Ron Paul on Healthcare and Foreign Policy




In his latest interview with RT Ron Paul explained that there is no “right” to healthcare and that Obamacare will further increase the costs of healthcare – and might even drive the US into bankruptcy. On foreign policy, Ron Paul discussed the American empire, efforts to end the Afghanistan war, and America’s dependence on China.

Channel: RT
Date: 03/28/2010

Transcript

Dina Gusovsky: After a historic health care reform bill officially became the law of the land, Washington DC is still buzzing with excitement, but not everyone is celebrating. Some politicians here, including Congressman Ron Paul, warn that America may be heading in the wrong direction as a result. Well, the Congressman joins me today for more discussion. Dr Paul, thank you so much for being here.

Ron Paul: Thank you, good to be with you.

Dina Gusovsky: So I want to quickly address the topic that has all of Washington DC, probably all of the country, on its feet really talking about it and that is of course health care. You have said before that you feel that health care is not a right. Can you justify that?

Ron Paul: I think very easily. You have a right to your life, and you have a right to your liberty, and you ought to have the right to keep what you earn in a free country. But you don’t have a right to stuff, you don’t have a right to services, or things like a house or a job, because in order to get that the government would have to take it from somebody else. If somebody claims you have a right to a car, and they don’t have one and the government gives him a car they have to take the money or the car from somebody else. So it’s a contradiction in terms. If somebody has a right to something, they have to violate somebody else’s right. So the most you can expect in a free society is for government to make an attempt at protecting rights, not to try to redistribute wealth. If you do that, all people lose their rights.

Dina Gusovsky: Now you have also said before that you believe that this bill will be repealed because it will drive the country into bankruptcy. Can you just elaborate a little bit on that?

Ron Paul: Well, I’m not optimistic that it all of a sudden will get repealed. I think in economic terms it gets repealed because it won’t function, because it will drive us to bankruptcy, and it won’t be efficient, and finally the people will have to change it or give up on it or just slip into some horrible situation because it’s not viable. You can’t create a program that’s going to cost a trillion dollars in the midst of an economy that’s weak and our national debt’s going up two trillion dollars. It’s just impossible to happen. And then they tell us that it won’t cost anything, that it will actually cut the deficit. Now most Americans don’t believe that. It’s going to make health care more expensive and it’s not going to increase the quality at all, it will cause a lot of rationing, and if the people are unhappy now wait until they get this program and they’ll be a lot more unhappy.

Dina Gusovsky: So you’re saying as a result of this a bigger economic crisis is coming?

Ron Paul: Yeah, I think we’re in the midst of one and we’ve had some blips on some government statistics but I don’t think we have had the full correction as is necessary. And this will help to push the economy back down again in hopes that the economy corrects itself, but the government has done everything wrong. They’ve done everything that they did to get us into this mess that is by spending too much, borrowing too much, regulating too much, and printing too much money. You can’t get out of that problem by doing exactly the same thing. And this amplifies this. A bill like this just emphasizes that too many people in our government believe the government can solve these problems and yet they’re the ones who created the trouble.

Dina Gusovsky: So because of some of this legislation and also the economic situation in general, you have all these different grassroots movements really springing up – the Tea Partiers, you know, the Libertarians, so as far as the GOP goes, is the GOP sort of splitting at the seams when you have all these other candidates vying for power, who is really in chare of the GOP here?

Ron Paul: Well, I don’t know if it is any one person, but actually the GOP is more together now than they have been for a long time.

Dina Gusovsky: Really? How is that, when you have the neoconservatives, you have the liberty candidates, you have the Tea Partiers. They seem not to agree with each other so much.

Ron Paul: But yeah, you ended up having everybody, every congressman that’s a Republican voted against this bill, plus some Democrats.

Dina Gusovsky: Good point.

Ron Paul: And probably all the Republicans in the Senate will be voting against it so yes, but I don’t know whether that should be reassuring because when Republicans are in opposition they do a pretty good job of sticking together, challenging the incumbents, but unless they change their way they will not restore confidence with the American people, because the people got frustrated four years ago and two years ago and said Republicans weren’t doing a very good job because they were making government much bigger. So the big test now is can the Republicans get their credibility back and right now they have a chance, but there’s reason to be a little bit skeptical. I’m hoping to make sure the Republicans stick to what they’re doing now and try to take a principled stand against the encouragement of big government.

Dina Gusovsky: So as long as they’re all opposed to something they can come together and make something happen or not happen in that case?

Ron Paul: And that’s only halfway because they should get together and propose the alternative and that’s what I’ve tried to do in the past, is offer something that would replace government programs because there’s lots of ways you could deliver services and goods other than through government mandates and government spending because inevitably that fails.

Dina Gusovsky: Let’s switch gears and focus on foreign policy for a second. When it comes to the war in Afghanistan, Congressman Dennis Kucinich recently introduced a privilege resolution that pretty much brought the debate over the war in Afghanistan to the House floor and he said, “Look it’s not the President, it’s Congress that’s supposed to declare war,” at least according to the Constitution. And in response to that you read a very interesting article entitled “Supporting the War Instead of Supporting the Troops.” Many would say that it’s the opposite. If you support the troops you’re supporting the war. If you support the war, you’re supporting the troops, right?

Ron Paul: Yeah, and I think people are confused on this but I feel very good about the fact that so many military people support me because I want to be very, very cautious about going to war, doing it very infrequently and deliberately, only when the Congress and the people endorse it, and know why you’re there and know what the endpoint is. So if you’re in the military, which I was, I would have felt a lot better in the 1960s to have somebody that was more cautious about sending us around the world. And I think if you just support war, you don’t support the troops. Otherwise the troops would be elated with the other candidates who say, “Well, let’s just spread the war all around the world and let’s bomb this country, bomb that country.” The military per se, they’re not exactly enthralled with that type of a policy.

Dina Gusovsky: But why isn’t Congress more assertive when it comes to matters of armed conflict, when it comes to matters of war, if the Constitution gives the US Congress power?

Ron Paul: Well, they’ve reneged on their responsibilities. The prerogatives of the Congress have been virtually given up, whether it has to do with legislation. Now, if you can’t get your legislation quite right, you ask the President to write an executive order. The administrative part of government, which is on the executive branch, write regulations all the time but those are laws and they shouldn’t be doing that. And the Congress allows the courts to overrule when they could take back some of that jurisdiction. So, Congress in many ways have been derelict. They don’t want to assume responsibility. When this debate came up before Iraq, when I said, “Look, if you want to go to war, you should have a declaration.” Behind the scenes the argument was, “No, if it goes badly we’ll just blame the President.” You know, and they don’t want the responsibility of it.

I think the founders would be astounded to see how much of responsibility the Congress has given up. They intended that Congress would be the most important body, but now it’s probably the least important, and it’s Congress’s fault. It’s also the people’s fault because they allow our Congress to go and start wars and run the welfare state, and run up the deficits and print money and just not pay any attention to the Constitution. So, we’ve been very very careless in having people represent us that actually believed in what America was supposed to be in our Constitution.

Dina Gusovsky: In the case of Afghanistan, you know, it seems that 90 days has turned into almost a decade. When do you think it will end, and what is the ultimate goal for the United States over there?

Ron Paul: Well, the goal is occupation and the control of the oil, and the control of that region, and be the world’s policeman, but it’s going to end when we go bankrupt just as the Soviets ended their occupation for economic reasons. We didn’t have to fight the Soviets. There wasn’t a whole lot of nuclear weapons. And they probably had to just close their tent, you know, because the economic system wasn’t viable, and our economic system isn’t viable either. You can’t run a welfare state and have these kinds of deficits and regulations and controls and endless building of the empire.

It will end but I don’t know when, it doesn’t deserve to exist right now, so maybe next year, maybe two years, maybe three years from now. There will be a panic, and there will be a panic out of a — there’s a bond bubble right now. Because there’s much trouble in Europe, people are buying our bonds and it boosts the dollar, it makes America look good, it’s just because they’re a lot worse. But eventually the markets will give up on our bonds, interest rates will go up, they’re starting to go up right now. When interest rates go up then you invite back the inflation that the American people will then very much know that there’s a bigger crisis going on.

Dina Gusovsky: You have also said, especially after the Christmas Day bomber incident, that you are very concerned about US policy toward Yemen. Why is that?

Ron Paul: Mainly because it’s spreading the war needlessly. It reminds me of the 1960s as we were in Vietnam and it went over into Laos and these other countries and it never helped us; it just got us into more trouble. So yes, it’s the legal aspect of our CIA secretly doing these bombings in a country like Yemen. It isn’t not even our military; it’s our CIA that’s doing this. And every time we kill somebody they call them civilians or innocent people, they’d like to make us think that they’re all criminals out to bomb New York City, which they’re not. They’re the Taliban who are trying to defend their country. And every time we kill one, a lot of times our military will celebrate, “Oh, we just killed 10, 15 people,” but we’ve just created 10 or 15 more families that are firmly determined that they can do whatever they can to hurt us, so I don’t like going out and looking for more enemies. So whether we’re bombing Pakistan or bombing Yemen or occupying Afghanistan or occupying Iraq, token victories mean nothing because long term it will be bankruptcy for us, it will be more hatred directed toward us.

Dina Gusovsky: Now when we talk about foreign policy, especially right now, we can’t forget about China. Lately, whether it has to do with politics or economics, there seems to be a deterioration in relations between the United States and China. What do you make of all this back and forth of these so-called spats between these two countries?

Ron Paul: Our economy is weak but a lot of that weakness is due to our own fault, but we’d like to blame somebody else so we blame the Chinese. We blame them and say, “Well, they artificially fix their currency lower than the market.” It may be true, but we’re fixing our currency all the time. We print a lot of it and we keep our currency very, very weak so it benefits us in trade. So, it’s a matter of who’s going to get blamed, and that would be devastating economically for us to be in a trade war with China because it’s the lack of trade war, it’s the breakdown of those trade barriers, and when we were fighting China that was when we were in great danger. But since we’ve dropped that attitude and we’ve been trading with them and traveling back and forth that’s much better. But now we’re drifting back into telling the Chinese what to do and we’re really not in the driver’s seat. They’re our banker, so we can’t overly offend them or it may backfire and hurt us. We should arge for sound money, market rates of interest and free trade with anybody who wants to trade with us, and friendship with those who offer friendship.

Dina Gusovsky: Congressman Paul, as always thanks for your analysis.

Ron Paul: Thank you.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

65 Comments:

  1. Hopefully, the link will help answer your question Joe. We also should make sure that the two party system is held accountable for their actions.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  2. 9/11 was a False Flag operation carried out by our own governent and C.I.A. Inorder to take the first steps toward a New World Order and Tyranical Globalization. Osama Binladen had nothing to do with 9/11, he was a scapegoat and so was Al Quida (who we created by the way to fight off the soviets in Iran in the 90's). This was to trick the American people into thinking we have an Enemy that we can declare war on in order to invade two country's, take control of the middle east, strip them of all their resources, and set military bases over there to establish their American Imperialist Empire. Look it up people, Knowledge is power, this isn't the first time our own government carried out something like this. JFK was assassinated by his own Secret Service in order to maintain control of the Federal Reserve and domination and JFK was a threat to the Corrupt Elitists Agenda. 9/11 was an inside job, 3 towers fell that day, WTC tower #7 fell down due to controlled demolition as were the other two. Bombs were planted all throughout the towers, and no plane debree or video was everfound in the Pennsylvania crash site, or the pentagon crash site, they were bombs not air planes! It's impossible for jet fuel to incinerate turbine engines of 357's. This is no conspiracy, their is more evidence of a coverup than evidence for the official story. We didn't even have an investigation! Wake up people, we cannot let the NWO prevail. Two great films everyone should watch is "loose change" and "Zeitgeist Addendum", look up the Venus Project and educate yourselves about a Resource Based Economy for the future, because our corrupt capitalist monetary system is going down, and when it does we can start over with the ideas of the Venus project.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7

    • LOL!

      *Entering sarcasm mode*
      Has anyone seen any Bigfoot lately? No. Of course not!
      It's a government conspiracy, I tell you!
      The government is hiding them because they know something the government doesn't want you to hear!
      *Exiting sarcasm mode*

      Sheesh, pal, the government is corrupted and lying to us all the time, but please do yourself a favor and put the Enquirer down. Try to produce some supporting documentation for these absurd ramblings. Next thing you'll be telling us that man never landed on the moon. Or, that the Holocaust never happened.
      Get a clue.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7

      • First of all, I have every reason to believe the Holocaust was real and that man landed on the moon because of one thing, Evidence. Whether video footage, pictures, survivors storys, they are all historical evidence. You even wrote that the Government is corrupted and lying to us all the time, what makes you think that our corrupted Government wasn't capable of planning out 9/11? Are you that trustworthy of our government, are you willing to accept their story in blind faith without questioning any of it? The fact you said a Bigfoot conspiracy is as relevent as the 911 conspiracy just shows how ignorant you truely are to the fact that governments do create false flags to gain control over the people through fear mongering, this has been done many times in the past and you don't need to read the Enquirer to know this. Your probibly too arrogant to even realize any of this, but their New World Order is in the making and 9/11 was just the first step towards that agenda. If you really think 19 al quida terrorists got on board different planes with box cutters and flew 357's into the towers, and the pentagon, and you don't question the 911 report or look for any of the Visible Evidence, then your just an Ignorant tool and you don't do what our founding fathers would of wanted you to do as an American, Question Your Government and don't just be a herd of sheeple.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

        • Did you see the videos of the planes going into the towers? Did you see the video from the pentagon of the plane flying into the building? Did you hear the phone calls to their loved ones from the people ON the plane that the other passengers overtook then crashed in Penn? MANY phone calls, from ALL the planes, to loved ones declaring what was happening and all the same? The Government DID this? We have a group of people who absolutely HATE us simply because we do not hold the same religious values they do! We are as bad as Satan himself, to them. They are doing GOOD by annihalating US! Don't you see that? They are doing what they have been taught their God "Allah" wants from them! 9/11 was a statement, bold and undeniable. They will bring it here again and we will again unite as a country. I hope Binladen is captured and killed before the next Presidential vote. We need that part of our unrest put to rest!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10

        • As Diane just pointed out, the planes flying into the tower were seen by the whole world. I suppose you think the video of the planes flying into the building were all CGI effects, huh?
          And as she pointed out, the people on the planes were calling loved ones, leaving messages, "There are terrorists taking over the plane.". Those people died. Or, do you think they are in on the conspiracy? They are hiding with the Bigfoot!

          Regardless of what you think, you need to add proof if you want anyone to listen. Where is your evidence that the Secret Service assassinated JFK? Where is your evidence that tower #7 fell due to planted bombs? Where is your evidence that no plane debris was ever found in the Pennsylvania crash site?
          No evidence exists to support these absurd statements. But the burden is on you to produce them.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

      • Hard to believe that there are sleeple that still fall for the 'They attacked us because they hate our freedoms" bullshit. But that makes it less hard to believe how things got so phuqued up.

        This is not about whether planes flew into the buildings or not. It is about what brought the buildings down. For the first time in history the laws of physics were on holiday. For the first time in history a plane and or fire brought down steel towers. The impossible seemingly happened, and we have sleeple who question it not.

        @ the smartass of the bunch, Ryan:
        Where is your evidence that Whitey cannot possibly be correct?

        @Diane:
        Did you see a plane fly into the Pentagon? Did you see a plane fly into Building 7?
        And while we are at it, can you tell me how GWB saw the first plane hit , on live TV, as he stated?

        The real problem is that the sleeple simply cannot accept the fact that the world is what it is. They prefer to exist in an MSM Wonderland.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

        • Right is right, and wrong is wrong.
          In Science the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim.
          Example, if you told me you saw a Squadron Of Flying Pink Elephants; It is not up to me, or the scientific community, to prove they do or don't exist. It's up the the claimant to prove, or at least provide supporting evidence, that they do.

          Physics was not holiday on 9/11.
          If he wants to claim "...3 towers fell that day, WTC tower #7 fell down due to controlled demolition as were the other two" then he needs to provide evidence to support the claim.
          If he wants to make claims that "JFK was assassinated by his own Secret Service ", he needs to provide evidence to that effect.

          Just to be clear, however unlikely, I'm not saying it isn't theoretically possible. But if a person makes a criminal accusation involving murder they better be ready to back it up.
          It's a Constitutional right we all share equally. If I claimed I saw you kill someone, I'd better be ready to back it up. The same needs to apply to all. Claims involving murder are serious charges. He tosses them out as if they were common knowledge. It's irresponsible, and you both know it.... smartass or not.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

          • I'm asking that you back up your assertions that someone is all of the things that you purport them to be because they believe something that you have trouble with.

            The evidence you seek is available. If you choose not to look, it's still there.

            Answer the above questions, with many more to follow, and let's have a discussion about reality. I know it will be hard to give up the invectives and condescencion, but otherwise who will take you seriously?

            Are you just a smartass or someone with facts to back their bullshit?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

          • Let's just start from the fact that I am right and you are wrong.
            (Yes, I am a smartass, but when I'm right, I'm right! Like it or not!)

            Relax. Please understand, I am not defending the people accused, at all. Guilty or Innocent, it's not relevant to my argument.
            I am defending the Constitutional rights of the accused; because I support the Constitution and because those rights apply to all of us equally.
            There is a difference. You seem to think I am defending the SS, or the Government. I am not. I am defending the Constitution and the legal rights of the accused.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_the_accused
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

            How would you like it if someone accused you of murder?
            ... You probably wouldn't like it at all! Right?
            If Whitey accused you of murder, instead of the Secret Service, it is not up to you to prove you're innocent of murder. It is up to the prosecution to prove you are guilty of murder.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_until_proven_guilty

            Whitey claims that the Secret Service assasinated JFK. I am not defending the Secret Service. I am defending the Constitutional rights of the accused. The burden of proof requires evidence.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
            Whitey provided no evidence at all. If you disagree, show me the evidence? If I claimed you committed murder, what would you say to me? ... "Prove it!", "Show me the evidence". Right?

            Opinions are irrelevant. Available facts, and the Rights of the accused, are relevant.
            Example, I may believe in my heart of hearts that O.J. Simpson is guilty of double murder, but unless the prosecution can provide proof to the effect (Beyond a reasonable doubt) in a court of law, he gets set free. I still "believe" he's guilty, but my opinion is irrelevant.... just like Whitey's opinion is irrelevant!.. or Yours is irrelevant!
            What Whitey believes doesn't matter, what Whitey can prove does matter.

            ***"I’m asking that you back up your assertions that someone is all of the things that you purport them yo be because they believe something that you have trouble with."***

            The operative word, you said it yourself is, they "believe" something.
            As pointed out already, belief is irrelevant when it comes to accusations of murder.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
            also see delusional beliefs ...
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#Delusional_beliefs
            ... yes, I am a smartass. But right is right!

            ***"The evidence you seek is available."***

            Where? All I see is a criminal accusation.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_accusation

            Truly, if you have proof, I am willing to entertain it.
            Otherwise, the above stands as is.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

          • So now you will wiki me to death? Get real.

            Still did not hear you answer any questions. We only heard that you believe you are correct. Woohoo.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

          • Honestly, I had no idea you have no respect of the legal process.
            Okay! Bizarre for a so-called libertarian.

            .. you know, like myself, Ron Paul supports criminal trials of the terror suspects, rather than military tribunals, all because the tribunals disregard the Constitutional process, habeas corpus, etc. ?

            Do you want tribunals?
            Do you also support the "patriot" act?
            Your response is bizarre to say the least.
            I suppose you wouldn't mind being accused of a crime without evidence?
            Weird!

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

          • OK, Ryan

            You prefer to deflect rather than answer any question directly.
            You prefer ridicule to reasoned debate.

            My response is bizarre? Like Bernanke bizarre?
            You post up a bunch of wikishit for which noone has any respect, and it is my response that is bizarre? Your response had zero to do with the questions I asked, and it is my response that is bizarre?

            Thx for the intercourse, Ryan.
            Should you ever be able to carry on a debate, call me.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

          • I have answered your questions directly. And with every post you get more beligerent. You ask me to back it up, I did, then you say I'm wikiing you to death. It's ridiculous, only to be exceeded by Fred's responses.
            I'll spell it out as clearly as it can be said. I support the Constitution, and the Rights of the people. When people are accused without evidence, as whitey did, I will speak up and point out that that is an injustice.
            Period.
            And yes, your response is bizarre.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

          • You are simply delusional. You answered what you wanted to answer, but never the question put forward.

            The mountain of evidence supports either a false flag operation at most, or prior knowledge at a minimum. Either possibility would warrant further investigation.

            Go back and read our thread. Then again attempt to give a direct answer to any of our questions.

            p.s. (clue) We don't want to be wiki'd

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

          • What "mountain" of evidence, where? Where's the link? Where's the invisible evidence?
            That's right there is NONE presented, which is exactly what I was pointing out. All whitey came with is an accusation. No proof. No evidence. Nothing but an accusation, involving mass murder. And when someone makes an accusation of mass murder they'd better be ready to back it up with some sort of evidence. He came with none and you have none to present either. All you can do I deny all attempts at rational expectation that he present supporting evidence with your beligerence of the legal process, I mention, for accusation involving murder.
            Show the evidence or shut the f up.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

          • Maybe it's about learning to read by the 'Look/See' method.
            If you didn't see it, it must not be real.

            Still notice that you are bloviating but not answering.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

          • Fred the Protectionist

            Foreign nationals have no US Constitutional rights. If they are given rights it is under treaty or 'our' good graces. ('our' excludes Libertarians, they hold no political power thank God)

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

          • Let the Doc know that the meds are not helping you much.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

          • Fred the Protectionist

            You water down American citizen rights by claiming every foreigner on the planet has US Constitutional rights.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • Fred the Protectionist

          "Hard to believe that there are sleeple that still fall for the ‘They attacked us because they hate our freedoms” bullshit."

          Absolutely it is BS. Everyone wants Freedom. Democrats want the freedom to tax. Terrorists want the freedom to kill you. Neocon/Libertarians want the freedom to exploit cheap foreign labor. Everyone loves freedom.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

    • wow? Do these voices tell you other things that only you hear? Have you lost your mind? OUR Govt had the planes flown into the towers??? Are you SERIOUS? I'm telling you, some peoples stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

      • Is condescencion your only ammunition?

        Tell us why it is impossible for 9-11 to be a false flag operation.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

        • Noone can say it is impossible, but lets attempt to gauge the level of support within the community that would actually know something about engineering - and doesn't just get spoonfed garbage from Youtube - lets see if Architects and Engineers believe that "9/11 was an Orwellian false flag attack".

          Currently there are 1,153 Architects and Engineers that have signed a petition to ask the government to conduct an independent investigation:

          http://www.ae911truth.org/

          Petition Supporters as a Percent of ALL Architects and Engineers: ZERO, point, ZERO, ZERO, (wait for it...) ZERO, FIVE, THREE, THREE PERCENT (0.000533%).

          Or, another way, the percentage of professionals supporting this insane concept is roughly TWO THOUSAND times closer to ZERO than it is to being a mere ONE PERCENT.

          Engineers (Active) 1,600,000
          Engineers (Retired) 200,000
          Architects (Active) 150,000
          Architects (Retired) 15,000
          Engineers (International) 200,000
          Total Population (Domestic): 2,165,000

          Signed Petition: 1,153

          So, people who are actually educated in this subject express ZERO PERCENT support for it. ZERO.

          In other words, about the same percent of votes that Ron Paul will get in the 2012 election if Truthers remain in his wake.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

          • Yepper, let's judge truth by level of support.

            H E L L O !!!!!!

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

        • So very weak.

          I think what should be realized here is that, yes there are radical fundamaentalist/ militant groups - here and abroad, as in American and foreign - that have and do plot against the U.S.. But they are not attacks on us because we uphold to such things as liberty, democracy, equal rights, etc. They are attacks against our governments foreign and domestic policy...for hedging bets with other corupt and murderous countries. They are the voices of those who do not want us meddling in other countries affairs, transfering our wealth, and depending on foreign goods that could very well be produced in our own back yard.
          So even though I don't get too wacky with consperacy theories, (which isn't to say they are hog wash)...I do accuse and hold accountable the U.S. government for what happened on Sept 11th. Our C.I.A., F.B.I., N.S.C knew that there were plots by terrorist against the U.S.and did nothing about it. They couldn't. Had they stopped them it would not have created the drama that an actual attack did. Which in turn allowed the U.S. government to invade Iraq and Afganastan; establishing a greater presence through out the Middle East.

          Further more, Yes we do know that plans were used in those attacks, and the targets were chosen with purpose...I find it hard to believe that our intellagence did not know;mainly because the Pentagon is under round the clock military protection (air and ground). In other words there is no way a commercial airliner could veer off course and start heading into a NO FLY zone and not be spotted, questioned and taken out. I d even go so far as to say: I bet the terrorist flying that bus were surprised they were not getting shot down.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    • Yes...I do stand with you on this. I'll go further. In '92 a bomb went off in the garage of one of the Twin Towers...and the CIA admitted to knowing of certain individuals who were under watch and suspicious of "terrorist behaviour", but our government did nothing about it. It wasn't enough at that time...It wasn't enough to cause pandamonium amongst the majority of Americans. We would have to wait for something much more dramatic. What happened on Sept. 11th was indeed tragic; it was our generations Pearl Harbor, but worse because it involved civilians. This was certainly the stage our government was waiting for. Very few voices were heard opposing our retaliation, mostly do to lack of media responsability; those that were heard were called anti-American, unpatriotic, and terrorist themselves. The tone by KING G.W.Bush and his military advisors was that of a heavy dose of brutal revenge and punishment...A very sudo-mainstream supported approach, one that would allow them to go forward without proper protacal. One that would certainly allow them to get away with murder...Thousand killed of not only our own military men and women but also innocent civilians (young children).
      But where we must really open our eyes is to the lies and demagogary that our goverment used. When U.N officials didnot find the so called weapons of mass destruction, that was not enough for the good 'ol KING. Iraq commplied with ever request we threw at them: They let our own inspectors in, they did not interfear, they allowed them into any and all building s that were in question, they allowed overflights, they cooperated with interviews...And no weapons were ever found. So it certainly is clear that all Bush wanted to do was invade Iraq for position. Because if it was really about W.M.D.... what about the other eight powerful countries that have nuclear weapons...With the U.S. leading the PUNCH!
      Now I do believe their are radical groups out there that do pose a threat to our country, but it isn't an attack against us because we value freedom, exercise democracy, or try to uphold human rights...It is an attack on our foreign policies and how our government hedges its bets, creating political, ethical, and economical problems in other countries, placing military sanctions upon these countries; especially those countries whoes infulstructure isn't as strong. It would piss off any red blooded American if another government parked itself in our back yard and begain tell us what, when, how, where, and with whom. And then begain dropping bombs on small villages, creating curfews, taking over buildings and houses that belonged to those who do not pose any threat; arresting, incarcerating and torturing without any just cause other than mere suspition and resistance by those who feel its better to stand-up than lay down.
      Sadam Hussain(sp?) certainly was a tyrant and needed to be removed from power... the Iraq people attest to this. However, this wasn't really of main interest, it was because of our friends the Saudies (OIL) who in 1945 we struck a deal with when F.D.R. met with Ibn Saud and proposed to move into the Middle East. The U.S would guarantee security to the Saudi Arabian Monarchy thus creating our multi billion dollar a year oil industry. We did this dispite the fact that the Saudi regime inflicts the same cruelties on its people as Iraq and even China for that matter.

      For those who need sources...
      Terrorism, Theirs and Ours. by Eqbal Ahmad
      Terrorism and War. by Howard Zinn
      The Accidental President. by Daniel Kaplan
      Theater of War. by Lewis Lapham
      9-11. by Noam Chomsky
      A Peoples History of the United States. by Howard Zinn
      Kingdom of Fear. by Hunter S. Thompson
      The Revolution a manafesto. by Ron Paul

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

      • As far as I'm concerned we have domestic terrorism to worry about as well. & Machine hit the nail on the head that we weren't attacked by Iraqis and Afghans.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        • Yes we certaianly do have domestic terrorism to be concerned with...The two men that were arrested last week who were involved with a group (can't think of the name) that were allegedly plotting to attack police, and supposedly stocking large quantities of guns and ammo. The latter part really isn't a crime though, but of course will be used to build the prosicutions case.
          But what does this say? I mean when Americans begin to plot such measures against their own Government/State/County workers (those who are paid to up hold the law without bias opinion). Is it really terrorism? Or is it our countries history coming to surface? I think of past historical act such as the Boston Tea Party or groups such as the Sons of Liberty whoes members were secret and were the main reason the Stamp Act was ebolished. Don't get me wrong I don't endorse violence, but what does it take to get the Government to listen to its people. Our Government doesn't make America...The people do. And when the media doesn't up hold its responsability...And our Justice system looks the other way/fails, allowing our Government to get away with propaganda against its own people and violations against the constitutional... Where is todays Daniel Elesberg!?!?

          The Patriot Act and Homeland security are sure signs that the U.S. Government is concerned with domestic terrorism.These acts are used as measures to watch and control Americans. Of course they were sold as policies to protect us from terrorist that may try to come into the U.S.,but we already knew who those individuals and groups are. The F.B.I. and C.I.A. have been watching long before sept. 11.

          Another measure...go down to your D.M.V. and try to simply change your address...As of January, 2010 you now must have your S.S. card, passport (or) State certified birth certificate, two legal documents with your new address ( bank statement, Elec. bill etc), and/or a signed form stating that you do reside at the new address. All of these new policies are do to 9/11 which wasn't my fault. Don't beleve me...go see for yourself and just go with your S.S. card and good looks. Oh and it now cost $38.00 just to change your address; use to only cost 10.00...At least this is how much it cost where I live. And if Obama passes the National I.D. card...Ho ho!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        • Seems odd that each so-called 'domestic terrorist' seems to have a CIA connect.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

    • Lets attempt to gauge the level of support within the community that would actually know something about engineering – and doesn’t just get spoonfed garbage from Youtube – lets see if Architects and Engineers believe that “9/11 was an Orwellian false flag attack”.

      Currently there are 1,153 Architects and Engineers that have signed a petition to ask the government to conduct an independent investigation:

      http://www.ae911truth.org/

      Petition Supporters as a Percent of ALL Architects and Engineers: ZERO, point, ZERO, ZERO, (wait for it…) ZERO, FIVE, THREE, THREE PERCENT (0.000533%).

      Or, another way, the percentage of professionals supporting this insane concept is roughly TWO THOUSAND times closer to ZERO than it is to being a mere ONE PERCENT.

      Engineers (Active) 1,600,000
      Engineers (Retired) 200,000
      Architects (Active) 150,000
      Architects (Retired) 15,000
      Engineers (International) 200,000
      Total Population (Domestic): 2,165,000

      Signed Petition: 1,153

      So, people who are actually educated in this subject express ZERO PERCENT support for it. ZERO.

      In other words, about the same percent of votes that Ron Paul will get in the 2012 election if Truthers remain in his wake.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  3. I would not say Ron Paul is our only hope, giving up hope only makes us accept the statusquo in hopes that someone will fix everything for us.

    The point is supporting people who think like him so there will not only be one person to rely on.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

    • Exactly!
      Rand Paul is up and coming. Hopefully he will win in Kentucky.
      And Ron Paul has endorsed several other candidates around the country. I saw a list a couple weeks ago, but I can't find the link at the moment. It's around here somewhere.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

    • totally agree with this statement.

      I only follow Ron Paul because he keeps me on my toes, and challenges my thinking constantly. Not to mention he is consistent on his issues.

      By all means direct us to similar encumbants.

      As I'd mentioned previously, I worry when this movement gets too big, as it risks overtaking us all to becoming a non-thinking 3rd party.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

    • one thing I would like to hear Ron Paul comment on, particularly him being a Republican, is the sorry state of the 2-party politics, and why we only have 2 parties from which to choose.

      All other democracies in the world (UK, Australia, New Zealand, even France!) have more than just 2 parties.

      Don't choose the lesser of 2 evils... don't choose evil. Period. 😉

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      • All parties should be abolished. Individuals should run on their own beliefs. The people aren't as uneducated as they used to be, needing a party to do their thinking for them. Parties are "group thinking" at their worst. You can look into the eyes of an individual and know if you trust/agree with them. A party has no eyes to look into, and only a fool ever trusts them.
        Besides more parties means more corruption and less representation. With, say, 5 parties a cadidate might win with only 21% of the vote. The more parties available the worse it gets. However, with individuals running with no party the people will simply be voting for the person most like them.
        And you can think of each individual as a party unto themselves establishing the maximum amount of representation possible.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

        • Fred the Protectionist

          Yeah yeah yeah! Screw the right to assemble and screw the enemies of the Constitution. Yeah yeah! Yeah!

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

          • Or screw Fled's nonsensical replies.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          • Fred the Protectionist

            Why do you hate the Constitution (right to assemble)?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      • Liberatarian, I agree with you to some degree. The only problem is, the 2 parties are master-minds at raising money. How can an Independant ever compete with that? Even if they said OK... every person wanting to run for President or Senate or House has to spend the exact same, or even allot a certain amount to runners, that can't be exceeded by anyone, then we would have a gazillion (I'm making up numbers now cuz I'm not sure what comes after "trillion" and DON'T want to know! hahaha) candidates? Everyone would be so confused, it would be mayhem.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        • that's nothing, you should see the hoops you have to go to just to get enough petitioners to be able to be on a ballot.

          Read Teresa Amato's "Grand Illusion: The myth of voter choice in a two party tyranny". Haven't finished it yet but its pretty indepth about how difficult it is to get anywhere if you're not republican or democrat.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

          • I will Liberatarian, thanks! I am no political "genius" and hope to never portray I even half-assed know what is right or wrong. I have actually just in the last 8 yrs paid attention to politics, simply because the country just seems so screwy. I want few things. I want what I earn to be mine to support myself and my family. I don't mind paying my share to support normal needs of a country as roads, schools and military. I want our country to worry about OUR (US AMERICANS, not illegals or foreign affairs) interests first! My family filed income taxes on 43,925 taxable dollars. That is my husband, myself and 1 child. Not wealthy by ANY stretch of the imagination. My husband works very hard to support his family and I work 3 days a week in a very technical job. I have 1 child and a mother in a ursing home that I DECIDED is more important to devote the majority of time to, and luckily my husband agrees. With that being said, "I want my money as mine" is a hard subject when the Govt wants to mandate I support this cause or that cause. They take a ridiculous amount out of my measely check and my husbands for Social Security, when it won't even be there for us. But my little bit of money is utilized by a Govt that feels it knows best what needs to be supported. I mean this for Republicans and Democrats alike! The whole lot of the greedy bunch. My money bails out banks, my money supports a war that seems to be going nowhere. My money will rebuild a country I paid to tear up. It just seems crazy to me. In my church there are a few families that need help and I would like it to be MY choice to help them, and do it as I see fit, in my families budget. It just seems our Govt takes such black and white points of view. I would love nothing more than to have NO parties so there is NO outside interests. I would love our House and Senate to not accept everything a president says as "gospel" as they did in the Patriot Act and the bailouots and Healthcare crap. Their job is to READ, UNDERSTAND and VOTE according to their constituants! Uphold OUR wishes. Any input is much appreciated. I've explained what MY wishes for a Govt I want to support is, so please don't send input related to "Conspiracies" and craziness like that. Water under the bridge is just that. Any information of where is best to go from HERE is what I'd love! I have loved reading everyones opinion and am thoroughly enjoying hearing all sides and gaining knowledge. I also would like 28th ammend to pass! Good enough for me...good enough for them! See how much they mandate then!

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  4. Yep, that's the way it is the world over; if you want accurate news you won't find it in your own country on domestic issues.
    Great interview.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  5. Sorry to say that a foreign channel who does a more meaningful interview with an American politician than a domestic one!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

  6. Consider for a moment that this long and meaningful interview, with poignant and prodding questions was conducted by Russia Today cable channel.

    Why is it that it takes a foreign channel to conduct a truly inquisitive interview with a politician rather than one of the domestic channels?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  7. Veronica Deevers

    God Bless Ron Paul. His courage to stand up against the Socialistic take over is outstanding.

    I do so hope he runs for President again. He truly is our only hope.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2

  8. My wife and I both work. We have two children (2 & 4). Neither job provides health insurance. We cannot afford private health insurance for the family. If one of gets sick we lose money from time off from work as well as carry the additional financial burden of Dr/ hospital bills. Our solution has been not to get care and tough-it-out.

    Now, I strongly agree with your ideas on the FED as well as others; however, why is health care of Americans a privilege and not a right?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 18

    • I am discouraged by the negative responses to Joe's question. He is not putting Ron Pauls views down, but rather questioning them. If anyone here really believes in Liberty then they should all give respect and admiration to Joe for posing his question to Congressman Paul. I too have wondered the same question and I would love to hear an educated answer.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

    • There have been many discussion and videos about this on this site. Here's a link. Just read what Ron Paul has to say about it.

      http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-03-29/ron-paul-the-right-to-healthcare-is-based-on-theft-and-coercion/

      The short answer is that it would require the government to steal from some to give to others.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

    • Joe, love the question!! When people say Healthcare is not a "right" it is very true. Nothing in the Constitution gives us the "right" to medical treatment of any kind. BUT, I have seen first hand a situation that made me so proud of the healthcare "rules" (not the right word, but you'll get my point) that we have right now. My neighbor at 57 lost his job. Measely little job but he had healthcare, he even kept it under "COBRA" as long as he could and was under Dr's care for various minor things. (Cholesterol, blood pressure...ect) Anyway, long and short, he "didn't feel good" went to the ER and no ER will turn you away. No Insurance but got care. Was admitted, found out he had lung cancer, and within 10 days he died. He had been under a regular Dr's care for years and this had never been discovered, but it was then. His wife had never worked being a "Army wife" moving all the time, she raised her children. Then as the kids grew and had families of their own, she realized she had no viable skills and was afraid to try to learn. Medicaide stepped in. Evaluated the finances and due to the fact that what she had was so minor, they covered his expenses totally. She paid $21 for 7 different $3 fees that were billed her. They did not take her home, they did not take her only car. She was helped when she truly needed it most! If your kids are sick and you take them to the ER, they will treat them. If you are financially unable (after they EVALUATE finances) then Medicaide will step in. If you are found to be able to pay, then the hosital will work out payments with you. You and your family can get care. Sometimes people prioritize things above what SHOULD be prioritized, is my point. Healthcare is a "benefit" that most employers offer to help with the cost. Possibly you or your wife could find a similar job with that "benefit"? I wish you the best, but don't give up hope that truly in a time of need there is help for your family.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • the biggest issue is people confuse the meaning of the 'right' to healthcare.

        Everyone's vision of 'healthcare not being a right' are poor sick people being refused to be treated by an ER after an accident or after they have some disease.

        What people tend to forget is
        1. ERs don't turn anyone away, especially not if its an emergency
        2. Poor and homeless people always had free / low charge local community clinics that they can go to for health care
        3. Health INSURANCE is not Health CARE
        4. Government can't MANDATE that you HAVE to buy something
        5. Government can't MANDATE that (individual) doctors HAVE to accept a patient. E.g. they can specify that doctors can't refuse a patient in terms of a medical emergency, or can't refuse due to race, religion, gender etc. However government can't mandate that a doctor HAS to see a patient (it would result in nonsensical results. e.g. a patient with a heart condition could end up going to an dermatologist who HAS to treat him).

        As far as rationing goes, it's not the government necessarily saying you're only allowed x amount of care, its more indirectly the government telling doctors they have to treat x number of patients for Y amount of money. If its not financially sound, the doctor for example, won't buy another MRI/Xray/ultrasound machine after his breaks, then he can't offer the service anymore, then fewer people can get such service in the long run.

        http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/07/19/doctors-arent-in-for-medicaid-patients/
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081700088.html

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        • Fred the Protectionist

          Libertarians think they have a 'right' to fire free Americans and hire foreign slaves. Everyone loves 'right's.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


1 × = seven

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>