The fact is, we do ignore history at our own peril and we would be MUCH better off reducing and even eliminating our dependency on Mid East Oil, or anyone else's oil for that matter. So, I can go that far down the road with Paul on this issue.
I disagree with him that this is the principle reason the radical Islamics have it in for us. They DO hate our liberty and the freedom it gives particularly to women and children. They are afraid of it, they disdain the potential for choosing vice's that free will necessarily brings along with it. They would like to destroy it from the earth so it cannot influence them.
I too dislike the vice ... but not to the point of eliminating free choice. The Islamic extremist medicine is far worse than the ill. The correct way to fight vice is through laws that protect rights so that when someone infringes those rights they are punished ... and then to have society persuade and teach better behavior and scorn/reject the vice.
So ... while I disagree with part of Paul's statements, that does not make him a leftist or a "commie" or someone against America. Any more than it makes me think you are for disagreeing with him.
As to the Federal Reserve, which this thread is about, I believe it is a good thing to propose ways to get back to what I consider much more constitutional means of dealing with our money and economics. And then to allow debate on the issue. I appluad Paul for seeking a way to do that, just as I applaud him for seeking a direct way to get us out of the UN.
In my estimation, we would be much better off as a nation if e had a lot more like him in Congress. Since we don't, he is indeed like a lone voice crying in the wilderness on these issues and unfortunately, they will probably not be debated or changed. I believe he is gathering momentum on the UN issue though.
FRegards.
My initial impressions of Ron Paul were quite good. In fact I thought it was great that there was a congressman actually putting forth resolutions to get rid of the UN.
But I've read his writings and speeches and he toes the leftist "blood for oil" conspiracy-like line. His views are no different than what one would read in the Nation or Guardian or that come from Chomsky. Paul comes from a different angle in presenting his views and couches them differently, but they are identical in their take home message.
His actual views as stated by him in speeches and writings are very different than hpw he presents himself and how he is presented by his supporters. It is very strange.