Date: Jan/Feb 2010
Location: unknown

Transcript:

Ron Paul: The post 9/11 atmosphere that really worries me. It worries me about how much our CIA is involved overseas. And this week I could not believe a headline that said the president was considering the legality of assassinating an American citizen. No, it’s true. It’s true. He was born in this country, and he’s a Muslim and he’s identified to be with people who don’t like us. So they want to declare him an ‘enemy combatant’ which they can do like the attorney general of the president says, “Oh, he’s an enemy combatant, and therefore he has no rights. But he’s a terrorist.” Well, no. He is maybe a suspect, and nothing has been proven. He might be a bad guy, but is that the way you take care of bad guys? Talking in the White House about assassinating this guy?

I mean, what happens if conditions get really bad and we start talking to each other about some of the terrible things that Washington DC is doing to us. Are we going to be ‘enemy combatants’ because the precedent has been set already for American citizens to be imprisoned indefinitely?

This is why we should protect the civil liberties of all suspect and we shouldn’t be putting people in prison in secret rendition and without a trial, without due process, without an attorney. And then on top of that, add on torture. That, to me, is not what America is all about.

So these fears that I have and that you may have are connected to the economic system. Because if the economic system breaks down, then there are going to be more challenges. Most Americans, endorse the idea that after 9/11, “Oh, we’re under attack. What do you want us to do?” and just so many times I would hear even if going through the lines at the airport, “Well, if this is what it takes, you know, we have to give up some of our freedoms to be free.”

And, you know, it was said a while ago, which I strongly endorse, that you don’t have to give up your liberties to be free. Matter of fact, if you give them up, you can’t be free. And yet a lot of people believe that and if we have trouble in this country, the same thing is going to happen. Yes, there will be a lot of poverty and a lot of problems and law-and-order breakdown. They’ll say, “Well, do whatever you can to make us safe and secure”. Governments can’t make you safe and secure. You think you’re safe in your house because there’s a policeman guarding your house? You’re probably more safe in your house because of the second amendment than you are because of a policeman.

But because of the threat and the undermining of our civil liberties and the possibility of losing the right of Habeas Corpus and the potential of our system breaking down, this is why the monetary system so important.

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul to Obama: Don’t Assassinate American Citizens! Congressman Ron Paul warned on the House floor that the...
2. Ron Paul to Congress: Stop The Wars, Stop The Spending Location: House Floor Date: 1/27/2010 Transcript: Ron Paul: I...
3. Ron Paul Opposes $96.7 Billion War Spending & Pandemic Flu Supplemental Bill Date: 5/14/2009 Bill: HR 2346 Transcript Ron Paul: I...

Show: AntiWar Radio
Host: Scott Horton
Channel: KAOS 95.9 FM in Austin, Texas
Date: 01/22/2010

Download the interview as an MP3 file here. (29:49 minutes)

Transcript

Scott Horton: Alright, it’s Anti War Radio, KAOS 959 in Austin Texas, streaming live worldwide on the internet at kaosradioaustin.org and antiwar.com/radio. And I’m happy to welcome our next guest, Dr. Ron Paul, representative from district 14 down there on the Texas Gulf Coast and the only decent congressman in American history. And, of course, we all know him from his run for president in 2007 and 2008. Welcome back to the show, Ron. How are you doing?

Ron Paul: Thank you, doing well.

Scott Horton: I really appreciate you joining us on the show today.

Ron Paul: Good to be with you.

So, so most important thing here to start with, I think, is a story in Harpers Magazine by the other Scott Horton, renowned international human rights lawyer and anti-torture hero, about three men who quite apparently were murdered on the night of June 9th, 2006. And apparently there is a massive cover up involving the Navy criminal investigative service, the justice department, the FBI, and perhaps even parts of the Congress, in trying to kill this story. And I just wonder whether there is anything that you can do about this as a member of the Foreign Relations committee? Would you have any jurisdiction to hold some kind of hearings or do anything to further investigate this?

Ron Paul: Well, it’s probably judiciary. I don’t think they would touch it, probably even the committees that are responsible are not likely to touch it. But it’s just another tragedy; there are so many of those tragedies around. So I’m not predicting that much will happen, but I know international relations wouldn’t touch it.

Scott Horton: And, I mean, how troubling is that? Did you have a chance to read the article?

Ron Paul: You know, I read it; it was a rather long article. I did not get the whole thing read, but I just got the gist of it and it just got me so upset because it’s just another cover up, another atrocious act by our government. So it’s a real shame.

Scott Horton: Well, I learnt when I was a kid that what brought Nixon down wasn’t the crime, it was the cover up.

Ron Paul: Yeah.

Scott Horton: It’s really not a big deal on Washington DC, you know, a few CIA agents torture a guy to death; we’re used to that. That happens all the time. But the problem here is that the FBI and the Justice Department and all these other people making sure that the investigation doesn’t go anywhere.

Ron Paul: Yeah, and I think that principle must be the same thing that helped me on getting the Audit the Fed Bill along. Because we were often talking about transparency, we weren’t talking about what exactly what the Fed was doing. But it’s the transparency; the hidden activities that they have, or the cover ups. So, I think good people, left or right or center, always say, “You know, that’s wrong. That is wrong. The cover up is bad and the hiding of government is so bad”. I’ve always argued that we have things turned upside down here. If the governments have a function they ought to be protecting and guaranteeing our privacy. But what do they do? They protect their secrecy. And they go and they do tricks like this to hide what they do. At the same time they undermine our privacy. So I think our government is absolutely on the wrong track.

Scott Horton: Well now if you were the president after September 11th, how would you have set this up? Because this seems that now that Obama has come into power, not too much has changed. They say they’re going to give trials to some of these men, but then they say, “Well, if they’re acquitted we’ll go ahead and hold them anyway”. And some of these people are going to get military trials, others aren’t going to get trials at all, though. They’ll just be held by the military indefinitely. So we we’re not sure how much of a change Obama’s making to the Bush policy. But what should be done with Khalid Sheikh Mohamed and the rest of these guys? Just put them on trial in New York, Dr. Paul?

Ron Paul: Well, you know, long term what you have to change is the foreign policy so that we can get ourselves out of this business. But, yes. I would try them in our courts. You know, the individuals that committed the bombing, I believe it was in 1993, they were arrested, brought to trial, they committed the crime in this country and they’re imprisoned for life. I mean, what is so horrible about that? I mean, it’s this whole idea of secret rendition and secret prisons and torture, the assumption that that if somebody declares you a enemy combatant, one individual, that that is equal to being a terrorist. You know, they’re suspects. But that means you can be tried by one individual and held forever.

And American citizens are subject to that as well if you’re declared an enemy combatant. And I think the conditions are just horrible. If we have a breakdown of law and order here and if our economy really tanks and there is more violence, you can see where they could declare martial law and start holding people like this. So I think these are key issues, although for the average guy on the street this is rather esoteric. “Oh, they haven’t come after me”, that sort of thing and they pass it off. But I think what they’re doing is setting a precedent for being able to handle domestic violence here. Because what happens if they get careless with the definition of ‘enemy combatant’. Almost anybody who talks sympathetically or even not sympathetically, but just tries to explain the situation, they say, “Oh, you’re one of those guys that blame America first, and you could be declared an enemy combatant”. So I consider it very dangerous.

Scott Horton: Well, at least in one case, Jose Padilla was arrested on American soil by FBI agents, and then ended up being turned over to the military and the CIA for torture. In fact, the FBI agent who arrested him said he didn’t think he was dangerous. He was trying to flip him and make him an informant. And because he wouldn’t go along with becoming an informant, that is why they declared him an enemy combatant.

Ron Paul: Yeah. And then they beat him to death and they might not have any information and they pretend they know information just to stop the beating. You know, it just goes on and on. And how many people have been arrested or picked up over in these foreign countries just because they’ve been squealed on by somebody else. We pay them money to turn somebody over, then we assume, “Oh yeah, they said he was a bad guy. Oh, he’s an enemy combatant”. So we throw him in prison. I think there are examples of teenagers being put down in Guantanamo, 14 and 15 years old; and they’ve still been there. So yes, something has to be done. The whole process has to change. But to change the whole process you have to change the foreign policy. You have to release the ones you have absolutely no evidence on, and try the rest and there will always be one example of one guy who got out and committed another crime. But once again, what should you do? Endorse a system where they can arrest a hundred people and one guy might know something and you torture all hundred because there is some vital information in there? I mean, what have we turned ourselves into? It’s just really, really a dangerous situation.

Scott Horton: Well, this goes to my next topic here, which is your really great interview on the Rachel Maddow Show, I guess about two weeks ago now. And one of the things that she said to you there was, from her position, of course, being a liberal progressive she has an interest in faction fights on the right and that kind of thing. But still I think there was a lot of truth when she said that the Republican Party has a severe lack of intellectual leadership here, and it’s really come down to you on one side and Dick Cheney on the other, as far as who’s leading the philosophy of the Republican Party. And, like you, I kind of have a problem with that. I’m sure you kind of have a problem with that. You didn’t just run for president and give all those great speeches about liberty and you don’t go on all these TV shows and teach people about Austrian economics and all the peace mongering you do and the rest of this in order that all your Ron Paulian fans might all line up and vote for the Republican Party, right?

Ron Paul: No, as a matter of fact it came up yesterday on CNN on Rick Sanchez’s show. He asked me about that. And I’m essentially totally uninterested in parties. Libertarians get upset with me because I’m not interested in setting my goals to building the Libertarian party. But certainly that isn’t a goal of mine to build the Republican Party. I live in the real world, the real world is that if you want a political soap box, you have to participate in one of the two parties. I have no criticism about people doing it other ways. But the last thing I’m interested in is promoting a party. But it is true that I want to influence the party. But I’ve frequently said, you probably have heard me say, that if we have a true revolution then the revolution is pervasive and it affects both parties. And I refer to the old statement of Nixon back in the 1970s when he declared we were all Keynesians now. Which means that the Keynesian revolution infiltrated both parties and Norman Thomas said he didn’t run the last time for president as a socialist because the major parties have accepted their platform.

So if we’re successful in promoting once again the cause of liberty, it’s not going to be a single party. It’s not going to be the Libertarian party or the Republican Party. It will be in acceptance of majority of American people say, “Yeah, they bankrupt us, they ruin us, they can’t help us, and they fight too many wars.” And we only want people in Washington that will fight for those values, Republican or Democrat. And certainly on economic terms we would want to have both sides have an understanding of Austrian free market economics.

Scott Horton: On the Cheney side of that debate the National Review published a thing by Andrew McCartney the other day saying that the reason this guy Brown won in Massachusetts was because the American people know that we have to torture people and this is what the American people demand. Never mind, because I agree with you and I’m completely uninterested in the party politics and that kind of thing as well. But, in terms of the philosophical debate, this is a major rift on the right. Whether we are warmongers and torture mongers or peace mongers and constitution mongers. If it’s fair to call the libertarian movement part of the right at all, which I think is…

Ron Paul: But you know, still in spite of all the shortcomings and the problems we’ve had over the last several decades, the individual always picks the top two because they always figure, “We don’t want to waste our votes for anybody else. We want to pick the top two”. Of the top two, the one that offers the strongest case for peace usually wins. Bush represented that position because he was critical of Clinton and all his activities. And then Obama, of course, criticized Bush and McCain for this. So the people seem to lean in our direction for this issue as well as, you know, back when Nixon was elected he was supposed to stop the Vietnam war. But the problem is, the people might lean in that direction and then we put somebody in and nothing changes, but right now the people are catching on and I think that’s why not only are they catching on that you can’t trust politicians, but they’re also aware of the fact that the economic system is so friable and the jobs are disappearing that the status quo cannot be maintained.

Scott Horton: Well, this is not a banana republic, not completely yet anyway. And it is possible and we’ve seen examples of the American people actually getting their way on some things when they really demand it. And I’m thinking of a great article I read at Glen Greenwald’s blog, our guest about a month back or so, or maybe a little more than that, where he talked about how the reason that you’re Audit the Fed Bill with Alan Grayson was able to get out of committee was because liberal bloggers had… I mean obviously you’d already gotten all the Republicans in Congress on board. They’re in the minority, they’re not risking much. But liberal bloggers had set up a campaign over there at www.FireDogLake.com which is one of the prominent liberty blogs there where they said, “Look, here’s all their names and here’s all their phone numbers. Call your Democrats and tell them that you support this”. And that apparently Alan Grayson actually, I don’t know, had printouts or something, and showed these other Democratic politicians, “Look, it’s safe. Your base is telling you to please do this”. And so it was this coalition of us versus them, rather than left versus right that really came together to be able to get that Audit the Fed bill out of committee and then eventually attached to a bill that passed. And I wonder whether you think that we can follow that model in really bringing together a left-right us-versus-them coalition to defund these wars? Isn’t that the next step?

Ron Paul: You know, let’s hope so. But immediately after Obama was in, our left-right coalition against the war, they were a few Republicans with a bunch of Democrats. So it was Obama’s war. Most of them sided, except for person like Denis Kucinich and few others and Jim McGovern; they stuck with this. But the Democrats are just like the Republicans; they have this obedience to the king and they have to abide and they won’t buck him. And I think what the example you described there is relatively close to the truth because the person that introduced my bill over in the Senate was Bernie Sanders, and he called himself a progressive socialist. And Grayson would be in that camp, too. But if you look at all the Democratic supporters of the bill, there were a lot who were in swing districts and they were first and second termers, and they were worried about reelection and they were influenced by the people back at home. And I don’t want to diminish this idea of a right-left coalition on some of these issues, because that’s what I work for all the time, but it’s not like some of these Democrats that are called Conservatives, we can still call that a coalition. But it is true that people like Grayson and Bernie Sanders are certainly very solidly in that camp.

Scott Horton: Well, and speaking of the wars here, we have an occupation of Iraq; a state about which we will be talking to Michael Hastings about later in the show about how the so called success of the surge is all unraveling in front of us. We have an escalation in Afghanistan, the CIA bombing in Pakistan, and now to some degree or another, we have the joint special operations command in the CIA at work in Yemen and in Somalia. Major calls from movie stars and other important people calling for the spreading of the war into Sunni-Arab Darfur in Sudan. Some things got to be done to put an end to this, or we’re going to be in real big trouble here. This is too many fronts for even America to fight on. Wouldn’t you agree, Dr. Paul?

Ron Paul: Yes, but we’re not going to wise up. I mean, you think with this election that just happened up in Massachusetts that all of a sudden that maybe they’d be backing off from spending, they’re not going to do it. But that doesn’t mean it’s not going to end. I just don’t believe it’s going to end by us coming to our senses from my experience here. But it’s going to end with the economic crisis. Right now we’re in an economic-financial crisis, but we’re not in the dollar crisis; we’re still printing money and the world is still taking our dollars. But one of these days they’re going to quit. They just came up with a figure today that we have to roll over and borrow new money: over $67 billion every week this fiscal year. And one of these days one of those auctions won’t go so well. And that’s when if there is a panic, that’s when the empire falls apart. That’s what happened to the Soviets; it was as much of an economic issue as anything. They just ran out of steam. And I think that is what’s going to happen to us, and it can’t be all that bad.

Scott Horton: Well, and so I guess what you’re referring to there is that there’s so much debt that they’ll just going to have to print money to pay it down.

Ron Paul: Right.

Scott Horton: And then our $50 bills will be like nickels in our pockets.

Ron Paul: That’s right, and the debt gets liquidated, but only because they pay off the debt with money that has no value and you have runaway inflation. And I think that is what is coming, you just can’t keep printing money like this. As the productivity goes down, the good jobs are leaving us, unemployment rates stay up and even those who claim there’s a recovery say, “Oh well, this is a jobless recovery”. What kind of a recovery is that if somebody can’t get job? They’re supposed to feel better because there’s a recovery going on? And they’re unable to feed their family?

Scott Horton: I guess it’s a recovery for people with lots of stock.

Ron Paul: Or Goldman Sachs. They had a good recovery. Their bonuses were gigantic and their profits were huge today?

Scott Horton: Alright, yea I just saw a line graph about that where they’re bonuses are more than ever before. I guess its okay for rich people to be on the dole, just not poor people.

Ron Paul: And the people who were fiscally prudent are the ones who will be taxed one way or the other to take care of the people who got the bailouts.

Scott Horton: Alright, well now to stick with the terror war concept here for a minute. There was a video of you from a speech that you gave, I guess, over the weekend, that’s gone kind of array where you talk about the CIA and their war in Pakistan. And I think you really go so far as to say that the CIA runs American foreign policy basically from top to bottom. And I wondered exactly what you were talking about. If you meant something that’s happened just in the Obama administration, that the CIA has risen in power compared to the Pentagon? Or whether you’re just talking about the National Security state in general since World War II? What exactly did you mean?

Ron Paul: More general, what’s been happening and increasing and they’re in the driver’s seat. And I have been doing a little more writing on this issue and I’m working on another book and I was doing some reviewing of the CIA. It was on my mind and when I am giving my speech, I generally don’t have notes or anything, and that was just really talking about these issues that I thought were important. And that came up and I came out with a rather strong statement against the CIA.

Scott Horton: You said “take em out”, which is what they call “killing people”.

Ron Paul: Yeah, and of course everybody knows that I’m not violent and I’m not going to take somebody out, but denying them all their funds and revealing what they’re doing like remove them from office. But the surprise to me wasn’t that those were my views, because they’ve been my views along; it wasn’t anything brand new. But my shocker was it drew the loudest applause. I mean, they stood up and said, “Wow, somebody else has been thinking about these FBI and CIA and security agencies a lot more than I have”. I never anticipated that type of reaction but it got some people’s attention.

Scott Horton: Well, of course, the Fox News guys would say that’s just not realistic. You want the American government to be blind to everything that’s going on in the world?

Ron Paul: Well, we’re acting blindly now. We’ve spent $75 billion on 16 agencies, then they get a hot lead by a phone call from a father and they can’t handle it. I mean, that’ blindness. So I think we’ve become blind because there are too many trees and we can’t even see anything when it’s laid on a platter. So I think that’s the real problem.

No, I believe in intelligence gathering. I think good common sense and just reading the news and talking to people and looking at people who want to give you information is a good way to go. But all that money spent, $75 billion is spent to try to compensate for the anger we create by a flawed foreign policy. You could spend $150 billion dollars, but if your foreign policy is flawed and invites this type of hatred towards us, that money is not going to save us. It just won’t work. The more money you spend and the more agencies you have, the more complex it gets and the more information is lost.

And I think that is lot of what happened after 9/11, you know? The point about 9/11 is they probably had a ton of information in there. Some people believe it was deliberately ignored. But it’s easy for me to understand how they can have so much information and so many agencies, the government is just so inept. So I think it’s not serving us well. I don’t think the CIA is necessary. I think they are the culprit. I think they are the ones involved in the bombing right now; they’ve been involved with torture and rendition and assassinations, rigging of elections. There’s no reason for us to have an organization like that in a free society.

But then again, you still could have collection of information by people who claim they’re your enemies and deal with it. And I think you probably have every bit as much information and may be able to react much more sensibly with it. But nothing will improve our chances of avoiding these crises unless we change foreign policy.

Scott Horton: This is AntiWar Radio, I’m talking with Dr. Ron Paul, Republican congressman from the Gulf Cost of Texas. And I’m always impressed, Dr. Paul, by the fact that when you’re on these cable news shows, regardless of what they ask you, you really know all about it. You don’t just have a talking point to go over. You really know all about this. So when they ask you about Iran, you can explain to them, and sometimes I wish Peter Schiff was watching when you explained that the Iranians, at least as far as anyone knows, are not even making nuclear weapons, which is the entire basis, the entire premise of our policy of confrontation against them. Could you please explain to the people what it is that you know about Iran? And I see here an original at antiwar.com/paul, your last article that we published here is called “Iran Sanctions: A Precursor to War”. So this is not just an academic issue. This is something very important.

Ron Paul: Well, if we go by our CIA, the CIA in their reports have said they have no evidence the Iranians have worked on a bomb since 2003. That doesn’t mean that I believe that they don’t have a secret desire and incentive, but we don’t have any evidence. And what we do is we violate the NPT by telling them they’re not allowed to have any enrichment. But here they’re permitted under the NPT to enrich for peaceful purposes and for nuclear energy. But we violate it by saying, “You can’t even do that”. So we are the violators of international law, and then we close our eyes to other countries. There are other countries in that region that don’t belong to the international community for nuclear power and nuclear bombs. And you know, Israel and Pakistan and India, they all have nuclear weapons and we cozy up to them and they become our allies and we actually give them money.

The fact that we can’t control a few independent thugs, and that makes us furious. So therefore then we have to concoct these stories that they’re going to have nuclear weapons. See, I was in the service during the Cold War. The Soviets had like 30,000 nuclear weapons and inter-continental ballistic missiles capable of hitting us if they really wanted to. And we dealt with them, we talked to them. We remained strong and we won that without a nuclear war. But here we have these 3rd world countries, they don’t have an army or a navy or an airforce or intercontinental ballistic missiles and no nuclear weapons, and we are generating all this hysteria. But this serves the interests of the military-industrial complex. It serves the interest of saying, “Our national security requires it: we have to invade another country”. And that hopefully someday will change. The only thing I can tell you as an encouragement is when I go to the college campuses they don’t boo me for those kinds of statements as they did at the Republican debates.

Scott Horton: Well, I read an interesting quote here today from Dick Cheney, the former Vice President. Only this was when he was the CEO of Halliburton and he had taken a trip to Australia in 1998 and he was criticizing Bill Clinton’s administration and all the sanctions on Iran and was saying, “I think we could do a lot better if we were to expand and grow these relationships so that we can end normalizing our relations and doing business”. And that’s strange that Dick Cheney would be the one to sound like you saying something like that.

Ron Paul: Yeah, you have to pretend there is partisanship and they fight and fume and there is some partisanship over who controls the power. But ultimately, the policies don’t ever seem to change.

Scott Horton: But it seems like, you know, Halliburton actually really just preferred to make money doing business with Iran rather than waiting and just making all the money off the Iraq war like they were going to.

Ron Paul: Yeah, I’m sure they were lining up for some contracts. At present they did get some contracts and the invasion process and the contractor monies that were spent over there.

Scott Horton: Alright now, I just saw a youtube video of you introducing legislation to legalize competing currencies, and this is sort of your other way around rather than just outright repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. This is how to make the Federal Reserve obsolete, isn’t it?

Ron Paul: That’s right. And I’ve always tried to figure out a transition. Some people say, “No, you just close the doors and bomb them and open it up”. But you ought to have a transition. Like for instance in post offices you have FedEx and UPS and hopefully they’re allowed to deliver First Class Mail some day. You don’t have to close the post office down in one day. Fortunately, we still have competition in schooling. You can still homeschool and private-school, so that helps neutralize a little bit the public school system. Also, in medicine if they would just legalize a private option, that’s what I would like, where you could just get out of the system and get a tax credit for everything you spend, that would be a private option.

But then in money, you can have a competing currency. Hayek actually wrote about this and it’s not so extreme. It’s just legalizing the Constitution because there was never repealed that gold and silver had to be legal tender. So you have to repeal the legal tender laws so the Fed doesn’t have a monopoly. You should legalize the right of a private company to mint a gold coin; they would be held in check by the fraud laws and counterfeit laws. Today there are no fraud and counterfeit laws that apply to the Federal Reserve. And then the last thing you would have to do is make sure you have no taxes on money. You don’t tax dollars when you buy dollars or pay capital against tax because the value of the dollar goes up. But if gold goes up in value, if you pay sales tax when you buy a coin, and then you pay a capital gains tax when you spend the coin, that would be ridiculous. It can’t be money. So you’d have to do these three things to allow people to use a currency different than the paper money.

Scott Horton: Well, some opponent of yours on MSNBC which say, “Yeah, but that would be inflationary to have every bank and every private company introducing their own currency.”

Ron Paul: No, I didn’t say that.

Scott Horton: No, I’m saying that that’s what they would say to you.

Ron Paul: Yeah. I would say that they misunderstand because all I’m doing is legalizing the constitution that says gold and silver can be legal tender. I’m not doing anything else.

Scott Horton: Unless you could turn lead into gold.

Ron Paul: Yeah, that’s it. There would be no inflation and the value of the gold currency goes up, the value of the paper currency goes down. And sometimes the populists who are sympathetic with what I say like the idea of everybody printing their own money. Even the states. But that’s prohibited. They’re not allowed to mint bills of credit, they’re not allowed to print money because they did have horrendous inflation in colonial times. So I don’t think that would be a good idea, at least to take that on now. But this would be strictly the gold and silver which you can’t inflate with. You get gold and silver by hard work and effort and that’s why it maintains its value.

Scott Horton: Right on. Alright, we’re all out of time, but I really appreciate your time on the show today.

Ron Paul: Okay Scott, good to be with you.

Scott Horton: Alright, that’s Dr. Ron Paul, he’s the author of “A Foreign Policy Of Freedom”, “The Revolution: A Manifesto”, and “End The Fed”. He represents district 14 on Texas Gulf Coast. And you can find his antiwar.com articles at antiwar.com/paul

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul on AntiWar Radio In his latest interview with Scott Horton, Ron Paul discusses...
2. Ron Paul on AntiWar Radio In this April 22 interview with AntiWar Radio’s Scott Horton,...
3. Ron Paul on Antiwar Radio Ron Paul was interviewed by Scott Horton on Antiwar Radio....

• Balance the budget by reducing spending
• Change our foreign policy to that of non-intervention
• A full audit and more supervision of the Federal Reserve leading to abolishing the Federal Reserve
• Legalize competition to the Federal Reserve with competing currencies
• Regain respect for civil liberties and privacy while reigning in the CIA
• Wean ourselves off the dependence of wealth transfers by government
• Abolish crony capitalism: no subsidies, no bailouts, no regulatory or tax privileges to protect the powerful elite, especially the military-industrial complex
• Eliminate the income tax, inheritance tax and taxes on savings and dividends.

Transcript

Date: 01/21/2010

As we start the new year 2010, the establishment politicians, economists and Wall Street are trying to convince themselves that we have turned the corner and economic growth has once again begun. The predictions that conditions are getting back to normal come from those who never saw the crisis coming and don’t have the vaguest notion what caused it. Some of them concede that it could be a jobless recovery. That will establish a new definition for a recovery.

Official unemployment is at 10% but even the government knows that if everyone is counted, including those individuals that are too discouraged to even be looking for work, the unemployment rate is 17%. Free-market economists claim the actual unemployment rate is closer to 22%.

There’s reason to believe that the correction has just barely started and has a long way to run. If the financial bubble came from excess credit created by the Federal Reserve, doubling the money supply can hardly be a solution. It wouldn’t make much sense for a doctor taking care of a very sick patient from severe infection to deliberately give the patient another infection. Yet that’s what the PhD doctors are doing to our very sick economy. It can’t work. It will make the economy much sicker. If our leaders don’t wake up soon, the economy will be brought to its knees. Great danger lies ahead.

In foreign policy, it’s always crucial that the motives of those who would do us harm are understood. Denial of the truth and accepting more politically palatable excuses will guarantee that threats to our safety will continue as we pursue a seriously flawed involvement overseas.

It’s the same in economic policy. If there’s denial or ignorance of the real cause of financial bubbles and the inevitable corrections that must follow, the economy cannot be reenergized.

We should have learned the lesson from the Depression of the 1930s that it was a predictable result from the Federal Reserve’s orchestrated excesses of the 1920s. Instead, the new-born Keynesian economists who took charge made certain that the correction would not be a one or two year affair as were the previous corrections in our history. The aggressive intervention by Hoover and Roosevelt, the Republicans and the Democrats, turned a short recession into the Great Depression, which lasted until the end of World War II.

The real tragedy was that the interpretation of the 1930s institutionalized bad economic theories. Unfortunately, and erroneously, the Depression was blamed on the gold standard, free markets and a lack of regulations. Though monetary policy was analyzed, its importance was 100% misinterpreted. The low interest rates and excess credit of the 1920s, driven by Federal Reserve policy, was not considered a factor in producing the stock market bubble and the malinvestment.

Instead, the 1930s analysts and even later analysis by Milton Friedman and the monetarists, along with academic scholars like Bernanke, came to an opposite conclusion: the Fed was at fault, but only because it was too tight, arguing that massive monetary inflation was the only answer to the slumping economy.

And now we are witnessing a grand experiment by the very person who for years claimed special knowledge regarding the Depression. Chairman Bernanke is in the midst of trying to solve the problem of massive monetary inflation and excessively low interest rates instituted by his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, by implementing even more inflation at historic rates.

The sad part is the answer to his very risky experiment with the wealth of our country and the health of our economy will take years to analyze. The conclusions will be just as flawed as they were in the aftermath of the Great Depression by an intellectual and political community that had totally rejected commodity money and the principle of free markets with the current understanding in Washington.

One hope, though, is that free-market thinking and Austrian economic theories will have greater influence in the next decade or two, since their influence is now on a dramatic upswing. But there are a lot of hurdles to overcome.

In the 1930s, in an effort to find the true cause of the crisis, Congress ordered an official investigation. It became known as the Pecora Investigation named after Ferdinand Pecora, the aggressive chief council of the hearings. It received a lot of public attention and brought about many major changes but, tragically, every conclusion made and new policies implemented caused the depression to worsen and legitimized bad economic theories that continue to haunt us to this day.

The Federal Reserve was not blamed except for not printing enough money fast enough. Artificially low interest rates and malinvestment, the main source of the grossly distorted economy and the bubble of the 1920s, were exonerated. Not enough regulations were blamed, thus the Glass-Steagall Act and the Securities Act of 1933 were passed and deepened the depression. Separating commercial and investment banking and the newly created SEC were to have solved all future problems-as long as the Fed was free from any restraint in its money creation, operations which were to serve big-government spenders and members of the banking cartel.

Since the flaws in the monetary and economic system were not corrected but made worse after the Depression, it was to be expected that periodic booms and busts would persist. The longer these cycles could be papered over with new money and credit, the greater would be the distortions and debt that would one day have to undergo a major correction.

[That correction is now in its early stages. Since the dollar was the reserve currency of the world and totally fiat since 1971, without any linkage to gold, the financial bubble became worldwide. This bubble that burst in 2008 was the largest in history. During the formation of the bubble, the U.S. as the issuer of the world currency received undeserved benefits. We essentially became the counterfeiter of the world and no one called us on it. Even today, the trust in the dollar that persists has buffeted the pain of the correction for us. This unique setup was a prime cause for our balance of payment deficits and] the huge foreign debt we owe-the largest in the history of the world.

The discord in the world financial system is telling us that it’s time for us to pay for our profligate spending and massive foreign indebtedness. We have lived, as a nation, far beyond our means and the message is, for the foreseeable future, that we will be forced to live beneath our means as this debt is paid.

The inflation optimists are excited about current signs of economic growth and have even announced the end of the recession. It is conceivable that a reprieve can be achieved and the penalty that our economy must endure delayed. A reprieve must not be confused with a pardon; one is a temporary delay, the other an exemption. The payback for our excesses is certain to come.

Massively increasing debt and monetary inflation can slow the crash and change some government statistics encouraging the optimists. But real job growth and a return of prosperity will remain elusive. The odds of us once again becoming an exporter of manufactured goods, like steel, cars, and textiles, are remote.

Ironically, a reprieve may well restore some confidence and motivate some spending and investment. But instead of restoring long-term growth, it may well act perversely by precipitating price inflation and higher interest rates. Since today’s interest rates are artificially set, much of our investing is unproductively misdirected.

Current enthusiasm in the stock market is once again a reflection of the message that low interest rates send. Thus too, the government’s stimulus package has helped to sustain the bond bubble, which in time must be deflated in order to get back to sound economic growth.

All of this activity poses a threat to the dollar.Governments are very powerful, and when in partnership with the monetary authorities that can inflate the currency at will, big government thrives. Welfare demands and senseless wars can be financed for long periods of time through inflation, as long as trust in the currency lasts.

Trust, though ultimately controlled by facts, can be misleading, since currency values can gain benefit from a country that has a strong military and wealth and a reasonably healthy economy. Eventually, markets and reality overwhelm, and illusions about a currency’s worth become a reality.

Today, reality is setting in and the first of three major events has begun. The worldwide financial system, built on a foundation of paper, has received the shock waves of an impending collapse.

The wild speculation and the derivatives market, the stock market bubble, the insurmountable debt – public and private – and the massive malinvestments have been shattered.

The only solution so far offered worldwide, but led by the United States, has been to “print money” faster, keep interest rates low at practically zero percent, and remove all stops for controlling deficits. These are the very policies that caused the disequilibrium, and doing more of the same, but only faster, can hardly help our economy.

The addiction to easy credit and deficit defies a wise political solution. Politicians are incapable of delivering the message of frugality, common sense, and sound money.

We can expect that the course we are on to continue and accelerate, since the first event, the collapse of the financial system, is still in its early stage.

The housing crisis is far from over; the commercial property crisis has not yet gotten much attention, and the financial obligations of the government are growing exponentially. And none of this forces the slightest pause in the expanding of welfare growth. The number of regulations, which are indeed a tax, are exploding though the market was already suffering from regulatory excesses. There’s a consensus in Washington that “wise” regulations can compensate for all the mistakes made by the Federal Reserve, the Executive Branch, and the Congress. This fallacy has been around a long time and will be difficult to overcome.

The pessimism of the middle class continues to get worse despite the prognostications of Wall Street and the Administration. Most Americans know that the standard of living and real wages have not gone up for the past 10 years. If you’re not a shrewd stock trader and instead invested in stocks 10 years ago and held on, in real terms you have lost 20% of your savings.

The middle class is poorer also because house prices have crashed and many have lost their homes. On top of this, all we hear about is the trillions of dollars of debt and entitlement obligations that have been racked up for future taxpayers to pay.

When it is revealed that the insider friends of the Fed and Congress get billions of dollars in bailout at the expense of the middle class, it’s no wonder the people are taking to the streets and directing their hostilities toward both Republicans and Democrats in Washington. Many would agree it’s well-earned anger and properly directed.

This anger and frustration will certainly grow as the consequences of the collapse of the financial system become more severe. The concerted effort to prevent the correction the market demands, guarantees a prolonged agonizing crisis. Every effort to reverse the tide will depend on spending, higher deficits, increased taxes and money creation. This effort is now providing another grand bubble: the dollar/bond bubble.

The next event will be a dollar crisis. A full-blown dollar crisis will be much worse than our current financial crisis. The extent of a dollar crisis depends on whether or not the Washington politicians wake up and change their ways – a dubious hope.

More likely, the insanity will continue until some not yet known event will undermine the confidence in the dollar worldwide. Signs of less desire by foreigners to hold our dollars are already present. I’m certain our Treasury and Federal Reserve are pulling out all stops to prevent a massive run on the dollar.

At present the orderly retreat from the dollar is working. But it won’t last.

China is quite active in investing in natural resources around the world, and including in Iran. While we live in the dark ages and believe only our military presence and military threats can protect our access to oil, China is actually spending some of their savings investing in their future access to energy and other precious metals and minerals.

But the orderly retreat from the dollar won’t last forever. Since 1973, shortly after the breakdown of the Bretton Woods Agreement, the dollar has lost 32% of its value against a Federal Reserve basket of currencies. But that doesn’t tell the real story, since that is a measurement against all other currencies, and they are fiat currencies as well. This gave the dollar an artificial benefit from its position of power in great wealth and military prowess. The dollar in relationship to gold, however, is down 97% since 1971, and 82% as measured by the CPI. The dollar, mismanaged by the Fed, has not been a benefit to the savers who sought to responsibly take care of themselves. They’ve been cheated by a rotten system and are just beginning to understand exactly how the Federal Reserve has been responsible for the swindle.

It’s impossible to predict the time when confidence will be lost, but it can come quickly. Resorting to buying other paper currencies will not be of much help. When the dollar crashes, most likely the purchasing power of all currencies – since all countries hold dollars as a reserve – will go down as well.

This means that dollars and other currencies will go into buying consumer items, precious metals and other physical properties. Consumer prices will soar, as well as interest rates. The central bank will lose control; and the more they inflate, the worse the confidence becomes. The interest rates will respond to these efforts by rising sharply.

If the Fed tries to reverse the run on the dollar, interest rates will also soar, and the pain on the American citizens will be of such proportion that political chaos will result. Either scenario leads to political and social chaos – the third event, and the most dangerous.

With no ability of the federal government to fund its commitments, international or domestic, major changes will occur in our system. The social unrest will elicit cries for government to exert unusual force to head off a complete breakdown of law and order. The ultimate trap will be set for a system of government claiming to protect a free society.

If more power and police authority are not given to the federal government, it will be argued that only anarchy will result. If more government policing power is given, it will mean a lethal threat to civil liberties. Already we have permitted the notion that a single person, the Attorney General or the President, can decide who is an “enemy combatant”, thus denying that individual the right to habeas corpus, permitting indefinite detentions without charges made. This attitude toward civil liberties has changed significantly since the fear built around 9/11.

Yes, I know, declaring one an “enemy combatant” is reserved only for the radical Muslims engaged in terrorism against the United States. To be reassured by this reasoning is quite dangerous and naïve. Logic should not lead us to equate suspects with terrorists, and include American citizens, and yet this has already been set by precedent. Under difficult circumstances, our political leaders will not be hesitant to use these powers to maintain order. Tragically, the people may even demand it.

We are rapidly moving toward a dangerous time in our history. Society as we know it is vulnerable to political and social unrest.

This impending crisis comes as a consequence of our flawed foreign and domestic economic policies, a silly notion about money, ignorance about Central Banking, and ignoring the onerous power and mischief of out-of-control intelligence agencies, our unsustainable welfare state, and a willingness to sacrifice privacy and civil liberties in an attempt to achieve safety and security from an inept government. Dangerous times indeed!

What can be done about it? Must we wait for the inevitable and expect to restore our liberties in a street fight against the overwhelming power of the state? Not a good option!

The only way that we can prevent blood from running in the streets is to offer a better idea of the proper role of government in a society that desires first and foremost liberty.

And that is impossible without a firm commitment by our thought leaders to the ideas of freedom, the source of all creative energy and prosperity. An all-powerful state is the threat to that ideal.

The prevailing attitude of the people, as it once was in early America, must be that of liberty and self reliance, rather than the nanny state and dependency, relying on government force to mold all private choices.

If this is understood, a smooth, although not painless, transition to a free society is achievable. Ignoring this option will be very destructive to everything that is dear to the hearts of most Americans.

What is it that we must do? We must immediately embark on:

• Balance the budget by reducing spending
• Change our foreign policy to that of non-intervention
• A full audit and more supervision of the Federal Reserve leading to abolishing the Federal Reserve
• Legalize competition to the Federal Reserve with competing currencies
• Regain respect for civil liberties and privacy while reigning in the CIA
• Wean ourselves off the dependence of wealth transfers by government
• Abolish crony capitalism: no subsidies, no bailouts, no regulatory or tax privileges to protect the powerful elite, especially the military-industrial complex
• Eliminate the income tax, inheritance tax and taxes on savings and dividends.

None of this can happen without the restoration of Congress to its dominant position of the three branches of government as was originally intended by the Constitution. The Executive and Judicial must be reined in, and Congress must assert its prerogatives over all legislation curtailing all unconstitutional agendae through budgetary controls.

Signs abound that angry Americans are now more ready than ever before for a change in direction that is indeed real. If this program were improvised, even suddenly and dramatically, the adjustment, though significant and to a degree somewhat painful, would be much shorter and of minor consequence compared to the chaos and poverty that will result if we refuse to change our gluttonous appetite for a free lunch.

Related posts:

1. Let’s Give The Fed A Run For Its Money! Location: Congress Date: 01/20/2010 Transcript Ron Paul: I thank...
2. Ron Paul: Government is Too Big to Succeed Government is Too Big to Succeed by Ron Paul...
3. How Obama’s Stimulus Hurt The Economy Show: CNN Newsroom Channel: CNN Date: 1/27/2010 News Anchor:...

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 on the ED Show Show: the ED show Channel: msnbc Date: 1/5/2010 Transcript...
3. Ron Paul Reacts to Ben Bernanke as TIME Person of the Year Show: Morning Joe Channel: MSNBC Date: 12/16/2009 Transcript Joe...

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,...