text:
Ron Paul

Ronald Ernest Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American author, activist, physician and retired politician who served as the U.S. representative for Texas's 22nd congressional district from 1976 to 1977 and again from 1979 to 1985, as well as for Texas's 14th congressional district from 1997 to 2013. On three occasions, he sought the presidency of the United States: as the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988 and as a candidate for the Republican Party in 2008 and 2012.

A self-described constitutionalist, Paul is a critic of several of the federal government's policies, especially the existence of the Federal Reserve and tax policy, as well as the military–industrial complex, the war on drugs, and the war on terror. He has also been a vocal critic of mass surveillance policies such as the Patriot Act and the NSA surveillance programs. In 1976, Paul formed the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE), and in 1985 was named the first chairman of the conservative PAC Citizens for a Sound Economy, both free-market groups focused on limited government. He has been characterized as the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement, a fiscally conservative political movement started in 2007 and popularized in 2009 that is largely against most matters of interventionism.

Paul served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968, and worked as an obstetrician-gynecologist from the 1960s to the 1980s. He became the first Representative in history to serve concurrently with a child in the Senate when his son, Rand Paul, became United States Senator (R-KY) in 2011.

Ron Paul is a Senior Fellow and Distinguished Counselor of the Mises Institute. He has published a number of books and promoted the ideas of economists of the Austrian School, such as Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises, during his political campaigns. He has cited President Grover Cleveland as a preferred model of governance.

After the popularity and grassroots enthusiasm of his 2008 presidential bid, Paul announced in July 2011 that he would not seek reelection to Congress in order to focus on his 2012 bid for the presidency. Finishing in the top four with delegates in both races (while winning four states in the 2012 primaries), he refused to endorse the Republican nominations of John McCain and Mitt Romney during their respective 2008 and 2012 campaigns against Barack Obama. In May 2012, Paul announced that he would not be competing in any other presidential primaries but that he would still compete for delegates in states where the primary elections had already been held. At both the 2008 and 2012 Republican National Conventions, Paul received the second-highest number of delegates behind only McCain and Romney respectively.

In January 2013, Paul retired from Congress but remained active on college campuses, giving speeches promoting libertarian and libertarian-conservative ideas. He also continues to provide political commentary through The Ron Paul Liberty Report, a web show he co-hosts on YouTube. At 81, and despite not running, Paul received one electoral vote from a Texas faithless elector in the 2016 presidential election, making him the oldest person to receive an Electoral College vote, as well as the second registered Libertarian presidential candidate in history to receive an electoral vote, after John Hospers in 1972.

Early life, education, and medical career
Ronald Ernest Paul was born on August 20, 1935, in Pittsburgh, the son of Howard Caspar Paul (1904–1997), who ran a small dairy company, and Margaret Paul (née Dumont; 1908–2001). His paternal grandfather emigrated from Germany, and his paternal grandmother, a devout Christian, was a first-generation German American. He has four brothers.

As a junior at suburban Dormont High School, he was the 200-meter dash state champion. Paul went to Gettysburg College, where he was a member of the Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity. He graduated with a B.S. degree in Biology in 1957.

Paul earned a Doctor of Medicine degree from Duke University's School of Medicine in 1961, and completed his medical internship at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit and his residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Magee-Womens Hospital in Pittsburgh. Paul served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and then in the United States Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968. Paul and his wife then relocated to Texas, where he began a private practice in obstetrics and gynecology. One child that he helped deliver was famous Tejano singer Selena Quintanilla.

Early congressional career (1976–1985)
While a medical resident in the 1960s, Paul was influenced by Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, which caused him to read other publications by Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. He came to know economists Hans Sennholz and Murray Rothbard well, and credits his interest in the study of economics to them.

When President Richard Nixon "closed the gold window" by ending American participation in the Bretton Woods System, thus ending the U.S. dollar's loose association with gold on August 15, 1971, Paul decided to enter politics and became a Republican candidate for the United States Congress.

Elections
In 1974, incumbent Robert R. Casey defeated him for the 22nd district. President Gerald Ford later appointed Casey to the Federal Maritime Commission, and Paul won an April 1976 special election to the vacant office after a runoff. Paul lost the next regular election to Democrat Robert Gammage by fewer than 300 votes (0.2%), but defeated Gammage in a 1978 rematch, and was reelected in 1980 and 1982. Gammage underestimated Paul's popularity among local mothers: "I had real difficulty down in Brazoria County, where he practiced, because he'd delivered half the babies in the county. There were only two obstetricians in the county, and the other one was his partner."

Tenure
Paul served in Congress three different periods: first from 1976 to 1977, after he won a special election, then from 1979 to 1985, and finally from 1997 to 2013.

In his early years, Paul served on the House Banking Committee, where he blamed the Federal Reserve for inflation and spoke against the banking mismanagement that resulted in the savings and loan crisis. Paul argued for a return to the gold standard maintained by the U.S. from 1873 to 1933, and with Senator Jesse Helms convinced the Congress to study the issue. He spoke against the reinstatement of registration for the military draft in 1980, in opposition to President Jimmy Carter and the majority of his fellow Republican members of Congress.

During his first term, Paul founded the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE), a non-profit think tank dedicated to promoting principles of limited government and free-market economics. In 1984, Paul became the first chairman of the Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), a conservative political group founded by Charles and David Koch "to fight for less government, lower taxes, and less regulation." CSE started a Tea Party protest against high taxes in 2002. In 2004, Citizens for a Sound Economy split into two new organizations, with Citizens for a Sound Economy being renamed as FreedomWorks, and Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation becoming Americans for Prosperity. The two organizations would become key players in the Tea Party movement from 2009 onward.

Paul proposed term-limit legislation multiple times, while himself serving four terms in the House of Representatives. In 1984, he decided to retire from the House in order to run for the U.S. Senate, complaining in his House farewell address that "Special interests have replaced the concern that the Founders had for general welfare... It's difficult for one who loves true liberty and utterly detests the power of the state to come to Washington for a period of time and not leave a true cynic." Paul lost the Republican primary to Phil Gramm, who had switched parties the previous year from Democrat to Republican. Another candidate of the senatorial primary was Henry Grover, a conservative former state legislator who had lost the 1972 gubernatorial general election to Democrat Dolph Briscoe, Jr.

On Paul's departure from the House, his seat was assumed by former state representative Tom DeLay, who would later become House Majority Leader.

1985–1997
Following the loss of the 1984 senate race, Paul returned to his obstetrics practice and took part in a number of other business ventures. Along with his former congressional chief of staff, Lew Rockwell, Paul founded a for-profit enterprise, Ron Paul & Associates, Inc. (RP&A) in 1984, with Paul serving as president, Rockwell as vice president, Paul's wife Carol as secretary, and daughter Lori Pyeatt as treasurer. The company published a variety of political and investment-oriented newsletters, including Ron Paul Freedom Report and Ron Paul Survival Report, and by 1993 was generating revenues in excess of $900,000.

Paul also co-owned a mail-order coin dealership, Ron Paul Coins, for twelve years with Burt Blumert, who continued to operate the dealership after Paul resumed office in 1996. Paul spoke multiple times at the American Numismatic Association's 1988 convention. He worked with his Foundation for Rational Economics and Education on such projects as establishing the National Endowment for Liberty, producing the At Issue public policy series that was broadcast on the Discovery Channel and CNBC, and continuing publication of newsletters.

1988 presidential campaign
Paul left the Republican Party in 1987 and launched a bid for the presidency running on the Libertarian Party ticket. His candidacy was seen as problematic because of the party's long support for freedom of choice on abortions. Native American activist Russell Means, Paul's rival for the nomination, emphasized that he was in favor of abortion rights. In a forum held prior to the nomination, Means dismissed the greater funds raised by Paul's campaign, commenting that Means was receiving "10 times more press" than the former Congressman and was therefore "100 times more effective".

On September 25, 1988, American psychologist and psychedelic advocate Timothy Leary held a fundraiser for Paul, who attended the event. Journalist Debra Saunders attended and wrote about her experience.

In the 1988 presidential election, Paul was on the ballot in 46 states, scoring third in the popular vote with 432,179 votes (0.5%). Paul was kept off the ballot in Missouri, due to what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch termed a "technicality," and received votes there only when written in, just as he did in North Carolina.

According to Paul, his presidential campaign was about more than obtaining office; he sought to promote his libertarian ideas, often to school and university groups regardless of vote eligibility. He said, "We're just as interested in the future generation as this election. These kids will vote eventually, and maybe, just maybe, they'll go home and talk to their parents."

Paul considered campaigning for president in 1992, but instead chose to endorse Pat Buchanan that year, and served as an adviser to Buchanan's Republican presidential primary campaign against incumbent President George H. W. Bush.

Elections
During 1996, Paul was re-elected to Congress after a difficult campaign. The Republican National Committee endorsed incumbent Greg Laughlin in the primary; Paul won with assistance from baseball pitcher, constituent, and friend Nolan Ryan, tax activist and publisher Steve Forbes and conservative commentator Pat Buchanan (the latter two of whom had run in the 1996 Republican Party presidential primaries). Paul narrowly defeated Democratic attorney Charles "Lefty" Morris in the fall election, despite Morris' criticism over controversial statements in several newsletters that Paul published.
 * 1996 campaign

In 1998 and 2000, Paul defeated Loy Sneary, a Democratic Bay City, Texas, rice farmer and former Matagorda County judge. In the 2008 Republican primary, he defeated Friendswood city councilman Chris Peden, with over 70 percent of the vote and ran unopposed in the general election. In the 2010 Republican primary, Paul defeated three opponents with 80 percent of the vote.
 * 1998–2013

On July 12, 2011, Paul announced that he would not seek re-election to the House in order to pursue the 2012 presidential election.

Tenure

 * Legislation

Of the 620 bills that Paul had sponsored through December 2011, over a period of more than 22 years in Congress, only one had been signed into law—a lifetime success rate of less than 0.3%. The sole measure authored by Paul that was ultimately enacted allowed for a federal customhouse to be sold to a local historic preservation society (H.R. 2121 in 2009).

By amending other legislation, he helped prohibit funding for national identification numbers, funding for federal teacher certification, International Criminal Court jurisdiction over the U.S. military, American participation with any U.N. global tax, and surveillance of peaceful First Amendment activities by citizens.

In November 1997, Paul was one of eighteen Republicans in the House to co-sponsor a resolution by Bob Barr that sought to launch an impeachment inquiry against President Bill Clinton. The resolution did not specify any charges or allegations. This was an early effort to impeach Clinton, predating the eruption of the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal. The eruption of that scandal would ultimately lead to a more serious effort to impeach Clinton in 1998. On October 8, 1998, Paul voted in favor of legislation that was passed to open an impeachment inquiry. On December 19, 1998, Paul voted in favor of all four proposed articles of impeachment against Clinton (only two of which received the needed majority of votes to be adopted). Two days prior, on December 16, Paul had stated that he would vote to impeach based on Clinton's military attacks in the Middle East, namely the 1998 bombing of Iraq and Operation Infinite Reach, and not necessarily the Lewinsky scandal, which he described as far less serious than the "unconstitutionality of presidents waging wars".

Paul was honorary chairman of, and is a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, a political action committee that describes its goal as electing "liberty-minded, limited-government individuals". He is an initiating member of the Congressional Rural Caucus, which deals with agricultural and rural issues, and the 140-member Congressional Wildlife Refuge Caucus.
 * Affiliations

Committee assignments
Paul served on the following committees and subcommittees.
 * Committee on Financial Services
 * Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology (Chairman)
 * Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade
 * Committee on Foreign Affairs
 * Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

With the election of the 112th Congress, and a resulting GOP majority in the House, Paul became the chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology starting in January 2011.

Paul's congressional career ended on January 3, 2013 with the swearing in of the 113th Congress.

2008 Republican primary campaign
Paul formally declared his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination on March 12, 2007, on C-SPAN. Few major politicians endorsed him, and his campaign was largely ignored by traditional media. However, he attracted an intensely loyal grassroots following, interacting through internet social media. In May 2007, shortly after the first televised primary debates, the blogs search engine site Technorati.com listed Paul's name as the term most frequently searched for; and Paul's campaign claimed that Paul had more YouTube channel subscribers than Barack Obama or any other candidate for president. Paul fundraised more money than any other Republican candidate in the fourth quarter of 2007, as the primary season headed into the Iowa caucuses.

Despite benefiting from campaign contributions from individual donors, and the supporters determined to keep his name a frequent topic of discussion on the internet, over the course of the campaign Paul was unable to translate the enthusiasm of his core supporters into large enough numbers of actual primary votes to unseat his rivals.

Paul came in 5th place in both the January 4 Iowa caucuses (10% of votes cast) and the January 8 New Hampshire primary (8%). With the exception of the Nevada caucuses January 19, where he came in 2nd (14%) behind Mitt Romney (51%), he did little better through the rest of January: Michigan 4th (6%), South Carolina 5th (4%), Florida 5th (3%). On Super Tuesday, February 5, he placed 4th in almost every state, generally taking in a mere 3–6% of the votes although he did better in the northern states of North Dakota (21%, 3rd place) and Montana (25%, 2nd place).

By March, front-runner John McCain had secured enough pledged delegates to guarantee that he would win the nomination, and Romney and Mike Huckabee had both formally withdrawn from the race. Paul, who had won no state primaries, knew that it was now impossible for him to win the nomination, as he had captured only 20 —40 pledged delegates compared to more than 1,191 for McCain, yet he refused to concede the race and said that it was unlikely that he would ultimately endorse McCain. Over the next few weeks, Paul's supporters clashed with establishment Republicans at several county and state party conventions over state party rules, the party platforms, and selection of delegates for the national convention. In one instance, Nevada's state party leaders in response to Paul's supporters at the state nominating convention, resorted to prematurely shutting down the convention before selecting national delegates, with a plan to reconvene at a later date.

On June 12, 2008, Paul withdrew his bid for the Republican nomination. He later said that one of the reasons he did not run in the general election as a third-party candidate, after losing the primaries, was that, as a concession to gain ballot access in certain states, he had signed legally binding agreements to not run a third-party campaign if he lost the primary. Some of the $4 million remaining campaign contributions was invested into the political action and advocacy group called Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty.

Endorsement after ending campaign
At a September 10, 2008, press conference, Paul announced his general support of four third-party candidates: Cynthia McKinney (Green Party); Bob Barr (Libertarian Party); Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party); and Ralph Nader (independent). He said that each of them had pledged to adhere to a policy of balancing budgets, bringing the troops home, defending privacy and personal liberties, and investigating the Federal Reserve. Paul also said that under no circumstances would he be endorsing either of the two main parties' candidates (McCain—Republican Party, or Obama—Democratic Party) because there were no real differences between them, and because neither of them, if elected, would seek to make the fundamental changes in governance that were necessary. He urged instead that, rather than contribute to the "charade" that the two-party election system had become, the voters support the third-party candidates as a protest vote, to force change in the election process. Later that same day, Paul gave a televised interview with Nader saying much the same again.

Two weeks later, "shocked and disappointed" that Bob Barr (the Libertarian nominee) had pulled out of attending the press conference at the last minute and had admonished Paul for remaining neutral and failing to say which specific candidate Paul would vote for in the general election, Paul released a statement saying that he had decided to endorse Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, for president.

Paul withdrew from active campaigning in the last weeks of the primary election period. He received 42,426 votes, or 0.03% of the total cast, in the general election.

2012 Republican primary campaign
Paul won several early straw polls for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination and formed an official exploratory committee in late April 2011. He participated in the first Republican presidential debate on May 5, 2011 and on May 13, 2011 formally announced his candidacy in an interview on ABC's Good Morning America. He placed second in the 2011 Ames Straw Poll, missing first by 0.9%. Paul indicated in a June 2011 interview that if nominated, he would consider former New Jersey Superior Court judge Andrew Napolitano as his running mate.

In December 2011, with Paul's increased support, the controversy over racist and homophobic statements in several Ron Paul newsletters in the 1980s and early 1990s once again gained media attention. During this time Paul supporters asserted that he was continually ignored by the media despite his significant support, citing examples of where television news shows would fail to mention Paul in discussions of the Republican presidential hopefuls even when he was polling second.

Iowa
Ron Paul's presidential campaign managers Jesse Benton, John Tate and Demetri Kesari were all found guilty of paying former Iowa State Senator Kent Sorenson $73,000 to switch his support from Rep. Michele Bachmann to Paul. In court papers filed in August 2014, Sorenson said that he had been paid by both presidential campaigns for his endorsement and pled guilty to criminal charges stemming from the incident.

Paul came in third in the Iowa Republican Caucus held on January 3, 2012. Out of a turnout of 121,503 votes, Paul took 26,036 (21%) of the certified votes. Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney finished in a virtual tie for first place with 25% each, although Ron Paul had ultimately won Iowa at the Republican National Convention gathering 22 delegates to Mitt Romney's 5. In the New Hampshire primary held on January 10, 2012, Paul received 23% of the votes and came in second after Romney's 39%.

South Carolina, Florida, Nevada
Paul's results then declined, despite the withdrawal of candidates Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry. He had fourth-place finishes in the next two primaries, on January 21 in South Carolina (with 13% of the vote) and on January 31 in Florida (where he received 7% of the vote).

On February 4, Paul finished third in Nevada with 18.8% of the vote. Three non-binding primaries were held on February 7; Paul took 3rd place in Colorado and Missouri with 13% and 12% of the vote, respectively. He fared better in Minnesota with 27%, finishing second to Rick Santorum.

On May 14, Paul's campaign announced that due to lack of funds (though despite financial backing from financiers Peter Thiel and Mark Spitznagel) he would no longer actively campaign for votes in the 11 remaining primary states, including Texas and California, that had not yet voted. He would, however, continue to seek to win delegates for the national party convention in the states that had already voted.

Irregularities
In June, a group of 132 supporters of Paul, demanding the freedom as delegates to the upcoming Republican party national convention to cast votes for Paul, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the Republican National Committee and 55 state and territorial Republican party organizations for allegedly coercing delegates to choose Mitt Romney as the party's presidential nominee. The suit alleged that there had been "a systematic campaign of election fraud at state conventions," employing rigging of voting machines, ballot stuffing, and falsification of ballot totals. The suit further pointed to incidents at state conventions, including acts of violence and changes in procedural rules, allegedly intended to deny participation of Paul supporters in the party decision-making and to prevent votes from being cast for Paul. An attorney representing the complainants said that Paul campaign advisor Doug Wead had voiced support for the legal action. Paul himself told CNN that although the lawsuit was not a part of his campaign's strategy and that he had not been advising his supporters to sue, he was not going to tell his supporters not to sue, if they had a legitimate argument. "If they're not following the rules, you have a right to stand up for the rules. I think for the most part these winning caucuses that we've been involved in we have followed the rules. And the other side has at times not followed the rules."

Republican National convention
Paul declined to speak at the Republican National Convention as a matter of principle, saying that the convention planners had demanded that his remarks be vetted by the Romney campaign and that he make an unqualified endorsement of Romney. Paul had felt that "It wouldn't be my speech... That would undo everything I've done in the last 30 years. I don't fully endorse him for president." Many of Paul's supporters and delegates walked out of the convention in protest over rules adopted by the convention that reduced their delegate count and that would make it harder for non-establishment candidates to win the party's nomination in future elections. Supporters and media commentators had noted that the delegations from states where Paul had had the most support were given the worst seats in the convention hall, while delegations from regions with no electoral votes, such as the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico, were given prime seats at the front.

Endorsement after ending campaign
As in 2008, in 2012 Paul ultimately refused to endorse the ticket selected by the Republican Party. He said that there was no essential difference between Romney and his Democratic opponent, President Obama, on the most critical policies: "I've been in this business a long time and believe me there is essentially no difference from one administration to another no matter what the platforms... The foreign policy stays the same, the monetary policy stays the same, there's no proposal for any real cuts and both parties support it." Paul received 26,204 write-in votes, or 0.02% of the total cast in the election.

Political party identification
Throughout his entire tenure in Congress, Paul has represented his district as a member of the Republican Party. However, he has frequently taken positions in direct opposition to the other members and the leadership of the party, and he has sometimes publicly questioned whether he really belonged in the party.

Paul voted for Dwight D. Eisenhower for president in 1956 when he was 21 years old. He had been a lifelong supporter of the Republican Party by the time he entered politics in the mid-1970s. He was one of the first elected officials in the nation to support Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign, and he actively campaigned for Reagan in 1976 and 1980. After Reagan's election in 1980, Paul quickly became disillusioned with the Reagan administration's policies. He later recalled being the only Republican to vote against Reagan budget proposals in 1981, aghast that "in 1977, Jimmy Carter proposed a budget with a $38 billion deficit, and every Republican in the House voted against it. In 1981, Reagan proposed a budget with a $45 billion deficit—which turned out to be $113 billion—and Republicans were cheering his great victory. They were living in a storybook land." He expressed his disgust with the political culture of both major parties in a speech delivered in 1984 upon resigning from the House of Representatives to prepare for a (failed) run for the Senate, and he eventually apologized to his libertarian friends for having supported Reagan.

By 1987, Paul was ready to sever all ties to the Republican Party, as he explained in a blistering resignation letter: "Since [1981] Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? ... There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years." A month later he announced he would seek the 1988 Libertarian Party nomination for president.

During the 1988 campaign, Paul called Reagan "a dramatic failure" and complained that "Reagan's record is disgraceful. He starts wars, breaks the law, supplies terrorists with guns made at taxpayers' expense and lies about it to the American people." Paul predicted that "the Republicans are on their way out as a major party," and he said that, although registered as a Republican, he had always been a libertarian at heart.

Paul returned to his private medical practice and managing several business ventures after losing the 1988 election; but by 1996, he was ready to return to politics, this time running on the Republican Party ticket again. He said that he had never read the entire Libertarian platform when he ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988, and that "I worked for the Libertarians on my terms, not theirs." He added that in terms of a political label he preferred to call himself "a constitutionalist. In Congress I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the (Republican) platform."

When he lost the Republican Party presidential primary election in 2008, Paul criticized the two major political parties, saying that there was no real difference between the parties and that neither of them truly intended to challenge the status quo. He refused to endorse the Republican Party's nominee for president, John McCain, and lent his support to third-party candidates instead.

In the 2012 presidential campaign, during which he acknowledged it was unlikely that he would win the Republican Party nomination, Paul again asserted that he was participating in the Republican Party on his own terms, trying to persuade the rest of the party to move toward his positions rather than joining in with theirs. He expressed doubt that he would support any of his rivals should they win the nomination, warning that, "If the policies of the Republican Party are the same as the Democrat Party and they don't want to change anything on foreign policy, they don't want to cut anything, they don't want to audit the Fed and find out about monetary policy, they don't want to have actual change in government, that is a problem for me." On that same theme he said in another interview, "I would be reluctant to jump on board and tell all of the supporters that have given me trust and money that all of a sudden, I'd say, [all] we've done is for naught. So, let's support anybody at all ... even if they disagree with everything that we do."

Political positions
Paul has been described as conservative and libertarian. According to University of Georgia political scientist Keith Poole, Paul had the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress from 1937 to 2002, and is the most conservative of the candidates that had sought the 2012 Republican nomination for president. Other analyses have judged Paul much more moderate. The National Journal, for instance, rated Paul only the 145th-most-conservative member of the House of Representatives (out of 435) based on votes cast in 2010. The National Journal 's analysis gave Paul a 2011 composite ideological rating of 54% liberal and 46% conservative.

The foundation of Paul's political philosophy is the conviction that "the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else."

He has been nicknamed "Dr. No," reflecting both his medical degree and his insistence that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

In 2008, Paul spoke at the John Birch Society's 50th-anniversary celebration.

Foreign policy
An anti-war activist, Paul promotes a noninterventionist foreign policy and an end to American imperialism. He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty.

He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in response to the September 11 attacks, but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists, in lieu of launching an Afghanistan invasion. An opponent of the Iraq War as well, and potential war with Iran, he has criticized neoconservatism and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, arguing that both inadvertently cause terrorist reprisals against Americans, such as the 9/11 attacks. Paul has stated that "Israel is our close friend" and that it is not the place of the United States to "dictate how Israel runs her affairs". Paul, a critic of the US's implementation of most foreign aid, said in 2011 that "it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power to repress his people in the first place."

Following the Orange Revolution protests in 2004, which led to Viktor Yanukovych's ouster from government, Paul accused the National Endowment for Democracy of having staged a coup in Ukraine. Paul supported the 2014 Crimean status referendum, for which he has been called a friend of Putin, and has objected to sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War and foreign aid to Ukraine.

Domestic issues
Paul endorses constitutional rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, and habeas corpus for political detainees. He was one of only three Republicans in the House to vote against the Patriot Act. Paul opposes federal use of torture, presidential autonomy, a national identification card, warrantless domestic surveillance, and the draft. He has also called for shutting down the TSA and moving matters of airline security to private businesses. Paul believes that the notion of the separation of church and state is currently misused by the court system: "In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous 'separation of church and state' metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty."

Sometime within the same month but much after the event of authorities executing a lock-down in sequence to the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, Paul commented on the tactics used by governing forces into a harsh criticism that he has written as a "military-style occupation of an American city".

Economic issues

Paul is a proponent of Austrian School economics; he has authored six books on the subject, and displayed pictures of Austrian School economists Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises (as well as of President Grover Cleveland and Chicago School economist Milton Friedman) on his office wall. He regularly voted against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes; he cast two thirds of all the lone negative votes in the House during a 1995–1997 period.

He pledged never to raise taxes and states he has never voted to approve a budget deficit. Paul believes that the country could abolish the individual income tax by scaling back federal spending to its fiscal year 2000 levels; financing government operations would be primarily by excise taxes and non-protectionist tariffs. He endorses eliminating most federal government agencies, terming them unnecessary bureaucracies.

On April 15, 2011, Paul was one of four Republican members of Congress to vote against Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal, known as "The Path to Prosperity."

Paul has consistently warned of hyperinflation and called for a return to the gold standard as far back as 1981. From 1999 until his retirement, he introduced bills into each Congress seeking to eliminate the Federal Reserve System in a single year,  a position he outlines in his 2009 book End the Fed.

Paul is a strong proponent of free trade, once saying that "free trade is an answer to a lot of conflicts around the world". He rejects membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization as "managed trade". He has also advocated for open trade and better relations with the country of Cuba. In addition, Paul argued in 2012 that "as well intentioned as sanctions are, they almost always backfire and hurt the people."

He has described his interest in ending wars and lowering military spending as partly an "economic issue", adding, "We'd save a lot of money by not being engaged [in overseas conflict] like this."

Climate change
As a free-market environmentalist, he asserts private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention. He rejects the scientific consensus on climate change and has claimed that global warming is a hoax in a 2009 Fox Business interview.

Healthcare
Paul has stated that "The government shouldn't be in the medical business." He pushes to eliminate federal involvement with and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to decrease due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market. He also opposes federal government influenza inoculation programs.

Immigration
Paul endorses increased border security and opposes welfare for illegal immigrants, birthright citizenship and amnesty; he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. However, in a 2019 interview, Paul expressed disapproval of President Donald Trump's proposed border wall along the southern US border, saying, "I don't like walls. I don't want to wall people in and wall people out."

Ballots and voting
He is an outspoken proponent of increased ballot access for third-party candidates. He has sought to repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as the Motor Voter law.

Secession
Paul has stated that secession from the United States "is a deeply American principle" and that "If the possibility of secession is completely off the table there is nothing to stop the federal government from continuing to encroach on our liberties and no recourse for those who are sick and tired of it." Paul wrote the remarks in a post on his Congressional website in one of his final public statements as a member of Congress, noting that many petitions had been submitted to the White House calling for secession in the wake of the November 2012 election.

Social issues

Citing the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, Paul advocates states' rights to decide how to regulate social matters not cited directly by the Constitution. He opposes federal regulation of such matters as the death penalty (although he opposes capital punishment), of education, of drugs, and of marriage. Regarding same-sex marriage, he stated in 2011 that "My personal opinion is government shouldn't be involved. The whole country would be better off if individuals made those decisions and it was a private matter." He endorsed revising the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy to concern mainly disruptive sexual behavior (whether heterosexual or homosexual). His abortion-related legislation, such as the Sanctity of Life Act in 2005, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters." Paul says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe that life begins at conception.

Paul was critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it sanctioned federal interference in the labor market and did not improve race relations. He once remarked: "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society". Paul opposes affirmative action.

Paul opposes the federal War on Drugs, and advocates that states should decide whether to regulate or deregulate drugs such as medical and recreational marijuana, and other substances. In 2001, he joined with Democratic Congressman Barney Frank in helping pass the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act (H.R. 2592), an attempt to stop the federal government from preempting states' medical marijuana laws.

Paul again partnered with Frank in support of online gambling rights. In 2006, both strongly opposed H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, and H.R. 4411, the Goodlatte-Leach Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.

In June 2018, Paul posted a tweet containing a racist cartoon and a caption which invoked the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. The tweet read "Are you stunned by what has become of American culture? Well, it's not an accident. You've probably heard of 'Cultural Marxism,' but do you know what it means?". The tweet was later deleted with an apology, stating that a staff member had inadvertently posted what Paul described as an "offensive cartoon".

In August 2022, Paul expressed support for Republican state governments he described as “fighting back against so-called ‘Woke’ Capitalism.”

Post-congressional career
In April 2013, Paul founded the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, a foreign policy think tank that seeks to promote his non-interventionist views. The institute is part of his larger foundation Foundation for Rational Economics and Education. In the same month, he began to offer the Ron Paul Curriculum, a homeschool online curriculum developed by Gary North and taught from a "free market and Christian" perspective.

In June 2013, Paul criticized the NSA surveillance program and praised Edward Snowden for having performed a "great service to the American people by exposing the truth about what our government is doing in secret".

In April 2015, Paul began appearing in infomercials for Stansberry & Associates Investment Research, warning about an upcoming financial meltdown as a result of the imminent crash of the world's currencies. In March 2017, Paul predicted a market downturn again.

Paul was a critic of Donald Trump's plans to increase the number of military personnel in Afghanistan. In August 2017, he said that Americans don't see Afghanistan as a threat to their personal security and being aggressive in foreign policy only loses Trump some of his support base. Paul has also called for Trump to bring American troops back from Syria in April 2018, on the grounds that the threat from ISIS has been eliminated. He continues to voice his disagreements regarding foreign policy, and more recently, regarding the events involving America and Iran.

In 2013, Paul established the Ron Paul Channel, an Internet broadcast. Its slogan was "Turn Off Your TV. Turn On the Truth." In 2015, Ron Paul ended all relationships with the Ron Paul Channel in order to start a new Internet program called The Ron Paul Liberty Report, which he co-hosts with Daniel McAdams.

2016 presidential election
Paul endorsed his son, Senator Rand Paul, in the 2016 Republican primary and campaigned for him in Iowa. After his son dropped out, Paul had said that no Republican or Democratic candidate even came close to holding libertarian views. Paul expressed disappointment in former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson's Libertarian Party nomination for President, and told independent voters that Green Party nominee Jill Stein was a better candidate for those who "lean towards progressivism and liberalism", while emphasizing that he was not endorsing her.

Paul received one electoral vote from a Texas faithless elector, South Texas College political science professor William Greene (who had been pledged to Donald Trump), in the 2016 presidential election, making Paul the oldest person ever to receive an electoral vote, and the second Libertarian Party member to receive an electoral vote, after John Hospers in 1972.

2020 presidential election
In the 2020 Democratic primary, Paul described Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard as "the most intelligent" and "the very, very best" option of the Democratic candidates, primarily for her views on foreign policy, adding that "We probably wouldn't agree with too much on economics."

Newsletters controversy
Beginning in 1978, for more than two decades Paul and his associates published a number of political and investment-oriented newsletters bearing his name (Dr. Ron Paul's Freedom Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report, the Ron Paul Investment Letter, and the Ron Paul Political Report).

A number of the newsletters, particularly in the period between 1988 and 1994 when Paul was no longer in Congress, contained racist material that proved controversial when he returned to Congress and ran for president. Topics included conspiracy theories, anti-government militia movements, and race wars. During Paul's 1996 congressional election campaign, and his 2008 and 2012 presidential primary campaigns, critics charged that some of the passages reflected racism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia.

In a 1996 interview, Paul did not deny writing the newsletters and defended some of their contents, but specified that he opposes racism. In March 2001, Paul said he did not write the commentaries, but stopped short of denying authorship in 1996 because his campaign advisers had thought it would be too confusing and that he had to live with the material published under his name. Half a dozen libertarian activists, including some still closely associated with Paul, pointed to Lew Rockwell as the primary ghostwriter of the newsletters. Rockwell denied responsibility for the content. In 2011, Paul's spokesperson Jesse Benton said Paul had "taken moral responsibility because they appeared under his name and slipped through under his watch."

COVID-19 pandemic statements
On March 16, 2020, Ron Paul criticized the government, media, and public responses to the nascent COVID-19 pandemic in a column for his website. He dismissed claims of a death rate higher than the flu as "a claim without any scientific basis" and said that the "chief fearmonger of the Trump Administration is without a doubt Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health," who Paul claimed was "serving up outright falsehoods to stir up even more panic." He stated, "People should ask themselves whether this coronavirus 'pandemic' could be a big hoax...That is not to say the disease is harmless. Without question people will die from coronavirus. Those in vulnerable categories should take precautions to limit their risk of exposure. But we have seen this move before. Government over-hypes a threat as an excuse to grab more of our freedoms. When the 'threat' is over, however, they never give us our freedoms back."

Personal life
Paul has been married to Carol (Carolyn) Wells since 1957. They met in 1952 when Wells asked Paul to be her escort to her 16th birthday party. They have five children, who were baptized Episcopalian: Ronald, Lori, Randal, Robert, and Joy. Paul's son Randal (Rand) is the junior United States senator from the state of Kentucky. Raised a Lutheran, Paul later became a Baptist. Since 1995, Carol Paul has published the Ron Paul Family Cookbook, a collection of recipes she and her friends contributed, and which was sold in part to support Ron Paul's political campaigns. His life and career is the subject of the 2012 film Ron Paul Uprising.

Paul and his wife currently reside in Lake Jackson, Texas.

On September 25, 2020, Paul was hospitalized after slurring his words while speaking during a livestream event. Paul later posted a photo of himself in a hospital bed to his Twitter page, along with the statement "I am doing fine. Thank you for your concern".

In April 2021, following Paul's absence from his daily show, the Ron Paul Liberty Report, his co-host Daniel McAdams revealed Paul's daughter, Lori Pyeatt, had recently died.

Books

 * Ron Paul: Father of the Tea Party, by Jason Rink, 2011
 * Ron Paul's rEVOLution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired, by Brian Doherty, 2012

Films

 * The Housing Bubble, a 2018 documentary starring Ron Paul, and featuring numerous archival clips of his predictions over the years.
 * America: Freedom to Fascism, 2006 film featuring an interview from Paul.
 * American Drug War: The Last White Hope, 2007 documentary in which Paul has a cameo appearance.
 * I.O.U.S.A., 2008 documentary featuring Paul among the cast.
 * Brüno, 2009 film by Sacha Baron Cohen in which Paul has a cameo appearance.
 * An Inconvenient Tax, 2010 documentary featuring Paul among the cast.
 * Ron Paul Uprising, 2012 film by William Lewis, about Paul and his campaign for the presidency.
 * Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who Is John Galt?, 2014 adaptation of Atlas Shrugged in which Paul has a cameo appearance.

Other contributions

 * Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine:
 * Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine:
 * Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine:
 * Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine:
 * Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine:

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Ron Paul


text:
Triple oppression

Triple oppression, also called double jeopardy, Jane Crow, or triple exploitation, is a theory developed by black socialists in the United States, such as Claudia Jones. The theory states that a connection exists between various types of oppression, specifically classism, racism, and sexism. It hypothesizes that all three types of oppression need to be overcome at once.

History
Before triple oppression was termed, black female scholars of the 19th century discussed the unique oppressions of black women. As an abolitionist, Sojourner Truth affirmed the struggles she faced as a result of both her race and gender. Truth voiced opposition to the Fifteenth Amendment with the reasoning that more male power would lead to the greater oppression of black women. In an 1867 speech, she said, "...if colored men get their rights, and not colored women theirs, you see the colored men will be masters over the women, and it will be just as bad as it was before." Moreover, suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton stated that black women would suffer from a "triple bondage that man never knows" if they did not receive voting rights when colored men did. Anna Julia Cooper discussed black women's double enslavement through race and gender. Moreover, in 1904, activist Mary Church Terrell explored the unique discrimination faced by black women when she wrote about women of color's discrimination as a result of both their race and gender.

According to scholar Eric McDuffie, the term "triple exploitation" was coined in the 1930s by activist and Communist Party member Louise Thompson Patterson to describe the oppression pertaining to class, race, and gender suffered specifically by black women.

Triple oppression was popularized during a time of transition when the Old Left as a movement was rendered powerless post-World War II. Communism, although prominent in earlier years, reached its highest peak in the political atmosphere in the 1960s. The Communist party was made up of immigrant members and foreign and the various coalitions formerly associated with the Socialist Party of America; those workers, many of whom were not fluent English-speakers, made little effort to include Black Americans and their rights even when both mirrored each other. As the Socialist Party was rising, still little effort was made to include many African-American members. Although leaders often were committed against racial segregation, many in the Socialist Party didn't see the connection to racism and how it affected many in the United States. "Some African Americans dissatisfied by Socialist attitudes and their unwillingness to speak up about racial issues, joined the Communist party; others went to the African Blood Brotherhood (ABB), which was known for being a radical black liberation organization." The Communist Party's new concept introduced triple oppression focusing on Black women workers. This oppression is shown through, "The most privileged group members marginalizes those who are multiply-burdened and obscures claims that cannot be understood as resulting from discrete sources of discrimination." The party focused on the blatant issues of race, class, and gender while including intersectionality. After much frustration from black citizens and a reformulation of the Communist party, many African Americans joined the party to further the goal of equality. Eventually after World War I and II, the communist party underwent many splits that caused the party to get smaller and eventually disappear. Many groups came out of this, including militant power movements like the Black Panther movement.

Claudia Jones
The concept of black women's triple oppression was popularized within the Communist Party by party member Claudia Jones. Jones believed that black women's triple oppression based on race, class, and gender preceded all other forms of oppression. Additionally, she theorized that by freeing black women, who are the most oppressed of all people, freedom would be gained for all people who suffer from race, class, and gender oppression. Jones saw that the Communist Party focused on the oppression of the white working-class male, and she criticized the party's lack of recognition of the specific oppressions of black women in her article, "An End to the Neglect of the Problems of the Negro Woman" (1949).

Jones was sure to articulate a socialist feminism that took into account not just race, but the disparate struggles of all working women. Jones felt that black American women experienced a unique form of oppression that was not acknowledged by feminism. She argued that with the liberation of black women, black nationalism would be much more achievable. As she puts it, "once Negro women undertake action, the militancy of the whole Negro people, and thus of the anti-imperialist coalition is greatly enhanced."

Jones's views influenced other Communist women and black female activists, such as Angela Davis and the Combahee River Collective. Davis writes about triple oppression in her book Women, Race and Class (1981).

Double and multiple jeopardy
Frances Beale introduced the term "double jeopardy" in 1972 to describe the dual oppressions of black women. While she notes that these two oppressions are often linked to economic oppression, this idea was not included in the creation of the term.

According to Deborah K. King, racism, sexism, and classism are widely accepted as the major facets of the status of black women. However, some writers have suggested that homophobia should be an additional jeopardy in the black woman's experience. King believes that double jeopardy and triple jeopardy do not fully explain the relationship between the different oppressions faced by black women. Thus, King coined the term "multiple jeopardy" in 1988 to represent that oppressions are multiplicative, not additive. As such, King believes that different oppressions interact with each other rather than acting independently.

Jim Sidanius and colleagues have pointed out that while it is true that subordinate group women (e.g. black women) do experience both racism and sexism, racism tends to be primarily directed at subordinate group males (e.g. black men) and that the empirical evidence supports the idea that the worst outcomes are generally found in subordinate group males, not females as predicted by the double jeopardy hypothesis.

Intersectionality
Intersectionality is the sister of triple oppression while describing the various divisions of human beings. It is a deconstruction of categories such as race, class, and gender. "Ain't I a woman," by Sojourner Truth, is associated with intersectionality due to the relationship with the black feminist movement and the multiple identities they manifested in. The idea of triple oppression dives into these different categories, race, class, and gender, by developing an understanding of the way in which each work together often through injustices. Barbara Smith relates this combination by stating, "The concept of the simultaneity of oppression is still the crux of a Black feminist understanding of political reality and, I believe, one of the most significant ideological contributions of Black feminist thought." Both intersectionality and triple oppression show the neglect and subordination of many experiences of Black women and these played a vital role in the multitude of movements that prospered out of this.

Black women and Intersectionality
Black women experience triple oppression on a wide scale level, multiple scholars argue. Scholar Rajendra Chapagain in work titled " African American women, racism and triple oppression' discusses this, stating "to be Black and female is to suffer from triple oppression". Chapagain refers to sexism racism and classism.

The theory of intersectionality suggests that different aspects of a person's network and society puts them at either an advantage or disadvantage. It is able to explain many of the implications of various forms of oppression - including colonialism and slavery - on Black women in different facets of life. They experience oppression that are able to intersect, amplifying their impact. Coined by Kimberle Crenshaw, its systematic nature is what many argue is the cause of such widespread misrepresentation. Her work on Intersectionality and Intersectional feminism discusses these overlapping systems. Research by Ntombenhle Torkington entitled 'Black migrant women and health' discusses how these forms have been able to infiltrate into the sector of health for Black women, noting how the correlation between oppression and treatment does exists. It also shows how because of it, they are at a clear disadvantage health wise.

This is able to be reflected in other areas of life, one of which being the class system and the exploitation of Black women in industries ranging vastly. This causes further repercussions including areas like income, access to communal resources and other societal privileges, as the theory reflects. Scholar Recep, in a reading of feminist literature through triple a oppression lens, describes this as the result of the "pursuit for power".

Feminist and African-American scholar Moya Bailey argues the systematic "hatred" of Black women is based on "simultaneous and interlocking oppression" in her book, 'What is Misogynoir?' Though mainly looking at the link between race and gender, the aspect of class is something that is able to become noteworthy due to its extended consequences. She discusses how the constant devaluing and commodification of Black women and their bodies is something that has long had an effect on the community.

Political participation in South Africa
In "Gender, Social Location, and Feminist Politics in South Africa" (1991), Shireen Hassim discusses how triple oppression negatively affects South African women's participation in politics. She argues that the rhetoric surrounding triple oppression at the time of the article's publication focuses too hard on the "additive relation between these different dimensions of oppression," and not enough on their interdependent and intersecting facets. Black women workers' struggles are often disregarded as one identity gets the most political attention. Race is politically prioritized, so that gender is seen as less important within the patriarchy, among both women and men. Hassim argues that women's issues exist as political agendas only within broader ones, such as labor movements and resistance to racism. Discouraged by the unreliability created by feminism's bad reputation in South Africa, black women focus less on women's issues and more on anti-apartheid and labor issues, where they may receive more support.

Hassim goes on to explain that because of the intersections between capitalism and patriarchy, labor, as a gendered issue, creates a "double shift" that discourages women from participating politically, because they are too busy juggling their roles as "wage-earners and managers of families". As women are "isolat[ed]...in the household", they are robbed of the opportunity to develop "a common consciousness of oppression or exploitation." If they cannot gather, women cannot organize. Hassim argues that it is a combination of patriarchal values that empower men and employment obligations in domestic and other service-based jobs that limit women's ability to become active in campaigns that would benefit them only: women's rights campaigns.

Employment opportunities for Mexican-Americans
Denise Segura argues that the social inequality women of color face cannot be properly explained by an analysis any one of the facets that constitute triple oppression, because their subordination in social hierarchies is relative to men, white people, and higher-income strata. Chicana, or Mexican-American, women are subject to inequality in the home as well as in social contexts, such as the labor force. The relegation of women and minorities to traditionally low-paying jobs has made it so that Chicanas do not have many options for work outside of agriculture or domesticity, areas characterized by low wages and, therefore, low status. Discrimination based on race and gender and a reluctance to acculturate inhibit occupational mobility. Cultural cues and high fertility also encourage Mexican-American women to remain in the home and bear children instead of participating in the work force. The combination of race and gender bias and the inability to obtain white-collar jobs form the basis for the triple oppression felt by Mexican-American women. In turn, triple oppression limits Chicanas' employment opportunities to low wages, lower than her male (Chicano) and white (women) counterparts, and "secondary" jobs e.g. clerical and factory jobs, effectively solidifying their status at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

Asian-American activism
Adrienne Ann Winans and Judy Tzu-Chun Wu argue that "othered" groups, such as racial minorities, suffer from poor job prospects because of their "designat[ion] as outsiders." Groups marginalized by legal status and patriarchal values often find only low-paying work with little to no benefits or job security. Poor employment opportunities contribute to an intersectional subordination that includes legal status, gender, and race. Asian-American women's organizational efforts in the 1960s and 1970s to counter such phenomena proved to facilitate them. According to Winans and Wu, female activists recognized a bias within their own activism circles which "relied on female labor but privileged male leadership." Other manifestations of triple oppression in the Asian-American community are the exploitation of immigrant female workers, and gender roles that prescribe a duty to the "double shift." Within the double shift, women are expected to not only procreate but also rear the products of their unions and contribute to the work force at the same time, a feat not demanded of their male counterparts.

Queer communities
While the term triple oppression has typically been reserved to describe the plights of working women of color, the phenomenon of three intersecting social burdens has plagued gay men of color. Diaz et al.'s 1999 study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, found that the combined impact of homophobia, racism, and poverty cause adverse psychological effects in Latino men, including low self-esteem, depression, sleeping problems, anxiety, and social alienation. A factor that does not arise in typical analyses of triple oppression is HIV incidence, but this study concludes that HIV status as a source of social discrimination to the likes of race and class correlates with higher psychological symptoms. Gay men may benefit from male privilege, but in any case, they too can experience a measure of oppression in the form of systemic homophobia, with incidents of violence, belittlement, familial disapproval, job discrimination and police harassment.

Catalan countries
Catalan nationalist left-wing feminists have theorised a triple oppression characterisation of the status of working-class Catalan women. Their perspective points out to capitalism, Spanish nationalism and patriarchy as three interlocking domination systems.

title: Triple oppression


text:
Talk:Elementary event

Discussion 2003
This is one of those subjects where we really need, in addition to "See also:", a standard way of indicating "Pre-requisites" and "Post-requisites". Defined loosely, in terms used by universities and such ("instructional capital" etc.), the "Pre-requisites" are those things that you really must understand in order to understand the article, and the "Post-requisites" are things that let you make use of what's in the article, or which are required to inform you of the limits of usefulness of what's in the article, or the dangers of using it.

For instance the main use of probability is to support statistics, and the main use of statistics is to justify decisions taken with respect to risk. Thus one could say that risk is a Pre-requisite, since you won't apply probability correctly without understanding uniform time horizons and threats versus risks. One could also say that statistics is a Post-requisite, since (beyond one-time military-type risk calculations as in game theory) it is important for anyone using probability theory to understand how their tests or other numerical conclusions will be integrated with real world decision making over many many instances. That may make them more cautious about such stupid statements as the above, and at least would discourage nonsense writing that's misleading to people without math degrees.

---

There's also a problem with certain overloaded terms being stolen by ideologies associated with science, e.g. elementary event, fundamental forces, the Standard Model and Theory of Everything come to mind as cases where the physics community (aided and abetted by the probability theorists) have simply stolen language to assert that it knows what is "elementary", "fundamental", "standard", and most galling of all, "Everything". This is just nonsense, and those entries should be qualified as "Standard Model (physics)", etc., if only to distinguish them from the "standard model" of the latest Mercedes SUV. The capitalization problem, increasingly galling especially at the wikipedia, makes this worse.

Does there have to be a project to remove this physics and probability bias in the wikipedia? It smacks of scientism and mathematics fetishism at the best, and a conspiracy of dunces at the worst.

Most people on this planet do not believe that probability and physics define what is real. They either believe in a more social reality or religion as the source of such truth. You may not like this, but it is certainly true.

 * "For instance the main use of probability is to support statistics..."

That statement will startle many probabilists and physicists!! Michael Hardy 17:50 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)
 * That's correct, it will. To most probabilists, the main use of probability is to get tenure.  To most physicists, the main use of probability is to lord it over those who claim (like Einstein) that "God does not play dice" and etc.  But probabilists and physicists are a very tiny minority on this planet, and the abstract and theoretical and small-beyond-human-perception events that they study is not of any great interest to the vast majority.  I suppose the world could get very interested in a hurry if something like a Gravity Bomb showed up, but it hasn't, so the primary impact of probability theory and physics on humanity via non-statistics so far has been nuclear fission, and the A- and H-bomb.  Admittedly this is huge, but mostly in terms of resisting the impact.

 * Take it any way you want: the main use of probability is to support statistics, both in terms of the number of applications and the frequency of their use in the real world.

Lots of probabilists apply probability to real-world phenomena without ever thinking about statistical inference. Not only physical phenomena, but also economic and biological phenomena (e.g., branching processes in biology).

 * sadly, often this work leads into misapplications on a large scale precisely because the probabilists did not consider the implications of applying their models on a large scale, where measurements are less disciplined and the circumstances of measurement (not to mention time horizons) tend to vary. In combination, such variations will completely invalidate statistical argument.

 * That said, I agree it CAN be done by brilliant minds without reference to these social factors, and the use of 'environmental pathway analysis' is an example of a branching process that can be applied prior to statistical use. But there's a feedback loop - the success of the analysis and controls based on them will be used, statistically, to fund the improvement of branching process models.  Hmm this belongs in philosophy of science not here.

There are also physicists who apply probability to physics other than quantum physics; e.g., astronomical phenomena, physics of porous media, and statistical mechanics. Perhaps it is true that the main use of probability is to support statistics, but very many books and courses on probability seem to be the work of people who don't suspect that. Michael Hardy 19:45 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

BTW, I fully agree that physicists should be severely beaten if they utter the words "theory of everything". That phrase is a fatuous imbecility. Michael Hardy 19:48 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

An anonymous poster, above, wrote: "There's also a problem with certain overloaded terms being stolen by ideologies associated with science, e.g. elementary event, fundamental forces, the Standard Model and Theory of Everything come to mind as cases where the physics community". Although I agree with the claims about physicists being idiotic in this regard, this poster is wrong to cite "elementary event", in the sense in which that phrase is used in this article, as an example. The way in which that locution is used here makes it clear that it is to be understood only within a very narrow context. Moreover, it is hardly a frequently used expression. Michael Hardy 19:29 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

Bad definition?
I thought, elementary event is an element of a sample space, not its subset with one element. See de-wiki for example. Any sources for the current definition? Olaf (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As an event is a set of outcomes, an elementary event has to be a set of outcomes rather than an outcome if it is to be an event. The use of "elementary event" as a set of outcomes can be found in
 * Grinstead, Snell: Introduction to Probability
 * although the term "elementary event" is only used there, not explicitly defined. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just an event?
There seems to be another definition of elementary event. Suppose, there is an event E. If, for any event A from the sample space, ether A or "not A" must happen when E happens, then E is an elementary event. If this definition is correct then the article in its present form describes the concept of just an event rather than the elementary event.

The difference is actually quite important. Existence of elementary events is not guaranteed. For example, the Wigner function in quantum mechanics is the quasi-probability distribution over phase space points which, by themselves, are not elementary events (one can't measure coordinate and momentum simultaneously). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.128.248 (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You gave an example of a compound event for an elementary event, didn't you?

 * "{HH}, {HT}, {TH} and {TT} if a coin is tossed twice. S = {HH, HT, TH, TT}. H stands for heads and T for tails."

All of {HH}, {HT}, {TH} and {TT} describe compound events. An elementary event is, all over the web in disparate sources, defined as an event containing one element only. Please correct me if I'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarly (talk • contribs) 13:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong...
The example with heads and tails of a fair coin is the only example of elementary events which Kolmogorov himself gives in his "Foundations of the Theory of Probability". It appears that for him the concept of "elementary event" is basic and self-evident, comparable in spirit to the concept of a point in Euclidian geometry. The major purpose of elementary events in Kolmogorov's formulation of probability axioms is to introduce a set of objects on which one can postulate an integrable measure. However, it does appear that elementary events have some properties which are tacitly assumed: a) they are disjoint and b) an occurrence of a particular elementary event determines whether any other random event has occured.

Kolmogorov spends quite some time discussing the internal consistency and completeness of his system of axioms. Ironically, he does not discuss the realm of their applicability in the real world, although it is clear that there are phenomena (e.g., measurements of non-commuting variables in quantum mechanics) for which a space of "elementary events" can not be constructed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.29.133 (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm tagging this article as low importance, stub quality. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Must an elementary event be an element of the sample space?
I would have thought in a probability space $$(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, P)$$, you had $$\mathcal{F}$$ as the σ-algebra of events, so an element of the sample space $$\omega \in \Omega$$ does not have to be an event. You do not have $$\omega \in \mathcal{F}$$ and do not need to have $$\{\omega\} \in \mathcal{F}$$ and, if not, then it would not be an elementary event. Instead I would have thought an elementary event here would be a non-empty element of $$\mathcal{F}$$ which did not have a non-empty proper subset. 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:A549:DCEF:21E2:BF5C (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Elementary event


text:
Talk:Triple oppression

=Disabled people?=

Untitled
Amazing how oppression again disabled people NEVER gets a mention. -- Tarquin 17:13 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * I think it's because it's so hard to crate an -ism for it. Disabledism? // Liftarn

 * Ableism is not mentioned because this article focuses on Claudia Jones's notion of Triple Oppression, which encompasses race, sex and class. If you have any links which bring up how disability and ableism relate to the notion of Triple Oppression, please post the link on this talk page and I'll see if I can incorporate it into the article.  Vis-a-visconti (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

=Spelling?= I am not really up on this topic, but isn't triple spelled with just one l and oppression with two p's? This page also seems to be an orphan. Someone is more familiar with this subject should redirect this to Triple oppression (if that is really how it is supposed to be spelled) and link it to a related article. -Frecklefoot

 * Yes, I got a few hits for "tripple opression", but "triple oppression" seems to be more common. // Liftarn 17:20 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

=Speceism/Specism: Are they really words?=

Like I said, I am not up on this subject, but are speceism or specism really words? I couldn't find them in any dictionary. I left them in just in case I am wrong, but someone up with this subject should give it the once over. -Frecklefoot

 * A quick googling gives a few hits for speceism and quite many for specism. The word is mostly used within animal rights groups and I don't think it has catched on. // Liftarn

 * Yes, they are certainly used in the community of animal rights activists, so it may be a 'term of art' in that community. However, in general the usage of that term is strictly perjorative, and doesn't actually specify anything more than semantics (although that does matter).

 * Increasingly, more specific and positive notions like great ape personhood, and more specific and negative notions like ape genocide, are being introduced to eliminate specism in the concepts of 'person' and of 'genocide', where there is sufficient similarity of individuals (clearly both ape and human beings have their own unique personality and relationships and feelings) to justify the use of terms like 'genocide' and 'personhood', etc.. A humanist would of course fight such usage, as diluting "dignity" etc., but dignity is considered a bad thing by many of the people advocating change in how we view so-called 'animals', especially those very much like ourselves.

 * It's also worth noting that this is more or less a mainstream view among the experts on apes, etc.. Jane Goodall was appointed a special ambassador by the UN, to cast light on this problem, and a recent National Geographic special, hardly a source of much radical political opinion, flat out said, "if we destroy our nearest relatives, we have little chance to save ourselves."

 * So, for all these reasons, there should be an article on 'specism' and these specific issues within it, 'genocide', 'personhood', 'animal rights' and etc.

 * The commonly used term is speciesism, and yes, it is in use. Interstates (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

=Is oppression of animals related to Triple Oppresion?= I do not believe the link between oppression of animals and humans belongs here. It is a connection many are willing to make, but for a different reason than the connections between human oppressions. Much of the theory of interconnected systems of oppression rests in their tendencies to reinforce one another: racism helps reinforce classism because a workforce divided by race is more difficult to unite against the bosses; classism helps reinforce sexism because no owner would make a woman the manager of a bunch of sexist men who will not accept her superiority to them. (This stuff should make it into the article, probably.) This is not the case for oppression by species, though, because very few animal rights activists argue that we should fight sexism and racism (breedism?) in animals, and the link between speciesism and sexism (in human relations) is tenuous at best. DanKeshet

 * All very true, but you have simply proven another point of great interest. Looking more closely at animal behavior and similarities to human behavior is the only objective way to understand which of our 'racist', 'sexist', 'classist' behaviors are rooted deeply in our animal/ape/hominid biology, and which are not.  So informed, the race, sex, and class struggles can be radically better at choosing their battles and focusing their limited resources, and can win more battles.  This is exactly the argument of those who advocate the term 'triple oppression', that the struggles reinforce each other.  The role of the ecologists and anti-specists is to help provide a reality check on what can reasonably done in a population of animals like us, and ensure that hopeless causes (like absolute gender equality in such fields as the military or representative politics) are not undertaken, or don't distract us much from winnable wars.

The term used is "speciesism" (and "antispeciesism"), not "specism". More info here: Speciesism Interstates (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is horrendous to use any other species in an article about Oppression- especially the Oppression cited here as a way of describing the Oppression (Triple Oppression is supposed to be a strong enough word for this, I guess not according to the rightly discussed concerns raised in this discussion.) It seems as if there is a myopic yet energetic people (yes, I am referring to an entire population) willing to spend the amount of time required by the cite (and on the surface rightfully so) to post opinions by a disregarded and discredited source, all because they can, where having a legitimate concern as to the morality, and actual evidence of objective conduct is an undertaking unless one can spend an evening citing sources as to why it is no longer, Im disappointed in myself for not being able to think of a stronger word than, appropriate to compare a person of color (accepted term) to animal, which is being done in this article to define the term Triple Oppression. Describe if you must the way people have been compared to animals under the definition of the history of slavery in this country. Colleges and universities are allowing Wikipedia to be used as a reliable source (first person research.)  Batvenn (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Comparisons to (other) animals was done my speciesists against people of color, just like a sexist would attempt to insult a man by calling him a woman or a girl, or equivalent slang terms. The very idea of using those as insults are founded on discrimination. But of course even if it's clear they are reliant on a discriminatory world view, it's clear the person saying them has this view and clearly intends to demean, so it's harmful nonetheless. Dehumanisation (as opposed to, say, depersonification) only works when people look down on other species of animals as "lesser than". And unfortunately that was and still is common among racists, but it's also still common among humanity generally. They're really failing to realize the fact that all humans are animals - and that that's not a bad thing. So if someone insults someone by referring to them as an animal, there are really two issues with it:

 * 1) It's attempting to demean people of color to be worth less than white people. It's irrational, destructive and unjust.
 * 2) It's based on the irrational and unjust premise, that other animals are worth less than humans. It's also irrational, destructive and unjust.

Interstates (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

=German origin of Triple Oppresion theory?=

In the corresponding article in the Swedish wikipedia it is stated that 'triple oppression' is a theory developed by a Klaus Viehmann, 1990, in the text "Drei zu eins", wheras the text continues such as in the English wikipedia. Which is correct I do not know, but examining which is would most certainly be suitable.

 * hi, i'm from germany and involved in the "Drei zu Eins"-discussions. a few years before the dutch feminist Anja Meulenbelt has written a book with the title "Scheidelinien. Sexismus, Rassismus, Klassismus". But I think, the roots are really in the USA in the discussions by black feminists. -- Schwarze Feder 15:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Use of Opinion is not common definition
When this article refers to Intersectionality as “the sister” to Triple Oppression, it uses an opinion to define the former. I am not bringing this up because there is a problem with the source, it is that Intersectionality, by definition, is a unifier- or description- of the way different social movements converge, overlap, open a discussion ( I’m citing the Merriam Dictionary online googlable definition of intersectionality, I will comment with sources on this discussion) not a way to describe ways in which these movements/ideas/moments in history. This is important because on the Intersectionality page, there is a discussion about using “Triple Oppression” as an interchangeable term, according to one source on the latter’s page they are “sisters” but there is not enough information to suggest they are interchangeable.... I pose the question as to wether Intersectionality should be interchangeable with Triple Oppression (No) Batvenn (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Triple oppression


text:
Talk:Niels Henrik Abel

Which work did Abel want to publish at the French Academy of Science?
The article says "While abroad Abel had sent most of his work to Berlin to be published in the Crelle's Journal, but he had saved what he regarded as his most important work for the French Academy of Sciences, a theorem on addition of algebraic differentials. The theorem was put aside and forgotten until his death." Which theorem is it referring to? According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Niels-Henrik-Abel) it would be Abel's theorem but in that case it's not "a theorem on addition of algebraic differentials". Does anyone have a clear idea of which work did Abel submit to the French Academy of Sciences? Does anyone have the reference to that paper? Ricardohz (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
Nice article. (I added the comment on "abelian" at the end.) Michael Hardy 17:25 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * Agree. But the article would be even better if someone with knowledge of french could translate the quote into english... (I can't)  -- User:Jegerjensen

 * It says, in essence, "What a head the young Norwegian has!" --Zundark 14:57, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The grape joke is "What is purple and commutes?" not "What is purple and commutative?" The former creates the expectation of something traveling to and fro someplace, making the punchline "An abelian grape," even funnier because it relies on a different definition of commutes - specifically a commutative property. The latter is incomprehensible and not particularly funny.24.60.193.70 00:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Jerzy's revert edit -- again. I've done a search for "What's purple and commutative?" 203 results in Google. "What's purple and commutes?" 404 results -- including prominent math pages. It makes more sense and it's more popular. Please do not revert without a better explanation. Edit: And just to add, the majority of the results from the commutative come from someone's signature in a forum post and the replies to that post quoting the original. The actual unique results for commutative, excluding wikipedia and answers.com, is about 8. I think that settles it. 24.60.193.70 01:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

With varying quality the Norwegian article on Niels Henrik Abel has been (almost completely) translated. I'll try my best to use the better parts of it in this article, but any help would be tremendously appreciated. This is the page where the current translation is  stored: User:Karl-kjeks-Erik/Translations

Thanks in advance. Karl-kjeks-Erik 16:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NOK 500 V recto.jpg
Image:NOK 500 V recto.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I got lost in all the legalese surrounding this and had not realized I needed to fill in one of them thar fair use templates. I have done so now; hopefully, if it's still deemed unacceptable, it will be a human, not a robot, yelling at me. Hanche 20:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Where did Abel study?
An anonymous user at 24.161.174.163 keeps on editing the part where it says that Abel studied at Royal Frederick University. To this user and others, let me state clearly that this was the name of the University of Oslo in those days, as he would have found out had he followed the link. Instead, he wants to call it the University of Christiania, which as far as I know has never been the name of said university. The city of Oslo was in fact called Christiania in the early 19th century, but the name of the university is a different matter. So will 24.161.174.163 please discuss his rationale for his edits here before he makes another change like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanche (talk • contribs) 19:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't Newton invent group theory? Because he wasn't "Abel"!

XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.169.68 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Source material?
I made some small changes to the article today. I also noted that some of the text appears to be copied directly from this site. Original contributions are needed. -- Astrochemist (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture
The two pictures of Abel were quite similar and crowded the article. I deleted the more washed-out version and put the other one at the top. - Astrochemist (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Article is Inaccessible
This article is inacessible from the normal search box, where 'Abel' brings up only 'Cain and Abel' from the Hebrew Bible. Could someone fix this?

Cause of Death
Also, the pessimistic Bell, in classic 'Development of Mathematics', refers to Abel as having published privately and dying from tuberculosis, essentially from poverty. His death is rather mysterious in the article. Thanks. (Geologist) PS. It could be mentioned how much Galois benefitted from Abel's work.

Removed Wikipedia link to Stener Johannes Stenersen
I removed the Wikipedia link to Stener Johannes Stenersen, as it references an article about the Norwegian veterinarian born after the time period mentioned. The correct Stener Johannes Stenersen was a theologian who has an article in the Norwegian Wikipedia here: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stener_Johannes_Stenersen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceLoveHarmony (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Nationality of Abel, Danish-Norwegian?
Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that Abel's nationality was Danish-Norwegian, or at least his birthplace was Nedstrand, Denmark-Norway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madsmh (talk • contribs) 20:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows that political changes have been made in the region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.192.50 (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Niels Henrik Abel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130808045917/http://www.goodquotes.com/quote/charles-hermite/abel-has-left-mathematicians-enough-to to http://www.goodquotes.com/quote/charles-hermite/abel-has-left-mathematicians-enough-to

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Abel's theorem grab-bag
I'm at best an armchair mathematician with an interest in the history of mathematics. Just now I found portions of the treatment of Abel here on Wikipedia more confusing than enlightening, so I sought some other sources.

This chapter clears up a tremendously knotty set of questions about the four various versions of Abel's theorem, and the inconsistent citations of these down through the ages.

Some of the other sources I found provided a more coherent biography, as well. I believe it was the first of the following titles that I now recall (as recovered from my recent browser history):

 * Duel at Dawn: Heroes, Martyrs, and the Rise of Modern Mathematics
 * Niels Henrik Abel and His Times: Called Too Soon by Flames Afar

Someone with access to the whole of these books (not just the Google page view) could usefully amend this article in my opinion. — MaxEnt 18:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Niels Henrik Abel