The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

rating	frequency	%
5		58%
4		27%
3		11%
2		2%
1		0%

topics	posts	views	last activity
The Next Best Boo...: Historical Fiction Advice	116	406	25 days ago, 12:24AM

04/21/08

Aaron rated it:

Read in April, 2008

recommends it for: everyone

Whether you agree or disagree with Ron Paul's views, this book serves as an important political primer on the real issues facing America today: civil liberties, the economy, the failing dollar, foreign policy.... issues mostly ignored by a national media obsessed with superficial catch-phrases and meaningless scandals. Primarily a concise collection of the views and ideas expressed during Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential campaign, this book also contains an extended reading list for "a free and...more

Like this review? yes (6 people liked it)

add a comment

05/22/08

Amy rated it:

recommends it for: EVERYONE interested in politics or confused about their position on issues

I spoke too soon. I guess I should have trusted Ryan. This book was wonderful. I felt Ron Paul is a much better writer than speaker. I really enjoyed learning about the purpose of the constitution. I agree with the philosophy of smaller government and more liberty and independence for the people. His economics chapter was my favorite. Great reminder that we don't work for the government, the government works for us. Taxes- great reminder that if we completely got rid of taxes, the FED budget w...more

Like this review? yes (4 people liked it)

1 comment

03/04/08

Omar rated it:

bookshelves: american-politics

The Apostle Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams, Frederic Bastiat, Robert Nisbet, Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek, George Orwell et. al. these are just a number of the great intellectuals – theologians, political theorists, and economic philosophers quoted in the newest volume from Ron Paul – The Revolution: A Manifesto.
An avid fan of politic...more The Apostle Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams, Frederic Bastiat, Robert Nisbet, Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek, George Orwell et. al. these are just a number of the great intellectuals – theologians, political theorists, and economic philosophers quoted in the newest volume from Ron Paul – The Revolution: A Manifesto.
An avid fan of political theory, international relations, and economics myself, I found Ron Paul’s extremely short book to increase my already strong attachment to him. In an almost chilling manner, almost all of Dr. Paul’s opinions in this book coincide with my own. Even in areas where I may dissent from Dr. Paul’s views, his arguments deserve to be studied and make very strong sense.
Dr. Paul plainly and simply describes the foreign policy of the founding fathers: free trade and commercial relations with all nations, entangling alliances and foreign interventions with none. This cliché oft-repeated maxim has been rejected by modern American foreign policy as guidance for another time and another age, but Dr. Paul seeks to challenge the modern American foreign policy consensus.
A non-interventionist foreign policy, Paul argues, is not an isolationist one. Paul notes that Richard Cobden, a nineteenth century British statesman and a non-interventionist was known as the International Man. True isolation comes about through preemptive foreign invasions and policing of the world which isolate us from the international community. Moreover, true isolationism rails against free trade and commerce amongst nations, which Dr. Paul argues is an impetus of peace. Instead, non-interventionism is the affirmation that military and political interventions in the affairs of other nations are both harmful to American national interests and immoral.
A non-interventionist foreign policy first and foremost is idealistic in and of itself. Unlike the chirps of neoconservatives such as Norman Podhoretz who claim that those who oppose neoconservatism are insufficiently idealistic and care not for the cause of liberty but for simple stability, Dr. Paul notes that only through non-interventionism can there truly be idealistic support for liberty in the world. Dr. Paul notes that American statesman from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to John Quincy Adams to Henry Clay all affirmed that only through being a shining light – a beacon of liberty – could the United States be an example for liberty around the world. Through entanglements with the wars of Europe, America would have vanquished long ago, and who knows what the status of liberty would be in the world. Dr. Paul adds that this foreign policy was the one advocated by then Governor George W. Bush during his 2000 presidential campaign that called for a “humble foreign policy,” and claimed that American arrogance and policing of the world would bring about international hostility.
Moreover, American foreign entanglements harm its security and national interests. Dr. Paul quotes two foreign policy experts on terrorism – former CIA chief of Counterterrorism Michael Scheuer – and University of Chicago international relations theorist Robert Pape who has carried out the largest study on record concerning the causes of suicide terrorism. Both Scheuer and Pape argue that American foreign policy in the Middle East – including unabashed support for Israel, large troop presence in Saudi Arabia, and support for dictatorial regimes – precipitate terrorist attacks against the United States and serve as a rallying cry and casus belli for Islamic terrorist ringleaders like Osama bin Laden. Dr. Paul rightly notes that the vast majority of suicide bombing incidents in the world have been by non-Muslims, and that the main strategic objective of suicide terrorism is to compel Western democracies to withdraw troops from occupied lands. While this is what Paul calls “common sense,” it is unfortunate that hardliner neoconservative demagogues feel it necessary to brand Dr. Paul and others who state this very obvious fact as blamers of America. Arrogant delusions of American infallibility seem to be the foreign policy of choice of the Bush administration and its allies.
What overjoyed me most was Dr. Paul including the moral dimension of war. In our overtly positivist world, many seem to lose sight of the moral dimension of war preferring instead to subjugate morality to utilitarian conceptions of national interest. Dr. Paul writes unabashedly of Christian and secular just war theory, jus ad bellum, expounded upon by Ambrose and Augustine – war must be waged by proper authorities, defensively, after all other means have been attempted, and proportionate to the level of violence. Dr. Paul’s avocation of moral values in a relativist world shows the principled nature of this rarity of a politician – one who stands up for natural law and natural rights, who fights against the grain of violence and injustice. Later in the book, Dr. Paul fights against the Orwellian linguistics used by the violent and unjust claiming that murder manifested in both war and abortion are given almost satanic euphemisms such as “collateral damage” and eliminating “parasites.”
Dr. Paul not only affirms the moral and national security benefits of a strategy of non-interventionism, he also shows it is not far from the republican and conservative tradition. Instead of quoting the likes of American libertarians – Paul quotes what he terms “traditionalist conservatives” intellectuals, the very heart and soul of the American Old Right: Richard Weaver, Robert Nisbet, and Russell Kirk, all of whom veraciously opposed aggressive wars and unnecessary American entanglements. Paul reminds the reader that all three writers were mainstream and extremely popular intellectual figures in the traditional conservative movement. When it comes to politicians look no further than Senator Robert Taft, the great stalwart of the Old Right, who saw warfare and its power to erode civil liberties as dangerous to American society.
When it comes to the constitution and economics – Dr. Paul stabs the political establishment with a knife to the gut. The erosion of our civil liberties under the so-called “war on terror,” Paul explains, is self-defeating and a danger for our republic. The income tax is forced labor from the government which causes Americans to work for a large proportion of the year without enjoying their savings. Our spending is over bloated, the welfare state is creating a dependency culture which only furthers poverty, and the excessive expansion of federal power in the central government is bringing about ruin.
The often distorted and rarely understood free market, Dr. Paul explains, is simply the most moral and most efficient economic system in existence. Paul explains how American corporatism, or socialism for the rich, in subsidies, anti-competition regulations, enforcing monopolies, and bailing out big business is not free market economics and only further entrenches the poor in poverty. This along with the inflation tax by the Federal Reserve Bank gives capitalism a very bad name. Belief in capitalism, Dr. Paul adds, comes not from belief in efficiency or prosperity. Instead it comes from the realization that nobody has the right to initiate violence and force against another’s property – quoting French economist Friedrich Bastiat, Paul concludes that the American economic system consists of everyone plundering everyone else: “The state is the great fiction where everyone believes he can live at the expense of someone else.” In a true free market and in major cuts in the budget, especially the defense budget, the prosperity which would be seen in America would be unbelievable.
Even in issues where I disagree with Dr. Paul as a traditionalist conservative, such as the legalization of drugs, Dr. Paul’s arguments are cogent and absolutely intelligent. Dr. Paul explains how although something may be un-virtuous, passing a law against that sin or evil may in fact be even worse. This truth, Paul adds, exists in the Christian tradition in the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas.
In the past few months, the GOP has done some soul searching. Neoconservative ideologues such as David Frum, Michael Gerson and Reihan Salam have written tracts for a GOP-revival which consist of little more than embrace of the welfare state and programs such as socialized medicine and more interventionism in foreign policy. Some, such as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich have called for the GOP to fight hard against stupid vacuous causes such as “earmarks.” Other than former American Conservative Union chairman Mickey Edwards, none of the obituaries for the GOP have included anything about returning to its commonsense foreign and domestic policy roots. Dr. Paul in a simple way returns the GOP to its roots. Perhaps through this work (which has so far outsold Frum, Gerson, and Salam) the Old Right can win in the battle of ideas. It was the ideas of a few Utopian neoconservatives – Irving and William Kristol, Robert Kagan (now John McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser), Leo Strauss and others – that the GOP was transformed. Ideas have consequences, or as John Maynard Keynes once said you will often find one who disclaims any intellectual influence be the slave of the ideas of some now defunct economist. Through spreading the truth about America in the world perhaps some future statesmen and leaders will save this country through the ideas of Ron Paul’s revolution.
(less)

Like this review? yes (3 people liked it)

add a comment

11/11/08

Breckl rated it:

Read in November, 2008

I think most conservatives are fans of Ron Paul that simply don't know it yet. As the Republican party has changed over the last several years we have lost sight of what it means to be a conservative. Conservative once meant being an advocate of small fed gov't, less intervention, with a reliance on sound fiscal policy. The new conservatives/Republicans have lost that tradition as they spend more than ever and seek to grow the power of the federal gov't.

I think the problem with ...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

2 comments

09/17/08

Thomas rated it:

bookshelves: non-fiction

Read in October, 2008

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

Before I read this book I would have said Ron Paul is one politician that I think I can identify most with, so this was not by any means a book that was difficult for me to read. I often found myself nodding in agreement - one of the few actions you can take while reading by yourself without looking like a "doofus."

There is a good exert from Ron Paul's call to action chapter (also titled "The Revolution") that I think sums up my view of this book (and what it rep...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

06/27/08

Darcie rated it:

Read in June, 2008

This book was a fascinating eye-opener for me. I started reading it because I was curious as to Ron Paul's core beliefs. He was ridiculed and pushed aside during the republican debates that I watched, so I became curious as to why they would not let him be heard. His ideas are in fact nothing new to the American tradition. It's just that we have gone so far astray from constitutional government that these ideas now seem revolutionary. Small government, non-interventionist foreign policy, fi...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

1 comment

04/29/08

Lyndse faba added it

Read in June, 2008

this is the real reason i was at the bookstore today. i pledged to buy this book this week. we're trying to get 50,000 (or is it 500,000- i'm bad with zeros unless it's division) to draw some attention to the cause.

ron paul is the first politician i have ever encountered (since i'm too young to really remember barry AUH20) who really understands economics and has any kind of suggestion as to what we should do about our current fiscal situation.

i'm looking forward to readi...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

1 comment

07/25/08

Claire marked it as to-read

bookshelves: to-read

Five minutes of reading this at random has, three or four times now, proved more informative about the economic workings of our country than any number of months keeping up with headline news. It's also remarkably sane and intelligent. Take this quote, for instance:

Abolishing the income tax on individuals would cut government revenue by about 40 percent. I have heard the breathless claims about how radical that is--and compared to the trivial changes we are accustomed to seeing in go...more

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

04/28/08

Ryan rated it:

Read in April, 2008

recommends it for: People who are sick of the status quo

If you are familiar with Dr. Paul, you already know where he stands on the issues. This book goes and discusses his stance and why he feels the country today has turned its back on the Constitution and is no longer based upon the Founders philosophies.
This book is a simple read, only 176 pages and has a great recommended reading list at the end. Anyone who is interested in the beliefs of Dr. Paul and the Libertarian/Constitution parties platforms would be well advised to read this book.

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

06/17/09

Steve rated it:

Read in June, 2009

I read this book at my brother's request after he went to hear Ron Paul speak a while back. I agreed with almost all of the problems he presented in the book, but needless to say, my liberal leanings had some problems with some of the solutions he presented. Abolishing income tax, smaller government, more states rights are not the answers I don't think. While I agreed with most of the civil liberties chapter, I don't think that homeschooling is a "right" people have. He presented his a...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

5 comments

05/02/08

Dave rated it:

Read in May, 2008

recommends it for: everyone who can read

This is the best book I've read in a long time. If you want a politician - no, not a politician but a "statesman" - who has an actual plan instead of a bunch of rhetoric, then Ron Paul is your guy. This book lays out the exact problems with our nation today and gives answers to these problems.

And what is problem #1? Our own government does not follow it's own rules (The Constitution)

Like this review? yes (2 people liked it)

add a comment

08/11/08

Ryan rated it:

Read in August, 2008

recommends it for: Republicans and Democrats

This is a short read that I highly recommend to anyone wanting a fresh take on what ails our country.

Ron Paul argues that, in practice, Republican and Democratic politicians aren't that different - they are both "Big Government" parties. The "changes" they propose are rarely dramatic (except for spending increases).

One recurring theme of this book is that the federal government has been trampling the Constitution so badly and for so long, that we've g...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

05/31/08

Ryan rated it:

bookshelves: non-fiction

Read in May, 2008

What I like about this book is not that it is the absolute best, most clear-cut argument for smaller government and many other ideals held by Libertarians. What I like about it is that it is a very readable book that I could recommend to friends of mine who want to get a better perspective about where I'm coming from. He uses enough current examples to take the book beyond the world of political theory and shows how a libertarian perspective can solve real problems confronting us now. He gets in...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

2 comments

06/29/08

Scott rated it:

This was a quick and fascinating read. Paul, glosses over some of his views on almost every subject (abortion, economy, social security etc)that is encountered today in the political sphere. MOst of his comments and political plans are straight-forward, common sensical. The major pitfall though is that that they are highly impractical. Due in large part to the fact that the system is so broke at this point and the laws that have been put into place (that undermine the core of the rights of A...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

09/08/08

Tom rated it:

Read in September, 2008

Unfortunately for Ron Paul, the sound bites of his views come off as the ravings of a near lunatic... eliminate the IRS, the Federal Reserve System, the Department of Education and almost all federal government agencies. But, once you understand that those views are based upon a complete commitment to a government as designed by the constitution, they don't seem so radical.

The recent financial crisis and proposed bailout only proves Paul's point that the federal government has gro...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

1 comment

06/30/08

John rated it:

bookshelves: politics

Dr. Paul rocks. This work is a nice afternoon or evening read that one can knock out in a matter of hours and yet it says pretty much all that needs to be said about our government and our times.

It would have been nice if the work had citations or footnotes in it but I also don't think this work was meant to be a text. Regardless, the suggested works in the back of this book are an excellent starting point for anyone who seriously wants to study the topics which Dr. Paul discusses in...more

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

02/04/09

Sydney rated it:

I was a reluctant reader of Ron Paul. Having watched his recent run at presidential politics, I dismissed his shrill ranting as unfailingly naïve; then, once I deemed him not having a snowball’s chance at victory, I ceased to listen. At a friend’s urging/prodding/threatening, I read his book The Revolution: A Manifesto and found that Paul has a treasure trove of ideas about making American government serve the people rather than serving itself and elected representatives.

In ...more I was a reluctant reader of Ron Paul. Having watched his recent run at presidential politics, I dismissed his shrill ranting as unfailingly naïve; then, once I deemed him not having a snowball’s chance at victory, I ceased to listen. At a friend’s urging/prodding/threatening, I read his book The Revolution: A Manifesto and found that Paul has a treasure trove of ideas about making American government serve the people rather than serving itself and elected representatives.

In The Revolution, Paul makes a credible case for correcting many of the government’s past missteps. Foreign policy interventionism, foreign aid, and entitlements have, perverted the intended outcomes and, to make matters worse, achieved them by means that are a direct contradiction of articles of the U.S. Constitution. Foreign policy intervention has caused excessive military spending and unrest in countries where we have chosen to institute America-friendly but people-repressive regimes. Foreign aid is often absorbed by corrupt institutions and leaves the needy as bereft as before the money arrived. Finally, entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare have replaced charities, family and community in caring for the elderly and infirm; they are also being provided at significant cost to future generations. He provides facts and arguments that are hard to ignore, then he offers the rationale for why the political chattering classes and journalists do just that during every four year presidential election cycle.

One of Paul’s revolutionary proposals is the elimination of the income tax. While I decry the complexity of income taxes and the unfair burden I feel is imposed upon me as a taxpayer, I had never thought of income taxes as forced unpaid labor to support programs that I do not utilize or that I philosophically oppose. In concept, I love the idea and see how the elimination of government spending could offset that loss of revenue. Seems too simple to works as he describes it, and I would need to hear/read the thoughts of noteworthy economists before my wholehearted embrace of the concept. Additionally,neither Congressional will or self-interest exists to donything this radical.

Reading the book made me ask how could we the American electorate have allowed so many of the Federal government’s ill- conceived programs to take root and become perpetual budget line items. How did we allow legislative dithering, taxation, presidential fiat, and irresponsible budgetary behavior that does align with Constitutional intent to prosper?

I concluded that these things developed as a result of the public’s lack of intellectual curiosity about how government operates, abdication of electoral responsibility, and a collective failure to take action when we see government running afoul. Or in my case, as a government contractor, a healthy dose of self-interest.

Although Paul makes some recommendations about how to reverse these ex-constitutional programs and actions, his recommendations rely heavily upon generating popular and focused dissent, thus causing the people of this nation to rise up in revolt. I am afraid and dismayed to admit this, but I think Barack Obama’s election as President is all the revolution Americans can stomach for at least four score and I don' know how many more years.

The revolution as defined by Paul would require a diet of substantive dialogue, lessons in the content and intent of The Constitution, a healthy exercise of civic responsibility, and engagement in the political process (that involves more than chanting, “Yes we can.”). Further, it would demand American Idol-like devotion to government proceedings, like watching Congressional hearings and reading issues of the Federal Register. Unlike him, I have no hope that the public wants to do what would be required, but I wish him well.

All in all, the book has good content and is an easy read. You'll read and be better informed, even if his writing style leaves you wishing his editor had exercised the red pen more readily.
(less)

Like this review? yes

add a comment

12/29/08

Jared rated it:

bookshelves: non-fiction, political-thought

Read in September, 2008

This is a very thought-provoking book. It makes you question the conventional political wisdom and presents very clearly how a lot of the supposed choices that are considered on Capitol Hill neglect other, perhaps better choices. It's rare to have a politician lay out why he or she votes the way he or she does on given issues. Ron Paul lays out a number of his positions and defends his beliefs. Amazingly, a lot his positions are actually carefully considered, in contrast to a lot of the othe...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

04/13/09

John rated it:

Read in April, 2009

I remember studying the U.S. Constitution for the first time in eighth grade and being perplexed by what it said and yet seeing very clearly that things were not the way they were intended by the founding fathers. Since then I have always yearned to see our government work the way it was intended to work. Yet at the same time I was firmly committed to the principles espoused by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. I enthusiastically voted for Bob Dole for President in 1996 when I wa...more I remember studying the U.S. Constitution for the first time in eighth grade and being perplexed by what it said and yet seeing very clearly that things were not the way they were intended by the founding fathers. Since then I have always yearned to see our government work the way it was intended to work. Yet at the same time I was firmly committed to the principles espoused by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. I enthusiastically voted for Bob Dole for President in 1996 when I was first eligible to vote.
I had been persuaded that if Republicans were in power in Washington that the government power would be restrained and we would thrive as a nation. I believed that the way things were was basically working. The Federal Reserve System was managing the economy well, we have freedoms many other nations yearn to possess, our economy was strong and showed no signs of mortality.
Though I still wished things were as the Constitutional framers had intended them to be, things were working, and I thought it wasn’t realistic to upset a functioning system. So I supported George W. Bush for president in 2000 and 2004, believing that he would govern fundamentally differently than Al Gore and John Kerry.
After 9/11 I too began to believe that we must take action against radical Islamic terrorists and part of that action must ultimately include dealing with Iraq, which I’d believed that George H. Bush and Bill Clinton had dealt with inadequately. I was enthusiastic about the prospect of overthrowing the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein and bringing peace and democracy to Iraq. I fiercely defended the war and had contempt for those that opposed the war and later worked to end it.
I was a strong proponent of the Patriot Act and believed it was a much needed piece of legislation that would protect America from Islamic terrorism. As for the massive budget deficits of the Bush administration I wished that he and the Congress would use restraint, but I still supported the president and much of the other policies he enforced. I kept thinking, if only Bush had restrained spending, what a great president he could have been. I honestly believed that George W. Bush would go down in history as one of our best presidents—going against the conventional wisdom of the day.
But these beliefs have undergone a radical transformation since Barack Obama took office in January. President Obama has continued many of the policies of his predecessor including bank bailouts, continuing in Iraq, and continued trust in the Federal Reserve System. While President Bush pushed the budget deficit into unprecedented heights, President Obama has already spent more than Bush ever did.
The likeness between the two men’s policies has given credence to the notion that the two parties have more in common than not. The two political parties have false disagreements—meaning they are arguing over the wrong questions, arguing with the wrong presuppositions.
Enter Ron Paul, Austrian Economic Theory, and Libertarianism. I was introduced to Austrian Economics through Peter Schiff, a financial pundit that is all over cable news shows. He predicted the economic collapse years ago, and was ridiculed for it. I wanted to know why he was so prescient, so I found that he was connected to the Austrian school of thought on economics. The more I read the more convinced I was that the current political and financial structure was inherently immoral, deceptive, and destructive. I found that Congressman Ron Paul of Texas had also been predicting economic collapse for years and had been actively opposed to most everything that Congress has done during his tenure in Washington. I’d known of Ron Paul during the 2008 Republican Primaries and I thought he was a naïve third party candidate with no hope of winning, and I didn’t even consider supporting him for these reasons.
I finally broke down and read Ron Paul’s book entitled The Revolution: A Manifesto. I thought that I might at least appreciate his stance on small government and sound money, but I thought I would be unconvinced about his opposition to the Iraq War and supporting Israel financially and militarily. To my surprise I found myself in complete agreement with everything he wrote in the book.
Ron Paul’s manifesto is precisely the desire of our founding fathers. I was delighted to see these issues are not Republican or Democrat issues—these are fundamentally American issues. All freedom loving Americans ought to resonate with Ron Paul’s message of peace, prosperity, and freedom.
In The Revolution Paul demonstrates that both major political parties have far more in common than not. The Democratic Party has the reputation (and deservedly so) of being the party of big government. They often say they want it to be “smarter” or “more efficient,” but it is always big. Republicans want “smaller” government, but their idea of small is clearly only relative to other national governments. Our federal government is massive—there can be no doubt about this. It is undeniable that both parties are for big government, they disagreement is merely concerning how much bigger or how much smaller. This is a false disagreement.
The framers sought to devise a system of states allied with one another through a small, central government. They gave limited rights to the central government bestowing all other rights unto the states. This is clearly not the way things currently stand. Over the years Washington has centralized the power given to the states, subordinating state’s rights. This power grab has had profound effects on our nation and has led toward what Ron Paul calls the “Imperial Presidency.” The “Imperial President” has taken upon himself powers not granted to the executive branch by the Constitution, and this has been accepted by both political parties. Congress has been complicit in this power grab, granting rights to the executive branch that only they can wield.
I am now fully persuaded that our nation will not have positive, meaningful change until either the Democratic or Republican parties embrace the kind of limited government that the framers intended. I do not believe that either party is capable of this right now. What is required is a fundamental change in governance. There must be a third party to overthrow the tyranny of the American government. The revolution must happen to save America from the certain ruin that both political parties are driving toward.
Read this book!

(less)

Like this review? yes

add a comment

11/15/08

Kim rated it:

Read in November, 2008

I'm on page 36 and couldn't agree more with what Ron Paul has said so far about beomg an isolationist. War should be in self-defense and we need to stop supporting any other country with foreign aid. He espouses going back to the way that our Founding Fathers thought about foreign relations. That we do not impose ourselves on any other nation and seek to lead through the strength of our own country. Some of the best 36 pages I've ever read. Takes a lot of courage to call out one's own party...more I'm on page 36 and couldn't agree more with what Ron Paul has said so far about beomg an isolationist. War should be in self-defense and we need to stop supporting any other country with foreign aid. He espouses going back to the way that our Founding Fathers thought about foreign relations. That we do not impose ourselves on any other nation and seek to lead through the strength of our own country. Some of the best 36 pages I've ever read. Takes a lot of courage to call out one's own party to the carpet. But it must be done to show that we aren't all lock-step in line with a party. Some of have roots that go back to the founding of this great nation.

UPDATE: Finished book in two days. It was revolutionary. I have my doubts that his views would ever be popular again, however, although millions of people do share his views. One of the theories of physics is that everything is winding down. Nothing is expanding. The sun, our bodies, most everything is winding down. I don't see how we will ever go back. I personally think that it is God's plan that we are winding down to the final end described in the Bible.

I did not disagree much with Ron Paul's ideas except that he would displace tens of millions of people from gov't jobs and I don't see how that would happen. People are generally selfish and I don't see them voting themselves out of a job.

However, that aside, yes I do agree with much of Mr. Paul's ideas. Limited central gov't as described in the Constitution, more of an isolationist world view, state's rights preempt a more dominant federal gov't like we have. For people who can not make out a difference between people who call themselves democrats and republicans and don't like it, this book is for you. Although Ron Paul was able to put together a coalition of people from all walks of life, I think his ideas tend to be more in the conservative camp. He advocates that the gov't basically just gets out of the way of her people so that we can live in true freedom and not as slaves to our gov't. (less)

Like this review? yes

add a comment