Ron Paul on AntiWar Radio

Ron Paul discusses the hope for a new political realignment around the issues of peace, the Bill of Rights and ending corporate welfare, his support for the “War is Making You Poor” Act, how government insolvency can lessen restrictions on individual liberty and why the US only needs a small defensive military supplemented by volunteer militias.

Show: AntiWar Radio
Host: Scott Horton
Date: 06/18/2010


Scott Horton: Alright, welcome back to the show. It’s AntiWar Radio on the Liberty Radio Network, streaming at and I’m happy to welcome to the show Dr. Ron Paul, he’s a congressman representing District 14 on the Texas Gulf Coast, and he represents me in the House of Representatives. Welcome to the show, Ron, how are you doing?

Ron Paul: Good, Scott. Good to be with you.

Scott Horton: Well, I’m really happy to have you here. Now, let me tell you real quick here, if I can try to sum it up: I got a dream going on here where there is a real realignment in American political thought. I learned in junior college that in the 1930s Roosevelt realigned everything. He got all the conservatives and almost all the liberals, town and country and black and white and east coast and west coast and everybody together in this giant new New Deal coalition. They kept him in power through four elections, and this was a giant sea change in the way American politics was from then on, as we all know. And this is what we need right now, as it sure seems to me.

And it also seems to me that the three most important issues, as you consistently identify, are the preservation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, an end to corporate welfare and bailouts for the richest and most powerful among us, and peace in our relationship with the rest of the world. These are three issues that ought to, and in many ways, do, completely transcend the left-right spectrum as it exists today.

So my question for you is, what do you see as the future of this realignment? What do you see in terms of the possibility of alliances? Left-right, Tea Party and progressive, libertarian and otherwise, in order to really get these most important problems solved?

Ron Paul: Well, I hope your dream is coming about, because the liberal media has already written off the whole movement, they said, “Oh, it looks like the Tea Party Movement is the disgruntled people of America who’ve been speaking out.” I think they’re claiming they peaked last August and it’s been downhill, “they’ve had a few victories but nobody cares about it anymore and their crowds are smaller.” So they went on and on and they’re trying to bury the whole notion that the American people are upset with the status quo of the Republican and the Democrat leadership.

I can’t make the prediction, but I’m very sympathetic to the idea that something like that is going on, because I do talk to a lot of people, and why I am most enthusiastic is because the young people are thinking this way. The young people who are inheriting this mess know that it’s not a very good deal for them. And they don’t like the war, they believe that we should follow the rules in the Constitution, they’re principled people, and they don’t like special interests. You know, they don’t like corporate interests taking over.

And the overriding issue of all this is that of finding out what the government is doing. I think that was why Audit the Fed became so popular with young people; they’re sick and tired of the government being secretive, and at the same time, the government works very hard to invade our privacy and what we do and how we spend our money.

So, it’s ripe for a change and I think, in many ways, the intellectual revolution is ongoing, it’s probably at its early stages, but let’s just hope we can keep this momentum going.

Scott Horton: Well, now everybody knows about your work with progressive congressman from Florida, Alan Grayson on the Audit the Fed Amendment. But you’re also working with him on the War is Making You Poor Act. I was wondering if you could explain a little bit about what that is.

Ron Paul: Yeah, he sort of grabbed an idea that I’ve been talking about, because he knows I would not support a bill that would expand the welfare state back here at home. And he is a progressive, so he’s for the medical bill and these other things. But he knew how to write a bill that would get me interested. And, of course, it was to save money from overseas and take that money and pay down the deficit. And it’s pretty hard to turn that down because that’s pretty good. You know, this is where I think we should start. I think it’s easier to start cutting the militaristic budget that we have and the idea that we have to police the world. More people are starting to wake up to this. At the same time, offer tax cuts. So that’s pretty good for a liberal Democrat to go along with us on that.

You know, I do get criticized at time; why do I even talk to Barney Frank and why do talk to Grayson, because they’re so bad on economic policies. But on other things, hopefully, the eyes of the progressives will open up and say, “Hey, if they’re right on civil liberties and they’re right on the war, maybe would should pay more attention to the Federal Reserve and the gold standard and limited printing of money and deficits” and I think we’re making some inroads. A lot of people that will support us will say, “You know, I used to be a liberal.” Or they’ll say, “I used to be a supply sider. I used to be a neo-con” And once they see the whole picture, they’ll come and say, “I think you guys have it right”.

Scott Horton: Right. Well, I know I’ve been getting emails lately from one of my most radical listeners who’s a former military recruiter. So you’re listening to AntiWar Radio, including a couple of military officers listen. So you’re right, you never know who you’re going to win over. And it does seem to me like this War Is Making You Poor Act is the perfect left-right issue, really.

Ron Paul: It is also because there is no leadership on the left on this. You know, it used to be that it would all come from progressive Democrats and a few Republican conservatives, but now they’re so much quieter with Obama in. That’s why I think if we can bring them together with a coalition led by libertarian types, I think that we may make some headway, make some progress.

Scott Horton: Well, now what about the Tea Party Right? I mean, these were the people who pretty much supported the worst of the Bush policies that you always opposed. And yet the Right is out of power now, and there’s a lot of talk about the Constitution from the other side of the Tea Party Movement, or whatever. Do you think that you could show them that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, too, maybe? Some hope there?

Ron Paul: Yeah, it would be nice. Sometimes I think that might be every bit as tough, if not tougher, than getting a liberal Democrat to say, “Let’s cut down on the war spending and cut taxes.” That looks like it might be easier than converting some of these people into believing that we’re still patriots if we say we ought to defend this country and not pretend that we can police the world. But that one is tough.

But we do have some coming that way. If you take somebody like Jimmy Duncan, I mean, he is strictly old-right Republican and he’s a fiscal conservative, and he doesn’t believe that we should be involved. And, of course, Walter Jones has come over this way. So there are a few. But really, really hardcore neocons: that’s a real job for us.

Scott Horton: Indeed. Well, you know, you’ve had a lot of great moment, but it seems like one of the very greatest was, I think, in 2007 when you introduced this American Freedom Agenda Act that said, “Everything wrong is hereby repealed. We’re here to start getting it right.” You think you might try that again for 2010?

Ron Paul: Yeah, we might just do that, who knows. 2010. It would be nice if we did this; this amendment that I have introduced in the past, I haven’t done it recently, which was The Liberty Amendment. And that just eliminates everything that’s unconstitutional within 3 years and repeals the 16th amendment; no income tax.

Scott Horton: Wow, and so then that would be the PATRIOT Act and the Military Commission Act of 2009 and all those things.

Ron Paul: Yea, everything that is not explicitly authorized in Article 1, Section 8.

Scott Horton: Oh, so we’re talking about repealing 20th century and 21st too.

Ron Paul: Yeah, at least it’s a great symbolism for us, I guess. But, you know, most of the stuff is going to fail. How do you get rid of Keynesians economic intervention? Well, they take our country into bankruptcy and everybody starts ignoring what the federal government is telling us what to do. And I think it’s already starting. I don’t believe the laws are going to permit nullification, but just the failure of government will permit nullification. The liberals don’t like the Fed telling them about marijuana, and the conservatives don’t like them telling them about some of the conservative issues and school issues and things like this. So, if the government is flat out broke, they might just be unable to stop the states from acting on their own.

Scott Horton: You told the Washington Post back when you were running for president, and I know you were soft of half joking, or maybe you weren’t. You told them how we can protect this country with a couple of good submarines. You really think we need only that small of a military force to keep this country safe?

Ron Paul: Oh, I really do. But I would still allow the militia sentiment to exist. So if anybody ever tried to march on our shores, then everybody would be ready for them. But no, nobody is going to attack us. I mean, why are we building tanks and bomber aircraft? Those are today’s ancient weapons. I think we could do with a very small …

Scott Horton: Already, well thank you very much for your time on the show today, Sir, I sure appreciate it.

Ron Paul: Very good, thank you.


  • Gee how old are you? Like Five!

  • Yvonne

    This is the wrong fight.
    We are fighting to protect the oil interest of a wicked wicked leadership.
    They are controlling the media.
    So far they haven’t contolled our freedom of speech on the inter net.
    But it’s coming.
    Soon the gov’t will find a way to deem any political opponent as a ”potential terrorist” and the gov’t will be able to detain political opponents and take away their constitutional rights. All freedom removed.
    Overseas Muslims are not our enemy.

  • rtljmc

    i dont think he is a deciever but people will rebel and ron paul is the face of the revolution . he doesnt believe in war or fighting to he still thinks voting is not rigged . he will have enough people to rebel if he knows he should have won in 2012

  • edewit08

    Thank you for positive sharing.
    Ron Paul is the best icon of freedom I know.
    He is not perfect candinate but best known worldwide.
    We need to act now as Ron Paul is dooing. Keep momentum going!
    The old fashioned banking & world oligarcy is collapsing in its own byrocracy and taxes..
    Love and light of wisdom to us all.

  • we don’t need more war and foreign aid spending either. Thank You Dr. Paul!

  • funnyguise

    the only way I think he might be a deceiver is that he knows more than he’s telling us and can’t tell because then he’d be written off as conspiracy nut.

  • W33Dblazer

    i know many people are gonna thumbs down this but Ron Paul is a deceiver. This whole politics thing is just a game to keep you guys distracted. and I do support his causes so dont think im jus talking some shit on him. and 2012? come on you people think you’ll have a option by then? you Americans need to take action now!!!!

  • Cstrife234

    The only reason for income tax is to pay the loans that the representation takes from the Federal Reserve and the interest, to be able to wage bullshit wars that nobody really believes in, except the sheep who think that War = Patriotism. That’s called Imperialism. We can never pay the interest off, ergo, we are eternally in debt. That’s the definition of slavery. A man who cannot pay off his debt is a slave and must work for to pay to live, day to day. He has no time to do things he loves.

    • Ben

      I’ve never known a person in my entire life who has ever said that “War = Patriotism”. You’re making this up. I don’t know a single person who has ever said any such thing. You’ve invented a fake argument in placed it into the mouths of your opponents.

      I do, however, believe that sabotaging the war effort while the troops are in the field for your own political gain is extremely unpatriotic.

      Also, if you can’t build a case for the so-called “anti-war” argument without lying, then your case must not be very strong. For example, when Ron Paul says that there is no al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, he is lying. He knows that if he uses the truth as a starting point, his argument doesn’t logically follow.

      I remember this January when Scott Brown was debating Martha (Marcia) Coakley for the US Senate. She said the same thing–that there is no al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. People laughed her out of the room. No one could believe that she said such a boneheaded thing. It wasn’t more than a month later when Ron Paul said the exact same thing and no one (to my knowledge) called him on it.

      Ron Paul knows that the words coming out his mouth are untrue. The last time I checked, that’s called lying.

      • Yvonne

        Ben those who oppose the anti-war movement claim we are UNpatriotic.
        So then conversely we would assume that, according to that reasoning, to support the war would be patriotic.
        So they are therefore claiming that War = Patriotism.
        Which it doesn’t.
        And Dr. Paul is not a liar.

        • Ben

          No, Yvonne. I don’t think that opposing war is unpatriotic, although I have been accused on numerous occassions of being unpatriotic myself because I support our war effort. Often by Ron Paul thugs.

          I only ask one thing of so-called “anti-war” types. Base your argument against the war in truth. If you can’t do that, then you are lying. And yes, I do think that lying in order to undermine the mission is unpatriotic.

          You don’t think that Ron Paul lies, huh? Tell me, is there any al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? The answer is yes. Earlier this year, Ron Paul said, with a straight face, that there is no al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Therefor, we aren’t really kicking the butts of the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. That’s probably the most laughable thing I’ve ever heard in my life, but Ron Paul makes such ridiculous claims because it’s central to his misinformation campaign regarding Afghanistan.

          In order for something to be a lie, it must fulfill two requirements. First, it must be untrue, and second, the speaker must know that it is untrue. So let’s see–there is al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Does Ron Paul know this? Considering the fact that he’s a Congressman and gets briefings on this stuff all the time and suppsoedly keeps up with the affairs of our nation, I think we can safely say that he does know that al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan.

          He HAS TO LIE. If he told the truth–that we’re still in the same justified battle against the same people who attacked us and murdered 3,000 innocents–he wouldn’t be able to make his followers lose heart in the mission at hand. But that’s what he seems intent on doing.

          I call that unpatriotic.

        • Ben

          Ron Paul’s not a liar, huh?

          I could annihilate that sentence so many ways, it’s hard to know where to start. I’ll give one example–the infamous Ron Paul newsletters.

          I’m sure you’ve heard of them. He said some pretty politically incorrect things about blacks and homosexuals. I like to quote them to Paulbots to show them that Ron Paul wasn’t always a slave to the homosexual lobby. He once had the courage to oppose the gay-stapo, and he was very bit as libertarian then as he is now, if not more so. He has since lost that nerve.

          In any case, his explanation of the letters has evolved over time. He has given three seperate stories, and they can’t all be true. At least two of them have to be lies. In 1996, when he first ran for Congress against Lefty Morris, he defended his newsletters. He used the old “taken out of context” defense, but he didn’t deny that he had written them or that he was right in saying what he said.

          By 2001, he had decided that the newsletters were the product of a ghost-writer and that he hadn’t even seen them before they went out. The ghost-writer’s opinions were not Paul’s, and he never would have allowed them to be published if he had known.

          By 2008, he had decided that he’d never even heard of the newsletters. Ron Paul newsletter–what the heck is that? Never heard of such a thing. Must have been having a senior moment.

          Ron Paul was lying in 1996, 2001, and/or 2008. But it’s literally impossible for all three of those statements to be true.

          Thank you for allowing me to demonstrate that Ron Paul is a liar.

        • Yvonne

          This web site is not run by Ron Paul. It’s about him but all sorts of things are written by all sorts of people.
          I think it is possible that a newsletter went out and that he was unaware of everything in the newsletter.

  • ghosttwo2

    He said he wouldn’t run in 2012, and when he says something, he means it.

  • Haileo20

    Ron Paul is the man keep up the great job and please run in 2012.

  • 1shabuti1

    I await your instructions for further action Dr. Paul. Please run in 2012. You are an honest decent man and I for one will follow you anywhere and get used to real freedom as it should be.

    • Ben

      “I await your instructions for further action Dr. Paul”

      And Paulots wonder why I call them Paulbots. Personally, I don’t “await instructions” from any elected official. I’m no one’s footsoldier, I’m not part of anyone’s army. I kind of expect my elected officials to respond to my concerns, to do what I tell them to do. Not the other way around.

      Sheesh. Brainwashed much?

      Your attitude reminds me of the celebrities who made that “I pledge allegiance to Barrack Obama” video back in January ’09. Remember that one? It was creepy.

      “I pledge to be a servant to our president and all mankind,” said the Obamabots. Just substitute Paul’s name and you’ve got yourself a Paulbot.

      • Yvonne

        You cannot be soooo pro-military and pro-war and then claim that you do not believe in following instructions.
        And within the context of this site we can assume that the poster is awaiting instructions about campaigning.
        We are not talking about nuking or shooting or bombing people in other countries.
        Nothing mindlessly robotic about following an anti-war politician on a campaign trail.

        • Ben

          Yvonne, let me clear some things up for you. I am in favor of soldiers following orders from their officers and the commander-in-chief. But I’m not a soldier. Not anymore, any way. I’m not in favor of citizens following orders from Congressmen who happen to have an incrediblely persuasive presence. That’s creepy. It’s the cult of personality. If any one ever said that they would follow George Bush anywhere and they were simply awaiting his orders, you’d find that creepy too. It’s the antithesis of free thinking, which ir ironic because fans of Paul always make certain to express to me that they are radically individualist in their thought process.

          No, we cannot safely assume that he’s only talking about a campaign. He said that he’d follow Ron Paul anywhere. That’s weird. I’ve met some of these cult members at CPAC conventions. They are not all right in the head. Homoerotic is the word I’m looking for.

          I cannot imagine having that kind of devotion to a political candidate. And to actually admit it, like it’s a good thing! I don’t get attached to my candidates in that manner. I have lived long enough to know that politicians disappoint.

        • Ben

          Also, I’m NOT pro-war. If that’s the way you understand my stance, well you just don’t get it.

      • Ben, and you’re just a DUMB old NEO-CON, that has no problem with military spending and foreign aid spending!

        • Ben

          I’m not dumb, in fact I make mincemeat out of Paulbots on this site all the time.

          I’m not a “neo-con”. I’m not a paleo-con either. I’m just a conservative.

          I think military spending is just fine. It’s a legitimate constitutional function of the federal government. (Unlike Ron Paul’s pet pork barrel projects that he loads into spending bills). There are bad guys out there and I’d like to have the biggest and the best military in the whole world. I don’t apologize for that.

          Foreign aid? I’ve never said anything about foreign aid. I don’t know where you discerned that. Certainly not from anything I’ve said.

        • Ben

          Oh yeah, and how do you know that I’m old? I’ve never mentioned my age on this site.

        • Lindsey

          Ben: Dr Paul is described by Citizens Against Government Waste as a “Taxpayer Hero” with a score of 88% last year. Only 58 US House Reps. scored above 80% to earn this rating. Not bad for a guy that you accuse of loading pork into spending bills! (This compares to Pelosi’s 0% rating and Jim DeMint’s 98%) DeMint is THE MAN of course but Paul is doing very well Ben.

  • katey1dog

    We don’t need big tanks.