Show: The Ed Show
Host: Ed Schultz
Date: August 12, 2009

Ed Schultz: One protester at Obama’s townhall meeting got a lot of attention when he showed up at the rally with a loaded gun, a side arm. Quite an interview on Hardball last night with Chris Matthews. But he mentioned that he was a Ron Paul supporter and that piqued my curiosity.

I want an reaction from the congressman. He joins us on the line now deep in the heart of Texas. Congressman, thanks for your time tonight. I appreciate it. What’s your response to people showing up at a townhall meeting where the President is with a loaded gun?

Ron Paul: Well, I think it bruised a couple of points. One thing I think it really shows a remarkable restraint on the President and his Secret Service because they didn’t over-react. They recognized what the state law was and that this man didn’t break any laws and that he was just practicing a right that he has, so I think this is very good and Obama deserves credit for this.

But I also think what this demonstrates is that it’s the old conservative argument. It’s not the gun that’s the danger, it’s the person that’s dangerous. He’s a peaceful person, he obeyed the law. He was not a man of violence and it went quite well, so I think it was a remarkable demonstration when you compare it to what 19 individuals could do with razor blades versus one man with an armed pistol that happens to be a law-abiding citizen.

Ed Schultz: So Congressman, we know what the law is. He was perfectly legal. He was on private property, but doesn’t it somewhat defy common sense to show up where the President is with a loaded gun just to prove a point?

Ron Paul: Well, to him, and I I don’t even own a gun. So I wouldn’t be interested in doing he had. But no, he was expressing himself. Don’t you think sometimes people use the First Amendment and say terrible things, dumb things, and when the American Civil Liberty Union comes in to defend people [...], radical, violent people that who are saying bad things.

So I would think to demonstrate he has a right to do this and he believes, as many people believe that an armed society is a more peaceful society and he proved his point.

Ed Schultz: Well, he…

Ron Paul: I think he was remarkable in proving his point that he was a peaceful man and he caused no trouble.

Ed Schultz: Well, I don’t have a jaded opinion because I’m a gun owner. I don’t have a pistol, but I got deer rifles and shotguns and stuff like that, but we have had a situation in this country where a prisoner came up and overtook a guard and ended up shooting a judge and some other people in a courtroom. So I don’t know how good that guy was in defending the firearm if somebody wanted to go nuts in a crowd when they saw a gun and I’m not trying to replay this, I mean, because it has happened in this country. Here’s the point I want to make…

Ron Paul: Well, can I comment on that?

Ed Schultz: Sure. Sure.

Ron Paul: But you’re just describing something where the government was in charge of the courtroom. They should provide the safety. In a private property, the individual provides the safety.

Ed Schultz: That’s true.

Ron Paul: So you just demonstrated that the government failed on that part. The government had a chance to react here and I think they’ve reacted rather remarkably.

Ed Schultz: Okay, well, but the same situation was apparent here is that something could have happened if someone had seen that and decided to go off the handle and take the gun and do something. I mean, I’m surprised that… I mean, I understand the freedom of speech and all of this stuff and gun ownership, but it just defies common sense to pull a stunt like this to get some attention. Now, I want to move the discussion quickly…

Ron Paul: Now, I don’t think he was doing it for attention getting. I think he just did it all and that’s the way he lives. That’s the way a lot of people live up there.

Ed Schultz: Okay, all right. But I don’t know if he carries a gun to work everyday or not, but he sure showed up at that townhall meeting with the president with a firearm on.

Ron Paul: Well, I did a little campaigning up there and it was sort of a little bit of a surprise to me. I don’t think shocking, and I live in Texas, you know.

Ed Schultz: Sure.

Ron Paul: And there are a lot of guns hanging on gun racks [...]

Ed Schultz: And Congressman…

Ron Paul: But it was a little bit of surprising to me.

Ed Schultz: All right. Great to have you on, Congressman Paul. I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you so much.

Ron Paul: Bye bye.

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul on the Ed Show Show: The Ed Show Channel: MSNBC Date: 10/14/2009 Transcript:...
2. Ron Paul vs Ed Schultz: End the Department of Education and the Department of Agriculture Show: The Ed Show Host: Ed Schultz Date: 5/20/2009...
3. Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show Show: Alex Jones Show Date: August 5, 2009 Alex...

In his latest column, Ron Paul honors the American spirit of freedom and self-reliance and encourages all patriots to continue the good fight for freedom. — tmartin

Download the column as an MP3 file here (3:18 minutes).

Celebrating the Fight for Freedom on the Fourth

by Ron Paul

Every year on the Fourth of July we remember our founding fathers and the precious inheritance of freedom that they secured for us. Every year it seems we get further and further away from that birthright, but we still have much to celebrate.

This country was founded on principles of freedom from overbearing rulers, onerous taxation, and the right to live our lives as we see fit. Our independence was won after decades, and even centuries of abuses that unscrupulous, corrupted leaders and big governments visited upon their subjects. The Founders knew there was a better way, and they forged it here on this soil.

In the new United States of America, the rights of the individual were enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Today, government encroaches on those rights through countless provisions in numerous laws. However, how much worse off might we be had the Founders not enumerated these rights in the highest law of the land? While it is true that many aspects of those rights have been redefined and watered down, and will likely continue to be eroded, we can celebrate the wisdom of the Founders and that at our very core we, as Americans, still hold these rights dear.

The American tradition of individual liberty and self-reliance still runs deep, in spite of the increasing nanny state tendencies that government has been gradually shoving down our throats. It is sad to see government seeking to completely replace the voluntary protections through families and charities that we have relied on throughout our history. Especially disturbing is the rhetoric of community and interdependence being employed by the administration to institute government as the great middle man for all healthcare and charity for which all citizens must dutifully sacrifice. This trend is not improving quality of life for Americans, but instead is greatly enriching the government bureaucracies that take a generous cut of all transactions in the welfare state. There still remains much resistance to cradle to grave government dependence and control. This spirit of fierce independence is a tribute to our founders and is cause to celebrate.

The majority of our Founders believed in sound money, in part because they knew it kept government in check. Governments that are unable to expand the money supply and manipulate credit at will are unable to fund frivolous wars of conquest. Instead of adventurism abroad, seeking monsters to destroy, governments restrained by sound money are restricted to truly defensive wars that the people are willing to fight and to fund. Today, in spite of all the economic turmoil that fiat currency and military interventionism has caused, there is cause to celebrate. The demand to audit the Federal Reserve is quite encouraging. The truth about the Fed will put us one step closer to sound money, and peace.

Public outcry against the bank bailouts and the government power grab known as cap-and-trade proves that the spirit of liberty still lives. Part of our celebration of Independence Day should include a renewed determination to keep fighting the good fight for freedom. As long as government continually seeks to take liberties away, patriots need to keep fighting this ongoing war for sustained independence.

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul: Happy 4th of July! Ron Paul: I’d like to take a minute and...
2. Ron Paul: End The Fed, Stop Inflation, Restore Sound Money In a speech to the Mises Circle in Houston, Ron...
3. Ron Paul’s Speech at the Campaign for Liberty Summit in Orlando Event: Florida Liberty Summit with Ron Paul Location: Orlando,...

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuU-T_Di4cQ (Ron Paul)
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEqQUixeKd0 (Ron Paul)
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dQhaKoy0Yc
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XebHG6DRsSI
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMx06t3gTzQ
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEPvB1NOqbk

Channel: Fox News Strategy Room
Show: Freedom Watch
Host: Judge Andrew Napolitano
Date: 7/1/2009

Transcript of Ron Paul’s appearance

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Joining me now from the great state of Texas is Congressman Ron Paul. Congressman, I know you’re on vacation this week, though knowing you, you’re just working in Texas instead of in Washington. Welcome back to Freedom Watch.

Ron Paul: Thank you, Judge. Good to be with you.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Thank you. The House of Representatives passed this legislation [HR 1913, Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, April 29, 2009, by a vote of 249–175, with support from 231 Democrats and 18 Republicans] and like they sometimes do, they inserted language in there which arguably could be used to stifle hostile or aggressive political speech on the airwaves or, as the legislation says, implicating interstate commerce. Meaning I could say something hostile and putting the mail or put it in FedEx or say something hostile over the Internet or on Fox News, and if the government doesn’t like it, it could come after me. Is freedom of political speech endangered if the Senate passes this and the President signs it into law?

Ron Paul: Oh, it is very much in danger and it’s getting worse. It’s not brand new, it’s just accelerating. I think it started a long time ago when the courts and the legislative bodies decided that speech was not one thing; there was commercial speech and political speech. Once it was accepted that you could regulate commercial speech anytime you please, the next step was political speech, and that’s what we’re moving into.

And some in this country happen to believe that the left tend to be better on civil liberties and protection of the first amendment, but I don’t think it was the extreme right that was promoting this type of legislation. It met with the acceptance by many on the right as well.

But I think it’s lack of understanding, lack of desire and no real effort to protect freedom of speech. I think they have forgotten the fact that individuals have a right to speak out; it should be protected. The job of the government should be to protect speech, not to regulate it.

And I think another thing that happened over the years has been that we started seeing rights as being collective. Then you have group rights, you have rights by belonging to a sexual group, gay groups, and by race, and it shouldn’t be that way. It should be individuals and once they start protecting [groups] it undermines the whole principle of this and we can’t have it.

We can have government limited to protecting us against violence and fraud and theft. Unfortunately I see the government being much more involved in violence, fraud and theft and now doing the things that they’re not supposed to be doing. They failed to do the things they were supposed to do and they embark on these other things now like regulation of speech. And I agree with you, I think this is a serious threat to our freedom of speech in this country.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: You and I have argued together and in the same form that the only legitimate role of government is to protect our freedoms. This is the opposite. This is selectively choosing which freedoms to protect and which freedoms to assault. Shall I assume that with the swearing in of Senator Al Franken – sounds weird to say those three words together, Senator Al Franken – that this is likely to pass the Senate and our only hope with respect to it is that the courts will uphold the constitution and strike down the parts of it that so obviously offend the first amendment?

Ron Paul: Yeah, I guess that’s our best hope, but I’ve never been very positive on the courts protecting me. At times we have an occasional ruling but it’s just a shame on the way we’re going, but yes, I think it will pass the Senate rather easily now. The President likes these kinds of thing. Now we will be making judgments on people’s motivation. Two people will be treated differently, there’ll be relative value placed on one group versus another group so you can get a greater penalty and they’ll, “Well, we don’t believe in discrimination.” But that’s exactly what they’re doing. If it’s a greater penalty for one group against the other one that means you are discriminating against one group. They fail to see people as individuals rather than put them in groups.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: I deplore collectivism, it’s that awful theory that people are judged and evaluated by the groups to which they are members, either by an accident of birth like race or gender or age because they choose voluntarily to belong to a group. But it’s a political philosophy that we have to evaluate with.

Before we move on to the Fed and the status of HR 1207, do you think that this particular clause of this statue which would permit prosecution – and by the way, it actually says in the statute “shall serve a jail term of two years in a federal institution.” It’s rare in a statute like that that the penalty is stated and it’s rare that the world ’shall’ shall be in there. It’s almost like the judges are being told they have to incarcerate someone convicted if using hostile speech over interstate lines. But my question, Congressman Paul, is do you think that this particular clause in this statute is an end-run around the freedom of the speech on airwaves? Or stated differently, do you think that this is the beginning of the so-called fairness doctrine where they’ll come after me if I say something that’s perceived as hostile to the government.

Ron Paul: I think they’re after the fairness doctrine. They want that and that’s probably a step to they’re moving in, because they’ve been fretting about that for a good many years. So, anything that they can do to move in that direction to control the air waves, they’re going to do it.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: What is the status of your bill to audit the Fed? Is Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who is in the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, sitting on it even though more than half the members of the House are co-sponsors? Is there any more push toward it becoming law in light of the President’s proposals to have the Fed of all abominable institutions be the principle regulator of financial institutions in the country?

Ron Paul: I don’t think we’re at a dead end yet with the Banking Committee or with Chairman Frank, although things are moving slower than I would like. We had a hearing scheduled a week or so ago and it came out on a Wednesday and the Fed had a meeting and we were supposed to review this kind of regulations in general and he assured me this is the time to start talking about HR 1207. Then later on he would have another hearing dealing only with HR1207. Well, that particular hearing was cancelled because the Federal Reserve was in session and they couldn’t come over. Then we had this week out of Washington so it remains to be seen whether something will come up next week.

But we’re getting awfully close to wondering whether we’re going a little bit slower than he’s been more or less assuring me. But so far I am still hoping he will come true with his promises that he will hold hearings.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: So just as a matter of the rules of the House of Representatives, could a single person, whether the speaker or the chair of the appropriate committee stop a bill from getting to the floor that had more than half the members of the house as co-sponsors?

Ron Paul: Oh sure, that’s very easy. They just don’t bring it up because they have monopoly control of the floor. So the speaker ultimately has the say and, of course, the majority leader has a lot to say. So Hoyer could bring it up tomorrow if he wants unless Pelosi objected to it, but that’s the way it works all the time.

But it has been anticipated this might happen, that’s why there is a rule of discharge petition. Some people think if we have more than 218 people sign on that they have to bring it to the floor. That’s only if you have 218 sign on a discharge petition. Those 72 Democrats that have signed on to the bill will not be signing a discharge petition. If we got two of them we’d be lucky. Some of our allies are a little bit frustrated with me for not immediately starting a discharge petition. And that will not work and besides it would just slow up the process. It will sort of mess up what I’m trying to do now to try to encourage it through the routine channels. But no, you could have 300 co-sponsors, they do not need to bring it up unless you have a discharge petition signed.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: So much for what Jefferson called, “the people’s house,” the House of Representatives. On this 4th of July it’s such a joy to be speaking to a champion of personal liberty in the House of Representatives, and I think in all of the government.

How would an Audit of the Fed work? I mean, who would conduct the audit and would it ever actually happen or would the Fed just go away or go somewhere before we learned the truth about it? I mean, the truth could be so horrendous that the reaction to the truth would be cataclysmic. There would be some unintended consequence that the Fed might lose all its power.

Ron Paul: Well, the GAO would do it, that’s who does the audits and they’re supposed to be independent and they have a pretty good reputation. But they have been prohibited by law, so if we repeal that prohibition they have to go in and do it. The bill says they have to do it within a year. And I think it would be remarkable to find out exactly what they’ve done, what they’ve agreed to, what kind of commitments they’ve made, what kind of collaborations with other central banks …

So I don’t think they’re going to be very happy with that and I think as things move along. And they may have already stopped it by having gotten an assurance from Nancy Pelosi said it will never come to the floor. We don’t know that yet, and we might be able to get them on another bill, so we can’t come to that conclusion. But as far as what the Fed might do is they will resist it all the way. I think right now the big plan is… I think they understand that the dollar reserve standard is done and they will not go back to that. And that’s what you hear about when the Chinese and others, who have a lot of clout now, saying that we have to go to a new system, we have to go to the IMF and we’re going to have another world currency. So by the time we get the books open they’ll try and have some new deal going on someplace else.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Congressman Paul, on this 4th of July weekend I’m bombarded with even more emails – you probably are as well – than I usually get. And the central question is almost always the same, it’s very poignant this weekend: What can freedom loving Americans do to get freedom back? I mean, there is not a Ron Paul running for office in every state and in every Congressional district. And frequently it’s a choice, as Barry Goldwater used to say, “between twiddle dee and twiddle dum.” But what can does of us who don’t want twiddle dee or twiddle dum do?

Ron Paul: All I know is it’s probably going to be different for every single one. You do your share of the work and you do it your way and you have a platform. I do it my way and others will have to find a way to do it. They can help you, they can help me, they can run for office. I think the most important thing still is studying. I mean how long did it take you to figure out all of this? It took me a long time. You know, I figured I had to unlearn a lot of things pumped into my head. So it probably took 15 to 20 years to figure this whole thing out.

So I think the most important thing people do is they study and understand our history, our constitution and what liberty is all about, and there’ll be a place for you. And of course, we’re very much involved with the Campaign for Liberty and others can join in that effort. But each and every individual has a role and a responsibility.

And I tell people at my rallies that if you have discovered this and you’ve figured it out and you know what’s wrong, you have a greater burden of responsibility than the people who just go about their daily activities; they don’t know and they don’t care. Once you discover this it’s just natural that you have a great deal of responsibility and that’s where I think we are making some inroads. But it is a personal choice. To me its education and becoming politically active.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Congressman Ron Paul, it’s always a pleasure. Happy 4th of July to you, Congressman. Thanks for joining us.

Ron Paul: Thank you, same to you.

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul, Peter Schiff on Freedom Watch This afternoon, Ron Paul participated in Judge Andrew Napolitano’s online...
2. Watered Down “Audit” Bill Threatens Ron Paul’s Efforts to Audit the Federal Reserve Show: Freedom Watch Host: Judge Andrew Napolitano Date: 10/21/2009...
3. Ron Paul on Freedom Watch: “Americans’ views aren’t being reflected here in Washington” This Wednesday afternoon, Ron Paul joined Peter Schiff, Dr. Yaron...

Download the interview as an MP3 file here (18:45 minutes).

Show: Clout!
Host: Richard Greene
Channel: Air America
Date: 5/13/2009

Transcript:

Richard Greene: It is my great pleasure to have on the line one of the most clouty politicians in America, one of the politicians with the greatest amounts of integrity and courage and [...] as we were talking about in our last segment. And he ran for President just last year. He was so popular that Shawn Hannity and other people at the Fox News Channel, when they did straw polls after the Republican debates and they saw that this man was actually getting more votes than Mitt Romney and John McCain, they basically canceled it and stopped talking about it. This guy, because of his truth and his integrity and his courage and his taking on issues that no other politician wants to even deal with, is like public enemy #1 on a lot of people’s list. But he is one of our heroes, even though he is not a liberal Democrat. Congressman Ron Paul, welcome to Air America.

Ron Paul: Thank you, it’s nice to be with you.

Richard Green: Well, listen. You know, your name keeps coming up and as I mentioned to you during the break even during the straw polls that were taken during the Democratic primary, people would put your name in there. Because even though you disagree with liberals on a number of very important issues, you are the kind of guy that people here on Air America, the listeners across the nation and around the world, want everyone to be because you have integrity and you stand up for what you believe to be true.

The issue that I am so excited about is this issue that Arnold Schwarzenegger helped put into play in a different way when he said, “You know, we should have a discussion about the legalization and the taxation of Marijuana”. But even more importantly, there are farmers in North Dakota, there are farmers in California, there are farmers all over the place who want to be able to grow a tremendously useful product called Industrial Hemp. And you were on MSNBC last night talking about how the United States of America is the only country in the world that doesn’t allow to grow it even though we import it from Canada and we send out American dollars to Canada and Mexico and every place else while we should be growing it here. Tell us how you got involved in this issue and why you’re so passionate about it.

Ron Paul: It’s just one more issue that deals with a basic principle that I work from. One is: personal liberty and personal choices, and also the constitution. I’ve argued that freedom is popular and brings people together. And actually if we’re serious about the rule of the law and look at our constitution, it really does bring a lot of conservatives and liberals that are principle together.

And so, to me, the marijuana, hemp and these other things… it isn’t necessarily that I know a whole lot about these particular subjects. I for one am very conservative in my habits and I don’t, as a matter of fact I’ve never seen anybody smoke marijuana.

But I understand what I think is important: states’ rights. If California wants to legalize it, let them legalize it. If you want to make your personal choice and assume responsibility for yourself, that’s your choice. I don’t want a nanny state. So it comes down to the fact that I can defend that on personal choices, personal liberty, as well as the constitution.

So when California tries to go back to what was intended and say that they’re supposed to deal with subjects like this, and the federal government comes in and they’re still doing it with the new administration, they’re actually arresting people that are sick, and people who are using marijuana for medical reasons. That’s just appalling to me that we can’t make our personal choices. I want the responsibility be on the individuals. But, they have to assume the responsibility of the consequences too.

If they make bad choices, I claim that they shouldn’t be able to crawl to their neighbor and be taken care off. So if drugs are legal and these people misuse them then they do it at their own risk.

But I really do believe in personal choices on social matters, just like most conservatives are quite willing to say they believe in personal choices on religious matters. They understand that. But as soon as it has to do with their own body, you know, what they put into their mouths or into their lungs, or you know, their habits, they say, “Well, we can’t trust the people to make these decisions” and I do trust individuals to make their own decisions even though I still think it would be far from a perfect society. But I think more it would be a much better society than when we have bureaucrats dictating to us our personal habits.

Richard Greene: Now that is the core of the libertarian philosophy, isn’t it? That you trust individuals rather than the state to make decisions. Is that correct?

Ron Paul: Yes, that’s it. It’s not that governments don’t have good intentions and want to help. But if they make a mistake it’s a mistake for all of us. If it’s nationalized then it’s a really bad mistake. So, yes and sometimes they don’t know what is best for us. They think they might, but how do they know what your desires are and how you want to spend your money. If you like to gamble it might be risky business but I don’t think I should prohibit you from it. So yes, the whole idea is that the individual gets to make the choices rather than a bureaucrat or a politician, who is doing it for some motivation.

Man: We’re talking to Congressman Ron Paul. Congressman, how did you developed this kind of philosophy which seems to be so different than so many people in the Republican Party and so many people down there in your home state of Texas?

Ron Paul: Yeah, especially during the time the Iraqi war was being fought and started, and Bush’s… as a matter of fact George Bush has remained popular, he has a 68% positive rating in my own district, so I still have a few challenges at times.

Richard Greene: Still? Hold on one second. Congressman, did you say George Bush has a 68% approval rating now in your district?

Ron Paul: Well, the last time we had an election, which was last year, yeah he was still rated very high in my district. Yet, there wasn’t one thing that… well, I guess if he wants to lower taxes I’ll be supporting that. But no, the rest of the stuff, you know all this big military spending and [suppression of] personal liberties and arresting people for marijuana use; I was always challenging that, and of course, all the things in foreign policy when it came to torture and these things. I was always in disagreement with him.

But I just think that if you tell people the truth, a lot of people in my district would say, “I know, I don’t agree with you on a lot of these things, but it’s so rare that we can trust somebody that we know exactly where he stands”. They sort of gave me a path on the things that they disagreed with me on.

Richard Greene: You just said something a few minutes ago which could be breaking news here, because I don’t know if you’ve ever had this question asked to you: Congressman Paul, have you ever smoked pot? You implied that not only have you never smoked pot, marijuana, but you have never even been with anyone who smoked pot. Is that correct? Did I hear that correctly?

Ron Paul: Well, somebody might deny and say that is not true because maybe they were with me and they did smoke pot, but I was never aware of anybody ever smoking marijuana in my presence. And I don’t know whether that’s important or not other than making the point that my approach is a little bit different. But I think that doesn’t hurt your particular cause to get things legalized for other reasons.

But also, as a doctor, it just bugs me to no end about this “compassionate conservatism” that prompted people to arrest sick people that didn’t commit a violent act. So, I’m coming from that angle. But, I just haven’t and it is just because even though I have a very libertarian and liberal attitude toward these things, I personally don’t get involved in them and that’s not my motivation.

As a matter of fact, I think that some of the libertarians are very, very pro-drugs and probably there are some liberals like that too who are for pro use of drugs. But if that’s the main reason, you lose a little bit of credibility. People think, “He kind of looks like a druggie, all he cares about is making sure he doesn’t get arrested”. Well I don’t want people to be arrested, but I think there is a bigger issue and to me it’s personal liberty and personal choices. That to me is so much more important.

Richard Greene: So you’re not pushing for the legalization of marijuana because you have smoked pot or because you want to. For you it’s a much bigger issue.

Ron Paul: Much, much bigger. It’s a personal choice issue. Then it becomes and economic issue as well. How much money do we spend running around and arresting 75,000 people a year and many of them end up in prison and all this drug war going on and the economics of what happens when drugs are illegal and the prohibition. Conservatives should respond on economic reasons why it is so ridiculous having a drug war.

The country woke up on prohibition of alcohol. I keep thinking they’re going to wake up on drugs too, I’m just thinking that the war on drugs is no more sensible than the prohibition of alcohol was in the 1920s.

Richard Greene: Well, it looks like there are three fronts in this war to create sanity with respect to marijuana. Number 1 is to elicit some compassion for the people who do in fact need and are relying on medical marijuana, and you just indicated that the raids are still going on. Is that correct? The raids are still going on in California and other places…

Ron Paul: Right.

Richard Greene: …where people have voted for medical marijuana but the federal government still comes in. That’s insane, especially with the President Obama administration. So we need to focus on that. But the other thing is the HR 1866 which is a bill to legalize hemp farming in America. You have introduced that with Congressman Barney Frank. I just have to ask you this: we’ve got a Democratic majority, we add you to that. If even 80% or 75% of the Democrats vote for this, it becomes law. Where are your colleagues on this bill?

Ron Paul: Well, they probably just don’t care. But you know what I find? If conservatives get elected and they’re supposed to balance the budget and in general they are not supposed to be pushing welfare spending here at home. Republicans get in and do the opposite, they run up budget deficits and they promote a lot of welfare stuff.

Democrats get in and as soon as they get in they say, “Oh, we got to watch our image, so we better be tough on foreign policy. We better do this, we hate these people, we’ve got to have a strong military”. At the same time, they want to be cautious that they don’t look like they’re weak on drugs, and that was why I think when Obama was asked by that young person about marijuana… how would the world have reacted if Obama had said, “You know, this war on drugs is stupid, and from now on I am never going to do another thing to interfere with the state regulating this, and we’re going to allow the states to regulate it like they regulate alcohol”. I mean, wouldn’t that have been amazing, and it would have been over. I just think the country would have changed their attitude completely and totally.

Richard Greene: Well, Congressman let’s see if we can make that happen. What would you like my listeners across the country to do? Listeners who are very, very sympathetic to pretty much everything you have said here tonight.

Ron Paul: Well I think mainly the system still works. If it doesn’t work I shouldn’t be in Congress and none of us should be talking politics. When the people wake up and let their Congressman know, the Congressman will respond. For instance, we’ve had a pretty good organization going talking about transparency of the Federal Reserve System. That might not be interesting to your listeners, but anyway, we have 160 co-sponsors of that bill and it’s not because of me. I don’t have clout in the Congress, I’m lousy at lobbying, I don’t go to my colleagues and say, “Will you get on this bill?, will you get on this bill?’. It’s come from the grassroots and this has been big news in many areas and the members of Congress are coming and automatically signing up. I guess that’s what it has to be.

How many people in this country care about hemp? There’s not a whole lot of people. To me it’s an important principle, but you know if you did a poll tomorrow, you probably wouldn’t have more than 1% who would care about hemp. In the speeches I gave over the last couple of years I would bring up the subject of hemp, but I also brought up the subject of your right to drink raw milk. The right to drink raw milk got more applause than the hemp bill because I guess, there are more people interested in the right to do that. But the point being that if there are enough people who wake up to call their Congressman and want to get their attention, yes they will respond. But the big problem is getting that grassroots effort to make a change.

Too often politicians become very, very cautious and they will bend in the direction of what they perceive is the political thing to do and any suggestion that you’re weak on the war of drugs has been a political negative. Whether they’re liberals or conservatives, it’s considered a political negative and I just think that they should have little more courage with their convictions.

Richard Greene: Right. But the questions is if, in fact, the poster for a particular Congressman, a colleague of yours, says to your colleague “Listen, you come out in favor of legalizing marijuana, or you even come out in favor of legalizing industrial hemp, even though the farmers in your state want it, you are toast”. And those campaign ads are going to be all over the TV and all over the radio, that you’re some sort of pot head and that you’re not anti-violence or anti-crime or whatever it is. And how do we get politicians to be like you, Ron Paul, and have the courage to say, “You know what. I am willing to take that chance because it’s the right thing to do?”

Ron Paul: Well, I don’t know what it’s going to take, I guess time and effort. I think the politicians are very, very slow. I think the average politician in Washington is probably about 20 years behind the people. When I went back into Congress, I was in from 1976 to 19684 then I was back into medicine, and in 1996 I came back in to the Congress. But in that campaign, because it was very well known about my opinion about drugs and the war on drugs and that I didn’t like it. I had to run against a Republican and then a Democrat and they spent all their money on emphasizing my unbelievable position on drugs. And these were so-called professional politicians. And they believed that all you have to say is, “Ron Paul is against the war on drugs” and he’ll automatically lose. I beat the Democrats and the Republicans on this issue, which tells me that the people in this country are much more sympathetic even back 12 years ago to this issue, and here I am in the Bible Belt. I’m in Texas, a very conservative area and still the people didn’t hold that against me.

Richard Greene: Congressman, what would you like my audience to do, starting tomorrow morning when the switchboard opens in Congress?

Ron Paul: Is it okay if I mention my website?

Man: Absolutely sir, you can do it whenever you want.

Ron Paul: I have a website, CampaignForLiberty.com and it deals with all these issues. Right now it’s involved in motivating people to call their Congressmen to deal with transparency of the Federal Reserve. This comes out of the fact that 700 billion dollars of the TARP funds were allocated and Congress gave them away and nobody knew where they want. The people realized it, they started howling and screaming. But now that they’re starting to realize that the Fed deals and trillions of dollars and that they’re never audited and they’re protected from being audited by the law, they’re very interested in this bill I have for transparency.

But I think the most important thing is to be involved. I think we should study all the issues and then still believe in the process enough that you can influence a member of Congress. It would be nice to say that everybody would be philosophically attuned in Washington, but believe me, they’re there because they sort of like the job and the prestige and that sort of thing. So it’s prevailing attitude of the people that makes the difference.

The Congress is exactly what the people have asked for, you know. Over the years the people really have supported going into unnecessary wars and supported the runaway welfare state, and deficit financing. Have deficits today’s and worry about it tomorrow. And yet it hurts everybody whether they’re liberals or conservatives.

So to me it’s studying economics and studying the principles of liberty, studying our constitution. I do think we should have a strong respect for the rule of law because even if we disagree on some issues, we ought to agree that we ought to do it within the bounds of the constitution. If we don’t, there is nothing left to it and we just run rough shot of it.

And you know, generally speaking, the left has been critical of those who talk about states’ rights, but a perfect example of the importance of states’ rights is this idea of legalizing marijuana in California. If we understood state rights, that shouldn’t be an issue. The federal government should have never been involved.

Richard Greene: Congressman, I couldn’t agree more with you, certainly on this issue. The website again?

Ron Paul: CampaignForLiberty.com

Richard Greene: Congressman Ron Paul, really such an honor. You are a man of great courage and integrity and keep up the good work, my friend.

Ron Paul: Thank you.

Richard Greene: Take care.

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul: The War on Drugs has failed Channel: CNN Show: CNN American Morning Date: 4/15/2009 Transcript:...
2. Ron Paul debates Stephen Baldwin on Ending the War on Drugs In Friday night’s debate with Stephen Baldwin on Larry King...
3. Ron Paul and Barney Frank Introduce Hemp Farming Legislation – HR 1866 A federal bill was introduced yesterday that, if passed into...

by Chuck Baldwin, the 2008 Presidential candidate who was endorsed by Ron Paul

On the heels of the now infamous Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has just released an “assessment” report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” With virtually no references, documentation, or annotations, the report, which was released to all branches of American law enforcement, demonizes a host of citizens as having the capacity to become violent “rightwing extremists.”

The DHS report warns law enforcement to be on guard against anyone who opposes illegal immigration, same-sex marriage, “free trade agreements,” gun control, the “New World Order,” “One World Government,” the outsourcing of American jobs, the “perceived” threat to U.S. sovereignty by foreign powers, abortion, “declarations of martial law,” “the creation of citizen detention camps,” “suspension of the U.S. Constitution,” or the abridgement of State authority. Also branded are people who believe in “end times” prophecies, and who “stockpile” food, ammunition, or firearms.

I dare say that at least 75% (or more) of the American people have beliefs that fall into one or more categories of the above list. If you are one of them, DHS suspects you of being a “rightwing extremist.” But there is more.

The DHS report specifically warns law enforcement to be on guard against “disgruntled military veterans,” especially veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You read it right.

Well, if anyone has a legitimate reason to be disgruntled, it is America’s veterans. After taking an oath to defend and support America and the U.S. Constitution, they were ordered to fight a preemptive war of aggression in Iraq; they were ordered to fight without a Declaration of War; they were ordered to put their lives on the line, not for the safety and security of the American people, but for international bankers, the United Nations, and the “global economy.” Then they returned home to a Department of Veteran’s Affairs that treats them as second-class citizens: VA hospitals are often dirty and out-of-date; medical treatments are postponed; medications often take months to arrive; and much of the promised care is never delivered at all. If anyone has a right to be disgruntled, it is a military veteran.

That said, where is the evidence in the DHS report to substantiate the necessity for American law enforcement to be on guard against potential violence committed by military veterans? It doesn’t exist. It is a blanket charge without any substantiation whatsoever. The same is true for the rest of the report. Without documentation, substantiation, or annotation, the report broadly brushes a host of American citizens as being potential “extremists” simply because of their political opinions. This is the same kind of political profiling that we saw in the Missouri report.

Veterans groups nationwide are rightfully “up in arms” over the DHS report. Feeling the wrath of public opinion, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano yesterday “apologized” for “offending” veterans.

Fox News reported, “American Legion National Commander David Rehbein, who blasted the report earlier this week as incomplete and politically-biased, said he was pleased with Napolitano’s apology.” But not all veterans groups share Rehbein’s spirit of forgiveness.

Pete Hegseth, chairman of Vets for Freedom, snarled, “It wasn’t an apology in my view. It was one of those non-apology apologies. She was sorry that veterans were offended. She should either apologize for the content of the report as it stands or they should rewrite the report and reissue it.” Hegseth has it right!

Napolitano did not apologize for the report; she only said she was sorry that vets were “offended” by the report. There is a vast difference. This is the typical cow manure that we are accustomed to from non-elected bureaucrats, especially federal bureaucrats.

And please notice that Napolitano offered no “apology” to pro-lifers, proponents of the Second Amendment, constitutionalists, Christians, or anyone else. She couldn’t care less if any of these folks were offended. She was only sorry that veterans were offended.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) also rightly blasted the DHS report, saying its portrayal of veterans was “offensive and unacceptable.”

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said, “The rightwing report uses broad generalizations about veterans, pro-life groups, federalists and supporters of gun rights. That’s like saying if you love puppies, you might be susceptible to recruitment by the Animal Liberation Front. It is ridiculous and deeply offensive to millions of Americans.”

Ladies and gentlemen, the American people must put a stop to this burgeoning political profiling that is currently being forced upon law enforcement. I urge every reader of this column to immediately contact your U.S. House member and two U.S. Senators, demanding that they put a stop to this right now!

In the meantime, I believe we can also assume that the source of all of these reports is either Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) or the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), or both. If this is true (and we desperately need some attorneys who are willing to file lawsuits in which evidentiary material may be gleaned during discovery to substantiate these assumptions), the SPLC and ADL–and those government bureaucrats who assist them–need to be exposed and held accountable. The days of political “witch-hunting” must come to an end. Furthermore, the days of radical leftwing organizations, such as SPLC and ADL, being allowed to use federal and state police agencies to demonize and terrorize private citizens because of their political beliefs must also come to an end.

Obviously, DHS is still stinging from the embarrassment and setback of the Missouri report, in which three of last year’s Presidential candidates (Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself) were personally named. In essence, people who voted for and/or supported any one of us were directly labeled as being potential dangerous “militia members.” This blatant and outlandish accusation resulted in a maelstrom of protest, which concluded with the report being completely withdrawn. And this is exactly what people should demand in the case of the DHS report: it should be immediately withdrawn!

The current DHS report does not include personal names, except the name of Timothy McVeigh, who is used as an example of what any “disgruntled military veteran” could become. It does, however, regurgitate the familiar themes of the Missouri report: the same groups; the same beliefs; the same generalizations; the same innuendoes; the same broad brushing; the same warnings; the same mischaracterizations; the same political profiling.

As with the Missouri officials, Janet Napolitano has made a critical misjudgment. By including veterans in her broad sweep of “rightwing extremists,” she has shown her true colors: and they are not Red, White and Blue. Veterans throughout America should insist that not only must the report be rescinded, but Ms. Napolitano must also resign.

P.S. My message this Sunday, April 19, will include a celebration and commemoration of Patriot’s Day, which–next to July 4–is America’s greatest day. This was the day the shot was fired that was heard round the world and America’s War for Independence began. I plan to read an eyewitness account of the Battle of Lexington during my address. Watch online this Sunday, April 19, at approximately 10:30 a.m. (Central Daylight Time). Go here.

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul on the Glenn Beck Program (TV) Go to Part 2 Channel: Fox News Show: Glenn Beck...
2. Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic In his latest column Ron Paul speaks out against a...
3. Enough is Enough: People are Starting to Realize the Failure of Government This Wednesday afternoon, Ron Paul joined Tom Woods, Nick Gillespie,...

In his latest column Ron Paul points out that the War on Drugs is unconstitutional, can’t be won, and only makes things worse for almost everyone involved. The only beneficiaries are the drug barons, smugglers and dealers who enjoy exorbitant profits, and those dark forces in government who try to further suppress our freedoms under the excuse of fighting the war against drugs. — tmartin

Download the column as an MP3 file here (3:30 minutes).

End the War on Drugs

by Ron Paul

We have recently heard many shocking stories of brutal killings and ruthless violence related to drug cartels warring with Mexican and US officials. It is approaching the fever pitch of a full blown crisis. Unfortunately, the administration is not likely to waste this opportunity to further expand government. Hopefully, we can take a deep breath and look at history for the optimal way to deal with this dangerous situation, which is not unprecedented.

Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s brought similar violence, gangs, lawlessness, corruption and brutality. The reason for the violence was not that making and selling alcohol was inherently dangerous. The violence came about because of the creation of a brutal black market which also drove profits through the roof. These profits enabled criminals like Al Capone to become incredibly wealthy, and militantly defensive of that wealth. Al Capone saw the repeal of Prohibition as a great threat, and indeed smuggling operations and gangland violence fell apart after repeal. Today, picking up a bottle of wine for dinner is a relatively benign transaction, and beer trucks travel openly and peacefully along their distribution routes.

Similarly today, the best way to fight violent drug cartels would be to pull the rug out from under their profits by bringing these transactions out into the sunlight. People who, unwisely, buy drugs would hardly opt for the back alley criminal dealer as a source, if a coffeehouse-style dispensary was an option. Moreover, a law-abiding dispensary is likely to check IDs and refuse sale to minors, as bars and ABC stores tend to do very diligently. Think of all the time and resources law enforcement could save if they could instead focus on violent crimes, instead of this impossible nanny-state mandate of saving people from themselves!

If these reasons don’t convince the drug warriors, I would urge them to go back to the Constitution and consider where there is any authority to prohibit private personal choices like this. All of our freedoms – the freedom of religion and assembly, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unnecessary government searches and seizures – stem from the precept that you own yourself and are responsible for your own choices. Prohibition laws negate self-ownership and are an absolute affront to the principles of freedom. I disagree vehemently with the recreational use of drugs, but at the same time, if people are only free to make good decisions, they are not truly free. In any case, states should decide for themselves how to handle these issues and the federal government should respect their choices.

My great concern is that instead of dealing deliberatively with the actual problems, Congress will be pressed again to act quickly without much thought or debate. I can’t think of a single problem we haven’t made worse that way. The panic generated by the looming crisis in Mexico should not be redirected into curtailing more rights, especially our second amendment rights, as seems to be in the works. Certainly, more gun laws in response to this violence will only serve to disarm lawful citizens. This is something to watch out for and stand up against. We have escalated the drug war enough to see it only escalates the violence and profits associated with drugs. It is time to try freedom instead.

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul debates Stephen Baldwin on Ending the War on Drugs In Friday night’s debate with Stephen Baldwin on Larry King...
2. Ron Paul: The War on Drugs has failed Channel: CNN Show: CNN American Morning Date: 4/15/2009 Transcript:...
3. Ron Paul: Let the people decide on tobacco usage Date: 6/12/2009 Ron Paul: Thank you, Madame Speaker. I...

Poll: Who won the debate on ending the War on Drugs?

Ron Paul: 1,540 votes (95%)
Stephen Baldwin: 30 votes (2%)
It was a draw: 55 votes (3%)

Total Votes: 1,625

The poll was open from March 14, 2009 – May 20, 2009

Show: Larry King Live
Host: Joy Behar
Date: 3/13/2009

Transcript:

Joy Behar: Michael Phelps finally spoke out publically about the bong photo seen around the world. Here’s what he told Matt Lauer on The Today Show.

Michael Phelps: We were just celebrating honestly. It was just a small group and we were sitting around and celebrating.

Matt Lowler: You know, I have to ask you: Were you smoking pot?

Michael Phelps: It was a bad mistake. I mean, we all know what you and I are talking about. It was a stupid mistake and a bad judgment.

Joy Behar: Should Marijuana be legalized? We’ll debate the pros and cons right now. In the anti-legalization camp is actor Stephen Baldwin and on the pro side is Congressman from Texas, Ron Paul. He was a presidential candidate and Paul has sponsored hemp related legislation. Gentlemen, round one. Okay, what’s your reaction to the hoo-hah over the Phelps photo? Ron?

Ron Paul: I’m sorry, over the what?

Joy Behar: Over the photo, the Michael Phelps photo. What was your reaction to all of that what happened with Michael Phelps? I mean he basically lost a lot of his endorsements.

Ron Paul: Oh, Michael Phelps, well the whole thing I think is a mess. It’s outrageous. I think we’re getting carried away with the whole War on Drugs. That’s how silly the whole thing gets. Drugs are very dangerous, but there are a lot of things that are very dangerous. The question here is, who should regulate danger? Should we assume responsibility for ourselves, or should the government take care of us. And I don’t believe in the nanny state. If we do have regulations and laws they should be at the state level, not at the federal level. We didn’t even have a federal law up until 1937, and here we are, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in a very unsuccessful attempt to regulate drugs and you have all these weird examples.

That’s one example you mentioned, but what about a sick person dying with cancer who goes out and uses marijuana when it is legalized in a particular state like California, and the feds come in and arrest him. I mean there’s so much violation there of common decency and the constitution. It makes no sense. The drug is a total failure and the federal drug war ought to be revisited and, for the most part, gotten rid of.

Joy Behar: Ok, Stephen Baldwin, hi. You’re against legalizing marijuana. Why?

Stephen Baldwin: Well, it’s a little bit ironic. I can see why Jimmy wanted to rush out of there so quickly. Here you’re looking at an actor that has starred in two very popular marijuana films; Half Baked and Biodome, and here I am bringing a faith-based conservative perspective to this issue.

Obviously Joy, there’s a lot of common sense that needs to be included in this conservation. It’s a very simple reality: marijuana leads to doing worse things. That’s just a fact. I don’t care what anybody says or what the debate is. When you smoke marijuana at a young age it will usually lead to alcohol abuse and harder drugs. So right there, I mean, that’s one reason why it should not be legalized.

Joy Behar: We’ve heard that for years that it’s a gateway drug. What do you say to that, Congressman Paul?

Ron Paul: Well, I think it’s silly. Probably the most addictive drug in the country, in the world, is nicotine and nobody talks about nicotine being a gateway drug, so there’s no sense to that. And besides it’s not nearly as addictive as alcohol. So if you’re a consistent person and you think the government should be regulating personal behavior, you have to be for prohibition of alcohol.

And when you look back throughout history and what happened to that, it was a total disaster. It created the Al Capones. And right now today there is so much violence today, not because people use drugs, but because they are illegal. You know the people who benefit the most by all these laws, these are the drug cartels. They lobby to keep these laws in place because they can’t exist without them. You don’t have the Al Capones now because you don’t have prohibition of alcohol.

Prohibition is what is bad, and this does not mean that we endorse personal behavior that is not beneficial, it just means who regulates personal behavior. And it shouldn’t be the state. There’s no benefits to it. It’s like regulating church behavior or religious behavior of any sorts, so I see no purpose in doing this.

Joy Behar: Okay, Stephen we’ll get back to you when we return, Okay. More Baldwin vs. Paul.

Okay, we’re back. Stephen, let me ask you a question. Congressman Paul brought up the whole idea of medical marijuana. What is your response to that? People have glaucoma, they’re nauseous from anti-cancer drugs. What do you say to that?

Stephen Baldwin: Well, again there is, you know, not a whole lot of research to back up the fact that there are’nt alternatives even to that. There are lots of pain-relieving practices that people can study. So, I must say that to be honest with you Joy, when in fact there are people for those reasons that do have success with it, then, if prescribed under a controlled situation, then yes, obviously that makes a lot of sense.

But back to Mr. Paul’s statement about the addictive aspects of smoking cigarettes, obviously, if I smoke a cigarette I’m not going to go in my vehicle and be impaired potentially to damage somebody else’s life. If we legalize marijuana there’s no question that the number of deaths related to people being impaired under the influence of marijuana is going to increase. The question is, just to be able to tax it, is it worth it? That’s the question.

Joy Behar: Okay. Ron, what do you say to that?

Ron Paul: Well, I understand there’s a few people who smoke marijuana already, and how many times have you seen somebody arrested for driving under the influence of marijuana? I mean, I’ve never even heard of it. Driving under the influence of alcohol… that is dangerous, butpeople shouldn’t do that and they should be responsible. But you can’t get more people smoking marijuana, it’s just that, what is so bad is the war on marijuana, putting people in prison. They can be caught using drugs for the third time, never committing a violent act, and putting them in prison for life, and yet rapists and murderers can get out.

And if you think of all that expenses you’re talking about hundreds of billions of dollars that get been spent on this and people usually who get sent to prison for non-violent drug use come out as violent criminals. So it makes no sense at all to pursue this method because marijuana is not going to increase car accidents. Let me tell you that is not the case.

Joy Behar: I would think that it’s hard to detect if you’re high on marijuana when you’re pulled over by the police. There’s no breathalyzer test, so how would we know what effect it has?

Ron Paul: Well, that’s a possibility but even under today’s circumstances nobody gets arrested for it and the alcohol is the real culprit and the real problem. And yet we have people in Washington D.C. who drink a lot of alcohol, let me tell you. Because of political reasons they’re scared to death even to vote to legalize the growing of hemp. Hemp has nothing to do with smoking marijuana. And because of this obsession on the drug war we can’t grow hemp in this country. We send the hemp growing up to Canada, then we buy the products that we make from hemp. So we export our jobs to Canada. Hemp is a good product that we prohibit from being used, and it was legal up unto even after World War II. We were allowed to raise hemp in this country. This is how hysterical this War on Drugs has gotten.

So the soon as we come to this realization, someday, actually I’m optimistic about this. Someday this country is going to wake up like they did in the 1930s and say, “Hey, you know, prohibition didn’t work”. Alcohol is a horror, it has made things worse and it has caused a lot of crime and a lot of violence. It’s about time we just do this. Get rid of the prohibition. Let the regulation go back to the state. Regulate it like alcohol and where the real regulation comes from the individual and also from the family and the parents and the community. That’s what prevents drug use. Not some federal thug coming in with guns and arresting some kid and throwing him in prison for life. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Joy Behar: Are you saying that there are a lot of alcoholics in Congress? Is that what I heard you say?

Ron Paul: No, I didn’t say that. I said there’s a lot of people in Congress who drink a lot of alcohol and they won’t vote to legalize hemp. They won’t even let us raise hemp because they’re afraid of the political consequence.

Joy Behar: Let me ask you something. Is there any drug you would not legalize? Do you want to legalize all drugs? Heroine included.

Ron Paul: Well, I want to go back to a previous time prior to 1937 when the states did the regulating. I don’t advocate giving marijuana to ten year olds walking into a store. But the kids now can get more marijuana with all these laws easier than they can get alcohol. So the states have every right to regulate and legalize and allow people to use these things.

Joy Behar: We’re running out of time. Stephen, I’m going to give you the last word before we go.

Stephen Baldwin: I’m just curious, Joy, do you think there’s a lot of marijuana smoking Ron Paul supporters? I’m just wondering.

Joy Behar: Yeah, have you ever smoked a joint, Ron? Congressman Paul, have you ever smoked a joint?

Ron Paul: Well, this is the truth and most people believe what I say. I have never seen anybody smoke marijuana and I have never been in the same room with it. To me it’s an issue of freedom of choice.

Joy Behar: I got to go. Okay, thank you very much, you guys. Go to CNN.com/LarryKing to comment about this show or any other. Larry, thanks for letting me sit in for you, I had a great time.

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul: The War on Drugs has failed Channel: CNN Show: CNN American Morning Date: 4/15/2009 Transcript:...
2. Ron Paul: End the War on Drugs! In his latest column Ron Paul points out that the...
3. Ron Paul on the Legalization of Hemp and Marijuana Ron Paul talks with Air America’s Richard Greene about the...

Watch the video in high definition at RonPaulReloaded.com

Watch Ron Paul’s original “What if” speech.

Transcript:

Ron Paul: “Madam Speaker, I have a few questions for my colleagues.

What if our foreign policy of the past century is deeply flawed and has not served our national security interest?

What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is the predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others, and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous?

What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel?

What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is directly related to the hatred directed toward us?

What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair tradeoff with the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistanian, Afghan people are killed or displaced?

What if we finally decide that torture, even if called “enhanced interrogation technique”, is self-destructive and produces no useful information and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil?

What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy?

What if all war-time spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?

What if we finally see that war-time conditions always undermine personal liberty?

What if Conservatives who preach small government wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?

What if Conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?

What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?

What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?

What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq?

What if a military draft is being planned for for the wars that would spread if our foreign policy is not changed?

What if the American people learned the truth, that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security, that it never changes from one administration to the next?

What if war in preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests?

What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together?

What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression?

What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America?

What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded?

Nothing.

But what happens if my concerns are justified and ignored?

Nothing good.

And I yield back the balance of my time.”

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul Asks Congress: “What If…?” Channel: C-SPAN Date: 02/13/2009 Transcript: Ron Paul: “Madam Speaker,...
2. Ron Paul: Afghanistan Will Be Obama’s War Source: Campaign for Liberty Date: 1/25/2009 Transcript: Thanks for...
3. Ron Paul: Iraq is a Powder Keg In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul points out that...

In his latest column Ron Paul speaks out against a potential reinstatement of the draft, in whatever form it may occur. Most enemies of liberty are located within a 10 mile radius of Capitol Hill, which obliterates the argument that the draft is needed to protect liberty from enemies abroad. To solve the “problem” of low troop levels, Ron Paul proposes to focus on defense rather than world domination, and calls for better treatment of military personnel and veterans so that genuine volunteers will not be discouraged from joining. Finally, “voluntary” national service is only the first step on the road to mandatory service, and should therefore be opposed. — tmartin

On Reinstating the Draft

by Ron Paul

Much has been made by the new administration of the idea of national service and volunteerism. While service to one’s community is certainly admirable, it is not the federal government’s place to “encourage” or promote volunteerism. Moreover, there are troubling signs that national service could transition from voluntary to mandatory, or de facto mandatory, such as the requirement of service in order to be granted a diploma, or something along those lines.

Involuntary servitude was supposed to be abolished by the 13th Amendment, but things like Selective Service and the income tax make me wonder how serious we really are in defending just basic freedom. The income tax enslaves workers for nearly 4 months out of a year by garnishing what amounts to all their wages in that period of time. A military draft could demand your very life, without your consent. This should be unthinkable in a free society.

Proponents of reinstating the draft claim it is needed to protect liberty from enemies abroad. But what about the enemies of liberty right here at home? I am convinced that there are more threats to American liberty within the 10 mile radius of my office on Capitol Hill than there are on the rest of the globe. If we would get our troops off of foreign soil, those perceived enemies of our liberty abroad are much more likely to stand down and let us be. We have more than enough troops to mind our own business and defend ourselves. It is only for world domination that we have a troop shortage.

Nevertheless, some think recruiting for our military is too low and that the younger generation will not answer the call of duty willingly, and must be drafted by force. I take extreme exception to this characterization of young people today. First of all, I believe they correctly see that foreign policy, as unpopular as it has been under Bush, is not significantly changing under Obama, and has little, if anything, to do with defending the United States, and certainly not the Constitution. Second, many see friends and acquaintances who have voluntarily enlisted, and have taken note of how the soldier, the veteran is treated. Perhaps rather than blaming younger generations for being selfish, older generations should remember their promises to those who volunteer for military service and be mindful of how they are treated. Every homeless vet by the side of the road, every suicide, every report of substandard conditions in veteran hospitals is a sign of how we let our military down. Perhaps we should look to those issues if we have problems with military recruitment, rather than to trample freedom in the name of protecting it.

If that is not enough reason, consider that most in the military are against a draft. There is a vast difference between serving alongside another volunteer, and serving alongside a reluctant conscript. Americans need to be on the lookout for any propaganda trying to ease us back into the draft. Too often a flawed foreign policy prompts the need for a draft. Abolishing the Selective Service is one thing we could do to counter those efforts.

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul On The Draft In the second of a series of videos that takes...
2. Ron Paul Asks Congress: “What If…?” Channel: C-SPAN Date: 02/13/2009 Transcript: Ron Paul: “Madam Speaker,...
3. Ron Paul Reloaded Watch the video in high definition at RonPaulReloaded.com Watch...

Channel: C-SPAN
Date: 02/13/2009

Transcript:

Ron Paul: “Madam Speaker, I have a few questions for my colleagues.

What if our foreign policy of the past century is deeply flawed and has not served our national security interest?

What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is the predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others, and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous?

What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel?

What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is directly related to the hatred directed toward us?

What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair tradeoff with the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistanian, Afghan people are killed or displaced?

What if we finally decide that torture, even if called “enhanced interrogation technique”, is self-destructive and produces no useful information and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil?

What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy?

What if all war-time spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?

What if we finally see that war-time conditions always undermine personal liberty?

What if Conservatives who preach small government wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?

What if Conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?

What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?

What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?

What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq?

What if a military draft is being planned for for the wars that would spread if our foreign policy is not changed?

What if the American people learned the truth, that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security, that it never changes from one administration to the next?

What if war in preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests?

What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together?

What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression?

What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America?

What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded?

Nothing.

But what happens if my concerns are justified and ignored?

Nothing good.

And I yield back the balance of my time.”

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul Reloaded Watch the video in high definition at RonPaulReloaded.com Watch...
2. Ron Paul: Afghanistan Will Be Obama’s War Source: Campaign for Liberty Date: 1/25/2009 Transcript: Thanks for...
3. Ron Paul: Iraq is a Powder Keg In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul points out that...