Photo credit: @julesdwit.
A not-for-profit media organization supported by people like you.
My mother is a Ron Paul supporter, and also has a son with autism like the caller on this program. I don't support Paul but the one thing my mom and I agree on here is that my autistic brother is not going to be helped at all by getting rid of the Dept. of Education. Maybe that caller thinks that since her state is on the wealthy side that state-specific education would be great, but for poorer states, who can say that their special ed. budgets will go up just because government lifted it's standards? Totally senseless. My mother is only voting for him because she likes his foreign policy and she knows that nobody in Congress would let his cockamamie education plan pass, thankfully.
can any one of you name one society in the entire history of the world with "small government" where the rich (that is to say powerful, that is to say rich) did not just eat up everyone else?
In contrast we hear blind rhetoric and innuendos and sabre-rattling from other republican candidates and democratic candidates.
It is clear that they do not understand zilch in ecomonics. All the bozos tell us that they will provide tax cuts to inject artificial stimulus into the economy or get every job back etc ( atleast McCain was honest in saying that he will train and educate for newer jobs, since the jobs that are gone are gone ).
Ron Paul says this is the problem. It is too late now and by providing artificial stimulus we will delay the agony as well as keep it around for longer time.
If you ask me, is Ron Paul a presidential material ? I would say it is doubtful. Whether Ron Paul likes or not, American president has to deal with events all around the world and may even be forced into interventions in some places.
All I would request the people is to listen to what he has to say, because nobody else is saying or seeing the reality.
abseems angry. speak louder i can't hear you.
it's my fault. sorry i wasn't clearer.
anyway, enough of this...I'm not going to argue about Ron Paul and whether state's rights in the civil war era had to do with slavery...I mean...any history book will answer the state's rights issue and thankfully Ron Paul and his white supremacist supporters and his racist anti-equality/anti-rights for CERTAIN people hypocritical pretzel logic ideas don't have a chance of getting in office and dragging us backwards to ignorant isolationism so it's all moot anyway. Have a nice day.
When compared with the other candidates, Ron Paul stands out as 100% honest and let the chips fall where they may. I am not saying the others are all liars, but the are politicians and so it is part of their job to represent and not just state their own view. So this leads to pandering, or safe sterile statements, etc. It's a job hazard.
It is refreshing to have a philosophically-based campaign, one that is not afraid to say taboo things, such as "they attack us here because we are over there"; or that if China attacks Taiwan or N. Korea attacks S. Korea, it is none of our business - unless Congress declares war, which they would probably not since the American people probably would not want to go to war over these issues.
Well, I agree that is a problem but I am not interested in some Children of Men lock down state sounding scenario either. I do not like some of the extreme sounding rhetoric coming from the right on that issue.
Thank you Paulo.
Again HJS I did answer your question as I stated the abolitionists for starters. It is clear you are unfamiliar with the history.
So don't. What in the world are you talking about???? Did anyone say anything about today?? Or the modern argument over state's rights????????????????what the hell???
Look in ANY credible history book about the civil war and it's causes and what the state's rights argument was. SLAVERY was central in that argument. You don't know that?????Is that why you made that silly comment about today and people arguing for state's rights wanting to bring back slavery???
We were talking about the CIVIL WAR..as in the 1860's NOT today!
and I DID answer your question..it was open ANY credible history book on the Civil War and state's rights in relation to the civil war...you will then find what you seek!
I agree about what you said. That guards point is not the main one, it was a bit of ironic humour. You should note that there will be more and more illegal immigrants now and in future and that we need ALL the resources right here to deal with it.
More important is to understand the economicsbackground in the event and to follow the laws - both of which Ron Paul very effectively pointed out.
hjs, there were a number of abolitionists in Congress in the 1850s.. and they all were in favor of ending slavery in the old South. Did they have the votes to do it? No.
Or do we not count Congress as part of the federal government now?
Uh...yeah...I kind of remember us having a lot of illegal aliens before the Iraq war...straw man argument. As usual, Ron Paul..makes no sense.
It is extremely ridiculous to see media focus on Romney, Huckabee and Juliani and a deliberate blank-out of a brilliant candidate like Ron Paul. More of his debating points here:
Ron Paul on mid-east, ISRL etc ;
- why are we intervening so much ? Why do we need to arm Israel's natural enemies if we are interested in Israel's safety ? Why do we have to borrow money from China and give to Musharaff and other dictators, to catch terrrorists or to promote democracy. What is going on here ? We don't have the money. We're heading to recession.
- We need to have hands-off approach on certain international matters. ISRL in the 80s was able to strike out Iraq's nuclear capabilities on its own. They know what to do.I supported what they did at that time, so I am not anti-Israel. Let us treat them as adults and let us allow the region to find peace on its own, we cannot baby-sit the region and have our security compromised. We get a blow-back and impacted by our interventions.
i don't want to be a dead horse but your statement make me think, those today interesting in state's rights are interested in restoring slavery. i'm that's not what u meant. my question was ?in 1850's who (in the federal government) was talking about ending salvery in the old south? "guess you don't have an answer, maybe i'll look into it myself
Lincoln also argued against slavery before he was President
Some of the founding fathers had commented about the trouble that the slavery issue would cause down the line.
State's rights was about slavery essentially, plain and simple.
None of the republican candidates are talking sense. For that matter, none in democrats too.Republican Ron Paul is closest to being a common-sense and clear-thinking candidate.Some brilliant points I could find from one and only Ron Paul during recent debates -
* On illegal immigration; I would support the law, whatever the law says no matter what.We should understand why illegal immigration is happening. One factor is our subsidisation and welfare, that gives free education and some community benefits. Economics tells us that when we subsidise something, we will get more people and end up breaking the system.And we should have our guards on the borders - the reason why it is less effective now is because we have packed off many for duty in Iraq, safeguarding Iraqi borders rather than ours.'
Well gee, the abolitionists for a start. It wasn't an issue just about spreading slavery to the west. Slavery was legal everywhere at one point. It became illegal gradually in northern states. It was an issue that was argued and legislated over since the country began for crying out loud! That war would not have fought if it were not for slavery being at the heart of the state's rights issue. Frankly,I would point you to any history book on it that doesn't have some skewed biased view.
ab only if your talking about the spread of slavery to the west. as i said.
in 1850's who (in the federal government) was talking about ending salvery in the old south? please point my in the right direction.
history is rewritten by the victors
Read about state's rights and the arguement over it before the war. The war was fought over state's rights..central to that issue was slavery.
The Nazis were fascists. Period,end of story.neo-nazis embrace that era, that system, those ideas. Are they largely ignorant racist thugs? Yeah...but then so were many of the people that were in Hitler's fledling nazi party. I fail to see the difference
And it's not like neo-nazis are out there arguing for decentralized government. You have to ask why a man who is supposedly against "fascism", has so many neo-fascists supporting him? That's my point..it's HILARIOUS!
chestine, I will agree that I like having a libertarian voice in the race if only because it gives the other more viable candidates something to think about and they have to take the opinions of his supporters into consideration.
That said, it would be tragic if he were elected. Not that I'm terribly concerned about it.
if the war was about slavery then slavery would have been abolished in 1861 at the start of the war. the Emancipation Proclamation only end slavery in rebelious states 1863. slavery only ended after the war 12/1865, after Lincoln death.
Also - no no we still have a congress - repub.. right now and they don't like RP - it is just a necessary voice in the dialogue - we really need checks, blances and PERSPECTIVE
In Europe, all manner of parties push the mainstralm dialogue in more precise directions
ab, Neo-Nazis aren't really fascists. They're just racists. I doubt they really embrace all of the economic and political aspects of fascism regarding corporations, etc. If anything fascists support a very strong central government whereas he is obviously in favor of decentralized government where individual racist groups would probably thrive due to the gov't turning its back on these issues.. hence why they support him.
Exactly. It was not only slavery but at the HEART of the state's rights issue was the issue of slavery..so to say that the civil war was not fought over slavery is a misreading of history. If there had been no slavery, would the civil war have even been fought? Doubtful.
I talked about this civil war issue last time it was brought up, but to sum it up... slavery was the reason for the South's secession. The war started because the South asserted that it had the right to leave the Union and the Northern government decided that it didn't. Only after victory appeared to be a long way off did the Lincoln administration decide to abolish slavery as a means to gut the Southern economy.
So this civil war decision question is really absurd because there were many decisions made at many different times that lead from a slaveholding antebellum South to a slave-free (at least legally) post-War South.
What more?? I would like to know that he has a respect for EQUAL RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE!!!But everything he says implies that he does not, that he is not grounded in reality about inequality, that such a person in leadership would lead to gross inequality and send us hurtling backward several decades in terms of civil rights and isn't it funny that someone against fascism has so many NEO-NAZIS(fascists) supporting him???
You can't see the absolute hilarious irony in this?????!!! and you don't stop to question,why????
and on Meet The Press he was incoherent, hypocritical and contradictory and completely unknowledgable. He sounds good when he speaks about the govt moving to fascism...but when you get into specifics...sorry he sounds like an uninformed idiot.
what year was slavery ended in the USA?
his"States rights" is code for "slavery", used by white supremicists. Of course, the Civil War was about slavery.
Your quest used the term: intellectual exercise when describing libertarianism and this is apt. What about the public sector, ie fire or police departments, schools, or regulations? I think it is fundamentally irresponsible. Brian I wish you'd have Paul Krugman on to talk about the history of Democratic Republican approaches monetary/tax since the depression.
What is this hysteria regarding a North American Union? I mean, I would've thought that someone in favor of libertarianism would support free trade and open borders with our closest neighbors. "Amero" would be a stupid name for currency, but why not the "North American Dollar"? Ironically, these people would probably not mind ANNEXING Mexico and Canada to the United States, and those that are even leery of that is probably because they think we have an abundance of brown people as it is, and why would we want more?
He speaks of how our country is moving closer and closer to fascism with an entwined Big Government and Big Business gaining a stranglehold over the people - on Meet the Press no less! What more do you need to say!?
I understand the anti-government stance of Libertarianism but what about the rule of corporations. Aren't corporations at least as controlling and oppressively destructive as the government? Do we really want to be ruled by unrestrained capitalism?
You just stated that a legitimate role of the Federal Government is
"protecting the country from foreign invaders"
I wholeheartedly agree. This is why we need the fence. Those who want to come here can learn English, take a citizenship test to prove they've at least read the Bill of Rights, and jump over a few more hurdles...
Clarification on NJ voter registration deadline today: it is the last day to register to vote in the 2/5 primary, but has nothing to do with party affiliation. If you are registered already and have not declared a party affiliation, you can do so at the polls on 2/5 ... if you are already registered with a party, it's too late to switch under NJ law.
Ron Paul (and libertarian thought in general) appeals to the least civil aspects of human nature. "Every man for himself" sounds great because everyone optimistically imagines that they'll come out on top -- that's not how it works. Ever.
@37 - and yet this pricipled Libertarian voted for a federal ban on a certain type of procedure. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html
Today in NJ you can only register to vote. The date for changing party registration was back in December (50 days before Feb 5). Check at http://www.njdems.org/voter.php
Ooops. This mother of an autistic child wants to vote for a libertarian. She doesn't know that libertarians would leave her totally on her own. Such ignorance.
Does Ron Paul believe that states have a right to leave the Union?
Also a great foreign policy site is:
Saying that the civil war didn't need to be fought and his comments on the Civil Rights act don't fan race flames????? HAHAHAHA!!
Uhhhhhhh.....yeah maybe if you are white and insensitive to racial inequality issues and civil rights.....
the civil war was not about ending slavery.the civil war was about states rights and the spread of slavery to the west.
funny 140 year after that war the south seems to run this country
"No one asked what the D party taken to it's logical conclusion..."That's because the D party thinks things should be decided based on the facts & circumstances at hand, not on some rigid ideology.
I love Libertarians who ignore the strain of racism in their viewpoints. Hilarious.
There's a reason white supremacists like this guy.
Ron Paul rejects evolution as just a theory. This removes him from the viable candidate pool in my book.
I called him an idiot because 1) I think all racists or racist leaning people ARE idiots by definition and 2) because he sounded really really stupid and uninformed to me on Meet The Press...not in an internet attack dog way...but he truly sounded like an idiot to me who truly did not know about what he was talking about. So I called him an idiot..because he sounds like an idiot.
The staff page of the Reason website does not mention Matt Welch, has Nick Gillespie as Editor-in-Chief.
With so little government involvement, what does that mean for people who require/benefit from thousands of dollars of federal student loan money to go to college?
#30 yes i understand he believes abortion should not be allowed. But it is up to the states to decide, it is not up to him. He does not believe that there should be a federal ban on abortion.
I would think liberals would like Ron Paul for plainly and clearly talking about our meddling foreign policies, about the "soft fascism" we are living under (you mean to tell me you have not noticed teh corporate takeover of everything, even teh food we eat?) - And of course kids are concerned about fiscal issues!! Look what a mess we have left them. Everything I hear on the news I was hearing in one shape or another when I was 17 and that was a long time ago - I do "support half of" And YES I agree paper money should represent something. His was the only voice that pointed out their few "speedboats vs tha US Navy" How can people not value this willingness to speak the truth?
RP may vote "NO" for all spending issues....EXCEPT THOSE THAT BRING MONEY TO HIS DISTRICT/STATE. So he is not as "principled" as was stated.
The falling dollar affects those on Social Security and living on fixed incomes.
One of Dr Paul's issues is that inflation reallypunishes those living on fixed incomes, especially when we print money in order to infuse liquidity into the credit markets.
A dollar on the gold standard would help protect the savings of the thousands of "Baby Boomers" approaching retirement.
Look, it doesn't matter. He will never get elected. And even if he could get elected, he would never be able to put any of his plans into effect because Congress, Republican and Democratic alike, will NEVER support him on ANYTHING. Right or wrong, he would be useless the moment he got into office.
Leonardo Andres @ 20You really should read your candidate's website. Here's what he sez about abortions:"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman."
Is totally consistent.
Libertarian societies must control who enters their borders or they are vulnerable to those who aren't libertarians!
(One could view our Constitution and its Bill of Rights as an attempt to codify this. Both as a statement of how we would differ from Britain and as a way of hoping future immigrants would "self-select" for these preferences. THIS, in fact, is the danger of our current, porous border policy ...economic migrants who come here illegally aren't by birth or ascription of values, American.)
Sorry your guest can't see this; his immigration policy must be colored by self-interest.
#11 - I am not denying he may be racist but I have seen him speak many times and it is not part of his platform at all, he does not in any way fan race flames, or hint at undercurrents and code words. In fact, he speaks out about the racism inherent in the war on drugs over these past decades.
So my eyes and ears have not seen a tinge of racism in his views so I am not going to just accept allegations of racism on the internet.
I was a strong Ron Paul supporter until 2 days ago. I even gave money to his campaign because I liked his ideas to abolish branches of government in favor of local and community solutions. It sounds radical but with congress and the pace of bureaucracy, I'm sure it would happen in a safe and organized manner.
But then I found out he wants to overturn Roe v Wade, and with the judges Bush appointed, I'm afraid it might happen.
My question:How likely would it be that any of these huge changes could actually take place if the president was the only strong supporter at the federal level?
Though I disagree with some of his ideas, I love that there is a politician in Washington who is thinking outside the box. No one seems to have the testicular fortitude to suggest vastly revamping (or doing away with) a lot of the outdated and/or ineffective governmental systems.Extreme ideas may not take you to the presidency, but it excites Americans who are fed up with the middle-of-the-road and will hopefully expand the minds of his fellow washington cohorts.
Lastly, I support Paul's stance on firearms.
One should have the right to bear arms to protect life and property.
I think NYC should allow rifle and shotguns without ANY registration or licensing.
#20 - http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
No wonder China was the first payout for post-retirement Greenspan:
"We want the Magic Briefcase!"
I'm a democrat and i love Ron Paul. Even though he is finishing well in most of these races, the Media isnt even mentioning his name. I'm tired of the Major Medias telling people who matters and who doesnt.
I really think the Libertarian Party & The Green Party need to get togeather and expand this bad or worse 2 party systme we have. They could work togeather to get on the ballet on every state and actually give us a choice when we vote for president.
Any thoughts on the following:
Go beyond the title of the article-much of the content referenced comes from Paul's newsletters dating to 1974.
#14 ron paul is not against abortion, where have you seen that he has said something like that?
The Democrats in Michigan should cross over and vote for Ron Paul, not Mitt Romney. That would really put a kink in the Republican nominating procedure this fall.
Ron Paul is patently unqualified for President. He would dismantle and cripple our government much faster and more devastatingly than even the current administration was able to. Poverty and disease would run rampant in the feudal Libertarian system and the United States would quickly cease to exist as a nation. Flip a coin-- Mexico or Canada would easily be able to conquer a nation with no national cohesiveness or identity, the things that a common educational system bring to a country (whether madrassas or public education-- private or public)...
One of the other problems with libertarians, like any other group, is that they are unwilling to admit faults in their system. The market isn't perfect. It never has been and never will be. If his platform were to be whole-heartedly adopted, they make it seem as if it would be this post-messianic paradise. That's absolute rubbish. No system is perfect. People will fall through the cracks. Innocent people will suffer as they do under any system of economics and government.
Small government for the sake of small government is a bad idea. You have to aim for the smallest government POSSIBLE. It has to be a reasoned approach where you analyze the value of different approaches. In the same way, privatization for the sake of privatization is a bad idea as well. If you create a government-sponsored monopoly with no oversight but is a private company, is that really smart?
Rational approaches for minimal government intervention is what has to be the aim of political leaders.
Oh, C'mon. A breakthrough energy solution coming from Detroit would turn that city around in a day. Probably turn it from a 1900s industry (cars) to a 2000s one (energy). That only would require government regulation -- the same ones that are seeding Germany's current energy renaissance.
As it stands Detroit couldn't even innovate on health care, their stated Achilles Heal. The nation had pinned their hopes to Detroit to solve an issue, in the "Free Market", where the government had failed.
Instead we got Libertarian (leave us alone with your stinkin' regulations!) Gangsterism (come in fast and hard with tax-writeoff trucks and retire before you are held to account).
Where does Ron Paul stand on regulations that encourage innovation, discourage pollution, and cut policies that have built up the Republican-sponsored Homeland Security McMansion Belt that ring Washington DC?
"Doeing away with paper money." Ahem, most money today is e-money. Where has Ron Paul been for the last 30 years?
I really dont think this man is racist. I remember his response to the white supremacist campaign donation.
"Now he has $500 less to spread his message of hate."
That was hilarious and refreshing.
I am an Asian Military Officer, and I support Paul.
BTW, in 1992, he wasn't even in office. The man was home practicing medicine.
I don't think what one's personal belief in abortion should matter, since it would be up to the state. BTW, I am for abortion.
Education is not about money. There are plenty of states that spends far less on education per pupil and garnish far better results. The state of education and student performance are a statement of our society and culture more than anything else.
"how do libertarians feel about k - 12 public education?"Your children will be educated by the Invisible Hand.Some libertarian - he supports your freedom, unless you want an abortion.
this is ron paul's response to the racist accusations.
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
I urge anyone who wants to learn about ron paul to go to his website, ronpaul2008.com ron paul already has addressed the racist issue, in the past and everytime it has been brought up. I like how people marginalize him by calling him an idiot. I don't see how some of his ideas are idiotic, its probably because are ideas that have not been brought forth in a long time. What we are getting from the other political candidates is more of the same.
Post 10: So he says racist things, lumps an entirely ethnicity into one stereotype, but since he says racism is collectivism and he is anti-collectivism that means he's not racist? Doesn't that really mean that he's actually just a hypocrit and picks and chooses what he thinks qualifies as collectivism?
I love Ron Paul. The Constitution does matter, or should, as should ideas. He is the only one who can diagnose and speak about empire and our obnoxious, interventionist foreign policy.
The claims that he is a racist are interesting (but to call him an idiot is out of line and typical of nasty internet posting). He denies this by saying that racism is a form of collectivism, and he is against all forms of collectivism. Libertarian is about individuals, not groups.
PauloI know that libertarians think everyone should be on their own to finance their children's education. But they almost never say that. So what I am attempting to do is uncover what they say, and then point out how hypocritical it is.
Libertarians deny that part of the essence of humaness is that we are a herd animal. And that puts many twists in their panties. It's fun to use that to give them wedgies.
eCAHN, the reality is that they don't want the gov't paying for the vouchers either. In short, they want a system where everyone is on their own. So if you don't have the money to sned your kid to a private school, your child doesn't go to school. Although they argue that with no public schools, there will be a lot more private schools and cheaper prices for said schools. Of course, they don't mention that many of these schools would just be offering education on the cheap and thus would be just as bad as the public schools they point to as failing so miserably.
I went to this program in high school that was called "Learn About Business Program" but it was really a front for libertarianism. I was frustrated because they actually said things like that altruism was morally wrong. I did learn some interesting things there and it changed my views on a number of things, but as someone who has dedicated a lot of his time to the poor, I can't stand by that kind of attitude.
The folly of libertarians is that they think politicians and business leaders are inherently two different kinds of people. They don't see that corporations and governments are both human-run organizations with vast amounts of power and money and that at times there have been corporations that have acted as governments and governments that have acted like corporations.
Here's Ron Paul on education. He wants to abolish the federal Education Department because the federal government has no role to play in that area. Nonetheless, "This bill would allow parents a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjustable after 2007 for inflation) per student per year for the cost of attendance at an elementary and/or secondary school. This includes private, parochial, religious, and home schools." So it's OK to use federal tax dollars (that's what a 'tax credit' amounts to) to support local education, but federal tax payers should have no role in decsion making about what their tax dollars are being used for.
Why does that not seem libertarian to me?
hisI think libertarians want universal scool vouchers for K-12, and wish to abolish public schools. I think they wouldn't be the slightest bit shy about espousing such ideas. Don't know as I've ever seen how they would finance the voucher program, though. Perhaps a libertarian on this thread could speak to this issue.
how do libertarians feel about k - 12 public education?
1. An OB-GYN who has NEVER seen a woman whose life or health was in danger from a preganacy.
2. Someone who wants to abolish the IRS, but has no clue as to how much income taxes are collected by the federal government.
Now THAT's a sensible candidate./snark.
As a libertarian-leaning person, I like that there is a candidate promoting libertarian ideas, but I am not myself a Paul supporter for the reasons stated above as well as others regarding the feasibility of his libertarian goals. He's not Presidential material. Period. Even if he didn't have these issues going against him. It's a shame because I would've liked to have seen a libertarian with real Presidential characteristics in the race.
I will say though that one of the things I really stand behind him on is his secessionist attitude with regard to Texas. I personally would love to see Texas as a separate country...
Hmmm....is NPR going to ignore the OBVIOUS about this idiot?
Just type in Ron Paul and racist or racism and there's plenty of info.
My gf and I watched him on Meet The Press and he struck us as essentially the same as the ignorant man who hangs out at the local bar ranting and raving...he may have a couple of points but when you get into details of what he believes, you realize he is incredibly ignorant of the world and is largely incoherent and hypocritical. Why waste time on this idiot?
The guys refuses to give back money from one of his white supremacist campaign donors. There other "issues", including the following:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/In 1992, a copy of his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report, criticized the judicial system in Washington, D.C., before adding, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Under a section headlined "Terrorist Update," the following sentence ran, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
Email addresses are required but never displayed.
Brian Lehrer leads the conversation about what matters most now in local and national politics, our own communities and our lives.
Subscribe on iTunes
WNYC 93.9 FM and AM 820 are New York's flagship public radio
stations, broadcasting the finest programs from NPR and PRI, as well as a wide range of award-winning local
programming. WNYC is a division of
New York Public Radio.