Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom

I think it was in the 1992 Presidential Election campaign that the question was first asked: Boxers or Briefs? What a horrible question! Here it is: your chance to ask the possible future President of the United States a question, and you ask that. Weren't there more pressing issues in 1992 and since then than that. But here's what makes that question even worse: only two choices. What, boxer-briefs don't exist? Thongs? Commando? And that in a nutshell is what's wrong with politics: 1.) People are asking the wrong questions and 2.) they are under the impression that there are only two possible answers to any question. It's either the Republicans' solution or the Democrats'. Wrong. Here's what's right with politics: Ron Paul. For those of you who don't know him, he's a doctor and a congressman. And he's also seeking the Republican nomination for the President of the United States in 2012. He's known as Dr. No because he votes against all of the unconstitutional and bad legislation. His wife thinks he should be called Dr. Know because he's one of the few people in this world who really knows what's going on. He's been labeled a fringe candidate, a crackpot, a racist, etc., but he's more popular now than he has ever been. One reason for his popularity is that none of those slanderous labels stick in anyone's mind that does the research on this man. He also stands for liberty, truth, and a strong adherence to the Constitution. But what is "liberty"? Dr. Paul spells it out quite clearly in his new book, Liberty Defined. He takes a ton of issues, from Abortion to Zionism, and discusses how a free society would handle them. This is beyond the sound bites and the Republican's and Democrat's talking points. I highly recommend any thinking American (and other nationalities, too) to read this book. My two favorite chapters are on Demagogues and Democracy. The U.S. likes to spread "democracy", but democracy is not a good thing. It's different from a republic. If you go back far enough, say thirty or forty years and listen to past political speeches, you'll hear the word "republic" more often than "democracy", which Dr. Paul points out is a form of government that has "no limit". The chapter on Demagogues covers the name-calling in politics, and of course, goes beyond that. Dr. Paul shows how "the politicians and friendly media work together to promote an agreed-to agenda." If you haven't figured this out yet, it's better late than never. Honestly, this book is not perfect. There's about one sentence every one or two chapters that I had to reread several times to get the meaning. A comma, a period, or a complete rewrite would have been most welcome. I wish the editor had been more stringent. One chapter in the book that could've been written better was the one on Global Warming. I agree with much of what Dr. Paul says, but I wish he would have emphasized the free markets more in this chapter, rather than singing the praises of nuclear energy. I think Dr. Paul would agree with me that the free markets should determine the type of energy that's used. Sure, it might be nuclear energy, but as someone who has lived through the recent events in Japan, I would use my free market vote for something else. Still, Liberty Defined is overall well-thought-out and well-written. It goes beyond the sound bites, and every serious voter should read this book. You may disagree with Dr. Paul, but you'll at least be forced to rethink your beliefs and strengthen your arguments. 5 out of 5 stars (for those aboard the liberty train) 4 out of 5 stars (for those who may disagree) AJP

I became an admirer of Ron Paul after watching the first Republican debate this election. I watched every televised debate since the first and my opinion of Ron Paul only got better. I feel for the first time in my adult life, finally, a politician agrees with nearly everything I believe and have argued with friends for years; and I believe Ron Paul means what he says and he would do what he says if he had been nominated and elected President. I am so sad for the country that Ron Paul was not on the ballet and that Ron Paul is not our next President. Because I was so enthralled with Ron Paul, I had to purchase and read one of his books. I actually bought two of his books, but this is the first one I read. I loved the book and I highly recommend it. The book is refreshingly candid and Ron Paul explains his perspective on a myriad of topics clearly. I do want to take this opportunity though to say something to Ron Paul directly regarding religion. Religion is the one topic I thing where we have some differences. I respect Ron Paul's religious beliefs. I was raised Catholic and my wife and best friend are both Jewish. But, I no longer belong to any religious groups, nor do I consider myself an Atheist, Agnostic or Secularist. I am a realist, which most likely is lumped in with Atheist. To make my coming point brief, I just want to let Dr. Paul know that I and many like me do not believe in a man god and that is why I do not belong to any of the major religions. I believe the man god of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim religions to be man made. But, not being a member of one of the large religious organizations does not mean me or others like me are exempt from love and compassion. We do not need a man god to have feelings for family or for our fellow men. The most important part of my philosophy of life is my wife, my children and my extended family. They are everything to me. I also care greatly about the world and others and the rights and liberties of all. I choose not to dictate or force my beliefs on anyone and I hope they will extend me the same courtesy. But I and others like me do not need a major religion to care for family and the world. I have my rules of love, compassion and moral conduct and I do not need to borrow these from one of the major religions; to me and others like me, certain conduct, moral or otherwise is self-evident; and, I teach my children to live by these rules. I just wanted to point that out. That god is not needed to love. I got a negative feeling about those of us who do not belong to major religions from the book and I just wanted to express my feelings. I do not think any offense was meant against those of us who do not belong to organized religious groups in the book, but I got the feeling a complete understanding of many of us was lacking. That said, again I highly recommend this book! Ron Paul is a true champion of liberty and this book is a great read!

In the run-up to any presidential election, it is not uncommon to see new books hit the market from the pens of those who are in the running. These books often take the form of memoirs, introducing readers to the candidates on a more personal level; at other times a politician will actually put in writing what he or she intends to do if elected. While I have nothing against biographies, I prefer the more policy-oriented texts from those who desire my vote. Thankfully, Ron Paul's books tend to fall into this latter category, and his latest is no exception. This book is quite different from his previous works, though. In it he writes more broadly, outlining his views on a wide variety of topics (arranged alphabetically from "Abortion" to "Zionism") rather than focusing on a single topic à la End The Fed . This book will serve well as an introduction to Dr. Paul, whose message continues to gain popular support, though it has remained remarkably consistent through over 30 years of public service. Rather than comment on the individual "essential issues", I wanted to analyze Paul's political philosophy as a whole, based on the arguments presented in this book. To do this, I asked three important questions that would help me (and perhaps others) decide whether this is a man I would support for President. The questions: 1. Is his policy consistent? 2. Are his objectives desirable? 3. Can it work? CONSISTENCY Nobody likes a flip-flopper. Often a politician will hold a position on an issue so long as it is politically convenient, only to switch positions later. Sometimes this happens because he or she is too easily swayed by special interest groups or popular conventional wisdom (which is often no wisdom at all). Other times, it happens because a candidate's political vision has no logical internal consistency. When politicians have supported positions that are mutually exclusive or policies that are working toward opposing ends, they eventually must backtrack. One thing that struck me when reading this book was how consistent Paul's logic is. On every issue his position is well thought out, clearly articulated, and organized around one central objective. His introduction says of this book and of his philosophy in general: "Above all, the theme is liberty. The goal is liberty." Paul desires a government that exists solely to maximize personal liberty, and his commitment to his ideas has been unwaivering, even when they are very unpopular. Love him or hate him, at least you know what you're getting with Ron Paul. DESIRABILITY Of course, it's possible for someone's logic to be perfectly consistent yet still be based on undesirable objectives or false premises. So a reader (or voter) must ask: Do I want what Ron Paul wants? On the surface, most everyone would agree that freedom is a good thing. Few would say that they desire less liberty. However, when it comes to personal responsibility -- the flip side of the freedom coin -- objections begin to be raised. Ron Paul would have lovers of liberty realize that a government that allows its citizens the freedom to succeed must also allow them to be free to make poor choices and be responsible for their consequences. In business, this means letting companies fail (no matter how large or small) as the market regulates itself. Paul is an enthusiastic proponent of the "Austrian School" of economics. In his words, "the Austrian School champions private property, free markets, sound money, and the liberal society generally". What does the "liberal society" look like? Protecting individual freedom, according to this model, requires the federal government to be involved as little as possible in the lives of citizens, which necessitates a willingness to let individuals fail should their free choices result in harm to themselves. Thus, Paul is in favor of deregulating things like drugs and prostitution, while ending government welfare, unemployment, and a host of other programs that keep citizens reliant on the State. Far from being a compassion-less society, this is a society that makes it easier for those in need to receive aid from family, friends, neighbors, religious organizations, and other local sources, which are far better suited to meet needs. Of course, this also leaves the responsibility for meeting those needs in the hands of compassionate individuals and communities, which is why our Founding Fathers were so insistent that a free society rested entirely on the morality of its people. Two areas in which Paul encounters much resistance are products of his consistent approach to the size of the government. His philosophy of limited government requires ending the monopoly on education held by nationalized schools, and drastically scaling back the single largest hub of federal power and spending: the military. Strangely, many of the biggest proponents of free markets (who tend to support Paul's economic policies) are also staunch supporters of public schooling and military empiricism -- two things that inhibit market freedom more than nearly anything else. So people tend to look less favorably on Paul's positions on competition for schooling and non-interventionist foreign policy. Even in areas where people disagree with Paul, his arguments are compelling. Citizens from all points on the political spectrum owe it to themselves to consider Paul's case. At the end of the day, though, your agreement with him will depend on how much freedom you really want (and want others to have). Real liberty, almost totally free from government regulation, can be a scary thing. Are we ready for that kind of responsibility? FEASIBILITY Having considered his objectives, what about the premises on which Paul's philosophy is based? One of the primary critiques of classical liberalism/libertarianism has long been that it is based on a Utopian fantasy; that it sounds good in theory, but can't work in practice. Is this true? In some senses, yes, it is true. The "Great American Experiment" (as Alexis de Toqueville called it) which sought to provide liberty for all was an imperfect system because it counted on the morality of sinful people. But the founders of that political system, which Paul seeks to reclaim for America, acknowledged its imperfection and made provision for compensating for Man's inherent sinfulness by giving us a very limited government with many checks and balances, codified in the Constitution and protected by a Bill of Rights. Besides, political systems are not to be judged against perfection, but against their competing alternatives (a point fleshed out by Jay Richards in Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem ). There is no such thing as a "perfect" human government. So if one agrees that Ron Paul's objectives are better than the alternatives, the proper question is whether it is achievable. Paul's book contains a mix of optimism and pragmatism. While he truly believes that his policies would work, he realizes that implementing them immediately would be too drastic a change from where we are now. Thus, he suggests several practical intermediate solutions that are steps in the right direction, which could be done upon his election (for instance, seeking to give public schools over to local control, rather than eliminating public schooling altogether). Whether it could work may be moot, however. Unless more Americans come around to Ron Paul's way of thinking, we may never get a chance to see whether his policies can work in 21st-century America. Even if he is never elected, though (and he is considered a long shot for the White House), Paul will not consider his endeavor a failure. He writes as a modern-day Cicero; hopeful to help save the Republic, but committed to passing on a legacy of ideas to educate future generations about the blessings of liberty and peace and a system of government that honors the rule of law. Should the United States prove to have passed the point of no return with regard to the loss of personal liberty, Paul hopes that his message will help preserve the vision of the founders of our nation to be revived again some day. So, can Ron Paul's policies work? I suppose that depends on whether or not one believes that America has crossed her Rubicon. This is a book every politically interested citizen should read.

I purchased the kindle edition and finished the book in 3 hours with several re-readings of some chapters/paragraphs. This book is intended for rapidly imploding contemporary America, and could serve as some sort of ideological foundation for next 10 years to organize a political revamping of GOP which is in its death throes. It deals with Paul's unique approach as a conservative libertarian. Surprisingly, the word libertarian has been mentioned only 6 times, whereas the word moral appears a good 109 times. The writing appears to be universal in its appeal so that an Asian or African can also relate to part of its contents. Its main focus is on freedom, which together with diversity and harmony, forms the three principles of humanity. The book is tabulated in 50 chapters and covers 5 principal themes. 1. Individual vs State: Chapters on Capital Punishment, Civil Disobedience, Public Land, Surveillance and Slavery deal with Paul's view of Washington DC's crack-down on "personal" liberty. Paul claims that Washington DC is violating personal and property rights of American people. Matters are at the tipping point so that in near future Americans will lose all remaining freedoms. However, he does not provide any timeline. 2. Foreign policy: Chapters on Assassinations, CIA, Conscription, Empire, Foreign Aid, Patriotism, Security, Terrorism, Trade Policies and Zionism. Paul claims that Washington DC's foreign policy is costing Americans in blood and treasure. These policies are advanced by neoconservatives, whose founders were Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol. But its executive roots lay in Wilson's presidency, who preceded Strauss & Kristol! Paul's prescription for Arab-Israeli conflict is Intermarriage, not war. But if the Congress declares war, would a non-interventionist Paul execute it as President? Further, if America withdraws, will terrorists stop attacking? If I (America) burn my neighbor's (Iraq/Afg) house and then withdraw and say sorry, will my neighbor drop the idea of bloody revenge? Unlikely. 3. Welfarism/ State Socialism: Chapters on Bipartisanship, Executive Power, Four Freedoms, Gun Control, Immigration, Insurance, Lobbying, Medical Care, Moral Hazard, Morality in Government, Prohibition, Public Land, Statistics and Unions. These chapters deal with centralization of power over individuals, families, towns and States. These chapters offer a grave warning to reader that charity and philanthropy is being replaced with government programs. Regrettably, Paul is crying in the wilderness for the noble concept of Tithe, which used to be customary in a bygone era. A revival of Tithe is the humane alternative to State Welfarism, so that the bottom 10%, the ones who have been left behind, can be helped. 4. Monetary/Economic Policy: Taxes, Monetary Policy, Keynesianism, Business cycle and Austrian Economics deal with the economic policy, monetary policy and Paul's pet topic, the Federal Reserve. Paul claims that Keynesianism confiscates all wealth from the poor, middle class, and the "justly" rich - to what he pejoratively describes as the "Goldman Sachs Elite". According to Paul, the Federal Reserve is more powerful than the Presidency. But if central banking and Keynesianism is so bad, how come Japan, China, Korea became so rich so quickly? Japanese, Koreans enjoy the longest life spans, the largest middle class. Keynesian Japan is the largest international creditor, and its huge public debt is almost all held by Japanese people, not foreigners. How is US different than Japan, Korea, China? 5. Moral Decline: Chapters on Abortion, Demagogues, Discrimination, Education, Envy, Evolution, Global warming, hate crimes, marriage, political correctness, racism, religion and liberty. Paul claims that organized special interests claim wealth, territory and power at the expense of unorganized (libertarian?) groups. He decries government imposed affirmative action and claims that it harms American people. But in Japan, Korea, Israel that's not the case. The State enforces the ethnic interests of the majority. Paul warns that the ultimate goal of State Socialism is to transform Americans into helpless, subservient and docile cattle in the name of equality so that the 99% masses will toil, while the Washington/Wall-Street elite will enjoy. The book has some personal anecdotes and the reader gets a glimpse of some events from Paul's life. Throughout the book Paul tries to convince that Golden Rule is wonderful. He cites passages from Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity in support of Golden Rule. On paper its appeal is undeniable. But 2600 years of Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism did not make China, India more peaceful. Indians invaded Malaya in 11th CE, Central Asia in 8th CE. Lower caste and outcaste Indians are still brutally oppressed. China invaded Vietnam, Korea, Central Asia many times. Middle East has been a cesspool of war and invasions since the dawn of time. Just look at the history of Europe under North Africans, Arabs, Turks, Persians... Paul invokes George Orwell's 1984 several times to assert that this is where America is now. Towards the end, this book calls for character and action to save the "Republic". Not "utter cynicism", "endless policy details" and resignation. In the age of 24/7 TV, sexualized culture, pleasure seeking "me me me" individualism, the capacity to achieve political success required to rejuvenate or even save a Third World America is just not there. Since libertarians are at the one end of individualism/collectivism scale, how do they plan to stick together "collectively" for decades until their libertarian dreams come true? Isn't Libertarian party a kind of collective?

This book is a categorical look at the definitive aspects of our republic as it was meant to be. I, like most people in this country, only recently realized the real roots of our American dream were planted in the idea of expanding the liberty of the individual and the suppression of the state. This book lays out an honest and open opinion on how we have strayed, what we should be doing and why. I didn't start out thinking this way, but this message is hard to ignore. I got out of the military in 2009 to find out Barrack Obama was president and I was pretty excited about it. I didn't vote for him but it sounded like a drastic redirect from Bush who I couldn't stand. I remember watching the debates before we went on deployment and bringing up "that Ron Paul guy" to some of my friends on the submarine I was on. A few of them said "yeah, I agree with some of what he's saying, but he's kind of crazy" so not really knowing politics or economics like I do now, I wrote him off. Huge mistake. After the economic crash and after studying who saw it coming and what was going on I found much of my new free time not in the military I was going to be able to read books and watching videos about what was happening to the country while I was enlisted and preoccupied with making rate and qualifying watches. Now that it's 2011 and I've read everything I can about Libertarianism and Austrian economics, I've been sold on the idea. With the main proponent of the message, in my mind, being Dr. Ron Paul. This book might even be better than End The Fed, which is the most enlightening book on what's going on in our country I have read to date. I recommend anyone with an open mind read this book and forget your preconceived notions about capitalism and small government, because the case can be made very well for limiting the intrusion into your life as a better way of life, and I think Ron Paul nails it.

Over the last ten years, and finding myself more and more disillusioned by the Republican Party, I started down the road of Libertarianism. Ron Paul, in his book, Liberty Defined, provides one of the better modern treatises on the Libertarian Philosophy. He touts freedom, liberty, morality - saying they would all be benefit from more freedom, more liberty, and less government. Of all the Presidential Candidates, he is probably the most consistent in his beliefs and practices. Moreover, he is probably the smartest Republican Candidate in regards to government, the Constitution, history, and especially economics. I have become more of a fan not only of his common sense and wisdom, but also his ability to present these ideas in a language every reader can understand. I think his biggest appeal is that he is NOT a traditional Republican who touts love of God, Country, Guns, and Jesus. Another strength for him as an embrace of the religious and faithful, who are often viewed in a dim light by Libertarians. His biggest strength is his concept of economics. He points out how the Fed bypasses Constitutional authority, prints money on a whim, and hurts the value of our dollar. He has a keen insight on sound monetary policy. Paul also is keen on what makes wealth, and on how our continual use of Keynesian Economics has driven our nation to the precipice. However, there are some flaws in his reasoning - mostly because of his striving for a pure form of Libertarianism. This is evident in his views on bipartisanship, which he scornfully disdains. Also, his views on Islam are a bit naive, probably more so than many of the right-wing critics of that religion. Paul fails to mention the Sha'ria law which makes most Muslim states a theocracy, and treats women like second-hand citizens. He fails to mention the warring splits between Persian and Arab Muslims, as well as the fighting going on between the Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims. This is not to disregard his foreign policy ideas of non-interventionism, and resistance to nation building. Paul brought me around to that line of thinking - although the fiasco in Iraq had a lot to do with it, too. I find disagreement with his his chapter devoted to torture and terrorism. True, I do not advocate it, but Paul always wants to take the moral high road in regards when dealing with enemy combatants and terrorists, and that is not always possible. While neo-cons far too often settle for the lesser of two evils, Paul will never settle for it at all. Sometimes, that is all we have. I often use the analogy of an exterminator who has to deal with a sewer rat: to get the rat, you have to go into the sewer. On the other hand, he hits the nail on the head in the chapter of Moral Hazards. As the government has expanded it's insurance on failure in this nation, he paints an accurate picture of Americans who want the freedom for everything - except failure. This has lead to the adding of our massive welfare state. He also paints an accurate picture of our military forces stretched so thin throughout the world like the Roman Empire. Why should South Korea, Japan, and Germany get free defense from us - especially with the Cold War over? Other Libertarians like John Stossel and Gary Johnson have also brought me to the idea of ending the war on drugs. Paul continues this idea, however I wish he would have pointed out that as a society we can restrict them, instead of prohibiting them. I also wished he would have addressed health care more from the Libertarian perspective. This leads to the one major flaw in Libertarianism: the idea that human beings are capable of handling freedom responsibly. I also think Paul is a bit naive on trade sanctions against nations. I agree that our military providing blockades can be considered an act of war. However, trade sanctions is a tool that can, that is the one thing we have against nations that have terrible human rights violations. Paul reminds me of Thomas Jefferson, who was a great thinker and someone who tried to be consistent in political beliefs. I worry that if he does become President, he will face the same dilemma as Jefferson: leaving his Utopian ideals in order to deal with the real world. At most, I would like to him as President, but I really hope he at least becomes Secretary of Treasury.

Ron Paul is sometimes called the grandfather of the Tea Party movement. Godfather is perhaps a more appropriate term, but the collection of essays by Paul in this book shows that many on the right would be rather uncomfortable with Paul's consistent and thoughtful defense of liberty. While this book is, on the surface, a collection of essays on various topics, a couple of themes run through it from start to finish. Perhaps the most important is that our out of control government is fed by war. War is literally the health of the state, and those who seek limited government must start with dismantling our empire. Of course, few on the right are willing to cut military spending, much less consider the suggestions Paul makes (abolish the CIA, withdraw completely from all wars, end draft registration, and repeal not only legislation related to various wars, but also end the ability of Presidents to write "excutive orders" to replace legislation, a power that arose during wartime). But they should look carefully at their opponent, President Obama. During the campaign, Obama sounded enough like a man of peace that even those skeptical of state power were cautiously optimistic, notably economist David Friedman. But once in power, Obama found that wars and the fear they generate was rather helpful in his new position. Not only has he not ended combat in Iraq, it now seems unlikely that our "withdrawls" will bring us down to pre 2008 levels. And of course, we have continued the senseless conflict in Afganistan, kept the Guantanamo prison open, and are still detaining suspects and torturing them. Indeed, Obama's administration has gone further even than the Bush administration in publicly announcing that it will use assassination as a technique of our "war" on terror, and US citizenship does not protect anyone from suffering this fate, a point Paul excoriates in his chapter on assassinations. It is hardly surprising that Obama, a statist, has continued and expanded upon the wartime powers of his predecessor. His vision of society virtually demands it, but those who claim to support limited government can and should do better. And that begins with the recognition that the so called "neo conservatives" who dominated the Bush administration are anything but advocates of small government. Of course, many of the issues Paul examines are not directly related to foreign policy. Even here, however, his position is often at odds with the right wing politics Paul is often placed in by various pundits. He is, of course, pro-life (many obstetricians are) but he does not draw the conclusion that laws should be passed prohibiting abortion. He notes during his residency illegal abortions occurred and will if the procedure becomes illegal again. Changing people's hearts, the real solution, does not happen overnight. Nor does legislation (one way or the other) present a real solution. However, Paul is rightly concerned that those who claim to support a woman's right to "choice" over her own body seem rather oblivious to all the ways that government currently prevents such choices, always for our "own" good. Individual liberty, whether in matters of who we marry, or what we chose to do in the privacy of our own homes, is never the concern of the government. Finally, a major theme of the book is how government regulation creates economic crises. Finally, one might say, an area where we can place Paul firmly on the right. And indeed, Paul does oppose most regulations and most taxes, but he is referring specifically to the Federal Reserve and how it controls the money supply. A tireless champion of auditing the Fed (it is amazing that we cannot even find out what the Fed does with the money it creates out of thin air) Paul would like to restore the dollar to some sort of gold standard that cannot be arbitrarily inflated. He rightly notes that government promises of "social security" are based on dollar amounts, but there is no guarentee, given our current state of affairs, that the "dollars" the government gives retirees will be worth much. In all, Paul offers a remarkably clear sighted vision of what liberty looks like, on any number of issues that we face today, from "global warming" to foreign aid. And, despite efforts to categorize him (or in the case of some on the right and left, to demonize him) Paul's vision is fairly unique on the modern political scene. And if he is indeed the godfather of the Tea Party movement, then one can only hope his influence will be felt much more widely than it already is. Yes, government needs to be cut back dramatically, and no where is that more evident than in our commitment to the military state.

Thirteen years ago I was introduced to Ron Paul as I made a personal conversion to liberty. A friend of mine opened my eyes to the philosophies of liberty through the writings of Bastiat, Hazlitt, Mises, and Hayek. In looking for the personification of these viewpoints amongst modern politicians, there was only one; a solitary voice crying in the wilderness. This book might be the greatest legacy and contribution of the American statesman and patriot, Dr. Ron Paul. He has now spent over three decades preaching the gospel of freedom to a public desensitized and acclimated to legal plunder, government thuggery, and welfarism. He is the last great hope of this nation. He is a man without guile who speaks from his heart and mind; and, has the integrity to live by his words. Fortunately for us, he is now properly vindicated, if not respected, and a new generation of young people are awakening to the cause of liberty he has championed his whole life. Here are the facts. Not only did he predict all the multiple economic shocks that have beset us since the seventies, but he actively fought against the causes, primarily monetary meddling by the Federal Reserve in the free market. Beginning with the dire warnings of his gold commission report in the seventies and culminating is his prescient speeches on the house floor in the early 2000's, he has been a rare example of reason and consistency amongst a corrupt body of opportunistic politicians. I wish I could give this book 10 stars, not because it is profound or even groundbreaking, but because it carries the genius of simplicity, which has always been the hallmark of truth. I can however give him and this great nation something more valuable than any rating...MY VOTE. God Bless Dr. Paul.