Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show

Show: Alex Jones Show
Date: 07/01/2010


Alex Jones: Well, ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you for joining us. We have Ron Paul with us until about 55 after the hour, unless the bell rings, then he’s got to go vote. We appreciate him joining us. I’m just not going to mince words, I’m going to go through a laundry list of issues.

Congressman, as you know, the FCC (the Federal Communications Commission) has said they want to start taking over the Internet. We also have the Federal Trade Commission saying they want to start taxing the internet, and literally funding old-line media. That sounds like it violates the first amendment and so many others. We have Kagan with her anti-first amendment statements about disappearing speech that the government finds to be hurtful. As long as the government feels it’s a moral reason, they can restrict our speech. We’ve got the Federal Election Commission coming after Campaign for Liberty, as you put out in your press release yesterday, saying you can’t put out letters telling people how members of Congress have voted. I mean, this is a 180 degrees the opposite of what our country was founded on. I can’t even believe this is happening. Can you speak to that and where this is going?

Ron Paul: Well, it’s going in the wrong direction, obviously, and that is what I understand about Campaign for Liberty. They’ve had somebody at least make a charge and file a complaint that there was a violation. But it probably won’t hold up, hopefully. But the whole idea that people think they can, and harass you and you go through this legal maneuvering, because that is the goal of many: to control us. I think the main goal is also to control the Internet; they’re very interested in that.

The other day we had what sounded like a pretty benign vote that was under suspension, and that was to praise the idea that government and private entities would study and work together on how to provide cyber security. And I don’t know if there was anybody else who voted against it; I voted against it just from this principle that we don’t need that. We don’t need these private forces co-operating with the government forces in order to have cyber security. I don’t think the government is interested in our security, they’re interested in their security.

But yes, I think everything is going in the wrong direction, especially with the administration, and I’ve always been fearful of them wanting to take over the Internet. You know, they’ve now made this announcement that, if necessary, they might even just close down the Internet, which would be devastating to all of us.

Alex Jones: Well, that’s what Lieberman said on CNN. He said, “China has this power. We need it.” And I would imagine they’ll shut it down a few times, but turn it right back on and say, “See, we saved it.”

Ron Paul: Yes, unfortunately I’m afraid that could very well happen.

Alex Jones: Well, expanding on that: two things. And I want your specific take on this, Congressman Ron Paul, we appreciate you joining us today. This shows that we’re really having an effect that they’re harassing Campaign for Liberty, that they’re openly coming out and saying they want to restrict free speech, put taxes “on conspiracy theories” and […] with the White House. The regulations are said like anthropogenic global warming. If you deny that, maybe we should tax you or fine you. I mean, the fact that they want to shut us up, shows that we’re gaining ground. And doesn’t it reveal to everyone just how tyrannical these people really are?

Ron Paul: Yea, I think it does, and it’s a real job to sort all this out, because sometimes people think that all we need are couple more Republicans to help solve the problems, but that’s not necessarily the case. Right now the Democrats are in charge and they’re the ones who are wanting to radicalize this whole thing. And we know that is the agenda of many in the establishment: and that is more government control and less personal freedom, more taxes – the whole mess that we’ve been fighting. But I still hope that the people are waking up and it may will be that the opposition, that is the government, is getting very concerned that the people are becoming alert from all that has been done in the Freedom Movement.

Alex Jones: Well, Senator DeMint reported that 94% of Senate bills are not read, I know the number in the House is similar. And so 94% of the bills aren’t even looked it, which special interests are writing. And so we’ve had an offshore corporate coup. And then separately they passed the law in the House, two days ago, to not let “special interest tell you how someone has voted months before an election” – a restriction of free speech. So, they’re not reading the bills and they don’t want us to know how they voted, and the FEC is trying to keep Campaign for Liberty from being able to tell people how folks voted. I mean, this really is tyranny.

Ron Paul: Yes, and they want to make sure that independent organizations and corporations can’t spend their money or tell people how they vote. But there are corporations and this is where I think you can fall into the category, because if you run a newspaper or you have a TV show, that’s a corporation, it can be a corporation, but they’re not going to regulate them. So if there is an organization or a political action committee or a private group or corporation who want to tell people how they vote, no you might be restricted. But they never think for a minute they should restrict the media, assuming that the media is always going to be radical left defend their candidate. But, you know, there are just a few people on cable and radio and other places that, the way I would understand what they’re doing, they still haven’t come to trying to regulate what the TV stations are saying or what the radio stations are saying.

Alex Jones: Congressman, going into another very important subject, I almost fell of my chair last Friday when the Washington Post admitted in an article that they’re set to pass the financial reform bill. They admitted there are 600 trillion dollars in derivatives. They went on – that was the first time I had seen that in a mainstream publication – to admit that the Federal Reserve is going to have a new group with almost total autonomy (those were their words) to control all other financial institutions. The Texas Banking Association president has said that the very groups that gave us derivatives with an unfair trade advantage for themselves, want to be able to take over all the smaller, local banks. And that really, out of the crisis, the big mega-banks, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and others created, are now going to get even more power over the rest of the economy and that this is an expanded Federal Reserve coup of America. Can you elaborate on that and give us …

Ron Paul: Yeah, and I think you have described it rather well, but that’s not the way they claim it is. You know, they claim this is going to protect the consumers, it’s not run by the Fed, they don’t have authority, but it’s going to in the Federal Reserve. They do not have control over the policy, but guess what? Guess who pays for it? The Federal Reserve pays for it. So it isn’t even appropriation, it isn’t even part of the appropriation process. So you have this new regulatory agency that is supposed to protect the consumer, but I think it’s going to protect the special interest that have had all the benefits and then got bailed out. So this package which passed the House yesterday is very bad for all of us and it does give more power to all the regulators, especially the Federal Reserve. Now I don’t know whether you want to talk about it now, but that’s where I offered my motion to recommit dealing with the Audit the Fed bill.

Alex Jones: No, that’s exactly where I wanted to go next. I wanted to illustrate for listeners who just joined us that Congressman Ron Paul is here. 20 some years ago in Congress he couldn’t get one co-sponsor. And I wanted to make this point, it seems the House and Senate are schizophrenic. The House votes by two-thirds to pass your bill to truly audit the quasi-governmental banking holding company, the Federal Reserve, that took over in 1913, which is the right thing to do but it never passed the Senate properly. And then now they’re back giving the Federal Reserve even more power outside of government and Congress to regulate themselves. I mean, this is amazing. So break that oxymoron down for us and tell us about your new amendment.

Ron Paul: Well, it tells about the hypocrisy of this whole place and how it works and how powerful the Fed is. You’re right, we passed it in the Financial Services Committee, the Audit the Fed Bill, and it was part of the reform package. Then it came to the House floor and they kept it in so the House floor supported it. We have 320 co-sponsors. Then it goes to the conference with the Senate, and they drop it. They put some things in there to look at the Fed, which are slightly helpful, but they get rid of the true audit. So when the bill comes back to the House, guess what, we don’t have the audit bill provision in there. So I was able to offer an amendment which was a recommit amendment and send it back to committee and put back in the true audit. And we had an up and down vote on that and we lost it by a significant amount. We had 320 co-sponsors and we lost it. 114 people who were co-sponsors of this bill switched and voted against the bill that they were cosponsors of.

Alex Jones: And now they’ve got the Fed sicked on Campaign for Liberty and every other organization so that you can’t tell the public that they’ve flipped flopped and engaged in treason. They know that there has been a major political realignment, not left or right, but towards the Constitution and that all incumbents across the country are either losing or are on the verge of losing in the primaries and they are scared to death and they’re trying to stop us from being able to communicate to them the truth: this is treason against our way of government and our life.

Ron Paul: I don’t think they’re going to stop the information from getting out. The Internet is, at the moment, still too big, they can’t control it. People are going to find out and they still have access to government records and they can find out who those 114 individuals were who flipped on this vote. And if we’re worth our salt and this issue is important, it will play a role in the elections this fall.

Alex Jones: Alright, now I want to rocket through points with Congressman Ron Paul in the time we’ve got left with him. The way I read this Supreme Court ruling is it takes two steps forward, two steps back. The gun-grabbers are hailing it as a victory, saying, “Well, at least we’ve got a Supreme Court ruling saying we can now restrict the second amendment under law”. And so basically if you can jump through a hundred hoops, maybe you can have access to a gun and keep it unloaded in your house. And so yes, Chicago, you can’t have a total ban, but you can basically have almost a total ban. But others are hailing this as a big victory. Congressman, how do you see it?

Ron Paul: Well, I’m keeping my fingers crossed. I’m still hoping it will be because it’s certainly perceived that way. And the people who take guns and don’t believe we should have them are hysterical and they’re going nuts. So I am hopeful that yes, more people will have guns and more people will be able to defend themselves. You know, things have improved slightly in Washington. I hope they improve even if it’s not the total package, it will improve slightly in Chicago. And then maybe it will be of great benefit to us because what they’ll probably find out is the crime rate will go down as in every other city. So I haven’t written it off saying that no, this won’t improve things. I think more people are going to have guns in Chicago in order to defend themselves.

Alex Jones: Well, I agree with you to a certain extent, because I don’t like having concealed carry, because that turns a right into a privilege in states where it is already legal to carry a gun holstered. But if you pass it in Texas or Florida, and the crime rates drop by over 20% in both states, the same numbers in other states, even though it’s a restriction to a certain extent, it illustrates that more guns means less crimes and so you win the overall intellectual war.

Ron Paul: Yeah, that’s a powerful message and I think more and more people are coming around to that. And I think politically we generally have won this. They sort of bring in some of these regulations through the back door, you know. In the last several elections the democratic candidate usually doesn’t go out preaching about how he’s going to round up the guns and register guns, they stay away from that, they pretend like, “Oh, we’re not going to do that, we’re not going to do that”. But in backdoor legislation they generally are always trying to do that.

Alex Jones: Let’s talk about the oil spill. And again, just to preface this, BP gave orders that they knew would cause a problem, it turns out, two months before it was leaking. BP is one of the biggest contributors to Obama, they funded the carbon tax, they’ve got a global governance office with the vice-president over it, they’ve always wanted to nationalize oil so they get an inside deal. I’m very suspicious of how this has been handled. We’re 70+ days in, Obama has blocked a Taiwanese ship that can get half a million barrels a day scooped up, they blocked over 30 other mega ships. Now that the hurricanes are coming in, he’s saying he may look at letting them come in. Once that oil gets blown in, they’re going to have a major disaster. The Washington Post is talking about forced evacuations, Obama’s answer is, “Give me the carbon tax.” Rahm Emanuel said, “Don’t let a good crisis go to waste”. I don’t see this as Obama versus BP, as the media has phrased it. Really, this is Obama working with BP to try to get his carbon tax. Congressman, this is out in international water. Why don’t we just have the salvagers in there to begin with? How can Obama tell people 50 miles out in the Gulf what to do?

Ron Paul: Well, you forgot, he can write executive orders, orders to do anything they want. It is a real mess. If a state needs the manpower, generally they don’t have manpower that might be able to help out. And that world be, maybe, their national guard units. They’re all over in Afghanistan and Iraq. I would say that in an emergency like this, this might be an incentive to say, “Hey, why don’t you bring these troops home, and maybe even some different states would share some of their people to help.” I mean, it’s practically like an invasion the way this oil is coming in. But I am very suspicious of what BP and our government is doing in the Obama administration. And that’s why I’ve even challenged the principle of this agreement they have to set up this 20 billion dollar fund. It sounds like a lot of money, but it sounds like there could be a lot of mischief too. And that was done by just executive orders. The president declared we’re going to have this sum, and then he came to the Congress and asked for even more authority to go any place asking questions and trying to figure out what to do.

Alex Jones: I’m sorry to interrupt. I saw a report in the AP yesterday that they’re trying to block Republican groups from going and looking at the Gulf. I mean, Obama doesn’t have that power.

Ron Paul: Yeah, well, he might take it. He doesn’t deserve that power, but sometimes they assume power that they have. No, that’s not a proper power that he has. I’m not too pleased either, and I think BP corporation is in bed with government, so you have to be suspect. Just think of how much we spend protecting their oil wells and their oil drilling. What do you think we’re in the Middle East for? We’re not over there to spread democracy, we’re over there to protect oil companies and BP just happens to be over there as well.

Alex Jones: Did you see the video, you probably did 2 weeks ago, it was on Drudge and and everywhere else. Senator Kyle said that he was in a closed-door meeting with Obama and said “Look, tens of thousands dead, 80 miles to a 100 miles, illegal aliens, they’re shutting down national parks. The border is collapsing, Mexico has collapsed.” And Obama said, “I’m not going to fix the border till you pass amnesty. I need to use that crisis.” This is a quote. And Senator Kyle said that this is basically holding us hostage in a form of terrorism. I mean, that sounds like an impeachable offense, Congressman, and to have a senator say he was in a meeting with Obama… A) What’s your take on that, and B) I mean, that is a false flag to let the crime continue and not protect our border when that’s in the Constitution, one of the few duties of the Feds. What would you say to that?

Ron Paul: Well, since I wasn’t in that meeting and what exactly was said I don’t know. So it would have to be up to the senator to decide what to do with it. But they certainly don’t act like they have an incentive to do much with the borders. And that, of course, could eventually lead to a national security problem as well.

Alex Jones: Well, okay, Congressman Ron Paul, what about his executive order? And now they say they’re going to sue Arizona and they’re saying Arizona isn’t allowed to protect itself when a third of the state is now being denied to the citizens. I mean, this is confirmed. What’s your view on the constitutionality of an executive order by the president to legalize the illegalls?

Ron Paul: Well, he can’t do it unilaterally like that. No, Congress would have to act to take a policy on that and write the rules. The federal government has authority over our borders, but you know, it should be that the private land owners should have a lot of authority along with the states themselves, with jurisdiction. And yet instead of permitting them to exert their authority over their own land, whether it’s their own private land or the state, the federal government comes in and says, “You can’t do it”. So they’re acting perversely to what I think the federal government ought to be doing.

Alex Jones: Congressman, I know you’re a busy man. But have you had a chance to watch Kagan and the hearings and then expanding on that, all of her open statements about socialism being right and the government can disappear speech. Going back to that, are you concerned about Kagan?

Ron Paul: Oh, I am. But I’m sure if he put Tim Newman up in place of her, I’d be very concerned too. I haven’t watched the hearings, but I’ve read about her. And she certainly is not going to be a great defender of the Constitution, although she is going to make it sound like she is. So I’m not too encouraged with that appointment for sure.

Alex Jones: Congressman, what’s your take on the Russian spy situation? It’s seems like they’re trying to kick off a new cold war with that. My issue is, globalization is treason. Globalization is corporations and mega-banks taking over our government. And so what is the difference between Russian spies sneaking around and mega-corporations coming in and openly buying off our politicians?

Ron Paul: Yeah, I think this is a little bit of hype. I think even the mainstream media is sort of making fun of all this, and I think rightfully so. They just didn’t look like a great threat to me. And I had somebody in for lunch today that was sort of knowledgeable about this, and he said that there is so much spying going on in the world. Other countries come in here and they do it routinely and we’re all over the place, all over the world. And he described it almost like a game they play. I mean, it’s really not serious intrigue and my guess is that people like to stir things up to scare the people. And who knows, I hope it doesn’t lead to another cold war with the Russians. I don’t think they’re looking for trouble, and we certainly shouldn’t be looking for it either.

Alex Jones: Already, Congressman Ron Paul, we appreciate your time. In closing, and I know you’ll say, “If I was president, I would only have the powers of the president”. But what would you recommend, what would you do? If Ron Paul would have been elected back in 2008, as we all wish you would have been, forecasting everything that’s now happened… if you would have been elected, what would you have done with the oil spill and what would you be doing now?

Ron Paul: I’d probably work at getting the government out of the way. I would have done everything possible to alleviate any federal restrictions on the states or property owners. I would have accepted anybody who had an offer to come in and help. I would have worked to remove any liability limitations on BP. And I would have, of course, by the time we had the oil spill, I would have had all the guard units back in the individual states and they would have had the right to use their guard units as they pleased. And I would actually encourage other guard units and not pretend that the guard units belong to the president, but they belong to the states and the government. And I think they could have done a lot to alleviate some of the damage. I do not believe that there would have been any magic with any one individual who said, “Oh, I know how to cap this thing, let me do it”. I actually do believe they’re trying seriously to stop this, I don’t think it serves anybody’s benefit … But right now the assumption is that the government didn’t have a role to play and what they did was actually make this worse because of the rules of pushing them out in the deep sea drilling. That was part of the problem too. But I would not have closed down drilling like Obama wants to do. That’s not going to help us, that just makes the unemployment problem that much worse.

Alex Jones: Well, the Russians and the Chinese and the people in Brazil are not stopping drilling in the gulf, we don’t own the gulf. He’s just stopped any companies in the U.S. I mean, this is outrageous and they’re going to use it to pass Cap and Trade.

Congressman Ron Paul, everybody’s got to get behind Campaign for Liberty, they got to get behind Rand Paul. We’re going to win this. We appreciate your leadership and we know you’re there working tirelessly for us in Congress. God bless you, sir.

Ron Paul: Thank you. Bye.

Alex Jones: Alright. Bye, bye. There goes Congressman Ron Paul, and we are out of time. No more time for calls.

  • but like maximus.. he would probably die..

  • but like maximus.. he would probably die..

  • Can we figure out who (the 114) who voted against the amendment of auditing the fed? We need to know so we can make an informed vote in the fall. If someone has a list please post it or send it to me or send it to dailypaul . com.

  • sevendst19

    Can we figure out who (the 114) who voted against the amendment of auditing the fed? We need to know so we can make an informed vote in the fall. If someone has a list please post it or send it to me or send it to dailypaul . com.

  • Where the ATF says criminals get their guns. Since we can’t retroactively abolish the second ammendment, think of what will happen when all the law abiding people give up their guns. The criminals won’t give theirs up. Their guns were already illegal. You could imagine criminals becoming more brash about burglaries and assaults with nothing to fear from their potential victims. I’m still searching for more data.

  • I honestly don’t see how it proves either of us wrong. I only meant to emphasize that it is a right not to be infringed upon. As far as natural selection, I understand your point. If people can utilize the meat though, where otherwise overpopulated animals would simply get hit by cars and cause accidents or simply starve to death, it seems there’s a clear advantage. Illegal guns are huge business. I’ll get back to you when I find some statistics.

  • TheMrjames56
  • 4) I watched the video. All this tells me is that we’re both wrong and hunting and outlaws had nothing to do with it. To be fair though, many of these men’s livelihood did derive from game.

  • 2) Please direct me to a reliable resource that substantially depicts your theory that outlaws will have illegal guns regardless of the second amendment and that the 2nd amendment has no effect on the amount guns the outlaws have.
    3) I want real data again. Analytically, your logic is fallible. These animals will have natural selection regardless of us killing them because they will still have to fight just as hard to get the limited amount of food as before.

  • 1) I was referring to the fact that you believed the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect us from outlaws. This is simply not true and I’ve already explained it in previous comments. Of course, however, the 2nd Amendment could be adjusted to meet the needs of a modern citizen because no such language exists within the amendment, but that’s a separate issue that you cannot muddle.

  • The second ammendment does not say anything about hunting being the reason for our right to bare arms. Outlaws already have illegal guns. You think that’s gonna change? Also, hunting is well utilized to keep certian animal populations in check. It actually makes the rest of them healthier. Watch for a pretty good explanation of the second ammendment. Once you give that one up. The rest will follow. That my friend is a guarantee.

  • Correlation does not imply causation and your evidence proves nothing. And how often does 9/11 occur versus how often a person gets angry enough to have the urge to kill another? Sure, very few times does it pay off morally to kill someone, but that is rarely the case and the logic back-fires because guns are used much more often to kill innocent or kill unnecessarily.

  • What about the fact that D.C. had a handgun ban for 30 years, and all they got to show for it was the highest murder rate in the country?

    Killing other humans isn’t always bad either, what if someone had capped off the 19 hijackers the morning of 9/11/2001?

    Speaking of which:

    The two worst terror attacks in U.S. history were executed with box-cutters, and manure, respectively.

  • Actually, the second amendment was meant to allow citizens to shoot and kill animals because many citizens were dependent on that source for a livelihood. That need no longer exists and the argument against guns is that we don’t need them besides killing other humans which is always bad. I don’t believe that outlaws will still have guns and I see no empirical data proving that point.

  • decendant1776

    Alex, many ppl think you are wacko. I think they just don’t understand your PASSION. Like you, I too am passionate about regaining control over OUR government. Many ppl make the mistake of saying we need to “take over the government”. I disagree because this gives those in power the opportunity to harass/arrest/etc… these ppl. Instead, they should say we need to “regain control” vs “take over”. Its all in how you say it. REGAIN CONTROL at the Voting Booth. VOTE EM ALL OUT IN NOVEMBER.

  • Mrcastleskeep

    When guns are outlawed the outlaws will still have guns. Our second ammendment is meant to protect us from outlaws and to make the govenment fear the people as it should be.
    Impeach Obama.
    Ron Paul for President 2012!

  • LesiureBoy