Show: Fox News Strategy Room
Host: Alan Colmes
Date: 05/21/2010
Transcript
Alan Colmes: Dr. Ron Paul, Congressman Paul from Texas. Congressman Paul, you must be a proud dad right now.
Ron Paul: Very much so. We’re very pleased how it turned out in Kentucky. Thank you.
Alan Colmes: Are you surprised?
Ron Paul: A little bit. Toward the end we knew what was happening. The polls were pretty accurate. But you know, when he first started, he had never run for anything before so I wasn’t all that optimistic. Like I’ve already been quoted, you don’t like to see anybody put a lot of energy into something, especially your son, and then come up way behind. I didn’t have any reason to worry, I shouldn’t have had any reason to worry because he did so well.
Alan Colmes: I had a chance to meet him and you during the campaign when you were running for president and he was very instrumental in your campaign so I guess he got his political legs there, didn’t he?
Ron Paul: Yeah, and he was very much involved in the early years to his teenage and college years, and even in the presidential campaign. He had a particular interest in it. I kid when I say “Well, what did you learn by being in my campaign?” and he said “I’ve learned all the things not to do.” Hopefully it wasn’t all that way.
Alan Colmes: Do you and he part company on any major issues? Is he very much where you are on major issues of the day?
Ron Paul: I would say on the major issues we’re very close, but I think his tone is different, I think his approach is a little bit different, I think he’s a little bit more into legislating and working things out, and I’ve been more into the philosophic end of things. So I think the approach is slightly different, the wording is slightly different, but if it comes to issues like the Federal Reserve, he’s not going to come out and say “I love the Fed and I don’t think it should be audited” or “I love the income tax, we should raise taxes.” Nothing major is going to be different.
Alan Colmes: So you would say that he’s probably a libertarian Republican much as you are versus one who might follow the party line about a lot of issues.
Ron Paul: Yes, I think so. But he answers that question almost like I do. “Am I a Libertarian?” I say “Well, first I take my oath of office seriously and I believe in personal liberty.” But I happen to believe the founders were Libertarians. They didn’t want to regulate the market nor did they want to regulate personal lifestyles. And they had a non-intervention foreign policy. So that’s libertarianism and I think people who want to use that word usually want to use to that make us look negative. But it’s getting to the point where believing in liberty is not necessarily a negative anymore. I think we’ve made some progress.
Alan Colmes: People need to be reminded, you were the Libertarian party candidate for president back in, was it 1984?
Ron Paul: It was 1988.
Alan Colmes: 1988.
Ron Paul: I could hardly deny my associations with libertarianism.
Alan Colmes: That’s right. Let me ask you about, as you know, there has already been a controversy about a position you took when interviewed by the Louisville Courier-Journal or Journal-Courier, I should say about this. It’s a philosophical debate about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the part that bans discrimination in private businesses. I understand the differences between public and private, I also understand that this is not a matter of being… he’s very clear. He’s not a racist. He would have marched with Martin Luther King. I don’t want to in any way, shape or form suggest that there’s any racism here in this philosophical debate.
Ron Paul: Right. Okay, that’s nice.
Alan Colmes: But it is a philosophical debate. Perhaps you can characterize it your way, but there is a lot of controversy about the idea that we should allow private businesses, if he had his way and perhaps your way as well, to allow discrimination. For example, allowing only whites to sit at lunch corners and deny blacks.
Ron Paul: Yeah. But you know, don’t you think that they’ve resurrected this? I mean, that was settled in the 1960s before we went to grade school. To bring this up and being the big issue of the day, you know, financial crises and war going on. So I think this to me seems disingenuous. But at least you had the courtesy to say that you know there is no racism involved and I absolutely [agree]… it is philosophic. He’s actually taken a position to Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King wanted to repeal laws. He believed in boycotts. He believed in peaceful disobedience. Those are the things that Libertarians believe in.
And property rights, we do see property, but we don’t distinguish between your house and your business. That’s all private property. How do you draw these lines? If you want your personal privacy protected, if you want your religious protection, if you want your choices on sexual activities protected, that means your house has to be sacred.
But you say “Oh yes, but it’s unfair, it’s unfair.” But think of all the unfair things and ugly things that come out of the First Amendment.
But to me, it’s a moot point. I thought the great people in the 1950s and the 1960s were people like Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson. I mean, that’s how real integration occurred. Where did the real segregation come from? From government. Government-endorsed slavery. Government-endorsed segregation law. Government-endorsed… how long did the government have segregation of the armed forces? Up until the World War Two. So to say that we who defend private property are labeled “racists”, I think that’s, and you didn’t. You didn’t.
Alan Colmes: Yes, I want to be very clear about that.
Ron Paul: You didn’t do it. But I think that recognizing private property and the role of government in segregation is what we’re trying to make a point. But once again, this wasn’t the prevailing issue in the campaign in Kentucky and it’s not going to be because it’s been settled. Economic power is wonderful because who would say “I believe in this, I want to prove this point, and I want to sign up. I’m only going to serve such and such.” That would be stupid. Wouldn’t it be stupid business? I mean, that’s all past, it’s all done. To make this an issue I think is very very unfair and of course, others have jumped on it. I don’t mind you bringing it up because you’ve always been very fair and above board on issues like these.
Alan Colmes: Well, it is an issue at least in this particular news cycle, so I’d be remiss if I did not bring it up.
Ron Paul: Yeah, right.
Alan Colmes: By the way, there still is a segregation in the military in terms of “don’t ask, don’t tell”.
Processing your request, Please wait....
It is such as you study my mind! You seem to know a great deal about this, such as you wrote the e-book in it or a little something. I believe that you could do by using a couple pics to generate the message household a little bit, but in place of that, this is fantastic weblog. A superb read. I’ll absolutely be again.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
IF any business or private non profit organization receives any form of subsidy or special consideration from any level of govt, then they IMO have given up their right of private property to “discriminate.” Public monies trump this right as govt is esta blished under the Constitution to protect the rights of all parties no exceptions with fairness and nondiscrimination. So if special rights and/or monies are accepted by private organizations then they have agreed to abide by the nondiscrimination requirements.
That said, IF I find out that any business or organization is dicriminating based on race, gender, religion then I will NOT support that organization with my purchases and/or time.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Captain Moroni, I agree with your post here as far as it goes, but the problem is, individuals have a right to participate in the free market. In 1954, African-Americans in the south were severely disenfranchised in that they could not buy various items, even if they could afford it, because of “whites only” signs. That’s wrong ethically, constitutionally, and morally. “Separate but equal” is never equal. Slavery, and the reduction of minority races to a class of people who did not have the same rights as whites, were great evils, and it was a great triumph for this Nation to end them.
Anyone who thinks Martin Luther King Jr. did not support the Civil Rights Act is either a moron or illiterate, or in the worst case, very much a racist. Observe, from the Columbia Encyclopedia (associated with the world renowned “Columbia University in the City of New York”):
http://tinyurl.com/25rr7xw
“He spearheaded the Aug., 1963, March on Washington, which brought together more than 200,000 people. The protests he led helped to assure the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the year he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.”
So, to all users on here: if you think someone who marched with Martin Luther King Jr would not support the Civil Rights Act, you are WRONG and a RACIST.
Anyone who thinks the Civil War was not in any way about slavery needs to read the Confederate Declaration of Independence:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
“But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.”
“The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress.”
This paragraph from the Confederate Declaration of Independence should be especially offensive to anyone who purports to believe in liberty:
“We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. ”
I have a severe problem, personally, with anyone who is against the Civil Rights Act or the abolition of slavery. Such people should get out of my country and go live in a lesser one.
–Brian
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Ron Paul 2012…. The time has come!
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Dennis wrote:
“Ron Paul 2012…. The time has come!”
I see, so, on a blog post where Ron Paul is making racist comments, and endorsing those of his son, you say the time has come for him.
I can only assume you have a problem with the race of the properly elected President of the United States. If so, I think you should get out of my country, and move to a lesser one, where there is a King, and the country is ruled by one race of people, and one culture, such as Saudi Arabia.
There MUST be a Civil Rights Act. If there were not a Civil Rights Act, the “whites only” signs would return in the South. Everyone has a right to access to the free market.
–Brian
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
9
1. Ron Paul wasn’t being racist. Actually, if such discrimination was allowed it would help in the effort of rooting out racists and destroying their businesses. If they denied blacks into their stores, for example, their sales would plummet badly. And their “whites only” signs would actually repel the whites of today’s America, thus further putting them out of business.
2. There is no such thing as a free market in which everyone is forced to serve everyone. That is the opposite of free.
3. I sign a fictitious name with this post because I am not stupid enough to put my personal information on the Internet.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Guys, I cannot believe you are endorsing this idea of being against the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT!!!!!!!!!
Ron Paul is contradicting himself when he says that there was government endorsed slavery, and government segregation law, yet he is saying he would vote AGAINST REPEALING SAID SEGREGATION LAW!!!!!!!!
You can’t say you would march with Martin Luther King Jr and then state that you are against what he was marching for!!!!! What was he marching for??? THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT!!!!!
I’m sorry but this is an example of where the government is very clearly needed. Someone needs to ensure that all races, religions, genders, sexual orientations, creeds, and philosophies have access to the free market!!!! “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL [including people of different races, religions, creeds, etc.] , that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” So, you guys are saying that it should be legal to deny life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to black people?
How would you guys like it if there were a law that said it is legal to deny services to Libertarians??? What if, as a result, 95% of all businesses denied all services to Libertarians? You don’t like that, eh?
It is different when the discrimination is directed toward your own group, isn’t it?
Hence, the Civil Rights Act.
Anyone who is against that is a racist, in my opinion, plain and simple. I gladly sign my real name to this post. I often agree with Ron Paul, but in this particular case, he is morally wrong and disgraceful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He should rescind and denounce his comments above, and those of his son!!!!!!!!!
–Brian
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
9
“How would you guys like it if there were a law that said it is legal to deny services to Libertarians??? What if, as a result, 95% of all businesses denied all services to Libertarians? You don’t like that, eh? ”
It’d be great.
The subject of this is who the founding fathers were like, and, lawl, they would not have liked the Civil Rights Act. Not that they were Libertarians, they were far from it. Libertarians are just confused souls looking for their mamma for their next breast feeding session.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
10
Paul is right that businesses needs to be more honest on how they really feel.
I think it would give us a clear understanding of what they truly are.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Advise to Rand Paul! Spread this advise!
I think you should defend your views on civil rights as follows:
To receive a free market to operate in an honest way to you as a customer, requires that private companies have a legal right to be honest to you as a customer, and to stand up for what their philosophical values are. Because if you oppress the private companies’ right to be honest to you as a customer what their philosophical values are, will reduces the transparency for you as a customer, to choose which company you want to support with your money or boycott.
It is essential that this transparency and honesty are able to exist in the free market, so you as a customer not get scammed and spend your money in a company whose values you do not share.
If all the good forces united in standing up for good philosophical values, so is the free market and consumer power the most effective weapon to combat racism. The free market will remind you as an individual to actively fight against racism. For such is life we must always stand up for our values to sustain them. Instead of relying on the state bureaucracy to do the job for us.
Trust the free market, the best tool for the good forces to create a good world. Let us develop what’s good about america.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
John Lind says: “the free market and consumer power the most effective weapon to combat racism.”
Wow, that free market must work really slowly in eradicating racism! I mean when you say “effective” you clearly mean ‘well it took about 2 or 3 centuries and… It still didn’t really do anything except continue to foster racism’.
Absolutely, hysterically, sad.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
1 
9
Pat Buchanan is right; race, ethnicity and tribalism are primal forces.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
When did a government ever eliminate racism?
Our Leftist friends believe that governments can do things that they have never done before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chMr4CsypT8&playnext_from=QL
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Thomas Jefferson reached the limits of his influence when he attempted to intrude republican principles in Russia, Poland, Greece, and the emerging South American nations. Until his death Jefferson was convinced that “this ball of liberty . . . will roll round the world” aided by the beacon of the Declaration of Independence.
Wow, spread the principles of democracy around the world?
How libertarian of those Founding Fathers.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
That sounds like modern interventionism to me, or GW Bush, “spread Democracy.”
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Was his intention to spread this ‘democracy’ with a gun barrel?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Might makes Right, bubbasticks.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Dr Rand Paul is right. Property rights is the core of the free sociaty and market.
The great article on the subject: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=875
I only wish Rand would not be evasive defending his principles those I share. I hope he would always hold his grounds what does it matters politically…
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Property Right is the core to a free society; it was also core to a Feudalistic society.
Whatever duderonomies.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
6
Surprise! Surprise!
Another Leftist gives a (micro)mini-rant about the evils of property rights.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Think it out next time. Property rights are also core to Feudalism.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
I remember a news story last year about a restuarant owner in NY who put up a sign to the effect that he only serves English speaking people. I remember the Liberals going nuts over the issue, claiming it’s racism.
This race card that the liberals keep bringing up is not only annoying but very rarely applicable. They can’t seem to grasp the philosophic implications behind the issues. It’s a matter of freedom, not racism. That restuarant owner had every right to post the sign and serve only people that speak the English language. Why should he be forced to waste time trying to figure out what the foreign person wants to order, with mime gestures? It is his right to make his business efficient and productive as he wants, and to serve whomever he pleases. Just as the Boy Scouts have every right to deny people of gay lifestyles or Atheist beliefs from joining their organization. Or, just as the NFL can deny women from playing in their league. etc. It is not an issue of racism or bigotry. It is an issue of freedom to run your own business the way you want to run it. It may not be good business, economically speaking, to deny some group of people. On the other hand, it may be the best way to be profitable, and more to the point, that is not the goverments business to decide. I for one would not watch co-educational pro football. My guess is the NFL would go bankrupt if the bleeding heart liberals mandated it.
Rand and Ron Paul are simply making the philosophically correct arguement that government should not be butting into private business decisions. But those damn liberal freaks will play the race card at every oppurtunity. In their view everyone is a racist that doesn’t want government in their personal lives making all their decisions for them.
Report this comment
Highly rated. What do you think?
19 
1
Yeah, ummmm, Republicans haven’t been very approving either – it’s not just ‘them liberal freaks’ you refer to. They are pretty much universally idiotic and scare the crap out of people when they realize this lunatic might get near our legislative body
If a Democrat had said those same idiotic statements, they would have been excoriated by the Republican party. Stupidity isn’t allowed to slide by either party.
And now that Rand Paul has realigned the Tea Party with the notion of racism… Rand Paul FAIL.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
Are we allowed to play our race card more than once each day?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Stupidity isnt allowed to slide by either party, sure, but neither is intelligence.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Businesses shouldn’t hire people who can’t speak english and those who are illegally here in this couutry, and dangerous criminal felons. That’s what Ron and Rand are trying to say so it’s not about race. I agree with them on those aspects.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Wrong
-The Founding Fathers ran the country on Tariffs to not only generate revenue but build up American infrastructure and manufacturing. Libertarians prefer taxing American business, and like the Confederate apologists, prefer to not use national funds to build up infrastructure to promote interstate trade.
-The Founding Fathers believe women, new immigrants, people who didn’t own their own land, and some races should not be allowed to vote. Libertarians think anyone who can sign their “X” should be able to vote, including foreign nationals.
-Most founding fathers with the exception of the Southern ones, were against slavery of blacks. Libertarians believe in slavery for everyone, even for whites.
-The founding fathers were Christian, and would find the removal of Christian teaching to kids as abhorrent. Libertarian ranks are full of putrid Atheist, Jews, and Muslims who constantly work to remove Christianity from the public conscience.
-The founding fathers manufactured hemp, beer, and spirits to export them for profit. Libertarians want to smoke weed, and get drunk all the time.
-The founding fathers rapidly expanded the borders of the US, adding new states rapidly. Libertarians call America an “Empire” and cry crocodile tears for the barbaric stone age Indian tribes.
-The founding fathers didn’t have Posse Comitatus Act or Miranda Rights, and felt fine about it. Libertarians think the Posse Comitatus Act and Miranda Rights are central Constitutional principles.
Big difference.
Report this comment
Hotly debated. What do you think?
3 
22
Fred you brought up some good points.
So does Ron Paul.
That is not true.
Wrong again Fred. Check to see how many northern politicians owned slaves.
This country was not founded on Christianity or any other relegion. It was founded on the freedom to choose relegion, etc.
And what is wrong with any of the above? And that my friend is called consumer and supplier. Don’t you just hate it?
You should change your handle to “Fred the Illusionist”
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Lamers. Hey i’m going to make my case: “The founding fathers were Cannibals.”
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
13
Fled still has a few new crazy things to say.
It was a bit boring when he was repeating himself.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
ALL,
Fred the P…
has the distinct political persuasion of a typical Nationalist-Socialist (NAZI) circa 1930′s Germany. His redundant, irrational and impassioned “protectionist” rants are superficial arguments that lack any substantive merit related to the subject under discussion. He has little if any rational reasoning ability and never answers with a sincere response; characteristic of a maniacal mental state.
I’ve been reading this Ron Paul blog site for over a year and I’ve read many of Fred’s profuse and rapacious rants that are generally filled with insults, derisions and sophomoric taunts. His statements are irrational and devoid of logic and he rambles on in circles. He has yet to make a cogent argument either for or against the subject in focus. Fred typically pops off subject with ridicule against Ron Paul’s campaign against the FED with inane statements about free trade and sweat shop slave wages as reason for America’s economic woes.
Fred the Protectionists is a SOCIOPATH* engaged in self serving covert hostility toward sincere Ron Paul supporters.
*Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.” (http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html)
PLEASE… DON’T FEED FRED
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Hey I aint the one blaming the “Bankers”, a service industry, for all the woe’s in the world. Next step is to blame the Jews; you know the Federal Reserve is run by a flaming Jew.
I long for the days when life was more simple, and the Jews were blamed for everything. Made more sense, you know.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Libertarians are rightly far more concerned about the Federal Government bringing power to bear to force a few individuals to submit to proper behavior than they are about the ill effects from the behavior of said individuals. Federal government power is dangerous and needs to be limited and balanced no matter how right the cause. The Founders were deathly afraid of the Federal government, especially the Executive and now their fears have been realized.
Report this comment
Highly rated. What do you think?
17 
0
Ron Paul is a genuis!!
Report this comment
Highly rated. What do you think?
16 
2
The founding fathers were minarchist libertarians at heart. You just cannot deny that fact. Ayn Rand does actually not have anything directly to do with libertarianism. Libertarian philosophy and free market economics existed before Ayn Rand’s authorship. She has, however, influenced some of today’s anarcho-capitalist libertarians, which indeed is not what the founding fathers were, but these are “two different wings” of libertarians.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Ron Paul explains things so well! A true libertarian!!!! Ron Paul 2012!
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Has Ron said whether he plans to run in 2012 in presidential race?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Glad to see Rand win, if he can accomplish half of what Ron speaks about we all win. Rand has my vote if he runs for President.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
I give Colmes some respect. His does give a voice to some fine people out there.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Hatemongering Liberal Fascists have drummed up their bullshit firestorm, screaming RACISM at Rand Paul. They’re terrified that they’ll lose even more control over the Senate and it shows. This hatemongering has gone on long enough.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Hey Ron ! Really then tell me were the Barbary Wars an Illegal war ? DUGH ? And since some of the Founding Fathers were slave owners how does that blend with your tin foil hat view of the world and yourself ?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
2 
11
Shanedk did a great video on government and racism. It compares the treatment of blacks in government and the private sector. It’s really good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7R2Vwrwv_w
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All this parsing, all this clamoring to delineate when the reality is Paul and son have shown to be the best we’ve got.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
LOL @ Ron, “That would be stupid!”
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
Man the media loves this race card. They love, love, love it! (We’ll I have to bring it up “IT’S IN THE NEWS CYCLE”. Spineless choad….
Like Rand is fighting to overturn the Civil RIghts Act! PLEASE!
Ron answered this question very, very well at least.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Property rights and self-ownership are the ultimate rights and where all other rights are derrived from.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Ron Paul needs more leadership responsibilities in our country.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I tell you what, Rand needs to take a couple of note from his dad on how to speak. We need more intelligent people like Ron Paul in our government. Maybe a mandatory IQ test?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
No it’s the other way around.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
The Founding Fathers were indeed libertarians, but Dr. Ron Paul is not, and neither is his son.
They’re Neo-Confederates (not to be confused with Neo-Conservatives, which they most definitely are not [we got too many of those as it is]).
What’s the difference? A true libertarian holds that the Inherent, Unique, and Unalienable Rights of PERSONhood is the highest law.
A Neo-Confederate puts the (false) concept of States’ Rights AHEAD of the Rights of Personhood.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
3