Ron Paul: Freedom is the Answer!

Ron Paul talks with Don Imus about his son Rand Paul, why so many people are misinterpreting the the Constitution, what motivates the supporters of big government, whether he will run for president in 2012 (he hasn’t decided yet), the U.S. government’s unwavering support for Israel, and what Barack Obama should say to Wall Street when he talks to them.

Channel: Fox Business
Date: 04/20/2010


Don Imus: From Texas, Congressman Ron Paul. Good morning Congressman Paul.

Ron Paul: Good morning. Good to be with you.

Don Imus: How are you, sir?

Ron Paul: I’m doing fine.

Don Imus: How’s your son doing down there in that race in Kentucky?

Ron Paul: Well, it looks like he’s ahead and doing quite well. He’s pretty optimistic at this point.

Don Imus: Seems like a nice young man.

Ron Paul: Yeah, he takes after his mother.

Don Imus: He’s a conservative, is that what he is?

Ron Paul: Yeah, well, he calls himself a conservative constitutionalist, which is not a bad term. Some people think that means you believe in liberty, and I agree with that.

Don Imus: Well, what does it mean? Can you explain it to me?

Ron Paul: What, conservative constitutionalist?

Don Imus: Yeah.

Ron Paul: Well, conservative means you retain the values that have been around for a while, and indicating that what we ought to do is conserve and follow the Constitution as laid out by our founders.

Don Imus: Wonder why we don’t tend to get back doing that.

Ron Paul: You know, there’s a lot of talk about it. What has happened is everybody takes the same oath in Washington and nobody loses any sleep over not following the Constitution, but it seems like there’s a great bit of diversity about how you interpret it. I think this comes from the educational system that we have for 40 or 50 years, that people have been conditioned to reinterpret the Constitution, that it has to be modernized, that you don’t have to bother amending it. So a certain group has come along and said the general welfare clause endorses the welfare state, and the commander in chief when a war is declared has the authority to do whatever he wants, whenever he pleases and start any war he wants.

So they endorse the welfare state and the warfare state, and there’s no endorsement in the Constitution and there’s no requirement to amend the Constitution. People just, the Congress either ignores it, the president writes laws, he writes executive orders that then become the laws, the courts rewrite the laws and they are there in the legislative business, and the Congress too often just sits still and doesn’t resist it at all and allows the usurpation of all the congressional authority that it was given.

Don Imus: So they do that because they’re driven by special interests? Money? Or is it more malicious?

Ron Paul: No, I think it’s philosophic.

Don Imus: You do?

Ron Paul: I think because they have been taught that, take for instance economics. Economics in this country has been Keynesian economics since the Depression. So Republicans and Democrats both endorse economics of Keynes, which means that if you have trouble the government should spend more money, borrow more money, and print more money.

Now, that’s how we get into our trouble. But both parties basically endorse those views. I mean, it wasn’t Democrats alone that brought about the bailout, the Republicans started it when Bush was still in office. But that’s a philosophic issue and I think it’s a philosophic issue of what the role of government ought to be, and so many believe that the role of government is, to take care of us from cradle to grave, and it is to police the world because the burden has fallen on our shoulders and we have this moral responsibility to spread democracy and our goodness even if it takes bombs and guns to do it.

Don Imus: Philosophical implies to me, maybe wrongly, but implies to me that they’re making these decisions based on principle. When it comes to politicians and principle, I can’t reconcile that.

Ron Paul: I think that’s a tricky question because I think it is all philosophic. But everybody’s philosophical. It’s just whether you have the right ideas or the wrong ideas. But then, if you have a system where government gets big, and you have a military industrial complex and a welfare state, then the special interest, this invites special interest.

If you have a government that is very very limited in scope and they’re not capable of passing out the favors, then you’re not likely to have so much temptation for the special interest to take over. But interventionism, where government assumes this role, it sets the stage for all the special interests to come in, and of course one group says “Well, yes, we need to do this to take care of the poor.” But it just happens that the welfare idea spreads, the wealthy are able to get more welfare than the poor.

Don Imus: Don’t they always say follow the money?

Ron Paul: Do what?

Don Imus: Don’t they always say though, follow the money? The adage.

Ron Paul: Oh yeah, sure. The money will do it. This is why I think some misunderstood this. This is why they tried to put strict rules then that the state should be involved in doing this so much to try to keep the special interest out, but that’s why being a conservative constitutionalist and going back to what the founders tried, I think is a…

Don Imus: You know, we’re talking about Congressman Ron Paul who ran for the presidency. Are you going to run again?

Ron Paul: No, I haven’t made that decision. I haven’t thought too much about that. That’s a while to go yet. I haven’t said absolutely not, but right now I have no plans to do it.

Don Imus: When you ran, did you think you could get elected?

Ron Paul: Not really. I used to kid, I said that that’s the risk you take when you put your name out there. You can get elected. When I first ran for Congress, I was talking to […] and I thought it was virtually impossible to win even a congressional seat if you were going to defy the status quo and then promise no goodies for your district and only promise to limit government and try to restore a free society, that there wouldn’t be an audience for that. To my surprise, there was. Right now, I’m a bit surprised that as many people are paying attention as they are right now. The country is in desperate straits and maybe looking towards a freedom philosophy is the right thing to do.

Don Imus: It’s kind of interesting how enormously popular you are, particularly with, young Republicans and others and yet not with the Republican establishment. Is that because they don’t like your foreign policy views or what?

Ron Paul: Yeah, you know, the older people, they have trouble being objective, they get locked in a place and they’re part of the special interests. And young people have always been generally more attracted to principle and they like consistency and they’re more idealistic. Also, the young people right now are facing a major problem. It isn’t like when the baby boomers were moving into adulthood, everything was doing pretty well and the country was still wealthy and jobs were available. Now, the jobs are unavailable and the country’s poor, wars continue, deficits have to be paid for, and personal liberties are under attack. Perpetual war exists, and young people say “Hey! What’s the answer?” Freedom is the answer, and freedom does bring people together. Not only am I pleased with young people being attracted to this, some polls show that even independents are very interested in this and even progressive Democrats who like the idea of protecting personal choices and are more supportive of a less aggressive foreign policy. So this is, these ideas really do bring people together. I think young people recognize that more so than those who have been locked into the establishment.

Don Imus: Your son Rand feels pretty much like you do about everything?

Ron Paul: I think so. It’s hard to have strong disagreements within a family, but we have our disagreements and certainly on tactics we would have disagreements. But the basic thrust of limiting government and balancing budgets and have free markets and property rights and along these lines I think we would have strong agreement.

Don Imus: The Obama’s, I guess it is accurate to describe, it is heavy handed relations with Israel. What’s your view on that?

Ron Paul: Well, I haven’t really noticed any real heavy-handedness. I don’t think there’s any doubt about what our country would do if Israel has a problem. I think sometimes these disagreements are more superficial than they really are.

Don Imus: It’s a dog and pony show?

Ron Paul: If push comes to shove, you know what will happen. But I’m sure there are people in the administration who are concerned that the Israelis may act unilaterally and go in there and start a war with Iran, which would not help the world. It wouldn’t help Israel, it wouldn’t help Iran. It wouldn’t help the Americans. I mean, it would be a disaster, but there’s always this threat that this could happen, but there’s also the threat that we’ll condone it too. It would be horrible.

Don Imus: Finally, Congressman Paul, the president’s going to Wall Street Thursday to talk to them. What should he say to them?

Ron Paul: He shouldn’t even probably go and if he’s going to go, what I’d like to hear the president say is we believe in free markets, we don’t believe regulations can compensate for an out of control Federal Reserve system. The regulations should come through the rules of the marketplace, if you mess up and you get into a place where you’re bankrupt, you should declare bankruptcy and get out of the way and nobody bails you out. And if you commit fraud, you ought to go to jail. But regulations per se are not the answer. The SEC is actually a farce. I mean, they were created to prevent the problems of Goldman Sachs. The information about Goldman Sachs has been written in books since it occurred and yet here, politically they come and they explain “Oh, no, it’s all Goldman Sachs’ fault.” Well, Goldman Sachs is responsible and they have been treated in a special way. But we need someone to say that the marketplace can regulate a lot better than the SEC and more government regulations. We need to regulate the Federal Reserve is what we need to do.

Don Imus: Congressman Paul, always a pleasure to have you on. Thank you very much, I appreciate it.


  • Douglas

    Auditing The Federal Reserve would show how much NEW US currency was issued to Foreign Nations through favored private National banks which have directly affected the stability of the entire US economy which is a serious National Security Issue.

    What is it with the power of ‘Paper Money’ but the ‘Great Invention’ of the ‘Original 13 Colonies’? What a great invention! Ben Franklin was a master mind behind it. He even developed a way to fight counterfeiting. He developed a way to water mark bills with individual leafs because no two leafs are the same and he made sure that each bill stated that ‘To Counterfeit was to be given Death’.

    What backed that piece of paper anyway? Well that all depends on what you are willing to get up off your butt and do some work for. Will you get up off your bum for a pile of Gold? You cannot eat gold or plant it or build a house with it back then. Now with the evolution of electricity Gold has finally found a genuine backing, its super conductivity. Anyhow, why peoples still cling to gold still makes me cringe.

    Paper money was a great invention of American. It represented the contract unit of exchange that people traded their labor for, regardless of whether or not they have a pile of Gold. Gold is, once again, worth nothing unless you are willing to get off your bum and do work for it.

    What happened is that the original thirteen colonies paper monetary system was so successful that Citizen did not care if it was backed by Gold. All they cared about is that it was redeemable in Products and Services backed by the EFFORT that produced those Products and Services. So, the backing of paper money transformed from the desire to have it redeemable in precious metals to the back up of labored assets or the back up of labor intended to be completed.

    This work so well that the GDP of the original thirteen colonies exceeded the need for Atlantic trade. Now, when the merchant families dominating Europe at that time realized what was happening they ‘Freaked Out’. The European system depended upon the precious metal system of money and the issuance of royal charters. What Ben did with his printing presses was to create a whole new way of exchanging labor (EFFORT). The American Way!

    This is where the US Revolution starts. First of all, if Ben’s new system of paper money did not work so well then the European Merchant Families of the precious metal system would not have given a rip about it. It was the fact that it was working and they were being squeezed out that infuriated them and got them interested!

    So, they made a New Law that the colonies were now forbidden to print paper monies and that they must use only Their Money System. This is where I want you all to pay attention to what I am exposing. What I want you to right now take attention to is that ‘They realized How Well That Ben’s System Was Working and They Saw How Much Power and Wealth They Could Have If They Privately Control That System. Especially in the ‘New World’

    The merchant families hired and sent ‘Mercenary Armies’ to the Colonies to enforce their New Band on Colonial Currencies. This is what started The American Revolution and what you should have been taught in ‘Seventh Grade’.

    This is where the debate between Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton comes into play. We won the Revolution, however we still have to understand the differences between these three individuals debate over how to reestablish the Original Paper Money System! Why did Jefferson resign? How and why did Hamilton convince Washington to agree to his plan for the ‘First National Bank’?

    Hamilton was a brilliant economic genius. He could foresee the prospect of the environment manipulated by labor and thus the potential of products and services that would come. Jefferson could see this too, but did not want Citizens to be taken advantage of! The main difference between Hamilton and Jefferson I see makes perfect since. Hamilton could only see that treading through a Bill of Rights, a Declaration of Independence would only ‘Slow’ and ‘Hamper’ the fast profiting progress of such a powerful New Nation of Colonies and that if He and his European backers controlled its ‘Paper Issuance’ they would securely become the wealthiest families in the world for many generation to come.

    Jefferson could see right thought this and resigned immediately. What he could see was the seed of chaos that suppress Americans. Jefferson went on to prophecies what our society would become after such a ludicrous private monetary control. To this day everything he said would happen has come to pass.

    • I do not blame Washington for this. He was under the pressure of the Continentals being non-acceptable to European Markets, the debts taken to fight the American Revolution and the basic desire to see this New Nation take off into new prospects of further civilizing Humanity into ‘Higher standards of Living.’ With that, the true Paper Money system was ‘Duplicated’ by Unconstitutional forces even by the First President of The United States of America. Let us all bear in mind that Washington refused to be ‘King’ and insisted upon the new system of Presidential Elections.

    So, the real history of American Monetary Policy is still an untold or uneducated story. What happened during the American Revolution shows that even under all the pressure of the European Merchant Families commissioned Armies, the Colonist gladly accepted the ‘Continentals’ as a way of feeding and supporting the original ‘Troops’ that fought the American Revolution. Maybe because they longed after that freedom of exchange whether it be for your willingness s to get off your bum for a pile of gold or for a fair trade of EFFORT through a paper money FAITH system that represented peoples products and services through proper ‘Government Representation.’

    A paper money system through proper ‘Government Representation’ can be based on whatever its citizens want and issued in ‘ Proper Proportions as to maintain stability within the general economy.

    This is what the Merchant Families could see was working so well and wanted complete private control over, simply because they could see how powerful and wealthy they could become owning and controlling the FAITH backed by Human Labor regardless of it was backed by precious metals or not.

    Look, if you tried to back up all the currency in circulation right now with precious metals than we would have a major crisis. An ounce of Gold would be worth a million units or more. Units that represent the FAITH of peoples building and creating products and services simply on the FAITH they have in the currency they are given. This would create yet another extermination of tribes who be directly effected by the massive greed for Gold prospectors that have historically destroyed many civilization of peoples.

    What we need is for our leader ‘Ron Paul’ to embrace is the original paper money system established by ‘The Original Thirteen Colonies’ that is managed by the Congressional Democracy though representation and backing of ‘We the People’.

    The system works! All it needs is a democratically elected Government to administrate it.

    Let’s say you have gained a vast amount of capital in the form of cash deposits and you decide to start a private bank to loan it out to Citizens of your Nation. You decide not to charge interest or have repayment as long as the loan is properly demonstrated to fulfill the business plan. In the loan contract no payment is required, however a stated agreed upon percent of profit sharing is required to sustain the contract if the business is successful, this ‘should’ be capped at 12% by democratic legislation. If the business is useful than your bank would share up to 12% of the net profit.

    If the business fails than a 50 / 50 split on the loss should be required as both the judgment of the loaner and the loaner is both equally responsible. If the business fails because the loner has proven beyond a drought through proper legal proceedings then the loner should be asked to pay back the entire loan without interest and/or forfeit assets.

  • Carl Stoll

    Ron Paul talks a lot about the evils of big government. He’s missing the point. These are the words of the great German free-market advocate and economist Walter Eucken (1891-1950):

    The issue whether we should encourage more government measures or fewer government measures begs the question. It is not a quantitative, but a qualitative issue. Government should neither attempt to control the economy, nor leave the economy to its own devices. Government planning of procedural issues – yes. Government planning and control of the economic process – no. It is essential to recognize the distinction between procedure on the one hand and process on the other hand, and act accordingly. This is the only way in which we can accomplish the goal of enabling all citizens to control the economy through the price mechanism, instead of allowing a small minority to control it. The only economic system in which this is possible is that of complete[ly free] competition. IT CAN ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED IF ALL MARKET PARTICIPANTS [i.e. Wall Street – C.S.] ARE PREVENTED FROM CHANGING THE RULES OF THE MARKET. (my stress)

    My proposal — Make lobbying a capital crime.

    • fred the protectionist

      Thanks for wasting my time. 30 seconds of my life i’ll never get back reading that.

  • pragmatic

    I am pragmatic to know that Ron Paul is the Best and Most Qualified Person to be President of Out Beloved Country but bbe real. This is all a Pipe Dream as those that control the financial strings and control all those Green Tickets actuall decide who will be President of the USA.

    Also Ron Paul does not go along with the Officially Politically Correct Crap that the Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 and because of this he will be ridiculled in the Controlled Mass Media. The sad thing is that the “SHEEPLES” will go allong with what they is told to them on the evenine news and local newspaper.

    BBC Investigative Documentary on Al Qaeda


    “The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the TV watcher to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US . . .” —

    Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook

    “Ana raicha Al Qaeda” is colloquial for “I’m going to the toilet”. A very common and widespread use of the word “Al-Qaeda” in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl. This name comes from the Arabic verb “Qa’ada” which mean “to sit”, pertinently, on the “Toilet Bowl”. In most Arabs homes there are two kinds of toilets: “Al-Qaeda” also called the “Hamam Franji” or foreign toilet, and “Hamam Arabi” or “Arab toilet” which is a hole in the ground. Lest we forget it, the potty used by small children is called “Ma Qa’adia” or “Little Qaeda”.
    So, if you were forming a terrorist group, would you call yourself, “The Toilet”?

  • fred the protectionist

    You wouldn’t want to “regulate lead paint”, no you’d prefer children to eat paint chips.

    Heck you regressives are against any regulation on lead, period. You regressive anarchists want to return to the good old days when the Romans use to line their wine caskets with lead to “sweeten” the wine.

    Or better yet, lol, the Romans use to mix uranium with glass to make green-glass cooking and drinking vessels. Wouldn’t want to regulate uranium, anarchist regressives, now would you..

    • exodia

      fool, lack of regulation doesnt mean its going to happen

  • Let the people regulate it not the inept government… Free market will take care of itself. Im sure there can be testing agencies for new products but they can be run privately rather than by the gov.

    • fred the protectionist

      Party for Bernie Madoffs, scammers, schemers and Snake Oil Salesmen; the Libertarian Party.

    • Forest

      “Im sure there can be testing agencies for new products but they can be run privately rather than by the gov.”

      AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! You are so naive!!!!

      Start with reading a little Upton Sinclair and then get back to me as to how AWESOMELY PROGRESSIVE private industry is in looking after worker/product safety, ok?

      But wait, you are right, there are plenty of examples!

      You mean like how safety standards for mines are ‘effectively’ run by private companies? Wait! Or how about workers safety standards were totally voluntarily administered by companies privately? WAIT! Or how environmental standards were ‘effectively’ administered by lumber companies when they stripped the old-growth? WAIT! Or how about hunting and fishing standards were ‘effectively’ determined by the hunters/fishermen themselves? WAIT!! Or how about how the private industry EASILY put Bernie Madoff out of business?!? WAIT!!! How about those strip mines? I am SURE the companies did extensive due diligence and environmental impact reports prior, right?

      You are SO RIGHT, CLEARLY the Free Markets and Ron Paul’s curiously-omnipotent ‘Anti-Fraud’ laws do a FANTASTIC job.

      Keep living in that rabbit hole.

    • Carl Stoll

      Dave quoth:
      April 25, 2010 at 7:45 am | Permalink | Reply
      Let the people regulate it not the inept government… Free market will take care of itself. Im sure there can be testing agencies for new products but they can be run privately rather than by the gov.

      I have a snaking suspicion that most visitors to this web site aren’t really in favor of the free market at all. That’s because if you want a free-market , you must have a strong and active government willing to step in and crack down on whoever is breaking the rules. There’s no free-market if there aren’t any hard and fast rules that are enforceable at the drop of a hat. And someone has got to enforce them. That can’t be any private citizen, but has to be a kind of umpire who is above the fray and can kick butt. In other words, the government.

      You folks have left the free-market behind. Free-market means strong, but limited government. What you seem to want is a weak government! If government is weak, then tribes and families and clans and duchies will come into their own. That means a whole new set of rules every 20 miles you travel!

      If you want a weak state, then there will be nobody to enforce health laws. Ronald Reagan slashed the number of fish inspectors, leading to several epidemics. Is that what you want? And so on, down the list. You want to kiss all that security, all that organization, all those guarantees goodbye? What you are proposing is nothing more or less than retreating to the situation of the wild West. Everyone slinging a gun, watchin’ out for his own butt, cause he knows durn well ain’t nobody going to help him if he gets dry-gulched.

      That’s not free-market, kiddo, it’s barbarism.

      I have lived in your Utopia, my friend. It’s called “the Third World”.

      • matt

        a free market will govern itself, i’m all for strip mining! If an organization is mowing over ever last inch of rainforest in the world they will eventually realize they will run out of tree’s and therefor realize they’re market strategy is unsustainable, therefor take measure to govern themselves, same goes for the wells, drill em dry!

        • fred the protectionist


  • Ken

    Pay no mind to this Fred, he is for sure here to stir the poop. Spending time on him takes away from any constructive communication. He uses the freedom that Dr. Paul protects as a platform for plain ignorance.

    You can trust big Government — Ask the Indians they will vouch for them.

    Big Government is like a large tumor devouring freedom and everything that gets in its way without regard for humanity.

    WAKE UP Fred.

    • Libertarian777

      SHHH Ken…

      Ignorance is bliss…

      • Fred the Protectionist

        Libertarian say: “Ignorance is bliss…”

        Indeed it is. Or: Ignorance is Strength.

        I’m here to weaken you.

        • longshotlouie


    • Fred the Protectionist

      Libertarian say: “You can trust big Government — Ask the Indians they will vouch for them.”

      Oh the INDIANS, it’s all coming into focus now. I remember in the last election there was one guy running as Libertarian in my state and on his website he was blabbing about how the “White Man took the land away from people, oh great white spirit. AYEEYAYEEYAYEE…”

      Anyone notice how there are lots of non-whites (or off-whites) in the Libertarian Party? Like Mr. proud latino Geraldo. I have this suspicion that the Libertarian Party, among being a repository of various weirdos like Anarchists and Atheists, also include non-whites (or off-whites) who would otherwise vote Republican but they just don’t like the anglo-saxon dominated Republican Party.

      • gander

        silly fred,

        the original libertarians only allowed freedom for 100% humans. the ones who were 3/5 humans had no rights. it was the anglo-saxon republicans who failed math and came up with 3/5=1.

        • Joan

          When the Founding Fathers said “all men are created equal,” they meant all land owning, white males are created equal. Women didn’t have the right to vote and black people were slaves. They were saying if you are wealthy and white and a man, you have one equal vote and you get so many votes by 3/5ths according to how many slaves you have. The funniest thing is they said these rights were given to them by god, so god was a racist and didn’t believe women were equal to men and believed in slavery. Although that was in the DOI, the fact that the Constitution was amended to end slavery and to give women the right to vote and to do away with alcohol and to bring it back and so on, proves it is a living documents, plus it proves what what one of the Founding Fathers said is correct, from time to time, we have to be willing to make changes.

          • longshotlouie

            Chatter in the chicken coop

            Are you arguing for or against something?

          • fred the protectionist

            I rest my case.

            Look at all them non-whites and off-whites in the Libertarian Party, so angry at “dah white man”.

            *points and laughs*

          • Forest

            And when they said ‘all men are created equal’ it also doesn’t mean they actually believed it:

            “The appointment of a woman to office is an innovation for which the public is not prepared, nor I.”
            – Thomas Jefferson

          • fred the protectionist

            That’s right Forest.

            The Atheist Libertarians may mock some fundamentalist Christians for thinking the Earth is 6,000 years old, but the Libertarians think the earth is 30 years old.

        • fred the protectionist

          No Joan, God is not a racist, the free traders forced the northern states to allow slavery under the Constitution. Why do you blame God for something the free traders (Satan) done?

        • Joan

          Fred, the founding fathers threw the non-existent god into it to give what they were saying more authority and power. They weren’t saying all people male and female, of all races were created equal. They were saying, we aren’ letting women vote, we own them, we have slaves, they don’t get to vote, we do, we are men, we own the land, we aren’t the slaves and we aren’t women, so we all get one equal vote, then they dumped the non-existent god gave us these rights into it to make it sound good. Any country can establish a government and say women have no rights, women are to be dressed from head to toe, cover their faces at all times, and it’s because our religion says so, yahoo. Doesn’t mean their god is real either. It just means the men control women in more extreme ways and that the world is 70 percent non-Christian, and they all believe their religion is the only real religion too.

        • fred the protectionist

          That’s like one run-on sentence with periods.

  • Fred the Protectionist

    I like watching the History Channel.

    I particularly like watching stories on deadly devices of the late 19th century, early 20th century.

    One such device was purchased by shoe-sellers, you’d put your feet in it and get a perfect fitting by see’ing your bones. Inside the machine your feet were hit with massive amounts of radiation. There were also several viewing holes so not only were the feet being hit by massive amounts of radiation, the customer and seller looking into the view holes getting massive radiation in their eyes and skull. Tens of thousands of these units were sold.

    Another deadly device was shaped like a wrist warmers, but inside were radioactive pellets. It would cure painful joints, the advertisement claimed.

    Or instead of mineral water you could buy radioactive water to cure all your ills.

    Another show on the History Channel was the history of the drug war. Back yonder when drugs were perfectly legal doctors would regularly prescribe patients cocaine, heroin, and morphine for simple things like colds and headaches.

    Ahhh the good old days when the gold flowed, people were free and swished their mouths with urine or pure bleech to make their teeth whiter. Hey we don’t need no stinkin’ regulation.

    Snake oil salesmen literally means “snake oil” salesmen.

    Got a headache? Here’s some cyanide.

    Got a toothache? Here’s some cocaine, rub it on.

    Want a better sex life? Wear this diaper which is full of radioactive pellets.

    Want to wire your house with electricity? Here use this unshielded wire. Hook that end up to your water faucet, hook the other end up to the lamp next to the sink. Try to keep both wires apart from each other.

    • Okay Fred! what the hell are you talking about? Sounds like a typical Spammer.
      That was a great interview that Dr. Paul did with Imus.

    • Citizen


      Your stories are Chicken Little contrivances, devoid of fact and just ignorant rants.

      In the 19th Century Marie Skłodowska Curie did radiology research and died of aplastic anemia, because of exposure to radiation, which NO ONE KNEW caused the damage.

      You watched a History Channel program… Great! But that history has nothing to do with our exercise of FREEDOM!

      Your a typical Leftist Serial Blogger, devoid of facts as always

      • Fred the Protectionist

        Why do you want people to die to radiation, cars with no brakes, unknowing drug abuse, electrocution…etc?

        Roads with lines? We don’t need no stinking roads with lines. Hey lets get rid of the street lights too, that’s re-gu-la-tion.

        • Van Wilder

          Let the people regulate it not the inept government… Free market will take care of itself. Im sure there can be testing agencies for new products but they can be run privately rather than by the gov.

          • Fred the Protectionist

            The Libertarian Party is a party for snake oil salesmen, Bernie Madoffs and other assorted scammers.

          • EndtheFed

            “[Fred’s] stories are Chicken Little contrivances, devoid of fact and just ignorant rants.”

            True. Don’t you love how he responds whenever someone points that out? More ignorant rants devoid of fact. LOL

            April 23, 2010 at 2:03 am | Permalink
            “The Libertarian Party is a party for snake oil salesmen, Bernie Madoffs and other assorted scammers.”

            Oh good, Fred, You have an opinion. Remember, when you have no facts or reasons, all you have is a baseless opinion that no one really cares about. Nice factless rantin’, though.

          • fred the protectionist

            You Libertarians wouldn’t want to regulate radioactive or poisonous elements, no, you have “the freedom to radiate yourselves.”

    • It’s funny how peole take someone’s view and twists it to the negative extreme. Regulation had little to do with the examples on the History Channel…nobody knew.

      Now, with all the regulation today and in the recent past the banking industry nearly destroyed our entire country. It’s easy to look at the surface and think that regulation will help. But who’s writing the regulation? Is it the common citizen? No, it’s the same damn bunch that got us into this mess!

      So instead of letting them fail they bail them out with our tax money and then change the regulation…kind of like the McCain-Feingold regulation? Yeah that worked. Regulation only works for a while until they figure out a way around it…kind of like putting locks on your doors as it only keeps out the “honest people”.

      So instead of letting things go and let people learn from their mistakes in a real world situation…the gov’t creates a false sense of security for the future and we will see the same mistakes again.

      But it takes a lot of critical thought to do this…of course we wouldn’t want to do that…no we’ll just do sound bites and spam.

      • fred the protectionist

        You wouldn’t want to “regulate lead paint”, no you’d prefer children to eat paint chips.

        Heck you regressives are against any regulation on lead, period. You regressive anarchists want to return to the good old days when the Romans use to line their wine caskets with lead to “sweeten” the wine.

        Or better yet, lol, the Romans use to mix uranium with glass to make green-glass cooking and drinking vessels. Wouldn’t want to regulate uranium, anarchist regressives, now would you.

      • Carl Stoll

        Independence wrote: “Now, with all the regulation today and in the recent past the banking industry nearly destroyed our entire country.”

        This single statement reveals that you are ignoramus of horrendous proportions. Your ignorance is encyclopedic.

        It is a well known fact, disputed by nobody in the entire universe, that the financial crisis occurred because the Wall Street banksters pressured the federal government into DEregulating, I repeat DEregulating, the bankster industry. Did you read that? I wrote DEREGULATE — REPEAT — DEREGULATE! If that simple fact has not yet penetrated your consciousness, this means you are an ignorant jackass and should be ashamed to write comments anywhere.

        This is a free country. You are entitled to your own opinion.



        Get that into your thick skull