, and why is this man so important to America's future?"


Dr. Paul,

How will you be able to avoid a watered-down version of this bill?

Is there any way you can avoid it?

I don't like the idea of "timing" the release of the information is unacceptable.

There would be too much chance of manipulation by Goldman Sachs and the FED, let alone any of the other banks implicated. The stock market could take it, imho, and it should not be considered as a reason for this.

TRUTH should triumph over politics.

Larken Rose's latest newsletter

Although it's very disappointing, he does make some valid points

Note from zp, moderator. Your post doesn't follow the subject of this thread: TIME and the questions you might ask of Dr. Paul. Your Rose post really needs to be its own thread, and not stuck in here, out of context. Sorry.

Is this 10 Questions thing something new for TIME?

I ask, because it seems like the MSM is trying to show Obama the door. (See my Blog post about the Washington Post / Charles K's hatchet piece on Obama). Is the President 'toast' already? All we for confirmation need now is a hit-piece from the New York Times.

I think it's swell that, finally Dr. Paul is getting the spotlight from a venerable publication such as TIME... but why would they do this? In the past they either shunned him like the plague, or marginalized him, while touting Rudy or John McCain or even Hillary. Just doesn't add up.

(By the way, all of the above media are guided by the CFR and CIA, who oversee the stories. That's why I am a bit baffled).

I have no doubt that Time

I have no doubt that Time will never allow questions that question the power of the CFR and how they control the world. I am a bit baffled also as to the purpose of the 10 questions. I assume the questions will be cherry picked to try and make Ron Paul and us supporters look like radical fools.

My question to the editor of TIME: Please explain why three buildings collapsed at the WTC when only two were hit by airplanes. If that question cannot be answered then stop calling people that do pose such questions derogatory names. I am betting that none of the government shills will answer that question.

I think we better submit some question.....

Have you read some of the questions? No wonder this country is a failed republic.